RADIOJune 09, 2022

SCOTUS justices are UNSAFE & the left's to blame

A man was arrested near the home of Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday morning with plans to harm the Supreme Court Justice. SCOTUS justices — especially the conservatives ones — have faced intense backlash since the alleged Roe v. Wade decision was leaked, and the left’s rhetoric against those justices hasn't helped. In fact, that rhetoric may be DIRECTLY responsible for terrifying events like this one. Newsweek’s Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what’s next for our Supreme Court justices, including the most important — and 'tragic' — question yet: Are they even safe?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: From the Washington Post. Breaking news today. Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home.

California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh's Maryland home, has been taken into custody by police.

After telling officers, he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The man described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon, and burglary tools.

These people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police apparently notified, that this person might pose a threat to the justice. But it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip.

The man apparently did not make it into Kavanaugh's property in Montgomery County, Maryland, but was stopped on a nearby street. Thank God.

This is -- this is truly, truly the result of the left being primed by left -- leftist and Democratic politicians. I don't believe that you can be held responsible for, you know, ginning people up, if you're not -- if you're not actually saying, you know, somebody is going to get you.

You know, it's -- it's really difficult. But listen to this quote from Chuck Schumer. Do you have it, Stu?

This is -- this is when they were talking. This is before the decision that was leaked. But he's talking about the court decisions, that are coming, including Roe vs. Wade.

STU: Yeah. He says, I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind. And you will pay the price. You won't be know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions. That's unbelievable.

GLENN: Okay. That is truly unbelievable. These guys do not have protection. They have had since the leak, thank God. Josh Hammer is joining us now.

He is the opinion editor of Newsweek, and the host of the Josh Hammer Show with Newsweek. I was just on it, I think last week or the week before.

He's really wicked smart. I think one of the real intellectual leaders of the conservative movement. And a good friend.

Welcome, Josh. How are you?

JOSH: Glenn, you're way too kind. It's great to join you again.

GLENN: So, Josh, you're watching this.

I've never seen anything hike this. Apparently, it happened Tuesday night. As it's being reported. No. One report said it was Tuesday. And this one says, 11:50 a.m. today.

Are the justices safe?

JOSH: First of all, it's tragic, that we have to even ask that question. I mean, this is not a question, that a healthy, republic, with a healthy rule of law. With a healthy law apparatus. Where there is no sense of this kind of two tier system of justice, between the deplorables and everyone else. Where, again, in a healthy functioning democracy, are the justices safe? Is just simply not a question, that ought to be asked.

So the very fact that we're opening a conversation with that question, I think is telling in and of itself.

But the tragic and short answer, Glenn, I think is no. And the answer right now, I think is -- it's a rather foreseeable consequence, unfortunately, of just the culture of anarchy, of lawlessness, of disrespect for institutions, of widespread iconoclasm of the Democratic Party, and their leftist minions have fomented.

They have directly fomented this culture.

Think back to the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020. Kamala Harris, they're in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with bail funds for people who were rioting in the streets.

This is their safe. This is their safe. But even -- it was lawlessness and anarchy, as being rejected. The problem obviously, it apparently has not trickled up to the Biden administration.

Because there was a direct statute on the books. Eighteen U.S. Code 1507. That prohibits the protesting throughout the justice homes, and Attorney General Merrick Garland had some mealy-mouthed memo, where he said, oh, this is not appropriate.

But, you know, he hasn't brought a single case. He can do that. So he should.

GLENN: Right. And yet, tomorrow, we'll see the January 6th show trial.

First show trial that I know of in my lifetime here from America. We know about them in Russia and other places like that.

Yesterday, terrorists firebombed a pro-life center in Buffalo. This is the second time that there's been a firebombing by the revenge -- or Jane's revenge.

And they are calling for a -- a nationwide 8:00 p.m. riot on the day that they release the Supreme Court releases their decision. And yet, yesterday, the Homeland Security came out. And they didn't really point out the anarchists. They didn't point out the left. Again, they said, there is some on both sides of the issue.

Well, I would like to see that.

JOSH: Look. Here's the thing. You and I both review the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution obviously does provide you with the Constitutional right to peaceably voice your opinion in the street, on a sidewalk. And so forth.

What it does not allow you to do, is to issue threats or to act violently, or to try to tear down institutions of governments. And, therefore, violate the most sacrosanct, rudimentary principles in the rule of law.

I think another takeaway though, that I have from this. And I think back to the leak that just happened a little over a month ago now, in early May, when Politico released it. Because we've been in uncharted waters since then, right? This just simply never happens in modern Supreme Court dates. The very fact that it was leaked in the first place, I think is the biggest assault on the court's institutional legitimacy over the past half century, full century. Go back as (talking over), obviously. And the fact that we have not discovered the identity of the leaker is crazy. But I think back, the very night that that was released. It was a Monday in early May. I was at the time, watching very carefully. I was trying to see if any Democrats, MSNBC, left-wing cable news, talking head type figures, what if they condemned the leak? To this day, I haven't seen a single one. A single one.

GLENN: No. They praised the leaker.

JOSH: Yeah. Exactly. They are praising the leaker. They have directly abetted this culture. They really have. At this point, you're playing with fire. And every day, the Dobbs opinion is not released, I think.

Only exacerbates the threat to the justice of personal safety.

GLENN: So do you think -- I mean, the thing to do. Because they have a couple of really controversial things coming. And they're supposed to be come in the next few weeks. Usually, they leave the most controversial for the last. So they can just get on a plane and get out of town. But that's not going to help it. Why would they hold these things?

Just -- just release them.

JOSH: So generally speaking, that's what they do. You're right about that. They typically hold the highest profile opinions for the last week of the term. And that's not a legal thing. That's not like U.S. codes are not legally bound to do that. Just kind of the customs that they do that.

But in this particular case. Because, again, we are in you be chartered waters here. This has not happened, period, full stop. I and many others said, that if you care about the justice's personal safety. And, by the way, not just the justices. But also the Loefflers. I hate to make it personal. But I have a number of friends, who support this term.

Probably at least five, six, seven, personal friends who are clerking this term. I am worried about their personal safety too. People have tried to dox the identity of the clerks who are clerking for the conservative Supreme Court justice. I saw some horrible Instagram posts.

As you said, here are their names. Go find them. Just awful, awful stuff.

GLENN: Jeez.

JOSH: And every day, that they don't go about releasing the Dobbs opinion, or at the bare minimum, Glenn. What I said, prior to the end. Probably what they should have done, is the very next day, or at least that week, they could have issued a one line sentence. That said, you know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit is hereby overturned. And Roe vs. Wade is reversed. Opinions to follow. That is what they could have done. But they chose not to. And at this point, they're really, really playing with fire, and I just hope after today's horrible incident with Justice Kavanaugh. That the chief justice realizes that the moment is now to release this opinion. It is now.

GLENN: So two things, as we talk to Josh Hammer from Newsweek.

And I hate to say he's from Newsweek because he's one of us.

But the -- the -- the two questions that I have for you: Are this. I talked to Mike Lee. And he said, he thought that as soon as this court was finished this year. That we would know the name of the leaker. And he said, I hope, at worst, or at best. I guess. Would -- that they would be -- their law license would be taken away. They would never be able to practice again. Any kind of law. Anywhere in America.

I would hope that that would happen. I hope that more than that would happen. He said, they were waiting on that. Until they got all these -- he thought, it would come out the last day. So that, coupled with, he also said, he felt they knew pretty close if not right on, who that person -- who that person was.

Do you agree with that or not?

JOSH: So, first of all, Mike Lee, I respect so -- actually, my first year of law school summer. Actually, with the Loeffler kind of Senate judiciary staff, so I go pretty far back on these matters. It's always so valuable here. I want to agree with him. What he's saying, should be happening. That's exactly what should happen. The leaker should be disbarred. Should be formerly shunned. Unfortunately, I fear something, somewhat approximately in the exact opposite of that will happen. If my intuitions on this are correct. And it's a liberal clerk. It's someone from the Justice, Sotomayor's chamber in particular. Or perhaps Justice Kagan's or Justice Breyer's chambers.

What I predict will happen. The identity will be exposed. It's crazy it's not happened already. There's literally 37 law clerks here. Twelve from the liberal chambers. Not particularly big sample size. But then he probably will be exposed, assuming the marshal of the Supreme Court.

A woman named Dale Curly, is even remotely competent at her job. But what I predict will happen after that, is that the leaker will effectively try to forfeit, you know, will -- will forfeit some law firm career, perhaps.

But then we'll get like a very rich, kind of speaking MSNBC talking heads gig.

And frankly, it would not surprise me, if a top ten, top 20 law school actually hired her as a professor, or reproductive rights study. Fully constitutional field like that.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

JOSH: So I want to agree with Senator Lee.

But I do fear something closely approximately the opposite might transpire.

GLENN: No. Yeah. My gut tells me the same thing. The last thing. God forbid somebody kills one of these justices.

And kills a conservative. That means Biden gets to pick the next justice. Which would change the balance of the court. And would absolutely set the country on fire.

On fire. What do we do to make sure that these guys are safe?

And I say that about both sides. I don't want either side that experienced violence or threats. What do we do?

JOSH: So one thing that has been pointed out here. I could be wrong. I don't think any of the nine justices actually live in the District of Columbia. I shouldn't say that.

It's possible that Sotomayor. The vast majority of them live in Maryland or Virginia. Where it's worth pointing out, despite those being in recent years, light blue states.

Both those states have Republican governors. It's Glenn Youngkin in Virginia. It's Larry Hogan in Maryland.

So in a situation like this, where the federal government is just completely dropping the ball. They're just not going to prosecute. If they're not going to send out whatever kind of DOJ, kind of FBI mercenaries, that they would need to send out. That the onus can and should fall on Governor Hogan and Governor Youngkin, to do what has to be done, a state national guard level or something like that.

Right?

It's unfortunate, it's hardly the first time that governors have had to kind of step up, and the federal government -- I think about the immigration on the southern border, of course.

I mean, whether it's Texas or Arizona. Any of these border states. I mean, whenever the federal government, failed to do its job, it's incumbent upon the states to do that job for them.

I go all the way back to the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case. Arizona versus the United States.

It was kind of the whole point to Justice Scalia's remarkable dissent in that case, exactly.

He basically said that at the time, when Arizona was doing with the statute of illegal immigration, was its constitutional prerogative. And, indeed, its duty. The federal government failed to do its job. In that case, to secure the border. The states must and can step up.

So I think something similar could and should happen with respect to Maryland and Virginia, if the federal government fails.

GLENN: Okay. Josh, can you hang on for one quick second. I got to take a quick break

Exposed: How Democrats twist maps to silence half the voters

Democratic Maryland governor Wes Moore is now saying that he wants to gerrymander his own state's congressional districts (despite Republicans only holding ONE seat) to fight Texas' redistricting efforts. But Glenn Beck has a simpler answer to this whole debate - and it stems from Moses.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Gerrymandering started by -- Stu, can you look this up, for me?

Is it Elbridge Gerry or Gerry? I always thought it was Elbridge Gerry.

STU: Yeah, you're remembering that right.

GLENN: It is?

STU: Yeah, it is Elbridge Gerry. There's a weird quirk basically in American history, where his name was Elbridge Gerry. It was first called gerrymandering essentially in a newspaper, at the time. People read the newspaper, didn't know how to pronounce his name. Started saying "gerrymandering," and that's what stuck. So it was actually different than the way his name was pronounced, even though it was named after him.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's why you spell your name G-A-R-Y, not G-E-R-R-Y. Hello!

STU: Lesson learned.

GLENN: Yes, so gerrymandering is when a salamander-shaped district gave America a new word, and a new really bad habit. Okay? And we have perfected this really bad habit.

It -- it started about 18- -- yeah, about 1818, 1850, some- -- someplace around there, and it wasn't known as gerrymandering, until the mid-1800s when everybody was doing it. Now, here's how bad it has gotten: Today, in Massachusetts, one-third of the voters choose a Republican. But not one of the nine House seats. They can choose it for president. But they -- one-third vote for Republicans. But because of the way they have the map set up, you don't get any House seats. So a third of the population has zero representation.

And not because they didn't show up. But because the lines chose first. In, Illinois, pretty much the same situation. Forty-seven percent of voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. Forty-seven percent. Now, why do we all think that Illinois is so far left in Congress? Why?

Because 47 percent, they must get their choice. Forty-seven percent of the voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. And they got 17 percent of the seats! Now, that's -- that's magical. There's -- there's some magical forces making that happen. Okay? Now, you see competition. Now you don't! Maryland.

The courts called one map an extreme partisan gerrymander. Why?

Well, because there's only one Republican serving in Maryland. Only one.

Now, how is that possible? Because you know there are people that live in Maryland. Only one of the -- the House seats go to a Republican? One?

Come on! Now, here's the latest. The governor now says, all options are on the table. This is the governor of Maryland. We just played this clip. Can you play it again, please?

VOICE: Are you actively looking at it now?

VOICE: Yes. And I think we have to.

VOICE: You are?

VOICE: Because I think what's happening is this is what people hate about politics in the first place. The fact that the President of the United States, very similar to what he did in Georgia, where he called up a series of voter registrants and said, I need you to find me more votes. We're watching the same thing now where he's calling up legislatures around the country and saying, I need you to find me more congressional districts.

VOICE: He's doing it. That may be different. But Democrats redistrict. You know this. But Gavin Newsom is doing it right now, a few years ago in New York. We saw this. This can be backfire.
Do you really want to go down this road?

VOICE: I want to make sure that we have fair lines and fair seats. Where we don't have situations where politicians are choosing voters, but that voters have a chance to choose their elected officials.

We need to be able to have fair maps, and we also need to make sure that if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections, because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box.

GLENN: Okay. So stop.

If you -- if you don't know anything about Maryland, you would be like, well, that's reasonable.

And most people don't know anything about Maryland. Okay. That's reasonable. He just wants fair maps and fair lines. Okay. If you really wanted the people to pick, you wouldn't -- it's mathematically impossible in Illinois.

It's mathematically impossible in Massachusetts. And in Maryland, to have the representation for the G.O.P. that they have.

It's math mat -- Massachusetts has zero Republicans in the House!

Zero, in the whole state!

Zero.

Maryland, only has one. And then he says, well, I might have to redistrict.

To get rid of the one?

One place, where -- where a Republican won. And you want to redistrict that, out of existence?

That doesn't seem fair, to me.

Right?

Okay. This isn't a blue problem. It's not a red problem. It is a power problem. And it has been happening almost since the founding of the country. And it's got to stop. Now, in 2019, the Supreme Court had a decision. Said, the courts aren't going to interfere. And they won't referee partisan gerrymandering.

Well, that was a message that was sent to everybody, very clear. Do what you -- do what you want. The raw what you can. Draw what you can get real estate with. And so they did!

Now, in Texas. This all started in Texas. Which, by the way, the -- the senses.

These are all based on the census, or they're supposed to be. But for the very first time, the 2020 census was rigged, and then it was not fair.

When you have Texas. Think of this. Just think -- I want you to think of this logically. Texas in -- what was it? 2020. Texas in 2020 had lost people? Or had not gained any citizens?

What planet are you living in?

Texas is growing by leaps and bounds, as it was in 2015. 2010.

You're telling me, nothing!

Nothing!

No new growth.

Wow! That's amazing.

So Texas is trying to correct this problem. Where they fix the census.

Okay.

Now, the left is shouting, this is crazy!

I can't believe they're doing -- it's an arms race of hypocrisy.

It really is. It really is.

Which one could launch the biggest hypocritical missile.

I'm not sure. I can just tell you, this ends -- it ends where legitimacy ends. When -- when somebody will look up in one of these states and say, this is -- and with -- with real facts on their side. That -- that's not -- that's not representative of me. The House of Representatives. That's not representative of my district and my state. You can draw a district any way you want. You know, cut us all apart so you -- you can't have a Republican in. You've been doing that forever.

Here's the thing: Safe seats. That's what everybody wants. A safe seat. Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Let me say that again: Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Why?

Because a safe seat doesn't reward persuasion.

You don't have to persuade anybody. They reward purity tests. This is why we have become so incredibly extreme. It's why -- everybody wonders why the center feels like it's collapsing. You know, every -- every compromise feels like a betrayal. Because you're not dealing with people. You're dealing with people who are extremes. Okay?

So what do we do? Well, there's a couple of solutions. One independent map-making. Yeah. That's going to work. Put the pens in the citizen's hands. Oh, good. Michigan. Arizona. California.

They have shown independent or court-drawn maps. Reduced extremes. And increased competition. Okay.

Maybe. California. Has an independent committee. This was passed by the people voted for. People were like, you know what, we want fair! We want fair districts. Okay. But at the first time of trouble. They'll violate that, as you're seeing with California.

You have the governor of California coming out. We will redraw all of them. Because they don't care about the voices of the people in those districts. They care about the Democrat voice in Congress.

So the governor is going around it. And it will only be stopped if the people of California stand up. Are they going to?

I don't know.

Now, if we don't solve this at the local and state level, believe me, there are going to be people in Congress that want to change the rules. And the left is already working on it.

It's called the fair representation act. Stu, they already have an act. It's the Fair Representation Act.

STU: I like fair representation.

GLENN: Right! It's about representation, and it's going to be fair.

See what could go wrong with this. They just reintroduced it this summer. It would use independent commissions. Multi-member districts. And ranked choice voting for the House.

Oh! Ranked choice voting? What could possibly go wrong with ranked choice voting. Why is that a problem, Stu?

STU: Well, currently, the Democrats really love rank choice voting. Because it's benefited them, mostly.

And that's just a small part of that particular act. But basically, you know, if you -- you know, unless the other -- the other team is smart enough to actually understand the rules of it. Which so far, the Republicans have not been, they will nominate people that will split their own vote. And you will wind up with someone who is the -- not the majority candidate, wound up winning the seat.

GLENN: Yeah. Really bad idea. Really bad idea.

So may I make a suggestion on how we fix this?

And I would like to base this on Moses.

Moses already did this. Okay? He divided people in hundreds and 50s and tens. Let me -- let me call -- let me just -- I want you to think of the United States under one big tent. Okay? One big tent. Let's say we look at the United States as a big block. And we want to put everybody under a tent. But we can't put them under one big, big tent.

So let's say we put them in tents of 100. Or a thousand.

Or 5,000.

And we think of the map, as you have to have a tent, over these people.

All right. Well, I know we have four corners.

And we put a steak in the ground. And those four corners, we build a tent.

And then we build a tent right next to that one, that holds the same amount of people, and we put four steaks in the ground, and we build another tent. In other words, each district has to have four straight lines. Just like a tent. It's just a box. Okay? It could be a rectangle. However you want to design it, that is fine. But it's just a box. And when that box becomes too full, you split it in half. And now it becomes two boxes, and you keep splitting them, until they're more and more boxes. The more the population grows, the more boxes there are. Okay?
It's really easy. Do you know what that would do? It could mean that in some districts, a couple of apartment buildings, not snaked all the way around the city and into the countryside. But a few apartment buildings in New York City, right in a four-block area, that might be a district.

What does that do? That means the people who are representing the people in that apartment complex, the -- that four-block radius. He has to know that four-block area. That's his deal. He's not sneaking around, going around everywhere else. He knows those people. He represents just those people. Not people five blocks away. Just maybe four blocks away.

And four blocks in each direction. That way, you don't have these people who don't have any idea, they don't look like you. I mean, as far as the way you vote. They don't look -- vote like you do. They don't -- they're -- they're not some sort of foreigner from a different area of town. They know what your issues are.

If we did that, and we made everything in just squares, you would -- you would localize much more. In a much better way. But you would also stop all the extremes. Because unless everybody in that four-block radius is an extremist, an extremist isn't going to win. An extremist Republican. Extremist tell me. Extremists aren't going to win. Because most people aren't like that. That's why the gerrymandering thing happens. Because you can have people on one side of the street in one district, people on the other side of the street, in another district, and then it snakes up four blocks, and then it makes a hard left. Then it goes straight up for another street, then there's a big bubble at the top of it, where a whole bunch of blocks are included. That makes no sense. That's making a safe seat.
Again, safe seats do not -- do not reward anything! They create extremism.

What you MUST KNOW about Trump's computer chip stock deal

President Trump has announced a deal to buy a 10% stake in computer chip maker Intel. Is this a smart business move that will make the US government money to pay off its debt, or is it just another unconstitutional public-private partnership? Glenn and Stu discuss ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I would love to open -- openly embrace the -- you know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel.

And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah. That's the way we should do business.

It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic. But then, again, so did the Patriot Act.

So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion. Money already set aside by the Chips Act. And instead of handing to Intel as a grant, he bought stock in Intel.

Now, that sounds really smart. Right? Sounds like what a businessman would do. Really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money, we'll invest. And that way, we get some profits, when they succeed. So we now own 10 percent of the company. Nonvoting shares. We got it at a discount, and we have $2 billion now worth of paper gains.

I love that! Right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways. Taxpayers are investors. And we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah. It's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. We stabilize the economy, without running it. We reassure the markets, and attract other private investors. On paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient. It's savvy.

Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never -- government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise.

But, again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there. Haven't we?

Hasn't the government picked winners and loses now forever?

Haven't they been wasting your money. I would rather extend them a grant. I would rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win. No. We all win. But that's actually the model of state capitalism in China. That's not the free market in the United States. Intel is vital. Absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that will happen for national security. And our economy.

But we cannot get into the habit of -- of -- we can't normalize it anyway.

Washington, DC, buying stock in struggling companies.

Because what's next. Ford? Boeing?

How about your grocery stores?

That's Mamdani, isn't it?

And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it, now.

What happens after we own a piece of that?

So in 2008, I had a big sponsor.

It was a sponsor that Premiere Radio networks had worked 20 years to get.

We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them.

It was General Motors.

And then the government bailed them out. In 2008. And they promised it was temporary. And I said, great! Call me back, once you've paid them off. I don't -- I don't like this. The government should not be involved.

But they were not going to be involved.

But they were

The first thing they did. Was they cancelled the hydrogen car. Something they really believed right before the election. I know. Because I was talking to him about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM was like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them.

And the precedent was set. And I was out. I was out. I cancelled General Motors. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it? And that's how you slip to capitalism to corporatism. You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers.

You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins.

Come on!

Not a hard question to answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins. If the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we will make a lot of money, you're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay. All right. Okay.

It's -- it's not -- the taxpayers aren't the one. The company -- the politicians, who really wins? What happens when an administration leans on its own company, for political purposes?

You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it.

He -- Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year. Lays off 20,000 workers.

Choke hold of Taiwan, South Korea on semi conductors. He wants America protected.

He wants taxpayers to share the upside.

He doesn't want to just bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right?

It's really tempting. But is it what we're supposed to do. Is it the right thing?

I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes. Cutting red tape. Letting capital flow to strong ideas. Making sure national security is cured through policy, but not ownership of these things.

Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI, or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10 percent? Oh, they need another bailout. We're just going to own 20 percent. Oh, they need another bailout. Okay. We're going to own 40 percent of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department? The Deep State? The president, or you?

I think you know the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one. Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're giving people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?

STU: Well, first of all, can we step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here, in the first place, was the Chips Act. The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place.

And that's not the president -- the current president's fault.

But, you know, he has to live under that law.

And he's trying to improve it. But like, that was a disaster in the first place. And should not have been something that we did, certainly the way that we did it.

With buying into this. Look, I understand, it is better to have some of this money. That, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway. Right?

These are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have. That we're spending on something. That it's good that potentially we have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well. Where we would go and do all of this. And take control of some of these banks and companies. And they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back.

GLENN: With interest. With interest.

STU: Yeah, exactly. And so why not?

Why didn't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally, it's been in extreme circumstances. Right? When there's an emergency going on. And I would acknowledge, and I think you were on this, as well, Glenn.

These were not things that we supported at the time. But they were things that the government did at the time. What they saw as a time of financial crisis. And reached in, and took ownership of a bunch of companies.

GLENN: I would say, we went further than not being for them.

STU: I would agree with that analysis.

GLENN: Very much against them.

STU: Very much against them.

The reason for that is: We don't want the government involved in -- you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies.

Now, they will say, voting rights.

They will say all sorts of things. We now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interesting interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I know that --

GLENN: Money does not talk, it screams. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea.

Once the government becomes your partner in business. They're always your partner. Always.

STU: Uh-huh. And I understand where the president is coming from.

Because it -- at some level, it really is important to acknowledge, he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing.

Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips. And he does care about these industries, being here in the United States.

That is a -- something that is actually legitimately important. I'm not denying that.

GLENN: Right. He also cares about America doing well, financially. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.

STU: But on that point, because I get what he's saying there. It would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make 10 billion dollars off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion.

Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion in debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this. Nothing.

We're going to waste that -- like, we could just instead, be -- we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have. And just cut a few things around the corner, and easily save $10 billion.

It -- the only way that this makes any impact. And this is what makes me nervous. Is if you do it at scale. If you start doing this, in every single company you can think of, that is having problems. Or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America. Then you start getting to a place to where the government is in bed with lots of businesses. And maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too.

GLENN: But how do we already accept it -- when America embraced public/private partnerships. I haven't accepted that.

I don't -- I'm dead-set against public -- but isn't this a public/private partnership. This is what they were pushing.

STU: Well, this is the concern, right?

Who is cheering this on?

Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders put the -- he actually had this idea, as an amendment, in the Chips Act.

This was his proposal.

He's cheering it on right now. I -- that doesn't mean that every -- you know, everything a Democrat brings up is the wrong idea.

Maybe this was a good one.

You can make that argument.

GLENN: Is he a Democrat or a socialist?

STU: Socialist please. Socialist.

GLENN: So everything a socialist brings up. Probably is fine.

STU: Yeah. Again, it's a road, we should really, really be careful going down.

I would argue, we shouldn't go down it. At his lead to bad things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president is long gone.

It's not just him.

You know, what -- I know we say this all the time. What are Democrats going to do, with this newfound ability to invest in companies?

And -- and, by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this. Right? This is -- the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, you know, I -- I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these -- these companies money because of the Chips Act. Why not make the situation better?

And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable. In 25 different ways. Let's partner with them.

I get it on both sides.

That doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one time thing. It probably won't be a big deal. If this is a precedent that goes on. It can be.

GLENN: It will be.

Once you start this. Once you start this.

And how long. My whole life, I said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything. And go, how can we make money?
How can we save money? Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that.

Although, we're spending more money.

And he's here. Here he's like, well, let's just offset.

Let's get -- yeah. And he might pick the winner. I don't know if he will or not. But he might -- but tell me the last president that we had, that ever said anything about industry, that you were like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No! No!

STU: He would be the guy.

GLENN: Yeah. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure. Maybe the lifetime of the country.

Glenn exposes the DARK truth behind AI 'friendship'

Mark Zuckerberg and Big Tech want you to believe that AI can be your “friend.” But Glenn Beck reveals the chilling truth: these bots aren’t here to connect with you... they’re here to control you. From social media addiction to mental health crises, we’ve already seen what “connection” platforms have done to our families and children. Now, AI is at its next stage where it's smarter, more personal, and far more dangerous. Glenn warns that this isn’t just about privacy or data. It’s about your soul. Real friendship is sacrifice, loyalty, and love. AI offers only a hollow imitation all while whispering lies in your ear...

Watch This FULL Clip from Glenn Beck's Radio Show HERE