RADIOJuly 27, 2022

Time for ANSWERS on US money to Ukraine, alleged corruption

President Biden — and those in his cabinet — have Ukraine on the brain. In fact, far-left leaders have been ‘obsessed’ with Ukraine since the Obama years, Glenn explains. But back in 2014, Ukraine was considered to be a corrupt nation that needed our help rooting out the deceit (at least, that’s what they told us). But now, Congress continues to funnel hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars to Ukraine, with practically no oversight to how it’s being spent. Why are we writing them what seems to be a blank check? Is Ukraine still corrupt? Is President Zelenksyy an honest leader? It’s time for ANSWERS. In this clip, Glenn discusses all those questions, plus he’s joined by Rep. Spartz — who is from Ukraine — to give her thoughts as well…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Biden and the people surrounding him in his cabinet, have Ukraine on the brain. Since at least Obama's second term. They're obsessed with Ukraine. I think Ukraine is a giant cash cow for those who are corrupt. Back in 2014, Ukraine was in need of some good old-fashioned United States savings. And Ukrainians were rebelling against the Russians. The Russian-aligned government, all on their own. But Obama and Biden were experiencing a major case of fear of missing out. So they just had to get involved. And so we did. And it drew everyone in the U.S. State Department, national security apparatus, and even George Soros to Ukraine. You see, back then, Ukraine was considered corrupt. Their leers, corrupt. The oligarchs, corrupt. Ultra, mega corrupt. So naturally Joe Biden's son jumps right into bed with them. And the media and political elite find no issues with this whatsoever. Sure, it's a corrupt country. I mean, Obama and Biden's stated goal was to root that corruption out, between the government and the oligarchs. But the vice president's son, going to work for Burisma was just fine. Nothing to see here. For over a decade, the story from western governments, has been that Ukraine is a corrupt government. And we can save them. But up until February 2022, it hadn't been resolved yet. Now, speaking about not being resolved. Did we ever hear. The $1.8 billion, that went missing in the bowels of PrivatBank? That was our money, by the way. Our tax dollars. Did anybody in the mainstream media, nail that down? Did Congress? I ask this question, because congress has now greenlit $54 billion in taxpayer funding to Ukraine, to fight out the Russians -- and what was it? 8 billion already was sent. And then on Friday, they announced another 270 million. Let's just put it into perspective. That's a lot of money! Where is it all going? Why are we writing them a blank check? Can we at least get a final verdict on whether the Ukrainian government is corrupt. I think I speak for the majority of the country, when I say the Biden administration's signals are a little bit mixed up here. We're a bit confused. Wasn't corruption the main focus of our health back in 2014. Isn't that why George Soros swooped in, and now everything's okay? They couldn't keep track of 1.8 billion, and we give them 60 billion? Let me ask you this: I find it interesting, that president Zelinsky recently revoked the citizenship of the Ukrainian oligarch, Kolomoisky. When Biden was VP, Kolomoisky was the principal holder of both Burisma, which his son worked for, and PrivatBank. The one that lost the 1.8 billion. Now, he had previously been on a U.S. Visa ban, over his involvement with the hired thugs, that actually used chainsaws to behead people. But Biden made sure he had his Visa ban lifted so he could come to the United States. And it gets more interesting. As if this is the time that both Biden and John Kerry were lobbying for a 1.8 billion aid package to Ukraine. That aid money went to Kolomoisky's PrivatBank, and then disappeared. Allegedly, it was channeled into a money laundering scheme, through a bank in Cypress. And then went to various shell companies. Now he's also the governor of eastern Ukraine. Funding a near private war, between Ukrainian militias and Russia's. Now, whether he's doing that with his money or someone else's, is unknown. Oh, by the way, Kolomoisky, his money is the big reason why Zelinsky got elected. But now that Biden is in office, Zelinsky has revoked the citizenship of his previous friend. Is there any chance that we will find out later, that Joe Biden lobbied for this to happen? If anyone has the receipts on Burisma, PrivatBank, the missing 1.8 billion, and what's going on with this private war between Ukraine and Russia. Kolomoisky would have them. And it's really weird, that now, his citizenship of Ukraine, has been revoked. We want to talk to congresswoman Victoria sparks. She's from Indiana. Hello, congresswoman, how are you?

VICTORIA: Good, how are you?

GLENN: Good. Now, you're from Ukraine. You became a citizen in the year 2000. And you're concerned -- you're concerned about the money we're sending over there.

VICTORIA: Well, let me tell you, and I appreciate actually, became a citizen in 2006. It took me six years, because it's not as fast when you come here illegally. So I came here in 2000. But it takes you a while to become a citizen. But let me tell you. And I might have a little bit different perspective. But I want to separate Ukrainian government from Ukrainian people, and actually army, and die in the trenches. You know, they've been trying to restore freedoms in that country. And fought -- had two revolutions. And they fight this war. And really, want to have freedom. So when I go there and talk to the people. When I talk to the young boys dying on the front lines. You know, it breaks my heart to see how we're mismanaging the situation. And allow them to die, without proper oversight of the government. Because I think it's important for the country like that, to hold governments accountable. And we have to differentiate that. We have very -- Americans. Our government, with much to be desired. So it's not only representation unfortunately for the people. But I think for me to see that. And actually at what Biden is doing. It seems to me, and the money you mentioned, don't go directly to Ukraine. Because there are a lot of things around that. But how he's doing in health -- how he's not overseeing it. It's actually, he's mismanaging Ukraine. And it's either his incompetency on purpose, to allow Russia to advance significantly. It was really concerning for me, when I went to Ukraine, to see, you know, how much power and the people around Zelinsky were able to consolidate his power grab. You know, and we're talking about Kolomoisky and these oligarchs. But if you know the part of that. They actually took citizenship. Not due process or executive order had stolen the border. Someone who is actually in charge of territorial defense of a major city. You know, right in Eastern Ukraine. And the person had nothing to do. He was just lucky enough to meet for half an hour with me. They almost detained from Ukrainian parliament to try to leave the country to believe to the US. Because they weren't going to meet with the U.S. legislature. So this amount of power, and abuse of power, in concentration, it's very dangerous for the country. A country which doesn't have check and balances. Where a judicial prosecutorial branch is controlled by presidents and people around him. A lot of Russian infiltration. A lot of different problems.

So I think this is a valid concern. And a question now, decided to witch hunt, against some Ukrainians that had nothing to do, you know, innocents, because the issues I was bringing up, they actually were brought up by our military people during my (inaudible), and they were brought up by some U.S. companies doing business in Europe, and actually doing business in defense industry. And they have some concern. And it's interesting. Because there's some issues that I didn't want to bring up. Because I know it was reported to the FBI. But it was brought up recently. You know, in Ukrainian newspapers, where this guy, his remakers as I mentioned, his father. At a point, the minister of defense. You know, created a monopoly. Had corporations with Iran and Afghanistan. You know, and sabotaged some of the purchase of the weapons. And had a very interesting connection to Russia, and imported.

So I think it's very dangerous for us, not to deal with properly managed situations. Because if we turn to Ukraine, and not Afghanistan, it's very dangerous for our national security too. Because Ukraine has a lot of critical resources. It's not a small country. And it's -- and it could be dangerous for all of us. And it's been escalating, and I think that's by this administration.

GLENN: All right. So, congresswoman, I'm not sure if we're on the same page. I really like the people of Ukraine. I have a soft spot for what they've done in the past, on fighting Russia. I feel horrible about the people who have lost their lives, and the women and children. And, you know, we have a team over there, that is rescuing children. And trying to get them safe -- to safety, and not be trafficked. But I -- I just -- I just think this is a convenient little war. I -- I -- why, for instance, did Zelinsky get rid of Kolomoisky. Why did he revoke his citizenship? I mean, it just seems convenient, if you were looking to make sure that -- that nobody -- nobody was around to tell about the dirty things that you were doing. Why is it that president Zelinsky was against gay marriage, because he -- you know, it's a different country, with different standards. He was against it, and yet, during the war now, they pass a law to -- for gay marriage. And that seems to me, like American pressure, being exerted at the worst possible time. Because we gave them money.

VICTORIA: Well, not that. But I wish American pressure would be exerted in a way how they can improve the logistics. How they can improve oversight. And ensure that they can be accountable to American people, instead of blame politics and blame the agenda, that is unfortunately, very radical in this country. And I think they blame politics, instead of the managing processes and governments. Governments like Ukraine and governments like Afghanistan. They have to be forced to provide transparency to our people. If you don't, you will have another Afghanistan. But unfortunately, they haven't been doing that. But doing other things, that are very not productive for them to fight and win that war. And I think this is our responsibility of Congress, to put pressure. You know, just because, this is going to be a major problem for us, if we don't de-escalate situations. But also, we have accountability to our people. And to Ukrainian people. They're dying there.

GLENN: So -- is Zelinsky a good guy or a bad guy? Or is the answer to that yes.

VICTORIA: I think we know -- they have to -- I don't look at people as good or bad. I actually have a very low, in regards to all politicians in general. It's not about that. Every president should have accountability. Every president should be watched. But the amount of power right now, Ukrainian government is accumulating. And power grab, and abuse of power, where they actually decide, who can enter the border. Who can exit with proper due process. In using the war to consolidate media and control prosecutorial judicial -- it's very dangerous. And, you know, he needs to be responsible. That he put people, and his chief of staff, is becoming a dictator in that country. The president Zelinsky needs to take responsibility. And explain what's happening there. I know he's busy doing external things. And dealing with his leers in Europe and here. But he's still our president. And he needs to be responsible. And tell us what happened and why, this amount of abuse -- that's not what Ukrainian people are fighting for. To have another dictator. That's not what they want. And I think that's very not productive.

GLENN: I really appreciate it. This is Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, and she has been very outspoken. And because of it, she's gotten heat from the left and the right. But intellectual debate is necessary, to be able to be a free country. And I appreciate you speaking out. Thank you so much.

VICTORIA: Thank you so much. It's never easy to do the right thing, but it's worth it.

GLENN: Yes, it is. God bless you.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Rob Schneider's POWERFUL Message of Faith, God, Love and Family

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

Why Did CNN & WaPo BOTH Just Report These "Anti-Deep State" Stories?!

Glenn Beck highlights two shocking stories that the mainstream media would have never touched before. CNN is now exposing the Clintons’ disturbing ties to Ghislaine Maxwell and the Epstein network, while the Washington Post is revealing newly released documents proving that Ronald Reagan was secretly undermined by the CIA and other agencies when he tried to dismantle America’s nuclear arsenal. These revelations don’t just challenge the narratives we were fed for decades... they confirm the existence of the very “DEEP STATE” the media once mocked. Why are outlets like CNN and WaPo suddenly admitting the truth, and what does this mean for the future of American politics?

Watch the 1st Hour of This Episode of the Glenn Beck Radio Program HERE

Maryland Governor wants MORE gerrymandering instead of THIS?!

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

STU: Yeah, you're remembering that right.

GLENN: It is?

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

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

STU: Lesson learned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOICE: Are you actively looking at it now?

VOICE: Yes. And I think we have to.

VOICE: You are?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Okay. So stop.

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

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

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

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

Zero, in the whole state!

Zero.

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

To get rid of the one?

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

That doesn't seem fair, to me.

Right?

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

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

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

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

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

What planet are you living in?

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

You're telling me, nothing!

Nothing!

No new growth.

Wow! That's amazing.

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

Okay.

Now, the left is shouting, this is crazy!

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

It really is. It really is.

Which one could launch the biggest hypocritical missile.

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

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

Because a safe seat doesn't reward persuasion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

STU: I like fair representation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I would like to base this on Moses.

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

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

Or 5,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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