RADIO

CORONAVIRUS GOES PC: Name changed to Covid19 because... racism?

If the Coronavirus wasn't scary enough, now it gets PC so as to not be so racist towards China. The new name – "Covid 19", is apparently less racist against Asians somehow so that's what we're rolling with now. The Media usually blows up "pandemic" stories… however, much less so this time. Should that make us scared? If that doesn't, maybe these facts will:

  • China says normal surgical masks won't work, need heavier ones
  • It spreads through eye contact and pipes (like in apartments)
  • It can live for 9 days on surfaces
  • You can get it more than once
  • Chinese using drones for quarantine now
  • Could spread to 60% of world according to The Guardian
  • Sky News says "greater global threat than terrorism"
RADIO

SCANDAL: Glenn EXPOSES Choco Taco ice cream AND the lottery

Klondike shocked the world earlier this week with the announcement that its famous ‘Choco Taco’ ice cream treat would be discontinued. But there seemed to be more to the story, so Glenn dug into the details and found the end of Choco Tacos may be thanks to one of our favorite far-left corporations: Unilever. He explains it all in this clip, PLUS he and the guys explain why the Mega Millions lottery (or, really, all lotteries) are a SCAM as well...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to tell you, I'll give you an update on the Choco Taco scandal. Klondike has now decided to drop Chaco Tacos, and they won't make them anymore. I think this is due to their racism against those people that come across the border, or who like tacos. But they're not going to make them. And yesterday, I was pretty upset. Stu was too.

STU: I am still very upset, about this development.

GLENN: I luckily -- I luckily have a crack investigative team. In this case, well, it was me. But I get to the hard hitting facts here. I want you to know, Chaco Taco, not made by Klondike. Choco Taco is a Unilever. Unilever product. Okay?

STU: Well, but Klondike is owned by Unilever. So, yes. It's actually still made by Klondike.
(laughter)

GLENN: Okay. If you want to -- if you want to play these word games. I'm sorry. Inflation is -- starts with two quarters of -- of decline of our GDP. That's -- that's what it is, Stu. You want to change the language, go ahead. Anyway, evil Unilever, you're never going to want to Choco Taco again. Let me give you some headlines from Bloomberg. Unilever CEO sees Biden victory as a positive for climate change. And plans to detail the carbon footprint of all of its products, including Choco Tacos. Next headline. Meet the next George Soros. Unilever's Paul Pullman uses corporate weight to push progressive causes and globalism. Next headline, food and consumer goods, giant Unilever suspends all imports and exports of products to Russia, including Chaco Taco. Next headline, top ten contributors to the Clinton campaign. The CEO and the guy who started Unilever. That's right. That's right.

STU: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: He is also an advocate for the two-state solution. Next headline, UN climate conference sponsor Unilever is among the world's biggest plastic polluters. That's right. I think part of Chaco Taco is made of plastic.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: And Unilever continues to work in Iran, while targeting Facebook for divisiveness. Those -- that's all funded -- all of that hate funded by you, desiring and buying a Choco Taco. I say, I'm glad they're dead.

STU: Glenn, if -- if Unilever directly and intentionally released the monkey pox virus, I would still buy Choco Tacos.

GLENN: Yes. I'm not saying boycott them.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: I'm not saying that. Okay? I'm just saying, they're dead to me. But I can't live without Chaco Taco. All right. The next one. I would like to talk to you and Pat about the U.S. Mega Millions. Nobody won. And now the jackpot is just over one billion dollars. And I -- I just would like to talk about the scam element of the Lotto. And that is, I think it says everything we need to know about the American people. No one takes the billion dollars. They always take the cash payout.

STU: Uh-huh. Which is a scam in and of itself. That they advertise it as a billion dollars. And then there's a whole the different number for what people actually get.

PAT: It's a lot lower.

STU: This one is under 6.25. So 40 percent.

PAT: 40 percent.

GLENN: So you're leaving $400 million on the table. I think this says that the American people are saying two things. Yeah. I don't think the state is going to be able to be around that long. Thirty years. No way. They'll never -- I'll only get less than half of it. So I might as well take less than half now. And just enjoy myself.

The other thing it says, is possibly, and Stu brought this up. Inflation, our belief in inflation.

STU: Yeah. Maybe the belief that this inflation, not all that transitory. Because, you know, they're thinking themselves, like, oh. That payment we're giving these people at 30 years. It's going to be worth nothing. It will be like $12 we're paying them, at the end of this time. It will say $6 million. But that 6 million-dollar payment will be worth 15 cents to the average American today. People are like, I know what happens here. I know you're printing money constantly. So why wouldn't I take the money now, and at least get some interest and investment on it? I really think that's the calculation a lot of people are making.

GLENN: But, you know, you are thinking -- with all -- because is there a lotto winner that has not destroyed themselves?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Somebody who has won the Lotto, and is like, I'm going to buy up a really fancy trailer now. And they just blow all their money on hookers and trailers, I think. And a nice car. I'm going to get -- I'm going to get a Ford Explorer.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And so they blow it on really fancy cars like that. And before you know it, they're broke. Is there no one who doesn't have the common sense that says, I don't think I can manage that money, so I'll take it a year at a time. So I never -- for 30 years, I never have to worry about money. There's nobody that says that?

STU: I think some do. I don't think it's everybody takes the cash payment. But the overwhelming majority of people do. And I think a financial adviser would say, well, you can take all this money. You can throw it in investments. You can make five, 10 percent a year. And it will be worth more than this long-time payout.

GLENN: Will it be worth 40 percent more?

STU: These are people who are trying to get you to manage their money. Your money. So like, they're like, yeah. Of course, we'll get 10 percent. Every year, it will be worth a lot more. I will be skeptical of that. I would also be terrified of having that much money, at one given time. I honestly wouldn't know -- I wouldn't know what to do with it. Honestly it would take research for me to even figure out what I should actually do with that much money. I mean, the only -- the only -- you're only protected from $250,000 per account, right? In the bank. So you'll -- you'll have to do all sorts of stuff, to -- to protect that money. You would think, you're right, Glenn. Like, getting a check. I think it starts with -- I was just reading this. The first check comes at a million dollars. And then it escalates each year. I think maybe it starts at 1.5 million, and escalates each year. And by the end, it is over 6 million. Like in the end, 30 years.

GLENN: See, I just don't. So it will keep up with inflation?

STU: I mean, that's what they're saying, right? Do you believe that? I certainly don't.

GLENN: I just don't believe a 30-year payout from any government entity, is ever going to be paid out. To your advantage.

STU: Yeah. If you have a pension, do you believe, that you're going to be getting all that money? I mean, I think a lot of people don't, that are in that position.

GLENN: So do you pay -- do you pay -- when they take out the 600 -- is it -- no. $400 million, out of this billion. You still have to pay taxes, on the 600 million. So you're probably only getting 300 --

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Only getting. But you -- that's really only 300 million.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. That's --

GLENN: I mean, how do you make ends meet on that?

PAT: You don't. You can't.

STU: This is the problem. This is how they get away with it. And the -- the initial payout for the full option is $602.5 million. And everyone says, well, I mean, I know. They said they were going to give me a billion. But I'm only going to get 600 million. What am I going to do, complain about 600 million? And then you pay taxes, much of it going back to the same source, you supposedly won the money from.

PAT: Then you're down to about 350. Three hundred fifty million.

STU: 350 million. And then you say, well, I'm still getting $350 million, and that's true. However, they've scammed you out of 70 percent of the money that they supposedly were giving you.

PAT: Yeah. It's a scam.

GLENN: Can you imagine having any other product being able to get away with that kind of scam? Where 70 percent of what you -- they said, they were going to give to you, is gone.

STU: They would be dragging the false advertising cord. Like, think of some shady supplement, that makes big claims about healing your diseases. Or whatever. Even when they don't directly say it. It will be like, well, take this. And it will help X, Y, and Z. And it will solve all these big health problems. They get dragged all the time.

GLENN: So like the coronavirus vaccine then? That's what we're talking about.

STU: Of course, Glenn. That was exactly the point I was making. Thank you for bringing it up.

GLENN: You're welcome.

STU: But like, this happens all the time. People have been stopped from -- from producing products for the rest of their lives. Because they go on to shady cable channels, and run advertisements for --

GLENN: You don't have to be -- you don't have to be shady, Stu. You've got -- you've got 60-second ads. Where they are forced to say, you might die from this erection.

STU: Right. I mean, that's true.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

STU: All of this, and they don't have to say anything. It's a billion dollars. It's pretty exciting. Then very small print underneath, it says, actually, it's only 600 million. And then you pay taxes. And you're down to 300 million. Plus, of course, every time -- if you just let that money sit in the bank. And it gets your .1 percent interest, you might be getting. When that money comes in, you'll have to pay taxes on that too. And then when you spend the money, you'll have to get taxed on -- when you buy that yacht, you'll have to get another sales tax, on top of it.

GLENN: Here's one of the changes, I want to -- because I don't want a great reset. I want a great reboot. So we just turn the machine off. And turn the machine on again. Okay? And all the bugs. And we reset to the original programming. Here's something that drives me out of my mind. My -- my house tax, and my property tax, I never really owned my property. Ever.

STU: No.

GLENN: Ever. I mean, I could pay my property off. But I don't really own it. And if I don't pay my income tax, I lose my house. This is -- that's a total --

PAT: It's a scam. It's a scam.

GLENN: That's bigger than the lotto.

PAT: And then -- and then on top of that, when you die, now they'll stick you with another tax. Because you died, we'll take half of everything you accumulated when you were alive. It's so immoral and wrong. I -- I don't know how we've allowed them to get away with it.

GLENN: No. And it all -- all it does is keep the people who have vast sums of money. It keeps them in power and wealth. Because they're never going to -- there's no retro. You're grandfathered in. If your grandfather was Nelson Rockefeller, don't worry about it. You have money for the rest of your life. And your children and children's children lives. But we have to stop these people, from being able to gather money and do this. You know, do exactly what we've done for generations now

RADIO

CLOSE CALL? Why the FBI stopped China's park project in DC

In 2017, the Chinese government offered to spend $100 MILLION dollars to build a park in Washington, D.C. The ‘ornate Chinese garden’ was planned to be at the National Arboretum, CNN reports, and the project ’thrilled local officials.’ But there’s something about China offering such a nice gesture that should IMMEDIATELY raise alarms. Thankfully, US counterintelligence officials took a deeper look. In this clip, Glenn details the spooky details they found that suggest China was up to something much more sinister than sharing Chinese culture with America' capital city...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So this is -- this is great. Now, the Chinese, the FBI has just figured out, there might be some things going on with the Chinese. And it's like, wait a minute. Wait a minute. What do you mean? Ancient Chinese secret? There is something going on here with -- with a Chinese project, the Chinese offered to build, in Washington, DC. They said, it's going to bring all kinds of tourists to. And they wanted to build, I -- up -- a beautiful, ornate Chinese garden at the National Arboretum in Washington, DC. And it would have temples and pavilions and the 70-foot wide pagoda. And it was thrilling. All the local officials were like, that is so exciting. And then the FBI started looking into it. And they found a couple of red flags. The pagoda, they noticed, would be strategically based on one of the highest points in Washington, DC. Just 2 miles from the U.S. Capitol. And they said, that's kind of the perfect spot for -- you know, for gathering intelligence in -- in communications. To grab everybody's intelligence communication. And so they thought, that -- that might not be bad. And then the other thing that the Chinese were like, what? What? What's the problem? They wanted to build the pagoda with materials shipped to the US, in diplomatic pouches. So when you put something in a diplomatic pouch. It can't be searched in customs. Now, what could they possibly bring in -- I bet it was fish. Have you been to a country, where -- where you eat a lot of fish? And did you bring any fish on this trip? I bet it was fish. I bet it was fish, Stu. They killed the project. And canceled the -- the -- the garden. Which is, you know, very, very -- very nice. But, you know, the -- the Chinese are purchasing land all over the country. Which, you know, I don't think that's -- FBI uncovered Chinese-made Huawei equipment. Atop cell towers near a U.S. military base, in the rural Midwest. They said, that's kind of a problem, when they checked with strategic command. Because apparently, it could just block our -- our nuclear communication. And that might also be -- may be -- may be a problem. Former officials described the probe's finding as a watershed moment. The investigation was so secret, that some policy makers in the White House. Stu, you're doing a -- you're doing a secret dive into China. You don't want anyone to know. Because, you know, the cat gets out the bag. China can do anything. It's senior officials at the White House, didn't even know. Do you think that Joe and Hunter Biden might have been on that list of, hey. Just don't tell them. We tell everybody else in the White House, don't tell them what we're doing with China.

STU: The president is on a need to know basis?

GLENN: Yeah. Need to know. Need to know. And he definitely does not need to know. In 2020, Congress approved $1.9 billion to remove Chinese-made Huawei cellular technology. Two years later, yeah. They just can't find the money to do it. Gosh darn it. You know, none of the equipment is removed, and it's still there. And they're just waiting for reimbursement money. And they could get it country done. The FCC applications to remove 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made communications equipment. They can't do. Because they can't -- they -- they can't raise the money. They're $3 billion short at the FCC. And there's like, what? Where did I put that $3 billion.

By the way, we send more money over to Ukraine, this weekend. So I know that's really good. China has also issued a stark private warning to the Biden administration, about a possible trip to Taiwan in August by Nancy Pelosi. They have cited six people familiar with the Chinese warnings, that say, they are significantly stronger than the threats that Beijing has made in the past, when it was unhappy. The private rhetoric suggests a possible military response, according to the Financial Times. The White House security council, and State Department, declined to comment on the report. China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for a comment on Sunday. So I'm trying to think, besides insider trading, why is it so important for Nancy Pelosi to go to Taiwan? Just wondering.

STU: Food?

GLENN: Okay. Sure. If you're president -- you know, I don't want to back off of Taiwan, but, I mean, unless it's critical, that we're over there in Taiwan -- and I don't think it is with Nancy Pelosi. I mean, if it was somebody good, that we were sending over there. But Nancy doesn't even what an she's talking about. Here's what we do. You don't have to be as sophisticated as Mission Impossible. You don't. You just put her on a main. Drop her in, you know, a tropical location. Have somebody that looks different, just not white. Speaks another language. It doesn't have to be Taiwanese or Chinese. And just tell her she went to Taiwan.

STU: You don't think she would pick that one up? I mean, it seems like her and her husband were so drunk, they wouldn't necessarily recognize the difference.

GLENN: Yeah. She is a little -- I mean, just a little hammered seeming, during the day.

STU: She seems hammered. He's been charged with it. Right? You know, he's got the DUI on -- on -- on his docket.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: So I think just the combination of the two, her appearance, his -- his actual seemingly DUI, dangerous, almost killing somebody accident. Those two combined, they'll probably believe almost anything.

GLENN: Right. Right. All right. All right. I say we do it. Send them over. By the way, there's a great -- great essay done by John Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead from the Rutherford Institute on technology. And they say, we are now crossing the line of no return. We are -- we are at this line. We are on the cusp of a cultural, technological, and societal revolution. The likes of which we have never seen before. While the political left and right continue to make abortion the face of the debate, over the right to privacy in America, the government and its corporate partners aided by rapidly advancing technology are reshaping the world, into one which there is no privacy at all. Nothing that was once private, is protected. We have not even gun to register the fallout from this tsunami, baring down on us in the form of artificial intelligence surveillance. And yet, it is already reorienting our world, into one in which freedom is almost unrecognizable. AI surveillance harnesses the power of artificial intelligence, and widespread surveillance technology, to do what the police state lacks the manpower and resources to do effectively, or efficiently. To be everywhere. To watch everyone. Everything. Monitor. Identify. Catalog. Cross-check. Cross-reference. And clued. Everything that was once private, is now up for grabs, for the right buyer. Governments and corporations alike, have heedlessly adopted AI surveillance technology without any care or concern for their long-term impact on the rights of citizenry. As a special report from the Carnegie endowment for international peace warns, a growing number of states are deploying advanced AI surveillance tools, to monitor, track, and surveil citizens, to accomplish a range of policy objectives. Some lawful, others violating human rights. Most fall into the murky middle ground. Indeed, with every new AI surveillance technology, that is adopted and deployed. Without any regard for policy. Fourth Amendment rights, and due process. Want rights of citizenry, are being marginalized, undermined. And eviscerated. Digital authoritarianism. As a center for strategic and international studies cautions, involves the use of information technology, to surveil, repress, manipulate the populace. Endangering human rights and civil liberties. And co-opting and corrupting the foundational principles of a Democratic and open society. Including freedom of movement. The right to speak freely, and express political dissent. And the right to personal privacy on and offline. Now, in this article, I'll go into it more tomorrow. But it is fascinating to me. They say, there are nine steps, nine elements of the Chinese model of digital authoritarianism. So see how many we have done. Dissidents suffer from persistent cyber attacks. And phishing. I know we've had that. Social media websites and messaging apps are blocked. That's happened. Posts that criticize government officials are removed. Haven't had it with officials. But had it on policy. Mobile and internet access revoked as punish not for activism. Haven't had that yet. Paid commentators drown out government criticism. Oh, I think that's happened. New laws tighten regulations on online media. Not yet.

Citizen's behavior monitored via AI and surveillance tools. Absolutely. Individuals regularly arrested for posts critical of the government. No. And, nine, online activists are made to disappear.

STU: Oh. You know --

GLENN: Not yet.

STU: Glenn, it's interesting, a lot of those that you said, have not occurred, have occurred. But just not through the government. Right? We have seen people get kicked off for comments they've made about others. And lose their access to their business. To their banking system, and all of this. For -- for whatever their business does, or comments that they have made. Just, that hasn't come from the government. It's sort of the approach that you outline in the Great Reset, where it comes from not the great government, but an arrangement over it, or not, between the government, or people who just share the ideology of -- of those in power. And then execute those punishments outside of law. It's -- it's just something. And they're able to do it. It just has not been American tradition. We've always given people even access to, you know, simple things like banking regardless of your political opinion. That has changed. And it hasn't come through the government, through the law. Where I think it will be clearly unconstitutional. It's come instead, from these companies doing it on their own. But the effect is the same on the people who are impacted.
(music)

GLENN: Yeah. And it's hard to know where the government ends, and where these private companies begin. You know, when the White House is saying, we're in touch with social media. And telling them which sites or which voices need to be turned down, is the government -- is -- is Twitter and Facebook, is that all a tool of the government? Is the government a tool of Facebook and Google? I don't know. I don't know where one ends and one begins.

Shorts

Are White House economists learning from Kamala?!

GLENN: The White House says, yeah. There's -- there's the big recession number coming out this week. But they said, even if it hits, you know, the second quarter of negative growth. That doesn't mean a recession. And I would say, that's the textbook definition of a recession. And they said, well, but no. Not this time. Not this time. It's just slowing down, so it can start going faster. And I thought, you talk to Kamala Harris for that one, didn't you?

RADIO

Time for ANSWERS on US money to Ukraine, alleged corruption

President Biden — and those in his cabinet — have Ukraine on the brain. In fact, far-left leaders have been ‘obsessed’ with Ukraine since the Obama years, Glenn explains. But back in 2014, Ukraine was considered to be a corrupt nation that needed our help rooting out the deceit (at least, that’s what they told us). But now, Congress continues to funnel hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars to Ukraine, with practically no oversight to how it’s being spent. Why are we writing them what seems to be a blank check? Is Ukraine still corrupt? Is President Zelenksyy an honest leader? It’s time for ANSWERS. In this clip, Glenn discusses all those questions, plus he’s joined by Rep. Spartz — who is from Ukraine — to give her thoughts as well…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Biden and the people surrounding him in his cabinet, have Ukraine on the brain. Since at least Obama's second term. They're obsessed with Ukraine. I think Ukraine is a giant cash cow for those who are corrupt. Back in 2014, Ukraine was in need of some good old-fashioned United States savings. And Ukrainians were rebelling against the Russians. The Russian-aligned government, all on their own. But Obama and Biden were experiencing a major case of fear of missing out. So they just had to get involved. And so we did. And it drew everyone in the U.S. State Department, national security apparatus, and even George Soros to Ukraine. You see, back then, Ukraine was considered corrupt. Their leers, corrupt. The oligarchs, corrupt. Ultra, mega corrupt. So naturally Joe Biden's son jumps right into bed with them. And the media and political elite find no issues with this whatsoever. Sure, it's a corrupt country. I mean, Obama and Biden's stated goal was to root that corruption out, between the government and the oligarchs. But the vice president's son, going to work for Burisma was just fine. Nothing to see here. For over a decade, the story from western governments, has been that Ukraine is a corrupt government. And we can save them. But up until February 2022, it hadn't been resolved yet. Now, speaking about not being resolved. Did we ever hear. The $1.8 billion, that went missing in the bowels of PrivatBank? That was our money, by the way. Our tax dollars. Did anybody in the mainstream media, nail that down? Did Congress? I ask this question, because congress has now greenlit $54 billion in taxpayer funding to Ukraine, to fight out the Russians -- and what was it? 8 billion already was sent. And then on Friday, they announced another 270 million. Let's just put it into perspective. That's a lot of money! Where is it all going? Why are we writing them a blank check? Can we at least get a final verdict on whether the Ukrainian government is corrupt. I think I speak for the majority of the country, when I say the Biden administration's signals are a little bit mixed up here. We're a bit confused. Wasn't corruption the main focus of our health back in 2014. Isn't that why George Soros swooped in, and now everything's okay? They couldn't keep track of 1.8 billion, and we give them 60 billion? Let me ask you this: I find it interesting, that president Zelinsky recently revoked the citizenship of the Ukrainian oligarch, Kolomoisky. When Biden was VP, Kolomoisky was the principal holder of both Burisma, which his son worked for, and PrivatBank. The one that lost the 1.8 billion. Now, he had previously been on a U.S. Visa ban, over his involvement with the hired thugs, that actually used chainsaws to behead people. But Biden made sure he had his Visa ban lifted so he could come to the United States. And it gets more interesting. As if this is the time that both Biden and John Kerry were lobbying for a 1.8 billion aid package to Ukraine. That aid money went to Kolomoisky's PrivatBank, and then disappeared. Allegedly, it was channeled into a money laundering scheme, through a bank in Cypress. And then went to various shell companies. Now he's also the governor of eastern Ukraine. Funding a near private war, between Ukrainian militias and Russia's. Now, whether he's doing that with his money or someone else's, is unknown. Oh, by the way, Kolomoisky, his money is the big reason why Zelinsky got elected. But now that Biden is in office, Zelinsky has revoked the citizenship of his previous friend. Is there any chance that we will find out later, that Joe Biden lobbied for this to happen? If anyone has the receipts on Burisma, PrivatBank, the missing 1.8 billion, and what's going on with this private war between Ukraine and Russia. Kolomoisky would have them. And it's really weird, that now, his citizenship of Ukraine, has been revoked. We want to talk to congresswoman Victoria sparks. She's from Indiana. Hello, congresswoman, how are you?

VICTORIA: Good, how are you?

GLENN: Good. Now, you're from Ukraine. You became a citizen in the year 2000. And you're concerned -- you're concerned about the money we're sending over there.

VICTORIA: Well, let me tell you, and I appreciate actually, became a citizen in 2006. It took me six years, because it's not as fast when you come here illegally. So I came here in 2000. But it takes you a while to become a citizen. But let me tell you. And I might have a little bit different perspective. But I want to separate Ukrainian government from Ukrainian people, and actually army, and die in the trenches. You know, they've been trying to restore freedoms in that country. And fought -- had two revolutions. And they fight this war. And really, want to have freedom. So when I go there and talk to the people. When I talk to the young boys dying on the front lines. You know, it breaks my heart to see how we're mismanaging the situation. And allow them to die, without proper oversight of the government. Because I think it's important for the country like that, to hold governments accountable. And we have to differentiate that. We have very -- Americans. Our government, with much to be desired. So it's not only representation unfortunately for the people. But I think for me to see that. And actually at what Biden is doing. It seems to me, and the money you mentioned, don't go directly to Ukraine. Because there are a lot of things around that. But how he's doing in health -- how he's not overseeing it. It's actually, he's mismanaging Ukraine. And it's either his incompetency on purpose, to allow Russia to advance significantly. It was really concerning for me, when I went to Ukraine, to see, you know, how much power and the people around Zelinsky were able to consolidate his power grab. You know, and we're talking about Kolomoisky and these oligarchs. But if you know the part of that. They actually took citizenship. Not due process or executive order had stolen the border. Someone who is actually in charge of territorial defense of a major city. You know, right in Eastern Ukraine. And the person had nothing to do. He was just lucky enough to meet for half an hour with me. They almost detained from Ukrainian parliament to try to leave the country to believe to the US. Because they weren't going to meet with the U.S. legislature. So this amount of power, and abuse of power, in concentration, it's very dangerous for the country. A country which doesn't have check and balances. Where a judicial prosecutorial branch is controlled by presidents and people around him. A lot of Russian infiltration. A lot of different problems.

So I think this is a valid concern. And a question now, decided to witch hunt, against some Ukrainians that had nothing to do, you know, innocents, because the issues I was bringing up, they actually were brought up by our military people during my (inaudible), and they were brought up by some U.S. companies doing business in Europe, and actually doing business in defense industry. And they have some concern. And it's interesting. Because there's some issues that I didn't want to bring up. Because I know it was reported to the FBI. But it was brought up recently. You know, in Ukrainian newspapers, where this guy, his remakers as I mentioned, his father. At a point, the minister of defense. You know, created a monopoly. Had corporations with Iran and Afghanistan. You know, and sabotaged some of the purchase of the weapons. And had a very interesting connection to Russia, and imported.

So I think it's very dangerous for us, not to deal with properly managed situations. Because if we turn to Ukraine, and not Afghanistan, it's very dangerous for our national security too. Because Ukraine has a lot of critical resources. It's not a small country. And it's -- and it could be dangerous for all of us. And it's been escalating, and I think that's by this administration.

GLENN: All right. So, congresswoman, I'm not sure if we're on the same page. I really like the people of Ukraine. I have a soft spot for what they've done in the past, on fighting Russia. I feel horrible about the people who have lost their lives, and the women and children. And, you know, we have a team over there, that is rescuing children. And trying to get them safe -- to safety, and not be trafficked. But I -- I just -- I just think this is a convenient little war. I -- I -- why, for instance, did Zelinsky get rid of Kolomoisky. Why did he revoke his citizenship? I mean, it just seems convenient, if you were looking to make sure that -- that nobody -- nobody was around to tell about the dirty things that you were doing. Why is it that president Zelinsky was against gay marriage, because he -- you know, it's a different country, with different standards. He was against it, and yet, during the war now, they pass a law to -- for gay marriage. And that seems to me, like American pressure, being exerted at the worst possible time. Because we gave them money.

VICTORIA: Well, not that. But I wish American pressure would be exerted in a way how they can improve the logistics. How they can improve oversight. And ensure that they can be accountable to American people, instead of blame politics and blame the agenda, that is unfortunately, very radical in this country. And I think they blame politics, instead of the managing processes and governments. Governments like Ukraine and governments like Afghanistan. They have to be forced to provide transparency to our people. If you don't, you will have another Afghanistan. But unfortunately, they haven't been doing that. But doing other things, that are very not productive for them to fight and win that war. And I think this is our responsibility of Congress, to put pressure. You know, just because, this is going to be a major problem for us, if we don't de-escalate situations. But also, we have accountability to our people. And to Ukrainian people. They're dying there.

GLENN: So -- is Zelinsky a good guy or a bad guy? Or is the answer to that yes.

VICTORIA: I think we know -- they have to -- I don't look at people as good or bad. I actually have a very low, in regards to all politicians in general. It's not about that. Every president should have accountability. Every president should be watched. But the amount of power right now, Ukrainian government is accumulating. And power grab, and abuse of power, where they actually decide, who can enter the border. Who can exit with proper due process. In using the war to consolidate media and control prosecutorial judicial -- it's very dangerous. And, you know, he needs to be responsible. That he put people, and his chief of staff, is becoming a dictator in that country. The president Zelinsky needs to take responsibility. And explain what's happening there. I know he's busy doing external things. And dealing with his leers in Europe and here. But he's still our president. And he needs to be responsible. And tell us what happened and why, this amount of abuse -- that's not what Ukrainian people are fighting for. To have another dictator. That's not what they want. And I think that's very not productive.

GLENN: I really appreciate it. This is Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, and she has been very outspoken. And because of it, she's gotten heat from the left and the right. But intellectual debate is necessary, to be able to be a free country. And I appreciate you speaking out. Thank you so much.

VICTORIA: Thank you so much. It's never easy to do the right thing, but it's worth it.

GLENN: Yes, it is. God bless you.