RADIOApril 14, 2023

The SEVERE economic consequences WAR WITH CHINA may bring

After Rep. Chris Stewart said in a recent interview that he believed America might be four to six years away from war with China, a senior officer called him and told him he was wrong: ‘[He] said Chris, I think you’re wrong. I think it’s closer to two years.’ No matter the timeline though, Rep. Stewart says China IS preparing for war against the United States now. So, if it happens, what will that war look like here at home? In this clip, Rep. Stewart details the economic consequences we may be facing that are SO severe, they’re ‘hard to imagine.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have congressman Chris Stewart on with us.

Hello, Chris. Always good to have you on.

CHRIS: Good morning, Glenn Beck.

GLENN: You are, of course, a national award-winning author. You're really good.

I tried to hire you as a writer. And then you're like, no. I think I should go to Congress. What a mistake that was.

You're a world record Air Force pilot. You're a former owner and CEO of a small business, and now you're in Congress. And I'm sorry for that.

Chris, you were on all kinds of committees.

And I've got all kinds of questions. So let me start with the latest. Did you read the Washington Post today?

CHRIS: Not yet, this morning. What I did I miss?

GLENN: Okay. They said, they have one source. But they did talk to their mom before they put him on record.

A kid says he knows who the leaker was. He was a guy in this group of about a dozen kids.

He worked a military base. And would go in and just leak these documents to the kids.

I find that a little strange.

But I wanted to ask you, because he worked on a military base. And he said, he had access to documents and servers, that he could get in and see all these secrets.

How hard is that, with the documents, that you know, and I know, have come out?

How hard -- what kind of classification would you have to have? And do we have those kinds of skiffs on military bases. That would allow access to anything?

CHRIS: Yeah, well, a couple of things, Glenn, if I could. Number one, is you said did I read the Washington Post this morning?

I got to tell you, I don't read the Washington Post most mornings. With all sorts of information. So let's at least consider that. I think there are probably two elements of this, that are worth commenting on. Number one, most of the stuff that we've seen, in fact, all of it, is classified top secret.

Which is actually one of the lowest classifications. So it probably, there's thousands of people who probably had access to a lot of these documents.

And the second thing, Glenn, the whole presumption of the classification. Number one is we overclassify a lot of things.

And that's another topic, but some of these things, if you read them, you think, well, that doesn't seem terribly classified, and it seems fairly obvious, and I think that's the case with some of these documents.

Although, not all of them. My point is, the whole process only works if there's a presumption of trust. And, of course, there's some people that you can trust, and you shouldn't trust.

But it seems to me, that there's a breakdown more broadly, and that is someone somewhere had enormous access. And -- and over a long period of time, and it seems like with just extraordinary ease was able to have access to these documents. And then walk out of the building with it.

They didn't -- you know, they didn't break down through computers, and get electronic access. It looks like they had physical access. They were walking around. That is actually quite surprising to me.

GLENN: So we're seeing now with China. Some of the leaks are about China.

And us not being able to have war with them. The Taiwan thing, where are we headed on that?

Is China -- I mean, if I were China, with this president and this Pentagon, man, I wouldn't -- I would, if it looks like someone else would win the White House. I would make my moves right now, on Taiwan. Can they?

CHRIS: Well, you know -- well, they're close to that.

They're not quite where they want to be militarily.

But militarily isn't -- military isn't the only consideration they have.

One of the primary considerations, of course, is what you just indicated.

What do they estimate the United States will do?

What do they estimate the leadership of the president and the United States might be?

And it's very, very clear.

And everyone talks about Afghanistan. But you really can't overemphasize the importance of that, Glenn.

As I've traveled the world since then, I've heard it all the time. And not just from our friends. But our adversaries as well.

They look at that and think, what filling, naïve, weak leadership that was.

And, by the way, by the way, it's not just President Biden. It's General Milley and Austin. They're the ones who presided over that.

And so there's no question, that President Xi looks at that and says, well, maybe now this time -- and if I could share one -- one personal experience I had, I had on another interview.

And they asked me, well, what's the time line?

And I said, well, it's hard to say. The analysts predicting the future.

I said, I think it's probably four to six years.

And that weekend, I was called by the former national security adviser. Robert, a friend of mine.

And then he said, no. Chris. I think it's probably closer to two years. Then an hour later, I got a phone call from another very senior officer. And said, Chris, I think you're wrong. I think it's closer to two years. Having been in the region recently, I think this much is clear. China is preparing for war, against the United States. Over Taiwan. And the South China Sea.

They're preparing urgently.

And I don't think the time line is a decade for sure. It's probably not five years.

It probably is some time between now and the next election.

GLENN: What does that mean for us, Chris?

What does a world with the United States at war with China and most likely with Russia, what does that look like?

CHRIS: Yeah. And that's really the key question.

So I was in Ukraine last week, and, well, it was an interesting -- an interesting trip, I'll tell you that, Glenn.

But one of the impressions I left there with was, to those in the United States. Who we've sent them.

As you and I have talked about -- tens -- perhaps more than a hundred billion dollars.

But most Americans, you know, they -- they may say, okay.

Well, we want to support that. It's a lot of money.

But as far as the fact, we live day to day. It does not. I mean, we're completely unaware of it. Now, president Biden will blame the price of fuel on the war in Ukraine. But that's nonsense.

That's not the reason for that. It's because of his own policies.

But when and if there's a war in -- in -- over Taiwan, every single one of us will feel it every single day.

And I'll give you one illustration. There's recent analysis that said, we would have the 9 percent reduction in our GDP, the first year from only -- only from the ability to access the chips and especially the exquisite chips.

Nine percent. The Great Depression reduction in GDP the first year was 7.5 percent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CHRIS: And, Glenn, that doesn't count -- because we haven't yet finished the analysis on the reduction in GDP from the fact that you're not going to have container ships leaving China. And coming to the United States. Or coming to the West.

We simply to do trade with them.

When you ask, what does it mean?

The economic consequences of this, are hard for us to imagine.

GLENN: Chris, why are we not having these conversations?

Why is it, it just seems like everything just happens. They just continue on with their -- I think diabolical plans.

And nothing -- nothing happens. I mean, Merrick Garland, I know you're on the weaponization committee.

Merrick Garland has lied, lied to the committee, about, you know, who they're surveilling. And who they're trying to rope in, as FBI informants. He said, we're not doing this as Catholics. We're not targeting. And now we find out that, yeah. They are targeting Catholics.

And he's not going to pay a price. When does someone pay a price for any of this stuff?

CHRIS: Yeah. Glenn, I've been asking myself that question for six years. Could you go back to the initial Russian hoax, and the fact that Director Comey lied to Congress again and again and again.

And listen, when he was finally put under oath, on deposition, you may remember, something like 257 times, he said, I don't remember.

That's nonsense. Of course, he remembers. That's a nonresponsive witness. If that would have been anyone else, they would have been charged with perjury for saying that.

What about McCabe, what about Lisa Strzok? You go down the list, it just keeps going. And all the time we're asking, where is the accountability?

Now, there is some good news. And I don't want to be Pollyannish about it. It is a positive step forward. That is we have to reauthorize 702, and FISA this fall.

We're simply not going to do it.

And as strong as an advocate as I am for the national security, as someone who understands the value of intelligence. I would rather lose the tool, than have the tool continue to be weaponized and continue to be used against the American people. There's a number of us in Congress who are saying, we simply won't reauthorize us, unless there's enormous reforms put in place first. And it's one of the primary things we're concentrating right now on the intelligence committee.

GLENN: Oh, man, I hope you guys stand firm on that. And it would have to be enormous reforms.

Because that whole thing is a cesspool. And with these leaks. The story out today is that Biden is looking again, at, you know, different ways he can monitor and capture all the information on the web. And surveil.

I mean, we know what they're doing dependence the United States. The people of the United States.

PAT: You know, two talks, Glenn.

Number one, we subpoenaed the director and others yesterday on a weaponization committee regarding this absurdity of targeting Catholic Diocese. Catholic congregations. Show me any reasonable person in the country, who thinks that one of the -- one of the threats to you're security are believing Catholics for heaven's sakes.

It's beyond absurd. And that's -- and that's good.

We need to bring them in, under oath, once again. And have an ability to question them. The second point, Glenn. Is this. The United States has extraordinary power to surveil by themselves.

But they also have brought in the entire industry around them. You know, Facebook, Twitter. Et cetera, et cetera.

As a partner.

And if, for example, it's illegal for the United States to assassinate someone. They can't target a foreign leader, for example. And -- and tell the CIA, go and assassinate that person.

That's illegal, they can't do it.

But if they hired someone to do that. And they did it for them. It would be exactly the same thing.

And it would still be illegal. That's what the government has done essentially with surveillance, and suppression of free speech.

With the weaponization of many of these tools. Is they don't do it themselves. They go to these Ted companies. And saying, we want you to do it for us.

And we're going to compel you.

We're going to intimidate you. We'll threaten you.

Now, they don't have to threaten them very often or very hard.

Because it turns out these tech companies are more than willing to do this for the United States government.

GLENN: I know.

CHRIS: But the fact that they work with a partner is still -- is still a sense of wrong.
As much as if they had done it themselves. So once again, it's one of the things that we're trying to address, and trying to expose.

GLENN: So one more question, and I've only got 90 seconds max on this.

Tell me, are we standing firm on Congress bringing back the power of the purse?

Are we going to fold again?

CHRIS: Yeah. We'll see, Glenn. I mean, you have the Republican House. And many of us are saying that that is the only tool that we have. And that is to say, we just won't fund you.

But we don't control the Senate. The House will push a lot of these things.

For instance, I won't give a penny to the new FBI headquarters until Christopher Wray comes in and answers a boatload of questions.

GLENN: Under oath, in a way where he has to go to jail.

You know, you -- you just said Comey answered, you know, I don't remember. When he was under oath.

Well, he was under oath in Congress. But nobody cares!

Nobody cares about that oath it seems.

CHRIS: Yeah. It does seem like that's something different. But back to the original question.

The House will fund some of these efforts. And I think we will be broad and deep in some of those. Of course, then that budget goes to the Senate. And we'll see what Schumer does. Because you know what he'll do. And he won't.

And that's where the fight will take place. That's -- you know, we won't know the answer to that, until sometime this summer or this fall, when we actually have to fund the government, and we'll see how strong Republicans will stand.

GLENN: Chris, thank you very much.

I can't imagine being any of you guys who are trying to do your best in Washington. I just can't imagine the frustration, but thank you.

CHRIS: Glenn, I should have taken a job and come and worked with you.

GLENN: I know you should have.

Huge mistake. I told you. All right. Chris, thank you so much.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

Claire's warning: The dark side of gender care EXPOSED

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.