RADIOJanuary 04, 2024

KJP tries to blame $34 TRILLION national debt on ... REPUBLICANS?!

For the first time, the United States has hit a national debt of $34 trillion. But according to President Biden's press secretary Karine Jean Pierre ... that's the REPUBLICANS' fault?! Glenn and Stu review KJP's ridiculous attempt to blame the debt on Republican tax cuts and "trickle-down economics." Plus, Glenn and Stu discuss ... Will we even make it to the next election???

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Did you see, we hit $34 trillion?

GLENN: I did. We're number one. We're number one.

Let's see if we can break that faster.

But, you know, this amazing accomplishment happened, while still cutting the budget more than anyone ever before.

STU: I know it's amazing.

Do we have that KJP clip. We've been playing on the four-minute Blaze today.

I don't know if we have that handy.

But it's her somehow trying to talk herself out of Joe Biden's failures with the debt in the cup.

It is -- I mean, again, we all know Karine Jean-Pierre. She's a complete moron. And throughout this entire answers, most of it, she's reading. And it's still this bad. You have to listen to this.

This is KJP I guess yesterday.

GLENN: Do you have any reaction to the new data our of Treasury that the national debt has hit a record of $34 trillion?

VOICE: So, yeah. If you look at that data. There's a trickle down at the time. If you think about it. Republican tax cuts are responsible for about 90 percent of it.

STU: Not true at all.

GLENN: Over the last few decades. Excluding mammalian spending.

STU: Oh. Oh. Wait a minute.

GLENN: Slow down here. Wait a minute. Excluding emergency spending?

STU: I love that.

Now, of course, the way the budget works. They don't believe up with one. They categorize all sorts of things as emergency spending. That is not emergency spending.

But just in recent history. Does anyone remember, I don't know. Six or $7 trillion we spent on just COVID?

GLENN: This is like, Stu. Stu. If you take Lisa, she is so frugal if you take away all of the purse spending.

STU: Right. She is a bargain basement.

GLENN: She's bargain basement. Okay. Just don't pay attention to the purse spending. Well, it's the purse spending that's the problem.

It's the -- it's the emergency spending that's the problem.

STU: Yeah.

It's like tell your wife. Look, honey, I'm completely loyal to you, without the exception of the Vegas trips. You know. With the exception of the trips to Epstein island. Everything is fine.

GLENN: Right. I do not have sex with underage children. Except when I go to the island with Jeffrey.
(laughter)
Wait.

STU: I mean, it's completely ridiculous.

And, you know, these -- and you could see, as she's going through this.

I love the mind. Or lack thereof of Karine Jean-Pierre.

First of all, she's flipping through pages. She knows questions are coming on $34 trillion. Probably actually literally knew it was coming. Again, this is part of the preparation process I would imagine for something like this.

All she can remember is the word -- the phrase trickle down. She knows that's negatively associated with Republicans.

GLENN: I know.

STU: You know, if you think about it. It's kind of a trickle down thing.

Is it?

Is it a trickle down thing?

It's a completely ridiculous thing.

You know, nonsensical catchphrase, she's memorized. And she's flipping through the pages. To find the context of what she's talking about.

I mean, does this happen to any other person, at any other line of work.

She's stalling to get to the page in her notebook, so that she can read the answer which she herself knows is filled with lies.

GLENN: Stu, this is an honest question.

Because I was thinking, jeez. Are we going to be dealing with this person next year too?

Yeah, probably.

And then I thought, do we even make it to an election? And I mean this sincerely.

STU: It's not that far away.

GLENN: I know. But listen to this.

Okay. As the decisions are disqualifying former president Donald Trump from the 2024 election, work their way through the courts.

A new filing in Pennsylvania seeks the same ballot cleansing.

It's the only latest effort targeting congressional candidates as Democrats seek to bar opponents as insurrectionists. We have become a nation of -- early names. Blah, blah, blah.

In, where was it?

In North Carolina. In North Carolina, they, in their primary election, the Democrats have just taken the name of Dean Phillips.

Marianne Williamson. And Sank, what's-his-face?

Off of the ballot.

Leaving the only choice for Democrats, to be Joe Biden.

What the --

STU: I mean, again. Joe Biden is going to win that election by 60 points? Seventy points.

He's not in danger at all. Why would you do this?

Again, while you're arguing that we must protect democracy.

Why on earth, there's no where you happen side at all. Dean Phillips is not going to win the election at the polls.

GLENN: But with enough positive thinking. And enough -- Marianne --

STU: Marianne Williamson may, with the right combination of crystals and oils may wind up winning. That's true. But like, it's not like he's in danger. Like when RFK Jr was on the ballot, maybe you could make an argument, he had a couple polls that looked good at the very beginning.

I don't know. It's a bizarre argument to me.

But he's not even doing. He's not even running anymore as a Democrat.

It's like, what is the point of this?

They're so anti-democracy.

And I know we're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. But inside of that, we do have elements of democracy.

GLENN: This is the democracy part.

You let the people vote.

You let that happen naturally vote.

Then they vote for the representative for the Republican.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: That's -- I mean, the only democracy part we have, they're trying to tear apart.

STU: I know.

And while they're making the argument with no pushback from the media.

And, you know, we might remind you had a the media has slogans like democracy dies in darkness.

Right? This is how they supposedly think about our system.

It's so sacred to them, that they can't possibly see it going away.

And yet, here they are.

Instead of just trying to go out and try to win. At some point, have the balls to admit you're in a contest against somebody else and win.

Like, you know, I'm so sick of people whining about losing.

GLENN: I know.

STU: And then acting as if -- just go out and win.

Ron DeSantis loses Iowa.

He should be able to come out. And say, hey, I got my ass kicked. That's what he should do.

GLENN: I haven't read anything in the National Review in a long time.

But I had to -- I had to read about, what if Trump wins?

The left can't handle a Trump victory in 2024, okay?

And it talks about how they are all saying, this is a dictator ship. This guy is going to destroy the country.

I mean, all the things that we say, about, you know, what the left is doing right now.

But we're still playing in the same sandbox.

These people, they're already subverting the Constitution. They're already breaking their own oaths and everything else. To keep him off the ballot. It's a pretty easy decision for the Supreme Court. There are five arguments. And at least three of them are -- you don't even have to be awake to go, yeah. That's not constitutional.

So they're doing these things now.

What happens, when the people who say, we were at a brink of a dictator ship. If he runs to pyro,it will be persecution.

People will lose their freedom. They will lose their property. He will take everything from them. He is just going to go on a vengeance tour. If you think that, really, and you think that the ends justify the means, and you're saving democracy. You cannot -- they're not going to sit down if he wins.

STU: Every single one of these outcomes seems to have a generous chunk of possibility that the entire system flames out.

Right?

Like, if -- if Donald Trump wins the primary and goes on and then gets put in prison, right? And maybe loses the election.

Like, can you imagine how people will react to that?

If the opposite happens, and he goes to prison and wins the election, can you imagine how the left would react to that?

Can you imagine if there's a close election that Donald Trump loses?

Let's just say, it's normal. That he just loses. Can you imagine how the people on the right are going to react to that, especially after what they believe happened in 2020.

Now, think of what happened with all of this, and you've got a potential dictator coming into power, as the left would say.

Imagine if Donald Trump just comes in and wins a boring close election. Can you imagine how they're going to react to that?

Like the chaos in the street, possibilities, are down every single term. I mean, look, maybe -- maybe the best argument to avoid it, in theory, would be someone who maybe -- Joe Biden isn't the candidate. And Donald Trump isn't the candidate. I don't know.

But I honestly don't even see -- there's passionate supporters on both sides of that. That wouldn't put up with it. I don't know what the heck would happen.

GLENN: Correct.

And also the left would just make the next Republican into somebody that is worse than Donald Trump.

STU: Worse. Yeah. Saying DeSantis is worse. He's going to be -- Nikki Haley is worse.
She will be a dictator. They will say, whatever they have to say.

And look, they have been trying that stuff for a long time.

It does seem they're at the end of their rope.

GLENN: You said, well, it's pretty hard to say it. Will you make it to the election, or past the election?

I mean, that's a real question.

STU: It's a real question. And I don't know.

You know, we've seen things break down in ways that we've never thought we would see in America. And we've seen it routinely, particularly after the past four World Series.

GLENN: And all of the unintended consequences that nobody -- it just doesn't work out, the way you always think it's going to.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

THIS is why self-reliance may be your ONLY protection from SLAVERY

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

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

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

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

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

STU: Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Good. I know.

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

GLENN: Oh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Wow!

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: What was their thinking?

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

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

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

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

GLENN: Yes.

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

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

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

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When it's in the State Department.

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

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

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

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

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

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Good. Good.

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

So within the next couple of weeks.

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

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

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