RADIO

THIS is how we can END the ‘victimhood’ RUINING America

America has a victimhood problem. And that victim mentality has helped to create a ‘vacuum at the heart of American souls,’ says Vivek Ramaswamy, author of ‘Nation of Victims.’ But, thankfully, Ramaswamy believes he has the answer. He explains to Glenn how rejuvenating Americans' ‘unapologetic pursuit of excellence’ can help to create a new national identity that leaves victimhood far behind…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There is a must-read book, that has just come out called nation of victims. Identity politics. The death of merit and the path back to excellence. It's out today.

Vivek Ramaswamy is the author, and he joins me now.

Vivek, first question. And don't hate me for this, if I've had it wrong the whole time. I am the worst on names. The worst. And every time I see you on a show, you never correct anybody. And they're always pronouncing your name a different way.

Am I getting it wrong, and you're just being polite? Or is Vivek the way you say your name?

VIVEK: Vivek is right. Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy.

GLENN: Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy.

VIVEK: Right. Exactly. You know, there's TV hits, you usually get three to four minutes. I prefer to talk about content. Since you asked, I love it.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Vivek, out of respect for you, because I'm watching it. And I'm so paranoid, I always get things wrong on names. Always. Like my wife, I would screw up her name. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. So nations -- nation of victims is out.

And you're known at least on this program, as somebody who is very into ESG. You know, very -- against it. You are doing everything you can, to bring back merit. This book does not really deal with ESG or anything like that. This is the answer in our own lives. Would you agree?

VIVEK: That's right, Glenn. I would agree. I think there are two sides to this equation. Right? Even if you think about the kind of stuff we usually talk about in this program. The kind of stuff I'm working on, in the private sector. Yes. That is about corporate meddling in our culture. It is about the use of corporate power to advance one-sided progressive agendas. But it takes two to tango. What do I mean by that? It also takes a population, and a consumer base, that is willing to buy those narratives, and use that to actually be moved by it. So what this book is about is the broader question. Why is it that consumers are so hungry for a cause, and purpose, and meaning and identity. That they fall for these victim narratives. That companies and other cynical actors to sell them. That's what this book is about. And the case that I make in this book is that we've fallen into a moment in our history, where we see hardship as the same thing as victimhood.

Well, guess what, my thesis is that hardship is not the same thing as victimhood. Hardship is part of what teaches who we are, both as individuals and as a people.

And I think the black hole, at the vacuum of Americans. And the vacuum of the heart of the American soul right now, is our absence of a shared national identity. And the case I make in this book, is that we can fill that vacuum, with a shared national identity, based on the unapologetic pursuit of excellence. Through our system of free market capitalism. And as individuals who are free agents in the world. Regardless of the color of our skin. Or where our parents came from. That's why I wrote this book.

GLENN: So where do you think the big turning -- because I think it was 2008. Where the bailout happened. We're now doing all of that. And it's the end of personal responsibility for corporations.

VIVEK: It really was. It was a different level of responsibility at every level of society. So I think 2008 was a big turning point for a lot of reasons. What happened in 2008? We had the 2008 financial crisis. We had the bailouts. We had no accountability for a lot of financial institutions, that took risk at the public -- at the public -- when times were good, they got paid. When times were bad, the public had to bail them out. That was also the birth of the identity politic wing of the new left. It was Barack Obama elected as the first black president of the United State, a lot of victimhood narratives that went with that. We're also in the thick of the greatest intergenerational wealth transfer in human history. From the Baby Boomer generation to my generation of millennials and Gen Z. And I think that creates a new victimhood culture. And a culture of entitlement as well.

Just there were a lot of things around the turn of the last decade. There were a lot of factors in our culture that conspired to create this new culture of victimhood. And one of the things I -- one of the things I describe in the book, is also the rise of a laziness culture. Even in our work. But in our culture more broadly. And one of the things I say in the book, is that victimhood fits laziness like a glove. In that people today, who are lazy, and that don't want to work. Construe that as not just their own sloth. Which is one of the human vices.

But also a narrative of the grand fight of the oppression of capitalism. The oppression of modernity, the colonialism of capitalism. This is the kinds of things you hear, as part of the great resignation in the pandemic, started back in the post 2008 era. So I think it was a combination of a new laziness culture of entitlement, that came from my generation being on the receiving end of this large inter-generational wealth transfer.

But combined with these victimhood narratives, this justified that laziness with a moral veneer.

That is part of what led to us now having a shared national identity based on victimhood. We're a nation of victims. And I think the case I made, we need to graduate from that.

You talk about Plato's ideal society. And you talk about it, because you say, that's how we find the ideal citizen.

What is the ideal citizen in 2022?

VIVEK: In America, this is the question of our hour, okay. So I think there are two parts to what it means to be Americans. And I think each of us has some of this in our heart. On the one hand, we all want to be an individual, who is able to pursue our own individualistic dreams through the system of free market capitalism. That's what we think of as the American dream.

I have that impulse. You have that impulse. Most of the listeners in this program, share that feeling too. That's half the story. That's what I call the pursuit of excellence. The unapologetic pursuit of excellence. But I think there's another half of the story too, Glenn. I think many of us on the right, have missed for years. Which is also our hunger to be part of a nation, that is greater than the sum of its parts. A collective whole as citizens. And that's the side of our identity as individuals, that really, I think revolves around also the revival of civic duty. One of the chapters of the book is entitled A Theory of Duty. It's a play on John Rawls' A Theory of Justice, which was the North Star of the left, for much of the late 20th century.

I offer what I call A Theory of Duty, which talks about the revival of a civic duty. And the case I make, is it's not at odds with liberty, to have a civic duty. Our civic duty as citizens is different than the freedoms we want to have, in all of the spheres of our life, including economically. And I think it's one of the things that conservatives sometimes get wrong. We get wrong. In our -- in our obsession. We just talked about freedom. And believe me, I'm ten out of the scale of ten on that discussion. We miss the fact, that we have civic duties as citizens, that actually gives us greater fortitude to pursue our freedoms through the system of free market capitalism, through our pursuit of excellence as individuals, which is not the philosophy at the heart of this book, actually.

GLENN: I'm old enough, that in high school, you couldn't graduate without having a class called rights and responsibilities. And we have forgotten the responsibility part. And that is, like you say, huge.

But, you know, I learned something, when I lived in New York City.

When I moved to New York City, I was always a guy, who if there was garbage on the street. I would pick it up and throw it in the garbage can. And it was just ingrained in me. I grew up in a smaller town. And after about two years of living in New York, there was garbage at the front of my building, at sixth avenue. And it was just this newspaper. It was just blowing everywhere. And my first thought was, how much money do I have to pay this stupid city, for them to keep it clean?

And I stopped in my own tracks, and I thought, oh, my gosh. I've turned into one of them!

VIVEK: Well, that's really honest of you, Glenn. To talk about. Look in the mirror that way. That's something more of us ought to do. That's before we point the finger outward, let's take a mirror and look within. It's funny, I'm talking to you from a car in New York City right now, where I'm literally seeing bottles lining the street on the left hand side of my car, without somebody stepping down to pick it up.

And I think that idea of civic duty is something that -- I could call out the liberal side of this. I have been for years. I do a little bit of that in the book as well. But I think it's a place for the conservative movement to look internally and say, all right. Look, we can criticize the poison that fills the vacuum, all we want.

At the end of the day, we're not rising to the occasion. If we don't fill that vacuum with something more meaningful, something more rich, that dilutes the poison.

GLENN: So help me out.

Because, Vivek, I think -- and I know religion plays a big part in religion and in your life. The right would say, we do our civic duty. We're much more charitable. We work through our churches. I know people who go on missions all the time. I mean, we do do our civic duty. That's what they would say.

VIVEK: I think we need more than that. I think there's definite -- that's why -- that's why I'm more interested in speaking to the conservative movement than I am to the left. Because I think that there's a greater chance of filling that national vacuum, and we have to pick which political party or which political movement is going to do it. I'm more optimistic about the conservative movement.

That's why I'm preaching to that choir, rather than the other one. Because I think that's our best chance of success.

I think we need to revive that though. And I think there's one of two directions, for the future of the conservative movement. Either one that wallows in a new version of victimhood, in response to left-wing victimhood.

Which I've been -- by the way, a big critic of. And a lot of what I'm saying is a self-reflection, Glenn. I've spent the last two years criticizing a lot of woke victimhood culture. Left-wing victimhood culture. But one of the things I've learned, introspective for myself.

Is how much -- and we're moving the needle a little bit, by putting the spotlight on the problem. If we want to move the needle in a big way. We won't have a generation left, to save the identity of this country.

And if we're going to do it, it's not going to come by just pointing our finger at all the hypocrisies of the other side. Because that would take all of our time. We would have no time left, and time would run out, before we would be able to save our national identity. We need to fill the void of national identity with something else.

And what I offer in this book is two reasons for that. One is the revival of the shared pursuit of excellence. That's part of what I'm working on in the private sector. In the board of directors at Chevron, last week. Doing what I'm doing at strive. I'm trying to do that through the private sector.

That's still only half the story, though.

And I think that as citizens, we also need to revive our sense of civic duty, to start talking about that more. You know, I think it's a provocative idea, I offered in my last book. I talk about it in this one too, of even thinking about weaving civic service, into education. That's something that makes conservatives, a lot of Libertarian conservatives, even myself, ten years ago, would have recoiled at that idea. That feels like, it's an infringement on our liberty. Well, what I say, is, first of all, if you start at a young enough age, we accept that children, under the age of 18 or 16, are not yet free agents in the world. We have to create those citizens. And weaving the idea of service. Of identity as a citizen in your country, is part of what allows you to actually be an unapologetic capitalist. An unapologetic free agent, once you do enter that free world.

And part of that problem, I think, is we have an entire generation. My generation, that never learned how to do actual service. Nor how to pursue their own self-interests in their own right, by co-mingling the two. We never learn how to actually do either one on its own.

So I think it will actually create a greater generation of capitalists. A greater generation of free individualist agents in the world, if we also revive this idea, of living out our civic duties. And I think you're right. A lot of conservatives in their private lives do that. I think we need to make that as part of a North Star of what it means to America.

GLENN: I think you're seeing that now, with the takeover of the school boards, and you know the local city councils, et cetera.

I mean, conservatives. You know, they were busy keeping their nose to their business. And down to the grindstone. And et cetera, et cetera. And just thought. Oh, this is all being taken care of.

It was being taken care of. Just not in the way we appreciate.

VIVEK: Exactly. And one of the things I like to do, Glenn. Let's take a step back from the present. Let's take a walk through history. One of the things I do in the book. I talk a lot about a post-Civil War history and the Reconstruction Era. But one of the areas of history I go to is Roman history. One of the things I reminded myself of. You know, you hear a lot of analogies today, between the fall of the American experiment. And the fall of Rome. Well, guess what, there was no one rise or one fall of Rome. There were many rises, and many falls.

And it -- you know what, I don't think we're done with this American experiment quite yet either. There were many rises and many falls of Rome. There were many rises and many falls with this great country, and this great experiment as well.

And I tell the story of, it's interesting, I hadn't studied this since high school. Emperor Septimius Severus, he was known as the black Emperor. Okay. That's how I studied him in high school at least. One of the things I learned doing the research of this book. He only got that name, the black Emperor. In the last few decades. As he was redescribed in modern American history. There was a TV series that highlighted the story of the first black man to walk on England's soil came not as a slave, but as a conqueror. And then they made a whole narrative around it. Well, the funny thing is, if you go back to the Roman era, people could see that he had dark skin. It was no different than someone having dark eyes or dark hair.

The thing they actually cared about were, were you a Roman citizen? Or were you not?

Were you a member of this nation, or were you not?

That's how they actually saw him. And in a certain sense, we've created our vision, even in history. He's the black emperor we need. Not the black emperor he was. That was never how the Romans saw him. And it just shows you how anachronistically we even view history. That if we're able to take off the Googles of the present. The filters of the present. And actually even take ourselves out of the present, it suddenly becomes politically less controversial. We're able to talk about these ideas in ways that are 1,000 years removed. But then you come back to the present and you see what a strange world it is that you live in.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

VIVEK: And I think that's one of the reasons why I felt compelled to write this book. It's not for everybody. But if you're a lover of history, if you're interested in potentially the parallels between Roman history and modern American history, how we got here, dating back to the post Civil War.

Reconstruction Era, where victimhood culture began, and I think how we were able to translate that into the victim culture that we see today.

You know, for those who actually enjoy that walk through history, that's who this book was intended for, in contrast to Woke Inc. my last book, which was more about current events and the current era. This is a walk through history, that gives us hopefully a different view of the present.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, you've really targeted the wrong audience for that.

VIVEK: I don't know about that. I don't know about that.

GLENN: This audience -- you're speaking their language. It's great. It's called a nation of victims. And it's written by Vivek Ramaswamy.

And we appreciate everything that you do, Vivek. Thank you so much. God bless.

You bet. Nation of victims. A must-read. All right. Back in just a second.

RADIO

The REAL Reason Democrats are TERRIFIED of Elon Musk & DOGE

Democrats are mad that President Trump is trusting Elon Musk with so much. Glenn explains why it’s dumb for them to whine about Elon being an “unelected billionaire” and getting rid of USAID – which isn’t even an “aid” agency. Plus, Glenn reviews how Democrats tried to force a security guard to let them into the Department of Education: “It’s quite amazing how these people are so freaked out. They’ve got to cover their tracks!”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Bret Baier asked Donald Trump if he trusts Elon Musk. Cut nine.

DONALD: I don't know if it's kickbacks, or what's going on.

Look, I ran on it, and the people want me to find it, and I've had a great help with Elon Musk, who has been terrific.

VOICE: You say you trust him?

DONALD: Trustee Elon, oh, he's not gaining anything.

In fact, I wonder how he can devote the time into it, he's so into it.

But I told him to do that. Then I will tell him, very soon, like maybe in 24 hours, to go check the Department of Education. He will find the same thing.

Then I will go to the military. Let's check the military. We will find billions. Hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud and abuse. And, you know, the people elected me on that.

GLENN: He's absolutely right about this. I don't know how everybody is squealing.

First of all, you know, he's an unelected bureaucrat. Well, almost all bureaucrats are.

I don't know if you --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: If you follow that. But, you know, the Treasury Secretary, is also somebody who, you know, wasn't voted in.

Unelected bureaucrat.

He was appointed by the president to do this.

And we're going to -- we're going to find out about what's happening with this judge. See if it's overruled. Did you hear about what happened with the judge over the weekend, with the Treasury Department?

PAT: Yeah. Where they blocked going into the treasury books. Which --

GLENN: It was so -- it was so poorly written, that they didn't even differentiate between Elon Musk's people, and the Treasury secretary.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: So as it's written, the Treasury secretary can't even look at any of the data.

PAT: It's incredible.

He also, the judge who did the block.

Also didn't mention what law they're violating. He just said, it's violating the law. What law is being violated here?

GLENN: What law? What law?

PAT: This is a person appointed by the president to look into this.

So I don't see how that could violate any laws.

GLENN: No. No.

I mean, and who is not for looking into all of this stuff?

Honestly, I mean, you know, I can't wait until he gets to the Pentagon. Because how are the Democrats going to say, that we somehow or another, are, you know -- we don't care about national defense? We care about national defense!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I also care about fraud. You know, it's -- the same thing with all of this stuff about aid.

First of all, aid, USAID, it's not aid. It's AID. Okay? It is for international development. That's what that's for.

It's not an aid program. Or an aid agency.

We have aid agencies. That's not one of them.

This is soft power.

And, quite honestly, it is from the beginning, been a CIA operation.

So how are -- I'm not against aid.

I'm against corruption. And I'm also against a lot of this soft power being done, that nobody knows about.

Why are we just finding out about this stuff?

And what we going to find in the Pentagon, oh, my gosh. We're going to find really bad stuff in the Pentagon. Really bad.

PAT: And none of us is against aid. It's just the aid that is being dispersed to people that you mentioned isn't aid.

And the other thing, it's not government agencies, that should be doing this.

It's individuals who are tasked with charity.

GLENN: No!

PAT: And helping others.

We're the ones, individual choice. To -- we shouldn't be forced!

Once you're forced into it, it's not charity anyway.

GLENN: No. It's not.

PAT: So I don't understand how all of the responsibility for aid worldwide is now on the US government.

That's not the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

And I don't know if you saw this.

But the NIH. They're going crazy now.

Because the NIH. When Trump's people first came in.

They said, we're going to cut the maximum indirect cost rate for research institutions.

Now, most people read that. And they don't even understand what that is. That means, how much of this is going?

How much of 1 dollar is going actually to the program, of research, and how much is going for overhead?

Again, we told you before, any charity that is 85 cents on the dollar. Is one that you start to look at.

If it's 80, 75 cents. You're getting a bad rating for that.

This is 60 cents on the dollar, goes to the management.

Goes to overhead costs.

I want 40 cents on every dollar? You think that's wise?

This is going to save us billions. They're predicting now $9 billion for this project alone. $9 billion.

So go ahead and play cut two, here.

If members of Congress -- peoples cut 12.

This is members of Congress, trying to get into the Department of Education over the weekend.

VOICE: Do they know that --

VOICE: Ask the question again. That's important.

VOICE: Were you told. Are you making the decision to stand in front of the store, on your own behalf. On behalf of the Department of Education.

GLENN: This is the security guard.

VOICE: So everybody is --

VOICE: We're doing our jobs.

GLENN: Okay. So here they are, members of Congress trying to get in, trying to break into the Department of Education. It's closed for the weekend. And they say, they're doing their job. And they're questioning the security guard. Why aren't you letting us in. And all he said, it's not going to happen. Not today. It's not going to happen. You're not going in.

It's quite amazing how these people are so freaked out, they've got to cover their tracks.

I'm convinced that's what it is.

Here's Donald Trump responding to this. Cut 13.

VOICE: Democratic lawmakers trying to get into the Department of Education earlier today.

VOICE: Oh. I see the same ones.

I see Maxine Waters.

A low-life. I see all these people. They don't love our country. They don't love our country.

We want great education. So they ranked 40 countries in education, we're ranked dead last. Dead last.

But the good news is, we're number one in one category. You know what that is? Cost per pupil. We spend more per pupil than any other country in the world.

You look at Norway, Denmark, Sweden, various countries all up and down, Finland. China does very well in education, and then you look at us.

We spend much more money than they do per pupil than any other way. But we spend much more money than they do, and yet we're ranked this year, Biden's last year -- congratulations, Joe. We're ranked dead last. So what I want to see is education -- number one, I like choice. We all like choice.

But beyond choice, long beyond choice, I want to see it go back to the states, where great states who do so well, have no debt, they-re operated brilliantly. They'll be as good as Norway or Denmark or Sweden or any of the other highly ranked countries. They will -- I figure 35 to 38 states will be right at the top.

And the rest will come along. They'll have to come along, competitively. And, by the way, we will be spending --

GLENN: I will tell you -- I will tell you that it feels a little like when the allies marched into Germany, and the Germans were burning all of their documents to hide all the crimes.

It kind of feels a little like that.

RADIO

Why Did Qualcomm FREAK OUT Over This Glenn Beck Interview?

Why is the big tech giant Qualcomm so nervous about ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker appearing on The Glenn Beck Program? After Parker’s last appearance on Glenn’s show, Qualcomm filed a motion to shut him up and named Glenn over a dozen times. Parker joins Glenn again to give updates on the case and refute some of Qualcomm’s accusations against him.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So a couple of weeks ago, we had a guy on named Jeff Parker. He's the CEO and chairman of ParkerVision. He was making allegations that Qualcomm was in bed with the government, and -- and had screwed ParkerVision. Because what ParkerVision had done is come up with a chip that allows all of our phones and everything else to connect. To Bluetooth. They went into negotiation with Qualcomm.


Had all kinds of NDAs with them. And had to show them the technology. And suddenly, the deal fell apart. And then just a couple years later, Qualcomm comes out with this new amazing technology that can connect everybody's phones and other things to Bluetooth. Huh.

The story only gets more twisted and turned when you run into Eric Holder, and the DOJ. And a jury that says, Qualcomm took this technology and a judge who says, I'm going to sentence Qualcomm and talk about the -- the penalties. And a month later, the judge overturns the jury, and -- and says, no. Qualcomm didn't do anything wrong.

There's some weird stuff going on. Now, here's the update. Qualcomm freaked out about his appearance on this program.

And they filed a cease and desist against Jeff Parker and told him, not to speak out again!

And we called him.

And he said, I'll tell you what, why don't you book me for the show. I'll show you how much ceasing and desisting I'll be doing.

All right. Jeff Parker is with us.

Jeff, how are you, sir?

JEFF: Good morning, Glenn. I'm fine.

GLENN: So let's go over the part just quickly about you sign a cease and desist. All of a sudden, two years later, your technology is introduced by Qualcomm. They pretend, no. What are you talking about? That's not your technology. That's our technology. You take them to court. The jury rules in your favor, unanimous. The judge says, I'm going to apply penalties. Then a couple of weeks after that, Qualcomm has a fundraiser for Barack Obama. The head of Qualcomm has it at his house. Obama shows up. Then a couple of days after that, the DOJ under Eric Holder starts to probe your website. Finish that story.

JEFF: Sure. So thanks for having me back again.

GLENN: You bet.

JEFF: Yeah. So we win a unanimous jury verdict. We come back to the courthouse, after that jury verdict, and the judge hears the parties argue about what should happen next. And after listening to the arguments, the judge says, you know what, there is certainly going to be an ongoing royalty here, which is what Qualcomm would have to pay us for the continued use of our patents and technology.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: And we are all excited. We leave the courthouse. A few days after that, we have a visit to our website by the White House.
The executive office of the president of the White House.

GLENN: Hmm.

JEFF: Just a few days before that visit, there's a fundraiser at the head of Qualcomm's home. One of the cofounder's homes. Raising money for the DNC.

And after that fundraiser, a few days later, there's this visit from the executive office of the president.

And about a month after that, is when the judge issued his final order, after having indicating before that his final order was going to include royalties. He not only didn't include royalties.

He reversed the jury verdict. And threw the case out.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So Eric Holder was at the DOJ at the time.

You start getting visits at your website, and you can track all of this. You have all of this. Eric Holder and the DOJ start to visit your website, that's only about this litigation. That's the only part they do.

And lo and behold, we find out that Eric Holder before he went to the DOJ, he worked for Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. When he left the DOJ, guess where he went?

Back to Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. So you're on the program, you lay all this out.

And now what has happened?

JEFF: Correct. So we're on your program about two weeks ago.

And literally, Glenn, the next day, Qualcomm contacts our attorneys, and they say, if your client doesn't remove his social media, and furthermore agree not to do anymore social media, we will file a motion with the court to gag him, to have this court take down the social media and prevent further conversation.

And, of course, I -- my attorneys are handling a patent case. So they say to me, we're not really experts in First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech rights. Could you please find an attorney who could help you with this?

So I ended up reaching out. And we engaged Marc Kasowitz of his firm. And the Kasowitz firm is a very fine law firm that handles these types of areas and many other areas of law. But Mark --

GLENN: Yeah. He's done a lot of work for Trump, has he not?

JEFF: He has. He has. Mark has handled a lot of president Trump's legal issues over the years. And I approach Mark.

And he heard this request from Qualcomm. And he said, outrageous. He said, this is -- this is ridiculous.

They can't gag you. So a couple days later, Qualcomm, in fact, filed a formal motion with the court that said, take down your social media and stop adding additional social media. And we were actually getting ready to file our opposition, but we first wanted to wait and see what the court was going to do.

And a few days later, the court finding this motion, frankly merit-less. And without any basis for what they're asking for, ruled at the end of last week, just this last Friday.

No. No Qualcomm. You don't get that request. So --

GLENN: Absolutely.

JEFF: So that was good to hear.

GLENN: That's fantastic. That's fantastic.

By the way, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this.

But I -- I will bet you that our new director of the FBI and our new head of the DOJ saw that Blaze article, that lays all of this out. I'm just saying, that might have happened.

PAT: Well, Glenn, I hope so. Look, what Qualcomm has accused us of, is trying to taint a jury pool. We don't even have a trial date yet, set for this case.

So how are we going to taint a jury pool. But the thing that is really frustrating is the way they characterized our social media. And what we're saying. It's just completely false.

I'll give you an example. So an example of their -- of their characterization is they say, ParkerVision disparages the judicial process in the middle district of Florida and maligns the fairness of the forum.

Namely, ParkerVision impugns Judge Dalton's ruling, in the prior ParkerVision trial, falsely claiming that he improperly reversed the jury's verdict as a result of collusion between Qualcomm and the administration of then president Barack Obama.

Well, let me tell you, that's not true. What ParkerVision is doing is bringing public just facts. We're simply bringing facts. Here's the facts.

The facts are, the Department of Justice has been on our website 37 times.

We discovered shortly before our first trial, all the way until 2022 when I filed a freedom of information act request, asking, hey, Department of Justice. What are you doing on our website? Why are you on our website, so many days at the same time, looking at the same pages as Qualcomm.

Hey. What's this White House visit we had? Why were you only looking at litigation on Qualcomm on our patents? What's that about?

We've never had that fulfilled. So I'm not drawing any conclusions what this means. I'm simply stating the facts. The facts are that these visits happened. And we think we have a right to know, what they're about.

That's what they're asking for.

GLENN: Yeah. They're very suspicious. But that doesn't mean anything happened.

But, you know, there's enough there, not beyond a reasonable doubt. There's enough there, that, you know, we should probably ask some questions here.

JEFF: Yes. Exactly.

GLENN: There was a short seller. Can you tell me about the short seller? Whats his name? Farmwald. What's their name?

JEFF: Yeah, so when Qualcomm accuses us of trying to influence a jury. Again, a date hasn't even been set for a trial. It's pretty rich, Glenn.

Because back in our first trial. There was this persistent short seller. Who had been out posting on the financial message boards. Again and again and again. Trying to drive our stock price down. Our patents are no good. We don't have anything, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me tell you, from the time we filed this case against Qualcomm in 2011, until we won the jury verdict in 2013, over two years, he posted 200 times. Every business day he posted. And he posted predictions. The patents would fall.

They didn't.

The -- the patent case wouldn't go forward.

It did. Oh, even if we won. We would only win ten or $11 million.

He was only off by a factor of 20.

I mean, it went on and on and on.

Here's the real punch line. We got to depose this guy. And subpoena his emails, because after Qualcomm lost the case. He filed challenges to our patents. Which we found kind of suspicious.

And guess what we figured out in deposition of this guy?

Guess who he had been working against when we filed this lawsuit against Qualcomm.

GLENN: Qualcomm.

JEFF: Qualcomm.

GLENN: Do we have payments? And how do you mean working?

JEFF: Well, it turns out that Qualcomm was paying some of his lawyer's bills. Because he was worried apparently, about us suing him for something. I mean, if you're not doing something wrong, what are you worried about?

But he was worried about that. So he went to Qualcomm and he said, look, I'm not looking for you to pay me directly. But pay my legal bills. And our attorney said to him, you don't consider that to be some compensation?

No. I don't consider that to be any compensation. The point though --

GLENN: Why would --

JEFF: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would he meet his legal bills? If I'm not mistaken, this is years before -- three years before you knew that they were infringing, right?

JEFF: Yes. So we believe that he actually started communicating with them. Even before we filed our lawsuit.

So there's a lot of fishy things here.

But to keep it to the point of Qualcomm's motion to try to get us to be gagged, it's pretty interesting. That they would be so willing to work with a party, whose only mission was to put out mischaracterizations and falsehoods about ParkerVision. Its patents. Its technology. Et cetera.

But they be they turn around and accuse us of what they were supporting. Back during the time trial.

GLENN: All right. More in just a second. I have a new video, and I want to show you something from the judge in just a second.

First, let tell you about American Financing for just a moment.

What would it look like to be out of debt, especially all of our your high-interest debt? All of the stuff you have to put on your credit card. Even though, that interest rate is 20, 25, 30 percent?

It's not a fantasy to be out of debt. It could be your reality. If you're a homeowner, and you want to get out from under high-interest debt. Give American Financing a call today.

Last year, their salary-based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of $800 a month.

Now, imagine giving yourself a $10,000 raise. That's exactly what they can do for you today, if you start today. You might even be able to delay up to two mortgage payments, which could help you get out even further from that debt.

Don't take my word for it. I want you to do your own homework, as always. Go to American Financing at 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. That's AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Let me see this full screen here, if I can.

So tell me what this is, Jeff. This full screen, that we have up on the monitors.

This is from the judge, is it not?

VOICE: Oh, hold on. Yes. Yes.

GLENN: That's the ruling.

VOICE: Yes. This is the ruling from the judge, correct.

GLENN: My gosh, they are freaked out about you being on this program.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

PAT: You seem to be all over that document.

Wow!

VOICE: I know.

JEFF: You know, Glenn, the sad thing about it is, he does dismiss their motion, which we're very happy about.

And we thought it was meritless when they filed it. But he does go on, and he talks a little about some of his unhappiness with the things that we say.

And I've already had people call me up and say, what do you think about that?

I said, look, he only has that side of the story. He rules so fast, which we appreciate.

That we didn't even have time to file a reply. So he is simply looking at Qualcomm's reply, and assuming they are telling him the truth, which they're not telling him the truth.

Look, they say, I have no basis for thinking that Qualcomm has taken our technology to China. I mean, you're kidding. Here's an article, Glenn, I found. 2017, New York Times. How this US tech giant is backing China's tech ambitions. Interesting article. People should go read it. 2019. Jenwa Net (phonetic) of Asia. Interview: Qualcomm president says China to lead the world in 5G scale.

Look, I understand why Qualcomm wants to be a big player in China.

It's a big market. But we have to do this smartly.

We can't just put engineering facilities there.

Teach the Chinese how to develop their own products.

And then expect for the long hall, that we're going to be anything other than from the outside looking in.

I mean, their Belt and Road Initiative is being helped by big tech companies right here in the United States.

It's insane.

GLENN: So when do you suppose -- are you going to file and go to court again?

I know you've been waiting for 11 years.

JEFF: Well, we have a case. It is -- it is -- by the way one of the things Qualcomm mischaracterized is in our first video, they say, oh, Jeff Parker says, we've been waiting ten years for our case, I show you indicating that there's something I feel is nefarious.

No, I didn't say anything was nefarious.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: What I said was it's been a long -- let me tell you why it's in ten years. Qualcomm filed challenges to the validity of our patents. That ate up four years.
Then they had a couple other ridiculous motions, which took the judge a year or two to sort through.

Now we're up to six years. Then we had the pandemic. That's another two years. The point is, it's been a long time. And all we're asking for is our day in court with the jury who can hear our case. And make a decision.

We think we have a compelling case to the jury.

And the judge right now is considering when to set the trial date. We're hoping it's going to be early, early to middle. Maybe this fall, of this year.

But soon. Very soon.

GLENN: Well, we will continue to follow the case. Are you releasing another video?

JEFF: We just released another video this morning.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: And that video talks about the benefit of the technology.

Our interaction with Qualcomm. How we took this technology to them.

I hope people will go to against giants. And watch the video.

I think you'll find it highly informative.

GLENN: You'll find it on Twitter. At against underscore giants.

At against underscore giants.

Make sure you check that out. And share it with a friend. Share it with the DOJ.

With the FBI. With anybody that you feel would have interest in this.

I think this is something that should be looked into. And if there was corruption, it needs to be routed out.

People need to go to jail, if they did wrong.

And the -- the patents need to be set right.

If we can't count on our patents as small-business people, which Jeff Parker is and ParkerVision is.

If we can't count that those patents can be held by small people, against these giants!

We've got nothing in America.

We have nothing.

JEFF: Totally.

GLENN: This is David versus Goliath.

And they deserve their fair shake in a courtroom.

Jeffrey, thank you so much.

JEFF: Glenn, thank you for having me back.

GLENN: You bet. ParkerVision.com.

ParkerVision.com.

RADIO

Did USAID Really Fund Chelsea Clinton’s Wedding? Here's the FACTS

As DOGE continues to expose the many, many ways our government has wasted taxpayer dollars, Glenn gives a warning: “You have to be really careful [what you believe] because we don’t want to wreck our credibility.” While the things DOGE has uncovered have been true, there are also a lot of rumors and misinformation spreading online. Glenn addresses some of those rumors, like the seemingly-unfounded claim that USAID helped fund Chelsea Clinton’s wedding through the Clinton Foundation. We must ask questions, but we can’t jump to conclusions without being sure that we have the real facts. Glenn also addresses some provably true stories of government waste, like how the Pentagon overpays for things and why Glenn supports Trump’s decision to stop minting pennies.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Looking at the DOGE stuff, and I want to talk about this next hour.

We have to be really, really careful. Because I don't know about you, but when I heard that we possibly paid for Chelsea Clinton's wedding.

PAT: Yeah. Do we have that substantiated though?

GLENN: We don't. We don't.

And that's why I want to bring that up.

PAT: You have to be careful with that stuff. A ton.

STU: A lot of stuff coming out online.

And you can't quote this stuff. You have to be really, really careful.

Because we just don't want to, A, wreck our credibility.

And, you know, when we find out that it is absolutely true, that's when we can go and say, round them up!

Let's put them court.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. There's -- there's a viral chart going around that shows Chelsea Clinton got, I don't know. Something like $84 million from the foundation from the Clinton foundation.

And that 3 million of that went to her wedding.

GLENN: Okay. So I think -- I think they did get $84 million.

PAT: I think that went to the foundation, right?

GLENN: Yeah. It went to the foundation.

Got it for the whole run. For Haiti or whatever.

And, you know, we know they spent $84 million in Haiti.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because look at the place now.

Oh, it's beautiful he has not it's beautiful.

PAT: Well, we were there, how many years after the earthquake.

And it still looked the same. As if the earthquake had just happened. You remember that?

GLENN: Oh, yeah. And the people from Haiti were saying to us, where is the money?

PAT: Where is the $10 billion? Yeah. Because that could have rebuilt. That could have rebuilt the entire country. 10 billion.

GLENN: About four times. About four times over, I think.

PAT: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- Haiti is just -- it's a sad, sad situation.

It's been ripped off by everybody in the world over and over again.

And I think the Clintons are, you know, they kind of lead the way on the -- on the charity for Haiti graft.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But we don't know anything about that. We do know the Clinton initiative got $84 million.

But we don't know any more than that.

And, you know, honestly, if you're spending your tax dollars, I mean, that's what people have to realize.

Even if it is, you know -- even if it is -- it didn't go to Chelsea's wedding.

Which I would be surprised.

I would be shocked, if they were that bold!

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But, you know, this isn't an effective use of your money.

And people who are looking at it, and saying, well, it was only $5 million.

How much money have you paid your entire life in taxes?

Because I guarantee you, it's not going to be $5 million.

It's not! Very few people to have pay $5 million in their lifetime of taxes.

So that means, that everything that you paid. Everything that you worked for. When you work four months a year, to pay your income tax.

All of that has been wasted, your entire life.

I don't know!

I'm kind of pissed about that.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, what could you have done with all of that money?

And I -- I just don't -- I don't get people who are, you know, again, like we said, I'm for aid.

I'm absolutely for aid. I'm absolutely for looking at countries, and saying, how can we help you, if it's in our interest, and that's not aid.

That would be development. But I'm not for most of the development that has been happening. I'm not interested in nation building!

You know, so, you know, even if you're for that, are you cool with it going 60 cents on every dollar? To the government officials?

Or to the charitable officials. And only 40 cents of that dollar?

I mean, I'm not happy with that. We've gotten so used to corruption, in our government, on, you know, the Pentagon spent $400 on, you know -- on a toilet seat.

We're so used to that. That we just expect it.

This is not that.

The corruption that we're finding now, is beyond imagination.

It's going to be hard for people to get their arms around, what you're actually looking at.

Because we expect a certain amount of -- unfortunately, a certain amount of corruption.

But nothing like this!

And if you're -- you know, if you are a Democrat and you're inclined, not to believe it.

Okay!

I can understand that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, for a while.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And say, I probably would have been skeptical, if Joe Biden -- I would have been skeptical if Joe Biden would have come in and said, we will route out all of the corruption.

I would have thought, well, no.

They're getting rid of anybody who is conservative on corruption.

That's why I'm so excited about the Pentagon because that's going to be a lot of conservative love.

You know what I mean?

So called conservative love. It's just graft and greed and cronyism.

But still, it -- it's -- we're supposed to be in love.

The left is supposed to be in love with aid.

We're supposed to be in love with death. I'm not -- I -- I am not blind to either one of those things.

But go into the Pentagon. I would love to see them take.

At you see the congressman or the senator last week, that held up a bag of bolts, and said, this is about $10 at the store?

It's $10,000, if the Pentagon buys it!

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Where is that money going?

PAT: Incredible.

GLENN: Who is getting that money?
And, you know, you would say, well, they're charging ten thousands of individuals dollars a bolt, because, you know, the aircrafts that they're building.

They're so expensive.

And they can't actually charge the price of what it takes.

No, they're charging us the price with all of the overruns.

All of the hundreds of billions of dollars in overruns.

They're charging us that as well.

So my question is: Where do those billions of dollars end up?

In just the pockets of, what? McDonnell-Douglas?

PAT: Raytheon?

GLENN: Raytheon.

PAT: Congress people?

GLENN: Right!

PAT: You know, a lot. A lot of it -- you know it's winding up in their pocketbooks. Has to be.

GLENN: And you know what really bothers me is, these people are taking our tax dollars. And then they're giving that money, through lobbying. To our politicians. Who are allowing the corruption to happen.

So it's just this giant circular -- I'm just going to leave it at that.

This giant circular, something.

I don't -- I don't know what happens in circles.

But there it is.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: By the way, the other thing that Trump said, first of all, he's getting rid of pennies.

Did you hear that?

Executive order. Thank you!

I mean, you know, takes 3 cents to create 1 cent. What are we doing?

That's the dims thing I've ever, ever seen.

PAT: Yes. Especially when nobody wants pennies. Nobody uses them.

If you ever use cash. And you get pennies back.

You just put it in their take a penny jar, usually.

And don't even want it messing up your pocket.

GLENN: Right. I mean, it's absolutely worthless to the American people.

And it's costing our government 3 cents to make 1 cent.

Finally, the president is -- I mean, all of this stuff is so common sense. That's what's so frustrating about all of this.

Should had it should have been done long ago.

But for some reason, we just couldn't. We've known about the penny thing.

I've known about the penny thing, when it was a cent and a half to make a penny.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That long ago.

PAT: He's -- he's leaving no stone unturned right now.

You've got the penny thing.

And then he just did the straw situation.

Did you see that?

We're going back to plastic straws.

He signed an executive order, or he is going to. Ending the ridiculous Biden push for paper straws, which don't work. Back to plastic, he tweeted out! Or truthed out.

GLENN: I love that.

PAT: It's just -- it's amazing the things that he's covering, at a breathtaking speed.

GLENN: I love that.

Do we have the CBS anchor trying to explain how Trump's approval ratings are going through the roof? Listen to this. Cut ten.

VOICE: What's driving this?

VOICE: I will keep it simple, Margaret. He's doing what he said he would do in the campaign. There's political value in that. In fact, 70 percent of people say he's doing what he's promised. That's whether they approve of him or not.

Now, there's another part of this that continues over from the campaign. There are words he was described as being tough. Being energetic.

And he still is today, in big majority numbers.

So as people take a look in these first few weeks, there's been a lot of activity. They're getting that general sense of governance. And that's being reflected in these early numbers.

VOICE: So that's perception. What about the actual policies?

VOICE: Well, let's start with the ones that are popular.

Again, these echo the ones we see in the campaign. The idea of deporting those in the country illegally continues to be popular. We saw that in the campaign.

GLENN: 59 percent.

VOICE: Sending troops to the US-Mexico border. Again, majority --

GLENN: 64 percent.

PAT: Wow! Wow.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- and they're just baffled by it. I don't understand. No. Really.

TV

Trump Border Czar WARNS Cartels, Illegal Immigrants, & Anti-ICE Politicians

White House Border Czar Tom Homan joins Glenn with the latest updates to the illegal immigration crackdown. He lays out why he took the job, how the deportations are going so far, and what’s coming next. Homan also explains why he’s “very concerned” about violent threats from the cartels. But he has a warning for them: “If they harm a SINGLE Border Patrol agent or soldier, President Trump is gonna rain hell down on them and I think he'll wipe them off the face of the earth." Plus, Homan has a message for anti-ICE politicians in sanctuary cities: "[Pam Bondi] will have NO PROBLEM if I recommend prosecution of a politician for impeding or knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien.”

Watch the FULL episode of Glenn TV HERE