What the Fed’s interest rate hike MEANS FOR YOU

In an effort to curb rising inflation, The Federal Reserve just announced an interest rate hike of 25 basis points (one-quarter of one percent). It’s the first time the Fed has raised such rates since 2018. So, what exactly does this mean and how could it affect YOU? Carol Roth, financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ joins Glenn to break it all down…

You can read more of Carol's take on this issue here:


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hello, America.

Yesterday, the fed raised the -- the interest rates.

And they said, they're going to do it, I think six or seven times more this year. This could get dicey in many ways, for everyone.

And I want you to understand, what happened yesterday. And not in terms of, well, you know, us traders believe. I don't care. I don't watch CNBC. Because I only understand about half of it.

I want to know what this means to the average person. Carol Roth joins us. The author of the war on small business. She gets it. And can explain what it all means. In 60 seconds.

Carol, welcome to the -- welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

CAROL: Hey, Glenn. Lots of things to talk about.

GLENN: Yeah. Boy, I have a long list for you too. So let's start with what happened yesterday, and why people should care.

CAROL: So I want to take a step back, and talk about, you know, why the fed did what it did. In terms of raising interest rates. What we call 25 basis points, or a quarter of a percent.

100 basis points is 1 percent.

GLENN: Okay.

CAROL: And basically, they were undoing the -- at least attempting to start to undo the effects of what they in part cost.

Their monetary policy, zero interest rate policy, printing trillions of dollars, the government spending trillions of dollars, in terms of fiscal stimulus. Turning parts of the economy off, and wrecking these labor markets supply chain.

All of those things are the reasons we have inflation today, exacerbated by decisions that the Biden administration made around oil and gas, dependents and what not.

So basically, we had inflation.

GLENN: Correct.

CAROL: Which we've all been talking about. As we go to the grocery store, and certainly the fuel pumps and whatnot.

And so finally, they said, we have to do something. Now, I'm going to tell you, this is a little bit of window dressing. Because they were doing accommodation. They were in the market, purchasing securities, last week.

So last week, they were being accommodative.

But this week, we have to maintain our credibility, and we need to do something. So they decided to raise what is called the fed funds rate. It's a rate, where banks lend to each other overnight. In terms of their reserves.

And that reverberates through the market. So they brought that down to a target, of zero to a quarter of a percent. And they had held it there for the last couple of years. And they said, okay. Well, you know, inflation is getting away, we better raise some interest rates. One of our tools in order to do that. And they took the huge step of a whole quarter of a point increase, to do it.


CAROL: Yeah. They're very -- because they need to be credible.

GLENN: Right. So the last time we had a problem of this size, it took an interest rate of about 19 to 20 percent, if I'm not mistaken.

Raising it a quarter is really -- is a joke.

Where do you think, these interest rates should be?

Not -- not considering killing the economy.

Just where it should be. Should it -- if we were in a healthy country, still, would it be 20 percent, or more?

CAROL: So there's a couple of things to unpack there.

First of all, this is an unprecedented situation. We don't have a benchmark, because we have never had central banks, not just in the U.S. but around the world, printing trillions upon trillions of dollars. This has just never happened before. We've never had governments turn off the economy.

You never have a situation, where there's 1.7 jobs available, for every job seeker, because of what the government did.

So we're flying a little bit blind. I've always been a fan of normalized interest rates. I think it's a horrible idea, to have the fed meddling, and trying to direct things.

I want the market to set it. And so before all of this nonsense started, before the financial crisis, the great recession, financial crisis in '07 and '08, which was really the first time we went totally off the rails, with the zero interest rate policy and the purchase of securities, the interest rates were around 5-plus percent. And that seems to be, you know, a healthy place, where things should be.

We should not be in a place, where we're saying, you know, when you take risks, you shouldn't be getting rewarded for it. You know, 0 percent interest.

It makes no sense. So in reality, you're still at very historically low interest rates. And in a healthy economy, to have three, four, 5 percent, would be completely acceptable. We just have been so addicted to this easy money and this free money for so long, I'm not sure how we get out of this.

GLENN: Okay. So there's a couple of problems with 5 percent interest rates, right now. One would be that people would not be able to afford a new house, et cetera, et cetera. Because of inflation, and everything else.

But the other, that nobody ever talks about, is that we now have a national debt over $30 trillion. And that is just like buying a house. You have an interest rate, on that.

If we have an interest rate of 5 percent, how much more money do we have to pay?

CAROL: Bingo, this is the dilemma that the fed has gotten themselves into, by keeping down interest rates. They've basically given the government a free pass to just spend and spend. And to rack up more and more debt.

And we're at a point, to where the debt is completely out of control.

And, you know, has competed our level of GDP.

So if you think about 30 trillion of debt. And obviously, the fed fund rates. And the interest rate on the debt is not a 1:1 correlation. But we know that as one moves up, the other moves up. So in terms of the interest on our national debt, I want everyone to pay very close attention because this is staggering. For every 1 percent increase, that is another $300 billion, that we have to pay in interest, on the national debt.

That is our tax dollars, that are going to pay more, for things, that we have already purchased.

It is not new purchases. It's literally, a finance charge.

Almost like a credit card interest rate, on stuff we have already bought.

And this is the dilemma, the fed has. Because they know, as they raise interest rates, this is going to get out of control. The CDO. Had made a projection, than saying, this is going to get out of control. But in their projection, they said, well, we think the yield on the ten-year treasury note, gets to about 2.1 percent in 2025.

So, you know, we're going to have to really be concerned, maybe in 2029, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note is at that 2.1 percent today. So multiple years ahead of time.

GLENN: Please talk down to me like I'm in kindergarten.

I don't understand the yield thing with the Treasury. How that works. How that's affected. So can you explain that?

VIVEK: Yeah. It's basically how much the government has to pay on debt.

So what the market demands

And obviously, if there's a lot of demand, for Treasury securities. The price of that goes up.

Then the yield, or the interest that you demand is lower.

Because there's a lot of demand. You have to pay a lot for your debts.

GLENN: But we had been at very, very, very low --

CAROL: Very low.

GLENN: Because the fed was buying up. There was no demand for our treasuries, which is our loan.

CAROL: So let me put it in context, what we're paying currently on our national debt, in terms of a combined interest rate, is somewhere in the neighborhood of projections of 1.4 percent to 1.6 percent. So they've been able to finance that at a very low rate. But that number is starting to creep up. And with the fed increasing interest rates, it will further creep up. And every 1 percent is $300 billion.

GLENN: So if we have an interest rate of five or -- five or six percent, we're talking like between two and three trillion dollars more, the entire budget.

CAROL: Yeah. Exactly.

It's just completely untenable, at that point in time.

So I would -- I would imagine other things happened, in the interim. But this is why, when we talk about things like MMT, Modern Monetary Theory, or what I call Magic Money Tree.

That says, well, you can just print into infinity, because we can just print more. Well, we're now living through that realtime experiment. As you said, no, you can't. It causes inflation.

It has real costs for the average American, and it decreases the value of every dollar that you hold.

GLENN: All right. So the best thing you can do is get out of credit cards. You should cut those up if you can.


GLENN: And pay them off if you can. Get a refi right now. Because you're probably paying about 16 percent for your credit cards, correct?

CAROL: Yeah. And it could be going up.

And anything that has that adjustable interest rate associated with, some people may have something called an arm and an adjustable rate mortgage. Where it adjusts over time. Maybe it's fixed for a certain number of years. Anything that is adjustable rate debt, is going to increase in price. And if you need financing -- let's say you have a business, and you haven't taken advantage of low rates yet. You're going to want to lock that in on a fixed basis now, because it's not going to get cheaper any time soon.

GLENN: Now, the other problem is, with raising interest rates. Let's say you have a business. And you need a loan.

If the interest rates starts to go up, that kills that business. They can't afford that loan. Just like we can't afford our national debt. Or you want to buy a house. Yesterday, mortgages. New mortgages fell immediately, just on the -- on the whisper, that it was coming.

We are seeing a slowdown in mortgages. Which means people will buy fewer houses. The scary thing about this, is you don't know where that switch is. You're just going to have to kind of guess. And it might shut everything down.

CAROL: That's the needle that the fed is trying to thread, in addition to dealing with the consequences of the national debt. What happens, is as they raise interest rates. You know, their intention is to slow down the economy. I mean, that's basically what it is. They want to slow down consumer demand.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: But the question is: How do you do that, without creating a recession, or without creating reverberations for the economics of the average American?

GLENN: So can I be really, really cynical? I mean -- in fact, let me go beyond cynical. Let me go into, I'm a thriller writer. Okay? And I'm writing a thriller. And for some reason, this country needs to slow down the economy. But they can't slow down the economy, because then businesses will fail. But they don't really care about the average person. You know what I mean?

That's going to fail. We'll print more money. Put them on welfare. Tell they believe to stay home. Or whatever.

Wouldn't one way to slow the economy, for the consumer, but not slow the economy, for the big corporations, would a war do that?

CAROL: I think that would completely change the tenor of the economy. But I think that raising the interest rates does that, because kind of like we saw over the last couple of years, if you are a big corporation. You take advantage of that debt. You have that war chest. We've had that strong balance sheet. So in terms of the transfer of wealth, that is one way to do that. But the war, that would completely change the tenor of, you know, who benefits. And certainly, it would be the bigger guys versus the smaller guys. But it would be more defense, rather than the financial services industry, for example.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Carol, hang on. I have some more questions. And I would like you to explain a couple of other things, coming up in just a second. Give me 60 seconds. We're back with Carol Roth. The name of her book, is The War on Small Business. A must-read.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about the dollar being the world's reserve currency.

Because I'm watching these sanctions, that are being put on.

And I'm seeing things happen, to where, if I'm another country, especially Russia. I'm going to China, immediately, saying, I want to partner with you. Because they just made my money worthless. I can't get my money out of the central bank. The Federal Reserve. That's my money.

And they won't let me get to my money. If that starts to happen. And then Saudi Arabia starts to sell oil, off of the petrodollar, that's really bad news. And let's say, the West holds together. But half the world is off the petrodollar.

What does that mean for us, Carol?

CAROL: It potentially means the end of the U.S. dollar, as a reserve currency.

GLENN: Explain what that means. Because -- I mean, to the average person. Forget about, you know, the central banks and everything else. What does it mean to the average person? To have half the world get off our dollar?

CAROL: Yes. So this is why I love you, Glenn. Because we take the most complicated concepts in the world.

GLENN: I know.

CAROL: And trying to explain them, as if, you know, it's Elmo and Big Bird here --

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: The idea of being the reserve currency. Is something that's -- you know, has sort of a long history. And it means, particularly in the case of goods and services. But also in the case of oil, that everyone in the world, pretty much agreed to use dollars, for a settlement. And that puts some responsibility on the United States. There's something that is called the Triffin dilemma. And there was an economist back in the 1960s, who basically said, there's a conflict. If you are going to be the world reserve currency, you're going to have to make tough choices. And you're not always going to be able to do what's right, at home, in order to make sure you're doing what's right, in the national sphere.

GLENN: Everywhere. Yeah.

CAROL: And unfortunately, you know, this has been an issue, that's been going on for a long time.

But in recent times. As we've been talking about with the fed and the decisions they've made. They actually haven't done right by either party.

They've been screwing over the average American, with their policy. And transferring wealth. But they've been doing the same thing in the national sphere.

And, frankly, a lot of countries are getting sick of it.

And so there have been predictions for quite some time, that there was going to be an event -- an adviser actually to the OECD said that it's probably not an economic event. It's a geopolitical event, that's going to expose the system. You know, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. And so a lot of folks feel like the sanctions that were made against Russia, were potentially a cover story. That we know that we'll potentially lose this reserve currency status. So we're going to say, well, we did it, because we had to take a stand.

But the reality is, you know, as we've now shown the world, you can put your money, in our central bank. And you can buy Treasuries. And U.S. dollars.

But you might not be able to access them. Which is not a really good thing, if you're going to be the world's reserve currencies.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

CAROL: So there's a couple of potential outcomes. And I know you've been talking about this, Glenn. But, you know, one thing that folks have been talking about.

Is does China potentially step into the reserve currency position?

There is an issue around them. Because usually, if you have the reserve currency, you run a trade deficit. And we know that China is a nation of exporters. Are they really going to step into that? I'm not sure.

The other thought is, listen, we've seen so many banks. Central banks around the world. Print so much money. There's all this debt. You can't really just say, we're going to cancel it all. Because there's counterparties. There are people on the other side of the debt. So what could you do to offset that?

GLENN: Hold on. Hold on. Elmo and Big Bird has to stop. Because Elmo says, there's only 20 more seconds left.

CAROL: Okay.

GLENN: So we will come back. Because I really want to hear this -- this other new plan, and canceling debt just opens up Pandora's box, at least in my head. We'll talk about that, coming up more. Carol Roth, coming up in in just a second. Stand by. That's right. Did you get the vaccines yet?

GLENN: We're with Carol Roth. She's the author of the -- of the book, The War on Small Business.

She's a former investment banker. Don't hold that against her. She calls herself a recovering investment banker. She worked on Wall Street for years and years. Then kind of went, oh, I might be on the wrong side here.

And is trying to do everything she can, to strengthen individual businesses. Small businesses all across the country. And I love her for it.

Carol, you were just saying, that one of the options, in this nightmare scenario, which I think is unfolding in front of us. Where the world reserve currency, is not going to be the dollar.

I don't know what it is. But they're going to change the dollar, from what it is. To a digital dollar.

And I don't know how it all shakes out. But probably not very well.

But you brought up, there is all this debt within that we just can't cancel, because there's other people on the other side of that debt. So explain what you think.

That can't happen, you say.

CAROL: Well, I mean, nothing is a never scenario. Right?

GLENN: Not anymore.

CAROL: In an unprecedented situation. And, you know, for people who are students of history, despite all of the wreckage that could come from this, it's a very interest pointing in time. Especially, financially, you had the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. You had then us going off the gold standard. Then you had us, you know -- with the petrodollar, basically saying, we will manage the dollar as good as gold for oil.

And then you had the fed, basically go completely rogue. And not do that.

And anybody who is holding reserves, that they're supposed to say, well, the U.S. dollar is safe. And it's a good store of value. We'll keep devaluing it. That's not a thing.

And so -- and, by the way, these are not my theories. I'm just communicating what is out there, from people who are far smarter than I -- everybody by writing up another asset. So is there a neutral asset, that central banks have access to, that's on their balance sheet, that maybe they have been buying, at really good prices, that all of a sudden everybody comes together, and says, well, we'll just write up the value of that?

It's like writing down the -- gold.

GLENN: Gold.

CAROL: So central banks have been buying tons of physical gold. By the way, billionaires have been buying a lot of physical gold as well. And I'm using the term physical, because it's different than the market that is traded.

GLENN: ETFs. Those are ridiculous.

CAROL: ETFs. That's done in dollars. So who is backing that?

But physical gold. So there is a theory going around, that potentially that standalone basis or a basket of neutral metals. Which was thrown out as an idea, early on. When it was pushed aside for the U.S. dollar. That maybe there is this -- meeting of the minds.

And, you know, this is the way that you make all of these other central banks. And countries full. Is you just write up the value of that gold.

So if you think that that's going to happen. And you think that the financial system is going to collapse, you know, then you want to be owning physical metals. And have a store of that.

GLENN: Because when you say, they're going to write off debt, you don't mean people's houses. You mean --

CAROL: No. This is government debt. They cannot write up government debt. Because when you take -- that's a loan, right? You owe the money back to somebody. So the other side of potentially doing some sort of. We'll have mass forgiveness.

Is that when you take something else that everybody else has. And you say, it's more valuable. Overnight. It's magic.

GLENN: That doesn't sound like --

STU: Bad magic trick.

GLENN: Yeah. It sounds like -- we're dealing with a lot of black magic.

Stu and I were talking about this story that came out of Britain. We hadn't heard anyone talk about this. Explain what happened.

STU: Yeah. Just a little background. It's in the London metal exchange.

And it's the price of nickel. Now, I know no one cares about the price of nickel. Just to give you the basis here.

GLENN: Tesla does.

STU: Yeah. That's true. If you're buying an electrical car, it's true. Basically, the last five years has bounced back and forth between 10,000 and 20,000 per metric ton. Okay?

It got up to a little bit above 20,000, in the last few weeks. Obviously, all this time going on with Russia. Russia, Ukraine. Big sources where it comes from, for all these electric batteries. It goes basically from 20,000 to 80,000, in basically a day.

Okay? So four times, in one day. So let me read this: This is from the Wall Street Journal.

GLENN: Listen to this. Have you read this, Carol?

CAROL: Oh, I know this story. I do know this story. So we can talk about this.

GLENN: Yeah, this is crazy. Listen to this, America. This is craziness.

STU: Yeah.

So traders on the London Metal Exchange smelled blood, and nickel prices almost doubled in a short period of time. A Chinese company faced a 1 billion-dollar margin call. That exchange officials felt they couldn't meet. Rather than let it fail, which would have probably taken down several of the smaller brokers that serviced them. The London metals exchange decided to cancel all of the day's trading. More than 9,000 trades, worth about $4 billion.

It canceled the trades. Not because of a fat finger error. Which exchanges often cancel. Not because of a rogue algorithm, as regulators claimed in the 2010 flash crash in U.S. stocks, but because someone with too much leverage was going to blow up, with effects on some members of the exchange.

This moral hazard is taken to an extreme. It's always been true, that if you face a 100-dollar margin call, it's your problem. While if you have a one billion dollar margin call, it's the broker's problem. And the authorities might save them. What is almost unprecedented here. Is the exchange authorities decided to save them, with money taken from other traders, who otherwise would be sitting on fat profits.

I mean, you won. You picked the right direction. You've got these huge profits. And they cancel your trade, to save someone else.

GLENN: And it's China.

STU: And it's China.

GLENN: I mean, there is no such thing as a free market with this.

CAROL: No. This is another too big to fail scenario. It happened to be -- I believe it was an individual billionaire, who had made a short set against nickel. So he went in the other direction.

GLENN: Wow. I mean, then you don't -- you don't put the money down on the table. If you don't know what the odds are, and you're not willing to lose your money.

That's like going to Vegas, and -- and placing a huge bet, and when you lose it, you're like, hey.

You know, Caesars. I mean, this is crazy. And Caesars says, oh, we're not going to count that bet.

That doesn't happen!

CAROL: It's horrendous. And it goes back to the integrity of the market. And so many that the retail investors have been rallying against. And it's just another example. And there are big name banks involved. The exchange was actually shut down for multiple days, I believe. Before it started trading again.

And the people who made a bet, and decided to participate in the market, ended up getting screwed out of their profits. But they're never going to get the leniency, if it happens to them on the other side.


CAROL: And just the overall integrity, like you said. This is not a free market. It's not a fair market.

And we have too many of these big guys, who are being saved, at the expense, sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively, of the small guys, over and over and over again.

GLENN: And that's what I think people are so sick of.

And when they see this next crash. Especially with Janet Yellen saying, it will be equitable. When we reassemble, it will be equitable. What the hell does that mean? Probably stuff like this. And when they see the rich getting richer. And I don't mean a person who runs a business and may have a million dollars.

I mean the rich.

The elite of the elite. The BlackRocks of the world.

The banks of the world.

I just -- when their debt is being bailed out and real Americans are paying huge money for their food and their gas. And then their home is taken, there's trouble. That's real trouble.

CAROL: Yeah. And unfortunately, that is the scenario. There's one thing to become wealthy, because you earned it in a fair playing field. That's something that we want to celebrate. But we do not want to celebrate, when the playing field is tilted. When somebody has their thumb on the scale. When we have this transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street. Which has been going on for, you know -- in a very large part, for a decade and a half. But it has accelerated over the last year and a half. And, you know, we talk about all of this coming to fruition. And us losing reserve currency status. It's going to mean a slower economy for us. Because we are not in a position. We don't have the strong manufacturing face. Or a competitive pricing. To be able to export. So all these people are like, oh, that's great. We'll reshore the job. They're not thinking in context of the existing economic structure. It will be unfortunately, very painful. But just to have a moment of hope here, Glenn. Because this is really doom and gloom. Is you have to remember, in any time of pain, there's always opportunities. So it is incumbent upon you, to find where those opportunities are. And what --

GLENN: So average person is saying, what is that opportunity?

CAROL: Yeah. It's finding the things that have inelastic demand. Meaning, people will pay prices even when they're continuing to increase and making investments and those kinds of things. Or retooling your business. To be servicing those markets. It's those kinds of shifts, where you have to look for those hidden opportunities.

In what could be a completely new economic scenario for us, going forward.

GLENN: I -- I think what you just said, translates to what I just told my kids.

You get into the job market. You have to be the most effective, efficient, and hard-working employee. Even if you're not at the top of the food chain, you have to be the one that the boss says, oh, we can't.

Because he'll do everything. I mean, he's a little bit. I mean, he works like crazy. You have to be that person. Right?

CAROL: Absolutely. Absolutely. Invest in yourself. And make yourself indispensable to a customer or to somebody that you're working for.

It's a huge competitive differentiation that will only get more important.
GLENN: I would love to have you on, maybe early next week. I just had one of my producers put some stats together on inflation.
And what that actually means to people. I mean, when Biden got in, a hamburger. An average hamburger was $4.40.

Today, that average burger is 601. And if we look at what they say, things are going to be, you know, with -- with the -- what are they saying? 7.9 percent inflation.

That number is going to be $7 force a burger by the time of the next election. I don't think that stat is right. You want to compare apples to apples. Look at how they measured it back in the 1970s and '80s, when we hit it before. That would mean that that hamburger would go from $4.40, to almost $8 by the time we hit a presidential election.

I just want to talk to you about inflation. And how to beat that.

CAROL: Plenty to talk about, would love to.

GLENN: Thank you very much, girl. Appreciate it. Carol Roth. The name of the book is War on Small Business. Make sure you pick it up.

Why Glenn is SHOCKED Hunter Biden Was Found Guilty

Why Glenn is SHOCKED Hunter Biden Was Found Guilty

A jury has found Hunter Biden guilty on all 3 federal felony gun charges and Glenn is shocked. Is this proof, as the media is immediately claiming, that our court system was right about Donald Trump too? Or is there still reason to be concerned? And will Hunter serve a prison sentence – up to 25 years – or will his father, President Biden, bail him out again? Joe has promised not to…but Glenn wonders if that will change after the election is over. Glenn and Stu also discuss whether this is just the beginning of Hunter’s legal troubles as rumors start to circulate about his art and possible money laundering…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, it's quite a day! In Wilmington, Delaware, a federal jury has convicted Hunter Biden of federal gun charges.

Historic first for the offspring of a sitting president.

His trial had his ex-wife and his sister-in-law, talking about his drug use.

He faces now up to 25 years in prison. He's not been sentenced yet.

So that's what he faces. Up to 25 years, for three charges: Lying on a federal screening form, about his drug use. That is -- I mean, that is -- I think it even says on the form, this is a federal crime of like 25 years in prison.

You don't lie when you're buying a gun.

Don't do it!

Then lying to a gun dealer, and possessing the gun.

Although, first time non-violent offenders typically get shorter sentences. They'll give him his sentence here soon.

STU: Yeah. It's interesting -- about three weeks, they expect this. Three to four weeks.

Now, that sentence is, you know, one of those situations, that, you know, depends on how long it is.

You're right. First time non-violent offenders. The term is usually not too, too long.

If it's anything longer than let's say five or six months. You would assume despite his denials that Joe Biden will pardon him, the second the election is over. Is that your expectation?

GLENN: Yes. Of course he will. Of course he will.

STU: Yeah. I can't imagine he wouldn't. He's been getting his kid in and out of trouble, for the past 30 years.

GLENN: Yeah. Why would he change his -- you know, his parental habits?

STU: Yeah.

New York Times is reporting, that Hunter Biden's team was feeling, they say bullish about a non-guilty verdict before it was delivered.

So this was a surprise.

One of the interesting reactions to this, Glenn. I would love to get your take on this.

Now the left saying, well, I guess we won't be seeing anything about a rigged jury system, anymore. Today.

Will we?

Obviously, referring to the Trump case, when people were saying the -- the system was rigged.

Although, I don't know -- was that your take on that?

Do you think the system was rigged against -- with the Donald Trump verdict?

GLENN: No. First of all. First of all. I would have said, the system is rigged.

When the Justice Department, you know, colluded with the White House.

And came up with some bogus, you know -- bogus plea deal, that nobody in the world, would have ever gotten.

This is -- now, there's no sentence. It says up to 25 years.

There's no sentence, so we don't know.

You know, but it's -- it -- this is normal.

This is the way it works!

Usually, just usually happens to people, much, much faster than this.

And when -- when Donald Trump was at trial, we weren't saying the system was corrupt. We were saying the system in New York City and Washington, DC, is corrupt.

Because just -- because of the voter base. You can't get a fair trial.

If you're Donald Trump.

But that doesn't mean the whole thing is corrupt.

You know, my point is, you have to play ball, the people in power, in New York, want you to play ball.

That's corrupt.

You know, I -- I think generally, we get it right.

STU: Yeah. I think often that happens.

I still think we have the best system out there.

Even though, there are massive problems with it. Specifically, in this case, when it comes to Donald Trump.

In that, I actually have legitimate hope, that the system. The legal system gets the Trump verdict right. Eventually.


I don't. I think there's a good chance it gets overturned on appeal. The problem with that, though.

Is that the time line of the legal system in our political system, are not -- are not working together.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: Very well. Unless you happen to be a Democrat.

And of course that is intentional. But I do think that eventually, the court system will probably suss this out.

And I'm not at all surprised that Hunter Biden is guilty in this case. It's pretty blatant. That's overlooking what you just brought up.

They tried to completely brush this under the rug.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The political system tried to get involved in this. Multiple times.

To make sure this didn't occur.

This he got caught. And so now, we have a jury, who actually does come to the right conclusion here.

Obviously, he was guilty of this. So --
GLENN: Yeah. There's no. You know, they weren't saying, you can't bring up this person, to prove that he was innocent.

This was his gun. That is his signature on the paper, where he lied. That is a huge penalty.

Then when his sister-in-law, lover was found that, you know, that his gun was in the glove box. She went and took it.

In a bag, that had cocaine powder in it.

Threw it into a garbage can, behind a supermarket. She should have been charged, quite honestly, as well.

But she took the gun and threw it into a garbage can. Because she was afraid their kids might find it. Well, so you will let somebody else's kids find the gun?

What are you -- you know, there's no --

STU: Not great.

GLENN: There's no question, that this is exactly what happened.

And you didn't have to make up laws, to say, or -- or skirt around whole sections of the law. To get this.

You're just enforcing the law. What's ironic about this, is dad is such the big anti-gun. You know, throw the book at them forever. You know, if they've ever had a cap gun, in their life. And he's going to end up. I truly believe, he will end up pardoning him.

STU: I think he will as well.

Of course, you know, these penalties are for thee, not for me.

And so all of these hard-core, I'm Mr. Tough anti gun guy. This is the exact type of stuff that happen Joe Biden was pushing for.

Larger penalties for these types of actions. I think the best defense for Hunter Biden. Which they didn't really get into on this trial. Probably will come up on appeal. Is a Second Amendment defense.

I don't think it's a winning defense. But I think it's a good argument. The question itself is not properly represented in our histories and traditions.

GLENN: Whether you're an alcoholic and drug addict, and you can't have a gun if you are.

STU: Right.

Like, if you go back and look at the early machinations of that, there's very much, in our histories and traditions. For example, you go into a bar. They take your gun as you go into your bar, and they give it back to you when you leave.

That type of stuff was common. Going back to the -- you know, when guns were first being buried.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Typically it was not one of those things where they would do the same thing if you were an alcoholic. You would never get a gun if you were even sober.

GLENN: Yeah. I think you could even make a really strong case for that.

In saying that, you know, I'm -- I'm a recovering alcoholic. Should I own a gun?

You know, it's -- it's the practicing. Are you using drugs, are you using alcoholic.

We could argue about that. And there might be a case to do it.

However the left would not be for that. The left would be for -- for all alcoholics. No matter in recovery or not. Should own a gun.

STU: And all teetotalers as well.

GLENN: Yeah. And all teetotalers, yeah. But that is not what this case is built on.

This case is built on, you lied. On this federal form.

You cannot lie.

Everybody knows that. Everybody knows that.

STU: And it's true. And it's one of those things that I find this case to be the least interesting part of the Hunter Biden saga.

GLENN: Oh, this is -- yeah.

STU: It might not even be a constitutional question. I don't think there's -- he didn't shoot anybody.

Like, there's a lot -- he should have -- he should be -- the law should apply to him. Like they apply to everybody else. Much more interesting is the tax stuff. The financial stuff. And the stuff that ties into international business dealings that seemingly involve many of his family members. Including maybe his dad. Certainly his dad in my view.

Legally, we don't have that approved yet.

But can I ask one other question. This came up when you were gone, Glenn.

And I've been meaning to ask you about this, every second.

Since we talked about this story.

GLENN: I've never had sex with Hunter Biden.

STU: Oh, okay. You cleared it up.

No. This is the story that came out. And I was -- Pat and I talked about it last week.

And we both said on the air. The only person that we know, that can possibly answer this question is Glenn Beck.

The story is from the New York Times. And it's painted as this like, sob story about how we're so mean to Hunter Biden.


That's the tone of the story.

The headline is Hunter Biden's paintings, not quite the refuge he sought. The president's son started selling his artwork years ago. Drawing potential ethics concerns that were discussed in congressional testimony this year.

And it goes through a very long, you know, feature about his credible painting.

But it gets into details on the finances that I've never seen. Before.

And if you remember, they were talking about these paintings going for $500,000 a pop.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: In testimony, it came out. They found that actually, the most money he made was 85,000 for any of these paintings.

Okay. Which they -- they -- they hilariously say, is not common for a novice painter.


It's not common for a novice painter to make 500 or $80,000 on a painting.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But they go through the details here, right?

And they say, all in all, the gallery sold about $1.5 million worth of his art. Okay?

Just thrown in there, with no crinkled eyebrows at all from the New York Times. Is Mr. Biden's earnings proved more modest than the early hype had suggested.

He reported $130,984 in gross income from art sales, during the first two tax years, that he was represented by the gallery.

Then they go on, as if it's nothing. But is this the normal arrangement?

$1.5 million in art sales. Only nets 130,000 to the artist.

He's getting eight percent of the sales. Is that even possible?

GLENN: No. No. No. No.

If you are -- if you are bringing something to the table, which he is. He's bringing fame. He's bringing -- people will come to the art show, just to see him.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You can negotiate for a better rate.

Because I was a new artist. I negotiated with my gallery. 50 percent.

They take 50. I take 50.

Because they're doing work. I'm doing work.


And if you're a new artist, you would do that.

He's a new artist, and this guy is bringing a lot to the table. Hunter is. He's bringing not only the art.

But he's bringing I'm the president's son and I'm in the newspaper. All the time.

So people are coming into this guy's gallery.

However, you know, it might be shady. You know, you -- you're -- I don't -- you know, I don't know. If this was somebody who knew Hunter Biden, who he did. And knew that he was on the up and up.

And everything else. He should not get 8 percent. It would be more likely that he would get hmm.

45, 55 percent.

STU: Yeah. Like I can see, you getting a really good deal with the gallery. Because you also are bringing like some level of notoriety.

Right? And he would have a similar deal. But even if he got half of what you got, it would be much, much more than -- than what's reported here in the New York Times.

GLENN: 8 percent. No. That's ridiculous.

That's ridiculous.

STU: Ridiculous.

GLENN: 8 percent is ridiculous.

He obviously -- if that's the real deal. He obviously made it while smoking crack.
That's -- I mean, honestly, that's ridiculous.

Media Sympathizes With HAMAS After Israel Frees Hostages?!

Media Sympathizes With HAMAS After Israel Frees Hostages?!

Israel has freed 4 hostages after 245 days of captivity in Gaza. But despite this, many reports in the media are sympathizing with Hamas at least as much as with the hostages! This is something Glenn and Stu have never seen before. Instead of focusing on the hostages, the reports focus on the damage Israel is doing to Gaza (according to Hamas and other Gaza groups). And some have even complained that Israel didn’t WARN Hamas before the raid! Glenn asks how media outlets can continue to take these stances, even with reports that Hamas is using some of these hostages as slaves!


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Wow. The hostages at least four of them, the hostages have been rescued from two different locations during an operation that happened Saturday, during the day.

The medical condition is -- is normal. I guess.

Hamas-run ministry of health in Gaza, said at least $274 Palestinians were killed, and more than 400 injured in the operation.

Gaza Ministry doesn't differentiate between fighters and civilians. So, yeah. Spokesperson for the military, put the figure fewer than 100.

You know, what I really liked is the fact that the -- all the reports start coming out about how bad it was for Hamas.

Dozens of injured people are lying on the ground. And medical teams are trying to save them. With the simple medical capabilities that they have.

Said the Gaza health ministry.

You know what he should have done? He shouldn't have built the headquarters for Hamas underneath your hospital.

You know, might have worked out a little better for you and your people, you know.

STU: Do you think, Glenn? Is there -- and this is not -- I've never been in this situation, so I don't know. Is there a path to avoid bombings, that include not taking hostages?

Is there something about taking the hostages that leads to this -- these --

GLENN: No. Those are totally separated.

STU: Totally separate.

GLENN: Totally. You're talking apples and eggs.

STU: Apples and eggs. Okay.

Yeah. I just wanted to make sure.

Because at some level, it almost feels like, when you take hostages and you torture them. And you keep them against their will. And do all these horrible things. That might actually be the reason why the -- the -- the Israelis would come in. I don't know if it's tied.

GLENN: No. Apples and eggs. And I say that, because oranges like apples, come from a tree. And then you can trace their roots down.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But you can't compare that to something that comes right out of the butt of a chicken. And I think that's what this is.

Is -- these guys. You know, the other thing is. You don't want civilians hurt, that don't keep your hostages at civilian homes.

STU: At all.

GLENN: You want us to believe that all the Gazans are also oppressed. And they just don't like Hamas.

Then why are you hold them in people's houses?

By the way, in one case, enslaving them. I think it was a doctor.

And gosh darn it, he was killed.

But he took -- he took one woman, and enslaved her at his house.

Made her -- forced her to take care of the house, and everything else.

Which is a better fate than honestly, what I think a lot of them would get. But I'm not giving them credit for this.

I am now giving them credit to add slavery to the list.

However, he was killed.

She -- she apparently was in the house. The IDF broke through the door. She thought it was Hamas. She freaked out. Just froze.

And they said, we're with the IDF. She didn't believe them. Then one of them came up to her and said, ma'am, we have to get you out of here.

May I throw you over my shoulder? And she started crying because she knew, that's not Hamas. And he threw her over the shoulder, and got her out. And yet, they're the bad guys somehow or another.

I don't get that.

I really liked the comment that I saw on the news, that Israel should have given Hamas some warning, that they were coming in.


Yeah. Me too. Me too. Me too.

STU: Those worked out well. The element of surprise. When you tell people about it. Is always a good part of it.

GLENN: Yeah. I thought it was unfair, on D-Day. Hitler slept through it.

We didn't call him up. And say, hey. This a couple of hours, we're come up, you might want to prepare. We didn't give him any notice. You know.

STU: Yeah. And it's weird. Just because we have many, many reports and such, about how -- what Hamas' directive is -- when -- if someone comes from the IDF. Or Israel should come for the hostages.

Shoot the hostages in the head.

It will be interesting why we wouldn't give them a heads up. Like, hey, we need to get these people shot before we get there. Or you're not going to be living up to your bargain with Hamas.

They're letting Hamas down!

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

And you know what also is interesting?

Is, you know, we didn't give the heads up on D-Day. And nobody says that's wrong.

But then we did give the Japanese ten days of notice, about the bomb.

And named the cities, that we were going to drop it in.

And we still get blamed for that one.

I'm trying to understand.

It seems like, it doesn't matter what you do.

STU: Again, just like the whole thing we were talking about earlier. I don't have any internal knowledge here. But it almost seems like. Seems like, when Americans -- when Jews are involved, that side always gets blamed, no matter what the circumstances are! It can't possibly be that simple.

GLENN: Yeah. Especially the Jews. When the Jews are involved. By the way, any of us the Czech Republic. And do you remember the documentary I did on Kurt Garren, the movie actor from Germany who was Jewish.

He thought he was going to survive it. But he would been making fun of Hitler and the Nazis for like five years before they came to power. No. Not really.

And he was forced to make this propaganda film, at this concentration camp, that they had in this city, and it looked fantastic. I mean, everybody who was anybody in the Jewish -- you know, the scholars, the scientists, the -- you know, orchestral players, et cetera, et cetera.

All the people that the German people might know, they were all set to this one city in Czechoslovakia. It happened to be, I didn't know it when it went. It's right outside of Prague.

And it is terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.

It's a city. It's not like a concentration camp. It's like this beautiful, little city. But if what you know they used it for. You're like, oh, my gosh. This is creepy. And people still live there.

They moved in afterwards. And it's almost, you would like it, Stu. Because you and I are fascinated by things like Chernobyl. That have this horrible history. And then they're just vacated for a long time. People just started living back in this city. And it's really -- really weird.

But one thing I noticed. Is that we're doing a lot of the same things that they're doing back then.

Which is, you know, a little bit disturbing.

STU: Disconcerting.

GLENN: Yeah. A little bit. By the way, so we apparently provided support, for the raid.

Do you believe that?

STU: Normally, I would say --


STU: Yeah. That's like our main -- like that would be the thing.

Especially considering Americans were at stake. American lives are at stake, with the hostage lives as well.

You would think, it would be the main focus of our country right now. To make sure we get our hostages back.

I don't know. Now. It's so strange. I don't understand. Biden seems to be very, very back and forth on this.

Where he will sometimes say things that I think are actually pretty good. And then completely reverse himself, as soon as Ilhan Omar says something. Because I don't believe necessarily that we helped. But also, I don't know why we communicated that to the media, as well. If we didn't help. It doesn't seem to be the message that Biden wants to send.

GLENN: Here's the bigger thing.

Would Israel take our help, for something like this?

One leak, and it would have been all over. One leak.

STU: Yeah. Would you trust?

GLENN: You're going to bring the United States military and Intel into that world, and trust them to keep their mouths quiet?

No way. I don't believe it. I think Israel said that.

You know, to -- you know, kind of keep up the pretense that we're all in this together. But I would be shocked, if it was the administration that said, yeah.

Let's do this together. And let's keep it quiet. And it kept quiet.

STU: It's possible, we gave some guidance as to where they thought they were. Maybe some surveillance that supported the operation.

But you're right. I think as far as telling them, when it was going to happen. I mean, just think of every schlocky intern that works for the Biden administration.

But there's so many of these advisers that are so anti-Israel.

Even if you believe Biden is an old-school Democrat, and has some friendliness to Israel still.
Even if you buy that. You buy that he's Chuck Schumer, 1997. If you want to believe that, or Joe Biden 1997. He's changed so many times.

But like, if you believe that, maybe you would think, he would still be in favor of this.

But you can't trust any of the people around him. I mean, they're -- they're all like 28-year-old bloggers.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. And the Intel agency, which is hand in hand now, with the State Department. And none of those people want to do anything for Israel.

I just -- I would find it -- I would find it irresponsible, on Israel's part, to include anyone in the Biden administration.

Into their plans. Other than, hey. Would you help us do some surveillance -- you know, satellite surveillance.

Sure. When? Well, we just started the operation about 15 minutes ago. And here's what we would like to you surveil. You know what I mean?

Because that's the way some countries will do that with their allies. We start a war. We'll start something, and we'll call them up, just as we're launching the war, so there's nothing they can do to stop it or hurt it.

STU: Yeah, and, of course, that would be certainly a main concern of Israel.

I will say, Glenn. Have you ever seen another example. I couldn't come up with one off the top of my head.

But another example in history, where you have an operation. A wartime operation, to free hostages, that the -- the side that freed the hostages, is the one getting criticism.

I can't -- I can't think of another example.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Ever. Like you mentioned the camps.

Like, you know, we killed a lot of innocent Germans in our effort to see free the camps.

Right? Like, a lot of them.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Maybe more than we actually freed. That was never -- that's something we make movies about, to honor the memory of those efforts.

You didn't criticize the army that's going in there freeing the hostages. Immediately after this, there were like four hostages freed. But the Gazans said 200 people were killed.

Like we're supposed to compare those numbers and say, oh, well, 200 was more than four.

So the Gazans said it, so we believe it.

GLENN: And even if it is true. Even if it is true.

By the way, you were keeping those four in the homes of regular people.

You're the one putting them in danger! You're the ones that built the -- the -- the infrastructure underneath the hospital.

You did it, because you like human shields.
That's why there's -- that's why they're there. So any of that stuff is just garbage.

Alex Jones & Glenn Beck WARN: Trump is the Next Lawfare Target

Alex Jones & Glenn Beck WARN: Trump is the Next Lawfare Target

In a surprise move, Alex Jones has agreed to liquidate his ownership of Infowars. He joins as a guest on the Glenn Beck Program for the first time to explain why: Just a few days ago, according to Alex, the chief restructuring officer overseeing Infowars after his $1.5 billion Sandy Hook case “got so desperate” that he tried to go around the court and seize Infowars. But this is just the latest stage in a massive series of lawfare attacks against him, Glenn and Alex believe, which also included an attempt to get Alex to “sell out” and let a board control Infowars. So, why are they trying to destroy him? Glenn argues that Alex was the guinea pig for the Left’s lawfare machine that it’s now turning against former president Donald Trump...and then, against the American people. So, what’s next for Infowars? Why did they try to silence him NOW? And is the Left now beta-testing a new kind of attack that’s “outside the law?”


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: This weekend, I read that Alex Jones is having to divest himself of Infowars, released his share in it.

I don't know what that exactly means. He also said that the feds were going to seize it, if he didn't do something.

I read that yesterday.

We wanted to have Alex Jones on.

We have a podcast planned in September. So I want to kind of keep this narrow here, on what's going on, with him. Because I think this is -- I think this is -- he was the guy, the left tried law fare out on.

You know, the -- the early days of boycott, Sharyl Attkisson said, that trying to get somebody off a network and mainstream media. They tried to perfect that on me.

I was their -- their first real to guinea pig.

I think Alex Jones was the first guinea pig in lawfare. And it's exactly the same thing that's happening to Donald Trump now.

This is -- this is the way they're going to fight in the future.

And if anybody thinks.

You know, whatever you think of Alex Jones. What he said. He's apologized for.

And he said, he shouldn't do it. Their damages. I don't know.

But certainly, not 1.5 billion. What is Dr. Evil.

Was he in the jury box.

What the hell was that?

$1.5 billion. We talk to Alex Jones.

So, Alex. What -- what is going to happen now?

Because I read you are going to sale your assets. But if you sell. There's nothing left.

And, you know, who is going to -- honestly, Infowars without you, is nothing.

You are the asset of Infowars. So what -- what do you have -- are they forcing you to sell all of this stuff?

ALEX: Yes. And thanks for letting me give you the backstory so it makes sense.

So I told you exactly what is happening. Okay. I'm an LLC sole proprietorship. And so I own 100 percent of the shares of the company. That's why under law, the CRO cannot just shut this place down.

That's illegal. And so that's what my lawyers have told them. So I agree to pay 55 million over ten years. Which is protected. What extra revenue there would be. They said, no.

We want a board. We want to control what he says.

This is in meetings he had. But I couldn't talk about it, until outside of me, they now told my lawyers, a few weeks ago.

Right to their faces. My lawyers said, you can talk about it now. We can't believe it. They want you to start by talking about the Second Amendment.

They wanted me to he sell out.

So they told lawyers. They told Reuters, the most accurate story out there.

Some of it is wrong. It's still pretty much true.

The headline is: Sandy Hook families agree to Alex Jones' bankruptcy liquidation. Well, they had already filed for that.

And then in the article, they say, while liquidation will yield only a fraction of the money he owes the families. They have objected to his proposal, because it would have kept him in control of both Infowars and his wealth for years.

While also tapping the total amount to be paid towards the defamation claim. So they refused. And it goes on, that they wanted to have a board control this place. That they appointed, where I would work with them.

And, of course, if I would play ball. Then, of course, I can make money.

So my operation has been taken over. For whatever reason, they decided to try to shut it down eight days ago, outside of court. Which is totally insane. Because they feel like, well, this guy is a target. And we can do what we want.

And now they're so panicked to get me off the air, for whatever is coming for the rest of the country. So that's what's happening. So what's going to go down is, the judge will either give it back to me on Friday.

And it will just come to the state and shut it down, in a week or quicker. Because Austin is as bad as New York or DC. One of the worst in the country. I'm going to move out of here. Even though my family is from here.

GLENN: Austin is awful.

ALEX: It is. It is. It's all woke. Soros controls the DA on record --

GLENN: Yeah, it's awful.

ALEX: It's totally controlled.

So Infowars will --

GLENN: So hold on. Hold on just a second. I'm sorry to do this to you, Alex. I have to take another network break. Back with Alex Jones to see where he's headed they can say. What his options are.

And where the country is headed. Because of all of this.

Make no mistake. What they did to Trump, they first tried on Alex Jones.

And they will do anything to silence anyone that has impact.

For the first time, I've asked Alex Jones to come on the program.

I know Stu heard inklings of this last week, and did probably about 20 minutes of tremendous defense of -- of you, Alex. On this whole case.

Being just nothing, but -- just a show trial. That's all it is.

What they did to Donald Trump. They first tried out on you. And they're still going for it.

So I don't understand how a judge could suggest that we violate your First Amendment right, by forcing you to not talk about the Second Amendment. I don't know how that's even possible.

But is this something that they suggested, will stop demanding the billion dollars, billion and a half dollars, if you let us control what you say and don't say?

ALEX: Yes. Before I got sued, now six years ago, I was in DC for meetings. And I had meetings with some of the Bilderberg members. Some major billionaires. I'm sure you got reached out to by as well, when you were exposing Soros and trailblazing on Fox, before they targeted you. And they literally would beat around the bush. And say, well, this major billionaire, richest man at the world around the time, he wants to give you $50 million a year for a free speech foundation. And you can still do your show, if you just talk to us about, you know, cleaning up what you do. And so it was all thinly veiled payoffs.

And then when I wouldn't do it, that's when they cooked all this up. And the project veritas spin-off group. FBI. CIA agents all admitted, bragging how they engineered all this.

And then, again, even in the Sandy Hook show trial case, they got the FBI agent up, won $95 million from me. I never said his name. Didn't knew who he was, until he sued me.

And he said, the reason he was suing, was one person called him office, that was real one time. But he admitted that he basically helped organize, organize all of this. So as we said before on the break. This is all about targeting the American people.

But even in Connecticut and Texas. This is all on TV. This is all on the record.

The lawyers for the case, this all worked for high-powered Democratic law firms. The same ones suing you on Musk right now.

They went on TV at press conferences when they won. Because the judge already said they won.

But definitely on our show trial.

Never sent Alex Jones money. Don't buy his products. We don't want money. We want to shut him down.

And so they make good on this. The judge is appointed by Trump.

He's just following the law. They won't settle.

So they have this judgment.

And so he said, he was just kicking back in the state court.

Which they'll just instantly grab on operations. Or they have to settle. And they just admitted in the newspapers, they don't want money.

He's a bad person. We want him off-air. They're so arrogant. Just like what we see with AOC, and a bunch of other Democrats last month. Say, we have to keep Trump in court, so he can't campaign.

And said, it's an ankle bracelet. So they're so pained. But also a mix of hubris at the same time. They're admitting what they're doing.

That's what -- what -- is so crazy.

STU: But, Alex, they can't -- I mean, maybe they can.

They can't hold a judgment, that you have no way to ever pay. Nobody -- no individual -- you know, unless you're Bill Gates.

Is paying $1.5 billion in a judgment.

Especially this one.

And I contend. No matter what, Bill Gates could have been on pedophile island, on TV. Doing whatever he was doing.

And he still wouldn't have to pay 1.5 billion, for that.

And I'm obviously not saying he was doing anything on pedophile island.

I'm just making that as an example.

Anyway, so they can't keep -- they can't force you to not make any money at what you do for a living. Can they? For the rest of your life?

JULIO: No, you're totally right. They're showing they don't want money.

But let me just explain this quickly. One week after they won the fake show trial, where the judge already said I was guilty. She issued an order, to seize all my assets. Even stuff under the Texas Constitution on my house. That was protected. And immediately ordered me to, quote, bring all my property and my keys to Connecticut or face imprisonment. That's why I had to file bankruptcy, hoping the federal courts would be better. So the last two years, I've been battling there. Then they got so desperate eight, nine days ago. Two Fridays ago, to literally have the federally appointed COO close the and building kick me out. So that's the level of this.

And that's why I go back to this, Glenn. This is totally desperate. You're absolutely right. They beta tested getting people off networks with you. They bragged about it.

They made a test against the law fare against me for Trump. Now they're beta testing, just grabbing stuff outside of law. That's -- this is just -- it's probably said a thousand times.

They're not trying to get me. They're trying to get through me, to get to you.

And that's why -- I'm a canary in the coal mine. They take me in the big audience. I'm also flamboyant. I've been on here thirty years, and you can dredge up some stuff and make me look nuts.

Because I have said I wasn't joking around or whatever, being a jerk. That I'm a different guy.

That's taught me a lot. Before this, I was already cleaning up my act. But now, I'm like a totally different gray-haired attitude, who just tries to do a professional show.

And these people are so wild-eyed they don't care. So I appreciate you standing up for the first Amendment. I don't know where I'll be. I haven't entertained other jobs.

I've tried to save this. I feel like I have a family member that's on death's bed. People can find me @RealAlexJones on X.

And, you know, they've said they will hunt me down, and try to shut me down. No matter where I go.

But the law is very clear in Texas, and federally.

I will be able to work for somebody in the future. Glenn, with this billion and a half dollar fake judgment, I won't be able to ever own the company, which is fine with me.

But here's the larger issue. We still have appeals at the state of Texas and Connecticut. And even part of the judge's ruling, taking the law license of my lawyer, who did a good job, as a criminal lawyer. The Supreme Court of appeals, overturned, her -- her suspension of his law license.

So people are starting to wake up. Mark Twain said a lie goes halfway around the world, before the truth puts its pants on.

But once the truth puts its pants on, it tends to win, and catch up. So people are getting this danger now. And if we can just get Trump in, if we can just not let them stage a race war and all this stuff, that they're trying to cook up.

And conservatives. You just pray, and be focused and be vocal. And just move forward and stay non-violent in the face of a mostly peaceful summer. That we know is coming. We're going to take this country back if we have to.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. It's already happening in Europe.

Alex, one thing. I want you to look -- have your lawyer look into a case. Disney against digital -- not Digital Angel. It was. It became Angel Studios. What was that thing called Stu?

STU: VidAngel.

GLENN: Look for a court case against VidAngel and Disney. They said that they were going after VidAngel over copyright, but they weren't.

They were going after them. It was a personal vendetta. A lot like this. Disney was going to put these people out of business, forever.

And the court appointed a restructuring. Because Disney won.

And the guy who came in said, one of you is lying.

Either Disney is lying. And they just want to put you out of business. And they just want total control.

Or you're lying. But when I find out which one it is. I'm going back to the judge.

And the judge ruled against Disney, and changed everything. Okay?

You -- you could prove.

Just look at that case.

Because I think if you have somebody who is intent as you're restructuring. Their job is to not put you out of business.

Their job is to restructure and get their clients, or their people they're supposed to be working for, money.

If this -- if their intent is to shut you up. I bet you, the Disney versus VidAngel court case, may help you.

ALEX: That's why I love listening to your show. And that's why I love being here. Because, Glenn, I would have never thought of that. One of my lawyers did -- did basically file something a year and a half ago to the judge.

Saying, look, here's the video. Here's the links where they say they don't want money. They're here to shut him down.

And then the judge said, I'll hear that later. But I think it's time to add Disney versus VidAngel with that. We have them saying. We have like 20 minutes of them saying in the courthouse, in front of a huge --

GLENN: They can't do that.

ALEX: Saying, this is not about money. We want him off the air. Boom. There you go. That's genius. Thank you so much, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you, Alex. And we will sit down for a longer conversation. When I get back to Texas in September. So I appreciate it.

Thank you so much. God bless.

ALEX: Thank you so much, Glenn. God bless you.

GLENN: By the way, I would -- look, I stood for Bill Maher, when he was fired in ABC, and what I said at the time was, what part of politically incorrect ABC do you not understand?

They fired him because he said something politically incorrect. I took a lot of heat.

It was new in my career, and people didn't trust me as a conservative then.

And I started sticking up for Bill Maher.

And I took a lot of heat. But it was right, because it was about the First Amendment.

I did the same thing for Roseanne Barr. I did the same thing for, what was his name? James Gunn. The guy who was the writer/director of Guardians of the Galaxy. You cannot only stand up for the people you agree with.

You must stand up for those people you disagree with.

Otherwise, the First Amendment, second. All of the amendments, mean nothing.

I -- I don't care what you think of Alex Jones. And I say this to every conservative outlet.

You should stand by the case of Alex Jones.

To make sure this injustice. Because this is law fare. And if you think they won't do it to you.

You are sadly mistaken. And unless, each one of us, at each of our own locations, stand up, and say, this is an injustice!

This is wrong. They'll put each one of us out of business. And silence us.

And it will happen faster than you can imagine.

I challenge every podcaster. Every radio broadcaster.

To stand up and defend the right for a man to be able to speak.

"All the Players Are In Place": Max Lucado On End Times Prophecies

"All the Players Are In Place": Max Lucado On End Times Prophecies

"All the players are in place" for the final End Times prophecies to be fulfilled, pastor Max Lucado tells Glenn on The Glenn Beck Podcast. Israel is a state again, the world is turning against it, and technology is more advanced than it has ever been. So, we must start looking at the world stage through a spiritual lens, not just a political one: "Something is happening here that has never happened in any generation in history."

Watch the full podcast HERE