BLOGNovember 20, 2017

The Horrible Dangers of Fruit and Veggies...And Every Food Out There

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Stu! I have a confession to make. I think Gwyneth Paltrow is a good actress. Ironman, Shallow Hal, The Royal Tenenbaums... come on, those are good movies! But these days she seems more occupied with managing her health and lifestyle brand “Goop,” than acting.

Goop is concerned with all things that have to do with “wellness” --- whatever that means. Like this story for example: “What Fruits & Veggies Have the Most Pesticides? The Dirty Dozen is Here.” The “Dirty Dozen” list goes on to describe the foods with the most amounts of evil, no good, dastardly pesticides. Goop is off to a good start, but I’ve compiled my own list to give you a more thorough answer to what fruits and veggies have the most pesticides. It’s time to get anti-social.

According to Goop’s list, apples... delicious apples... are one of the most pesticide ravaged fruits you can eat. In fact, apples were found to have 47 pesticide residues by the USDA and the Pesticide Action Network --- which apparently is a thing. But those are just some of the pesticides. In actuality, apples have even more than that... like caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid and the much newer, more dangerous and downright racist neochlorogenic acid just to name a few. But those aren’t synthetic pesticides. Those are natural pesticides. And it’s not just apples... every single fruit and vegetable makes its own natural pesticides. That’s right. Even if you pay 300 percent more for those “organic” apples, you still get the pesticides that come with it.

The word pesticide gets a bad rap anyway. It just sounds icky—like homicide, suicide, and genocide. But what does “pesticide” really mean? A pesticide is any chemical, natural or human-made, that is designed to kill another organism; in this case, a pest. You know... something that ruins your food.

Let’s take a moment to remember something real quick. Produce has been around way longer than Whole Foods. I know it’s hard to believe. But plants have always naturally produced their own antibiotics to kill threatening insects and other organisms without any help from us. In the last few decades, we’ve learned to improve upon their process with synthetic chemicals, but let’s not forget who started this deadly biological war... plants. The pure, natural, healthy foods you love like cantaloupe, apricots, cauliflower and, yes, even kale are actually the ones to blame for the pesticides now infiltrating your body.

According to research by Dr. Bruce Ames, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of California Berkeley --- such a conservative institution --- 99.99 percent of the pesticides consumed in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. 99.99%. The amount of natural pesticides present in our food absolutely dwarfs the amount of man-made pesticides.

Dr. Ames estimated that “Americans eat about 1.5 grams of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than they eat of synthetic pesticide residues.” We eat about 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides every single day. And just because these pesticides are “natural” doesn’t mean they are nice, wholesome, pesticides that promote “wellness.” Natural pesticides are way more harmful than fake pesticides. Many natural pesticides are known to cause cancer in rodent testing. In his study, Dr. Ames suggested that “it is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural plant pesticides that are rodent carcinogens. The levels of these rodent carcinogens are commonly thousands of times higher than the levels of synthetic pesticides." And don’t even think about cooking those fruit and vegetables. That just increases the carcinogens.

But I wouldn’t worry about it. Until today, you probably didn’t even know that you eat approximately 5,000-10,000 rat-cancer-causing natural pesticides every single day and you’re fine. Besides, trying to rid pesticides from your diet is futile and the definition of un-natural. And you don’t want to be “un-natural” do you, Goop? The only sure-fire way to eliminate pesticides from your diet would be to not eat --- anything. At all. Ever. I couldn’t do it --- but that’s probably what Gwyneth Paltrow does.

So, to review, all plants have natural pesticides on them. All of them. You consume way more natural pesticides than synthetic pesticides—and they are even more “harmful” than the fake stuff. And if apples are so riddled with nasty pesticides, then why did Gwyneth Paltrow name her daughter Apple? You don’t get to give advice about anything when you name your offspring Apple. Unless you’re an apple.

Follow Stu Burguiere on Facebook to stay up to date on the Wonderful World of Stu.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

American cattle rancher Shad Sullivan tells Glenn Beck that there is a "War on Beef" being waged by the globalist elites and that Americans need to be prepared for this to be an ongoing battle. How secure is America's food supply chain, and what does the country need to do to ensure food shortages never occur in the future?

Watch Glenn's FULL Interview with Shad Sullivan HERE

Iran War & US Riots: An Urgent WARNING About the ‘Death to America’ Mob | Glenn TV | Ep 440

Is the world approaching its FINAL battle? From the anti-ICE rioters to Islamic governments like Iran, the message is the same: “Death to the West… death to America.” Glenn Beck gives an urgent warning about the radical ideologies threatening Western civilization and likens the chaos in American streets to Gotham. Asra Nomani, an expert on Islamic extremism, terrorism, and radicalization, joins Glenn to detail what she saw at a No Kings protest in Philadelphia. Nomani warns that “more blood will spill” due to the dangerous nexus between Democratic organizations, Islamic sympathizers, Marxists, communists, and socialists. “This is the tyranny that will come to your neighborhoods and streets unless we stop it.” Another issue dividing the country and President Trump’s MAGA supporters is the war between Israel and Iran. Should the U.S. help destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions or let Israel go it alone? Iranian American journalist Nik Kowsar was arrested and threatened with death for his political cartoon critical of an Islamic cleric in 2003. He reveals the truth about the Islamic regime but tells Glenn why he believes bombs won’t bring democracy to the oppressed people of Iran.

RADIO

Regime change, bombs, or NOTHING: What should Trump do in Iran?

There's a big debate right now among the political Right over whether the United States should intervene in Israel's war with Iran. Should President Trump bomb Iran? Should he encourage regime change? Or should he completely stay out of it? Glenn Beck and The Federalist CEO and Co-founder Sean Davis discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sean, welcome to the program.

VOICE: Thank you for having me, sir.

GLENN: You bet. I'm glad to have you on.

You know, I'm not sure -- I'm not sure of anybody's position, because the smart people, like I think you are, are asking questions. And not coming out with these bold declarations. They're just asking questions.

And sometimes, their own response, at least mine is.

It's very nuanced. And I'm not recommending anything.

I'm asking questions, and I'm warning about the mistakes of the past.

I don't trust anybody.

But I also think a nuclear armed Iran is really bad. But I want Israel to take care of it.

I want to be involved in that.

It's their direct right now. Let them take care of it.

What -- where do you go from here. What questions should we be asking ourselves, Sean.

SEAN: Yeah. I love your approach to it. Because it doesn't start with a conclusion.

It's kind of trying to build with what we should be doing from the bottom-up.

Which becomes a discussion of first principles. And I think that's really important.

I think we probably all agree, that we don't want bad people. And we don't our enemies, to have weapons, they use to destroy us.

I think probably everyone agrees in that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, can I add a caveat to that?

Not just our enemies, but especially those who are batcrap crazy.

Or believe in the return of the Mahdi, and I can hasten his return by washing the world in blood. That kind of -- that puts you in a special category for me.

But, anyway, go ahead.

SEAN: And, again, I think I might even extend it. I'm not sure I want our friends and allies to have it. In a perfect world, we would be the only country, with these massive weapons.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. All right. I'll go for that. Okay.

SEAN: So the problem we have is that for, let's call 80 years. You know, 75.

The nuclear toothpaste has been out of the tube.

Soviet -- India, Pakistan. North Korea.

France. Israel.

In South Africa for a time, they all had nukes. And to me, the big problem that I have a really difficult time wrapping my head around, is how do you solve the problem we created with Gadhafi in Libya?

GLENN: Yes.

SEAN: That country gave up their weapons program, voluntarily after Iraq. Kind of before Iraq become another debacle and another cautionary tale. And they gave up their weapons in the US and NATO and our allies. We returned the favor, thanks to Hillary and Obama, by overthrowing Gadhafi and killing it.

I think what that communicated to every leader on earth, good or bad, if you don't ever want to be overthrown, you have to have nuclear weapons.

And so I start with understanding that fact, what is the best, most effective way to make our enemies -- make sure our enemies don't get nuclear weapons?

And I'll tell you, I don't have a good answer. Because we've heard for 40 years, that Iran is on the verge of a nuke.

They're about to have a nuke. They're about to have a weapon. So let's assume we go through with these attacks, and we bomb now or Israel bombs it.

What that doesn't get rid of is the incentive. It temporarily gets rid of a mechanism for I guess enriching uranium. But in four years or five years, how do we deal with that? I don't think regime change is a good idea. We've seen how well that works. It turns into an unmitigated disaster.

And so I think we just have to start with the question, what is the best possible way to incentivize people that we don't like, and don't like us, to not have weapons. And I genuinely don't have a good answer to it.

GLENN: You know what, I keep thinking. Every day I do this job. And I think what Reagan said when I was a kid.

He said, there's going to come a time.

And he was talking to Social Security at the time, but I apply it now to everything. There's going to come a time, where we've made so many mistakes. There won't be a good solution to everything. Every choice will be a bad choice.

And I think we're here. I think we're here. Everything we do, you're like, I don't know. I don't know.

I don't want to do to the mistakes of the past. But I don't know how to stop this now.

You know, regime change. Let me just take that one.

Regime change. It doesn't work. I loved your post. I think it was yesterday.

Yes, our military industrial complex lied about Vietnam. Killed Kennedy. Ran a coup against Nixon, then killed another Kennedy.

Tried to get MLK Jr. to kill himself. Ran drugs through the Americas to fund shenanigans in the Middle East.

Funded Bin Laden in the Taliban. Missed 9/11, and lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Got an ambassador murdered in Benghazi.

Then turned Libya into a slave market run by terrorists. Then created ISIS. Ran the Russia collusion hoax.

Tried to overthrow Trump with the Ukrainian hoax. Weaponized a bat virus that killed millions of people and lied about it. And used the virus they made to steal an election.

Then arrest Trump, tried to bankrupt him.

Try to make him die in prison, and then when they failed, they denied him adequate security, leading him to be shot in the head.

Yeah, they did all of those things.

The drug cartels, Iraq, Bosnia, in the 1990s.

Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s. Still Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010.

Plus, Libya, the whole moronic Arab Spring thing. Ukraine in the 2020s.

These were all disasters that cost millions of dollars and countless lives. You're right on every single one of those things.

Every single one of those things.

So how do we make a decision now'

SEAN: Right. And that's why I think it's important to get to first principles. Which is understanding our limitations.

Understanding history. Understanding how other nations view things. One thing that's driven me nuts in the foreign policy debates that we've had in the country, for 20, 30 years.

Is that there seems to be zero desire to put ourself in the position of our adversaries and our opponents. Saying, how are we looking at things?

Some people, if you try to do that, they'll say, oh, well, you're sympathizing with them. Or you're appeasing. Well, no. This is the basic stuff for negotiation.

You're playing chess against someone. You want to understand what they're going to do next.

So you can respond to it.

And we just never do that.

And I look at this. I think there's probably two major options. For either forestalling or preventing a particular regime for getting weapons.

The first one is regime change.

In the short-term, you can tell yourself, we will overthrow these people.

And then they won't want nukes anymore. Because we will put our friends in, and then it will be food.

Well, that's been ongoing in Iran for 100 years. The Brits and the Soviets were the ones who came in and put the original Shah in. It's been a mess over there.

So personally, I throw regime change out the window. Because it opens up pandora's box of just insanity, as we've seen in the Middle East.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on a second. Hang on a second.

Wait. Wait, on that.

Is there a chance that -- you know, I never saw it.

I kept saying. We headed to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Show me the person that will have their face on the stamp. Show me the person that will have their face on the money.

I never had somebody stand up and say, we need to be free.

And we need to fight for our own freedom. You do have those people that are really tired of this, and much more Western.

I don't want to get involved in a regime change. And I certainly don't want you to say, hey. We're going to help you pick a leader.

Is there a chance this time is different? Or is that wishful, stupid thinking?

JASON: You know, I think it's probably wishful thinking, but I don't know.

I tell you, I have a hard enough time figuring out what's going on politically in my own country. Think about all the time we spent pouring over polls in our election. Talking to our neighbors.

This is a country we were born in.

We understand its culture without even thinking about it. We're fluent in the language. We can talk to anyone we want, whenever we want. And we have a tough time, figuring out what is going on here. I don't have a clue what's happening in Iran.

I don't speak any of the three or four languages over there.

I don't understand the culture. I've never been there.

I've not been able to talk to people over there.

I don't know thousand read the news there.

The idea that I, or really any other Westerner can look at Iran and with any confidence say what the people want or don't want, I think it's crazy.

And so I think you kind of have to be humble about your ignorance. And we are largely ignorant of just about everything happening within Iraq, and its culture and its people.

GLENN: I -- I have to say, I think you're right on that.

Okay. So that's out.

What's the next thing?

SEAN: We kind of set aside regime change, probably not a great idea.

Another option is maybe economic incentives. Yeah, we know you don't want to be overthrown.

That's going to be a hard incentive to overcome. So you're going want to regime change insurance. Maybe we can bribe you out of it. All kinds of economic assurances. This and that.

The problem with Iran is they're sitting on oil, which is probably the most precious resource on earth. I don't think that works.

And so I think what we're left with is probably the Whack-a-Mole that's been going on for years. And I think the nation that's probably best sighted to deal with that Whack-A-Mole. They're the ones at risk.

Iran can't reach us here in the US. They don't have the ballistic missile capability. They're not a direct military threat to us.

They're clearly a military threat to our friends and allies in the Middle East.

And so I think the least worst option is probably Israel doing what it does, every five to ten years, and going and trying to degrade their ability to mechanically make the stuff.

Wait to see what happens, do it again over and over. But to me, that's a regional issue.

And, yes, there are allies. And, yes, they're our friends.

But it's far more consequential to them, than it is to us. And so I have no problem with them, doing what they need to do, to address the threats to them.

GLENN: So I'm with you, 100 percent so far.

Now, I'm very -- you know, we're the only ones with the bunker buster that can get into that.

What does that go down, 12 stories?

20 stories, underground.

Can destroy anything with a 20-story footprint, underground.

We're the only ones that have it. It has to be dropped from one of our planes.

And I'm very uncomfortable with that. Very uncomfortable. I mean, you know what, you want to buy the bunker buster? I'll sell it to you. But you got to drop it.

Once we put that on our plane, and we drop it, aren't we then part of the war?

SEAN: Right. And that -- like I said, that might be the least worse option to the extent that we have to be involved.

GLENN: Yes.

SEAN: When it comes to foreign policy. I think a lot about what Mike Tyson says.

That everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face. Once you go and drop a bomb on someone, once you engage in offensive military capabilities. Now, you may rhetorically say, well, it's preemptively defensive. It's an offensive move, whenever you bomb another country.

You are creating the conditions for all kinds of chaos. Who knows how they're going to respond?

Maybe they're rational. They understand, look, we will have to take this one on the chin.

We don't want to fight with the US.

We don't want to fight with Israel. We will have to deal with it.

And maybe they decide. Hey, we were in the middle of negotiations. We thought we were trying to get somewhere.

And if they're going to do this stuff with us, then to heck with this.

We will just unleash hell. That can happen.

Now, I don't know if it will. It's probably less likely to end up taking it.

But it's a possibility. Whenever you go and punch somebody in the face, you now have to deal with the consequences of how they will respond.

GLENN: All right. Back with more in just a second. Can you stay with me for just a few more minutes, Sean?

SEAN: Of course.

GLENN: Before we go to back to Sean, Jason, I had to look up in the break, preemptive strikes.

Is that something new?

Because I know that's -- my age, maybe.

I remember, I don't remember people saying, we have to preemptively strike, more than when it -- when the nukes started coming. And that's when everybody was like, you have to do it before you get one.

Is this a new thing? Or has this been going on forever?

JASON: I want to start out with saying, I'm so glad for Sean in having this conversation.

Because it is sorely needed right now.
It's so bad.

There's a weird irony with preemptive or preventive strikes.

Because the first modern preventive strike, looking at the Cold War era was the start of the six-day war.

When Egypt blockaded Israel, amassed 100,000 troops in Israel.

GLENN: Wow.

JASON: Did the first modern preemptive strike. If they would not have, they would not be here right now.

It's another coal in the fire really.

What is the red line --

GLENN: Sean, what is the red line?

Is there a red line?

SEAN: For us. Or for Israel?

GLENN: You know, any society. Is there a red line?

I think the answer for Israel is a lot sooner than ours.

But is there such a thing as a red line, to go first, and preemptively strike?

I'm sure there is. I'm sure there is.

It's so situational, that I would have a hard time saying right now, this is a red line, that satisfies all conditions for all nations.

GLENN: How about just for Israel?

Red line?

SEAN: For Israel, I would think it would be a delivery mechanism and the actual developed warhead. That's probably what I would look at. Can this immunization at this moment, deliver a nuclear warhead to us right now?

That's what I would say is the red line.

But, you know what, I have not had a country trying to wipe me off the earth for, you know, the last 80 years, 75 years.

GLENN: 5,000.

SEAN: Right.

But hard for me, just given my position, to know exactly what their -- I would say, it's probably close to the same thing.

An ability to attack the US people. Now, you'll hear from the Pentagon and people saying, well, they can hurt our troops in the region.

My view is, well, that's probably a good reason to not be meddling in the regions all the time. Because --

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

Sean, thank you so much. What a great conversation.

I really appreciate it. Thank you for being reasonable, rational. And allowing people to disagree.

And learn from our disagreements. Thank you, Sean. Appreciate it.

JASON: You're very gracious. Thank you, sir.

GLENN: You bet. The CEO of the Federalist.

Sean Davis.

RADIO

Will Trump HIT Iran with a “bunker buster” bomb?

Will President Trump get America involved in Israel’s war with Iran by helping drop a “bunker buster” bomb on Iran’s main nuclear facility? Would that cross a red line? Glenn Beck asks House Foreign Affairs Committee member, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who explains why she believes such debates are pointless right now. Plus, Rep. Luna addresses a 1980s CIA "playbook" that exposes a strategy to "set off riots and destabilize governments."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Representative Anna Paulina Luna is joining us now.

Congresswoman from the great state of Florida. You guys are kicking it, down in Florida.

I mean, you really -- you're making Texas look bad, quite honestly. But thanks for coming on.

ANNA: Thanks, Glenn. I would like to say, we're leading the nation not just in politics, but also the White House. So happy to be here.

GLENN: Yeah. All right. I have to ask you a little bit, about are we going to war? What's happening? Is this negotiation? What does your gut tell you on this?

ANNA: My gut is telling me, that we're not intervening. And based on the president's statement, he is still rightfully so, urging everyone to negotiate. Right now, he's definitely been very open about this.

But I don't want to -- what I will tell you, in the last 24 to 48 hours, I have seen so much disinformation circulating on the internet. Well, a lot of it not coming from security that is in the states, so I will tell everyone. That don't jump to conclusions, don't read into anything, that senator Lindsey Graham is saying or any other members of Congress, that are speculating, that there will be direct intervention. In fact, the White House just yesterday via Alex Sipher on X posted that the military is not intervening. We're simply defending our own. And so what I will tell Americans is first and foremost, President Trump has not changed his position on foreign policies. If he wanted to strike, he would have done it by now. So everyone needs to pray for him. Pray for our country. Pray for the millions in both Iran and Israel right now, and let the process play out.

GLENN: Can you tell me, do you think it's a red line to send over a bomber with one bomb?

Is that -- does that drag us into war?

Or is that just helping?

ANNA: I would say, as of right now, we need to not speculate, but continue to back the White House's position.

Because I think if I were to speculate on where the red line is, I don't think it helps.

I do think that our allies and adversaries are looking to see the members of Congress are doing. I will back the White House's position currently. Which is defending our service members and not intervening --

GLENN: It is. I'm so glad to hear you say that. That is exactly what I just said on the air. Just about three minutes ago.

ANNA: Oh, really?

GLENN: I said, yeah. The world is watching. You don't think the mullahs aren't watching everything that is said on X. You know, we must used to have these conversations where it was global. We're now in a global atmosphere.

And they're watching all of us.

And we can't eat ourselves up. Or they will -- if he's telling the truth.

I think a good negotiator, never bluffs. And he has to back it up.

You know, 60 days. You don't want to see what happens on day 61.

He wasn't bluffing.

And if they think, that we are eating ourselves, alive, they're more likely to go, no.

You know what, go ahead. Go ahead.

It's a really bad thing.

ANNA: What I will say, it's definitely a litmus test for our country right now. You're seeing a lot of people, jumping to conclusions. What I will tell you, there's only a very select few that fully understand what's happening in the situation room.

That's the president, his team, and it's left up there to you. What I will tell you, don't read in, don't speculate. And also too don't jump to conclusions.

Again, in the last 48 hours, I went online. I put out information, because I saw so much information circulating. Something that was said by Kash Patel. His CCP has engaged in basically election engineering. We just saw that in the 2020 election cycle.

They just got busted. This also comes on the tail end of these riots that are absolutely being hunted by the CCP. Neville Singham getting lots of money from them.

And it doesn't stop there.

We saw there was an -- so what I would say is that, you know, I'm partially inclined to think some of these accounts that are attacking the president, are foreign policy positions right now.

Are coming from China. Everything that we're seeing. Three times, that they've done things.

So we have to stick together. It's not, Democrat versus Republican right now. It's America, and fighting for Western civilization.

And so we need to make sure that we're very responsible about our commentary right now.

GLENN: Very good. Very good.

Can we talk a little bit about the -- let's start with Neville Singham.

The guy is -- he is an operative for the CCP. And he is pouring tons of money. And no one in the mainstream media, wants to talk about it.

They just -- oh, that's ridiculous. No, it's not.

Can you give us some information on --

ANNA: Yeah. Of course. So it's not ridiculous. In fact, there's a lot of money -- money at least back to Neville Singham. And I actually look at credit where it's due. So I was on X. And came across this account called Data Republican, and she actually pulled the money trail right to Singham. He also lives part time in Shanghai, China, and he's not registered as a foreign agent.

And so I was able to talk to Comer, and every single member of oversight after seeing the evidence that was presented, actually sent a letter, signed off on it, not just to Neville Singham, but also, to AG Bondi to also request an investigation.

And so what I will tell you is that this should have been done during BLM in Congress back then.

It was not. This needs to be replicated moving forward with everybody else who is engaging, who is not a registered foreign agent in this country.

Also, funding riots like this. In some instances have been acts of terrorism.

And so right now, it's not just a playbook for Neville Singham. We're also -- this is also up to Comer. Because Comer has subpoena authority. Whether or not he will send his subpoena to George Soros, which I've urged him to do.

Even though, Neville Singham is a Marxist and Soros is a globalist, but their end objective is, again, to dismantle the United States.

And so we're basically being hit from both sides right now.

GLENN: I am so -- it is so refreshing.

I mean, I've been talking about this stuff for 20 years.

It's so refreshing. Finally, to have some people step up, and present this in a credible way, in Congress.

And to the -- attorney general et cetera, et cetera.

You know, you had the playbook from 1983. From the CIA.

And this is -- you know, I think it was two or three years ago.

No. It was in 2019 or 2020.

I did a special on the -- you know, the Colour Revolutions.

And how there was the CIA playbook that was out.

And it looks exactly like what is happening here in the United States. I said -- I said, at the time, here's what's coming. And it's all here.

It -- where are you taking this?

And is there anybody, that, you know, can -- can stop this?

Because this -- we are -- we're using CIA tactics on ourself.

ANNA: Well, I would say, the CCP is using this against us.

Right now, just first and foremost.

Yes. We can stop it.

We have to go after the money stream. And I actually also found out via the data Republican.

That $270 million in the USAID fund, was issued to George Soros' NGOs prior to Biden getting out of office.

President Trump can stop that, sending a letter via executive order because Congress is moving very slow.

That's I think a separate conversation.

But we can stop the money streams. And if we don't do anything, though. If we don't do the investigations.

If we don't say, you cannot do this in our country, you're also, by the way, guilty of violating foreign agent registration, the Foreign Registration app, the FAR app. It's just going to continue happening.

So we have to do the due diligence on this.

And if not, every single member of oversight signed off on that.

And to Chairman Comer's credit, he will be playing ball with Singham. So it's going to happen.
It's just, When will it happen?

So the time line, it's possibly indicated on Friday. We're waiting for a response.

He's going to be called to testify.

We are looking at all transaction records.
That's the first thing. The second thing, I want to give some people hope. I actually know Director Radcliffe over at the CIA.

And the CIA back then, remember, there's both good and bad people at the intelligence agencies.

And to their credit, the people that he has appointed, actually are a people like you and I.

And so they are doing their best to weed out this corruption at the agencies. And so what's really been brilliant in all of this.

Kash Patel is also following up on these money trails, to see what outside foreign influences are engaging in this Colour Revolution here in the United States, and he's dropping that information now. So in previous administrations, this might not have happened.

But in this one, they're stopping it, and it's because of social media and kudos to Elon Musk, that we were able to get the information in time, in regards to the No Kings protest, who is funding that.
In regards to potential insider packets that were going to frame conservatives. Frame Republicans.

We are seeing this all unfold in real time. I will tell you, Hispanic Americans, specifically, are not used as pawns. So when you have basically BLM 2.0 happening right now at these ICE riots, and you realize that these are actually largely ANTIFA that are going to be questioned. They're why they're not Hispanic. They're not immigrant.

They have no ties to the communities, and they're simply interning, you know, Mexican flags or BLM flags. That doesn't bode well in the community.

Remember, Hispanic Americans are largely voted for in favor for President trump.

So there is hope. But you can't sit on your hands. You have to get active, you have to get engaged, and you have to be telling people that.

GLENN: You know, for years, I've been angry at the billionaires on the right. That have just not stepped up to the plate.

I really, I suspected with the tides foundation and then with Biden and you all of these green new deals, and everything going on. That money was being funneled off the top.

And then as soon as we appointed DOGE. I said, oh, my gosh. The money is coming from us.

Then he started to find him. That is so critically important. Are we going to stop that funding?

ANNA: Well, yes. And so that's what we've been doing with some of these rescission packages at the White House, that has authorized. We have to move quickly. And we have to be more aggressive with it.

I will tell you, remember, I think just in general, sometimes people can be lazy.

And so what I've been telling people, is you have no idea, the level of personal sacrifice, that Elon really took on.

From taking on DOGE. Especially going after USAID. Which is just like a pot of just corrupt nonsense.

He actually just released, as we were about to call in. He released drug testing results. He had himself drug testing. Because they were saying, he was doing all this crazy stuff.

And he wasn't. Right? They've attacked companies. They literally used his personal family matters in the press. And then they tried to drag a wedge between him and the president.

So what I will tell you is, it's not just him. It's any member of Congress of the Senate. You saw what happened with the president. They tried to assassinate him twice.

Okay?

So if you take this on, the American people need to back these people up.

Because it's not like we're taking it on, because we, you know, want to have our personal lives and our family members put on the line here.

It's because it's the right thing to do. And if we don't do it, who will?

You have to really make sure, everyone sitting together. Remember, look out for the disinformation campaign.

And keep supporting people who do the right went.

Because we need more of them.

GLENN: Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna.

Congresswoman, thank you.

JEFFY: Thanks Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. We'll talk again.

Glenn's Show Prep

The Horrible Dangers of Fruit and Veggies...And Every Food Out There

They want to control what you eat! — Cattle rancher's stark warning

Iran War & US Riots: An Urgent WARNING About the ‘Death to America’ Mob | Glenn TV | Ep 440

Regime change, bombs, or NOTHING: What should Trump do in Iran?

Transcript

Will Trump HIT Iran with a “bunker buster” bomb?

Transcript