RADIO

Did Kamala Harris SURRENDER Her VP Pick to the Obamas?

Barack and Michelle Obama have finally endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to be the Democrat Party’s 2024 presidential nominee. But what took them so long? Glenn has a theory: their endorsement wasn’t free. Did the Obamas only endorse Harris after she agreed to let THEM choose her Vice President? Glenn explains why he believes that the Obamas wanted Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, not Harris, and may force him onto the 2024 ticket.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, we welcome back Mr. Stu Burguiere. Who was gone this week. And conveniently showed up just in time for big Mike to endorse Kamala Harris. But if you heard the endorsement from Michelle Obama and Barack Obama, it doesn't ring true to me. Let's play that endorsement.

BARACK: Kamala Harris.

KAMALA: Hi.

MICHELLE: Hey, there.

KAMALA: Oh. Hi, you're both together. It's good to hear you both.

MICHELLE: I can't have this phone call, without saying to my girl Kamala, I am proud of you. This is going to be historic.

BERNIE: We called to say, Michelle and I couldn't be prouder to endorse you, to do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.

KAMALA: Oh, my goodness. Michelle, Barack, this means so much to me. I'm looking forward to doing this with the two of you, Doug and I both. And getting out there, being on the road. But most of all, I just want to tell you, the -- the words that you have spoken and the friendship that you have given over all these years mean more than I can express. So thank you, both. It means so much.

And we're going to have some fun with this too, aren't we?

STU: I bet there's a good laugh they cut out of that one.

GLENN: Right.

STU: A good cackle.

GLENN: What did that cost her?

What did that cost her? That's a very transactional couple there.

STU: Yeah. Not nothing. I think you can be certain of that.

GLENN: Yeah. It wasn't like, yeah, you know what, Michelle. We've been thinking about it. And without any thought of calling anybody. Or making any deals. Or getting something for us, or anything that we want. You know, we just love you so much.

And we just want to give this to you, for free.

What did that cost her? My guess is, one of the pieces that it cost was Mark Kelly. Barack and Michelle want Mark Kelly. They do not want Kamala Harris. That's why he hadn't endorsed.

And he was hoping, that this would all go away, after Joe Biden endorsed Kamala.

Because I think Joe Biden did that as a slap across Michelle and Barack's face.

STU: It was also interesting.

GLENN: Because they did not want her.

STU: Not the original letter.

When I -- we were going live on YouTube. At Stu Does America. On YouTube. We've been going live on these big events. Even when I'm on vacation. When that happened, I read the letter. And the first thing I noticed was, it did not include an endorsement for Kamala Harris.

Which is odd, if you're going to do this big announcement, why wouldn't you include it in the thing that everybody was going to read?

He was, ten minutes later, 15 minutes later, he released a separate tweet that was just like, I endorsed Kamala. And it was odd the way it was rolled out. So it does sort of back maybe -- maybe they came out with this main letter for history purposes. And then, you know, he kind of just wanted to stick it to them. Because I don't think he likes the Obamas at all. I think he's very angry about this whole thing.

GLENN: Oh, no. I don't think he likes the Obamas at all. And I don't think they like him. And I think he knew the candidate they wanted was Mark Kelly. Not Kamala Harris. And I think that's why the endorsement came from a separate thing.Io, you drop out of the race, you make that very clear. Nothing else.

So he issued that letter.

And then he came out. And said, oh, and, by the way, I also endorsed Kamala.

STU: Maybe Hunter controlled the Twitter for a day.

GLENN: Maybe. And then Michelle and Barack were like, oh!

Now, listen, Michelle. I'll tell you, maybe, maybe. I mean, let's not get all bent out of shape. They're not going to jump all over that. And they jumped all over that.

And immediately, he need became rallying around Kamala Harris. And she's the one. He held back.

People wondered why. I think it's because of Mark Kelly. They wanted Mark Kelly to be the guy. Because they believe he's the winner. And I don't know. If they have a chance to turn on her and do a coup on her, they will. They will.

STU: I have so many questions.

GLENN: And Mark will be the guy.

STU: I have so many questions for you. Let me first back up what you're saying, about the Barack Obama part of this. I don't know if people really bothered to read his statement at the time.

But everyone -- this is after Biden comes out and says, I fully endorse Kamala Harris. And many of his competitors who were rumored to come after the nomination if he stepped down, had already endorsed Kamala Harris.

And this is the paragraph that Barack Obama writes. We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead, but have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party, will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges.

Like, that is the farthest thing away from an endorsement of Kamala Harris you can possibly get. They did not want her.

I think it's blatantly clear. The only pushback on that, some reporting was, well, they don't want to endorse. Because they want to make it appear like it was an actual process to get to Kamala Harris. They must want to have their happened -- come on. Does anybody buy that? I guess my first question on your theory here is, why do you think Mark Kelly was such a big favorite of the Obama family?

Why would they signal him?

GLENN: Great question. Great question.

You cannot have -- as Barack Obama would say. Two exotics on the ticket. Okay?

Think of America as a husband and wife. Okay? And each party has a husband and wife element to them. So if you just listen to the husband, you would have a Ferrari and a Lambo in the garage, right? But if he's married, his wife says, you're not going to have a Ferrari and Lambo. It's not reasonable. We need -- you know, we need a Pacifica and an Accord. And he's like, good God, if I have to drive a Pacifica, I'm going to hang myself. I can't do that.

And so they'll compromise. You know, in the man's dream world, he has to pick between the Ferrari and the Lambo because they also have to have the Pacifica. Okay?

Mark Kelly is the Pacifica. She's the Ferrari. She's the one that you never know if it's going to break down. Good Lord, we don't know what it will cost us. You know what I mean?

It's not dependable. We need a Pacifica. And he is a -- he will be -- they have to have a patriot. They cannot continue to front this party with people who are known to hate America. Okay?

Can't. He's a white guy. You can't have two exotics, as Barack Obama would say. So you have a white guy who is dependable, who loves America, is super, super smart. Because you can't have two idiots on the ticket either. Well, they did that last time.

Well, maybe they've learned their lesson.

You can't have two idiots on the ticket either. Mark Kelly is the Pacifica.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, I think the Obamas wanted the Pacifica as the candidate. That's why he phrased what he did, in that, you know, hey. Thank you, Joe.

And, by the way, we look forward to a process, that will eliminate Kamala Harris. And give us something good.

And I think that person was Mark Kelly.

STU: That's really interesting.

Because I -- because, you know, one of the reasons why he's a Pacifica, if you will, is he's seen as a moderate Democrat. And he is moderate, in temperament. Right?

That is what he brings to the table. Very -- he feels like a moderate. The same way like, the 2020 version of Joe Biden was pitched that way. Right?

You could have a guy who was very calm. And he's a moderate. And he's just a guy from a working class community. He's served -- in Kelly's case. Served in the military. He's an astronaut. Come on. In reality, his voting record, is just as liberal as any of these other people.

And seems to have the same vision as so many other people on the left.

GLENN: So hang on just a second.

Let me explain just what you just said. Last time, the Pacifica was at the top of the ticket.

And they knew, we have to have a Lambo and a Ferrari. Something that is not necessarily dependable. But is flashy. And everybody is like, yeah!

All the dads would be -- you know what I mean?

In this car analogy. Like, we have to have one of those!

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And that was Kamala. Now, she's at the top. So the Pacifica has to be the second one.

STU: I mean, it makes perfect sense.

You know, excuse me, came to the sort of Kelly conclusion as well. Based more on, like if you look at -- I do think the white guy -- the Pacifica thing is real. This is not real from my ideas or what I think. This is real from the reporting on Barack Obama's choice for vice president.

The reason why Joe Biden was picked was because he was old and white.

That is every piece of reporting from inside of that -- the -- that decision, that was Barack Obama, and Michelle, believed America was too racist, to have two exotics on the same ticket. These were their terms.

You needed to have one white guy, that the racists could sink their teeth into. And still be okay with this guy with the crazy name at the top of the ticket.

That's the way -- that's what they thought of America.

And it's quite clear, in so many of their comments. That's exactly what they thought in their comments. If you go back to the one, what was it know.

Pennsylvania voters. You have these people. They're angry. They're bitter. Clingers to their God and their Bible.

That's what they really believed about America.

Still believe about America. And so I think that white guy. The idea that they will pick Gretchen Whitmer. Or they will pick --

GLENN: She's another exotic.

STU: Yeah. Anything that has anything outside of white guy is I think outside of the picture.

99 percent chance of that.

GLENN: And I think it's important to say now, it also has to be somebody who at least appears to love the country. I'm not saying he doesn't.

But it cannot be somebody -- it can't be a always.

STU: Right. It's got to be somebody who has --

GLENN: It has to be somebody who is like, I don't mind Antifa.

STU: It has to be someone with moderate temperament. Which Kelly has. He seems like -- military guy. Astronaut. Hero. You all these things.

And I will say, one of the other things that I think is central to this. We just had a presidential assassination attempt. Where apparently someone flung glass with from a long distance, at the President Donald Trump when he was on stage.

GLENN: The New York Times just did a piece, an analysis and said, it's definitely a bullet.

STU: Yes, they did.

GLENN: Meanwhile, Christopher Wray testifies that, well, Trump. It's really up to him to prove that he's been shot. What!

STU: That's really weird. Even the Times is dismissing that nonsense.

GLENN: Now, wait. One more thing on that. I really do think it could have been a piece of glass. Because right at that moment, Kamala broke the glass ceiling. And so maybe --

STU: Wow, that should be the center part of her convention speech, I think.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: When Donald Trump was struck by glass.

But on the Kelly part of this, the -- I mean, there is obviously a sympathy for Donald Trump.

His -- you know, his approval ratings have gone up, at some level. To the highest they have been, in some of these polls, in recorded history.

There is -- that moment was iconic. And everybody knows it.

With Mark Kelly, he's married to Gabby Giffords.

Gabby Giffords was a congresswoman who had an assassination attempt against her. Like this was their big pitch to come to the American people to bring gun violence into the picture.

Remember, they were blaming Sarah page for this. Targeting her district.

It was that shooting.

They can come back and say. Well, look, their main pitch for this. Republicans are the violent ones.

They've obviously lost ground on that one. That argument is dead after the president was almost killed on stage. So now you have a situation where this can kind of disarm the other side of that.

They can say, it's not just left and right. It's gun violence, and bring the gun violence case back in. Which I think this is absolutely the group of people, who would come to such a -- just cold, calculating decision.

To say, we'll use her, and her tragedy, to try to fend off this assassination attempt, that we now have to, quote, unquote, deal with. And not to mention, you go through, this is also a swing state.

It was one of the closest states in 2020. Even though, it's not all that close at the moment. I think -- and they have a good relationship behind the scenes.

Kamala and Kelly have had a good working relationship for a long time.

That's how I came to the conclusion. It's different how you came to it.

It's interesting. It arrived to the same place.

It's terrifying. That means we're both definitely wrong.

GLENN: He could only pray.

RADIO

I have a theory about Trump's nuclear testing…

President Trump recently ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear testing after Vladimir Putin announced a new underwater nuclear device. Are we heading towards a potential nuclear war, or does Trump have another goal? Glenn Beck explains his theory: Trump just won this fight...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, President Trump said yesterday, truly great meeting with President Xi.

This is a the problem. So much is hyperbole is -- truly. Like everybody said that meeting couldn't happen. It happened. And they said couldn't be done. It was done.

I got up this morning. People said I couldn't open the door, and I opened the door. Okay? It was the greatest door opening I've ever seen.
But from all accounts, this was a really, really good meeting.

Let me just say this: He's getting ready to meet with Putin. And with what Putin has done in the last couple of days, and now everybody is upset.

Oh, my gosh. Donald Trump said he's going to start testing nuclear weapons again!

Yeah. Yeah.

You know why?

Well, China is testing them.

And Russia is testing them.

We've had a moratorium on that. And here's what he's really doing. If I -- if I heard the news. And I was in the Donald Trump White House, I would be -- I would have walked in, after I heard the news, especially yesterday.

That Vladimir Putin has a new nuclear missile, that he can shoot 6,000 miles away.

Underwater. And it can navigate, and then blow up like a hydrogen bomb under the water, just off the coast of California, which would create a radioactive tsunami. This is what I would tell the president. Congratulations, Mr. President. You've won.

Now, why would I say that?

Because Vladimir Putin is not going to do that.

He's not going to do that. It would make him the pariah of the entire world. You're not going to set off a nuclear, radioactive tsunami to cover Los Angeles.

Because here's -- if I'm the president, and maybe this would make me a very bad president. But if I'm the president. And I hear that he has just launched a nuclear missile, towards Los Angeles, my decision is: Do I stop it?

Yes, I do everything I can to try to stop the missile from hitting. Do I respond before it hits?

All unconventional wisdom is, you've got to launch now, Mr. President. You have to launch now!

Hmm. Now, maybe this makes me a very bad president. I don't know.

I think it probably does. But I would say, no.

I'm not launching. Let it hit. And then I'm going to say to the rest of the world, immediately after it hits, this man just bird Los Angeles, killed all of these people, by launching a missile, a hydrogen bomb, underwater. God only knows what it's done to the environment.

But here's what it's done to people. And here's what it's done to Los Angeles. I give the world an hour before I respond.

I don't want a nuclear war. Because we all know what that means.

But rest of the world, you need to condemn him, and he needs to go on trial for crimes against humanity.

Nothing -- nothing warrants that kind of abuse of nuclear weapons.

That's what I would do as the president. Because I know the rest of the world, would not be kind to anyone who launched a nuclear weapon at the West Coast.

Wouldn't. If we launched a nuclear weapon, you know, even if we blew up Israel, with a nuclear weapon, the world would be like, look at what America has just!

They've killed all these Jews. Wait a minute. I'm so confused right now, what I'm for and what I'm against. But they would still condemn it.

Nobody can get away with that. He knows. Putin knows, the president is the most concerned about nuclear weapons. So what does he do?
He describes two nuclear weapons he has.

He's pulling out all -- there's nowhere to go from there. What are you going to do next? I'm going to blow up the moon?

He's just used everything in his bag of tricks. There's no place bigger that he can go. Other than actually launching those things. Mr. President, Congratulations, you've just won. So that's what I think is happening with -- with what Donald Trump has done this week. And the way Putin is now reacting. And he's about to turn his sites on Putin and Ukraine.

So let's start and see what happens.

RADIO

Why this Deep State spy campaign is the WORST scandal of my lifetime

According to the records released now by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the House Judiciary Committee, The Biden era DOJ and special counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. There were 197 subpoenas sent to 34 people, over 160 businesses, and vacuumed up communications tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities. Fox News, Turning Point USA, OAN, all engulfed in what has been called "Operation Arctic Frost." And all this was predicated on NEWS CLIPS?! Glenn explains why this Arctic Frost is MUCH worse than Watergate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: While we're talking about winter, let's talk about Arctic Frost. That's the code name. And according to -- according to the records released now by senator chuck Grassley and the -- and the House Judiciary Committee. The Biden era DOJ and Special Counsel Jack Smith drove an investigation that sprayed subpoenas like a firehose. We now know, there were 197 subpoenas, spanning more than 1700 pages. Sent to 34 people. One hundred sixty-three businesses, and then vacuumed up communications, tied to more than 400 Republican individuals and entities.

Okay? That's reaching into everything. They reached into media companies. CBS, Fox, Fox Business, NewsMax, Sinclair, into financial institutions, into political organizations.

Even members, employees, and agents of the legislative branch. So now you have congressmen and senators being vacuumed up into this whole thing.

This is not a precision rifle shot. This is a net and a very big dragnet.

Okay? This is not the way justice in America works. You do not go after, you know, an entire party, 400 people? Now, what were they looking for? How did it start?

Well, let me say, the opening memo to justify Arctic Frost is to call -- does in legal terms, it would be called the predicate.

And it was stamped sensitive investigative matter, okay?

And it's cited. And I love this. Listen to this language. It's cited, evidence suggest a conspiracy around alternate electors.

I'll get to that here in just a second. But it -- it relied on -- leaned on news clips. News clips!

To vacuum all these people up, to get the -- to get the engine turning. News clips were used.

Suggesting, not proving. Suggesting, and it just rose up the ladder.

Ray, Garland, Monaco, even coordination with the White House counsel's office. It surfaces now in the record. This went all the way to the top.

This is not my language. This is what the documents now on the table imply.

Okay? Now, let me just pause for a minute, in the reading room of American memory. What is this all about?

Alternate electors. That's not a Martian invention. Okay?

That's not something completely foreign. We've seen it before. 1876, and 1960. They were messy. Contested. Deeply political moments that produced zero criminal prosecutions for their existence of rival slaves.

In fact, Al Gore, if he didn't set an alternate slate of electors, he was counseled, and I've talked to Dershowitz about this.

He said, they're counseled to have an alternate set of electors. Because once -- if you don't do that, and the tables turn and you're like, you know what, there was a problem -- if you haven't ceded those electors before a certain time, you have no case. You can't change anything. So it has to happen. And it has happened two times before, I think three, but definitely in 1876 and 1960.
In Hawaii, in 1916, Democrats signed certificates while a recount was still underway. The recount flipped. So it was ultimately certified. The democratic slate was certified. Ugly? Yes. But that's the way it worked.

It's not criminal. And history has said no. It's not criminal.

But it doesn't matter, when it's about Donald Trump. So let me go back to Arctic Frost thousand. As the subpoenas flew, the FBI reportedly snooped phone records of Republican members of Congress!

The scope widened to donor analytics. Broad financial data. Trump world advisers.

The lawyers. The media contacts. We said, during January 6, we said, internally, if you don't think they are going after a massive tree, because remember, this is -- this is what the Patriot Act allows you to do now.

You go after one person. If anybody is calling somebody else, well, that person now can be Hoovered up. And who has that person called?

So you can get pretty much everybody that you want, with one subpoena.

But that's not where they stop. They didn't stop with one subpoena. Okay?

When the state casts a dragnet over the opposition's political ecosystem with the authority to seize all their communications, compel testimony, and chill the donors, that's not tough politics.

Okay?

That is the government, with badges and grand juries, leaning its full weight into one side of the national scale.

Watergate. Please!

Watergate. Let me compare Watergate. You know what Watergate was?

Watergate was a gang of political operatives who broke into an office to get information. They weren't even. They weren't even losing the election. Nobody even knows why they would even do this. It is so stupid that they would even do this. But it was a local office. They broke in. They wanted to get some information that was there, you know, on the -- on the candidate and on the race.

And then they covered it up.

And they tried to keep the public from the truth.

It was wrong!

It was criminal.

And it forced a president to resign. And people went to prison over it. But Watergate was a private burglary, executed by a campaign, and covered up. By the White House.

Terrible!

Awful.

That's not the DOJ blanketing the opposing party's entire world, with federal subpoenas while citing news hits as the predicate.

Do you see the difference?

Watergate was an attempt to weaponize a campaign. Arctic Frost, if the emerging records hold, was the attempt to weaponize the entire state against a political party.

The difference there is the whole ball game. Under a constitutional republic.

You don't have a constitutional republic, if that's allowed to happen.

In America, the state is supposed to be the neutral referee. Not a sideline enforcer wearing one team's colors under the stripes.

And don't even start with me on, well, what about Donald Trump?

We'll play that game all day long. And you know where that gets us?

Nowhere. You want to make a charge against Donald Trump and what he's doing.

Good. Let's take that separately.

Let's do that. I'm willing to. Let's take that separately. Let's deal with this one, first. Okay? The moment the referee picks up the ball and starts running, the game is over!

It's not a fair game anymore. And if it can be done to them, today. It will be done to you, tomorrow.

That's not a slogan. That's a law of political gravity.

Yeah. But Trump did -- okay. Let's have that conversation.

But can we at least have it honestly?

Because if you think this is about, whataboutism. You believe so see the nose on the front of your face.

You're completely missing this.

You cannot make a weaponization of a government, a partisan inheritance that each side can claim when it holds power.

If any president, any prosecutor red, or blue, uses federal power to criminalize political opposition, rather than prosecute clear crimes.

It is an offense gets an equal protection under the law. So let's -- let's lay down a standard here, that I'm willing to apply to Donald Trump and to Joe Biden and any other president that comes our way. Because if we don't lay this clear standard down, we're done.

The predicate. Predication. It has to be real. Not rhetorical.

Evidence suggesting via TV interviews, is circular sourcing, at its best.

It's not something that you launch a sprawling investigation on into a presidential rival's universe. If you can't articulate the crime, specifically, you don't get to launch a dragnet on the people that are running against you!

The scope has to be narrow, and tied exactly to the alleged crime!

Not a sweep through media organizations, and donor records, and opposition infrastructure, under vague theories, that come from TV reports!

Journalism.

Political advocacy.

Fundraising.

All of those things are protected activities. Separation from the White House, also must be unmistakable. If the White House Counsel's office is coordinating device transfers into an investigation of its chief political rival, alarms should clang in every corridor of every main justice call hall.

Everywhere! The alarm -- the Claxton should be going off right now. Also, historic practice matters!

If prior episodes -- by the way, this was all thrown out by the Supreme Court. So you know. Okay? Nothing there.

If prior episodes, 1876, 1960, and I believe 2000. If they were treated as political, not criminal, especially where alternate electors were explicitly conditional, then you need compelling new legal theories and clean facts to criminalize it now.

You can't just say, yeah, well, history, never did anything about it before. And, actually, they said it was fine.

But now, now it's going to be a crime.

Wait. Can you be specific on what has changed? Well, we really just liked the people that are doing it this time. That doesn't count. That doesn't count.

Now, before anybody clips this monologue and screams, so Glenn Beck said, nobody -- the Trump administration did anything wrong. Well, I don't think so.

But that's not what I'm saying, because I'm not the judge. I'm not your juror. I'm the guy insisting that the rules are rules, and they should be applied to everyone on all sides.

Smith has his report. He says, he wants to tell his side. Great! Put him under oath. If he didn't do it, then he should be set free.

But it should be on a clear set of laws! What's happened in the Biden administration, they just kept changing laws. Well, yeah. I mean, the bank said there was no crime. But Donald Trump. And so all of a sudden, there was a crime.

Nobody has ever been prosecuted. Ever before that. Even the bank said, this is ridiculous.

There's no crime here.

It didn't matter.

That's not justice.

I want real justice. Smith says he has a side, let's hear it. Bring forward the memos. Publish the predicate. Let the country see where weather we had a criminal case or an election cycle dragnet. Because that's what it looks like. If the emerging picture looks like, if the Arctic Frost opened up on thin evidence, escalated on political pressure, and metastasized into a government-wide sweep of the sitting president's chief rival and his entire ecosystem, then this is not just like Watergate. This is much, much, much worse than Watergate. In kind.

Not just degree.

Watergate tried to steal the information. That's it. They potentially attempted to steal legitimacy to criminalize opposition by wielding the sword of the state.

That violates, you know, more than statutes. That violates our creed, that free men govern themselves by consent, and the process is sacred. And the law is the wall that even presidents and prosecutors can never climb over. If proven, the remedy is not a sternly, terse letter, or an op-ed, and a shrug.

The remedy is the full force of the law. Inspector general referrals. Special counsels where appropriate, prosecution where crimes are clear. Statutory reforms to bar this from ever happening again from -- from press clippings?

Being your predicate? Bright lines need to be drawn. Protections for the press, for donors, and legislators in political cases. Sunlight. All the sunlight on how this began, who approved it, and why no one in the administration said stop.

And to my friends saying, well, Trump is doing the same thing. I hear you. I don't agree with you, but I hear you. Why don't we codify the guardrails right now?

So when emotions are high and temptations are strong, the republic doesn't survive by trusting that our guys will be angels. It survives on the chains on power. Everyone's power.

You know, when I hold a founding sermon in your hand, when you read the ink of Washington scratched in the margin notes of James Madison. You discover that America's miracle wasn't that we selected saints. It's that we built a system where even the sinners are fenced in by law.

That's the process. When justice is blind, to banners and bumper stickers and political parties, that's when America is America. Arctic Frost. If the record stands, it took a blowtorch to that fence.

So the choice is really simple. Retreat into teams. Each side cheering for its prosecutors. And its dragnet. Or you can do the harder, nobler thing, just like our founders did. And insist that the same rules that bind all power, especially when it's aimed at people that we dislike, are enforced. That's how you keep a republic.

That's how you make sure that there's not a second Watergate. Because we learned the lesson the first time. But it we?

Because if we haven't. If we don't learn it this time, and by God, we are done!

The story of America is not a story of who got whom. It's a story of the people who refuse to let the government become a weapon. And if that spirit still lives in us, then this cold wind called Arctic Frost will pass. And the Constitution will withstand. Because you stood for equal justice. For due process. For truth. That doesn't bend to politics.

And that, that is how we relight the torch of America!

RADIO

Disease-Infested Monkeys LOOSE in Mississippi?!

A truck carrying 21 'aggressive' monkey's allegedly infected with contagious diseases such as COVID-19, herpes, and Hepatitis C crashed in Mississppi, causing the monkey's to be let loose. While most of the threat was taken care of, one monkey is reported to still be on the loose. This sounds eerily similar to the beginning of an outbreak movie...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Big thing some good news. Let's start with some good news.

President Trump has just -- is touring Asia and making all kinds of deals.

Donald Trump is single-handedly reshaping the earth!

He really is. He is reshaping everything. Single-handedly.

STU: Big job.

GLENN: I know. He's done more than The Great Reset did with all of that money. All of the campaigns. Everything that they were doing.

Listen to this. What he's just done. Signed a framework agreement, August 28th, between Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister, mutual stockpiling of rare-earth elements, REEs. Okay?

To ensure supply security. That's Japan. Cooperation with international partners, US allies, to shield the supply chain from disruptions.

The goal is to reduce China's 90 percent control over the global rare earth minerals.

For tech, EVs, defense, and AI. Okay. They have a 90 percent stranglehold.

So that's what he did in Japan. Now, also bundle that with the 550 billion dollar strategic investment from Japan, in the US. Including a 490 billion-dollar launch phase. 200 billion for nuclear AI and energy projects, small modular reactors with Westinghouse and Mitsubishi, and supply chain boosts in critical minerals.

Trump tied that to the tariffs. Japan got an auto import tariff slashed from '27 to 15 percent in exchange for the investments. In two weeks in the last two weeks, listen to what he has done. He has made multiple pacts with allies. Australia, critical minerals framework, mining processing, and rare earth mineral recycling scrap. Then in Japan, I just told you, Malaysia, he just did a memo of understanding on critical mineral diversification. In Ukraine, a ten-year access to titanium and rare earth minerals.

In Thailand, an MOU on rare earth mineral supply. Add that to what else he has done. He is -- he is outflanking China. He is trying to break the back of China! He is friend shoring, is what he's actually doing.

He is -- he is putting all of this emphasis on rare earth minerals. He's cutting Asia away from China.

He's cutting Europe away from China. He's cutting South America away from China. He has moved all of the resources of rare earth minerals to us. Anything outside of China, is coming our way now!

That is massive! Massive! We were sitting ducks with rare earth minerals, six months ago, a year ago. Total sitting ducks! They had everything coming their way. We were not doing any kind of -- any kind of strategic thinking on this, at all!

And this isn't piecemeal. This is operation warp speed for rare earth minerals. He is -- the guy is so ahead of everyone else. He is reshaping global trade and permanently, hopefully, sidelining China.

So we are never having to put our hand out to China.

It's remarkable, what is happening. Just remarkable! Now, let me give you another story.

A truck halling 21 monkeys to a testing facility in Florida, overturned in Mississippi.
(laughter)

STU: How did -- how did we make this jump? Has he signed a memorandum of understanding with the monkeys?

GLENN: Nope. Nope. They're still negotiating. According to the Jasper county sheriff's office, the accident occurred on Interstate 59, near the 117 mile-marker just north of Heidelberg. Six recess monkeys from Tulane University escaped. Officials said, five of the six that escaped have now been destroyed.

We've been in contact with an animal disposal company to help handle the situation. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks and I guess now monkeys is still looking for one diseased monkey, still on the loose.

STU: A hundred percent, the beginning of an outbreak movie. That's exactly how it happens. The one gets away. Oh, we've got five of the six. What's the big deal?

GLENN: What was the one. What was the movie with -- oh. What's his name?

Tommy -- remember, he was the escaped convict. He was the doctor, and they were hauling him. He was the doctor from Ohio.

Based on a true story. And he -- they're hauling him. And he escapes. He has to try to prove himself innocent. Remember?

STU: Fugitive?

GLENN: Fugitive. Yeah. That's right.

STU: I was looking for a deep cut there.

GLENN: Fugitive. Sorry, I couldn't remember. It's a fugitive, and outbreak. That's what this is.

STU: That would be a good movie. I wouldn't want this in real life.

GLENN: I prefer a lot of this to not happen in real life.

STU: What are the diseases? We have help C going on?

We have COVID. I think there's three of them. Help C. COVID. And what was the other one? Herpes.

What happens if we combine all three into one monkey, and then release it into the wild?

What could possibly go wrong?

GLENN: Let me tell you something.

You know, we are in real trouble. I mean, I hate to bring this up too. Okay. Did you need diseased monkeys on the loose today from me?

No. No. Can I make it worse?

Absolutely, I can make this worse.

You know when we have the COVID thing. And we were all like, we shouldn't have these labs everywhere, you know.

STU: Oh. Like the labs.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Gain-of-function research, and things like that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

We've built hundreds of new labs now. Hundreds of new labs. There are more than 35 hundred BSL3 and over 110BSL4. Bio safety level four laboratories. And all of them are now working on pathogens that could kill all of us.

So a 2025 journal of public health study reveals over90 percent of the countries that operate these labs have no oversight whatsoever!

STU: All of them are working on diseases that can kill us all?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: There's not one that is doing yogurt flavors or something?

There's not one.

GLENN: No. There's not. There's not one. I wish there were!

You know, they keep saying, these are shields from -- no. These are match sticks. That's what these labs are. These are giant match sticks.

And we're sitting in a bunch of kindling -- they're -- they say they're developing vaccines. But what they're really doing is enhancing the viruses. Which, when I say enhancing, what that really means, they're weaponizing viruses. So don't worry. You know, it's just gain of function, which translated is, loss of sanity.

STU: I mean, because the research makes me very nervous. I mean, the fact that we have more labs that have higher safety standards. In theory, should be -- that was one of the problems with the COVID outbreak. Right?

They were doing research that should have been done at a BSL4. BSL1 and BSL2.

So, I mean, having more fours, that could be good, right?

GLENN: Eh. Did you see the BSL4 in China? In Wuhan?

STU: Well, I think that was the issue, it wasn't a BSL4.

GLENN: I think they called it a BSL4, and then it wasn't one.

STU: I don't think it was. Do we have a BSL4 for monkey research? I think really --

GLENN: I'm not really sure -- I know Georgia.

STU: Don't transfer it. Keep it in one place. You don't need to transfer them anywhere.

GLENN: In Atlanta, they're doing -- they're building another 150,000 square feet of a BSL4 in -- in Atlanta. So that's the place, oh, yeah, where all the zombies will be. Can I just tell you a quick little story? 1979. Soviet Union.

You know, they're trying to maintain this BSL4. They're not very good at it. Because, you know, they're not good at anything in 1979 in Russia.

STU: Except for nuclear power.

GLENN: Exactly right.

Okay. So there was a cloud released from this bio safety level lab four.

No flames. No alarms. Just a faint, invisible mist. It's kind of like hmm, my teenage son's farts. It's invisible, and it's deadly.

STU: Okay. Hmm.

GLENN: And it was carrying anthrax spores, okay? From the weapons lab.

Well, people began to die, clearly. We don't know how many. They think hundreds. Entire families suffocated because the bacteria devoured their lungs. And they were like, I have no lung!

GLENN: Okay. And the Kremlin was like, not happening. What do you say?

People were eating tainted meat. That's what's happening.

And it's eating their lungs.

STU: They Chernobyled it.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So for a decade, nobody really knew what was going on, until the fall of the Soviet Union, and then people were going in. And they were like, oh! Here's what happened.

In one of these bio safety labs, a technician failed to replace an air filter properly.
And that was -- that -- just that allowed this microscopic storm of death to be released into the air.

I don't know! I mean, if your air filter not being installed properly can kill a bunch of people. And only tainted meat. McDonald's. I don't know. I don't -- I don't really think that we should -- we have them all over. 149 nations have them now.

149.

STU: There's definitely not 149 nations that should have stuff like that.

GLENN: You don't think so?

STU: No. I don't even think I can name 149 nations.

GLENN: Try this one. In India, the labs now are experimenting with the Crimean Congo viruses. Fatality rate of 75 percent.

In Russia, under its sanitary shield initiative, they are building 15 new BSL4 sites. In Brazil, Project Orion, a high-containment complex integrated with its particle accelerator.

Oh. And as I said, Atlanta, 160,000 square feet.

Apparently, we don't have enough room for all the monkeys that we're releasing in all the wild. And eventually, we'll find. And put them in there.
And torture them. Or do whatever it is we do. No international body tracks or regulates what's happening in any of these fortresses. What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: We should note an international body does not necessarily solve the problem.

I mean, as we've seen -- when they do monitor it, they usually import people to rape the citizens around the facilities.

GLENN: Exactly right. But you know what I'm really sick of it? There's no international body that does anything, except just let these people put really bad things into our body!

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Can we -- can we stop with this?

STU: We're good with this on our own. Put all sorts of things in my body. That should not have been in there.

We're good at doing that.

As Americans, on our own. We don't need your help.

GLENN: I really -- just stop.

The arrogance. The arrogance of these -- hey, you know what, we need to fiddle with some more viruses. And let's make a digital God that we can't control!

What the hell is wrong with us?

STU: Especially when the digital God that we can't control can make new viruses.

GLENN: Exactly right! Exactly right.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And maybe -- maybe -- maybe what we do, is we put it into a self-driving car. And it directs. And monkeys just start flying out of everyone ever seen butt.