RADIOJune 07, 2023

This could SAVE YOUR LIFE if medicine shortages hit America

The COVID pandemic showed us all just how fragile America’s supply chain can be. So, what will happen if there’s another — possibly an even worse — breakdown? And more specifically, what will happen to our medicine supplies? It’s something JASE Medical’s Founder and CEO, Dr. Shawn Rowland, thinks about often: ‘I could sit here for three hours and talk about the the razor-knife edge that we’re on' with potential supply chain issues, he tells Glenn. So, in this clip, Dr. Rowland describes one solution to medicine shortages recently devised by his team — and it’s a solution that potentially could save your life…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Full disclosure, before I get into this. Jase medical is a -- a sponsor of -- are you just Blaze? You're not radio too, right?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. I talked to these guys a year ago.

And they had what they put together was the Jase case.

And it has five different antibiotics in it. And I thought that was really great. Because as we were talking, I said, you know, my daughter takes anti-seizure medication. You know, I'm on high blood pressure.

And if you know anything at all, about when the system breaks down, your anti-psychotic drugs run out in 30 days.

Your blood pressure. Your antiseizure. All the things that are keeping people alive, that probably wouldn't have been alive, you know, a few years ago.

They all run out in 30 days.

Where are you going to get that?

That's the question I asked you guys, a year ago.

And you said, we're working on it. So let me bring in Dr. Shawn Rowland. He's the founder and CEO of Jase Medical.

What are you bringing?

SHAWN: Well, as you mentioned, yeah, this was a year ago. We have been working on this for a while. Bringing to market the antibiotics. Knowing that that was just really the first step.

And a very important step. A vital step.

But to your point. Everyone is out there, dealing with different personal conditions.

And so finding a way to do our same service with the Jase case. Which is our antibiotics. Being able to do the same thing for chronic conditions.

So we're -- we're super excited.

We're here to let everyone know. They can now go to Jase medical.com.

They can get access to up to a year supply of their -- whatever chronic medication they take. Blood pressure. Thyroid. Seizure disorders.

There's quite a list.

GLENN: How expensive is it to buy -- to buy a year's worth.

I know my daughter's medication for her anti-seizure is like $700 a month. It's something outrageous.

CAROL: Yeah. So that's a really good question. It's so dependent on the actual medication you're taking. Some of them are pennies. Some are not.

And so really, it runs the gamut. But what we've tried to do is basically make it as accessible as possible.

It's not just the medications you have to pay for. You have to pay for the physician visit, to have that encounter, to get the prescriptions. And then go to the pharmacy. Get your prescriptions, and have them sent out.

So packaging that all together, turns out though, it's probably a lot more accessible than people realize.

Just because we're so used to dealing with insurance companies, and copays. And we're disconnected from the true cost of the carrier that we received.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: And so this kind of -- has taken all that out. And made a much more direct connection between ourselves, the patient, and the physicians.

GLENN: So you put together a list here.

And I don't recognize any of these drugs, that I'm on one of them. Duloxetine.

Isn't that anti-depression medication, or not?
SHAWN: Yeah, that is one.

GLENN: And a 12-month supply is 60 bucks. That's great!

SHAWN: Right. Yeah. There's some on there that's 40, 50, $60. You mentioned some seizure medications. Those may get up a little more too.

GLENN: Yeah. I'm sure.

SHAWN: And right now, is limited to pills, tablets, for the most part.

So injectables aren't yet on the list. Insulin, which is a big request.

GLENN: How could you even store it for a year, though?

SHAWN: So if it's stored properly, you can, in some cases, get up to a year of viability out of your insulin.

As soon as you take it out of the fridge, the clock starts ticking. You get your 30 days or whatever it is. So there is a way to do it.

That's another one, that we could maybe come back and talk about. But that's another one that is in the works.

GLENN: Right. And how are you -- because the government is so freaked out about every kind of pill for you.

And they're cracking down on everything.

And, you know, they're creating all kinds of problems and shortages. And everything else.

But do you have to have your doctor call in to you guys? Or what do you do?

SHAWN: Right. The biggest thing, bringing up kind of regulations, you know, our goal, we want to empower people. And we want to do that through access. Access to physicians. Access to the medications, at a reasonable rate.

And part of this though, is not everything is on the table.

Is not everything is an appropriate or safe option. So of course, controlled substances, is just an immediate off the list. There's no way I can get you a year supply of your ADD medication. Or your pain medicine.

There are certain medications that are just disqualified, right off the bat.

And that, is appropriate.

It's the best way to do it.

GLENN: Yeah. That would cause you all kinds of trouble.

SHAWN: Yeah, and I think trying to balance access and empowerment with appropriateness, is also really important for us.

GLENN: Right.

SHAWN: So when it comes to the controlled substances, that's just something that we're not able to help with right now.

Again, though, coming up with some other things in the works there. So really, we're talking about the legacy drugs. These are -- you've been on your blood pressure meds ten years. You see your doctor regularly.

Things are under control. You haven't saved your dose. You're a safe patient. You are someone I as a physician, would feel comfortable, knowing that you have regular follow-up.

I will give you a year of prescription for this medication. And why not?

And that can be applied to a lot of different medications and conditions.

And they're all relatively, I'm going to say low risk. When you compare them to opioids and things like that. So that's where regulatory-wise, it goes through a board-certified position, licensed in your state.

Goes to a pharmacy. That also is licensed to do business in your state as well. So...

GLENN: And the Jase case has, what? Five flights of antibiotics?

SHAWN: Right. So you have five antibiotics in there. Covers really quite a range of different potential bacterial infections.

They were especially curated and selected because of things they cover.

You know, we want to cover things that are common. That might be common in a scenario. Where you don't have access to medical care.

Things like UTIs. You know, urinary tract infections. Or sinus or pneumonia. We also want to cover things that are really deadly. Like a bioterror attack.

There was an incidence of bioterror in your city. Some aerosolized anthrax which is one of the agents that have been identified by the government.

GLENN: Plague.

SHAWN: Plague is another one.

GLENN: And don't worry anybody. Just in China, the same lab, they're doing experiments with the lab. I mean, with the Black Plague. And it should work out fine.

SHAWN: So there is treatment for that. And prophylactic treatment. That everybody would need to be on. One of the drugs is doxycycline. In the event of one of these attacks -- to prevent the -- to prevent getting sick, right?

So how that gets from the national stockpile into your hands as a citizen, in whatever citizen you're in. I'm not sure how well that will go. We kind of saw how the vaccine roll out went. And things like that. And it needs to happen within 24 hours. So probably not going to happen.

That's one of the things we include. And we include it in an amount that would be appropriate to take. Which is two months. You have to take the medication for two straight months.

SHAWN: That's in the Jase case. Yeah. It's a long, long prophylactic.

GLENN: And you get it for each member of your family?

SHAWN: Yeah. This is another one. Where you need to operate within these appropriate bounds. Right now, it's for one person. Because it has to be prescribed to that person for that physician.

Age-wise. It's adults.

If you have a minor. If you have a child, that's 14 or older in your family, they basically will be taking adult doses anyway.

We will do it for adults as well. So it does leave a big portion. We've talked about pediatric patients. Those are that are younger. So that's another.

GLENN: I have to tell you -- are you guys preppers?

SHAWN: Well, I am going to say yes. I guess preppers is -- everyone -- there's such a range.

GLENN: I know. I know.

Let me just say this. You're worried about the supply chains. You're worried about things.

SHAWN: Oh, yeah.

I could sit here for the next three hours and talk about the dangers. The knife -- the razor's knife edge that we are on. That is at its core, why I did this.

Is -- is because of that -- because of living through preCOVID. Being in a hospital. A Community Hospital. And dealing with shortages, at that time.

Which is, for me, what is going on? How can this be?

GLENN: We stopped being the America I know, during COVID. For multiple reasons.

But one, I remember people saying, well, we're out of that. We won't have that for six months. I'm like, what the -- what do you mean, six months?

SHAWN: Well, yeah, and that may work for your computer chip in your car. Maybe you can wait a year for a new stove to install. But that doesn't work for medications.

GLENN: Right. And if we go to war, China even just does a trade war with us.

Don't they make like 18 different ingredients, that we don't have access to?

Like most of our drugs.

SHAWN: At least. Yeah. All roads lead back to China when we're talking about pharmaceutical supply. Even when we look at factories in India, which is another big supplier for the world. Not just for the United States. We're in line with everybody else.

For the world. Turns out, and this happened over COVID, actually. India's government came out. And said for the first time. These are numbers that are really hard to find.

The FDA can't find them. And the government is trying to figure out, how can we get more transparency in the supply chain.

India came out and said, around 70 percent of their active pharmaceutical ingredients for their manufacturing process comes from China.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

SHAWN: Again, kind of all roads lead back to China.

Certainly, when we talk about generic medications. Which is 95 percent of what we take in the United States on a daily basis are generic medications.

Virtually 100 percent of those are produced out of the US, and mainly have some tie, whether it's an ingredient, or outright manufacturing in China.

GLENN: Well, it's good to talk you to. I'm interested to see how this all will work out.

The -- I want you to go to additional and this is not a commercial. I was so excited, when they talked to me about the Jase case. One of the first things I said, what about all the people that will die in 30 days, if the supply chain breaks down?

And they said, we're working on it. And I said, when you guys have it, you come on the show. Because this is the one piece of the prepper's job that has not been able to be solved.

SHAWN: Absolutely. You have your food and water. But without your health.

GLENN: Yeah. Just -- just America without its psychiatric meds. The number of depression we have that are killing themselves now.

Imagine in hard times, and no medication.

In 30 days, you start to have --

SHAWN: It's terrifying. And some of them are life-threatening. Particularly you're talking about some of the psychiactric medications.

Those are ones -- if you stop taking your Staten or your cholesterol, you probably will be okay. You can get back on -- you have some time.

GLENN: Right.

SHAWN: Those other medications specifically in that kind of psyche realm and some others.

You can't just stop them cold turkey. There will be consequences.

And you're right. We just haven't had a viable option, to -- to protect ourself. Or our family.

GLENN: Yeah. Protect your family now. Go to Jase Medical now. Find out all about it.

Jase. J-A-S-EMedical.com. Congratulations. Thank you for solving this.

SHAWN: Thank you.

I feel like we have a lot more work to do. And we're just getting started.

This is great. You've been great helping us get the word out.

GLENN: You bet. One step at a time. Make sure every step is exactly right.

You make one false step, and then we lose this opportunity. So thank you. JaseMedical.com.

That's JaseMedical.com.

Is THIS Trump’s REAL reason for allowing 600k Chinese students into America?

Why would President Trump allow China to send 600,000 students to the United States with China’s history of using students as spies? There has to be more to this story! Investigative journalist and author Peter Schweizer joins Glenn Beck to explain what he believes is really going on. Plus, he gives an update on the “massive problem” of China buying up land next to US military bases.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: One of my good friends, a guy who I just so admire. Is Peter Schweizer. Or admire. I still admire him. He's the president of the Government Accountability Institute. He's the host of the Drill Down, which is a podcast. He's written numerous books. He's an investigative reporter, been on this program a million times. And he is always way ahead of the game.

He's brought to my attention some -- some land exchanges that are going on with China. Here in our own country. The exchanges for dollars. And they are still buying up more land. And nobody is doing anything about it.

And there is the story today about the 600,000 Chinese students, that Donald Trump is letting come in.

Now, there's got to be more of this story on why he's allowing that.

But, I mean, these are people that if I'm not mistaken, and this is my first question, Peter.

Aren't these students.

You have to be close to the CCP to be able to travel to the United States. Don't you?

You have to be well connected to the Communist Party.

PETER: Yeah. That's right, Glenn. Look, the reason I think Trump is allowing this to happen is because this is a top priority for Xi.

And they're trying to negotiate a whole bunch of things, but I still think it is a mistake. And here's why: There are 600,000 Chinese students that come to the United States. American students going to China is a trickle. So this is not about in exchange of ideas. You know, it's not like junior year abroad in Italy, where you learn more about Italian culture, you remember it for the rest of your life. It's not that at all. The students that come to the United States, are screened for their political views. Their families are screened for their political views. Their costs are born by the Chinese government. So when they are here, they are function eight years of the Chinese government. As they fail the fallen line, or do what they're asked.
Damage can come to their family. Damage can come to them. And the entire premise behind the student exchange is going back to the 1980s is that this would make the Chinese elite more like us.

Right? They get to know us. They become more friendly. They become more Americanized. The vast majority of the hardline aides around President Xi were educated in the United States, primarily in places like Harvard. So it's not working.

The Chinese leadership is actually more hard-lined now than it was under Hu Jintao or under Gung Shah Ping (phonetic). And they are more Western educated, so it's not doing what they claimed it was going to do.

GLENN: So why is he doing this?

PETER: I think Trump is doing it because he's trying to secure, you know, a series of trade deals with the Chinese. He's trying to deal with them, on the Ukraine-Russia war to pressure Russia. He's got a whole bunch of things on his agenda. This is a priority for Xi.

GLENN: I understand that, but why would it be a priority for Xi? I mean, he gets 600,000 spies here in the United States.

PETER: Great question. Yes, that's correct. And so here's what we know. We know the Chinese students come to the United States have engaged in espionage.

And, by the way, they're not coming here to study comparative literature or sociology. They're the vast majority, over 90 percent are in the hard sciences.

GLENN: Right.

PETER: So it is -- it is stealing our secrets. We also know, by the way, that the fentanyl trade in the United States, as we've talked about before. The Chinese are intimately involved in that.

A key component of the money laundering is Chinese students in the United States, who are taking suitcases full of cash to Chinese state-owned banks.
This is well documented. So there is a -- a component who is there. There is also a political component to it. Chinese students in the United States have done everything from shout down speakers on college campuses, that are critical of China.

There have been reports in California of Chinese students being bussed to places like San Francisco, to engage in counterprotests. When people are, you know, concerned about human rights in Tibet.

When President Xi, remember, visited San Francisco. There were thousands of Chinese students bussed in there to organize pro-Xi rallies. So there's also a political force component to this.

GLENN: Wasn't it two students, or was it just scientists? Just recently, they were trying to bring in really dangerous stuff, and we caught them. But twice, we caught them.

That just happened a couple of months ago. Do you remember that story, Peter?

PETER: Yeah. That's exactly right. These were scientists. But these are scientists that are oftentimes educated in the West, they take on research lab positions at American universities like the University of Michigan, as in this particular case. And so they sometimes bring in a dangerous thing. There was a report in Canada of Chinese students that were bringing in pathogens, related to COVID back in 2019. Widely reported in Canada. So it's an enormous problem. And it's not really something that we are focused on.

Again, we are treating them as if they're German exchange students or Americans studying in Italy. That's not how China views this. They view this as a component and an extension of the state.

And the students need to fall in line. And if they don't, they will suffer serious consequences.

GLENN: Donald Trump is so strategic, and nothing he does is without several things down the line. He's usually playing 3D chess. He's way ahead of everybody else. I cannot imagine what we're getting out of this, that would balance this in our favor. But we'll have to -- we'll have to see. Is anything being done on the Chinese buying up land? I know you're on a big story now about how much land is being purchased up in the northeast. That is extraordinarily dangerous.

PETER: Yeah. So we're working on a report right now, of one of our top researchers. Twenty military bases that ran them in the United States. And he wanted to look at land records. And say, of those 20 military installations, how many have Chinese-owned land. That are just add adjacent to those military bases. The answer, Glenn, is all 20. So this -- this is a massive problem. It's -- you know, land purchases are not regulated at the national level of the United States. They not necessarily should be. It's done at the state level. And certain states like Florida and others have worked to have passed legislation in this area. The problem is you have states like California, where there was legislation passed in the -- the state Senate. The state assembly. On a bipartisan basis, that said, foreign hostile governments. It didn't even say individuals. Just foreign hostile governments cannot buy land in California. Gavin Newsom actually vetoed that bill. So the problem is, yeah.

It was that narrowly written, bipartisan support. Vetoed that bill. I think part of the reason was, frankly, he was involved in the wine business.

He had land and vineyards in the wine area. And Chinese state companies have been buying up vineyards in Napa Valley.

So probably would have affected the valuations of his property. That's, I think one of the motivations. And as we've talked about before, he has a -- let's say long history of association with people involved in the United Front groups. And frankly, people involved with Chinese organized crime. So the land issue is not going anywhere. It's a major problem.

GLENN: Peter, if I'm just looking at this on the surface. I immediately think back to what Ukraine did to Russia, with the drones.

Where they were in these trucks.

They were right outside the military base.

And they destroyed things that we get our wildest dreams, couldn't have destroyed just a few minutes ago. And it was because of drones. And it was a whole new line of attack. Everybody knows that China is the leader in drone technology. I mean, they are just way ahead of everybody. If you don't -- if you have a drone and it's not -- what is it? DGI. DJI. It's not the best. It's all coming from China.

If you have property all around the United States, all add adjacent to our military bases, that is a direct threat to our national security.

I mean, you could have a barn full of those drones. Or a truck full of those drones. And you could take everything out of those military bases quickly. And America wouldn't have any time to respond.

Is it deeper than that on concerns?

PETER: No. Well, yeah. I think that's the main one. Right?

The -- the -- the ability not only to cause kinetic damage, as the Ukrainians have shown. By flying drones and blowing things up.

Look, even our most secure military bases will be able to defend against an attack like that.

You have the additional problem, that you could do something more -- you could take drones, you know, with pathogens. With poisons. And introduce them, into a military installation.

GLENN: Yeah.

PETER: So, yeah. It's a massive, massive problem. And the notion that we can't even limit the Chinese government, or government state-owned, you know, companies, from buying real estate. That that somehow is in violation of -- of some Constitutional right, as if the Chinese government has Constitutional rights in the United States is patently absurd.

So this is something we've got to continue to address. We're going to keep exposing it. You've been on the front lines of it, Glenn.

And it's one of the things that people innately understand. When you think about currency close, when you think about money laundering, you get complicated -- this is very real and dangerous and understandable.

GLENN: Yeah. Peter, as always, thank you very much. Thanks for your hard work. We'll talk again. Peter Schweizer.

PETER: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet.

Glenn Beck: Flag burning vs. freedom of speech

President Trump wants to make burning the American flag punishable by jailtime. But while Glenn Beck also hates to see the flag burned, he makes the case that we can’t make the flag an idol. Maybe there’s a balance with Trump’s focus on stopping incitements of violence, but Glenn urges caution.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Trump has announced a deal to buy a10% stake of 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: So, Stu, 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.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Rob Schneider's Optimistic Vision for America

Comedy legend Rob Schneider and Glenn Beck discuss the current state of affairs in the United States and how political divisions have driven a wedge between the American people. Schneider discusses how his faith in God and perspective on life events shapes his views and why it leads him to still believe in the future of this country being better than many others are willing to envision.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Actor/Comedian Rob Schneider HERE