RADIO

Glenn DESTROYS The New York Times for calling The Constitution a THREAT

A new New York Times op-ed titled “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” may be the most delusional thing Glenn has read in a while. Glenn reviews the article, which suggests that the Constitution may be a threat to “America’s politics” (hint: IT IS, and it’s supposed to be), that the Constitution may be to blame for Trump, and that our founding document “could hasten the end of American democracy.” Glenn also spots an argument that’s right out of the far-left’s contingency plan for if Trump won in 2020: The Transition Integrity Project. In the end, Glenn points out that the Times isn't the first to suggest that the Constitution is dangerous ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The New York Times just released an op-ed, the America's Constitution is sacred. But is it also the biggest threat to our politics?

Bum, bum, bum. Yes! It actually is a threat to our politics! Yes! As it should be a threat to our politics. The United States Constitution is in trouble. After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Really? Is that when it became in trouble, Stu? I mean, I'm just. I'm thinking back. I'm thinking back. You know, a little bit before Donald Trump. Like, I don't know.

Woodrow Wilson. And I've been thinking, the Constitution has been in trouble since about then. Maybe it's just me?

STU: Yeah. That doesn't seem like it was a little bit earlier, considering the words of Woodrow Wilson, who tried to basically do to the founding documents, what happened to that neighbor's mountain.

Like, it just -- light it on fire, and watch it burn.

GLENN: Yeah. That was it. By announcing his desire to throw a Donald Trump.

To throw off Constitutional constraints, in order to satisfy his personal ambitions, Trump was making his authoritarian inclinations abundantly clear. Now, let me ask you.

Who is the one that is currently talking about the redesign of the Supreme Court?

I mean, by the way, I just want you to know, that's what dictators always do.

That is the last step to a banana republic. That is the point of no return.

When you -- when you have the president, or the Prime Minister, or whoever.

Change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

That's the last straw. Now, which one of those is doing that?

STU: Glenn, we're just talking about a return to normalcy.

That's all that is.

That whole renovating the Supreme Court into something that has never existed is a return to normalcy.

GLENN: Yeah. May I ask you, Stu. Isn't this exactly the same thing they did with Joe Biden?

They ran him, and he didn't talk to the press. He never was in front of people.

He was in his basement.

When he was out. He was always on prompter.

And then they just made the case, that he was normal.

He was just like you. He was for all the things you are for. Just a return to normalcy.

That's exactly what they're doing. Again, America!

Come on.

Really.

STU: Yeah. And again, it's important to understand the return to normalcy. Just purveys this throughout the entire campaign.

For example, the return to enormous, of having debates that go through the presidential commission on -- on debates. Remember that whole thing?

That's now basically defunct, because the president of the United States, decided he was going to be cocky. And cancel one of the debates.

Leave the normal format, and then taunt his opponent about it, and lose so badly that he had to end his political career.

And then the person who took over for them, not only didn't go back to the commission and say, hey. Let's start this up again. Let's do three things.

No, no, no. She just had the one that was already there. And tried to change the rules of that.

Then also taunted the opponent in the debate. Let's see if she shows up. Because that would be I think the most normal thing possible.

GLENN: Well, you forgot the most normal part of that story. That is getting the nomination without a single vote cast for her.

STU: Yeah. Normal. Normal, guys.

GLENN: Totally normal. Constitutional.

And totally normal. And, really, what people are demanding.

Anyway, it's no surprise, then that liberals charged Trump with being a menace to the Constitution, but his presidency and the prospect of his re-election have also generated another very different argument. That Trump owes his political assent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially anti-democratic. Wait. Wait. Wait.

You say we're a democracy, okay? You said, we've always been a democracy. What would make us a democracy, would be the Constitution.

But we're not a democracy. The Constitution says we have democratic attributes. But we are a republic. And now you're calling this an antidemocratic document?

I mean, after all, Trump became president in 2016, after losing the popular vote. But winning the electoral college.

Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. You're not going to believe. You're not going to believe this, Stu.

He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court for him article three. Two of whom were just confirmed by senators representing 44 percent of the population. Article one. Whose three justices helped overturn Roe vs. Wade. A reversal that most Americans disagreed with. Imminent legal scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky. Yes. I love Erwin Chemerinsky. They put him in place, long time ago.

He's great. He's an eminent scholar, and he's worried about opinion polls showing a dramatic loss of faith in democracy.

It's never been any faith in democracy!

He writes in his new book, no democracy lasts forever. No.

In fact, that's why we're not a democracy. And that's why our Constitution has lasted. When the average Constitution of the world lasts 17 years, ours has survived since 1781.

I don't know. A little longer than 17 years! Anyway, no democracy lasts from her. It's important for Americans to see that the failure stems from the Constitution itself.

Oh, really? Yes, Mr. Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School.

STU: Of course. That's Kamala Harris' hometown, by the way. I just wanted to point that out. It's not Oakland.

GLENN: No. It's Oakland.

STU: I know she's a daughter of Oakland. But actually, she grew up in Berkeley and Montreal, and then went to Howard University.

And then went to San Francisco.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So you want to talk about a path to normal middle?

GLENN: She's red, white, and blue person.

She, like, screams Constitution and small-town America from Berkeley, California.

STU: Just a heavy emphasis on the red.

GLENN: So...

(laughter)

What are you saying? Red, red, blue. That's who she is? Red, blue. Yes. She's all American. Anyway, he says, he -- Americans have a problem with the Constitution.

And Chemerinsky deemed Berkeley political law school seems to place considerable faith in Constitution, pleading with federal progressives in the book, we, the people. Not to turn backs on Constitution or the courts, but by contrast, no democracy lasts forever.

Markedly pessimistic, asserting that the Constitution, which is famously difficult to amend. It's difficult to amend?

Those should be walk in park! We should be able to -- like mama makes apple pie, when she makes that apple pie, she puts it on shelf. And some neighbor can come and just get it.

I see it in American cartoons. And it should be that easy to amend Constitution.

But it's not. It's very difficult. And he says, what would need to happen is a new constitutional convention.

And in the books, more somber moments. Which I wrote, I entertain possibility of secession.

Vladimir Putin not for secession at all. No. He -- he loves the Constitution of the United States.

And west coast states might form nation called Pacifica.

Red states might form their own country.

But he -- he hopes that any divorce, if it comes, will be peaceful.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. So hang on just a second.

So this guy is from Berkeley.

And he's talking about Pacifica. Where did I hear this before?

I remember. Before the 2020 election, Stu. The Democrats had some group together, that was going to save America. Remember? In case Donald Trump won. And one of the things they said was, we will have California break up west coast into Pacifica.

California, parts of -- of Oregon. Maybe parts of Washington state. Would become Pacifica.

And that we would break away. And if they didn't want to us breakaway. Then we demand that Trump add two states.

One would be Washington, DC. And the other one would be make a state out of Puerto Rico.

Oh, I remember that now.

Gee!

And what was their problem.

Oh, their problem was, the electoral college.

Which is weird. Because he just didn't mention the electoral college. The prospect of secession sounds extreme, he says. But in suggesting that the Constitution could hasten the end of American democracy.

Chemerinsky is far from alone. Lots of people have got Boris and Natasha, say same thing.

The argument, that what ails the country's politics isn't simply the president or Congress or the Supreme Court, but the founding document itself.

Right?

That's been our problem for the last 250 years?

Thing longest running Constitution, in the longest running republic, in human history.

And that's our problem. All along. That's our problem. Uh-huh.

STU: It's not like we haven't had a good run of success here.

It would be one thing, if we were -- there's an area of outer Mongolia that the United States looked like. And we were a little disappointed in the progress that we had made.

It's kind of the most advanced country ever -- you know, developed. It's -- it's -- it's overseen. This incredible -- you know. All these incredible innovations.

GLENN: Have you looked at it lately. Have you looked at Aurora, Colorado? That's the Constitution's fault.

STU: Oh, when the Venezuelans are taking over the apartment complexes?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Constitution's fault. How is that Constitution?

Donald Trump.

STU: Yeah.

That's a good point. But you didn't quite -- maybe you need to go a little bit more into depth. Why the words Donald Trump --

GLENN: I won't listen to you, conspiracy theory, anymore. Really honestly.

I'm just looking at this. He says, that the Constitution has incentivized the tyranny of the minority.

It's the Constitution's fault!

You see?

You see? Now, if I remember right, one of the things they put in there, to make sure that there wasn't the tyranny of the minority, was the -- was the electoral college.

That way, California, New York, couldn't dominate everybody in the red states.

You know, kind of what they're doing. And when you talk about tyranny of the minority.

Stu, if it wasn't for -- I mean, it's still a minority. But it's a growing minority.

You know, if it wasn't for 30 percent of all future adults, in America, now claiming to be transgender and gay, and, you know, My Little Pony.

You would say, maybe this is all happening, you know, with the tyranny of the minority.

But no.

No.

STU: Well, that is okay. And as we have talked about, many, many times.

You know, 40. Thirty to 40 percent of the population, being in the LGBTQ population. Is the return to normalcy. We were promised with Joe Biden.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And Kamala Harris. This is -- everything about this is normal.

Everything.

GLENN: Everything is normal. Now, they always say, that they love the Constitution.

But now they fear the Constitution. And they should.

You know, somebody else feared the Constitution.

It was -- I think it was -- oh. King George.

He thought it was a very dangerous document too.

In fact, every dictator, all around the world has thought for the last 250 years. Wow, that's a dangerous document.

But, hey. The New York Times and the left, they love it. That's it why they've just run, is the Constitution -- is the Constitution sacred?

But is it also dangerous? Or this story, the Constitution is broken, and should not be reclaimed. Or MAGA turns against the Constitution.

Or we had to force the Constitution, to accommodate democracy.

The Constitution won't save us from Trump.

Or the story in the New York Times, is the Constitution obstructing the American democracy?

Let's give up on the Constitution. Or the headline, the US lacks what every democracy needs. Or this is the story how Lincoln broke the US Constitution.

They love it!

RADIO

The REAL Reason Democrats are TERRIFIED of Elon Musk & DOGE

Democrats are mad that President Trump is trusting Elon Musk with so much. Glenn explains why it’s dumb for them to whine about Elon being an “unelected billionaire” and getting rid of USAID – which isn’t even an “aid” agency. Plus, Glenn reviews how Democrats tried to force a security guard to let them into the Department of Education: “It’s quite amazing how these people are so freaked out. They’ve got to cover their tracks!”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Bret Baier asked Donald Trump if he trusts Elon Musk. Cut nine.

DONALD: I don't know if it's kickbacks, or what's going on.

Look, I ran on it, and the people want me to find it, and I've had a great help with Elon Musk, who has been terrific.

VOICE: You say you trust him?

DONALD: Trustee Elon, oh, he's not gaining anything.

In fact, I wonder how he can devote the time into it, he's so into it.

But I told him to do that. Then I will tell him, very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education. He will find the same thing.

Then I will go to the military. Let's check the military. We will find billions. Hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse. And, you know, the people elected me on that.

GLENN: He's absolutely right about this. I don't know how everybody is squealing.

First of all, you know, he's an unelected bureaucrat. Well, almost all bureaucrats are.

I don't know if you --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: If you follow that. But, you know, the Treasury Secretary, is also somebody who, you know, wasn't voted in.

Unelected bureaucrat.

He was appointed by the president to do this.

And we're going to -- we're going to find out about what's happening with this judge. See if it's overruled. Did you hear about what happened with the judge over the weekend, with the Treasury Department?

PAT: Yeah. Where they blocked going into the treasury books. Which --

GLENN: It was so -- it was so poorly written, that they didn't even differentiate between Elon Musk's people, and the Treasury secretary.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: So as it's written, the Treasury secretary can't even look at any of the data.

PAT: It's incredible.

He also, the judge who did the block.

Also didn't mention what law they're violating. He just said, it's violating the law. What law is being violated here?

GLENN: What law? What law?

PAT: This is a person appointed by the president to look into this.

So I don't see how that could violate any laws.

GLENN: No. No.

I mean, and who is not for looking into all of this stuff?

Honestly, I mean, you know, I can't wait until he gets to the Pentagon. Because how are the Democrats going to say, that we somehow or another, are, you know -- we don't care about national defense? We care about national defense!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I also care about fraud. You know, it's -- the same thing with all of this stuff about aid.

First of all, aid, USAID, it's not aid. It's AID. Okay? It is for international development. That's what that's for.

It's not an aid program. Or an aid agency.

We have aid agencies. That's not one of them.

This is soft power.

And, quite honestly, it is from the beginning, been a CIA operation.

So how are -- I'm not against aid.

I'm against corruption. And I'm also against a lot of this soft power being done, that nobody knows about.

Why are we just finding out about this stuff?

And what we going to find in the Pentagon, oh, my gosh. We're going to find really bad stuff in the Pentagon. Really bad.

PAT: And none of us is against aid. It's just the aid that is being dispersed to people that you mentioned isn't aid.

And the other thing, it's not government agencies, that should be doing this.

It's individuals who are tasked with charity.

GLENN: No!

PAT: And helping others.

We're the ones, individual choice. To -- we shouldn't be forced!

Once you're forced into it, it's not charity anyway.

GLENN: No. It's not.

PAT: So I don't understand how all of the responsibility for aid worldwide is now on the US government.

That's not the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

And I don't know if you saw this.

But the NIH. They're going crazy now.

Because the NIH. When Trump's people first came in.

They said, we're going to cut the maximum indirect cost rate for research institutions.

Now, most people read that. And they don't even understand what that is. That means, how much of this is going?

How much of 1 dollar is going actually to the program, of research, and how much is going for overhead?

Again, we told you before, any charity that is 85 cents on the dollar. Is one that you start to look at.

If it's 80, 75 cents. You're getting a bad rating for that.

This is 60 cents on the dollar, goes to the management.

Goes to overhead costs.

I want 40 cents on every dollar? You think that's wise?

This is going to save us billions. They're predicting now $9 billion for this project alone. $9 billion.

So go ahead and play cut two, here.

If members of Congress -- peoples cut 12.

This is members of Congress, trying to get into the Department of Education over the weekend.

VOICE: Do they know that --

VOICE: Ask the question again. That's important.

VOICE: Were you told. Are you making the decision to stand in front of the store, on your own behalf. On behalf of the Department of Education.

GLENN: This is the security guard.

VOICE: So everybody is --

VOICE: We're doing our jobs.

GLENN: Okay. So here they are, members of Congress trying to get in, trying to break into the Department of Education. It's closed for the weekend. And they say, they're doing their job. And they're questioning the security guard. Why aren't you letting us in. And all he said, it's not going to happen. Not today. It's not going to happen. You're not going in.

It's quite amazing how these people are so freaked out, they've got to cover their tracks.

I'm convinced that's what it is.

Here's Donald Trump responding to this. Cut 13.

VOICE: Democratic lawmakers trying to get into the Department of Education earlier today.

VOICE: Oh. I see the same ones.

I see Maxine Waters.

A low-life. I see all these people. They don't love our country. They don't love our country.

We want great education. So they ranked 40 countries in education, we're ranked dead last. Dead last.

But the good news is, we're number one in one category. You know what that is? Cost per pupil. We spend more per pupil than any other country in the world.

You look at Norway, Denmark, Sweden, various countries all up and down, Finland. China does very well in education, and then you look at us.

We spend much more money than they do per pupil than any other way. But we spend much more money than they do, and yet we're ranked this year, Biden's last year -- congratulations, Joe. We're ranked dead last. So what I want to see is education -- number one, I like choice. We all like choice.

But beyond choice, long beyond choice, I want to see it go back to the states, where great states who do so well, have no debt, they-re operated brilliantly. They'll be as good as Norway or Denmark or Sweden or any of the other highly ranked countries. They will -- I figure 35 to 38 states will be right at the top.

And the rest will come along. They'll have to come along, competitively. And, by the way, we will be spending --

GLENN: I will tell you -- I will tell you that it feels a little like when the allies marched into Germany, and the Germans were burning all of their documents to hide all the crimes.

It kind of feels a little like that.

RADIO

Why Did Qualcomm FREAK OUT Over This Glenn Beck Interview?

Why is the big tech giant Qualcomm so nervous about ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker appearing on The Glenn Beck Program? After Parker’s last appearance on Glenn’s show, Qualcomm filed a motion to shut him up and named Glenn over a dozen times. Parker joins Glenn again to give updates on the case and refute some of Qualcomm’s accusations against him.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So a couple of weeks ago, we had a guy on named Jeff Parker. He's the CEO and chairman of ParkerVision. He was making allegations that Qualcomm was in bed with the government, and -- and had screwed ParkerVision. Because what ParkerVision had done is come up with a chip that allows all of our phones and everything else to connect. To Bluetooth. They went into negotiation with Qualcomm.


Had all kinds of NDAs with them. And had to show them the technology. And suddenly, the deal fell apart. And then just a couple years later, Qualcomm comes out with this new amazing technology that can connect everybody's phones and other things to Bluetooth. Huh.

The story only gets more twisted and turned when you run into Eric Holder, and the DOJ. And a jury that says, Qualcomm took this technology and a judge who says, I'm going to sentence Qualcomm and talk about the -- the penalties. And a month later, the judge overturns the jury, and -- and says, no. Qualcomm didn't do anything wrong.

There's some weird stuff going on. Now, here's the update. Qualcomm freaked out about his appearance on this program.

And they filed a cease and desist against Jeff Parker and told him, not to speak out again!

And we called him.

And he said, I'll tell you what, why don't you book me for the show. I'll show you how much ceasing and desisting I'll be doing.

All right. Jeff Parker is with us.

Jeff, how are you, sir?

JEFF: Good morning, Glenn. I'm fine.

GLENN: So let's go over the part just quickly about you sign a cease and desist. All of a sudden, two years later, your technology is introduced by Qualcomm. They pretend, no. What are you talking about? That's not your technology. That's our technology. You take them to court. The jury rules in your favor, unanimous. The judge says, I'm going to apply penalties. Then a couple of weeks after that, Qualcomm has a fundraiser for Barack Obama. The head of Qualcomm has it at his house. Obama shows up. Then a couple of days after that, the DOJ under Eric Holder starts to probe your website. Finish that story.

JEFF: Sure. So thanks for having me back again.

GLENN: You bet.

JEFF: Yeah. So we win a unanimous jury verdict. We come back to the courthouse, after that jury verdict, and the judge hears the parties argue about what should happen next. And after listening to the arguments, the judge says, you know what, there is certainly going to be an ongoing royalty here, which is what Qualcomm would have to pay us for the continued use of our patents and technology.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: And we are all excited. We leave the courthouse. A few days after that, we have a visit to our website by the White House.
The executive office of the president of the White House.

GLENN: Hmm.

JEFF: Just a few days before that visit, there's a fundraiser at the head of Qualcomm's home. One of the cofounder's homes. Raising money for the DNC.

And after that fundraiser, a few days later, there's this visit from the executive office of the president.

And about a month after that, is when the judge issued his final order, after having indicating before that his final order was going to include royalties. He not only didn't include royalties.

He reversed the jury verdict. And threw the case out.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So Eric Holder was at the DOJ at the time.

You start getting visits at your website, and you can track all of this. You have all of this. Eric Holder and the DOJ start to visit your website, that's only about this litigation. That's the only part they do.

And lo and behold, we find out that Eric Holder before he went to the DOJ, he worked for Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. When he left the DOJ, guess where he went?

Back to Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. So you're on the program, you lay all this out.

And now what has happened?

JEFF: Correct. So we're on your program about two weeks ago.

And literally, Glenn, the next day, Qualcomm contacts our attorneys, and they say, if your client doesn't remove his social media, and furthermore agree not to do anymore social media, we will file a motion with the court to gag him, to have this court take down the social media and prevent further conversation.

And, of course, I -- my attorneys are handling a patent case. So they say to me, we're not really experts in First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech rights. Could you please find an attorney who could help you with this?

So I ended up reaching out. And we engaged Marc Kasowitz of his firm. And the Kasowitz firm is a very fine law firm that handles these types of areas and many other areas of law. But Mark --

GLENN: Yeah. He's done a lot of work for Trump, has he not?

JEFF: He has. He has. Mark has handled a lot of president Trump's legal issues over the years. And I approach Mark.

And he heard this request from Qualcomm. And he said, outrageous. He said, this is -- this is ridiculous.

They can't gag you. So a couple days later, Qualcomm, in fact, filed a formal motion with the court that said, take down your social media and stop adding additional social media. And we were actually getting ready to file our opposition, but we first wanted to wait and see what the court was going to do.

And a few days later, the court finding this motion, frankly merit-less. And without any basis for what they're asking for, ruled at the end of last week, just this last Friday.

No. No Qualcomm. You don't get that request. So --

GLENN: Absolutely.

JEFF: So that was good to hear.

GLENN: That's fantastic. That's fantastic.

By the way, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this.

But I -- I will bet you that our new director of the FBI and our new head of the DOJ saw that Blaze article, that lays all of this out. I'm just saying, that might have happened.

PAT: Well, Glenn, I hope so. Look, what Qualcomm has accused us of, is trying to taint a jury pool. We don't even have a trial date yet, set for this case.

So how are we going to taint a jury pool. But the thing that is really frustrating is the way they characterized our social media. And what we're saying. It's just completely false.

I'll give you an example. So an example of their -- of their characterization is they say, ParkerVision disparages the judicial process in the middle district of Florida and maligns the fairness of the forum.

Namely, ParkerVision impugns Judge Dalton's ruling, in the prior ParkerVision trial, falsely claiming that he improperly reversed the jury's verdict as a result of collusion between Qualcomm and the administration of then president Barack Obama.

Well, let me tell you, that's not true. What ParkerVision is doing is bringing public just facts. We're simply bringing facts. Here's the facts.

The facts are, the Department of Justice has been on our website 37 times.

We discovered shortly before our first trial, all the way until 2022 when I filed a freedom of information act request, asking, hey, Department of Justice. What are you doing on our website? Why are you on our website, so many days at the same time, looking at the same pages as Qualcomm.

Hey. What's this White House visit we had? Why were you only looking at litigation on Qualcomm on our patents? What's that about?

We've never had that fulfilled. So I'm not drawing any conclusions what this means. I'm simply stating the facts. The facts are that these visits happened. And we think we have a right to know, what they're about.

That's what they're asking for.

GLENN: Yeah. They're very suspicious. But that doesn't mean anything happened.

But, you know, there's enough there, not beyond a reasonable doubt. There's enough there, that, you know, we should probably ask some questions here.

JEFF: Yes. Exactly.

GLENN: There was a short seller. Can you tell me about the short seller? Whats his name? Farmwald. What's their name?

JEFF: Yeah, so when Qualcomm accuses us of trying to influence a jury. Again, a date hasn't even been set for a trial. It's pretty rich, Glenn.

Because back in our first trial. There was this persistent short seller. Who had been out posting on the financial message boards. Again and again and again. Trying to drive our stock price down. Our patents are no good. We don't have anything, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me tell you, from the time we filed this case against Qualcomm in 2011, until we won the jury verdict in 2013, over two years, he posted 200 times. Every business day he posted. And he posted predictions. The patents would fall.

They didn't.

The -- the patent case wouldn't go forward.

It did. Oh, even if we won. We would only win ten or $11 million.

He was only off by a factor of 20.

I mean, it went on and on and on.

Here's the real punch line. We got to depose this guy. And subpoena his emails, because after Qualcomm lost the case. He filed challenges to our patents. Which we found kind of suspicious.

And guess what we figured out in deposition of this guy?

Guess who he had been working against when we filed this lawsuit against Qualcomm.

GLENN: Qualcomm.

JEFF: Qualcomm.

GLENN: Do we have payments? And how do you mean working?

JEFF: Well, it turns out that Qualcomm was paying some of his lawyer's bills. Because he was worried apparently, about us suing him for something. I mean, if you're not doing something wrong, what are you worried about?

But he was worried about that. So he went to Qualcomm and he said, look, I'm not looking for you to pay me directly. But pay my legal bills. And our attorney said to him, you don't consider that to be some compensation?

No. I don't consider that to be any compensation. The point though --

GLENN: Why would --

JEFF: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would he meet his legal bills? If I'm not mistaken, this is years before -- three years before you knew that they were infringing, right?

JEFF: Yes. So we believe that he actually started communicating with them. Even before we filed our lawsuit.

So there's a lot of fishy things here.

But to keep it to the point of Qualcomm's motion to try to get us to be gagged, it's pretty interesting. That they would be so willing to work with a party, whose only mission was to put out mischaracterizations and falsehoods about ParkerVision. Its patents. Its technology. Et cetera.

But they be they turn around and accuse us of what they were supporting. Back during the time trial.

GLENN: All right. More in just a second. I have a new video, and I want to show you something from the judge in just a second.

First, let tell you about American Financing for just a moment.

What would it look like to be out of debt, especially all of our your high-interest debt? All of the stuff you have to put on your credit card. Even though, that interest rate is 20, 25, 30 percent?

It's not a fantasy to be out of debt. It could be your reality. If you're a homeowner, and you want to get out from under high-interest debt. Give American Financing a call today.

Last year, their salary-based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of $800 a month.

Now, imagine giving yourself a $10,000 raise. That's exactly what they can do for you today, if you start today. You might even be able to delay up to two mortgage payments, which could help you get out even further from that debt.

Don't take my word for it. I want you to do your own homework, as always. Go to American Financing at 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. That's AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Let me see this full screen here, if I can.

So tell me what this is, Jeff. This full screen, that we have up on the monitors.

This is from the judge, is it not?

VOICE: Oh, hold on. Yes. Yes.

GLENN: That's the ruling.

VOICE: Yes. This is the ruling from the judge, correct.

GLENN: My gosh, they are freaked out about you being on this program.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

PAT: You seem to be all over that document.

Wow!

VOICE: I know.

JEFF: You know, Glenn, the sad thing about it is, he does dismiss their motion, which we're very happy about.

And we thought it was meritless when they filed it. But he does go on, and he talks a little about some of his unhappiness with the things that we say.

And I've already had people call me up and say, what do you think about that?

I said, look, he only has that side of the story. He rules so fast, which we appreciate.

That we didn't even have time to file a reply. So he is simply looking at Qualcomm's reply, and assuming they are telling him the truth, which they're not telling him the truth.

Look, they say, I have no basis for thinking that Qualcomm has taken our technology to China. I mean, you're kidding. Here's an article, Glenn, I found. 2017, New York Times. How this US tech giant is backing China's tech ambitions. Interesting article. People should go read it. 2019. Jenwa Net (phonetic) of Asia. Interview: Qualcomm president says China to lead the world in 5G scale.

Look, I understand why Qualcomm wants to be a big player in China.

It's a big market. But we have to do this smartly.

We can't just put engineering facilities there.

Teach the Chinese how to develop their own products.

And then expect for the long hall, that we're going to be anything other than from the outside looking in.

I mean, their Belt and Road Initiative is being helped by big tech companies right here in the United States.

It's insane.

GLENN: So when do you suppose -- are you going to file and go to court again?

I know you've been waiting for 11 years.

JEFF: Well, we have a case. It is -- it is -- by the way one of the things Qualcomm mischaracterized is in our first video, they say, oh, Jeff Parker says, we've been waiting ten years for our case, I show you indicating that there's something I feel is nefarious.

No, I didn't say anything was nefarious.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: What I said was it's been a long -- let me tell you why it's in ten years. Qualcomm filed challenges to the validity of our patents. That ate up four years.
Then they had a couple other ridiculous motions, which took the judge a year or two to sort through.

Now we're up to six years. Then we had the pandemic. That's another two years. The point is, it's been a long time. And all we're asking for is our day in court with the jury who can hear our case. And make a decision.

We think we have a compelling case to the jury.

And the judge right now is considering when to set the trial date. We're hoping it's going to be early, early to middle. Maybe this fall, of this year.

But soon. Very soon.

GLENN: Well, we will continue to follow the case. Are you releasing another video?

JEFF: We just released another video this morning.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: And that video talks about the benefit of the technology.

Our interaction with Qualcomm. How we took this technology to them.

I hope people will go to against giants. And watch the video.

I think you'll find it highly informative.

GLENN: You'll find it on Twitter. At against underscore giants.

At against underscore giants.

Make sure you check that out. And share it with a friend. Share it with the DOJ.

With the FBI. With anybody that you feel would have interest in this.

I think this is something that should be looked into. And if there was corruption, it needs to be routed out.

People need to go to jail, if they did wrong.

And the -- the patents need to be set right.

If we can't count on our patents as small-business people, which Jeff Parker is and ParkerVision is.

If we can't count that those patents can be held by small people, against these giants!

We've got nothing in America.

We have nothing.

JEFF: Totally.

GLENN: This is David versus Goliath.

And they deserve their fair shake in a courtroom.

Jeffrey, thank you so much.

JEFF: Glenn, thank you for having me back.

GLENN: You bet. ParkerVision.com.

ParkerVision.com.

RADIO

Did USAID Really Fund Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding? Here's the FACTS

As DOGE continues to expose the many, many ways our government has wasted taxpayer dollars, Glenn gives a warning: “You have to be really careful [what you believe] because we don’t want to wreck our credibility.” While the things DOGE has uncovered have been true, there are also a lot of rumors and misinformation spreading online. Glenn addresses some of those rumors, like the seemingly-unfounded claim that USAID helped fund Chelsea Clinton’s wedding through the Clinton Foundation. We must ask questions, but we can’t jump to conclusions without being sure that we have the real facts. Glenn also addresses some provably true stories of government waste, like how the Pentagon overpays for things and why Glenn supports Trump’s decision to stop minting pennies.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Looking at the DOGE stuff, and I want to talk about this next hour.

We have to be really, really careful. Because I don't know about you, but when I heard that we possibly paid for Chelsea Clinton's wedding.

PAT: Yeah. Do we have that substantiated though?

GLENN: We don't. We don't.

And that's why I want to bring that up.

PAT: You have to be careful with that stuff. A ton.

STU: A lot of stuff coming out online.

And you can't quote this stuff. You have to be really, really careful.

Because we just don't want to, A, wreck our credibility.

And, you know, when we find out that it is absolutely true, that's when we can go and say, round them up!

Let's put them court.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. There's -- there's a viral chart going around that shows Chelsea Clinton got, I don't know. Something like $84 million from the foundation from the Clinton foundation.

And that 3 million of that went to her wedding.

GLENN: Okay. So I think -- I think they did get $84 million.

PAT: I think that went to the foundation, right?

GLENN: Yeah. It went to the foundation.

Got it for the whole run. For Haiti or whatever.

And, you know, we know they spent $84 million in Haiti.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because look at the place now.

Oh, it's beautiful he has not it's beautiful.

PAT: Well, we were there, how many years after the earthquake.

And it still looked the same. As if the earthquake had just happened. You remember that?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. And the people from Haiti were saying to us, where is the money?

PAT: Where is the $10 billion? Yeah. Because that could have rebuilt. That could have rebuilt the entire country. 10 billion.

GLENN: About four times. About four times over, I think.

PAT: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- Haiti is just -- it's a sad, sad situation.

It's been ripped off by everybody in the world over and over again.

And I think the Clintons are, you know, they kind of lead the way on the -- on the charity for Haiti graft.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But we don't know anything about that. We do know the Clinton initiative got $84 million.

But we don't know any more than that.

And, you know, honestly, if you're spending your tax dollars, I mean, that's what people have to realize.

Even if it is, you know -- even if it is -- it didn't go to Chelsea's wedding.

Which I would be surprised.

I would be shocked, if they were that bold!

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But, you know, this isn't an effective use of your money.

And people who are looking at it, and saying, well, it was only $5 million.

How much money have you paid your entire life in taxes?

Because I guarantee you, it's not going to be $5 million.

It's not! Very few people to have pay $5 million in their lifetime of taxes.

So that means, that everything that you paid. Everything that you worked for. When you work four months a year, to pay your income tax.

All of that has been wasted, your entire life.

I don't know!

I'm kind of pissed about that.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, what could you have done with all of that money?

And I -- I just don't -- I don't get people who are, you know, again, like we said, I'm for aid.

I'm absolutely for aid. I'm absolutely for looking at countries, and saying, how can we help you, if it's in our interest, and that's not aid.

That would be development. But I'm not for most of the development that has been happening. I'm not interested in nation building!

You know, so, you know, even if you're for that, are you cool with it going 60 cents on every dollar? To the government officials?

Or to the charitable officials. And only 40 cents of that dollar?

I mean, I'm not happy with that. We've gotten so used to corruption, in our government, on, you know, the Pentagon spent $400 on, you know -- on a toilet seat.

We're so used to that. That we just expect it.

This is not that.

The corruption that we're finding now, is beyond imagination.

It's going to be hard for people to get their arms around, what you're actually looking at.

Because we expect a certain amount of -- unfortunately, a certain amount of corruption.

But nothing like this!

And if you're -- you know, if you are a Democrat and you're inclined, not to believe it.

Okay!

I can understand that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for a while.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And say, I probably would have been skeptical, if Joe Biden -- I would have been skeptical if Joe Biden would have come in and said, we will route out all of the corruption.

I would have thought, well, no.

They're getting rid of anybody who is conservative on corruption.

That's why I'm so excited about the Pentagon because that's going to be a lot of conservative love.

You know what I mean?

So called conservative love. It's just graft and greed and cronyism.

But still, it -- it's -- we're supposed to be in love.

The left is supposed to be in love with aid.

We're supposed to be in love with death. I'm not -- I -- I am not blind to either one of those things.

But go into the Pentagon. I would love to see them take.

At you see the congressman or the senator last week, that held up a bag of bolts, and said, this is about $10 at the store?

It's $10,000, if the Pentagon buys it!

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Where is that money going?

PAT: Incredible.

GLENN: Who is getting that money?
And, you know, you would say, well, they're charging ten thousands of individuals dollars a bolt, because, you know, the aircrafts that they're building.

They're so expensive.

And they can't actually charge the price of what it takes.

No, they're charging us the price with all of the overruns.

All of the hundreds of billions of dollars in overruns.

They're charging us that as well.

So my question is: Where do those billions of dollars end up?

In just the pockets of, what? McDonnell-Douglas?

PAT: Raytheon?

GLENN: Raytheon.

PAT: Congress people?

GLENN: Right!

PAT: You know, a lot. A lot of it -- you know it's winding up in their pocketbooks. Has to be.

GLENN: And you know what really bothers me is, these people are taking our tax dollars. And then they're giving that money, through lobbying. To our politicians. Who are allowing the corruption to happen.

So it's just this giant circular -- I'm just going to leave it at that.

This giant circular, something.

I don't -- I don't know what happens in circles.

But there it is.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: By the way, the other thing that Trump said, first of all, he's getting rid of pennies.

Did you hear that?

Executive order. Thank you!

I mean, you know, takes 3 cents to create 1 cent. What are we doing?

That's the dims thing I've ever, ever seen.

PAT: Yes. Especially when nobody wants pennies. Nobody uses them.

If you ever use cash. And you get pennies back.

You just put it in their take a penny jar, usually.

And don't even want it messing up your pocket.

GLENN: Right. I mean, it's absolutely worthless to the American people.

And it's costing our government 3 cents to make 1 cent.

Finally, the president is -- I mean, all of this stuff is so common sense. That's what's so frustrating about all of this.

Should had it should have been done long ago.

But for some reason, we just couldn't. We've known about the penny thing.

I've known about the penny thing, when it was a cent and a half to make a penny.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That long ago.

PAT: He's -- he's leaving no stone unturned right now.

You've got the penny thing.

And then he just did the straw situation.

Did you see that?

We're going back to plastic straws.

He signed an executive order, or he is going to. Ending the ridiculous Biden push for paper straws, which don't work. Back to plastic, he tweeted out! Or truthed out.

GLENN: I love that.

PAT: It's just -- it's amazing the things that he's covering, at a breathtaking speed.

GLENN: I love that.

Do we have the CBS anchor trying to explain how Trump's approval ratings are going through the roof? Listen to this. Cut ten.

VOICE: What's driving this?

VOICE: I will keep it simple, Margaret. He's doing what he said he would do in the campaign. There's political value in that. In fact, 70 percent of people say he's doing what he's promised. That's whether they approve of him or not.

Now, there's another part of this that continues over from the campaign. There are words he was described as being tough. Being energetic.

And he still is today, in big majority numbers.

So as people take a look in these first few weeks, there's been a lot of activity. They're getting that general sense of governance. And that's being reflected in these early numbers.

VOICE: So that's perception. What about the actual policies?

VOICE: Well, let's start with the ones that are popular.

Again, these echo the ones we see in the campaign. The idea of deporting those in the country illegally continues to be popular. We saw that in the campaign.

GLENN: 59 percent.

VOICE: Sending troops to the US-Mexico border. Again, majority --

GLENN: 64 percent.

PAT: Wow! Wow.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- and they're just baffled by it. I don't understand. No. Really.

TV

Trump Border Czar WARNS Cartels, Illegal Immigrants, & Anti-ICE Politicians

White House Border Czar Tom Homan joins Glenn with the latest updates to the illegal immigration crackdown. He lays out why he took the job, how the deportations are going so far, and what’s coming next. Homan also explains why he’s “very concerned” about violent threats from the cartels. But he has a warning for them: “If they harm a SINGLE Border Patrol agent or soldier, President Trump is gonna rain hell down on them and I think he'll wipe them off the face of the earth." Plus, Homan has a message for anti-ICE politicians in sanctuary cities: "[Pam Bondi] will have NO PROBLEM if I recommend prosecution of a politician for impeding or knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien.”

Watch the FULL episode of Glenn TV HERE