©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Comedy legend Rob Schneider and Glenn Beck discuss the current state of affairs in the United States and how political divisions have driven a wedge between the American people. Schneider discusses how his faith in God and perspective on life events shapes his views and why it leads him to still believe in the future of this country being better than many others are willing to envision.
Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Actor/Comedian Rob Schneider HERE
Why would President Trump allow China to send 600,000 students to the United States with China’s history of using students as spies? There has to be more to this story! Investigative journalist and author Peter Schweizer joins Glenn Beck to explain what he believes is really going on. Plus, he gives an update on the “massive problem” of China buying up land next to US military bases.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: One of my good friends, a guy who I just so admire. Is Peter Schweizer. Or admire. I still admire him. He's the president of the Government Accountability Institute. He's the host of the Drill Down, which is a podcast. He's written numerous books. He's an investigative reporter, been on this program a million times. And he is always way ahead of the game.
He's brought to my attention some -- some land exchanges that are going on with China. Here in our own country. The exchanges for dollars. And they are still buying up more land. And nobody is doing anything about it.
And there is the story today about the 600,000 Chinese students, that Donald Trump is letting come in.
Now, there's got to be more of this story on why he's allowing that.
But, I mean, these are people that if I'm not mistaken, and this is my first question, Peter.
Aren't these students.
You have to be close to the CCP to be able to travel to the United States. Don't you?
You have to be well connected to the Communist Party.
PETER: Yeah. That's right, Glenn. Look, the reason I think Trump is allowing this to happen is because this is a top priority for Xi.
And they're trying to negotiate a whole bunch of things, but I still think it is a mistake. And here's why: There are 600,000 Chinese students that come to the United States. American students going to China is a trickle. So this is not about in exchange of ideas. You know, it's not like junior year abroad in Italy, where you learn more about Italian culture, you remember it for the rest of your life. It's not that at all. The students that come to the United States, are screened for their political views. Their families are screened for their political views. Their costs are born by the Chinese government. So when they are here, they are function eight years of the Chinese government. As they fail the fallen line, or do what they're asked.
Damage can come to their family. Damage can come to them. And the entire premise behind the student exchange is going back to the 1980s is that this would make the Chinese elite more like us.
Right? They get to know us. They become more friendly. They become more Americanized. The vast majority of the hardline aides around President Xi were educated in the United States, primarily in places like Harvard. So it's not working.
The Chinese leadership is actually more hard-lined now than it was under Hu Jintao or under Gung Shah Ping (phonetic). And they are more Western educated, so it's not doing what they claimed it was going to do.
GLENN: So why is he doing this?
PETER: I think Trump is doing it because he's trying to secure, you know, a series of trade deals with the Chinese. He's trying to deal with them, on the Ukraine-Russia war to pressure Russia. He's got a whole bunch of things on his agenda. This is a priority for Xi.
GLENN: I understand that, but why would it be a priority for Xi? I mean, he gets 600,000 spies here in the United States.
PETER: Great question. Yes, that's correct. And so here's what we know. We know the Chinese students come to the United States have engaged in espionage.
And, by the way, they're not coming here to study comparative literature or sociology. They're the vast majority, over 90 percent are in the hard sciences.
GLENN: Right.
PETER: So it is -- it is stealing our secrets. We also know, by the way, that the fentanyl trade in the United States, as we've talked about before. The Chinese are intimately involved in that.
A key component of the money laundering is Chinese students in the United States, who are taking suitcases full of cash to Chinese state-owned banks.
This is well documented. So there is a -- a component who is there. There is also a political component to it. Chinese students in the United States have done everything from shout down speakers on college campuses, that are critical of China.
There have been reports in California of Chinese students being bussed to places like San Francisco, to engage in counterprotests. When people are, you know, concerned about human rights in Tibet.
When President Xi, remember, visited San Francisco. There were thousands of Chinese students bussed in there to organize pro-Xi rallies. So there's also a political force component to this.
GLENN: Wasn't it two students, or was it just scientists? Just recently, they were trying to bring in really dangerous stuff, and we caught them. But twice, we caught them.
That just happened a couple of months ago. Do you remember that story, Peter?
PETER: Yeah. That's exactly right. These were scientists. But these are scientists that are oftentimes educated in the West, they take on research lab positions at American universities like the University of Michigan, as in this particular case. And so they sometimes bring in a dangerous thing. There was a report in Canada of Chinese students that were bringing in pathogens, related to COVID back in 2019. Widely reported in Canada. So it's an enormous problem. And it's not really something that we are focused on.
Again, we are treating them as if they're German exchange students or Americans studying in Italy. That's not how China views this. They view this as a component and an extension of the state.
And the students need to fall in line. And if they don't, they will suffer serious consequences.
GLENN: Donald Trump is so strategic, and nothing he does is without several things down the line. He's usually playing 3D chess. He's way ahead of everybody else. I cannot imagine what we're getting out of this, that would balance this in our favor. But we'll have to -- we'll have to see. Is anything being done on the Chinese buying up land? I know you're on a big story now about how much land is being purchased up in the northeast. That is extraordinarily dangerous.
PETER: Yeah. So we're working on a report right now, of one of our top researchers. Twenty military bases that ran them in the United States. And he wanted to look at land records. And say, of those 20 military installations, how many have Chinese-owned land. That are just add adjacent to those military bases. The answer, Glenn, is all 20. So this -- this is a massive problem. It's -- you know, land purchases are not regulated at the national level of the United States. They not necessarily should be. It's done at the state level. And certain states like Florida and others have worked to have passed legislation in this area. The problem is you have states like California, where there was legislation passed in the -- the state Senate. The state assembly. On a bipartisan basis, that said, foreign hostile governments. It didn't even say individuals. Just foreign hostile governments cannot buy land in California. Gavin Newsom actually vetoed that bill. So the problem is, yeah.
It was that narrowly written, bipartisan support. Vetoed that bill. I think part of the reason was, frankly, he was involved in the wine business.
He had land and vineyards in the wine area. And Chinese state companies have been buying up vineyards in Napa Valley.
So probably would have affected the valuations of his property. That's, I think one of the motivations. And as we've talked about before, he has a -- let's say long history of association with people involved in the United Front groups. And frankly, people involved with Chinese organized crime. So the land issue is not going anywhere. It's a major problem.
GLENN: Peter, if I'm just looking at this on the surface. I immediately think back to what Ukraine did to Russia, with the drones.
Where they were in these trucks.
They were right outside the military base.
And they destroyed things that we get our wildest dreams, couldn't have destroyed just a few minutes ago. And it was because of drones. And it was a whole new line of attack. Everybody knows that China is the leader in drone technology. I mean, they are just way ahead of everybody. If you don't -- if you have a drone and it's not -- what is it? DGI. DJI. It's not the best. It's all coming from China.
If you have property all around the United States, all add adjacent to our military bases, that is a direct threat to our national security.
I mean, you could have a barn full of those drones. Or a truck full of those drones. And you could take everything out of those military bases quickly. And America wouldn't have any time to respond.
Is it deeper than that on concerns?
PETER: No. Well, yeah. I think that's the main one. Right?
The -- the -- the ability not only to cause kinetic damage, as the Ukrainians have shown. By flying drones and blowing things up.
Look, even our most secure military bases will be able to defend against an attack like that.
You have the additional problem, that you could do something more -- you could take drones, you know, with pathogens. With poisons. And introduce them, into a military installation.
GLENN: Yeah.
PETER: So, yeah. It's a massive, massive problem. And the notion that we can't even limit the Chinese government, or government state-owned, you know, companies, from buying real estate. That that somehow is in violation of -- of some Constitutional right, as if the Chinese government has Constitutional rights in the United States is patently absurd.
So this is something we've got to continue to address. We're going to keep exposing it. You've been on the front lines of it, Glenn.
And it's one of the things that people innately understand. When you think about currency close, when you think about money laundering, you get complicated -- this is very real and dangerous and understandable.
GLENN: Yeah. Peter, as always, thank you very much. Thanks for your hard work. We'll talk again. Peter Schweizer.
PETER: Thanks, Glenn.
GLENN: You bet.
President Trump wants to make burning the American flag punishable by jailtime. But while Glenn Beck also hates to see the flag burned, he makes the case that we can’t make the flag an idol. Maybe there’s a balance with Trump’s focus on stopping incitements of violence, but Glenn urges caution.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.
This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.
But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.
I mean, an enormous flagpole.
I love the flag. I love it!
And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.
For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?
And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.
However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.
If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.
We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.
Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.
Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!
And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.
You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.
And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.
And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.
It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.
Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.
We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.
Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.
You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.
You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!
You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?
But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.
But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.
But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!
And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task.
President Trump has announced a deal to buy a10% stake of computer chip maker Intel. Is this a smart business move that will make the US government money to pay off its debt, or is it just another unconstitutional public-private partnership? Glenn and Stu discuss ...
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So, Stu, I would love to open -- openly embrace the -- you know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel.
And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah. That's the way we should do business.
It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic. But then, again, so did the Patriot Act.
So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion. Money already set aside by the Chips Act. And instead of handing to Intel as a grant, he bought stock in Intel.
Now, that sounds really smart. Right? Sounds like what a businessman would do. Really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money, we'll invest. And that way, we get some profits, when they succeed. So we now own 10 percent of the company. Nonvoting shares. We got it at a discount, and we have $2 billion now worth of paper gains.
I love that! Right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways. Taxpayers are investors. And we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah. It's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. We stabilize the economy, without running it. We reassure the markets, and attract other private investors. On paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient. It's savvy.
Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never -- government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise.
But, again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there. Haven't we?
Hasn't the government picked winners and loses now forever?
Haven't they been wasting your money. I would rather extend them a grant. I would rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win. No. We all win. But that's actually the model of state capitalism in China. That's not the free market in the United States. Intel is vital. Absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that will happen for national security. And our economy.
But we cannot get into the habit of -- of -- we can't normalize it anyway.
Washington, DC, buying stock in struggling companies.
Because what's next. Ford? Boeing?
How about your grocery stores?
That's Mamdani, isn't it?
And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it, now.
What happens after we own a piece of that?
So in 2008, I had a big sponsor.
It was a sponsor that Premiere Radio networks had worked 20 years to get.
We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them.
It was General Motors.
And then the government bailed them out. In 2008. And they promised it was temporary. And I said, great! Call me back, once you've paid them off. I don't -- I don't like this. The government should not be involved.
But they were not going to be involved.
But they were
The first thing they did. Was they cancelled the hydrogen car. Something they really believed right before the election. I know. Because I was talking to him about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM was like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them.
And the precedent was set. And I was out. I was out. I cancelled General Motors. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it? And that's how you slip to capitalism to corporatism. You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers.
You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins.
Come on!
Not a hard question to answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins. If the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we will make a lot of money, you're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay. All right. Okay.
It's -- it's not -- the taxpayers aren't the one. The company -- the politicians, who really wins? What happens when an administration leans on its own company, for political purposes?
You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it.
He -- Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year. Lays off 20,000 workers.
Choke hold of Taiwan, South Korea on semi conductors. He wants America protected.
He wants taxpayers to share the upside.
He doesn't want to just bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right?
It's really tempting. But is it what we're supposed to do. Is it the right thing?
I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes. Cutting red tape. Letting capital flow to strong ideas. Making sure national security is cured through policy, but not ownership of these things.
Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI, or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10 percent? Oh, they need another bailout. We're just going to own 20 percent. Oh, they need another bailout. Okay. We're going to own 40 percent of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department? The Deep State? The president, or you?
I think you know the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one. Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're giving people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?
STU: Well, first of all, can we step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here, in the first place, was the Chips Act. The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place.
And that's not the president -- the current president's fault.
But, you know, he has to live under that law.
And he's trying to improve it. But like, that was a disaster in the first place. And should not have been something that we did, certainly the way that we did it.
With buying into this. Look, I understand, it is better to have some of this money. That, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway. Right?
These are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have. That we're spending on something. That it's good that potentially we have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well. Where we would go and do all of this. And take control of some of these banks and companies. And they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back.
GLENN: With interest. With interest.
STU: Yeah, exactly. And so why not?
Why didn't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally, it's been in extreme circumstances. Right? When there's an emergency going on. And I would acknowledge, and I think you were on this, as well, Glenn.
These were not things that we supported at the time. But they were things that the government did at the time. What they saw as a time of financial crisis. And reached in, and took ownership of a bunch of companies.
GLENN: I would say, we went further than not being for them.
STU: I would agree with that analysis.
GLENN: Very much against them.
STU: Very much against them.
The reason for that is: We don't want the government involved in -- you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies.
Now, they will say, voting rights.
They will say all sorts of things. We now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interesting interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I know that --
GLENN: Money does not talk, it screams. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea.
Once the government becomes your partner in business. They're always your partner. Always.
STU: Uh-huh. And I understand where the president is coming from.
Because it -- at some level, it really is important to acknowledge, he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing.
Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips. And he does care about these industries, being here in the United States.
That is a -- something that is actually legitimately important. I'm not denying that.
GLENN: Right. He also cares about America doing well, financially. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.
STU: But on that point, because I get what he's saying there. It would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make 10 billion dollars off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion.
Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion in debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this. Nothing.
We're going to waste that -- like, we could just instead, be -- we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have. And just cut a few things around the corner, and easily save $10 billion.
It -- the only way that this makes any impact. And this is what makes me nervous. Is if you do it at scale. If you start doing this, in every single company you can think of, that is having problems. Or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America. Then you start getting to a place to where the government is in bed with lots of businesses. And maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too.
GLENN: But how do we already accept it -- when America embraced public/private partnerships. I haven't accepted that.
I don't -- I'm dead-set against public -- but isn't this a public/private partnership. This is what they were pushing.
STU: Well, this is the concern, right?
Who is cheering this on?
Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders put the -- he actually had this idea, as an amendment, in the Chips Act.
This was his proposal.
He's cheering it on right now. I -- that doesn't mean that every -- you know, everything a Democrat brings up is the wrong idea.
Maybe this was a good one.
You can make that argument.
GLENN: Is he a Democrat or a socialist?
STU: Socialist please. Socialist.
GLENN: So everything a socialist brings up. Probably is fine.
STU: Yeah. Again, it's a road, we should really, really be careful going down.
I would argue, we shouldn't go down it. At his lead to bad things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president is long gone.
It's not just him.
You know, what -- I know we say this all the time. What are Democrats going to do, with this newfound ability to invest in companies?
And -- and, by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this. Right? This is -- the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this.
GLENN: Uh-huh.
STU: And, you know, I -- I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these -- these companies money because of the Chips Act. Why not make the situation better?
And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable. In 25 different ways. Let's partner with them.
I get it on both sides.
That doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one time thing. It probably won't be a big deal. If this is a precedent that goes on. It can be.
GLENN: It will be.
Once you start this. Once you start this.
And how long. My whole life, I said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything. And go, how can we make money?
How can we save money? Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that.
Although, we're spending more money.
And he's here. Here he's like, well, let's just offset.
Let's get -- yeah. And he might pick the winner. I don't know if he will or not. But he might -- but tell me the last president that we had, that ever said anything about industry, that you were like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No! No!
STU: He would be the guy.
GLENN: Yeah. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure. Maybe the lifetime of the country.
Glenn Beck highlights two shocking stories that the mainstream media would have never touched before. CNN is now exposing the Clintons’ disturbing ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and the Epstein network, while the Washington Post is revealing newly released documents proving that Ronald Reagan was secretly undermined by the CIA and other agencies when he tried to dismantle America’s nuclear arsenal. These revelations don’t just challenge the narratives we were fed for decades... they confirm the existence of the very “DEEP STATE” the media once mocked. Why are outlets like CNN and WaPo suddenly admitting the truth, and what does this mean for the future of American politics?
Watch the 1st Hour of This Episode of the Glenn Beck Radio Program HERE
