RADIOJanuary 08, 2024

THIS government SCAM would be the 'DESTRUCTION of rural America'

There is a new government proposal that Glenn believes is "horrifying." The SEC proposal would allow for the creation of a new type of company called a "natural asset company," which could buy up land to use natural processes — like the generation of fresh air — to write off carbon emissions. Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks joins to explain what he believes this would mean: "It will permanently stop economically essential activities like grazing, mineral extraction, modern agriculture ... we're basically talking about the destruction of rural America."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Marlo Oaks. Welcome to the program, sir.

MARLO: Thank you, good to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: Thank you very much, and thank you for alerting me to this. This is horrifying. This is a new SEC proposal to allow for a creation of a new type of company.

Tell us about it.

MARLO: Yeah. Yeah. So basically a natural asset company. And really, the heart of the problem is that it will permanently stop economically essential activities like grazing, mineral extraction. Modern agriculture. Severely curtailed recreational access. We're basically talking about the destruction of rural America.

And really, it's an effort to take control of America's natural resources.

This could be done through these natural asset companies. From hostile nations that put money into these.

And we're essentially placing a value on natural processes.

Things like, you know, the -- the biological systems. That provide clean air.

Water.

Food. Things like that.

Putting an economic value on those. It's really an arbitrary value. And that represents massive transfer of wealth.

GLENN: This is just another scam. This is another financial scam. To make people a lot of money.

But this one, you know, unlike the scams that cost us, you know, almost our freedom last time in 2008. This one, actually if it goes through, if you buy let's say, this stock, in this -- in this company, you then can -- you would be giving the money to buy up the rights of all the minerals.

And even like the air.

And you can't -- and you can't develop it. It's a forest. And there's lots of clean air that's being generated. Right?

MARK: That's exactly right.

And so basically, the New York Stock Exchange, went to the security and exchange commission, said, we need a rule that will allow us to lift companies whose purposes isn't to make money, it's to provide ecologically services. And what are those ecologically services?

Well, it is the biological systems that are creating clean air.

So think of a forest. Right?

Taking carbon out of the air and converting it into oxygen. What is that worth?

What are underground aquifers worth? You know, the water that seeps into the ground and creates clean water.

It's those kinds of what we think of, as God-given processes, that are now going to be monetized in some way. And people who own these companies, who put money into these companies.

They stand to benefit from that. At the expense of our country.

GLENN: So now are they -- let's say -- let's say I'm a landowner. And I have farmland, and I have a forest.

Do I participate in this?

Do I have to say, yes, my everything is up for sale? Or is this just kind of like air rights in New York where you're just buying the rights of air?

MARK: Well, there is, you know, from ESG. The climate crisis is really driving the ESG environmental social governance discussion. It's the same thing here. And there's a push, really an attack on energy. Agriculture.

GLENN: Right.

MARLO: And so when we look at agriculture, we're seeing the squeezing of ranchers.

And these natural asset companies.

Ban what's called industrial agriculture.

Which is essentially all agriculture that happens around the globe. Because that -- that is what producers the yields that are needed to feed the world population.

And so if you ban industrial agriculture, you're talking about something that happened in Sri Lanka. Which is the reduction of -- of rice harvests. Forty to 50 percent, leading to an 80 percent increase in prices there.

It -- civil unrest unbelievably there. And that's what we're talking about.

GLENN: So let me have a very western conversation with you. Most people in the East. They don't understand BLM land.

And that is not Black Lives Matter. That is Bureau of Land Management.

They own in the West a great portion of the -- the land that farmers use to graze their cattle on, because it's just open land.

And you pay a fee. And you can graze your cattle. Cattle on that land.

And the government is supposed to take care of it.

This would -- this company, this new natural asset company, would then not take control of the land, right?

It would just say, no grazing cattle on that land, because we need it pure for the carbon offset or whatever.

And so it would grab that. But could it grab -- could it grab my land, if I'm a farmer?

MARLO: Well, it could be inside of a designated area.

So right now, in Montana, the 5 million acres. They're trying -- the federal government. I have forgotten which agency it is. Designated 5 million acres.

They're trying to create a national monument out of this.

There's private land, within that.

So your land could be inside of a designated area.

And the government wouldn't necessarily, you know, buy your land. But you will end up with fewer options.

GLENN: Yeah. You won't have any roads maintained. You won't be able to expand. Or do anything. You might be able to be grandfathered into what you're doing right now. But nothing else, right? And the infrastructure will be left alone.

MARLO: Yes. That's right. And so even in the east. So in the east, you have -- you have conservation easements. So landowners in the east, have placed their lands in conservation easements. Which effectively means that no development can happen.

And they do this to get a task benefit. But over time, because it's in perpetuity. That land -- the use of the land, when you entered into a conservation easement cannot change.

But the subjective nature of creating a sustainable agriculture. Or sustainable land, going forward. Means that that land can be placed in a natural asset company.

These conservation easements can go into a natural asset company and -- without the landowner's consent, essentially.

And so this really effects people in the East and the West.

It's just under different --

GLENN: Wow. It --

MARLO: -- designation.

GLENN: Wow. Yeah. And it will affect all of us. Because our food prices will go through the roof.

MARLO: Absolutely.

GLENN: And good luck going to a national park.

Let me ask you this: How is the New York Stock Exchange pushing for this.

Because what the -- what this natural asset company, this new -- this whole new category.

It is noneconomic.

The land that they would buy, as a private entity, must support only replenishable activities.

So that means.

They can only replenish the land.

They can't have any economic activity on it.

It's assigned an arbitrary value. And then it's traded on that.

But this is a -- there's no -- you cannot make profit on this.

So who would be buying the stock for this?

Because you're not going to make money?

MARLO: Well, you're not going to make money through traditional economic activity. But if companies have to be net zero. Let's say.

GLENN: Ah.

MARLO: You're emitting a lot of carbon. Then you will have an incentive to buy into natural asset companies, that will provide potentially carbon offsets through these natural processes. That's one way to drive artificial value.

GLENN: So I'm putting a lot of pollution in the air. But if I buy part of Yellowstone or part of Montana that can no longer be developed, then I can use that and say, yeah, but I've got all these trees producing all this fresh air.

MARLO: Exactly.

GLENN: This is so evil. This is so incredibly evil.

MARLO: Yeah. We've got to -- we see natural processes as sort of God-given, right? And you and I are walking carbon-emitters. I mean, when we breathe out, we're emitting 4 percent carbon.

And so what happens when each of us individually have a carbon footprint that we have to offset? You know, the wealthy can easily do it.

They just go out and buy access. But it's the poor among us. Are they going to have to pay for their carbon emission and then that -- that is going to incentivize car reduction, you know, getting people out of cars and walking and bicycles and things like that?

You can see where this goes.

GLENN: Yeah. Most importantly, this gives a public/private partner ship a chance to enrich all of the very wealthy anyway.

And it is -- and it is like, what was it that almost brought us to 2008?

Derivatives.

It's like derivatives.

You're selling garbage.

You're not selling anything. Nobody really owns anything, if you keep selling, you know, these derivatives.

It's a scam. This is the same thing, at a global scale.

MARLO: Yep. Well, and you think about, what is America -- what's one of the greatest assets of America is our natural resources. They're incredible.

And this allows, not just wealthy investors. We're talking about countries like China or Russia. Or, you know, Iran. Whomever. That has a ton of money, in these sovereign wealth funds. To buy into a natural asset company. Because they will raise money globally.

GLENN: Oh, if I'm in China. And I want to cripple the United States. I just take West Texas, and I buy up all of it in one of these companies. And origin drill.

MARLO: That's right. That's exactly right.

GLENN: We're suicidal. We're absolutely suicidal.

Okay. So there is a public comment period, right? And it's right now. And it's been shortened. And surprise, everybody, during the holiday season. So for the average person, can they go online or call or what?

MARLO: Yes. Absolutely. So I'm telling people to contact their federal legislators. Their state legislators, you know, to have them reach out to the SEC. So people can reach out to the SEC, but also encourage your legislators to reach out to the SEC. And even the New York Stock Exchange. Contact your. Your attorney general, even the State Treasurer.

They need to take action to oppose this. And you can reach out to the SEC directly.

GLENN: Will it be too late after January? They say they will decide after January 2nd.

MARLO: Well, one of the decisions could be to extend the decision out further.

GLENN: Okay.

MARLO: So that's why I'm hoping, that we raise enough awareness and pushback that it makes it difficult for them to finalize this on January 2nd. But, you know -- the fuse is incredibly short.

GLENN: It's incredible.

MARLO: And it's by design.

GLENN: Of course, it is. Of course, it is. And once again, the destruction of everything that we -- what is America about, if you can't come here, buy a piece of land, and do what you want to do with it?

Well, what is America about? This goes back to agenda 2020. Agenda 2030. Where they're trying to push everybody into the cities.

And this will do it. This will do it.

MARLO: And this is the whole of government approach. You see all of these agencies. The Forest Service Station. Wildlife. BLM. You know, the Bureau of Land Management.

All of these agencies are pushing this agenda.

Now, the SEC -- right? And the SEC, of course, with ESG.

But this just takes it to a whole other level.

But you see the entire government apparatus pushing this goal to really permanently -- essential economic activity on our land and really lock up our natural resources.

It's incredibly disruptive.

GLENN: Marlo, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. We'll talk to you again.

Marlo Oaks. He's the Treasurer of Utah, who brought this to my attention.

It needs critical attention right now. We're going to have this section of the show clipped. We'll put it out online. Please, share it with everyone. Share it with every legislator. And senator you can find. Make sure they know about it. Make sure your friends know about it. This is a way to lock up all public and private lands. It is -- it's obscene and evil, and it's got to stop. And they will decide by January 20th, unless as he said, we kick up a storm and make sure that our ledgers, state and federal, are calling and saying, no, no, no. Not so fast. Not so fast. They've got to call the SEC. So here's the thing.

You are telling your congressman or whoever about the Natural Asset Company that the New York stong exchange is creating, along with the SEC.

The SEC, the Security and Exchange Commission, cannot allow for the creation of this kind of a company. They cannot do it.

Did Arizona register 98,000 ILLEGALS to vote? AZ Justice sets the record STRAIGHT

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick joins Glenn Beck to set the record straight about a claim that Arizona registered 98,000 illegal immigrants to vote. Justice Bolick tells Glenn that this is NOT TRUE and there is NO indication that any of the voters in question were here illegally. So, what actually happened? Justice Bolick explains and also comments on what you should do if you’re concerned about the fairness of the 2024 election.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

You know, our job is getting harder and harder.

I just gave permission to hire, you know, another researcher. This morning.

Because we are just overwhelmed in stories, that we don't know what the truth is.

You should see my -- my email, my -- my private messages.

And even my text messages from friends that I trust. That are like, Glenn, I don't know if this is true. I don't know either!

I don't know either.

And I know you're in that situation. And we are going to go off the cliff, if we can't verify some things.

That's one reason why I'm going to Asheville North Carolina today.

I need to know. Is this stuff happening?

Are there bodies in Chimney Rock, that are still there?

You know, what is happening on the ground?

And we're bringing, you know, a plane full of supplies for them. Through Mercury One.

But we have to -- this is what I said in the meeting today.

We have got to come. And even if we don't talk about them. We have to find out. Are these things true, so you know if they're true or not?

And we'll do our best. But it takes so much time. We have so much going on. I think it was like a week ago, or so.

Do you remember the story that Arizona added 98,000 illegals?

STU: I remember that being, yeah.

GLENN: And I think we talked about it, right?

STU: Yeah. I think we did at the time. And tried to give perspective.

So much stuff for people to sort through right now.

GLENN: Firm the story right, it was hard decipher.

I think that's why we didn't follow up on it, at all. Because I don't know what is right on this story.

STU: Let's lock it down.

GLENN: Well, good news, the head guy of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote to us. He's Justice Bolick. He, who joined the court in 2016. He previously cofounded the Institute for Justice and served as litigation director for the Goldwater Institute. So he's one of us.

He litigated constitutional cases from coast-to-coast, including the US Supreme Court.

He's not the Supreme Court. He's a Supreme Court I couldn't wait. But he's not the chief justice now, in Arizona.

But he says, that story is wrong.

And he would be the guy that knows. Clint, welcome to the program.

CLINT: Oh, thank you so much for having me, Glenn. And thanks for making the correction. My boss, the chief justice would have drawn and quartered me.
(laughter)

GLENN: You know, this story was everywhere. And I don't remember what we said. We might have said that yep. That's crazy.

And the Supreme Court is out of control.

I don't know what we said. But if we got it wrong, A, I apologize.

So let's correct it. And correct all of the stories that were out there. What happened?

CLINT: So, Glenn, thank you so much for that.

And, you know, usually, when a court issues controversial decisions, they know it.

And so for a couple of days after, we did not consider this to be a controversial decision at all.

But all of a sudden, we were hearing from people, and I was encountering people, who were saying, we were letting illegal immigrants vote.

And I looked at the headlines, that had come out, and just I've got one I'm reading in front of me, from Newsweek, that said Arizona court, says nearly 100,000 people with unconfirmed citizenship can vote.

And so I can well understand, why people got that impression.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

CLINT: But the headline should have read, court. Arizona court prevents disenfranchisement of 100,000 people over computer error.

And that's exactly what happened.

So Arizona is one of the few states, that requires proof of citizenship, before someone votes.

And when the law was passed, they assumed, that people who had registered by 2005, were -- were legal citizens. So they didn't require you to show proof of citizenship, unless you moved to a different county, or applied for a duplicate license. And due to a Department of Motor Vehicles glitch. And I know that's hard to believe.

GLENN: Oh, no. It's hard to believe that the government would do anything that had glitches in it.

CLINT: Yeah. So in any event, apparently, a large number of people, who were registered to -- to -- to vote, and who had driver's licenses before 1996, and who moved, or got duplicate licenses, were never asked to prove their citizenships.

Now, most of these people had been voting for decade.

And, you know, so -- so there's no indication that any of them are illegal who didn't notice. But once this problem was discovered, the county recorder of Maricopa County, went to court, and said, all of these people should be removed and required to prove their citizenship, between now and the election.

And, of course, the same people who made the mistake, would have been this charge of -- of making sure that those were shown by the election.

And just imagine, if we had gone to Election Day and thousands, possibly over 100,000 people who had been voting for decades. Were told, oh, no.

We don't know whether you're a citizen or not.

GLENN: Right.

CLINT: And how this is not -- so, in any event, it was a very easy legal issue for us.

And it was the only election case, Glenn.

That I can remember, where the Arizona Republican party, and the ACLU were on the same side.

They hoped that please don't throw these people off the ballot.

You know, we discovered.

We determined that we had no authority to take that many people off the ballot.

You can challenge individual voters, at -- if you think that they are not citizens. And after the election, though, there will be an effort to verify citizenship.

But most of these people would have had no idea what was going on.

You know, given that they voted without a problem for -- for decades. And so it just -- it was one of those stories, that the headlines. One of those cases, that the headlines turned into a controversy.

But it really wasn't a controversy at all.

GLENN: Right. So with an election coming up, and you guys -- are you guys voted on, in the Supreme Court?

CLINT: So, yes. We are subject to retention every six years.

GLENN: Oh.

CLINT: And yours truly is one of those justices up for retention this year, with a very spirited campaign against me from self-described progressive groups.

GLENN: Oh, great. Well, all you had to say -- you had me at Goldwater Institute.

So, you know, I'm -- I'm for you, Glenn.

How -- how confident are you, that we can have a fair election this time in Arizona?

CLINT: Well, you know, I'm not on the ground. I'm not involved.

GLENN: Okay.

CLINT: You know, in the day-to-day.

And, you know, one of the things that I've been doing is encouraging people to volunteer as poll workers.

You know, and other jobs that take place on Election Day. The best -- the best place to be on Election Day, if you have concerns about election integrity, is on the inside.

And I've been very heartened that both political parties. Both major and political parties have really been encouraging volunteers to do that.

And when I hear that sort of thing, it gives me. It gives me confidence that, you know -- that --

GLENN: At least that step has been taken.

CLINT: Yes.

Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, thanks for clearing this up. I appreciate it.

And, you know, if -- if there's anybody who is on the right, that has misunderstood this, which I think probably a lot of people. Because it was everywhere.

And I -- I apologize.

Again, I don't know exactly what we said. But let's just assume, we were one of those who believed the headlines.

Apology to -- to our audience. And to everybody in Arizona. I'm glad you reached out to us, so we can set the record straight.

Thank you.

CLINT: Glenn, I am so -- you know, I am so glad that you gave me the opportunity. I'm sure it's not every day, that the judge contacts you. And says, hey.

GLENN: Yeah.

CLINT: This is not correct.

GLENN: Yeah. No. I agree. I invite anyone.

If we get something wrong, I'm not afraid of correcting it and saying, we were wrong. So I appreciate that you reached out to us.

Because we will correct it. We will correct it. Thanks.

CLINT: Well, and I am so grateful for that. If everyone did that, we would be in a much better place in our society right now.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. We would. We would. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

Clint Bolick, he's Arizona Supreme Court justice. And apparently, running for reaffirment.

And let me just say, Goldwater Institute.

I don't think I need to say anymore.

Israel stopped a SECOND Iranian strike. Will Netanyahu retaliate?

Iran has retaliated against Israel with a massive missile barrage, mostly targeting Tel Aviv. But "miraculously," no Israelis were injured and the missiles did no serious damage. But where will Israel go from here? Former IDF spokesman and Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Fellow Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Conricus joins Glenn to discuss. Conricus, who was in a bomb shelter with his family during the attack, debunks some claims made by Iran and online and also explains why he believes "something special happened AGAIN yesterday." This is now the second time, he explains that Israel, with help from the United States, has neutralized a massive Iranian attack. So, will Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strike Iran in retaliation? And what are the odds that a larger war will break out?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The other thing that happened yesterday, that is so important is Israel. Israel is going to respond. I believe we have lieutenant colonel retired.

Jonathan Conricus. He's been on with us before. He's the former Israeli Defense Forces spokesperson, and now senior fellow of Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

And we wanted to get you on, Jonathan, first of all, assuming you're in Israel.

You're safe. And that's good. Tell us what happened yesterday, and what it means going forward.

JONATHAN: Yes. Hi, Glenn. Thank you for having me again. A pleasure. What happened yesterday was the biggest missile attack in Israeli history. About 200 ballistic missiles were fired from about 800, 900 miles away, in Iran. At Israel.

The Iranians claimed that they were aiming for military targets. But most of the impacts were actually civilian neighborhoods. And luckily, and quite ironically, some might say, the only casualty in life, was a Palestinian in Jericho. No Israeli citizens were killed.

And while there were some impacted as an Israeli Air Force base, nothing of substance, and no real damage. Neither to infrastructure, or to military capacities.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Hang on.

I heard that several F-35s were taken out. That's not true?

JONATHAN: That is absolutely categorically not true.

There wasn't a single plane hit. Not a single hangar or bunker, and not a single runway.

There were some -- one of the Air Force bases. I'm not going to say the name.

But one of the Air Force bases was hit.

It's only been -- no damage to the Israeli Air Force's capability to continue to operate.

And as our enemies know. The Israeli Air Force continues to operate, in Beirut. In other parts of the Middle East.

In southern Lebanon, over Gaza.

And so the Iranian propaganda, of having 90 percent of their targets, were hit.

Absolutely false. And not -- again, proved the enduring return on investment here.

Many years of investing. US and Israel. Doing that together.

And for the second time in the -- the moment of truth. Air defenses were almost airtight.

And they saved lots and lots and lots of lives in Israel.

GLENN: I have to tell you. I don't know if you're a religious man or not.

But I am

200 missiles being launched. Ballistic missiles.

Coming in and going into Israel.

And for no one to be killed, and you're -- and your Air Force and your military bases. Not to be destroyed.

Is an extraordinary miracle, I think.

JONATHAN: I would agree. And you don't have to be fearing in every way, to recognize that something special happened again, yesterday.

This is the second time that the Iranians unleashed massive firepower.

And it appeared to be able to understand what we're talking about. The missiles are as big as school buses. And they fired 200 of them. Each one of them with hundreds of pounds, about half a ton of explosives in the warheads.

We're talking about very serious weapons.

Large explosives.

My family, we were in the bomb shelter.

My son, he was on the bus. And then ran to a shelter.

And it was really a scene out of a movie. With explosions.

And interceptions, in Tel Aviv. And as you said, the fact that no substantial damage. And no loss of life. Yeah, many would say. And probably I would agree, that this was a miracle.

Air defenses, IDF, and a miracle.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I watched those missiles come in live. But, you know, obviously, from the other side of the planet. And I thought, what must that be like?

You know, I thought of missile launches here, going outbound, or coming in.

Something very few people in the world have seen what happened yesterday.

It must have been terrifying for the average person.

Seeing everything. The sky just lit up with fire.

JONATHAN: Yes. The sky lit up with fire.

And each of you the -- in the air. You know, that they're attached to hundreds of pounds of explosives.

They're lethal. And that they're aimed at the Israeli cities.

And there are explosions all around.

Lots of noise.

You know, we have. Just like in the US.

You have the Amber Alerts. System on your phones.

Israeli defense establishment did the same thing.

And issued like a push notification on all the phones.

Even those who didn't have an app. Download it. And millions of Israelis.

Very strong alarms on their phones.

Call them to immediately go to shelter.

And that's what millions of Israelis did.
And that's also what thankfully led to the fact that even though, some of the missiles exploded in populated areas in Israel, nobody was hurt. Because Israelis were disciplined. And went into bomb shelters.

And nobody was caught out in the open.

GLENN: So is Benjamin Netanyahu, do you think going to respond to this?

Will he strike Iran? And is there any fear that they are going to cut off the oil pathways? Are you there? Go ahead.

JONATHAN: Yeah. When we look forward -- can you hear me? Can you hear me?

GLENN: Yes.

JONATHAN: All right. So when we look forward here, I think two things will determine what will happen next. One is Israel's endgame. Seek to achieve. Because there are a lot of things when it comes to the Iranian regime. And I will clarify. And the second thing that is very important, is how well will Israel coordinate with the United States of America, and what will the level of support be in a global repeat.

Now, regarding the first part. Israel can go for regime targets, leaders, and personnel. Infrastructure that is part of the Islamic regime.

Israel can go for military and economic targets. But this is the places whereby the Iranian regime, the export of oil. And whereby, they make money.

Which is used to fund their activities. All of the terror organizations, in Israel.

And the third option, which, of course, many are eyeing and thinking about is Iran's nuclear military facility.

The research facility, the storage facilities, and many others. These are three distinctly different types of -- and what Israel wants to achieve.

Does Israel want to bring down the regime? Does it only want to hurt the Iranians from attacking Israel again?

Will Israel be told not to do anything significant by the Americans?

And, of course, remind everybody, last time that Iran attacked on the 13th or 14th of April, Israel wanted to retaliate in a much stronger way.

But refrained from doing so under America first. And instead, Israel attempted in continuing in finishing the job in Gaza and Hamas.

I don't think that we're going to see that today. And I think we are going to see in the coming days, a strong Israeli response. It may be aimed at the regime. It may be aimed at their nuclear facilities.

But I think it's absolutely important, is that Israel and the United States of America are coordinated, and I hope American leaders will see this current situation, a threat to Israel. And an opportunity to really do more in a week, than what has been accomplished in ten years of failed diplomacy. When it comes to stopping Iran from going nuclear.

I really think there will be an opportunity.

GLENN: Yeah. I think that will be good. As long as there are calls from both sides, yesterday.

That America needs to send more troops over. I think we already have 40,000 that we've sent over.

We don't want to be in another war.

This one could go global.

I think Israel is showing the world, don't screw with us.

You guys are doing a great job.

And I support that.

I just -- I just don't want to see us, enflame things by including ourself, in the actual strikes.

But support --

JONATHAN: I agree with you. And I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want the single American service men in harm's way. And I don't think that anybody needs to be fighting Israel's war.

And I think that Israel, in its history, has many times, done the heavy lifting for the rest of the Western world. Whether it's been keeling with Iraqi dictators, or with Syria, or with many others.

And Israel is -- the only thing Israel has is military support. Supplies. And, of course, political and diplomatic support. I don't think that Israel's needs or wants. Any American service members to be in harm's way. And I would just say a tremendous gratitude to American service men.

Against them. Deployed in the Red Sea. Among the -- on the US Navy ships.

And in the air.

Done tremendous work in intercepting Israeli missiles. Very professional.

And super important.

And I hope they remain safe. And I hope that they can have the diplomatic -- and military to help them to do what they need to do in order to defend itself.

GLENN: Well, we here support you on whatever you have to do to defend yourself.

I support you, I should say.

And I think there are millions of Americans that are listening, that feel the same way.

Jonathan. Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it.

You bet. Lieutenant colonel, Jonathan Conricus. Former Israeli defense spokesperson. The only thing that you should be really looking for is escalation.

But most importantly, as he was talking about. Red Sea. When you get into the straits over there, just off the shores of Iran.

If they start going after our Navy ships, or they try to close those straits down.

That is the world's flow of oil. And we will get involved in that.

And that will become very, very -- very, very dangerous.

Because this one will -- this one will not be a partial war.

This one will include, I believe bombings in our streets.

I believe we are close to terrorist activity. Foreign terrorist activity. In our own streets.

Orchestrated by Iran.

And a lot of others, who are here, and want to destroy us.

So we -- especially during this election season, we all need to be good Americans, together.

Not Republicans. Democrats, but good Americans.

And start paying attention to these issues. So we can start taking care of our own self first. So we survive this time period.