The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill

The BIGGEST Reason Why Glenn is AGAINST the TikTok Bill

Congress is debating a bill that would force the Chinese company that owns TikTok to either divest from the app or face a TikTok ban in America. But is this bill a good idea, or is it a Trojan Horse that would give the government the power to go after American companies as well? Glenn reviews what’s really in the bill and why he’s siding with its opponents. Plus, he reviews the debate he hosted between Rep. Chip Roy, who co-sponsored it, and Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposes it, and reveals his biggest takeaway from all of this.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: If you miss last night's Wednesday night show, you missed a lot.
We talked about TikTok.

And I know I'm in the minority. But I'm -- I wasn't sure where I stood, until last night.

I had two people, I invited two guests on. That have opposite views. But are usually on the same side.

And I both -- I respect their commitment. Both of them. To the Constitution.

One of them is Chip Roy. The congressman from Texas.

And the other is Thomas Massie.

Thomas from Kentucky, he is -- he is Libertarian.

And always concerned about things like the Patriot Act. Et cetera, et cetera.

But so is Chip Roy, but Chip is also very concerned about our security, and China. He knows what we're facing. I agree with both of them on why this is an important issue.

So last night, I had them debate each other, go back and forth. And, man, it was so refreshing, to see three people talk about something that we disagree on, but nobody became disagreeable. I mean, we were like, yeah. Okay.

I really see your point on this one. It was really. It's something that we just don't have enough of. And last night, they debated it.

Massey was against, and Chip Roy was for.
In fact, he sponsored the TikTok banning bill.

STU: What was the result of this?

Was there a unanimous decision? A split decision at the end?

How did this come out?

GLENN: No. Yeah. They both stayed in their position.

And I was looking for help. Because I -- you know, I -- I read the bill.

We went over a lot of it, last night. Line by line.

And there's some disturbing things in there.

For instance, let me just go through some of this. This is the protecting Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act.


If you look at section two, under foreign adversary controlled application. It shows, that it's not just a phone app. It's individual websites could also be seized. That makes sense.

But supporters of this bill, point out, that it's just foreign adversary apps.

And the website.

That it doesn't. That it specifically points out, foreign adversary controlled, all throughout the bill.

Well, that's a little vague.

Because when you say, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

We have been accused of being for -- of, you know, controlled by Russia.


Who else have we been. Well, they're controlled by a foreign adversary.

STU: Yeah. Whoever is convenient at the time. In theory, there's only the four -- that are labeled in this bill. Which are North Korea. China. Russia. And Iran.

So Israel wouldn't apply. But Russia would.

GLENN: So risen to what they said about Donald Trump. When he went to North Korea. He's being controlled by a foreign -- he's in with North Korea and Russia.

When Tucker went to Russia, how many people said, he's just a pawn for Putin?

Well, does that mean that Tucker Carlson, if the president -- because he's the one who decides. If the president decides, that you're being controlled by a foreign adversary. Does that mean Tucker Carlson can just go away?

STU: I mean, really direct example of this, would be Truth Social. Right?

They claim that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. And has been a Russian asset since the 1980s.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And he basically owns a very large chunk of Truth Social. And that's one of the things that made me nervous about the bill.

Is that one section that tries to define what a foreign adversary. Where it obviously like, if the Chinese government were to own a company.

Okay. That makes sense.

If a Chinese foreign national owns a company, and they answer to the Chinese Communist Party.

That would make sense. And be obvious.

But there's a third section.

And maybe you guys went over this last night. That kind of hits a person who is a US citizen, that is, quote, unquote, controlled by a foreign entity. Right?

GLENN: Yes. Controlled.


If -- I'm quoting. If determined by the president, to be a -- a present threat, to the national security of the United States.

A threat to the national security.

What does -- what does that mean?

And a threat to national security, just in the last year, we've heard election deniers are a threat to our democracy.

Vaccine deniers, Christian nationalists, climate deniers. All of these are a threat to national security.

So in the end, when it says, you -- you -- you're hostile to what?

We're -- people who believe in the Constitution are called hostile to the government. We're trying to overthrow the government. No, we're not. We're trying to stop you from overthrowing the government. We believe in the Constitution! So you're a foreign adversary.


Now, there's the -- there's a term called the covered company. That doesn't include an entity, that operates a website. Desktop application. Mobile application. Or augmented or immersive technology application.

Whose primary purpose is to allow users to post reviews, product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews. Now, is Yelp in the middle of a sale to Communist China?

Who had the juice, to put this in?

One of the cosponsors was Chip Roy. And I said, Chip, who put that in?

He said, I don't have any idea. But one of the cosponsors, and I think there were 20 of them.

Had somebody call up and say, hey, I want this language in there. So what website is worried about their product reviews and travel information. Being deemed a threat to the United States of America. Because it's not just, you know, an entity controlled.

It's an entity controlled by a -- a country, that we're at war with. And they are a threat, to our national security.

So, I mean, is the yelp review a threat to our national security? And if so, that is a little frightening.

STU: That does really pop up some interesting questions, right?

Obviously, who put this in? Is interesting.

I don't know what it means exactly. Like, I don't --

GLENN: Exactly.

I want to know. What I wanted to know, last night was, why was somebody so concerned about their review site, that they wanted it written in?

Because we've been told, this is only for sites like ByteDance. TikTok. Okay.

And when you see, and we showed it last night. Who really owns, ByteDance and TikTok.

How that's built. It is absolutely insane.

So they could sell it to another entity. And get around all of it.

This is crazy. Here's the lasting segment.

And where I ended up. This is from last night's Blaze TV, Glenn Beck Wednesday night special.

We are at war.

We are a nation at war.

We're at war, with other countries.

We're at war with China. And the Communist Party. Absolutely.

We are fighting a proxy war, which could very well become a -- a hot war. With Russia.

And could become a world war.

The way things are stacking up.

But we're also at war, with big tech.

We're at war with Communism and fascism in our own country, being taught to our own children at our own schools. We're at war with our own intelligence community and Justice Department.

And it's not just our Justice Department and Intel. It's the five eyes all over the world. We are at war with the corporate oligarchs, the politicians and the elites all over the world from the UN to the WEF.

To hell, I don't even know. Is it chamber of commerce any good anymore?

But most important, we are at war, with ourselves. We don't know who we are anymore. We're losing our country, because we lost our values. And when you lose your values, I lose history. Because it has no meaning, anymore.

What were you really fighting for? And is that worth it?

And because we lost our values, we lost our history. You lose your history. You lose your traditions. You lose your traditions, you lose your family.

And in the end, you lose yourself. I honestly think, that's where we are. We're damn close to that, if not already passed it.

You're not going to repair this country. By giving more power, to a government, that only seeks more power.

You've got to empower the people. Somehow or another, we need to as people, care what is happening to our children.

And I say this, with the understanding of what I told you at the beginning.

Even my own family rolls their eyes at me. I know.

I know. I keep coming back to the Founders, without a religious and moral people, this system is wholly inadequate. We're not those people anymore. It doesn't mean we can't be.

But right now, there are remnants of those people. Because we're fighting this war on every single front.

I'm against the TikTok ban. I -- I so trust Chip Roy. I love Chip. And I trust him. He's a constitutionalist. He's a Texan from 1853. I mean, don't mess with the Texan.

But I don't trust the people around him.

And a government that is seeking more and more power, and more and more control, and isn't already in bed, with giant corporate tech. And China.

And a government that doesn't seem to care about its people over oligarchs and, you know, the rich, the corporations, the lawyers. I can't give any more power.

And I won't give any more power to a president, that doesn't defend the Constitution, at all costs.

And I haven't seen them in quite a while.

So that's where I came down.

I don't know where you'll come down on this.

But I think this is a very important question.

Again, because this is all the stuff they said about the Patriot Act. Oh, it will never be used against you.

And I said, all they have to do is change the definition of extremist. And they could absolutely turn this on you.

Yes, but they won't.

They have! They have.

STU: Yeah, it's a fascinating one. They've done it many times, right?

And, you know, I don't know. You look at this, and you say, well.

For example, the foreign adversary thing you were talked about earlier. A US citizen that is, quote, unquote, controlled by and for an adversary. You can see there would be all sorts of problems with that, and you could rewrite that.

You could change that, pull that out of the bill.

But if you do that, it's not effective, right?

Because then China could just pay, you know, $100 million to some US citizen to run their thing.

And I'm sure there would be no way to track whether it was still controlled by the Chinese government.

At the end of the day, it's not going to be effective. And I don't know. When it comes down to a decision that is close, I just don't want to give the government any more power.

GLENN: Amen.

And I have to tell you, controlled by a foreign adversary, China. Well, I could make that case. And we made it yesterday, in Congress.

You can make that case, about the Biden family, and the White House.

It's -- it's a -- it's being controlled by a hostile, foreign power. And they're doing its bidding.

How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion WILL Create the Next Public Health Crisis | Glenn TV | Ep 348

How Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion WILL Create the Next Public Health Crisis | Glenn TV | Ep 348

Everything is a “public health crisis” these days. Racism. Climate change. The lack of access to “gender-affirming care.” But there’s one ACTUAL public health crisis the far Left has created: diversity, equity, and inclusion. The future of YOUR health care is at stake as this dangerous reform movement is being forced upon American medical schools, all of the professional medical organizations, and hospitals, with total endorsement from Biden’s White House. Glenn Beck exposes how this academic cancer is changing medical school admissions and graduates, what caused this movement to accelerate, the real-world life-and-death consequences of this insanity for patients, and how any resistance to this movement brings swift crackdown from the Thought Police. Glenn is joined by Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, the founder of “Do No Harm,” a network of doctors, nurses, medical students, and patients working to get identity politics out of medicine. Dr. Goldfarb taught medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and published more than a hundred articles in the New England Journal of Medicine and other top medical journals. He debunks the racist claim that “black patients need black doctors” and sounds the alarm on deadly efforts to push unqualified doctors on patients.

EXCLUSIVE: Will RFK, Jr. Change Glenn's Mind?

EXCLUSIVE: Will RFK, Jr. Change Glenn's Mind?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once called Glenn a traitor because he thought Glenn's opinions on climate change were "dangerous" and should be shut down. But now, he's one of the biggest CRITICS of censorship. So, what changed? Glenn decided to sit down with the independent presidential candidate to find out.

SHOCKING: You Need HOW MUCH Money to “Live Comfortably” in Each State?!

SHOCKING: You Need HOW MUCH Money to “Live Comfortably” in Each State?!

With inflation still on the rise, Glenn and Stu review another shocking number: how much money you need to “live comfortably” in America. The numbers have gone through the roof and it’s no surprise that the most expensive states are blue states. Thanks to inflation, a single adult now needs to make over $100,000 a year in order to live comfortably in many states. So, can you afford your state?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So there's a new number out now, on what it costs to live in the United States of America. It's a little higher than it used to be.

And I -- I don't know if anybody has noticed they're having a hard time making ends meet.

Comfortable to live comfortably is defined as the monthly income, needed to cover a 50/30/20 budget, which allocates 50 percent of your earnings for necessities like housing and utility costs, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and 20 percent for savings or investments.

STU: Wow. I don't think a lot of people are living like that.

GLENN: Nobody is living like that. Nobody is living like that.

STU: That -- but wait. Percent of what? If you're making $10 million. You know. What is it -- you don't need to have a 50/30/20 lifestyle to live comfortably, right?

GLENN: Right. Right.

They're saying this is the minimum. This is what it takes to, you know, live comfortably. In America.

STU: So -- this is not talking about -- I think Jeff Bezos is pretty good. I don't think he needs an article.

STU: You're saying, they're basically reverse engineering the number you need to hit that. Is that what you're saying?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right? Jeez.

STU: I was trying to understand.

GLENN: Here they are.

Most costly states: Massachusetts. $116,000.

STU: Hard-core conservative state.

GLENN: Hawaii. You'll see this a lot. Hawaii, 113.

STU: Another conservative -- red state.

GLENN: California, 113.

STU: Big red state there.

GLENN: New York, 111.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I'm rounding out the top. Topping out the top five is Washington State, with 106.

STU: Another big red state. That's amazing. So $100,000, and you cannot live comfortably.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That's incredible.

GLENN: Okay. Now, to live comfortably in these states, you need to earn double what most single earners typically make. The median income for a single full-time worker is around $60,000. The national median for living comfortably is $89,000.

So there's a shortage there.

STU: And those are statewide numbers to point out. It's a lot worse in these cities.

Like, there was a time. I don't know this is eight to ten years old now.

When I remember looking at this. They gave you these guide lines, what you need to earn to buy an average home in the market. In the market of San Francisco, the -- several of the players on the roster of the San Francisco giants, did not earn enough money, to buy the average home.

GLENN: It's crazy.

STU: In the market.

GLENN: So let me go through this. Alabama, to live comfortably, $83,000.

Alaska, $96,000.

And I don't know if that's ever -- I don't know if you're ever comfortable living in Alaska, unless you can change the climate completely.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

Arizona, $97,000. Arkansas, 79

STU: Gosh.

GLENN: California, 113. Colorado, 103. Connecticut, 100. Delaware, 94. Florida, 93.

Think of that. In Florida, it's 93. In Colorado, it's 100. Georgia, 96. Hawaii, 113. Idaho, 88. Illinois, 95. Indiana, 85. Iowa, 83. Kansas, 84. Kentucky, 80. Louisiana, 82. Maine, 91.

Why? Bear traps? Maryland.

STU: That's a northeast state.

GLENN: Maryland, 102. Massachusetts, 116. Michigan, 84. Minnesota, 89. Mississippi, 82. Missouri, 84. Montana, 84. Nebraska, 83.

STU: A lot of these -- these are like the bargain basement states. You are having $85,000 to live comfortably.

GLENN: I know. Yeah.

STU: That's just putting away some money for retirement. That's not living -- you're not flying private.

GLENN: I know. Yeah, but you're not living paycheck to paycheck. If you would live that way. If you would do 50/30/20.

STU: Right. Right.

GLENN: Nevada, 93.

Nobody does that. Do you know anybody who is young, that put 20 percent of their salary away for savings?

STU: Depends what you mean by young. As you're starting out, you're just trying to make it, pay your bills. As you get older, you're trying to put some money away.

GLENN: 20 percent?

STU: It's hard to do.

GLENN: Really hard to do. Nevada, 93.

STU: By the way, 50/20/30. What are the taxes on this one? This is post-tax revenue, I assume.

GLENN: Yeah. Where are the taxes?

STU: Another 30 is going to taxes. So which part of it are you taking out?

GLENN: That's why nobody saves. New Hampshire, 98. New Jersey, 103. To live in New Jersey. New Mexico, 83. New York, 111. North Carolina, 89. North Dakota, 52.

STU: North Dakota. This is -- this is hwy people go to the Dakotas, I suppose. It's --

GLENN: Is it worth Dakota, though? You don't even have the presidential thing on the mountain, that Dakota.

STU: That's true. Was that the Doug Burgum state?

GLENN: Yes, it is. Fifty-two.

STU: You got those eyebrows. They are kind of like -- on the Mount Rushmore of eyebrows. I don't know if that counts.

GLENN: Ohio, 80. Oklahoma, 80. Oregon, 101.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Pennsylvania, 91. Rhode Island, 100. Oh, my gosh, for Rhode Island!

South Carolina, 88. South Dakota, 81. Tennessee, 86. Texas, 87. Utah, 93. Vermont, 95.
Virginia, 99. Washington, 106. West Virginia, 78.
That's a state you could live in. Wisconsin, 84. Wyoming, 87.


STU: First of all, the red and blue state is -- I don't know if it's perfect. It's darn close to perfect, as far as the difference is.

GLENN: It is. It is.

STU: You look at that, and you think -- it wasn't that long ago, that we would say, oh, my gosh, nap guy is earning six figures. Doing really well.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's just not even doing really well.


STU: It's the way you're supposed to plan for your future. And now you need to earn six figures, in most states. Or at least close to most states.

GLENN: And it's going to get worse. That's the problem. It will get worse.

How will companies be able to keep up with it? How is that going to happen?

GLENN: The presses.
STU: Yeah. But eventually, people can't afford to produce the products that people want, and people can't afford to buy the products that they need.

STU: I mean, you just recited the slogan for Bidenomics. That's exactly --

GLENN: Yes, I did. Starts bottom up. Bottom up. First people to be heard.

The bottom. And eventually, it's heard all the way up.

The -- in another remarkable story, the IMF has come out and said, that Biden has got to stop money.

Printing money, and spending money.

The International Monetary Fund, sounded the alarm on the Biden administration's rampant spending as, quote, out of line with what is needed for long-term fiscal stability.

STU: No!

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: What? It feels like it's right in line with the exact -- what you're supposed to do with each budget is spend trillions of dollars than you have.

I thought that's the way you're supposed to be fiscally responsible. What is the 50, 30, 20 number for the United States right now? It's like 80, 50, zero. Eighty, 50, negative 30. Right?

That's what we're doing. The savings is negative 30 percent of the budget. We're spending mandatories, like 80 percent of what we have. Then there's another 50 percent discretionary. It's insanity. And we're getting to the point very soon. Just the interest on the money already spent will be more than our entire defense budget.

GLENN: We will have to borrow over a trillion dollars a year, just for the interest.

STU: My God.

GLENN: I mean, this is unsustainable.

And I really don't understand, why more people can't see this.

STU: You keep seeing this word.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

What Would Happen if Israel RETALIATED Against Iran's Missile Attack?

What Would Happen if Israel RETALIATED Against Iran's Missile Attack?

Iran’s attack against Israel made barely any impact (despite what Iran is telling its people). But will Israel strike back? It has the right to, and many Israeli leaders seem to want to, but SHOULD it? Glenn and Stu discuss whether it’s worth risking World War III, or whether Iran is too weak to do anything else.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So let's just recap what we know now, what happened over the weekend with the Iranian attack on Israel. First of all, the Iran state TV used footage from the Texas fire. Also, there was footage of One Direction.

STU: The band?

GLENN: The band. And it was Israelis, panicking while under attack while under missiles and drones. Unfortunately, it was just a throng of excited One Direction fans.

STU: Wow, the fact that those things look the same, may make you rethink things if you're a One Direction fan.

GLENN: It really does. They also use a picture of a forest fire in Chile. So, you know, they're running all kinds of lies. I don't know if their people understand that they really made no impact at all.

STU: I'm kind of -- look, I kind of hope -- this is weird. I kind of hope they are able to convince their people, that they made an impact.
Because maybe this will somewhat calm down.

GLENN: So the president boasted the attack had, quote, taught a lesson to the Zionist regime. They were chanting with their fists in the air, death to Israel. Death to America. Yay. And Hezbollah supporters were out in the streets, of southern Beirut, honking their horns and celebrating.

And they warned that Jordan would be the next target, if it took any measures in Israel's defense.

So everybody is just like holding back.

Except for Israel. Now, my goals may not be the same goals, as the Israelis. My interests are, let's not have any terrorism here in America.

And let's try to bring peace to the world.

Israel has played this game for so long. They're not going to sit back. At least the word we're getting from their -- their war committee, was that it was a brawl.

The defense minister stated yesterday, that Israel's confrontation with Iran is not over yet.

The public security minister demanded a crushing attack, against Iran. Another minister, declared Iran's audacity in such an attack, must be erased.

Meanwhile, Iran's mission to the UN said, should the Israeli regime make another mistake. Iran's response will be considerably more severe.

And warned the US to stay away. Okay. I don't know what they can do with their -- their missiles. Quite honestly.

I think it was embarrassing. If that were us, well, that would be us. Because Joe Biden is in charge. Maybe Joe Biden helped them with planning of this mission. But that were us. That would be humiliating.

Absolutely humiliating.

And, I mean, it's the -- wouldn't you say, it was the most lopsided thing you have seen, possibly ever? With the amount that they fought back?

STU: Yeah. It goes back to a couple of examples. The first gulf war.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Remember that.

GLENN: Except they fought back. And they did hit targets. This one hit -- they say three -- the outside is ten. That they hit ten -- that missiles hit ten things. They fired over 300.

STU: 300, right. The other one that comes to mind. The way we reacted in Afghanistan, when the Taliban started taking it over again. We kind of just all ran. And that -- that seemed -- that was embarrassing. I was embarrassing that way. The way I think Iran should be embarrassed this way. That's if their intent is to actually get a lot of damage. Look, we have an alternate theory. We talked about it yesterday.

They floated a bunch of flying lawn mowers over there. With 12 hours notice for a reason.

To say, hey. Shoot all these town.

We don't want to start an international war. If we don't do something in our country. Our people will overthrow us.

GLENN: So you're sitting in Israel.

And I say, Stu. What are you going to do? Now, you're an Israeli.

You're in the defense cabinet. And I say, what are you going to do?

Because the whole world hates us right now?

And if we retaliate, then we're in trouble. Should we just walk away and call this thing?

GLENN: Again, there's so much to weigh here. And I'm an idiot. But I will tell you, my initial instinct is, you have a free hall pass to --

GLENN: No. No. No. No. Your first impression is you're an to it. I just don't want that to get lost.

STU: The second impression was --

GLENN: The first one was, again --

STU: I'm an idiot. Number two. And I should not be making these decisions for any nation. We should be clear about that. That's not a good policy, because I'm an idiot.

GLENN: Sure. You're an idiot. You could work for the Biden administration.

STU: I will say, maybe I should leave the country. This one here, because it seems that's the path to success these days.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: But I will say, what my thought would be, is you have a free hall pass to do another Syria type of operation. Right?

You can -- of course, are justified. If I was an Israeli, you would be justified to launch at least 300 missiles towards Iran. You're justified morally to do so.

However, what I would like to do is tamp this down, so it doesn't inflame into something worse. If you were are to do something like they did in Syria. Where you took over some important, overseas. Not in Iran. Type of operation. That would actually benefit you.

Not like as a show of power or strength. If you're Israel, you don't need to do that. What you need to do is do something that would actually benefit you.

And I think it would be difficult for the world to be all that upset.

If you went and did another operation like that.

GLENN: I forgot.

I was going to say, no. No. No.

STU: That's a smart answer for an idiot.

GLENN: I forgot you were an idiot. It would be tough for the world to say.

You remember, you're a Jew here.

STU: Right. So they --

GLENN: They can say whatever they want.

STU: They can say whatever they want.

GLENN: They're always the pad guy.

STU: But there is a line.

The world wasn't overly outraged about the Syria operation in the first place.

Iran was.

And everyone was talking about what their response would be.

No one was like, oh, gosh. I can't believe they did that.

Some people did, of course.

Look, there was 150 countries, that voted not -- that voted to condemn Israel, over the whole Gaza situation.

And when given the opportunity, I think it was Austria, that proposed an amendment that said, hey. Shouldn't we condemn Hamas for October 7th in this thing?

Ask they voted no.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Of course, they said no to that.

At some level, you can't care at all, what some of these countries think.

They will just think, Jew equals bad.

But I think to not make this go over the top. And flame out of control.

And also, get and done, that you're completely justified for. And will benefit for your country.

If you can walk that line. If there's another target like that. That seems highly justified and appropriate.

What do you think? You're not an idiot, right? You're a doctor.

GLENN: I'm a doctor, so I'm not an idiot.

STU: Do you notice this? Does anyone in the audience, even notice he does this? He asks these tough questions, and he never gives his own answer. It's pathetic.

GLENN: Because I'm trying to move the show. I'm trying to move the show.

STU: Move the --

GLENN: See, you don't want me. You don't want me anywhere near the buttons of any -- for any country.

Because we would run out of missiles quickly.

Because I have -- I have a short attention span.

And I also have a short fuse. It would be like, hmm. They did what.

Yeah. Launch.

I would be over there, saying, the world is going to hate us, anyway. They're building a nuclear weapon supply.

We know now what they're capable of doing from the sky. That's great. But if they get a nuclear weapon over our border, any way, shape, or form.

Millions will die.

And we know they're serious. And the rest of the world, can say whatever they want. But take up out their nuclear facilities.

STU: In country.

GLENN: In country.

STU: Look, he's been wanting to do it for a long time. And I think that's entirely justified.

GLENN: He has to. He has to.

No one in the world will do it, until he ignites one of those things.

STU: That is true. It probably does extend this though, right?

That's the risk.

GLENN: Oh. It's going to --

STU: Netanyahu has been wanting to do this forever, and I think has been looking for an opening to do it.

GLENN: Justifiably so.

STU: Justifiably so. Again, I'm not being critical. If I were Israeli. I think probably I would be for a much more aggressive response.

GLENN: Enough is enough.

STU: But I'm not. And I'm -- I'm thinking more selfishly frankly as an American.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too. Me on top.

STU: I think that's appropriate for us to do. America first is a dumb sort of slogan, but also very true.

It's also misused by many factions over the years.

GLENN: Yeah. Correct.

STU: But, I mean, it is the appropriate priority list for the United States.

GLENN: If you're going to take care of somebody, you don't swamp the lifeboats. That is what we're doing with our border. We're swamping the lifeboats.

How had we help anybody, if we can't help ourselves?

How will we help anybody, if we're fighting terror here?

I don't want terror here. But we've already swamped the lifeboats with a whole bunch of terrorists, apparently that are already here.

But we're not doing anything about it. So my America first kind of has to go to, let Israel do what Israel cares to do.

They can handle it. They're big boys. They can handle it. We'll handle our thing over here.

Now, with that being said. I know that Iran will not let us get away with that.

Iran will immediately activity. They're already activating the people. Who do you think. Hamas is paid for by the Iranians. So when you're in New York City. And you're holding a Hamas flag, you are doing the bidding of the Iranians.

So they're already here. And it's coming. And I would like to delay it, quite honestly, as long as possible.

But, you know, let Israel be Israel.

By the way, we have a news from Israel's Channel 12 News. They carried a report, that the country's Air Force, which includes US-made 16s, fifteens, and F-35s are already gearing up to deliver a retaliatory counterstrike against Iran.

According to the report, the strike will be intended as a message that Israel will not allow an attack of that magnitude, to pass without reaction.

That's actually good. That's a good reaction from them. Because doesn't that sound limited?

I'm just looking for happy things.

Turning rocks. Oh, no. That's a friendly worm. That's a friendly bug.

The strike intended a message, Israel will not allow an attack of that magnitude, to pass without a reaction.