Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?play icon
RADIONovember 13, 2024

Could Trump BOOST the economy by raising tariffs and abolishing the income tax?

During his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Donald Trump floated the idea of abolishing the income tax. This would go hand-in-hand with his plan to raise tariffs, especially on China. Glenn, who has historically been against heavy tariffs, may have been won over by Trump’s explanation. But he wanted to speak with an economics expert to see if the math really added up. Heritage Foundation Visiting Fellow Peter St. Onge joins the program to break down how tariffs work, whether Trump’s plan would boost the economy, and what he must do if he wants to raise enough support to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Hmm. Now, we've got a guy, I think he's -- I think -- I think his last name says everything.

Peter St. Onge, which I believe is French!
(music)
STU: What is happening?

GLENN: Sexy, sexy tax and tariff talk from the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow. We have Peter St. Onge.

How are you, Peter?

PETER: I'm great. I appreciate that. It is sexy.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Everybody says it. Everybody says it. So without getting it too steamy in here.

Let's go over the tariffs.

Because I've always been against tariffs. However, I might be wrong.

PETER: Right.

GLENN: Donald Trump is making a good case, when he's talking about getting rid of the income tax. Because tariff -- tariffs will raise the prices of things. Especially, if he does it the way he's talking about doing it.

But if he is getting rid of, or lowering the income tax to, you know, 10 percent, it's such a boon for the economy. That we could make up that deficit, and become a very powerful nation again.

Tell many I'm wrong.

PETER: I think that's absolutely correct.

Yeah. I feel like you're absolutely right.

You know, the vast majority of economists, Glenn, they go after tariffs. And I think they're looking at the trees for the forest here, because if you replace a tariff, which is basically a sales tax. But it's one that focus on his imported goods.

If you replace that with either reducing or in our dream scenario, abolishing the entire income tax. It's absolute rocket fuel for the economy. The reason is because --

GLENN: He just said abolish the income tax. Pay attention, Sara. He just said abolish income tax. Oh, yeah.
(music)
All right. Go ahead.

PETER: Right.

The background music. So, yeah. And he actually started floated abolishing it with Joe Rogan a couple weeks ago. No tax on tips. Then no tax on overtime. No tax on first responders. No tax on Social Security. And it was kind of like he was really flirting with just breaking up with the income tax altogether.

And when he was on there with Rogan, that's exactly what he did. He said, you know, maybe we should go back to the 1800s, when, you know, it was before we had an income tax. Before we had a Fed.

And back then, the federal government had to live off tariffs. And that was the greatest period, not only of economic growth, but of cultural achievement.

It's astounding, what we -- everything Elon Musk does, was invented in the 1880s. Computers.
Rockets.

What's his -- Hyperloop. Every single thing. And it was really the golden age of humanity.

And the key there, we did not have an income tax. We did not have a regulatory state.

We did not have a Fed. So if Trump can take us back there. And all we have to do is an 8 percent sales tax on Chinese socks.

That is the deal of the century.

GLENN: Okay. Let's go over this.

Who pays the tariffs?

American companies or the foreign company?

PETER: Interestingly, during you Trump's first term. He put tariffs on China. And China actually paid up 80 percent of those. So it would issue subsidies to Chinese exporters so they could maintain market share and keep their prices low. So the Chinese government paid the tariffs.

GLENN: Hmm.

I like that.

PETER: So if he does that again, he's talking about hitting China with something like 60 percent tariffs.

And between a ten and 20 percent tariff for everyone else. Now, given Trump's style, he is not going to come and use it across the board. He is going to come and use that as a club.

Right?

So the Europeans, specifically. They act like a fortress. They are brutal to outsiders.

If you want to export something to Europe, they will put you over a barrel. You remember, a couple years ago, the first thing the European Union did was sat them down. And said, nice economy you've got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it. We're going to need a payment from you every single year.

It is literally the Mafia. They do that to Norway. It's all these countries have to fork over billions of dollars to get access to the European market. Now, imagine if we did that. Imagine if we called up Mexico or Canada. And said, hey, listen. We've got this beautiful economy. You guys are settling into it. Hey, why don't you write me a check for 50 billion to keep access? That's exactly what the Europeans do.

So the first thing Trump is probably going to do, given what he did last time. Is he'll call up Europe, and he will do the exact same thing.

You know, I have a 20 percent tariff burning a hole in my pocket. I need you to do some things for me.

But, anyway, even if he does end up applying those to all foreigners, the Europeans are not going to cover the exporters because they're in a deep fiscal hole.

They don't have the money. They're already bankrupt. They're not going to do what China did.

But a lot of those tariffs, especially the ones from China, are probably going to keep getting paid by China. Because exports to America are what they live on. If they lose that, it's game over.

GLENN: And we should not be empowering them, quite honestly.

Now, here's why. Here's why I have possibly turned around.

I'm willing to listen to tariff talk, because in my -- in my cute little head, I keep thinking that all of the -- when you have an extra 20 or $30,000, that you're pulling in, every year. Whatever it is, you are paying in income tax. And everything -- everything goes down that's made here in America.

If you're not paying that income tax. You have a lot of extra buying power, which means, most of Americans, will spend that.

And will grow our economy, which will put more taxes. Well, we don't have taxes. So that wouldn't work.

How does it work, when you don't have taxes? Go ahead.

PETER: Yeah. So just kind of running into the numbers. The first thing that happens, if you get rid of income tax altogether. So I estimate you get about a 20 percent jump in incomes in the US.

So it would be something like $15,000 for typical families. That's what you get off the bat. The typical family currently has about 18,000 in income tax, and then you knock off about 3,000 for the tariffs.

There's a variety of estimates on that. But that seems to be the cluster. So you get a 15,000 raise, because the economy is growing faster. You get an 18,000 raise because you don't have to send your income tax to the government. People don't realize how much they're paying to the government.

Right? A lot of it is tips. But, anyway, you've got -- what do they call it?

Withholding. So, anyway, that's 33. I call three for the tariffs. 30,000 dollar raise per year, 2500 a month. Now, currently, the median American take home is about 58,000.

Okay. Which is about 76, minus the income tax. So you go from taking home 58, to taking home 88. Right? That is a massive difference.

And that sort of sets the stage.
(music)

GLENN: Hold. Hold on. You go from 58 to 88. Oh, yeah.
(music)
Ding-dong. Pizza deliveryman. Anyway.

STU: Why is that the part you like so much in his movies? It's interesting what he is excited about.

GLENN: All right. Go ahead.

All right.

PETER: No. I love it. And it's true. You know, if you're making 88. You can go to Vegas. And things happen in Vegas.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right. Creating jobs.

PETER: Right. Yeah, well, and so that's the fun part, right? Is you mentioned earlier, that if you're not paying income tax, then production in the US is cheaper.

So instead of the Chinese socks coming in -- you know, they used to come in at $6, now they're at $9. Fine. But China is paying for that, so they're probably still coming in at six.

But, meanwhile, American factories can make socks for less, because they are not paying the income tax.

There's a very good chance that we will see a lot of that manufacturing, even if the Chinese government pays for the tariffs.

GLENN: And that means, also because the economy -- we're building factories. We're doing things ourselves, because we can.

Everybody's pay goes up. Because we need more workers. Right?

PETER: Exactly. Exactly. And then there's actually mass deportations, then the socks will actually go American.

So you've got two possibilities, right?

One of them is that China covers the tariffs. In which case, it's a free lunch for us.

China is, what?

Putting us about 500 billion -- well, their share would be -- let's say 300 billion. So that would be fantastic. Thank you very much.

Or China does not cover the tariffs, in which case China is priced out of the market. America pays no income tax, so they're cheaper. By the way, every headquarter on earth would try to move to the United States. If you're paying no income tax on the single biggest economy on earth, everybody will be trying to move here. Including the Chinese companies. The worst-case scenario, the Chinese don't cover it.

They get outcompeted. And it all comes back to America. And if it's only Americans living here, then Americans will be swimming in jobs.

GLENN: I mean, this is just -- this is big.

How -- how much --

PETER: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: He has only floated this on the Rogan show. How real do you think this is? Because I know he loves tariffs. I know he loves tariffs.

PETER: He loves tariffs. And he hates the income tax. So it's beautiful. It's like a -- it's just like the perfect Newton president.

STU: Peter, isn't the complication here, that he can essentially do what he wants with tariffs. But he can't do what he wants with the income tax. And that becomes the heavy lift here?

PETER: Right. So he would need Congress to play ball on the income tax. And Congress is very tight, as we're all discussing at the moment. There's a ton of RINOs over there.

So that's going need to the pressure and the passion that people showed during the campaign, that millions of Americans showed. We have to put that on the RINOs.

GLENN: Yeah. I think that if he did, you know, a tour even. And was just all about income tax. You just have to say to people. You go from 58 to 88 in take home pay. I think a lot of people will be like, you know what, I love that.

STU: I agree. But you're not going to get -- obviously, in theory, you could put it into a reconciliation bill. Right?

At least a massive reduction.

You couldn't -- not a constitutional amendment, unfortunately.

That's what I would prefer.

Repealing the 16th.

GLENN: Yeah. Me too.

But you could capture American's imagination with this.

STU: Yeah. I think that's pretty -- that would be pretty great.

I do think you would have issues with some of these, as you point out. RINO-type republicans, who would complain about all sorts of things.

Including deficit stuff. Right?

They would say, we're going to lose all this income.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then let's talk about the deficit, Peter. All right? Peter st. Onge. He -- hmm. I'm not going to hold it against him for being French. I mean, somewhere in his past, somebody had sex with a French person. Okay. Let's -- let's move past that. He's with the Heritage Foundation. A visiting fellow.

STU: This is definitely the weirdest interview he's ever done. And he's regretting every minute of this.

GLENN: He's like, this is the end of my career and my credibility.

GLENN: Okay. I think I've got this number from you, Peter.

But a -- tariffs would bring in about 900 billion.

Almost a trillion dollars.

But our -- we're spending now, I don't even know how much.

$4 trillion a year? Some crazy number like that.

So how do you bridge the gap?

PETER: About six and a half.

GLENN: Six and a half. Okay. Good.

STU: There's a bit of a gap.

GLENN: There's a five and a half trillion dollar gap.

PETER: So income tax itself is taking about two and a half trillion.

And then you've got -- what? You've got payroll. You've got excise. Things like gasoline and cigarettes, things like that.

You've got capital gains. Corporate income tax. Those hopefully would be folded into an income tax repeal.

You put it together. You're looking at 2.4 trillion in lost revenue. And then you've got 900 in tariffs. About 1.5.

Now, the economy grows 20 percent, then you're going to get about 500 billion more from payroll tax and from excise. So you're looking at a net loss of 1 trillion. Now, I personally would prefer to get rid of the payroll tax as well.

STU: Yes!

GLENN: Pernicious.

PETER: It's not as bad as the income tax. Because the income tax is on top of it. It also varies on how much you produce. The payroll tax is a flat tax.

So, you know, in a perfect world, we're not taxing work at all. We're taxing bad things, not good things.

In the grand scheme, you know, in the terms of incentives, get rid of income tax first. Then we can have the next conversation, which would be getting rid of the payroll tax. If you're just going to the income tax, you're talking about 2.4 net of the tariffs. Net of the economic growth. You're talking 1 trillion. So you would be cutting 1 trillion out of a budget of about six and a half.

Now, Elon is -- he's talking about his department of government efficiency.

He's floating 2 trillion.

So I haven't seen the math on those.

I don't know where it's coming from.

I agree whole-heartedly.

I'm certain we could get a lot more than that.

It's cutting out the parts of the military, that is part of our country.

Bring them home. Put them on the border. Divert the Navy that patrol our waters. Stop invading other countries.

That would be a very easy 800 billion, if we look at countries like Japan or UK, which the UK has a functioning military. It has a Coast Guard.

Although, it doesn't use it.

About the whole kit. They spend less than hundred billion.

Of course, you can cut welfare for able-bodied people.

Which the government tries very, very hard to hide how much it spends on welfare. But it's easily over a trillion.

The cost of illegals themselves, which very conservatively is about 150 billion a year. Maybe closer to 350 billion by some estimates. Because, again, they're trying to hide the costs.

Pharmaceuticals. Right?

That's going to be coming into focus with RFK here. But there is a ton of waste and corruption in pharmaceutical payments. Those are something like 20 percent of our economy.

But really, you know, if you sort of zoom out, you're very familiar with the Tenth Amendment.

There are precisely four agencies that are authorized. Right? State, justice, defense, treasury with both offices.

So strictly speaking, if we had a Supreme Court, that actually read the common sense language in the Tenth Amendment, almost the entire thing is gone. You would slash everything. Personally, I would keep Social Security and Medicare because they've already been paid for. That's a complicated issue. I think you have to make sure people are protected, because they already got ripped off on the way in. But aside from that, almost everything they do, from DEI, to just -- to the Federal Reserve, all of that is unconstitutional.

You slash that down, and you are -- gosh, you're probably more than 3 trillion down.

GLENN: So do you think we have a shot at doing that?

Is he putting the team in, around him to do something like this?

PETER: So the closest we have, I follow Polymarket very closely. They've got odds on pretty much everything out there. The sort of tip of the spear on income tax repeal is starting with tax on tips.

Right? That was the one that he most clearly promised.

And so that's kind of a proxy for whether we're going to start hacking away at the income tax. So tax on tips, is currently running 38 percent on Polymarket.

That's the number I'm watching. That's encouraging. Because it means, it's not just talk.

That people with capital, believe it's the real.

But for sure, Congress will play ball.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much, Peter. We'll have you on again. Great explanation of this. Peter St. Onge. He's with the Heritage Foundation. You can follow him @PeterStOnge. Good luck spelling Onge. I mean, just saying.

"The Most Dangerous Place on Earth Right Now!" - SHOCKING Details of Nigeria's Christian Genocideplay icon
RADIO

"The Most Dangerous Place on Earth Right Now!" - SHOCKING Details of Nigeria's Christian Genocide

Across Nigeria, Christians are being hunted, churches burned, and entire communities wiped out — yet the world remains silent. In this powerful discussion, Glenn Beck and Rep. Riley Moore uncover the horrific truth behind Nigeria’s Christian genocide and the shocking indifference from global leaders. This silent war on faith is one of the greatest humanitarian and moral crises of our time. Will America stand up for its brothers and sisters in Christ before it’s too late?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Riley, let me talk to you about Nigeria, and what's happening in Nigeria. It's the scariest, most deadly country in the world, if you happen to be a Christian. And nobody seems to -- to be talking about it. And, you know, you have been involved in, you know, urging Secretary Rubio to say Nigeria is a country of particular concern, which I don't what an that means exactly. What doors does that unlock?

RILEY: Yeah. So that is -- that designation actually fits in the U.S. Code. So it does unlock 15 different Levers for the President when a country is designated a country of particular concern. That could be holding development money, that could be going to international institutions to free assistance through there. That could also halt security assistance, which would be arms sales and training and things like that, that have been going on in Nigeria. We could sanction individuals. It gives the President the authority to do a number of different things that can really, I think, leverage the Nigerians to actually start caring about our brothers and sisters in Christ, who are getting murdered for the professions they're facing in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So I think this is a good first step, and we're going to see how the Nigerians react to this now. I've been having meetings with Departments of State.

We are going to meet with the Nigerians here at some point as well, here in DC.

So we're going to see what they're going to bring to the table. But also the President, who always puts all options on the table, has said, if they don't start fixing this, they're there couldn't potentially be kinetic military actions on -- in Nigeria.

GLENN: What does that mean?

Boots on the ground?

RILEY: No. To me, it does not mean that. To me, you have -- you have complex issues that are going on, over there. Where you have in the middle band of the country. This is where the Fulanis are. And these are herdsmen. And this is where you get this radical strain, obviously. Islamic terrorists, these Fulanis. These are herdsmen, tribes, and they have been attacking Christians in that middle band. In the northern part of the country is mostly Muslim. Southern part of the country is mostly Christian.

So that middle part, where they graze their cattle and all that, is where you see a lot of these flash points and murdering going on. But then in the northern part of the country is where you have ISIS, Boko Haram. They are operating there. And where they're taking over towns and communities, as we saw in Syria, right? Previously. Same type of thing.

GLENN: Yeah.

RILEY: CAIR is enfranchising, going on over there, all through the Lake Chad region, actually. So that's where I think, if it made sense to have some type of military action in forms of an airstrike or something like that, to -- to be able to tamp down some of the leadership and break up some of that structure in there.

That's something that would make sense. But to me, just speaking for myself, I want to try to work with the Nigerians, for them to do the right thing here.

President Trump obviously I mentioned, on Truth Social. Needs to specifically look into this. Which we are doing here in Congress. I want them to do the right thing.

I think the Nigerians actually have the chance right now to actually strengthen their relationship with the United States, if they're going to do the right thing.

But we can't allow to continue the slaughter of Christians where we have over 7,000 just this year, have been killed, for being Christian.
We can't allow that to continue, as a Christian country ourselves, which we are.

I know we're -- you know, some may debate that. I promise you, and nobody knows more about the founding of the country than Glenn Beck. Is that this is a Christian nation, founded on Christian values.

And we have to stand up for these people. Because nobody else is paying attention to this. Other than you, and some folks at Fox news. And that's really about it.

GLENN: Oh, I tell you, you know, I was planning on bringing my cameras with me. And I was going to go to Nigeria in the first quarter. And I have had briefings and warnings from the highest levels. Do not go.

You are not going. And I said, yes, I am. I want to bring this story.

You can't go. I've been to war zones. And this one, they're like, this is the most dangerous place on earth right now!

That's pretty remarkable, that nobody is really talking about it.

RILEY: It really is, and it's this silent genocide, that has just continued on since 2009, where we've had in between 50 to 100,000 Christians murdered for their faith. Our brothers and sisters over there, suffering, and no one has done anything about it. You might remember the bring back our girls movement around 2012ish, '14.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

RILEY: Seventeen of those girls have still never been brought back. People forgot about it. It's fine. Boko Haram just has them. It's not fine.

It's not okay. And there are a lot of Levers that the administration is able to pull here, I think to get the Nigerians on the right course.

It's not that they don't have resources. This is an oil rich country. With a lot of critical minerals.

They have the means to be able to do this, at the end of the day, it's a question of prioritization. And what their goals actually are. And we need them to focus on this. Or the President will start to focus on it.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, 19,000 churches have been burned.

And yet, from what I'm hearing, there are some in the Nigerian government that are like, no. This is not what's happening. This is not about genocide. It's not about Christians. It's just squabbles.

Really? Fifty to 100,000 people. And 19 thousands of individuals people have been burned in little squabbles, that don't have anything to do with radicalized Islam?

RILEY: Exactly. And this is the excuse I've gotten from people on the ground, look, do terrorists kill other people other than Christians? Yes, of course they do. But we're talking about five to one is the ratio, Christians versus non-Christians are being killed over there right now.

Secondly, I want to point out for everybody, President Trump has a designation in Nigeria. It means his first term.

It was taken off by the Biden administration. Because they claimed the killings had more to do with arable land and herders, and actually the root cause was climate change.

GLENN: Climate change.

RILEY: Yeah. That's why these killings were happening. Because of climate change. Where that's why we saw the murder rate just skyrocket during the Biden administration.

And President Trump, who cares very deeply about these issues, he's not going to allow that to persist anymore.

GLENN: He said, if there is an attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet. Just like the terrorist thugs that attack our cherished Christians.

I will tell you, I've -- you know, been reading up on it. And doing our homework.

And, you know, it reminded me of how the Germans went into Poland. Where they would just take whole communities. They would put them in the church. And lock the doors. And burn it to the ground.

That's what's happening in Nigeria. They're doing the same thing. They're burning churches. Not just burning churches. They're gathering Christians up. Putting them in, locking the doors, and then burning it down so that all of these women and children and men die in a fire in their church. And it's horrific. It's horrific.
What does the average person need to do?

RILEY: Yes. The average person needs to call their number of Congress and elevate this. And make this an issue that is on their radar, that they care about.

I'm introducing resolution which would be a sense of Congress, that we support the President. And we support the people and the Christians of Nigeria, and their plight.

And we condemn what the Nigerian government is doing, in action around this. That resolution should be getting introduced here soon.

So that would be something that would be hugely helpful.

GLENN: Wow.

It will be interesting to see who votes for that, and who doesn't.

That would have been -- that would have been a no-brainer 15 years ago. Just a no-brainer.

And now, I wonder if you can even get that passed. That's sad. Sad.

RILEY: It's sad. And I think we need to put it to the test. Put it to the test.

Certainly, if I'm whipping the votes, I don't have Ilhan Omar in my "yes" column.

But, you know, let's -- let's put it to the test here.

The TRUTH about Zohran Mamdani and communismplay icon
RADIO

The TRUTH about Zohran Mamdani and communism

Is New York City’s new mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani a socialist or a communist? Glenn Beck takes a look at history to explain why it doesn’t really matter: BOTH lead down the same road …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, we've been talking about socialism, and Donald Trump is getting pilloried in the press for calling Mamdani a communist. And I find this ritual here, that we're going through is just, you say the word socialist, and, you know, 25 years ago when I said that these people were socialist, everybody said, "Oh, my gosh. You can't call them socialists. That's an outrage." I said, "The mask is going to come off, that they can't wait to tell you they're socialists."

Now Donald Trump said, you know, Mamdani is a Communist. And everybody is like, oh, my gosh. Look at this hysteric from the Cold War. He's just -- he's out of the Cold War radio drama.

So let me just clear this here. Because the difference between the two terms, you know, is really not some great firewall of virtue here. As if one leads to like Scandinavian candles and the other leads to gulags. That's not what's happening.

What we've forgotten here is what always is forgotten. And that is how Karl Marx actually talked and saw the two. He didn't draw, you know, polite little distinctions. He described socialism as the transition. The necessary scaffolding that leads to communism. That's Karl Marx. So socialism for Karl Marx was the road, not the destination.

Communism is the end of that road. He wrote -- he wrote an essay, the Critique of Gotha Program. And Marx said, under socialism, from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Under communism, to each according to his needs. The only difference here is timing. It's not philosophy.

It's not goals. It's just how far along the revolution you are, okay?

Socialism is the bridge to communism. According to Karl Marx, don't take it from me. Communism is the completion of socialism. It's -- it's the antithesis of a free market system. Even Lenin called socialism the first and necessary phase of communism. So it's not partisan rhetoric. Okay?

This is the literal architecture of Marxist thought. But can we get out of the theories of all of this?

I mean, history gives us warning. Much more vivid than any theory. You know, we would like to imagine that the worst horrors of the 21st century came from one beast alone.

And we think that's Hitler. But actually, a bigger beast was Stalin. But if you want to look at Germany from 1930 to 1945. You see something really uncomfortable.

A socialist movement that curdled into something monstrous, while it never called itself communist. In fact, the Nazi government. The national socialists. The Nazis were not communists. They were against the communists.

They killed communists!

But they shared the same foundational belief. That the rid is disposable, and that the state defines the truth.

They both believe that rights are not given by God, but administered by political power. And that dissent on any of this, has to be crushed for the good of the collective.

That is the -- that's the definition we should care about!

Socialism doesn't to give full marks communism to become catastrophic. It just has to replace the individual conscience with the will of the state. And don't you see, that's what's happening here? They'll crush you! They'll destroy you. You disagree with them, they'll destroy you. Even if you've been on their side. I am going to share eye story with you, from 1979 that happened. That I don't think most people understand. And in New York, you better understand it.

When a society accepts the premise, that premise, history shows the -- the slide can accelerate from a utopian promise to industrialized cruelty. Horror show.

Like that!

Germany saw it. Russia saw it. China saw it. Cambodia. North Korea.

Cuba. I mean, it's all right there, just different flags. Different slogans. But it's the same structural error.

So can we stop with this mocking of the language?

You know, people laughing. Oh, you said Mamdani is a communist, but he's just merely a socialist. You're missing the point entirely.

The issue is not whether the label is technically perfect. The issue is the philosophical DNA is exactly the same. Collectivism over the individual.

State control over personal agency. Central planning over free will.

And that the belief that human nature can be engineered by a political force. That's where it always goes wrong. It doesn't understand human nature. So you can argue all you want, about where socialism ends and where communism begins, but honestly, that's like, hey, kids, memorize the date of this war.

Why? Why? I'm never going to use that fact again. What difference does it make? The thing we should care about is, why was that war fought? What happened at the end of that war? When communism and socialism, we should be saying, where does that road lead?

I can tell you that the road always begins with the state controlling your choices. Okay?

It will control your choice of energy, money, your children's education. Your speech.

Your job. What you drive. And it always ends with never greater liberty. It always ends the same place. In a society that has forgotten that freedom is fragile.

That power concentrates. That people are the same over and over and over and over again!

Human beings. They go bad! Especially when you give them power, and they're told they're part of a grand collective. Humans are willing to commit horrors they would never do as an individual.

That's the biggest thing. You get these horror shows of 100 million dead, because it's a collective!

We're all doing it. I'm not doing it. Everybody is doing it. That's the warning.

That's historical. And we ignore it at our own peril. Now, the problem here is, is that socialism is on the rise. And communism will be next.

Remember, when I first started talking about Obama, they -- I was -- I was raked across the rolls -- the coals, every day for even suggesting he might kind of like socialism. Now, socialism is fine!

So that road is still going to -- we're going to continue rolling down that road. And any country that goes into socialism -- we're not talking about a capitalist. We're not talking about Sweden anymore.

In fact, we are actually talking about Sweden. Look at the road they're going down now.
I mean, they're going into their own kind of authoritarian rule with Sharia law.

That is coming to Sweden. We are not talking about this friendly socialism. We're talking about the complete abandonment of the free market entirely. We've been this stupid little hybrid, that doesn't work. It only causes misery. We've been this hybrid.

And it doesn't work in a country this large and a country this diverse.

But look if you're -- you know, if you grew up after 9/11, where have you seen capitalism work for you?

Okay? You've seen, I know I've seen it. I've seen the rich get richer. And I don't mean the rich.

I mean the really, really, really rich. The ones that the Democrats never really talk about. They say they hate the rich. The rich have to pay their fair share.

But they're hanging out with George Soros. They're hanging out with the Ford Foundation. They're hanging out with Bezos and all of these other people. Because that's -- that's -- that's real control! Okay?

They don't hate those guys. They never do anything to affect their taxes. They don't pay taxes. Because they have the money to put it into trusts and everything else.

You don't have that!

So when I say, I've seen it happen. I've seen the rich get richer.

You know who the rich are?

Citibank. These banks that have been taking our money through bailouts, when do we get that money back?

When do you get that money back?

You don't!

You don't. That's why this is working. That's why you can say, socialism is neat. Because nobody knows the killing machine that socialism actually is. Nobody has any idea. Look at the killing machine. Look at the killing machine that's being built in socialist Canada right now.

What is it? MAID is the third or fourth biggest killer. It kills one in every 20 Canadians. Why is that happening? That's not out of compassion. That's because they're running out of money for health care. That's what that's about. Get them off the dole! Stop it. Now, if they're earning a lot of money, get them in, because we can still get their money, but let's make sure they're making money. If they're getting old, if they are cripple, if they fought in a war and just can't has come it themselves, if they're super, super young, if they have an expensive cancer, let them die. Help them die!

That's because they're looking at the collective, not the individual. And that's -- that's the beginning of the dark killing machine in a socialist country. And Canada is -- is -- I mean, it has socialized medicine. The problem is, it's all failing. Socialism always fails.

Capitalism has -- has taken people out of poverty. Solved problems. Healed people. Given people heat and houses and cars and airplanes. All of that is because of the free market. All of that is the free market.

You get rid of the free market. You put it in the hands of governments. And you have monsters. Monsters. And we know it, because we've seen it over and over and over again.

But our -- if you're -- if you -- if -- if you don't remember, or barely remember 911, you've never been taught any of this.

You've never been taught what it actually means. So you're seeing this play out, over and over again. Look at that guy, look at, he's not going to have to pay a price. He's just going to get away with it. And he's taking all of our tax dollars. Okay. I hate all of that.

This capitalist system, it's corrupt!

You're seeing that play out in real time. You're not seeing anybody actually go to jail for these things.

Of course, you think that it doesn't. I don't think it works the way it is right now!

But then you're -- you're given this false utopian promise. Without any information.

Read the warning label on socialism!

Where has it ever worked?

Show me where it has worked!

And don't say Sweden. Sweden.

Sweden is falling apart right now. Do you know why?

Because Sweden, everybody was blond hair, blue eyed, they were all related to each other. It was a small, little country.

You can do it when everybody is the same, and it's small. It will work in -- to some degree!

But the minute you start going diverse, the whole thing falls apart. So you want to be Sweden?

Go ahead. Look at Sweden today.

I don't want to be Sweden.

Read the warning label. That's our job, to show that warning label.

It's our job to teach what's not being taught. This is a death cult.

Stay away from it. Warning. Warning.

Could Comey FINALLY go to JAIL thanks to this smoking gun?play icon
RADIO

Could Comey FINALLY go to JAIL thanks to this smoking gun?

Is this the 'smoking gun' evidence that could put former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey behind bars? Just the News CEO John Solomon joined Glenn Beck to reveal some shocking new revelations, including Comey’s own emails allegedly authorizing anonymous leaks to the NYT on the Clinton case, potential handwritten notes proving he KNEW Hillary’s team approved the Russia collusion hoax, and a possible email from Comey referring to Hillary Clinton as “President-elect Clinton." Will a Northern Virginia jury hold the Deep State accountable? Or will politics bury the truth again?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: John Solomon is with us. He is the CEO and editor-in-chief. In chief of Just the News. If you don't check that every day, you're really missing out on a really great news site. Justthenews.com. John, I have made a promise with my audience a long time ago, I do my best not to waste their time.

And as I'm looking through the things I want to talk to you about, I have to start with this question: Is any of this going to mean anything in the end, or is this -- are we just spinning our wheels and wasting our time, talking about how the deep this scandal with James Comey is becoming?

JOHN: That's a great question. And I don't think history has an answer yet. It will really depend on the tenacity and the focus of the Justice Department, the prosecutors, and the jurors that are going to catch these cases. Right? Are they willing to rise above politics and say, "We don't want an FBI that goes after people based on their political color, not the quality of the evidence against them."

And that is what began on 2015 on James Comey's watch, a different type of FBI that seemed to go after Donald Trump and his associates, regardless of evidence, and protect Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, even though the evidence against them was pretty strong, as we ultimately found out from the IRS whistleblowers. So we don't know yet. Listen, these are going to go to trial if the judge lets them go to trial.

The judge in the Comey case seems to be giving the prosecutors a hard time there already. But that's going to be litigated. I'm going to go up to the Supreme Court. It will be a long battle.

But the question is, is the fight worth it?

I think if you don't punish the people that created this mentality, you have deficits in America for a long time.

Banana republic, prosecution arc. And I think that's not what Americans want. They want to say, the FBI is above politics. It hasn't been in the last texted, until the last few months, under Kash Patel.

GLENN: Okay. So let's talk about what the new evidence is the -- the burn bags.

The hidden rooms. And the evidence that now has been found that -- that shows Comey looks like he was lying. To Congress. When he said, no.

I didn't know anything about it.

JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. So let's remind people what the alleged lie is, what he's been accused of and indicted of. He told Congress in '17, and then reaffirmed, unequivocally in 2020, that he never asked any of his staff to provide information to the news media. The government, Kash Patel found significant documents that go to the contrary. They chose not to go after James Comey. So in the Bill Maher administration, they knew the same evidence, but they didn't go after him. What is the lie?

He told Congress, I didn't -- one, I never authorized anyone to leak to the media anonymously about the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump cases. And, two, I don't think I knew anything about an intelligence intercept that Hillary Clinton was setting up a fake Russian collusion hoax, that we ended up investigating.

Well, we now know, first, his own emails, with his own top lieutenant, Daniel Richmond. A former lawyer who he brought into the special government. The FBI. There's an FBI employee, showed that James Comey, told him, good job, and make them wiser as he was briefing them on how he was anonymously trying to spin the New York Times and provide information to the New York Times about the Hillary Clinton case.

So directly on point to the testimony he gave. I didn't authorize him to leak about Hillary Clinton in their emails. So this guy was leaking it. He was affirming it, and saying, go ahead. And he was encouraging him to make that reporter wiser. In other words, give them more information anonymously.
So that's the first lie. The second lie -- and, by the way, the grand jury bought that evidence, that we believed he lied.

GLENN: Okay.

JOHN: And that is what we call the Clinton planned intelligence. Was Comey, as John Brennan claimed. And as other evidence -- did Comey know, did he pay attention, did he have some awareness that as the FBI was starting to investigate the Russia collusion ruse, the hoax, that Hillary Clinton had been interpreted, or her people had been intercepted, showing that she approved the plan. He said, it doesn't ring true. I don't think I knew about it.

Well, in a locker, in a burn bag, they found some handwritten notes of James Comey, that appeared to include the briefing from John Brennan where he clearly knew, that Hillary Clinton had been intercepted -- or, her team had been intercepted, saying she approved this plan to hang a fake Russian shingle on Donald Trump's campaign house. Now, those are handwritten notes.

GLENN: Yeah. That is in his handwriting, that he clearly understood. And so now you've got him on -- on two really significant lies. That show that this whole thing was -- was -- they were in collusion with one another. And all of this was bogus.

And they knew it from the beginning.

JOHN: Yeah. That's exactly right. That's why, when you look at this. And then take the third bag of this. Those notes were never produced in earlier subpoenas to Congress or other investigations. They were found in a room, where it appears, according to the government, there is an effort to get rid of or hide this evidence.

So it hadn't been hidden from prior subpoenas, according to the government, according to Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor. And then, two, it looked like they were in burn bags. Meaning, they would never be there.

Now, some other people said, oh, well, there's electronic records of it.

It turns out according to the government, there was no electronic record of the note. Meaning, if they had been burned or destroyed, it would have never happened.

Now, why would James Comey want to lie about this? Because as we see in these same emails, it appears he had a motive.

His motive, as he wrote, his colleague is, I fully expect to be working for president-elect Hillary Clinton. She's talking this way, before the election in 2016.

He thought Hillary was going to be his boss. And as he wrote Dan Richmond, he said, I think Hillary Clinton will be, quote, unquote, pleased by the way I handled her email chase. In other words, he reopened it and cleared her a second time.

And when the smoke cleared, Hillary would like to keep him out as FBI director. That's the insinuation of those notes. So --

GLENN: Yeah. I want to get the exact. I want to give the exact phrase he wrote. A president-elect Clinton will be very greatly.

JOHN: Yeah. Grateful, I'm sorry.

GLENN: Wow.

JOHN: Yeah. Grateful. So he expected it -- that's his mindset in the fall of 2016.

And he opens up an investigation on Hillary Clinton, what we now know to be a ruse. Bad evidence. An agency had to lie to the FISA courts to get the FISA warrants. If his motive was that, or his thinking was that. He probably does not want to admit that I was warned, that maybe this was all a joke before I allowed this investigation to go forward. Before I affixed my name to a FISA warrant that the courts have now said was misleading, false, and violated the law. So that is the context at which the prosecutors are going to try to bring this -- bring this case. Now, it's going to be in northern Virginia, where there are a lot of federal workers and a lot of anti-Trump sentiment.

Can they get a conviction? We don't know. But is it worth trying to do it? Most people I talk to said yes, because the alternative is you have by inaction a sanction, which is what Bill Maher and John Durham did by not bringing this in 2020.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. All right. Can I switch topics. There's something that came out today. James Comey's daughter, and the Epstein case. Apparently, James Comey's daughter sent a message to Epstein, that if you don't have to prove it. But if you can show us anything that ties Donald Trump to this, it's going to go a lot easier for you.

Can you give me this story?

JOHN: Yeah. I've seen it. I've not been able to corroborate it. In this world of media today. I've been super careful. It's hard to know if things are true. I haven't found anyone yet who seems to know the proof on it.

It's possible. Who knows? I mean, prosecutors make these sort of deals all the time. And as we know, it seems in the last decade or two, I think when you have to go back to the era of the Ted Stevens prosecution. The IRS pursuit of conservative groups. And maybe the prosecution which turned out to be malicious and wrong of Virginia governor McDonald.

There is a culture that began at the beginning or around the time of the Obama era. Where winning for prosecutors is more important than winning fairly or on the face of the evidence.

And that's why these cases ultimately got overturned. That mentality exists in the Justice Department.

And then when you add the nature of politics, the Trump Derangement Syndrome that seems to come in, in 2015. You have a very dangerous prosecutorial and law enforcement system that's easily weaponized and can easily cheat.

And unless you got multi-million lawyers, you probably will get hosed, because very few people will find the grounds to overturn this.

And that it is crushing power of the state, that Jim Jordan talks about. Chuck Grassley talks about. That Donald Trump wants to reform.

And I don't know, in this case, whether Mr. Comey did this or not.

Because I can't confirm it yet. But if I knew, I'll come back to you.

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: The scenario does go on. And we've seen it. And it's very, very troubling.

There's a case coming up in New York, where the FCC has to admit that there were journalists writing fake stories that were then used to justify investigations of companies.

A system of cheating to get a consequence regardless of whether it's warranted, is something we all have to take a deep breath. We have to fix it. Or we won't be any the different than rectangles and Iran.

GLENN: I will tell you, that I am so glad to say, that you said, I can't confirm this.

I haven't found a source to confirm it.

Because when I read that story, it looks as though one of the people that is telling this story is the guy who was in jail, with Epstein, who would also have motive for making something like this up. So, you know, I don't want to exonerate her.

And I don't want to condemn her. I just want the truth.

And he doesn't seem like a reliable source.

JOHN: Yeah. I think we have to get the evidence, and try to -- listen if the lead is something -- let's check it out and true -- find out if it's true.

We learned that Russia collusion wasn't true. I think we'll learn that most of Ukraine impeachment wasn't true.

And I think today, we just have to dig in first. Get the facts.

But we will -- we will do that. I promise, I'll get back to you, as soon as I know what I can find out for the government.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you, John. I appreciate all your hard work.

John Solomon from Just the News. Go to JusttheNews.com. Follow him. John Solomon. JSolomonReports on X. But he is an old school journalist. Investigative reporter. Has worked for everybody, until everybody was like, you can't say those things. That's our side!

And then he just left and did his own thing. And I'm very grateful for it.

Editor-in-chief of Just the News. John Solomon