RADIOApril 02, 2024

How to STOP the FBI’s Abuse of Power Against Parents

The FBI has faced growing criticism for treating law-abiding conservative Americans as threats. The agency has been accused of misusing taxpayer funding to go after parents who protested at school board meetings and Americans who protested — or even just prayed — at abortion clinics. But FBI whistleblower Steve Friend has a solution. He joins Glenn to lay out a new bill that is up for a vote in the Tennessee Senate. The bill would force the FBI to inform local sheriffs about any “national security investigation” cases that their deputies are helping out with. But the bill has faced some pushback from unexpected groups. Steve explains why he believes this is happening, which says a lot about the FBI’s grip on local governments, and also explains how you can support legislation like this across the country.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So the FBI comes to town, and they're investigating, you know, let's say a parent for being a terrorist, because they spoke out at the school board meeting.

And the sheriff deputies and some of the police officers are asked by the FBI, joint terrorism task force to join.

And they do. And then they find out what the case is all about.

Well, the sheriff or the police chief doesn't have any right to know. Because they don't have a need to know, according to the FBI.

So you're -- your funds for the state, are going to this task force.

And you don't even know what they're doing.

Are they wasting money by going after somebody who, you know, was praying at an abortion clinic?

Steve Friend is -- is here now.

He's the center for renewing America fellow. He's the FBI whistle-blower. He objected to being part of the January 6th raids. Steve, welcome to the program.

STEVE: Great to be with you, Glenn. Thank you for having me this morning.

GLENN: You bet. So you're just trying to put up a line of defense of the people, using the last, really, constitutional string that you have. And that is the sheriff's office, right?

STEVE: Of course this is really just 101. A very simple bill, that is on the table here in Tennessee.

It's Senate bill 2804. House bill 2912. And it essentially just says, that the sheriff has to be read in, and approved of any of the terrorism investigations, that his deputies, who are on loan, from the FBI. Joint terrorism task force.

Any of the cases that they're working on. It will create sort of a bull work.

Because the FBI then has to bring it to the chief elected law enforcement official. Who the people voted for.

The people who don't vote for FBI, they vote for their sheriff. And not for nothing.

He should be aware if there's a legitimate terrorism threat in his county. That's his charge.

GLENN: Let me read this entire bill.

And it's quite a bill. Amend Senate bill number 2804. House bill 2912.

By deleting all language, after the enacting clause and substituting section one, Tennessee code annotated, title 38. Chapter eight. Part one. Is amended by adding the following new section.

Now, here's where the rubber meets the road. See if you can follow this.

In the event, a law enforcement agency within the state, nominates personnel to be deputized as a federal task force officer, on a joint terrorism task force.

The chief law enforcement officer, from the nominee's respective law enforcement agency, must approve each national security investigation, in which the nominee participates.

Then he gets into a very complicated Section 2. This act takes effect, July 1st, 2024. I mean, that's an easy to read bill.

And very, very clear.

What kind of opposition are you coming up against?

STEVE: Well, unfortunately, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the arm of the governor's office has opposed us on every avenue here with this.

GLENN: Of course.

BILL: And the communications we've received from them, is they don't feel that sheriffs are entitled to know about what they work with the FBI on.

So they're all in for the federalization of law enforcement, which is pretty aconstitutional from any conservative's standpoint.

GLENN: So what is their excuse for saying, it's the sheriff? The only elected enforcement in the whole group here. How come the sheriff doesn't have a right to know?

STEVE: It will impede their ability to work with the FBI. I think that the FBI is a pretty symbiotic relationship with a lot of these state-level agencies. That's the Tennessee bureau of investigations have expressed opposition as well, to us doing this.

And I think that they are in with the FBI. And the FBI gives them the goodies. And they get the credentials. They're all in for what's going on, at a higher level.

And the nature of -- as you move up the chain of command, within our government structures, you sort of feel like, the slipping in swine at the lowest level, even if it's the sheriff, is entitled to know what you are working on from on high.

Which is opposing anything that we expect of our law enforcement agencies, and that we want to keep the community safe. And we elect the sheriff to do that. We elect him to bring crime down. To confront terrorism.

If he's unable to do that. Because he doesn't have a need to know from the FBI's perspective. He's unable to fulfill that charge, and he can't do his job.

And we shouldn't be at a state level, hanging deputies or police officers, using those funds, and the taxpayers provided from the state. To go and do the bidding from the federal government.

And we don't have any oversight of it. We have disempowered local law enforcement. And if you want to make the argument, that we are all about supporting police. And we don't want to defund the police. This is empowering local police where it really matters.

GLENN: So is this mainly for -- to stop the people that are praying, you know, at the abortion clinic. Or the abuse of parents, who are called terrorists?

STEVE: That's really what the genesis of it is. The motivating factor here is the galvanized support, across the aisle as well.

That there were Democrats in the House that were intrigued by the argument that I was making. Because the FBI has clearly, broadly, overinterpreted his national security mandate.

We're seeing things, where they're starting to articulate and connect First Amendment protected activities to some of the things that they deem to be within their purview.

So you have the recent argument about Christian nationalism.

Well, the FBI has a caveat, that says, they don't investigate, First Amendment activity. Like the right to speak. Religious worship.

However, they're using these, quote, unquote, nonpartisan organizations.

Like the public religion institute, which generates a report and says that Christianity is refracted through a lens of white supremacy, and now the FBI is cooking with gas.

Because they can say, well, we do investigate racially motivated violent extremism. So we're going to go and investigate people who say, have a preference for the less mass, when they attend at their parish.

And recruit people to inform on them, so that we can open assessments on them, as an anti-government extremist.

GLENN: And this hopefully, you know, the sheriffs are open to, you know, investigations on actual terrorism.

No matter who it's from. No matter which side it's from. But actual terrorism.

And this would protect the people. It would not allow the sheriff, however, to alert the people, or stand alongside the people, if they're being investigated for praying in church.

It just means, nobody -- nobody will be using the local or county or state money. To help on that. Right?

DAVID: Yes. And I think as a sheriff who is elected by the people. The FBI says, we want your deputies. Task force here. To work on investigating an imam at a school board, and the sheriff opposes that. He will pull his people out. And I would imagine he would be rather loud about that. And let his people know, that the FBI -- even if it violates the security clearance, because that's an inappropriate investigation. I would hope that a constitutional sheriff, would focus on that, rather than a mere clearances, as many whistle-blowers have lost theirs for transient reasons within our federal government.

GLENN: Well, as our government has lost control of -- of the police force, you know, the federal police force. The only elected law enforcement official is your sheriff.

And if, when you're going in to vote for a sheriff, you better ask him. Who do you work for?

And what does that mean?

What happens if the FBI comes in, and they are doing an investigation on -- on parents at the school board.

Where do you stand on that?

You have to have serious conversations with your sheriff, if you have a sheriff up for election.

They are critical to this.

Now, in Tennessee, you're trying to pass this.

What -- when does it go up? And how can we help?

BILL: Oh, thank you for this. So the Senate, judiciary committee, is actually taking this under consideration today at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time.
They will be looking at it. And then the House, it's looking for it.

That's NFL 28O4. House Bill 2912, and the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee is taking this up tomorrow.

So if folks in Tennessee or in the country, want to reach out, up to the members of those respective committees, to express support for this, that would be a huge help.

I mean, this audience. My friend Garrett O'Boyle, felt that the weight of this audience, Glenn, that we were here, talking about -- he had more sales in two days, than he did in the entire history of his store.

So I know the Glenn Beck audience is down to support this sort of initiative.

GLENN: Yeah. And they -- they also just got a very important initiative passed in -- in Tennessee.

I think here recently. This audience is really, truly amazing.

Okay. So if you are in Tennessee, you want to call the Tennessee Senate. It's in committee tomorrow.

What committee -- what committee is it?

VOICE: The Senate is today. The Senate judiciary committee is having it at 2 o'clock Eastern. And tomorrow, the House has it in front of subcommittee under the criminal justice.

GLENN: Okay. Subcommittee of criminal justice. That's tomorrow. That's the House. You can call them today.

And the Senate Judiciary Committee, is meeting at 2:00 p.m. today, so you want to call them.
And again, you're looking in the House at the bill number 2912. 2912.

And the Senate bill 2804. If you can't remember the name of the bill, what would they just call it, something simple, so people would know.

VOICE: It's basically being called an FBI bill, by the layperson there.

Everyone knows who we are talking about. Again, this is empowering the local sheriff. This is nothing to do. It's not going to limit your ability to keep the community safe. It just says that the chief law enforcement officer, who is elected by the people, should know what is going on. And that should not impede any righteous investigation. And will actually bring the FBI back into focus. What they should be focusing on. Rather than imams at school boards. Or people who like to go to mass.

GLENN: Steve, you are a very brave man. Thank you so much.

God bless you.

STEVE: Thank you, man. God bless your audience.

GLENN: Trying to get it out of the Judiciary Committee today, and the House Subcommittee on criminal activity tomorrow, in Tennessee.

Call them and say, the -- the sheriff and the FBI bill. You want to go in for a full vote, pass this in committee. That's in Tennessee. Today.

EXPLAINED: Could Democrats DISQUALIFY Trump if he wins the election?

Democrats like Rep. Jamie Raskin have threatened to use the powers of Congress to keep Donald Trump out of the White House if he wins the 2024 Election. But is it even possible to disqualify him? “MoneyGPT” author James Rickards joins Glenn to explain how this could be done if Trump is declared an insurrectionist and why January 6th, 2025 might be a historic day. Plus, he explains why he believes Americans should prepare for the possibility of an “Acting President JD Vance” …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jim Rickards, he is the Money GPT author, Strategic Intelligence editor.

He is a guy who historically has been calling all the big ones. All the big disruptions in our society in our economy.

And, Jim, I don't think -- I mean, I've heard you be pessimistic.

I don't think I've heard a more stern warning than the one you're giving right now.

JIM: Well, thanks, Glenn. It's great to be with you. Yeah. I don't think of myself as a pessimist. I'm an analyst.

And I just tried to be realistic. That's kind of bad news. So be it. I try -- and I have a lot of readers and followers. And so forth.

And listeners on our show today.

And I just try to get it right. And I'm looking at the election. Of course, everyone is.

You know, come November 5th, I remind people, the election is pretty much over already, with the early voting and all that. So we know that.

The drop boxes and the mail-ins. So people understand that. But we'll get to November 5th.

I don't think we'll know on November 5th, or even that night or early the next day. You have the usual trouble spots. Philadelphia, Maricopa County. I don't know what's going on there.

But they seemed to ship the ballots off to the warehouse. But beyond that, most Americans are not familiar with the actual electoral calendar, so to speak. And it was devised in the late 18th century. People were like, well, why does it take from November 5th to January 6th, 2025, to figure things out?

Well, you know, back in the 18th century, they got around by horses and carriages and all that. It just took time. But anyway, when you get past that, let's say Trump wins. That's not a short thing. It will be a close election.

But my -- my models show Trump winning. So he gets more than 270 electoral votes. So we come up to December 17th, when they actually count those votes in the state capitols. And there will be disputes and litigation. Let's say we make it. I'm just kind of looking ahead, as far as we can. To January 26, 2025. Everyone is spun up about January 6th, 2021. We know what happened.

But this is January 6th, 2025. Those electoral votes go to the House and the Senate. Now, here's the key. And this is why Trump's campaign in places like New York and California. He's not going to win New York and California. But they're fighting over House seats. Is if the Democrats take the majority of the House of Representatives, which is possible. There are only a four or five-vote difference right now.

Led by Jamie Raskin. They're going to pass a resolution, saying Trump is an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Now, a lot of people say, now, a lot of people say, wait a second. Didn't the Supreme Court throw that out?

Not exactly. Colorado and Maine tried to kick Trump off the ballot on that grounds. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, states cannot do it.

They couldn't do it. Nor could any other state. They explicitly said, there's a federal issue, exactly.

So now you passed this resolution. What happens?

Trump's votes would be disqualified. Let's say he has 300 electoral votes.

And pick a number over 270. Those are disqualified on the grounds of he's an insurrectionist. So then what happens next? Well, now, nobody has 270.

Because in this scenario, Kamala Harris doesn't get 270. Trump does. But he's disqualified.

So now the election goes to the House of Representatives.

This, by the way, is happening before 1800s. 1824, and then 1876. We still can't figure out what happened.

But it has happened before, so but now you flip over for the 14th Amendment, to the 12th Amendment.

I happen to be a lawyer. So enough of a geek to able to read all this stuff. Now you're at the 12th Amendment of 1804. And what does that say?

Well, the House votes could choose the president. There's a couple of caveats. One is they could only vote, someone who got in the top three electoral votes. This is, you know, back in the day.

So maybe three or four people get electoral votes in 1968.

George Wallace got electoral votes in 1968. Top three. But there's only going to be one. If you disqualify Trump, no one else is going to win a state. And Kamala Harris is the only one you could vote for. Because top three. But she would be the top one. Because that's it.

GLENN: Why wouldn't it go to J.D. Vance? Why doesn't he take those?

JIM: Well, I think that's what's going to happen. But you have to sort of follow. The 12th Amendment is a playbook. That's where it will end up. I agree with that. But you have to kind of look at the sequence.

Now, in the House. Here's the interesting part: There are four to five members. But you don't vote by member, you vote by state delegation. So Texas would get one vote. I live in New Hampshire. We would get one vote, the same as Texas. The Republicans control a majority of the state delegations by a bigger margin. They barely control a majority of the House. But when you go by state delegations, it's more like 20, 22.

The Republicans have a substantial majority. But the problem is, you can only rote for Kamala Harris, no matter what. Because nobody else has any electoral votes.

The answer then, 12th Amendment says this, it's for the Republicans that they have the big cajones to go out and stand out on the mall, in the snow.

And then the House will ask it for them, and the 12th Amendment says, you can't do anything what we're talking about, if you don't have a quorum.
If you lack a quorum, then what happens? The 12th Amendment says, the vice president becomes the acting president.

Now, J.D. Vance would not suffer this disqualification, going back to the insurrection.

So J.D. Vance would go become the acting president of the United States. If the House acted for him. And I described this, Glenn. It's all in the 12th Amendment. It's in the 14th Amendment, it's been litigated years past.

It sounds crazy. But just think what we've been through the last months.

You know, two, maybe three assassination attempts.

A coup d'etat on Joe Biden. A nominee who didn't get one vote in two tribes.

Not one vote, in the primary. So there's enough craziness to go around. So, again, I'm just reading the Constitution and applying it. It's happened before. And as in the 1800s, we ended up with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who were bitter enemies and opposing parties. But that's what happened.

And here you could have Kamala, J.D. Vance, worst case. Or J.D. Vance is acting as president. If the Republicans walk off the floor, and they lack a quorum.

GLENN: Jeez. This is craziness! You know, one of the reasons we were successful. We had cheap energy. Don't have that anymore. Well-educated populace, we don't really have that anymore. Cheap labor, we don't have that anymore.

And a stable country. If this happens, what happens to the economy?

JIM: Well, the stock market, you know, it can -- there are bull markets and bear markets.

It goes up and down.

The one thing the stock market hates is uncertainty.

What we just described is maximum uncertainty. I give gave you a scenario. Just laid out in the 12th Amendment, 1804. But you can bet that every step that I described, will be litigated in some manner.

So -- and -- and the courts want nothing to do with this. And when you go back to 2020, you know, the New York Times and all these people say, well, there were 15 cases.

And all of them were decided that there was no voter interference. That's not what the court said. The courts dismissed all those cases.

Either on standing, jurisdiction, timeliness. They went to all these procedural things, to get rid of the cases. But the actual fraud was never litigated. They're doing a lot of the forensic analysis since then. And that's just the question that, hey. You, Congress. State -- state legislatures.

You have to figure it out. You don't want to be involved in this. They still feel burned by Bush versus Gore in 2000. Having said that, they have a job to do. And I think these things will end up in their laps.

If you put the courts to one side, and just go by the playbook on the 12th Amendment. Now, this is all what happened in the 1800s, you would have ended up J.D. Vance as acting president.

GLENN: And because the Congress can say, that he's an insurrectionist. You don't need a trial?

I mean, he's never been charged with insurrection.

JIM: Of course. You're right. And I agree completely. But the 13th amendment -- sorry, Section three of the 14th amendment. Hasn't been litigated since -- well, we had the case last summer.

Colorado and Maine.

Before that, you have to go back to the 1930s.

And even -- of course, that was designed.

That came after the Civil War of 1968. It was designed to disqualify confederates and federal officers, et cetera. Over the years.

Section five, section three is the insurrectionist clause. But section five, powers to Congress to make laws, to interpret section three.

They sometimes -- I don't know the exact date, sometime in the 1920s.

Congress granted full amnesty to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. They said, they were not insurrectionists. So there has been legislation. It's been litigated in recent decades.

If you're willing to cut Robert E. Lee a break. I don't know why they wouldn't do it for Trump.

GLENN: Well, they did that. They did that to heal. That's why we have these statues of Robert E. Lee. The north said, build a statue. These are heroes for you as well.

They didn't prosecute these guys, because they said, we have to come back together, as a nation.

Nobody is going to do that, this time.

JIM: That's exactly right.

The bitterness is where -- sorry to say that. It's there.

By the way, the leader of this. He's open about it. And kind of the Constitution. The legal homework.

The guys said, this is what we're going to do, is Jamie Raskin. Another congressman in Maryland. Most people, they're worried about election fraud on November 5th.

They should be. I think Lara Trump has done a good job. I think they mobilized 500 lawyers. They're on that. Republicans are finally waking up to the fact, that you may not like it, but you have to do it.

But this is much further down the road. This is the endgame. This is the final lawfare attack.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Kirk Cameron: Christians CAN Save This Country | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 231

Jesus isn’t on the ballot, so how should Christians engage in the 2024 election? For that matter, how should Christians engage in politics in general? Kirk Cameron explains that “Christian Nationalism” is a “slur thrown at people who love God, love their family, and love their country.” Now is no time for Christians to “tuck our heads in our knees, pray for the rapture, and cry into our Chick-fil-A soup.” In an age of “murdering babies in the name of reproductive care,” the mutilation of children for the sake of gender identity, and when too many Americans are being seduced by the “comfort of communism,” it’s time for Christians to get to work. Kirk and Glenn agree, the government shouldn’t be the first responder — not FEMA, not the Department of Education, and not our public schools, which Kirk describes as the “new secular church.” As we’ve seen during Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton, we — the American people — are the real first responders. If Kamala Harris is inaugurated in January or Donald Trump, if Jesus returns tomorrow or in a thousand years, these are the “hard times that make strong men” and just could be “our finest hour.”

Surgeon General warns parenting is HARMFUL, so give THE GOVERNMENT your kids?!

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy has issued an advisory about PARENTING, declaring it HARMFUL for mental health. But his "solution" may be even more terrifying. Glenn reviews the Surgeon General's argument that the cost of parenting is causing high levels of stress. But instead of saying the solution is fixing the economy, Dr. Murthy suggests giving the government MORE control over your kids! Glenn speaks with Isabel Brown of ‪@theisabelbrown‬, who is just as furious. But she makes the case that all hope is NOT lost ... thanks to Gen Z.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, thank goodness the Surgeon General has come out with that warning.

That marriage and having children could be hazardous to your health.

STU: Everything that's good is bad, Glenn. They could just say that instead. Everything that's solid is liquid. What?

GLENN: Yeah. Up will be down. Down will be up. And everything that is solid will be liquid. That is where we are.

Now being a parent is hazardous to your health. And do you know why?

Because parents both have to, you know, work two jobs. And then take care of their kids. And it's so stressful. It cuts years of their life off.

So do you know what their suggestion is?

STU: Robots. Robot children?

GLENN: Right! Elon Musk. I told you, he was in on it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: No. Their suggestion is: That you give the government more money, and they'll watch your kids for you.

Now, of all the ideas you could come up with, that one is the worse. I mean, just not having kids is really evil and bad if that's what your message is. But, well, if you're going to have kids, give them to us, to care for.

STU: Give them to us. Yeah.

I want to give it to the people, who came up with the Epstein client list.

Are those the people that I want to give my kids to.

I do feel like, that's how the matrix probably started. Right? Like you just start giving your kids over to the government, and suddenly, they're on giant wall with tubes going into them.

GLENN: That's exactly right. Well, listen to this. Did you hear -- here in Texas. In the Texas Spring Independent School District, these kids' preschool. Yeah. Preschool.

They started coming home, and they would not sleep at night.

And the parents are like, what the hell is going on with my kid? And then somebody else is like, what the hell happened to my kid? Then one of the can I see said, look, I got my sleepy sticker. Your what?

The teachers were actually giving the kids sleeping stick to hers put them asleep. So when you would come in, you drop your child off. They would go, who is going to sleepy sleep. Yeah, you are.

And they put a sticker on the kid. It releases melatonin and other kids, and put all the kids to sleep.

Are you kidding me? And these are the people that care about our children, more than you do.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Isabel Brown is somebody who I really. I tell you, I have seen the official birth of one star in my career that I think is massive.

And going to be --

STU: You know, when you say --

GLENN: Not you. It's Allie Beth Stucky. And I -- I have been watching this other talent for a while now.

And I think she is huge. I think she is one of the best commentators. And knows how to use the media probably better than anybody else.

Isabel Brown.

And she's the host of the Isabel Brown Show.

STU: It's the end of her career right here. When you get an intro like that from Glenn Beck, it's all over.

GLENN: You're dead. It's over, Isabel. Welcome to the program, how are you?

ISABEL: I am so great, Glenn. Huge fan of yours, and thank you for your kind words. What a wonderful way to start my Friday.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I watch your stuff online.

And I just -- I mean, you really get it. You're very, very smart.

You're relatable. You know how the media works.

I mean, you have -- you have it all. You have it all.

So --

ISABEL: Thank you very much.

GLENN: You bet.

So let me talk to you about a couple of things that I just don't understand going on in society.

One of them is now the Surgeon General's warning, about how having kids can be hazardous to your health.

So give them to us. Kind of sounds like a bad idea.

ISABEL: One would think. Although, I say quite often, especially in speaking with my own generous, that we live in what's called the upside down. In this parallel universe, where lies have become truths. And truths have become lies. Just a few weeks ago, the United States Surgeon General, the top physician for our country did, in fact, actually put out an official health warning. A declaration, that parenting is hazardous for your health as a young adult. Because, get this, it makes you more lonely and isolated than if you never had children at all.

And instead, we're just alone. And I find this incredibly concerning. I was premed in college. And have 2 degrees in biomedical sciences.

And yearned to be a physician. I just got married at the end of June.

I'm thinking of about this next stage of my life as well.

GLENN: Why would you go into media like you are?

What is wrong with you? You had an out.

The rest of us schlubs could do nothing else.

ISABEL: It's crazy. But, you know, I'm in this phase of my life. I'm watching all my friends go through this.

And it is just alarming to me, the strategic advantage that the media are using to convince you that marriage and family, the most important bedrock foundation of our society, is somehow bad for you and going to destroy your life.

GLENN: Well, I've put the label on my children's foreheads.

Just to remind people.

If you're thinking about having a kid.

Look at my forehead. Surgeon General warning.

I think they should. I think they should all have it.

Also, the solution is, you know, if you're going to have kids. You know, because everybody is working, you know, two jobs. Their solution is, well, take some of the stress off.

Let us take care of them.

That's a horrid idea.

How about the idea of having a country where one income can actually support a family?

Instead of maybe three, or three and a half incomes, supporting a family?

That doesn't seem like a better goal?

ISABEL: One would hope. But unfortunately, it seems like our elected officials, in particular, are asking all of the wrong questions about how to fix all these ailments in society.

Their answer is always the same. More government. More regulation. More of the -- on your day-to-day life.

And the sad reality is, I really do believe that the United States of America is not the country that I grew up in.

It has the capacity to be. That's what we're fighting for every day. To go from the upside down, to right-side up, again.

If we keep continuing in this trajectory. We are leading in a race to the bottom for the developed world.

And I think it shows in our crime rate.
In our fertility rate, plummeting to an all-time low. In our marriage rates, currently standing at an all-time low. At the lowest they've ever been since 1867. We're starting to have the conversation, finally about nutrition and food and pharmaceuticals. And that's fantastic.

What's really disheartening to me, that so many of the people. Older than us. Older generation.

Haven't realized that these problems have been festering under the surface for decades because good people have sat down and been quiet and done nothing.

And I hope that it's not too late for us to tell the truth to the world, that desperately needs to hear it.

GLENN: So how do you think Gen Z is going to vote?

What is -- what is connecting with, you know, people under 30? That are going to vote?

ISABEL: I'm incredibly optimistic about Gen Z, which I often get a lot of scorn for. Particularly when I speak on cable television and mainstream media. I actually came out with a book in March. Called the end of the alphabet. How Gen Z can save America. Making the case that we are America's next great generation.

And they've been studying these trends for the past several election cycles, that are proving Gen Z is actually the most culturally and politically conservative generation we've seen since World War II.

There is a massive pendulum swing happening before our eyes. And I think we're first and foremost seeing that in this election. With young men, who are overwhelmingly politically conservative.

So when I'm saying these conversations happening on college campuses. And online, where I spend most of my time with my piers. What I'm seeing people struggle with is this sense of, we don't live in the same country.

That the people running for office claim we still do. They've been in office, longer than twice the time we've been alive. And they're wildly out of touch with the financial struggles we're dealing with.

With the cultural tug-of-war we're dealing with. I think what people are looking for, under 30, right now, more than anything is a sense of new generation of leadership. New ideas. Who is in touch with the cultural battles we're fighting today?

And being willing to just tell the truth when everyone in position of power, seem unwilling to do that right now.

GLENN: So that would go in favor of the people that Trump is surrounding himself with, I would imagine.

RFK Jr.

Even though he's an older guy.

You know, Tulsi Gabbard.

Elon Musk.

Is that translating at all in favor of Donald Trump?

ISABEL: It certainly is. It certainly is. And this idea of a unity party, I think is a fascinating idea from a young person's perspective as well. When you're seeing this Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Elon Musk, Donald Trump coalition start to build.

GLENN: Yeah.

ISABEL: It's almost in a sense, breaking the two-party system. Which I think has been a fearful conversation for a lot of people in politics, up to this point.

Because we don't know what happens after the two-party system. But in reality, it creates a much better opportunity for coalition and conversation for better ideas, to come to the surface. Rather than, the same four or five people, constantly pulling the strings of power, in both political parties.

If anything, it's really been an eye-opening experience since 2015, when we have had the curtain pulled back a bit, in the era of Trumpian politics. What we talk about in Washington, as a Uniparty, is absolutely real.

And all of the attacks we're seeing on young people right now is coming, really from a bipartisan perspective, in many ways.

The fight to ban TikTok, the fight to censor you from misinformation.

The fight to make you inject your arm with these crazy substances. We don't know what's going to happen, four or five years down the line. This is coming from both political parties.

And I think young people are speaking up to realize, it's time for something new.

GLENN: Right. You know, it's really interesting. They're conservative.

But it's almost the same thing as the hippie movement back in the '60s.

Except, this time, it's conservative. And it's like, look, we want to be natural.

We want to have freedom. We would like to have peace.

You know, we just want to get back to what's real. And in some way, except for the drug part. That's kind of what the hippies were. And don't believe anyone over 30 was what Nancy Pelosi is saying.

And now, I guess, it's you have to believe them, until they're at 90, or maybe 100.

But it's interesting to me.

I think Generation Z is the revolution. I mean -- are you familiar with the Fourth Turning of the pendulum?

ISABEL: I sure am, yes.

GLENN: Yeah. They are the hero generation. They are. They just haven't been given the opportunity to step up to the plate yet. But I'm telling you, they are going to save us.

ISABEL: Absolutely correct. And I love the hippie analogy. Because the truth is, Glenn, I don't know that the hippie movement really ever went away. The culture we're living in today, sure has changed a whole lot, since we thought about the rebelliousness of the 1970s and 1980s.

But truly, to be a punk rock radical, counterculture individual today, is to stick it to the man. And say enough to the establishment. Today, that just happens to look like, getting married and starting your own business. And saying no to a $250,000 degree in underwater lesbian basket weaving and going to church on Sundays. Eating real food. This is the type of revolution we're seeing with Generation Z. And it's so inspiring to see it take root and take place.

Because it's the same origin that our country was itself founded upon.

This idea of speaking truth to power, and fighting for liberty, to the next generation.

Our Founding Fathers, in 1776 were not 85 or 95 years old. Like we're seeing in Congress today.

They themselves were 18, 19, 21, 25 years old. So Vivek Ramaswamy often says, we're in the midst of a 1776 movement, and I couldn't see anything more obvious than that in 2024.

GLENN: We are. It's great to talk to you. Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it. And I mean everything I say. I think you're a superstar. Don't go to medicine. We need your voice. I think your voice is very important. Isabel Brown. Thank you so much, appreciate it.

ISABEL: Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. God bless.