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.

Your TAXES go to Al Qaeda in Somalia?! MASSIVE scam exposed

New reporting from Christopher Rufo and Ryan Thorpe provides evidence that Minnesota taxpayer dollars are being funneled by Somali immigrants to Al Shabaab, the East African branches of Al Qaeda. Glenn Beck reviews how these scams have worked and what we can do to stop them.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me take you to Minnesota now.

I don't want to talk to you about politics. Our elections.

Culture wars. But something far, far more dangerous.

And more fundamental. Because the city journal has uncovered not a fraud scandal. This isn't waste. It's not inefficiency. This is a pipeline directly from your wallet. And this -- what I'm about to tell you, is all based on Ryan Thorpe. And Christopher Rufo's reporting.

That is some of the best reporting, I have seen. And this -- this is -- this is crazy!

The largest single funder. The largest single funder of that pipeline today, from your wallet to a foreign terror group, according to multiple federal sources, is the taxpayer of the state of Minnesota. Let me repeat that. Because it's not a punch line. This is not hyperbole. This is not a claim thrown around on social media. According to federal counterterrorism sources, quoted by the City Journal, quote, the largest funder of Al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer. What is Al-Shabaab? In case you don't remember.

It is the east African branch of al-Qaeda. This is the same group that bombs hotels. They slaughter Christians. They massacre schoolchildren. They publicly behead those who defy their authority.

And that, the major funder is you, in Minnesota!

And this is what happens when you mix a naive wide open, no questions asked welfare machine, with a political class, terrified of being called a racist.

And then a police class that's actually in on it, as well.

And then you throw in a media terrified of reporting anything that challenges progressive dogma.

And then a community where Klan networks and overseas loyalties operate underneath the radar of government. Because governments are unwilling to look there!

That is the perfect storm.

That's Minnesota.

And it is drowning inside of that storm.

Now, it started with a program called HSS.

The Housing Stabilization Services. It was launched in 2020 to help people on the margins. The addicts. The elderly. The mentally ill.

Noble idea.

But it was designed with everything a criminal enterprise dreams of! Low barriers to entry. Minimal requirements for reimbursement.

Billions in Medicaid dollars, with almost zero verification!

Now, before the program even started, bureaucrats estimated it might cost $2.6 million a year.

In four years, it went from 2.6 to 21 million.

Then the next year, in court 22 million. The next year 74 million.

To over $100 million every year.

2.6, to over 100!

This year alone, 77 HHS providers have been terminated for credible allegations of fraud. Seventy-seven.

I don't know if you saw this. The acting attorney. US attorney said, quote, the vast majority of this program was fraudulent.

Not over billing. Not paperwork. No mistakes.

Fictitious companies. Empty story fronts. Ghost clients. Stacks of faked claims. Six of the eight defendants indicated that they were members of the Minnesota Somali community, but this is the first ripple.

There was another scheme. The 250-million dollar mega scheme. That came from Feeding Our Future.

Feeding Our Future is a nonprofit that went from $3 million to $200 million in federal food aid dollars, in two years!

Three million to a straight line up to 200 million! To help feed the hungry in Minnesota, in two years. Wow! Fake meal accounts.

Fake attendants. Fake invoices. Dozens of defendants. Primarily, members of Minnesota's Somali community. Some of them bought luxury homes, fancy cars, properties in Kenya and Turkey. And when the state raised any kind of concern, the group sued, claiming racism. And everybody was like, racism.
I don't know what I call that.

The investigators were chastised. The politicians stayed quiet. The media -- by the way, that's government you could have had as vice president right now. Everyone knew the rule. Don't question. You can't criticize, okay? If you want to survive politically, no!

So the cost $250 million stolen, right there, hung on the backs of taxpayers, who believed they were feeding hungry kids.

Now add on to that. So we've got two scandals. Now add on to that, the autism scam.

Days after those indictments, another scheme exploded. Autism services. A Somali woman already tied to feeding our future was charged with leading a 14 million-dollar Medicare fraud ring.

That was invented diagnosis. They bought parents with kickbacks. They created a network of fake autism centers, autism spending. In Minnesota, jumped from 3 million, to 399 million in just a couple of years.

Providers ballooned from 41 providers to 328.

One in 16 Somalia 4-year-olds were suddenly diagnosed. One in every 16 suddenly had autism. That's triple the state average. And nobody was -- nobody is looking into that? What's happening in the Somali community? This wasn't CAIR. This wasn't treatment. This was a racket. And it wasn't isolated.

Let me tell you what the US attorney Joseph Thompson said. He said, these schemes form a web, that has stolen billions of dollars.

So why did nobody ask where that money went.

Where did the money go. Oh. You're not going to like the answer.

Somalia depends on remittances from abroad. $1.7 billion sent to Somalia last year alone. That is more money than the country's entire government budget!

Imagine somebody sending us $6 trillion.

That's what happened in Somalia. Investigators told Chris Rufo and the city journal that welfare recipients in Minnesota, were sending the money overseas.

Called Hawalla money transfer networks. They were moving tens of millions of dollars all the time.

And Al-Shabaab, the terrorist organization, takes a cut of every dollar entering the Somali clan channels. One terrorism task force investigator said, every cent, sent back to Somalia, benefits Al-Shabaab in some way. It's not speculation. It's not theory. It's not conjecture. This is the conclusion of multiple federal investigators, who have spent years tracking the money flow.

They said Minnesota Somali community runs a sophisticated money pipeline, directly from the pockets of US taxpayers, directly to Somalia!

Welfare dollars. Fraudulently obtained. Transferred to Somalia. Al-Shabaab benefits every single time, and here's the part that should terrify everybody. They warn that if one terrorist attack could be traced back to these funds.

The entire country will discover overnight.

That we were financing the very groups sworn to destroy us.

Gang, you're going to find this in Epstein. You're going to find this -- we already did with USA ID. You're going to find this everywhere. The greatest heist of human history, the largest robbery of wealth has been happening right under our noses and we didn't even know the bank turned off the alarms!

All of our wealth being transferred out. Why didn't Minnesota stop this. Why didn't the journalists investigate this?

Why didn't the officials sound the alarm?

Well, here's the reason. If you don't win the Somali community. You don't win Minneapolis. If you don't win Minneapolis, you don't win the state. That's it!

You're going to say anything about it.

Of course not.

Of course, you won't say a damn thing about it.

Ilhan Omar staff. Advocated for the later groups later charged with fraud.

State officials were looking the other way. Democratic leadership, refused audits. Oversight. Even any kind of scrutiny. Because the political cost of calling out fraud, if it occurred inside that Somali community, was considered higher than the cost of losing billions of your dollars. So they let it grow.

They let it metastasize. They let it intertwine with criminal and terrorist networks overseas.

You're just an Islamophobe. It's not about ethnicity. This is about a system that refuses to protect its own citizens. Enough is enough!

Is every Somali Minnesotan responsible? No, that's absurd!

But ignoring the fact that organized fraud rings have emerged inside a specific community, that doesn't have loyalty! Many times, to the United States of America, when nobody would look into it.
The FBI, investigative journalists.

That's not tolerance. It's negligence. It's cowardice.

And it's allowed billions of dollars meant for the poor of our nation. Your hard-earned money. To become an international money laundering system that helps finance the second largest al-Qaeda franchise on planet earth.

This is what happens when ideology replaces oversight. When equity replaces accountability.

When fear of being labeled a racist overrides the responsibility to protect -- to protect taxpayers or safeguard national security!

Minnesota didn't just mismanage welfare programs. It didn't just lose money.

It didn't just fall asleep.

It built through fear and politics and continual. The perfect getaway through which billions of our dollars could pour from American safety net programs, into overseas networks that feed, support, and expand the reach of violent jihadist organizations.

Wow.

I think it was the US attorney that said, it should take your breath away.

It does. It does.

Now, here's the -- here's the thing. I started talking to you today, about the Bubba Effect. You're seeing the Bubba Effect happening now in Dearborn. You have a guy who is wrapping a Koran in bacon, and all kinds of trouble is happening because of it. And I don't know any common sense individual on either side of the aisle, that thinks that's a good idea.

Okay?

But a lot of people including me, at times, is like, look what he's saying though. It's not about the bacon. It's about the Koran. Look at what's he's saying. This is out of control.

And nobody is saying it. At least he's saying it. No, no, no. That's the Bubba Effect.

No! He's wrong in what he's doing. He's not necessarily wrong in what it is highlighting.
But we can't be part of the Bubba Effect.

Let's just highlight the real stuff!

But people get so frustrated, it takes bacon and a Koran to make people pay attention again.

This is not a Minnesota story.

This is not even a story about Somalia. This is a story about USAID. This is a story about Epstein.

All of our money. And this is a story about silence. And fear. And institutional corruption and surrender.

And unless we confront it honestly. Unflinchingly. Immediately. With truth!

We're all going to be poor.

We will all end up being Somalia. Because in the end, every last time that we have, will be taken.

And shipped some place else, and used against us for our own demise.

Witnessing a SpaceX Launch & Predicting Elon Musk's Legacy in 50 Years

Glenn Beck recently witnessed a SpaceX rocket launch from hours away, and the raw power of it sent him into a passionate breakdown about the wonder of space travel, the brilliance of Elon Musk, and the insanity of a culture that’s turning on its greatest innovators. From the days of the Space Shuttle to Musk’s Starship and self-driving Tesla vehicles, Glenn argues that Elon isn’t just a tech founder, but rather a once-in-history mind, a modern Edison who revived an American spirit we had forgotten.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Last night, here in Florida, Tania said SpaceX is going to launch another missile. About 15 minutes. Let's go outside and see if we can see it. And we live right on the coast. And all of a sudden, you know, we're watching it, ten, nine, eight, seven, six. And about 45 seconds after the launch. We're like, oh, but we can't see it. Then all of a sudden, over the top of the trees, we just see this flame coming up. And it was absolutely. I posted it on the Instagram last night. On my Instagram page. It was absolutely one of the most amazing things I've seen.

From a distance. I've seen it once before. I've seen the last space shuttle lift off in the middle of the night. And I really close. I was across the water. I was just right across from -- what is it?

Cape Kennedy.

And I could not believe, it was a wonder of the world. 3 o'clock in the morning. All of a sudden, it was just day light.

And now, I'm -- oh, I don't even know.

Three hours away. Two, three hours away?

And it's one of the most incredible things I've ever seen.

It just starts coming up. And then, you know, you see the rocket. The boosters detach.

The -- the first stage rockets go out. They turn blue. Then they go out.

And then you see them. And it just picks up so much speed. And just racing through the sky.

It is incredible. It's incredible.

If you've never seen a rocket launch, I can't wait to see his -- what is the -- that was a falcon.

What's the big, big heavy one that he's working on.

Nobody knows.

VOICE: Falcon Heavy, isn't it?

VOICE: Is it the Falcon Heavy?

I don't know.

I don't think so.

I think -- somebody look this up.

Starship. That's it.

I think it's based on the original Soviet design. The Soviets, the reason why we beat the Soviets up in space, is they had this great design of like 24 rockets.

Where we had like four, big, huge ones for lift.

They had like 24, 25 rockets, at the bottom of it.

But they couldn't synchronize them.

You know, this was when computing was really, really bad.

They couldn't synchronize them.

So they couldn't keep it level.

So it would take off. And spiral out of control and blow up.

That's the reason why we beat them into space.

I saw the bottom end of one of these rockets in a video. And I think -- I think it's the original Soviet design. I'm not sure. Because now we have the ability to synchronize everything. But I can't wait to see that thing. Because it's bigger than a Saturn rocket. Bigger the ones that we send to the moon.

JASON: At some point, I don't know if the wonder of space travel left.

JASON: We get bored with things.

JASON: It's so weird. But Elon Musk just brought it back. I mean, we're doing just amazing stuff.

GLENN: It's like everything.

We did it. We mastered it. We put people on the moon. Everybody was crazed about it. I remember sitting in class and seeing the astronauts, you know, on the moon. We would go in. They would bring in an old TV.

And they would sit the TV. Before these things were even on the little -- you know, wheel, you know, AV kind of things.

It was just a big old TV.

And we all went into the regular -- you know, the gym, and we watched it on a regular TV.

And them walking around, on the moon. And that must have been in the early '70s.

And then after that, everybody was like, yeah. So we've been to the moon. Now, nobody believes we've gone to the moon ever.

Now we're going back up. And, I mean, it's amazing. It's amazing to watch. Because you just think, I just watched it last night. I'm like, my gosh. Look at the power of that thing.

I could -- how far are we away?

Three hours?

Two hours?

You could hear it. You could hear it. It got to a certain place. Where my wife said, you can see it on the tape on Instagram. My wife at one point said, can you hear that?

You could! You could hear the crackle of it. It is -- I mean, it's incredible. Just incredible.

I really want to go see a liftoff in person, again. Just amazing.

STU: Yeah. We should. To be clear, we should excommunicate him out of our society. Because you wore a red hat a few times. That, I think is a smart -- it's a smart move.

GLENN: I know. What a dummy.

STU: Yeah. He's an idiot. And obviously, we don't need him helping our country, right now.

Why?

Because he voted for lower taxes or something.

We -- that's a good way to run our society.

GLENN: Hate that guy. Hate that guy.

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: What a dope.

We have just -- we have just become morons.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: We really -- really have.

History will look back and go, at what point, they just became morons. You know.

STU: Do you find it interesting, Glenn. He was at this turn with the Saudi Arabian, you know, delegation, I guess.

Trump did a turn and invited a bunch of VIPs to it.

I thought a good sign from the perspective of the relationship between Trump and Elon Musk, that he was invited in, was there.

Right?

Remember, they had a total falling out. It was over the Epstein files. If you --

GLENN: No. They made nice at Charlie Kirk's funeral.

STU: Yeah. So that's what you think earlier repaired. Somewhat repaired at this point?

GLENN: Yeah. Somewhat repaired. And, you know, if you're trying to showcase the best of America. Who better to have at the table than Elon Musk?

I mean, he is the Tesla or the Edison of our day. There's nobody -- is there anybody in the world that everybody, with an exception of those who are just so politically, you know -- I don't know.

Pilled. That they just can't stand anybody that votes differently than them.

I mean, be even when he was -- we thought he was a real big lefty.

I still wanted to meet the guy.

I still wanted to be, man, I would give my right arm to sit and listen to that guy in the same room.

You know what I mean?

It would be great.

This is a guy who will be remembered for hundreds of years.

After Jesus comes.

Well, we may not have history books at that point.

But he's going to be remembered for hundreds of years, as one of the greatest human beings ever. When they were still human beings.

So, I mean, who doesn't want to meet that guy?

How is it that we have half of our -- we have half of our country now just hating on that guy?

It's genius. Would you be happier if he was Chinese.

STU: Thank God, he's here.

GLENN: Thank God.

STU: And wants to be here.

And wants to be in this environment.

I think that, you know, you look at everything.

And it's going to be a great biopic.

The movie on Elon Musk's life. Is going to be absolutely incredible. Because he is a somewhat complicated figure at times.

There's a lot to discuss on the Elon Musk front.

GLENN: Oh.

STU: Just think of the fact that this guy has put, I don't know.

You know, hundreds of thousands. Millions of cars on the road right now.

That are, you know, capable and are driving themselves.

Think of -- that's like -- an incredible accomplishment!

This is a guy who is putting cars that are -- you know, have full self-driving. You can sit in there.

The thing will drive itself from point A to point B. Without you touching really anything.

And that is -- think about the fact that that's just being said. That even people are allowed. You know, that governments are just like. Yeah. We trust this guy. To let all these cars drive themselves.

It's an amazing accomplishment. That's just one of many.

It's really an amazing life.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Cracker Barrel CEO Finally Addresses ‘Woke’ Rebrand Controversy | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 275

“I feel like I’ve been fired by America,” says Cracker Barrel CEO Julie Masino, in a vulnerable tell-all that goes behind the scenes into the explosive Cracker Barrel rebrand which Glenn describes as “stupid from start to finish.” In August 2025, Cracker Barrel unveiled a minimal new logo with modern fonts, cozy colors....no nice old man....and no BARREL for him to lean on. But it wasn’t just the logo; the restaurant chain was also getting a “modern” remodel. In short: We hated it. Social media erupted with brutal reviews, calling it “minimalist,” “soulless” and “downright ugly.” Cracker Barrel stock tanked, their attempt to tamp down the pushback backfired, and it looked like this was their “Bud Light moment.” But then, Cracker Barrel surprised us. They listened. Within weeks, they scrapped the new logo, reinstated the original, and hit pause on every remodel. “Covid even made Cracker Barrel start drinking,” says Doug Hisel, Senior Vice President of Store operations, as he takes Glenn behind the scenes as to what REALLY led to moment that brought Cracker Barrel to its knees. In Julie’s first interview since her time on “Good Morning America” when she said the response to the new logo, “was overwhelmingly positive,” she is here to say to America: “I’m sorry....I regret it.” Now the question is: will America forgive her?

Jasmine Crockett just DEFENDED this Jeffrey Epstein claim?!

Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett recently claimed on the House floor that Republicans, including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, had taken money from “somebody named Jeffrey Epstein.” But it wasn’t THE Jeffrey Epstein. Glenn and Stu review this incredibly dumb attempt to smear Republicans and the even more insane excuses she gave to CNN.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with Jasmine Crockett. Yesterday, she came out, and she said that Lee Zeldin was receiving money from Jeffrey Epstein!

And Lee Zeldin is like, what?

No, I didn't!

Now, he knows that he did get money from Jeffrey Epstein. Just not the Jeffrey Epstein. Another Jeffrey Epstein.

Here is -- here is Jasmine Crockett trying to spin her mistake, on CNN last night.

Listen to this.

VOICE: Senate Democrat, who has been on defense over Jeffrey Epstein is Stacey Plaskett. She represents the Virgin Islands. She was texting with Jeffrey Epstein the day of Michael Cohen's hearing. Her questions pretty closely followed the text messages between the two of them to ask about Rhona Graff, Trump's long-time assistant. You were defending her today and in recent days, yesterday. And you talked about Republicans taking money from a Jeffrey Epstein. Here's what you said.

VOICE: Who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I had my team dig in very quickly. Mitt Romney, the NRCC. Lee Zeldin. George Bush. When (inaudible). McCain/Palin. Rick Lazio.

VOICE: You mentioned Lee Zeldin there. He's now a cabinet secretary. He responded and said, it was actually Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, who is a doctor that doesn't have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker. Unfortunate for that doctor. But that is who donated to a prior campaign of his.

And do you want to correct the record on --

VOICE: I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein. Just so the people understand when you make a donation, your future is not there. And because they decided to spring this on us, in real time. I wanted the Republicans to think about what could potentially happen.

Because I knew that they didn't even try to go through FEC. So my team, what they did was they Googled. And that is specifically why I said agent, because unlike Republicans, I at least don't go out and just tell lies.

Because it was -- when Lee Zeldin had something to say, all he had to say was it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. He knew he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein. So at least I wasn't trying to mislead people. To find out who this doctor was --

GLENN: Can we stop for a second. There's so much to digest.

We have to stop for just a second.

You weren't misleading people. Because you didn't see it was the Jeffrey Epstein.

You said it was a Jeffrey Epstein. What is the problem with getting money from Jeffrey Epstein?

There's no problem. That would be like, and Stu Burguiere has been taking money from Bob Stevenson. And?

What's the problem?

He's been working for Bob Stevenson for years. He was delivering papers as a kid to Bob Stevenson's front door! Who is Bob Stevenson?

There's not a problem with that. Why would you go out and say -- if she had come out and said, you know what, Lee Zeldin was also taking money from Bob Stevenson and Jim Furstenbergersteinberg.

I mean, then it would be fine.

You clearly were smearing. Not misleading? Not misleading?

STU: Oh. I --

GLENN: What's the problem from taking it from -- other than poor Dr. Jeffrey Epstein. Oh, my gosh.

STU: First of all.

GLENN: I feel bad for that guy.

STU: That life sucks.

If you're Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, you got to think about a name-change.

But there's hundreds of Dr. -- not doctor, but hundreds of Jeffrey Epsteins across the country.

GLENN: Hundreds.

STU: And I -- I mean, she was designed in a lab to make me happy. Jasmine Crockett.

I -- I love her so much.

GLENN: True. I do too. I do too.

STU: If you could formulate the perfect Democrat. I think I would just have to put her out there.

She just says the dumbest.

Like, she can't even get her bad defense right over this.

Like, she's trying to say, well, I didn't lie. Like, that's your defense in theory. I threw this in here. I noticed it, at the time. We talked about it, I think yesterday.

That she said -- yeah. She did.

She knew -- which actually makes it worse. She knew she was lying. She knew there was a good chance this wasn't Jeffrey Epstein.

But the last thing in the world --

GLENN: It's not a problem if you would have said -- it wouldn't be a problem if you would say, look!

All of these people have taken money from a Jeffrey Epstein.

Doubt that it's the same Jeffrey Epstein. Might be.

Might not be.

STU: I mean -- what value would be that?

GLENN: I know. I know.

It would be no value. But at least you can say, I'm not trying to mislead people.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I am trying to create doubt in people's minds.

But I'm not saying he's taking money from Jeffrey Epstein.

You know, when she just lists all of these people.

I mean, let's look at her donation. Let's see if she's ever taken money from a Charlie Manson.
(laughter)

You know what I mean? She's taken money from a John Wayne Gacy.

Hello!

A Ted Bundy has been seen around her house.

I mean, it's crazy! It's crazy!

And she knew exactly what she was doing.

And I hope that she continues. I hope that she continues to gain power.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: And love and respect from the Democrats. Because she is insane.

She's insane? She's so reckless. She's insane.

STU: She is. And, by the way, this is the person that we are told that should be the face of the party, that they should lean into the way she talks.

Because she's such a good communicator.

And she gets on all these shows, Glenn. This is a massive problem in our politics. And it affects the left more than the right.

It affects both sides to some degree. We're incentivized. The entire system is set up to reward people like her.

Who just say the dumbest things possible. And the most irresponsible and reckless things possible. And get all the clicks.

This woman has been on Colbert. Why?

She has been a complete nobody who is wrong all the time. She's getting on all these massive shows. She's getting booked everywhere. She's living the ultimate life of today's modern congressman.

And what is going to stop her?

The incentives are right there for her to continue.

GLENN: Do you think she doesn't know that she's dead.

Because didn't a Crockett die at the Alamo. Is that her?

I think that's her.

I know a Crockett died at the Alamo.

I'm not really sure. I'm not really sure.

I mean, just, what a dope.

JASON: Can I just point out? It's like, I'm a part of her research team, because she put her team on this.

GLENN: But quickly. But quickly.

JASON: Yeah. I always thought, especially Congress research would have these amazing tools.

GLENN: No, they don't.

JASON: And we, like -- our team struggles over this. We're constantly trying to stay ahead of the curve.

GLENN: And the last thing we do is Google. Google.

JASON: Google searches. That's what you do in Congress.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. That is what you do. That is what you do.

STU: Don't you have to fire your whole team after this.

GLENN: I would. I would. No. But she -- I don't think.

I have a feeling that her team briefed her.

It's why she did say, A, Jeffrey Epstein.

They briefed her, and said, this is probably not the same guy.

It might have even said, if you're Googling, it might have said, Dr. Jeffrey Epstein.

Why wouldn't it?

If that's who gave that money, it most likely said, Dr. Jeffrey Epstein.

And so they would say, it's not the Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, but that's okay.

I mean, she clearly knew. So who is she going to fire? This is what she wanted. Just the smear.

STU: Do we have time to play the rest of this clip? Because there's more to this. It's amazing.

GLENN: Yeah. Go ahead.

VOICE: So I will trust and take what he says. Is that it wasn't that Jeffrey Epstein. But I wasn't attempting to mislead anybody. I literally had maybe 20 minutes before I had to do that debate.

STU: So good.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop. Stop.

So you don't say it!

I literally had 20 minutes. So I -- I didn't know, that the sky wasn't on fire, that that was actually the sun.

I only had 20 minutes before I said, my God, the whole sky is on fire!

STU: This is why I love her.

GLENN: What were you thinking?

STU: She had no idea whether the accusations she was making was true.

And she didn't even consider not saying it. The only thing that she could come up with in her brain, whatever information that comes in, in this rushed time period, just go with it.

And it's like --

GLENN: Do you know why?

STU: Why?

GLENN: Do you know why?

And I don't know if she's smart enough to know this. But you can say whatever you want as a congressman on the floor of Congress, and you cannot be held liable.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: You could say the worst thing. You could say, he was having sex with 4-year-old with his Jeffrey Epstein.

And it could be a complete lie. And you could not be held responsible because you said it, on the floor of the house.

That's why the standards are so low.

The standards are absolutely so low for these Congress -- she could say whatever she wants. If she would have said, not on the floor of the house. Lee Zeldin would sue her.

You could say, you knew what were you doing. You were smearing me and my reputation, intentionally. You knew exactly what you were doing so you couldn't sue.

She could have said, and he was having sex with a 4-year-old.

As long as he said it on the floor of the House, not a problem.

STU: This is the --

GLENN: Yeah. That is how bad our Congress is out of control.

They've you written all these laws for themselves to protect them. So they can be completely irresponsible, and it's fine.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I don't know if it's that, or if she's just a dunce.

It's hard to know with her.

GLENN: She's just dishonest. She's just dishonest.

STU: Yeah. She's dishonest and bad at it. And that's one of the things that I love about it.

There's no wool being pulled over anyone's eyes. It's just pathetic.
GLENN: No. No.

Is there more to this?

Play the rest of it out.

VOICE: Make it sound like he took money --
VOICE: I did not know. I just heard registered sex offender.
VOICE: I literally did not know.

When you search FEC files, and that's what I had my team to do. I texted my team and said, listen. We're going up. They're saying the sheets --
VOICE: Similar to saying, well, your team should have done the homework to make sure it wasn't the convicted sex trafficker.

VOICE: Within 20 minutes, you couldn't find that out. The search on FEC. So number one, I made sure that I was clear, that it was a Jeffrey Epstein.

But I never said it was specifically that Jeffrey Epstein. Because I knew that we would need more time to dig in.

VOICE: Well, Stacey Plaskett was texting the Jeffrey Epstein, talking about -- you voted against the censure for her, to remove her from her committees. You know, we pressed the -- the minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries on this last night.

Maybe you don't think she should be removed from her committees. Why do so many Democrats seem unwilling to say, it's inappropriate to be texting with a registered sex offender about what you're going to ask a witness at a Congressional hearing?

VOICE: So I'm not going to say that was necessarily the case. Now, this was someone who was a former prosecutor. Now, I haven't sat down and talked about all the specifics of why Stacey was doing what she was doing.

I know that when she got up, and she spoke. She talked about the fact that this is one of her constituents. At the end of the day, what I know with prosectors, is that they are typically talking to codefendants. They're typically talking to the people who had the best information.

What you had was the former attorney for the president that was sitting there. And honestly, we knew. Or she knew or at least Jeffrey Epstein presented that he was very cozy with the president.

He had more information, registered sex offend or not. The bigger question is why is it that the president was so cozy with a sex offender. Even if he after ultimately ended up with some of his convictions.

And seemingly he absolutely was on the plane with him. We know about the birthday card. The bigger question is why is the president of the United States not the one in the hot seat for his relationship instead of us saying, oh, you know what, we're going to take her off of her committee.

Because he decided to text her.

GLENN: Stop. Stop.

I can't take this. I can't.

STU: Literally, none of the stuff she said was true.

GLENN: None of it is true. And she's presenting it as absolute fact.

CNN is presenting it as absolute fact. And the latest is the smear last week on the Epstein stuff.

It shows that Epstein that the reason he was going to jail or going through all of the problem is because Donald Trump was the whistle-blower!

I mean, it's -- it's incredible, what they can get away with.

It's absolutely incredible.

STU: All of those happened before this conviction happened. I don't know that she doesn't know that happened. It's so fascinating to watch CNN's response to that.

GLENN: Which is nothing.

STU: How many times they said, Donald Trump said this without evidence.

Where is that on the Jasmine Crockett allegations here?

GLENN: Right.

STU: How about the situation with Caitlin Collins, who at least -- I would say at least kind of asks questions here.

But she can't even take responsibility for them. She's like, oh, well, some people are saying, you shouldn't blurt out obvious lies in the middle of a House session.

Like, what do you mean some people are saying? You never say that when it's the president of the United States.