RADIO

Biden may use GAS PRICES to expand his powers MASSIVELY

President Biden demanded this week that gas stations lower their prices immediately: ‘Bring down the price you’re charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product,’ he told station owners. But unfortunately it seems Joe may have missed an important economics lessons during his road to the White House, because that is NOT how business works, Glenn explains. The President also urged Congress to approve a gas tax ‘holiday' AND Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm referred to the Defense Production Act as a presidential “tool” Biden may use in the future. Glenn explains what this means and how the DPA could be used to MASSIVELY expand presidential powers — far beyond what the Constitution allows…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yesterday, the Dow plunged 400 more points. The Wall Street banks, yesterday, began to warn of significant downturn and -- and increased recession odds. The White House is still denying that there's any chance at all, of any kind of recession. We're in a transition period. And that's what's so exciting. According to the White House, there's no recession coming. We're just in a transition. And I think that's right. We're -- you know, in a transition from a free market, into some sort of totalitarian state. Where the -- where the administrator, Joe Biden, just keeps wanting to, you know, take things over. Don't know if you saw this, but he demanded yesterday, that gas stations lower their prices. He said, do it now. Do it today. Bring down the price you're charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product. Joe, that's not how businesses work. Okay? They can't keep their doors open, if they're only charging what they paid for it. Because they also need to charge for the lights and the building. And all of the supplies. And the people working there at the gas station. They have to have a profit margin, but you have only been in the private sector, your whole life. So you don't understand that. He said, I want the Congress, and the states, and the industry, to do their part. Because I'm doing any part. Now, that's fantastic.

But not as fantastic, as what grand home said later. So they're asking for a tax holiday. Which is ridiculous. Ridiculous. First, we, you know, practically emptied out our strategic reserves. Now they want a -- a tax holiday, on gas tax.

But they're not going to find and cut anything in the federal deficit. And the federal budget. So they got to keep paying for all of these equitable roadways and everything else. So they're just going to find that money. Well, they're going to find it at the fed. And the fed can't sell our Treasuries to anybody. So the fed will just print more money, put it on our bill. And then give it to the United States. So you'll have more money for gas, which is a good thing. But done exactly the wrong way. So now he's talking about a gas tax holiday.

Which, again, would be good for the average person for a while. However, Grandholm came out yesterday, and said, if these companies don't lower the gas price, the president will use every tool he has, including the Defense Production Act.

So this would be the, what? The third time, Stu, that they've invoked the Defense Production Act, something that hasn't been used since the war in Korea.

This is a wartime act. And if you think that they won't declare a national emergency, mark my words. When this happens. Run for the hills. They are going to declare a national emergency on climate change. Which is the worst. Then they'll issue it, and maybe climate change will -- will include the gas prices. Otherwise, they'll do an energy national emergency. They'll do a food national emergency. Which means the president will have total powers to be able to gobble up the free market. And if you don't -- I mean, this is fascism. What he was talking about yesterday, is fascism. Now, can I ask another question?

There's so much to pay attention to. I -- I'm sorry. We can barely keep up. I can't imagine what it's like with you and the family and kids and school. And everything else that's going on. Matt Gaetz said, Saturday, the firearms policy under Biden. He is using every tool he can.

There is a -- a problem that the IRS, from March 1st, to June 1st. A three-month span. The IRS bought 700,000 dollars' worth of ammunition.

Now, why does the IRS need 700,000 dollars' worth of ammunition? There's only two answers. Now, this is on top of the, what? 1.8 billion, that the Department of Homeland Security spent on it.

There's several agencies, that are buying up ammunition now. There's two explanations. One is more nefarious than the other.

Well, yes. One is more nefarious than the other. One is they just have plans of arming everybody and every agency. And you will do exactly what they say, or they'll shoot. That's the most nefarious. The second is probably the most likely. Although, I wouldn't lay any of my money down on it. It's probably more risky than the stock market. The more likely of the two, I think. Is that this is just another way, to stop guns from being on the streets. They're going to use every lever they can. If the United States government is buying up all the ammunition, that only drives the cost of ammunition up. And only depletes the market of ammunition. So in effect, they stop you from being able to have any kind of ammunition. Remember, we told you, on Monday of this week, what was happening with Winchester. Winchester makes most of our 223 and 556, for the military.

They have a military contract. In it, Winchester can sell about 30 percent of their stock, to the open market. And that provides the United States. The average consumer, with about 40 to 50 percent. Of all 556 and 223. The federal government was pressuring Winchester to stop selling it to the open market. That would be really bad for national defense. But beyond that. It's just another sign that they're doing everything, they possibly can, to stop guns. To infringe on your second rights. These are the kinds of things, I think, that might be caught up in a Supreme Court case. Regarding the EPA. Maybe.

Maybe. But we'll see. This is -- you have to understand. Boy, if you didn't read Philip Dru, Administrator. Get it. It's a free Google book. Because no one in their right mind would ever pay for it. It is absolutely the worst book, I think I've ever read. It's just poorly written. But it was done by. I think it was written by Colonel House. He was the guy that was the main adviser, and best friend to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson has said to have read it three times, during his administration. He just loved it so much. It's so great. I think he said that because he wanted more and more people to read it. You should read it. Because it is exactly what Biden is trying to do right now. And I don't think I've ever gone into great detail. It's about the country, as in chaos. The countries having all kinds of problems. And all of these people just love this hero of Philip Dru. He's a war hero, and he's great, and everybody loves him. And he's super, super honest. All he does. He loves the country so much. And everybody knows, he's not going to do anything to hurt the country. Because he's your average Joe.

So he becomes president. But he doesn't want to be called president. He just wants to be an administrator. Because he's not -- he's not qualified to be president. He just -- he's an administrator. And he can just use all of the administrative tools of the presidency, to get the experts in, who know more than he does. Know more than the average person.

And he's going to let science settle everything. And so he gets into office. He begins to do exactly what Joe Biden is doing now. And then he starts telling the country -- the companies in the country, exactly what they can and cannot do. Exactly how they're going to do -- but based on experts. I mean, he's not an expert. So he just listens to the expert. And then when the experts speak. He tells the people, the news. And the people rejoice. Because it's so wonderful having an expert administrate everything in American life.

It goes on by a third -- by two-thirds of the way in. Philip drew is going. He's already abolished Congress. And he has rewritten the American Constitution. Based on what the experts say. And then on top of that, he does something else special. He goes state to state. And abolishes their state administrations as well. Philip Dru: Administrator you can get it free on Google Books. And it is a must-read if you want to understand where this administration is going.

The REAL Reason Why Glenn is On a US-Funded Ukrainian 'Enemies' List
RADIO

The REAL Reason Why Glenn is On a US-Funded Ukrainian 'Enemies' List

Glenn Beck and The Blaze were both placed on a list calling out Americans who DON'T want to endlessly fund Ukraine without oversight. The list, compiled by a Ukrainian NGO called "Texty" or the "Data Journalism Agency," features hundreds of individuals and companies, including U.S. politicians. But why would Glenn — who is no fan of Vladimir Putin — be on the list? Well, Glenn has a good idea why he might be: He recently exposed the U.S. government's long history with fueling color revolutions around the world, including in Ukraine, and how America might be next. And Blaze Media managing editor of RETURN, Peter Gietl joins to expose how all the usual suspects from previous color revolutions are funding this NGO as well...including Spooky Dude himself, George Soros.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So let me just give you this story first.

Ukrainian publication with the editor-in-chief who has ties to the US State Department, has placed dozens of American politicians, activists, and media outlets, including Blaze media and Glenn Beck, on a list of those allegedly known to have shared Russian disinformation or otherwise made anti-Ukrainian statements.

On Thursday, texty.org, an independent media outlet. That fuses data journalism projects, with traditional journalistic genres.

This is according to their website. They published an article entitled rollercoaster entitled, From Trumpist to Communist. The forces in the US, impeding aid to Ukraine. And how they do it.

Now, there's 75 of us on this list. But nearly 400 entities, that have opposed sending aid to Ukraine, in its war against Russia.

We were mentioned. Blaze media, and myself. Mentioned on Pages 34 of a 47-page list. The anti-Ukrainian Blaze media links are all from 2023.

They include one which Blaze news article. There's one Blaze news article. Two tweets. One of which is just showing a clip and a tweet from Tucker Carlson. Who is also on the list.

And then three segments with Blaze media's Glenn Beck.

Okay. Okay.

Now, what were the clips?

Well, the first -- the first clip that they had a problem with was that I had said, that the plan to go into Russia, or to have Ukraine fight Russia and us to back them up, was in the works in 2016.

And texty came out and said, that is an absolute lie.

He's just making this stuff up.

Well, the reason why I said that is because we found a clip, that I had never seen before.

This is Lindsey Graham with John McCain in the background. During election 2016 in Ukraine, talking to the general and the troops, listen to what he said.

VOICE: Your fight is our fight.

VOICE: 2017 will be the year of offense.

VOICE: All of us will go back to Washington, and we will push the case against Russia.

VOICE: Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price.

Our fight is not with the Russian people, but with Putin.

Our promise to you, is to take your cause to Washington.

Inform the American people of your bravery.

And make the case against Putin to the world.

GLENN: Okay. Isn't that what happened in 2020?

Isn't that exactly -- or 2021?

Isn't that exactly what happened?

Now, Russia did invade.

You know, I -- I am not going to make a case for Vladimir Putin being a good guy.

Because he's an absolute monster.

However, you know, when you have the State Department, doing a Colour Revolution in 2014 in Ukraine, to get rid of the Russian, that they say was running Ukraine.

And then you have Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, during the election. Saying 2017 is the year we go on offense.

It's time they pay a -- a heavier price.

Well, I would say, that that kind of sounds like, you know, we're for going right after Russia.

Our fight is not with the Russian people. Just Vladimir Putin.

That sounds like regime change. Does it not?

Now, why didn't it happen in 2017?

Because the unthinkable happened.

Donald Trump was elected.

That's what happened. Donald Trump was elected. In 2017. He became the president of the United States.

And what happened? He all of a sudden was painted as a guy who was for Russia. And the Russian interference.

Forget the Chinese. Just the Russian interference alone. So the enemy of Hillary Clinton and the State Department and everybody else. The enemy became Russia and Donald Trump, tied closely together. So the offense had to wait for four years.

But they continued to smear Donald Trump with Russia. That was the whole case. Okay. So now let me go on. Let me tell you about a show we did a few weeks ago. Regime change.

It's been United States' policy for a very long time. Covert CIA operations. We go in.

We manipulate the foreign media. We meddle in elections. We topple governments. And then, you know, we go back to saying, we didn't do that. What are you talking about?

This started with the Cold War. But nothing the CIA pulled off comes even close to what their successor began doing.

Who was the successor to the CIA? Covert ops? Well, it was the United States government.

That includes the CIA. Along with NGOs. Trade unions.

And people like George Soros.

Colour Revolutions. The first one that was really successful was the Middle East.

The Arab spring.

Right?

I told you, the Arab spring, was -- had its roots in communists.

The European spring. Back after the Communist Manifesto was written.

They tried to overthrow all of Europe.

And it was called the European spring.

How could this peaceful union, suddenly have the roots in revolutionary Marxism.

Well, Colour Revolutions. Middle East.

Then Latin America.

And eastern Europe.

Ukraine is one of them.

And here's what they do.

The United States. So they can keep their distance. Goes through NGOs. And trade unions.

They train and mobilize street movements.

Kind of like, let's see if I can think of a street movement that seems like it wasn't actually real. BLM. Or the Palestinian street movements.

By the way, as we've shown you, funded by these same kind of people.

So we showed you, all of the evidence on a Colour Revolution. And how it was done.

And they did it all out in the open.

And they even bragged about it. I showed you the people, and the organizations at the top of the Colour Revolution spear.

I also showed you some of these people. NGOs. Trade unions. Are now active here in the United States.

And they seem to pop up every four years. Totally coincidentally.

Their money and their actions usually come at a time of massive civil unrest, right before an election. Now, there's usually some kind of government element at the top. Could be the CIA. Most likely, it's the State Department and USA ID.

But ultimately it's the office of the president.

So we did a chalkboard on this. We showed that that has to happen. You have to have those in the government. That are wanting to overthrow the government.

Then the operation is privatized to give it distance from the government. This is where the NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy come in. Okay.

The NED is composed of four different entities. The National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, and the Center for International Private Enterprise. You see what's happening?

You have both sides. So it looks fair. Republican and Democrat.

Plus, you have labor. And private enterprise. Everybody coming together.

So this is a bipartisan kind of cover story. Next, on the food chain, you have to have the multibillion-dollar financiers, and their organizations, that partner in the entire radiation.

This is where George Soros comes in. The Open Society foundation. The Tides Foundation.

Then there are the people that spread the message. Demonstrate in the streets. And the media to report what the government wants you to report. Wants them to report.

To the masses. This is the blueprint. We've done it over and over and over again.

And I make the case, that these same people are doing it here in America.

So why is the Blaze -- why am I on this list?

I'm on this list, because I believe I'm telling you exactly what's happening.

We have a Color Revolution happening within our own government, within the NGOs and George Soros and all those people.

This is what they're doing. And there's a possibility this time, they succeed, because you have to have a, quote, illegitimate president. You have to have street movements. That are not only saying that it's illegitimate. You also have the media saying it's illegitimate.

And it doesn't work if Donald Trump is the one saying that he stole the election.

It has to be their side saying, the election was stolen.

Now, let me go back to the outlet, and who these people are.

The ones that put this miss, dis, and dangerous information out. You'll be surprised to hear that there's some of the same exact connections, to Colour Revolution.

Okay. So texty.org. That has provided this list, they do note that they couldn't establish direct proven ties between most of the people and outlets on its list. And the Russian government. Or known Russian propagandist.

Instead, they say, it just gathered evidence that these people same people and outlets have spread Russian advertise information by echoing key messages of Russian propaganda in their arguments against ending Ukraine further aid.

Okay.

So who is -- who is the -- who are the people behind texty.org. Texty.org, the cofounder is Antoli Bonde -- I could say it earlier. Bondenero (phonetic). Still wrong.

Anyway, who is he?

Has he ever been involved in anything?

Well, yeah. He was involved in the tech camp.

A public diplomacy program established by the Bureau of Educational and cultural affairs at the US Department of State.

What is the tech camp?

The tech camp is when they go into these countries, where they'll do a Colour Revolution.

And they find all these tech savvy people. And they show them how to build movements dependence their government.

That's what our State Department is doing.

Okay!

Do they -- would they like to clarify this?

Would anybody like to make a public statement on why we're there?

And, you know, curious why the editor-in-chief, and the cofounder, was trained by the State Department!

I mean, it's -- it's really interesting, that this organization has ties to the State Department and USAID.

Their founder was part of the tech camps.

I mean, it's weird. It's almost like we're -- we've been outed for saying bad things about the State Department, and the US government, perpetrating Colour Revolutions.

And saying, this is how they do it. And so then they have a Shell organization, that they themselves have created. To what?

Prove me right. Is that what's happening here. In hopes that you will never understand why names are on this list.

They say it's not a kill list. It's not an enemies list. It's just a list demonstrating the evidence supporting the thesis presented in the article. The article is not an accusation, but a study of the political and media context that influences government decisions regarding further support, for the Ukraine and the Ukrainian/Russian War. They don't deny, condemn, or dispute the right of American citizens, media, or institutions to express any opinions or hold any political beliefs.

Well, that is so great of them!

I wonder which State Department class, or USAID class they learned that one from.

Telling you, go back, it was last month. It was on the 29th of last month.

Look for my Thursday night special. It was all about Colour Revolution. And I urge you to watch it.

Because this -- you understand this. It was like -- you remember when I first said, if you understand Woodrow Wilson. You'll understand the progressive movement. And you'll see what they're after. And everything will start to come in clear?

It's the same thing with color revolution.

And I think texty. Just proved that. At least gave me enough -- enough of a nudge to remind you, you should watch that special.

Why would -- I mean, really.

Why -- why would we be on that list?

Hmm. Why would so many be on that list?

Now, some are just really anti-you know, Ukraine.

I'm not. You know, they put -- they put, what was it?

Ten people on the list. That were Congress men and senators, that were just calling for an accountant to be sent.

That's Russian disinformation?

You want an accountant -- you know what that says to me?

If you want to make that person an enemy of your cause, you're doing something with the money that we should know about.

If you're just asking for -- I mean, want accountability.

We'll send the money. I mean, want accountability.

If you call them an enemy. I think they're right. We should have accounts. You know what I mean?

Maybe it's just me and more disinformation.

Peter Gietl is the Blaze media managing editor for return.

And he has been looking into the -- the story that we were just telling you about. That this texty.org, put a list together. Of people that, you know -- I don't know, Peter, what -- what do they even say their motivation is? If it's not an enemies list?

PETER: They're trying to claim that, oh, this is just compiling information of people repeating Russian disinformation or propaganda.

But it's clear, they're -- they're conflating, you know, Russia today. With Blaze Pennsylvania and Tucker Carlson.

Anyone else who has any sort of questions about the funding, including left-wing organizations like Code Pink.

GLENN: Yeah. So I've been talking about Colour Revolution.

And I don't know where you stand on that.

But I really believe that that's what's happening in America and the left. And George Soros. And everybody else are doing what they've done in country after country for the last 20 years.

They've just perfected it. Examine now they're doing it here, to the United States. To topple her.

And make her into a democracy, instead of a republic.

But it -- it's interesting to me, that the -- the cofounder, is a guy who has deep ties to the State Department.

And to Colour Revolutions by hosting tech camp.

In one of those countries.

Am I far off base on that?

PETER: No. Absolutely not, Glenn. I completely -- completely agree with you on that.

And I found this weekend, originally, that we had been placed on that list. Along with you, and Blaze media.

But last night, I was able to dig deeper and uncover some pretty interesting stuff about this organization.

GLENN: Okay.

PETER: First of all, texty.org, they also go by Data Journalism Agency. Same board. Same email. Same address. And through the data journalism agency, they're funded by the global investigative journalism network. Which, in turn, is funded -- has been given $2 million, by the Open Society Soros Foundation.

So they're tremendously tied in.

GLENN: Right. Right.

PETER: But there's more. So then once you dig deeper. They openly admit.

Again, this organization that has placed dully elected members of Congress.

Media members.

Across America.

This foreign organization. Is also funded by the Eurasia Foundation.

Which is a United State government funding apparatus, including the transparency and accountability in public administration services.
And the US agency for international development.

And those are --

GLENN: On USAID. And those are always -- they're known by anybody who pays attention, as CIA fronts.

This is -- you know, the USAID comes into a country. They start doing things.

And next thing we know, we have a revolution on our hand. Because that's the CIA. Correct?

PETER: Absolutely. Well, and they were also funded by the National Endowment for Ten months. Which is absolutely -- it's also --

GLENN: Also. Also on that list of everybody who has participated in a Colour Revolution.

This is crazy!

PETER: So all the usual suspects were here. Funding this organization.

GLENN: Right.

Why Glenn is SHOCKED Hunter Biden Was Found Guilty
RADIO

Why Glenn is SHOCKED Hunter Biden Was Found Guilty

A jury has found Hunter Biden guilty on all 3 federal felony gun charges and Glenn is shocked. Is this proof, as the media is immediately claiming, that our court system was right about Donald Trump too? Or is there still reason to be concerned? And will Hunter serve a prison sentence – up to 25 years – or will his father, President Biden, bail him out again? Joe has promised not to…but Glenn wonders if that will change after the election is over. Glenn and Stu also discuss whether this is just the beginning of Hunter’s legal troubles as rumors start to circulate about his art and possible money laundering…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, it's quite a day! In Wilmington, Delaware, a federal jury has convicted Hunter Biden of federal gun charges.

Historic first for the offspring of a sitting president.

His trial had his ex-wife and his sister-in-law, talking about his drug use.

He faces now up to 25 years in prison. He's not been sentenced yet.

So that's what he faces. Up to 25 years, for three charges: Lying on a federal screening form, about his drug use. That is -- I mean, that is -- I think it even says on the form, this is a federal crime of like 25 years in prison.

You don't lie when you're buying a gun.

Don't do it!

Then lying to a gun dealer, and possessing the gun.

Although, first time non-violent offenders typically get shorter sentences. They'll give him his sentence here soon.

STU: Yeah. It's interesting -- about three weeks, they expect this. Three to four weeks.

Now, that sentence is, you know, one of those situations, that, you know, depends on how long it is.

You're right. First time non-violent offenders. The term is usually not too, too long.

If it's anything longer than let's say five or six months. You would assume despite his denials that Joe Biden will pardon him, the second the election is over. Is that your expectation?

GLENN: Yes. Of course he will. Of course he will.

STU: Yeah. I can't imagine he wouldn't. He's been getting his kid in and out of trouble, for the past 30 years.

GLENN: Yeah. Why would he change his -- you know, his parental habits?

STU: Yeah.

New York Times is reporting, that Hunter Biden's team was feeling, they say bullish about a non-guilty verdict before it was delivered.

So this was a surprise.

One of the interesting reactions to this, Glenn. I would love to get your take on this.

Now the left saying, well, I guess we won't be seeing anything about a rigged jury system, anymore. Today.

Will we?

Obviously, referring to the Trump case, when people were saying the -- the system was rigged.

Although, I don't know -- was that your take on that?

Do you think the system was rigged against -- with the Donald Trump verdict?

GLENN: No. First of all. First of all. I would have said, the system is rigged.

When the Justice Department, you know, colluded with the White House.

And came up with some bogus, you know -- bogus plea deal, that nobody in the world, would have ever gotten.

This is -- now, there's no sentence. It says up to 25 years.

There's no sentence, so we don't know.

You know, but it's -- it -- this is normal.

This is the way it works!

Usually, just usually happens to people, much, much faster than this.

And when -- when Donald Trump was at trial, we weren't saying the system was corrupt. We were saying the system in New York City and Washington, DC, is corrupt.

Because just -- because of the voter base. You can't get a fair trial.

If you're Donald Trump.

But that doesn't mean the whole thing is corrupt.

You know, my point is, you have to play ball, the people in power, in New York, want you to play ball.

That's corrupt.

You know, I -- I think generally, we get it right.

STU: Yeah. I think often that happens.

I still think we have the best system out there.

Even though, there are massive problems with it. Specifically, in this case, when it comes to Donald Trump.

In that, I actually have legitimate hope, that the system. The legal system gets the Trump verdict right. Eventually.

Right?

I don't. I think there's a good chance it gets overturned on appeal. The problem with that, though.

Is that the time line of the legal system in our political system, are not -- are not working together.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: Very well. Unless you happen to be a Democrat.

And of course that is intentional. But I do think that eventually, the court system will probably suss this out.

And I'm not at all surprised that Hunter Biden is guilty in this case. It's pretty blatant. That's overlooking what you just brought up.

They tried to completely brush this under the rug.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The political system tried to get involved in this. Multiple times.

To make sure this didn't occur.

This he got caught. And so now, we have a jury, who actually does come to the right conclusion here.

Obviously, he was guilty of this. So --
GLENN: Yeah. There's no. You know, they weren't saying, you can't bring up this person, to prove that he was innocent.

This was his gun. That is his signature on the paper, where he lied. That is a huge penalty.

Then when his sister-in-law, lover was found that, you know, that his gun was in the glove box. She went and took it.

In a bag, that had cocaine powder in it.

Threw it into a garbage can, behind a supermarket. She should have been charged, quite honestly, as well.

But she took the gun and threw it into a garbage can. Because she was afraid their kids might find it. Well, so you will let somebody else's kids find the gun?

What are you -- you know, there's no --

STU: Not great.

GLENN: There's no question, that this is exactly what happened.

And you didn't have to make up laws, to say, or -- or skirt around whole sections of the law. To get this.

You're just enforcing the law. What's ironic about this, is dad is such the big anti-gun. You know, throw the book at them forever. You know, if they've ever had a cap gun, in their life. And he's going to end up. I truly believe, he will end up pardoning him.

STU: I think he will as well.

Of course, you know, these penalties are for thee, not for me.

And so all of these hard-core, I'm Mr. Tough anti gun guy. This is the exact type of stuff that happen Joe Biden was pushing for.

Larger penalties for these types of actions. I think the best defense for Hunter Biden. Which they didn't really get into on this trial. Probably will come up on appeal. Is a Second Amendment defense.

I don't think it's a winning defense. But I think it's a good argument. The question itself is not properly represented in our histories and traditions.

GLENN: Whether you're an alcoholic and drug addict, and you can't have a gun if you are.

STU: Right.

Like, if you go back and look at the early machinations of that, there's very much, in our histories and traditions. For example, you go into a bar. They take your gun as you go into your bar, and they give it back to you when you leave.

That type of stuff was common. Going back to the -- you know, when guns were first being buried.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Typically it was not one of those things where they would do the same thing if you were an alcoholic. You would never get a gun if you were even sober.

GLENN: Yeah. I think you could even make a really strong case for that.

In saying that, you know, I'm -- I'm a recovering alcoholic. Should I own a gun?

You know, it's -- it's the practicing. Are you using drugs, are you using alcoholic.

We could argue about that. And there might be a case to do it.

However the left would not be for that. The left would be for -- for all alcoholics. No matter in recovery or not. Should own a gun.

STU: And all teetotalers as well.

GLENN: Yeah. And all teetotalers, yeah. But that is not what this case is built on.

This case is built on, you lied. On this federal form.

You cannot lie.

Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that.

STU: And it's true. And it's one of those things that I find this case to be the least interesting part of the Hunter Biden saga.

GLENN: Oh, this is -- yeah.

STU: It might not even be a constitutional question. I don't think there's -- he didn't shoot anybody.

Like, there's a lot -- he should have -- he should be -- the law should apply to him. Like they apply to everybody else. Much more interesting is the tax stuff. The financial stuff. And the stuff that ties into international business dealings that seemingly involve many of his family members. Including maybe his dad. Certainly his dad in my view.

Legally, we don't have that approved yet.

But can I ask one other question. This came up when you were gone, Glenn.

And I've been meaning to ask you about this, every second.

Since we talked about this story.

GLENN: I've never had sex with Hunter Biden.

STU: Oh, okay. You cleared it up.

No. This is the story that came out. And I was -- Pat and I talked about it last week.

And we both said on the air. The only person that we know, that can possibly answer this question is Glenn Beck.

The story is from the New York Times. And it's painted as this like, sob story about how we're so mean to Hunter Biden.

Right?

That's the tone of the story.

The headline is Hunter Biden's paintings, not quite the refuge he sought. The president's son started selling his artwork years ago. Drawing potential ethics concerns that were discussed in congressional testimony this year.

And it goes through a very long, you know, feature about his credible painting.

But it gets into details on the finances that I've never seen. Before.

And if you remember, they were talking about these paintings going for $500,000 a pop.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: In testimony, it came out. They found that actually, the most money he made was 85,000 for any of these paintings.

Okay. Which they -- they -- they hilariously say, is not common for a novice painter.

Really?

It's not common for a novice painter to make 500 or $80,000 on a painting.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But they go through the details here, right?

And they say, all in all, the gallery sold about $1.5 million worth of his art. Okay?

Just thrown in there, with no crinkled eyebrows at all from the New York Times. Is Mr. Biden's earnings proved more modest than the early hype had suggested.

He reported $130,984 in gross income from art sales, during the first two tax years, that he was represented by the gallery.

Then they go on, as if it's nothing. But is this the normal arrangement?

$1.5 million in art sales. Only nets 130,000 to the artist.

He's getting eight percent of the sales. Is that even possible?

GLENN: No. No. No. No.

If you are -- if you are bringing something to the table, which he is. He's bringing fame. He's bringing -- people will come to the art show, just to see him.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You can negotiate for a better rate.

Because I was a new artist. I negotiated with my gallery. 50 percent.

They take 50. I take 50.

Because they're doing work. I'm doing work.

Whatever.

And if you're a new artist, you would do that.

He's a new artist, and this guy is bringing a lot to the table. Hunter is. He's bringing not only the art.

But he's bringing I'm the president's son and I'm in the newspaper. All the time.

So people are coming into this guy's gallery.

However, you know, it might be shady. You know, you -- you're -- I don't -- you know, I don't know. If this was somebody who knew Hunter Biden, who he did. And knew that he was on the up and up.

And everything else. He should not get 8 percent. It would be more likely that he would get hmm.

45, 55 percent.

STU: Yeah. Like I can see, you getting a really good deal with the gallery. Because you also are bringing like some level of notoriety.

Right? And he would have a similar deal. But even if he got half of what you got, it would be much, much more than -- than what's reported here in the New York Times.

GLENN: 8 percent. No. That's ridiculous.

That's ridiculous.

STU: Ridiculous.

GLENN: 8 percent is ridiculous.

He obviously -- if that's the real deal. He obviously made it while smoking crack.
(laughter)
That's -- I mean, honestly, that's ridiculous.

Media Sympathizes With HAMAS After Israel Frees Hostages?!
RADIO

Media Sympathizes With HAMAS After Israel Frees Hostages?!

Israel has freed 4 hostages after 245 days of captivity in Gaza. But despite this, many reports in the media are sympathizing with Hamas at least as much as with the hostages! This is something Glenn and Stu have never seen before. Instead of focusing on the hostages, the reports focus on the damage Israel is doing to Gaza (according to Hamas and other Gaza groups). And some have even complained that Israel didn’t WARN Hamas before the raid! Glenn asks how media outlets can continue to take these stances, even with reports that Hamas is using some of these hostages as slaves!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Wow. The hostages at least four of them, the hostages have been rescued from two different locations during an operation that happened Saturday, during the day.

The medical condition is -- is normal. I guess.

Hamas-run ministry of health in Gaza, said at least $274 Palestinians were killed, and more than 400 injured in the operation.

Gaza Ministry doesn't differentiate between fighters and civilians. So, yeah. Spokesperson for the military, put the figure fewer than 100.

You know, what I really liked is the fact that the -- all the reports start coming out about how bad it was for Hamas.

Dozens of injured people are lying on the ground. And medical teams are trying to save them. With the simple medical capabilities that they have.

Said the Gaza health ministry.

You know what he should have done? He shouldn't have built the headquarters for Hamas underneath your hospital.

You know, might have worked out a little better for you and your people, you know.

STU: Do you think, Glenn? Is there -- and this is not -- I've never been in this situation, so I don't know. Is there a path to avoid bombings, that include not taking hostages?

Is there something about taking the hostages that leads to this -- these --

GLENN: No. Those are totally separated.

STU: Totally separate.

GLENN: Totally. You're talking apples and eggs.

STU: Apples and eggs. Okay.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure.

Because at some level, it almost feels like, when you take hostages and you torture them. And you keep them against their will. And do all these horrible things. That might actually be the reason why the -- the -- the Israelis would come in. I don't know if it's tied.

GLENN: No. Apples and eggs. And I say that, because oranges like apples, come from a tree. And then you can trace their roots down.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But you can't compare that to something that comes right out of the butt of a chicken. And I think that's what this is.

Is -- these guys. You know, the other thing is. You don't want civilians hurt, that don't keep your hostages at civilian homes.

STU: At all.

GLENN: You want us to believe that all the Gazans are also oppressed. And they just don't like Hamas.

Then why are you hold them in people's houses?

By the way, in one case, enslaving them. I think it was a doctor.

And gosh darn it, he was killed.

But he took -- he took one woman, and enslaved her at his house.

Made her -- forced her to take care of the house, and everything else.

Which is a better fate than honestly, what I think a lot of them would get. But I'm not giving them credit for this.

I am now giving them credit to add slavery to the list.

However, he was killed.

She -- she apparently was in the house. The IDF broke through the door. She thought it was Hamas. She freaked out. Just froze.

And they said, we're with the IDF. She didn't believe them. Then one of them came up to her and said, ma'am, we have to get you out of here.

May I throw you over my shoulder? And she started crying because she knew, that's not Hamas. And he threw her over the shoulder, and got her out. And yet, they're the bad guys somehow or another.

I don't get that.

I really liked the comment that I saw on the news, that Israel should have given Hamas some warning, that they were coming in.

Yeah.

Yeah. Me too. Me too. Me too.

STU: Those worked out well. The element of surprise. When you tell people about it. Is always a good part of it.

GLENN: Yeah. I thought it was unfair, on D-Day. Hitler slept through it.

We didn't call him up. And say, hey. This a couple of hours, we're come up, you might want to prepare. We didn't give him any notice. You know.

STU: Yeah. And it's weird. Just because we have many, many reports and such, about how -- what Hamas' directive is -- when -- if someone comes from the IDF. Or Israel should come for the hostages.

Shoot the hostages in the head.

It will be interesting why we wouldn't give them a heads up. Like, hey, we need to get these people shot before we get there. Or you're not going to be living up to your bargain with Hamas.

They're letting Hamas down!

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

And you know what also is interesting?

Is, you know, we didn't give the heads up on D-Day. And nobody says that's wrong.

But then we did give the Japanese ten days of notice, about the bomb.

And named the cities, that we were going to drop it in.

And we still get blamed for that one.

I'm trying to understand.

It seems like, it doesn't matter what you do.

STU: Again, just like the whole thing we were talking about earlier. I don't have any internal knowledge here. But it almost seems like. Seems like, when Americans -- when Jews are involved, that side always gets blamed, no matter what the circumstances are! It can't possibly be that simple.

GLENN: Yeah. Especially the Jews. When the Jews are involved. By the way, any of us the Czech Republic. And do you remember the documentary I did on Kurt Garren, the movie actor from Germany who was Jewish.

He thought he was going to survive it. But he would been making fun of Hitler and the Nazis for like five years before they came to power. No. Not really.

And he was forced to make this propaganda film, at this concentration camp, that they had in this city, and it looked fantastic. I mean, everybody who was anybody in the Jewish -- you know, the scholars, the scientists, the -- you know, orchestral players, et cetera, et cetera.

All the people that the German people might know, they were all set to this one city in Czechoslovakia. It happened to be, I didn't know it when it went. It's right outside of Prague.

And it is terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

It's a city. It's not like a concentration camp. It's like this beautiful, little city. But if what you know they used it for. You're like, oh, my gosh. This is creepy. And people still live there.

They moved in afterwards. And it's almost, you would like it, Stu. Because you and I are fascinated by things like Chernobyl. That have this horrible history. And then they're just vacated for a long time. People just started living back in this city. And it's really -- really weird.

But one thing I noticed. Is that we're doing a lot of the same things that they're doing back then.

Which is, you know, a little bit disturbing.

STU: Disconcerting.

GLENN: Yeah. A little bit. By the way, so we apparently provided support, for the raid.

Do you believe that?

STU: Normally, I would say --

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Yeah. That's like our main -- like that would be the thing.

Especially considering Americans were at stake. American lives are at stake, with the hostage lives as well.

You would think, it would be the main focus of our country right now. To make sure we get our hostages back.

I don't know. Now. It's so strange. I don't understand. Biden seems to be very, very back and forth on this.

Where he will sometimes say things that I think are actually pretty good. And then completely reverse himself, as soon as Ilhan Omar says something. Because I don't believe necessarily that we helped. But also, I don't know why we communicated that to the media, as well. If we didn't help. It doesn't seem to be the message that Biden wants to send.

GLENN: Here's the bigger thing.

Would Israel take our help, for something like this?

One leak, and it would have been all over. One leak.

STU: Yeah. Would you trust?

GLENN: You're going to bring the United States military and Intel into that world, and trust them to keep their mouths quiet?

No way. I don't believe it. I think Israel said that.

You know, to -- you know, kind of keep up the pretense that we're all in this together. But I would be shocked, if it was the administration that said, yeah.

Let's do this together. And let's keep it quiet. And it kept quiet.

STU: It's possible, we gave some guidance as to where they thought they were. Maybe some surveillance that supported the operation.

But you're right. I think as far as telling them, when it was going to happen. I mean, just think of every schlocky intern that works for the Biden administration.

But there's so many of these advisers that are so anti-Israel.

Even if you believe Biden is an old-school Democrat, and has some friendliness to Israel still.
Even if you buy that. You buy that he's Chuck Schumer, 1997. If you want to believe that, or Joe Biden 1997. He's changed so many times.

But like, if you believe that, maybe you would think, he would still be in favor of this.

But you can't trust any of the people around him. I mean, they're -- they're all like 28-year-old bloggers.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. And the Intel agency, which is hand in hand now, with the State Department. And none of those people want to do anything for Israel.

I just -- I would find it -- I would find it irresponsible, on Israel's part, to include anyone in the Biden administration.

Into their plans. Other than, hey. Would you help us do some surveillance -- you know, satellite surveillance.

Sure. When? Well, we just started the operation about 15 minutes ago. And here's what we would like to you surveil. You know what I mean?

Because that's the way some countries will do that with their allies. We start a war. We'll start something, and we'll call them up, just as we're launching the war, so there's nothing they can do to stop it or hurt it.

STU: Yeah, and, of course, that would be certainly a main concern of Israel.

I will say, Glenn. Have you ever seen another example. I couldn't come up with one off the top of my head.

But another example in history, where you have an operation. A wartime operation, to free hostages, that the -- the side that freed the hostages, is the one getting criticism.

I can't -- I can't think of another example.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Ever. Like you mentioned the camps.

Like, you know, we killed a lot of innocent Germans in our effort to see free the camps.

Right? Like, a lot of them.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Maybe more than we actually freed. That was never -- that's something we make movies about, to honor the memory of those efforts.

You didn't criticize the army that's going in there freeing the hostages. Immediately after this, there were like four hostages freed. But the Gazans said 200 people were killed.

Like we're supposed to compare those numbers and say, oh, well, 200 was more than four.

So the Gazans said it, so we believe it.

GLENN: And even if it is true. Even if it is true.

By the way, you were keeping those four in the homes of regular people.

You're the one putting them in danger! You're the ones that built the -- the -- the infrastructure underneath the hospital.

You did it, because you like human shields.
That's why there's -- that's why they're there. So any of that stuff is just garbage.

Alex Jones & Glenn Beck WARN: Trump is the Next Lawfare Target
RADIO

Alex Jones & Glenn Beck WARN: Trump is the Next Lawfare Target

In a surprise move, Alex Jones has agreed to liquidate his ownership of Infowars. He joins as a guest on the Glenn Beck Program for the first time to explain why: Just a few days ago, according to Alex, the chief restructuring officer overseeing Infowars after his $1.5 billion Sandy Hook case “got so desperate” that he tried to go around the court and seize Infowars. But this is just the latest stage in a massive series of lawfare attacks against him, Glenn and Alex believe, which also included an attempt to get Alex to “sell out” and let a board control Infowars. So, why are they trying to destroy him? Glenn argues that Alex was the guinea pig for the Left’s lawfare machine that it’s now turning against former president Donald Trump...and then, against the American people. So, what’s next for Infowars? Why did they try to silence him NOW? And is the Left now beta-testing a new kind of attack that’s “outside the law?”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This weekend, I read that Alex Jones is having to divest himself of Infowars, released his share in it.

I don't know what that exactly means. He also said that the feds were going to seize it, if he didn't do something.

I read that yesterday.

We wanted to have Alex Jones on.

We have a podcast planned in September. So I want to kind of keep this narrow here, on what's going on, with him. Because I think this is -- I think this is -- he was the guy, the left tried law fare out on.

You know, the -- the early days of boycott, Sharyl Attkisson said, that trying to get somebody off a network and mainstream media. They tried to perfect that on me.

I was their -- their first real to guinea pig.

I think Alex Jones was the first guinea pig in lawfare. And it's exactly the same thing that's happening to Donald Trump now.

This is -- this is the way they're going to fight in the future.

And if anybody thinks.

You know, whatever you think of Alex Jones. What he said. He's apologized for.

And he said, he shouldn't do it. Their damages. I don't know.

But certainly, not 1.5 billion. What is Dr. Evil.

Was he in the jury box.

What the hell was that?

$1.5 billion. We talk to Alex Jones.

So, Alex. What -- what is going to happen now?

Because I read you are going to sale your assets. But if you sell. There's nothing left.

And, you know, who is going to -- honestly, Infowars without you, is nothing.

You are the asset of Infowars. So what -- what do you have -- are they forcing you to sell all of this stuff?

ALEX: Yes. And thanks for letting me give you the backstory so it makes sense.

So I told you exactly what is happening. Okay. I'm an LLC sole proprietorship. And so I own 100 percent of the shares of the company. That's why under law, the CRO cannot just shut this place down.

That's illegal. And so that's what my lawyers have told them. So I agree to pay 55 million over ten years. Which is protected. What extra revenue there would be. They said, no.

We want a board. We want to control what he says.

This is in meetings he had. But I couldn't talk about it, until outside of me, they now told my lawyers, a few weeks ago.

Right to their faces. My lawyers said, you can talk about it now. We can't believe it. They want you to start by talking about the Second Amendment.

They wanted me to he sell out.

So they told lawyers. They told Reuters, the most accurate story out there.

Some of it is wrong. It's still pretty much true.

The headline is: Sandy Hook families agree to Alex Jones' bankruptcy liquidation. Well, they had already filed for that.

And then in the article, they say, while liquidation will yield only a fraction of the money he owes the families. They have objected to his proposal, because it would have kept him in control of both Infowars and his wealth for years.

While also tapping the total amount to be paid towards the defamation claim. So they refused. And it goes on, that they wanted to have a board control this place. That they appointed, where I would work with them.

And, of course, if I would play ball. Then, of course, I can make money.

So my operation has been taken over. For whatever reason, they decided to try to shut it down eight days ago, outside of court. Which is totally insane. Because they feel like, well, this guy is a target. And we can do what we want.

And now they're so panicked to get me off the air, for whatever is coming for the rest of the country. So that's what's happening. So what's going to go down is, the judge will either give it back to me on Friday.

And it will just come to the state and shut it down, in a week or quicker. Because Austin is as bad as New York or DC. One of the worst in the country. I'm going to move out of here. Even though my family is from here.

GLENN: Austin is awful.

ALEX: It is. It is. It's all woke. Soros controls the DA on record --

GLENN: Yeah, it's awful.

ALEX: It's totally controlled.

So Infowars will --

GLENN: So hold on. Hold on just a second. I'm sorry to do this to you, Alex. I have to take another network break. Back with Alex Jones to see where he's headed they can say. What his options are.

And where the country is headed. Because of all of this.

Make no mistake. What they did to Trump, they first tried on Alex Jones.

And they will do anything to silence anyone that has impact.

For the first time, I've asked Alex Jones to come on the program.

I know Stu heard inklings of this last week, and did probably about 20 minutes of tremendous defense of -- of you, Alex. On this whole case.

Being just nothing, but -- just a show trial. That's all it is.

What they did to Donald Trump. They first tried out on you. And they're still going for it.

So I don't understand how a judge could suggest that we violate your First Amendment right, by forcing you to not talk about the Second Amendment. I don't know how that's even possible.

But is this something that they suggested, will stop demanding the billion dollars, billion and a half dollars, if you let us control what you say and don't say?

ALEX: Yes. Before I got sued, now six years ago, I was in DC for meetings. And I had meetings with some of the Bilderberg members. Some major billionaires. I'm sure you got reached out to by as well, when you were exposing Soros and trailblazing on Fox, before they targeted you. And they literally would beat around the bush. And say, well, this major billionaire, richest man at the world around the time, he wants to give you $50 million a year for a free speech foundation. And you can still do your show, if you just talk to us about, you know, cleaning up what you do. And so it was all thinly veiled payoffs.

And then when I wouldn't do it, that's when they cooked all this up. And the project veritas spin-off group. FBI. CIA agents all admitted, bragging how they engineered all this.

And then, again, even in the Sandy Hook show trial case, they got the FBI agent up, won $95 million from me. I never said his name. Didn't knew who he was, until he sued me.

And he said, the reason he was suing, was one person called him office, that was real one time. But he admitted that he basically helped organize, organize all of this. So as we said before on the break. This is all about targeting the American people.

But even in Connecticut and Texas. This is all on TV. This is all on the record.

The lawyers for the case, this all worked for high-powered Democratic law firms. The same ones suing you on Musk right now.

They went on TV at press conferences when they won. Because the judge already said they won.

But definitely on our show trial.

Never sent Alex Jones money. Don't buy his products. We don't want money. We want to shut him down.

And so they make good on this. The judge is appointed by Trump.

He's just following the law. They won't settle.

So they have this judgment.

And so he said, he was just kicking back in the state court.

Which they'll just instantly grab on operations. Or they have to settle. And they just admitted in the newspapers, they don't want money.

He's a bad person. We want him off-air. They're so arrogant. Just like what we see with AOC, and a bunch of other Democrats last month. Say, we have to keep Trump in court, so he can't campaign.

And said, it's an ankle bracelet. So they're so pained. But also a mix of hubris at the same time. They're admitting what they're doing.

That's what -- what -- is so crazy.

STU: But, Alex, they can't -- I mean, maybe they can.

They can't hold a judgment, that you have no way to ever pay. Nobody -- no individual -- you know, unless you're Bill Gates.

Is paying $1.5 billion in a judgment.

Especially this one.

And I contend. No matter what, Bill Gates could have been on pedophile island, on TV. Doing whatever he was doing.

And he still wouldn't have to pay 1.5 billion, for that.

And I'm obviously not saying he was doing anything on pedophile island.

I'm just making that as an example.

Anyway, so they can't keep -- they can't force you to not make any money at what you do for a living. Can they? For the rest of your life?

JULIO: No, you're totally right. They're showing they don't want money.

But let me just explain this quickly. One week after they won the fake show trial, where the judge already said I was guilty. She issued an order, to seize all my assets. Even stuff under the Texas Constitution on my house. That was protected. And immediately ordered me to, quote, bring all my property and my keys to Connecticut or face imprisonment. That's why I had to file bankruptcy, hoping the federal courts would be better. So the last two years, I've been battling there. Then they got so desperate eight, nine days ago. Two Fridays ago, to literally have the federally appointed COO close the and building kick me out. So that's the level of this.

And that's why I go back to this, Glenn. This is totally desperate. You're absolutely right. They beta tested getting people off networks with you. They bragged about it.

They made a test against the law fare against me for Trump. Now they're beta testing, just grabbing stuff outside of law. That's -- this is just -- it's probably said a thousand times.

They're not trying to get me. They're trying to get through me, to get to you.

And that's why -- I'm a canary in the coal mine. They take me in the big audience. I'm also flamboyant. I've been on here thirty years, and you can dredge up some stuff and make me look nuts.

Because I have said I wasn't joking around or whatever, being a jerk. That I'm a different guy.

That's taught me a lot. Before this, I was already cleaning up my act. But now, I'm like a totally different gray-haired attitude, who just tries to do a professional show.

And these people are so wild-eyed they don't care. So I appreciate you standing up for the first Amendment. I don't know where I'll be. I haven't entertained other jobs.

I've tried to save this. I feel like I have a family member that's on death's bed. People can find me @RealAlexJones on X.

And, you know, they've said they will hunt me down, and try to shut me down. No matter where I go.

But the law is very clear in Texas, and federally.

I will be able to work for somebody in the future. Glenn, with this billion and a half dollar fake judgment, I won't be able to ever own the company, which is fine with me.

But here's the larger issue. We still have appeals at the state of Texas and Connecticut. And even part of the judge's ruling, taking the law license of my lawyer, who did a good job, as a criminal lawyer. The Supreme Court of appeals, overturned, her -- her suspension of his law license.

So people are starting to wake up. Mark Twain said a lie goes halfway around the world, before the truth puts its pants on.

But once the truth puts its pants on, it tends to win, and catch up. So people are getting this danger now. And if we can just get Trump in, if we can just not let them stage a race war and all this stuff, that they're trying to cook up.

And conservatives. You just pray, and be focused and be vocal. And just move forward and stay non-violent in the face of a mostly peaceful summer. That we know is coming. We're going to take this country back if we have to.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. It's already happening in Europe.

Alex, one thing. I want you to look -- have your lawyer look into a case. Disney against digital -- not Digital Angel. It was. It became Angel Studios. What was that thing called Stu?

STU: VidAngel.

GLENN: Look for a court case against VidAngel and Disney. They said that they were going after VidAngel over copyright, but they weren't.

They were going after them. It was a personal vendetta. A lot like this. Disney was going to put these people out of business, forever.

And the court appointed a restructuring. Because Disney won.

And the guy who came in said, one of you is lying.

Either Disney is lying. And they just want to put you out of business. And they just want total control.

Or you're lying. But when I find out which one it is. I'm going back to the judge.

And the judge ruled against Disney, and changed everything. Okay?

You -- you could prove.

Just look at that case.

Because I think if you have somebody who is intent as you're restructuring. Their job is to not put you out of business.

Their job is to restructure and get their clients, or their people they're supposed to be working for, money.

If this -- if their intent is to shut you up. I bet you, the Disney versus VidAngel court case, may help you.

ALEX: That's why I love listening to your show. And that's why I love being here. Because, Glenn, I would have never thought of that. One of my lawyers did -- did basically file something a year and a half ago to the judge.

Saying, look, here's the video. Here's the links where they say they don't want money. They're here to shut him down.

And then the judge said, I'll hear that later. But I think it's time to add Disney versus VidAngel with that. We have them saying. We have like 20 minutes of them saying in the courthouse, in front of a huge --

GLENN: They can't do that.

ALEX: Saying, this is not about money. We want him off the air. Boom. There you go. That's genius. Thank you so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you, Alex. And we will sit down for a longer conversation. When I get back to Texas in September. So I appreciate it.

Thank you so much. God bless.

ALEX: Thank you so much, Glenn. God bless you.

GLENN: By the way, I would -- look, I stood for Bill Maher, when he was fired in ABC, and what I said at the time was, what part of politically incorrect ABC do you not understand?

They fired him because he said something politically incorrect. I took a lot of heat.

It was new in my career, and people didn't trust me as a conservative then.

And I started sticking up for Bill Maher.

And I took a lot of heat. But it was right, because it was about the First Amendment.

I did the same thing for Roseanne Barr. I did the same thing for, what was his name? James Gunn. The guy who was the writer/director of Guardians of the Galaxy. You cannot only stand up for the people you agree with.

You must stand up for those people you disagree with.

Otherwise, the First Amendment, second. All of the amendments, mean nothing.

I -- I don't care what you think of Alex Jones. And I say this to every conservative outlet.

You should stand by the case of Alex Jones.

To make sure this injustice. Because this is law fare. And if you think they won't do it to you.

You are sadly mistaken. And unless, each one of us, at each of our own locations, stand up, and say, this is an injustice!

This is wrong. They'll put each one of us out of business. And silence us.

And it will happen faster than you can imagine.

I challenge every podcaster. Every radio broadcaster.

To stand up and defend the right for a man to be able to speak.