RADIOSeptember 15, 2022

4 ways Democrats are RUINING energy & 5 ways we can save it

It’s not just that America needs more energy to run the nation NOW. But we’ll need much more if we actually want to run the technology of the FUTURE. So, it’s a good thing there’s no knowledge OR physical resource deficits to creating more, low-cost energy in thousands of places around the world, Alex Epstein, author of ‘Fossil Future,’ tells Glenn. Rather, he says, today's energy crisis is due to current political reasons instead. In fact, Epstein lists the four steps Democrats seem to be taking — especially within the Inflation Reduction Act — to ruin American energy. Thankfully, Epstein has the answer to save it. He discusses the 5 steps to his ‘energy freedom platform’ and explains how YOU can become involved to help save American energy too...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last night, I laid out a kind of bleak look for the future of energy. And I don't think most people understand. We don't need just the energy to run things now. We need more energy to run the technology of the future. And Alex Epstein is with us. He's from the Center of Industrial Progress. Founder and president. And also, the author of a book you must read, it's Fossil Fuel.

And he's come equipped with some real solutions to our energy problem, to be able to stave it off. And, really, all you need is support from the American people. Right?

ALEX: Yeah. The great thing about energy, is there's all the potential to produce low cost reliable energy for billions of people in thousands of places. There's no -- there's no physical resource deficit for doing this, and there's no knowledge deficit.

Human beings know how to produce reliable electricity. Right? We know how to produce energy on a scale of billions of people. We're just being prohibited from doing it politically. Which means that there's a political solution, if we are liberated to be able to do it.

GLENN: So we have -- I mentioned that in Colorado -- I mean, people who have these smart thermostats. I've said for a while. Don't do that.
ALEX: That's a euphemism.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. In Colorado, they had to -- they lost control of their thermostats. And I mentioned that and said, you know, if your right to touch your thermostat is only worth $25 a year to you, good luck. But people are bashing back saying, well, that's because the coal-powered plants went down. And, you know, it was an emergency at the coal-powered plants. Because coal is just not stable.

ALEX: Yeah. We're really in this Orwellian world, right? I mean, the inflation act is called the Inflation Reduction Act. Freedom is slavery. And coal is unreliable. And solar and wind are reliable. Despite the obvious.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ALEX: Yeah. What they always point to, they did this with the Texas blackouts too.

They'll point to some individual failure of some fossil fuel plant. And then say, oh, well, this inherently doesn't work.

But we know that we can produce reliable electricity with fossil fuels, because we've been doing it for generations. And we've done it in all weather conditions. You can do it when it's really cold, when it's really hot. So if you know a fossil fuel plant fails, that's just something about the specific situation. That's not the technology. Solar and wind, they do not produce electricity most of the time, and you can't rely on them, almost any time. That's the basic nature of them. And part of what happens when you see fossil fuel failures is often, they have to account for the intermittency of solar and wind. So they have to cycle up and down, or be shut down and restarted more. Much more than they would be if they were on their own.

And -- or what happens is they'll get defunded, the way the whole subsidies just expanded unfortunately. Is that they defund reliable powerplants, including things like weatherization, say, for natural gas in Texas. So we know that we can -- again, we have all the ability to produce reliable electricity at low costs. We're just not using it because of political factors.

GLENN: Okay. So go over can't five-point plan.

ALEX: So I call this the energy freedom platform. And I encourage politicians of all parties to adopt this opinion unfortunately -- I mean, unfortunately right now, Democrats are not being very good in terms of energy. They almost all supported the inflation act. I think basically all of them did.

GLENN: And, by the way, I played the audio from an activist group, that was a part of this inflation reduction bill.

And they admitted, they were talking to their own supporters. And they were like, look, it's not about inflation.

It's really a green bill. Which we all kind of knew, if you were paying attention.

It's a green bill. It's stuffed with stuff about green energy.

ALEX: Yeah. And we can talk about how -- I mean, I consider that a four-step recipe for destroying American energy basically. Because just very quickly.

So it involves increasing dependence on unreliable electricity. If you want to destroy American energy, that's a good step one. Step two is add taxes and restrictions to fossil fuels, during fossil fuel shortages. That's a good -- that's a good step two. What were the other steps? I mean, it's so bad. Oh, yeah. Increase the power of the EPA to shut down fossil fuel projects. We need more of that, obviously. And then increase the power of environmental justice activists to stop all energy development.

GLENN: And you've just done that the lie the DOJ now.

ALEX: Yeah. They have this four-step thing, which if you're trying to destroy American energy, it's hard to think of a better plan. So let's talk about how to improve American energy, with the Energy Freedom Platform. So I'll give the five, and then we can go into depth in any of one of them.

Okay? So number one is liberate responsible development. Number two is end preferences for unreliable electricity. Number three is reform air and water emission standards to incorporate cost-benefit analysis. This is a really important one for EPA stuff. Number four is liberate -- is rather, reduce emissions long-term, through innovation, not through punishing America.

Through liberating innovation, not through punishing America.

And then number five, which I know you will be sympathetic to, is decriminalize nuclear energy. So we can talk about any of those, but they're all crucial.

GLENN: Okay. Let's just take them one by one real quick.

ALEX: Okay.

GLENN: First one.

ALEX: So liberate responsible development. Energy inherently involves developing the world around us. And yet we have an anti-development movement that is setting energy policy, and running many of these agencies. So there's opposition to development even in the investment world. But in particular, just all these antidevelopment policies that are restricting fossil fuel development, nuclear development, et cetera.

GLENN: So ESG is a good example. Well, ESG is a kind of quasi political. But if you just look at how difficult it is, if you take nuclear. Like how difficult it is to start a nuclear plant.

You know, you say, four years.

Now it takes 16 years. Part of that is you have these antidevelopment so-called green activists that can stop things on a dime. So you really need policies that are pro development. And they're responsible development, if they try to stop endangerment. So you don't want to endanger local people, or endanger some national treasure. But you can't have the idea that it's wrong to develop nature.

And that terrible anti-human idea is at the root of so many of our laws and policies.

So when I go into the details, if people go to EnergyTalkingPoints.com, you'll see there's a lot of specific policies that need to be reformed, that are antidevelopment right now.
GLENN: Okay. All right. Number two.

ALEX: So is end -- end preferences for unreliable electricity.

And on that website, there's something called electricity emergency, which goes into the details.

But basically, right now, we do three things. We have mandates for unreliable electricity. We prefer them in that way. Many states have those. Like my state of California, unfortunately has those.

We have subsidies, which we just expanded under the Inflation Act.

Right? So we did that. And then the most insidious that people don't know, is that we have very unfair pricing. Because there's no cost penalty for selling unreliable electricity into the grid. Now, you think about that. Imagine you have a car company, and you got to charge the same for a car that works a third of the time. And a car that works all the time. That's how the grid works. You get the same alternate for selling unreliable electricity. Reliable electricity. And actually, you get more. Because all the subsidies, that we just extended. So you actually get paid a premium for selling something that is not nearly as valuable. And sometimes unreliable electricity is of negative value. Sometimes if you have too much electricity, you need to off-load it. So this is -- if you pay a premium for you be reliable electricity. Guess what, you get unreliable electricity.

GLENN: Okay. Number three.

ALEX: So this had to do with the air and water emissions standards. So right now, let's look at what the EPA is doing. We have in that article, electricity emergency.

I talk about, there's slated to be 93 gigawatts of coal shutting down, in terms of already announced things. That's almost one-tenth of a reliable capacity.

One-tenth. This is by 2030.

But there's also the threat of 92 more.

So almost a fifth of our reliable capacity. There's a reliability bloodbath that's scheduling to happen. The lion's share of this comes from EPA policies.

So it's EPA deliberately trying to do things that will shut down these coal plants, even though as you've talked about, there's no viable replacement in the pipeline. We have almost no nuclear scheduled. Not nearly enough gas.

So how does the EPA justify this? Well, one thing is they don't use real cost-benefit analysis when they're making decisions. So they'll say, hey, wouldn't it be great to have lower emissions? But they don't think about, what is the cost of that, in terms of what is the cost to human life of an unreliable grid. They're almost incalculable. So the EPA is making these decisions, and they're not giving any consideration to the reliability of the great. So that's an example of you need real cost-benefit analysis.

GLENN: These people -- are there any honest people on this side? I mean, I don't understand how an honest person can look at it and not say, yeah, but this will make things more unreliable. And people will either die from heat stroke, or they will either die freezing in the winter. You know, you can't just have an unreliable grid like this? Is there anybody on the other side that is asking these questions that's honest?

ALEX: I think one. I mean, there are some people who are really anti-energy. So essentially, they're honest. They hide it from the public. They want less power. They want to industrialize. That kind of thing. I think one of the challenges is. I talk about this in chapter one, of Fossil Future. We rely on what I call a knowledge system to give us expert knowledge and guidance on all these specialized areas. And what you have is multiple of these specializations are failing, at the same time. But each specialization thinks the other is doing its job. So, for instance, the electricity people have been hiding the electricity emergency.

They're not acknowledging. Many of the companies have not been acknowledging. You talk behind the scenes, yeah. This is a disaster. But publicly, they won't say anything. The regulators are kind of silent. And so the public thinks, oh, there's not that big a threat. And then the EPA people, they'll distort the science about the side effects of coal.

But they'll kind of think, oh, yeah. We don't have to worry about reliability. Because the isn't saying that.

There's dishonesty kind of everywhere.

But one reinforces the other. I mean, we've got a world, that thought legitimately, you could rapidly eliminate fossil fuels by 2050, and it would work well. This was the mainstream view.

And part of it was there were all these false views, that are being combined. And people have this idea. Well, most people -- the experts, so-called.

The people that were told they're experts. They can't be that wrong. But they can be that wrong in part because what we're told the experts think is usually a massive distortion of what actually the researchers in a field think.

GLENN: Yes. That's happening with global warming, all the time.

ALEX: Oh, yeah. Of course. It's the idea that the world is going to end, if it gets one or 2 degrees warmer on a planet where far more people die of cold than of heat.

The researchers don't think that, but that gets distorted by what I call our knowledge system to make it. Oh, it's an apocalypse. And you have to take a crash emergency action and destroy all your energy. And then the planet will be nice to you. And then life will be great.

GLENN: Give me the fourth one.
ALEX: So the fourth one is --

GLENN: Reduce.

ALEX: Reduce emissions long-term. It's very important. It has to be long-term. Because there's no short-term producing of emissions. That's a pipe dream. So it's reduce CO2 emissions long-term, by liberating innovation, not punishing America.

GLENN: When did we lose that in America?

ALEX: Lose which one?

GLENN: The idea that we innovate our way out of problems? Instead, we're just -- we're just dismantling everything. Instead of saying, you know, hey, we've got -- we've got a food storage problem. And somebody comes up with the refrigerator, you know what I mean? We are already seeing technology, that is -- we have reduced greenhouse gases. Better than anybody else.

And a lot of it is because of new technology.

But we just dismiss that.

ALEX: I just there are a couple of things going on. So one of this is there's this idea that CO2 emissions are an emergency. And when you think of something as an emergency, you need to get rid of it immediately.

And if that's your view. The only thing you can do is just massively destroy human life.

I mean, that's the only way you can do it.

To reduce emissions now, in a world where fossil fuels are 80 percent of the world's energy. In a world that needs vastly more energy, 3 billion people using less electricity per person than one of our refrigerators.

Like, the world is going to be using more fossil fuels for a while. So if you think of it as an emergency, the world is going to end, then you are going to do these crash problems and accept these terrible consequences. Which we're just beginning to see. Because we've only reduced fossil fuels a little bit, compared to what has been asked for, in World Economic Forum, and all these other people. So one is this emergency mindset is really bad.

And it's not justified. We're safer than ever from climate. CO2 emissions have a warming impact and a greening impact. It's not a catastrophic impact. If you want to lower emissions. You have to think of it as a long-term thing. That's the only moral way, and it's the only practical way. China and India will not lower their emissions until there's a cost-effective alternative. Now, the greens say they want cost-effective alternatives. They say they want solar and wind. But notice that their approach is to first restrict fossil fuels. I know you've talked about, and then promise a replacement. That's not how markets work. That's not how freedom works.

GLENN: Right. That's not how anything of common sense works. You don't say, I know all the machines in the hospital are keeping your husband alive, but we're going to try something that's never been done before. So we'll turn off all of those machines. And then hope that something works. That's -- that's insane.

ALEX: But that has been the policy. Part of it has been disguised. They said, to take your analogy. They've said the equivalent of, hey, we have this amazing new machine. We're developing green machines. Right?

But what they didn't say, is their main policy is shutting down the machines that worked. Like, what did Biden do first? Shuts down the Keystone XL Pipeline. Bans leasing on federal lands. He didn't come up with some new energy innovation and prove it.

He shut down, what was -- what was working. And that's the huge prison. And so the approach has to be, you liberate innovation, so you get things like cost-effective nuclear.

But you don't dictate inferior alternatives, and call that innovation. Unfortunately, that's what passes for innovation today. That's what the whole inflation act is about. It's about mandating or coercing us to do these things that don't work.

GLENN: All right. Back in just a second. Now, this is five-step platform. However, we need your help on this.

And it's a -- it's a real thing, that could make the -- a significant difference, and turn things around for us. We'll give it to you, in just a few minutes.

Inflation. Hyperinflation. Recession. Depression. The Great Reset.

Man, if I read one more story out of Europe talking about, well, there's a possibility of nuclear war. The world has gone insane. Finding some security, and a safe place to hide. Look, wherever you are is where you're supposed to be. And you just have to figure out, how to navigate and protect your family the best way you can. In case of a catastrophic, oh, I don't know. Energy crisis. My Patriot Supply is taking $250 off their three-month emergency food kit. Do you know what the price of groceries and the shortage of groceries would have been like, if we -- if we hadn't had saint Biden step to the plate and avert this tragedy of the Amtrak strike?

You -- you might need emergency food, in situations, that you cannot see coming. Please, go to preparewithGlenn.com. Grab your three-month emergency food kit for $250 off the regular price. $250 off today by going to preparewithGlenn.com. PreparewithGlenn.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So you are working with like 100 different legislative offices, correct?

ALEX: Yeah. To various degrees. So two years ago, I was very frustrated by -- I was having success with the public. And I was success with the corporate world. But the political world was just totally ignorant of the kind of pro-human, pro-freedom energy, thinking I had been developing.

And I figured out, like the thing I could do, was I needed to figure out how to give them messaging and policy, in a way that was useful for them.

So I started this website, EnergyTalkingPoints.com. Like, everything on that, can be fit in a tweet. So it's really efficient ways of explaining pro-freedom views.

So if you go there, there's probably thousands of individual talking points, all really well referenced.

And then I found that I got demand for people to get custom help.

So I created something called Energy Talking Points on Demand, where I would have biweekly briefings. And it's just with high-level offices. So it's congressional offices, U.S. Senate offices, and governor's offices.

And so we have about 300 staffers, that are part of it, over 100 offices, and increasing the meetings with the elected officials themselves. I spoke to a group of 20 last time I was in DC. I'm going to DC next week. And what I found there was a real appetite for this. Because many of these offices want to be pro-energy and pro-freedom. But they didn't have the messaging to explain -- to refute all the myths. And also clarity on what to do, going forward.

And that's why I developed the energy freedom platform. Was the clarity on what to do going forward. So what I've been encouraging them to do is, hey, this is a blueprint. You can win on these issues. And you can do something really good. So say Republicans.

Not politically -- not political, really. But let's say Republicans right now, are much more pro-energy. If you guys take over Congress, you need to advocate something positive.

You can't just -- once you take over, you can't just react to negatives.

There's a lot of reacting to negatives, and not a clear having positives. So I would ask your listeners, if they like this, it's really, really simple. Just call your office. Call your office -- oh, are you going to say something?

GLENN: I have got about 20 seconds before we break.

ALEX: Oh, sorry. Just say. Talk to Alex Epstein. Give them my email. Alex@AlexEpstein.com. Just tell the office to email me, and I will set up a call with them, and I'll tell them all about how to use the energy freedom platform.

Why Trump SHOULD Dismantle USAID

President Trump has faced major backlash from the Left and media over his plan to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), or at least merge parts of it with the State Department. But Glenn explains why Trump SHOULD either dismantle USAID entirely or let Secretary of State Marco Rubio clean house. This isn’t a “humanitarian aid” organization, Glenn explains. USAID is a CIA front and the reason why the rest of the world hates us. It has been used to influence regime change and force nations to embrace things like transgenderism and abortion. But if Elon Musk, DOGE, Trump, and Rubio succeed in reforming it or dismantling it, the America people are in for a good surprise!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Let me tell you about what happened this weekend with DOGE.

This is something that was tucked beneath the political squabbles, and the Grammy night celebrity nonsense.

It is a story far more important than any of our daily distractions. And it makes me, oh, so very happy.

And you'll understand why, in a minute.

This story pulls the curtain back, on who really holds the reins of power in our country. I want to connect a few dots with you, here in the next 40 minutes, or so. We will talk about USAID.
We are going to talk about Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and DOGE.

The Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE and the Trump team are battling it out with USAID. Okay? We cannot let Elon Musk see our books! We are not giving him. Really?

You run an aid program. What's so top secret that you can't let him see it?

This is about control, control over the flow of information, over government secrecy.

And, yes, control over your tax dollars.

So here's the story in a nutshell. In case you didn't know, USAID, the US agency for the International Development, had its Director of Security, Jonathan Voorhees and his deputy, Brian McGill, placed on administrative leave.

Why? Because they refused to grant access to security systems, and systems containing sensitive personnel files, security clearance information, even classified materials, to employees of DOGE.

When Voorhees and McGill said, no, you're not allowed to see any of this. That's when the DOGE team threatened to call in the US marshals. The US marshals over a bureaucratic disagreement? No. Uh-uh.

Remember, this is about something much, much bigger. It's about who controls the machinery of the government, when it comes to foreign influence.

Covert operations. And the shadow games, our government is playing overseas.

So let's start with USAID.

On paper, it sounds great. Right?

The US agency for international development. They're the folks who help develop countries, build schools. And fight diseases.

And support democracy.

First of all, I don't want to be in that business, as a government.

But if you've been paying attention, history will tell you something else.

It's well-known that USAID has been much more than an aid operation.

Since its inception in 1961 -- by the way, can you tell me anything that happened, you know, with the government and overseas, things that was good that happened in the '50s and '60s. Maybe the Peace Corps. Maybe the Peace Corps. But I doubt it.

USAID say covert CIA operation. They do covert black ops, all around the world.

And their money just comes in, and it just -- no. This is aid. Black hole.

Now, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is historic fact. In the Cold War, USAID funded cultural organizations. And student groups.

And agricultural projects. Uh-huh.

They were covers for intelligence gathering. And they have been accused of everything from influencing elections in foreign countries, to helping overthrow governments that didn't align with our interests. Do you want any country doing that?

Don't we have a big problem with other countries influencing our elections? How dare they! Uh-huh.

Black ops. Do you remember the Colour Revolutions in Europe? Yeah. Yeah.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that every employee at USAID is a covert operative. Most, I'm sure, good, decent people trying to do their jobs.

But the agency has always had a dual identity, part humanitarian, part shadow extension of US foreign policy through the CIA.

And that's really the part that I think is interesting here.

Because every nation knows, that this is a CIA front.

Except, the American people. We don't -- we don't know that apparently.

No, no. We're good. You know, it has billions of dollars, in black covert money, flowing through it.

We just -- we just don't know it. Because those with oversight. Can't see the records. President team has just been denied access.

Wait a minute. Who works for who?

This is an aid thing. What do you have that is so very top secret.

So here comes DOGE. The department of government efficiency.

Sounds pretty harmless. Yeah. Like a bunch of accountants, trying to balance the budget. That's all we're trying to do.

But those who are running black ops, know that DOGE has two agendas. And the president has made it very clear.

Yes. Cut the waste. Downsize the government.

But it also has another very specific mission. Except, this isn't a black op.

Again, this mission is right out in the open. Where all missions should be.

They -- their mission is not only to cut the budget.

But to break up the entrenched bureaucracies, that have been running Washington like their own personal fiefdoms.

Trump's goal was to drain the swamp. And DOGE is supposed to be one of the tools that is headed by Elon Musk, to drain that swamp.

Now, I personally like it for a couple of reasons. Elon Musk is one of the world's greatest minds. I mean, when he goes into his own companies, he sits with every employee for about five minutes.

And just says, what are you working on, this week.

And if they don't have something that he feels is really moving the company forward, you're not necessary.

You're fired. Okay.

He has a knack for cutting waste, and making companies more efficient and also coming up with some really good products.

He's a disrupter.

He doesn't do things like everyone else. He doesn't think like everybody else.

That's his strength. He advertise erupts industries. He challenges the norms.

And he's been a very public mission to expose and challenge what he sees as government overreach.

Whether it's with Twitter for X. Or even the critiques of regular agencies. Now, he can come in and look at these things and go, wait a minute.

This doesn't seem to be exactly, you know, what you're supposed to be doing. This is different. This isn't about posting memes and calling out the woke mind virus.

This is about accessing the very heart of the government's covert machinery.

That's what's happening with USAID because it's not about aid programs.

It's all about data. It's all about networks.

It's all about the hidden influence, that the US experts, you know, flex all around the world.

Including perhaps inside the United States, against their own people.

But we don't know. And now for the first time in decades, somebody from the outside of traditional power structures are -- are saying, huh.

What is it that you guys do here?

And guess what? The machine doesn't like it.

The people who have been running that machine, also don't like it. I want you to remember who was in charge of USAID. Does anybody remember?

Anybody. Bueller. Anybody?

Samantha Power. Now, Samantha Power. She's the wife of Harvard professor. Obama adviser.

And author of the really super important book called Nudge.

How to get people to do what you want them to do, without them knowing. Nudge.

So the wife of that guy, who I'm sure has nothing to do with nudging or dig do go anything like that.

Even though she was with the Biden -- or the Obama administration, forever! She didn't know anything about that.

GLENN: This is why John Voorhees and Brian McGill push back.

That's why they're risking their careers to say, no. You can't come in here. Because they weren't just protecting the files!

They were protecting the status quo. They're protecting a system that has operated in the shadows for decades, with that to no accountability to the American people!

And here's where it gets even more fascinating. The employees at USAID and across the federal bureaucracy, aren't just fighting to protect sensitive information.

They are fighting to protect their power. He's getting in to the roots now.

He's opening up to -- you know how Donald Trump is kind of like a -- a human hand grenade. I've said this to his face. You know, I think you're kind of like a human hand grenade.

What do you mean? Well, you're the greatest human hand grenade I've ever seen, don't get me wrong. You just kind of throw yourself into things, and then a wall comes down.

And then as the dust is settling, everybody goes, wait a minute.

What's on the other side of that wall? That's what's happening.

Except, this time they're not just lobbing grenades in. They know where it is.

Over the years, we've created this massive administrative state. Which is a fourth branch of government that nobody votes for. Wholly unconstitutional.

No one really controls it. You noticed that the people on Capitol hill, they're afraid of the intelligence agencies.

Hmm. So who is really boss then?

They operate with a level of secrecy, that would make our Founding Fathers roll in their graves.

This many of us state has been the gatekeeper of information.

Deciding who gets to know what.

Both here, at home.

And abroad.

Does the president even know?

So when Trump and Musk come knocking, knocking, knocking, at the door.

Trying to peak behind the curtain. The reaction is swift and fierce.

Because if they succeed, they'll manage to pull USAID's operations. And put it right under direct control of the State Department. Or even worse, in the public eye! They'll be held accountable for things!

We can't have that. It will expose decades of covert actions.

Questionable alliances.

The dark side of US foreign policy.

That has been hidden under the guise of aid.

It's why the rest of the world hates us.

Think about some of the crazy things we've done in the name of foreign aid.

We funneled money to warlords in Afghanistan.

We gave money to the Taliban.

Money to Gaza to prop up Hamas.

We've run guns to the Syrian groups ISIS, propped up dictators in Latin America. Even funded opposition groups in countries, where we wanted regime change all under the banner of freedom and democracy.

Again, this is why everybody hates the American government.

Her people see our influence as good and benevolent.

And sometimes, I think we are.

Other times, America is anything but!

So in exchange for our tax dollars, we've asked countries to change their laws. To accept abortion, in places where the people are morally outraged. We promote transgenderism in their schools.

We -- we tell them, that this is the enlightened way to go.

Otherwise, they lose their aid.

We force them to open their markets to multi-national corporations that sometimes don't have their best interests at heart. And we conduct military operations on their soil. You will do it our way. And yet, you don't know anything about it.

Most Americans don't have any idea. Because it's all wrapped up in the nice shiny package of humanitarian assistance.

So here's what happens if DOGE succeeds.

What happens if Musk and Trump manage to pry open the lid to this operation?

Well, for once, the bureaucrats lose control of one of their many hiding places.

Intelligence community loses one of its more useful tools.

And the American people might finally get to see just how much of their hard-earned money has been used, not to build schools or feed the hungry, but to manipulate foreign government and maintain our empire of influence. And here's the kicker.

This isn't about just the past. It is about the future. Because if Musk and Trump can break through this wall, it sets a precedent. It says no part of the government is beyond scrutiny of our elected officials.

And that tariffs people who have been running the show.

So what do we take away?

One, pay attention.

Stories like these are not bureaucratic squabbles.

This is the battlefront.

This is the battle line, right there, that will decide who actually runs the country.

We will see more on this, and the intelligence agencies are not going to like it.

So one thing I would take away from this is don't take any news story at face value, for a while.

There are many hiding places. And those who receive and use dark money for black ops are going to fight back.

Second, ask questions.

Continue to ask questions.

Why does USAID have classified systems that other government officials can't access?

Why is there so much resistance in an aid organization to transparency.

And third, remember the people that are screaming the loudest about protecting democracy are often the ones most afraid of the people actually seeing how the sausage gets made. So this isn't about USAID, DOGE, or even Trump or Musk.

It's about whether you have the right to know what our government is doing with your money.

Stay curious, America.

We will get to the bottom of this. But we have to be willing to go through the tough times, remain determined, and vigilant.

Adam Schiff Spews INSANE HYPOCRISY in Kash Patel Confirmation Hearing

Trump's pick for FBI Director, Kash Patel, recently sat down for his Senate confirmation hearing. And like many of Trump's picks, he faced a hostile room. But Glenn reviews some of the highlights, including how Kash said that "having been the victim of government overreach and a weaponized system of justice and law enforcement" makes him uniquely qualified for the job. Glenn and Stu also address Kash's comments on Trump's January 6th pardons and Sen. Adam Schiff's painful lecture about the word "we." Plus, Glenn reveals the "point I coldn't get past with any" of the Democrats from the hearing: "I can't take it! The Democrats don't understand what just happened!"

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I only have really one thing to say today.

And that's because I threw out everything else, because it took me about two hours, to just gather my thoughts and jot them down.

Because I wanted to be searingly accurate.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So the rest of the show, we're just going to kind of wing. Because I wanted to make sure, when I give you my opinion on what's happening, it's actually very clear. What I believe.

So that's coming up in just a little while. The rest of this show. We have today -- yesterday, last night, for Blaze TV subscribers, one of my favorite podcasts, because this is something I've been interested in as a kid.

The shroud of Turin. We had the exact linen copy of the shroud of Turin, in the studio. Plus, one of the leading experts on it.

And if you don't know what the shroud of Turin is. First of all, it's -- it's not a Catholic artifact. That's what people have said in the past.

But now evangelicals and everybody else have started to say, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

There is some new information on this.

This thing is the shroud of Christ, they believe. New data has been released, with something that is better than carbon dating. I can't remember what it's called. But it's better than carbon dating. And it looks at the fabric.

Dates it. It's 2,000 years old.

And what's more. There are spores and pollen. Et cetera, et cetera.

On and in the fabric.

That only are found in Jerusalem, in and around April, in the spring.

I mean, that's a pretty elaborate fraud! Plus, all of the bloodstains. The things that science has found about this, I think this is the shroud of Christ.

And you have to make up your own mind. But we're going to talk about that, later. And play some pieces of it. We have Jeremiah Johnston on, to talk about it on hour number three today.

You don't want to miss this.

People who say, it can't be done, it's not the shroud of Jesus. It's the greatest shroud of Jesus you've ever seen. I can't believe it. So, anyway, that's coming up.

So let's start with some -- hmm. Beautiful people in the Senate, shall we?

Let's start with Kash Patel first. Here's Kash Patel, testifying in front of Congress yesterday. Cut one.

VOICE: Senator, it may be one of the scenarios that most uniquely qualifies me to take command at the FBI.

Having been the victim of government overreach, and a weaponized system of justice. And law enforcement.

I know what it feels like to have the full weight of the United States government barreling down on you. And as the Biden inspector general determined, those activities at the FBI and DOJ are wholly improper, and not predicated on law and facts.

I will ensure if confirmed that no American subjected to that kind of torment, to that kind of cost, financially and personally. And most importantly, I will make sure that no American is subjected to death threats, like I was.

And subjected to moving their residents like I was.

Because of government overreach. Because of leaks of information about my personal status.

If confirmed as FBI director, Mr. Chairman, you have my commitment, that no one in this country will feel that pain.

GLENN: Wow!

Why is he on such a rant here? He's going to weaponize the government. Is this just all about payback? Oh, my gosh!

Did you hear what he just said he went through!

Yeah, it's not about payback. It's about justice.

Making sure that anyone that was involved in that kind of activity, with anyone, no longer works for the United States government.

And if they broke any laws, they go to jail. I don't know about you! I kind of -- I kind of like the idea of jail for some people.

You know what I mean?

Not everybody. But the guilty?

No matter if they're the poorest person in the world. Or it's George Soros.

I don't really care. You break the law. You go to jail. But he's on your side.

I don't care.

Go to jail.

That's what he's trying to restore. Now, let's go to cut two. He was called out on the January 6th pardons by Senator Durbin. Here it is.

VOICE: Was President Donald Trump wrong to give blanket clemency to the January 6th defendants?

VOICE: Thank you, Ranking Member. A couple of things on that. One, the power of the presidential pardon is just that. The president.

VOICE: Well, I can see he has the authority. I'm asking, was he wrong to do it for him?

VOICE: And as we discussed in our private meeting, Senator, I have always rejected any violence against any law enforcement. And I have including in that group, specifically addressed any violence against law enforcement on January 6th.

And I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement.

VOICE: So do you think America is safer because these 1600 people have been give up an opportunity of coming out and serving their sentences and living in our communities again.

VOICE: Senator, I have not looked at all 1600 individual cases. I have always advocated for imprisoning those that cause harm to our law enforcement and civilian communities.

I also believe that America is not safer, because President Biden's commutation of a man who murdered two FBI agents, Agent Coler's and Williams' family deserve better than to have the man that at point-blank range, fired a shotgun into their heads and murdered them, released from prison. So it goes both ways.

GLENN: Okay. All right. I think you're pretty clear.

STU: I like that answer.

GLENN: I love that answer.

STU: So what do you take -- part of the -- trying to stir things up on the left.

Saying, he took a different position than Trump on that.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

You mean people are the different, they're not zombies.

STU: That's true. Though not common.

GLENN: The presidents. Presidential pardons are just that.

His pardons.

I'm not for releasing people who have ever, you know, harmed cops. I'm not for that. I don't think the president is for that.

STU: Well, he -- he did commute sentences of people who were the violent offenders in there.

GLENN: I would like to look at each individual case.

STU: But he did all of them.

So we don't to have look at each individual case.

GLENN: Well, here's my feeling on this.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I've already expressed this over and over again.

You cannot say that the system was corrupt for some and then just allow that corrupt system to sentence and put people away that might have been guilty. You can't do that! We never do that. If there was a corrupt prosecution, and a corrupt judge, or whatever.

And it's found out.

It's not only that person that is parted. And you throw the case out. And you can't try it again.

Sorry, it was corrupt. Then you're supposed to go on and see, when did this happen?

Did this team see anything else?

And if you look and see this as a pattern, you have to throw it all out.

It's not the president's fault. It is the prosecution's fault. It is the DOJ's fault.

STU: I think that's a defensible point.

He hasn't explicitly said this. Donald Trump's point, why he did all 1600. That's not Kash Patel's point. Kash Patel is saying, I can't agree with any of those commutations.

GLENN: He didn't say that. He said, I don't agree with --

STU: Any commutation of anyone.

GLENN: But that's a blanking statement. I don't really care anyway.

STU: I'm just curious. Because I think they're too slightly different points.

I would say, they're kind of representative of our two points here.

My point is more consistent with Kash Patel, I think on this. And yours is maybe more consistent with Trump. I don't think it's a big deal if they disagree, as you point out.

GLENN: No.

STU: It's interesting what the left was trying to do with that though.

They're trying to get that little wedge of separation.

They're trying to say, hey, to know, this guy doesn't agree with you.

Look, he doesn't need. Because the whole -- it's funny, they want to separate them. And say, hey, they don't agree.

At some point of time, of trying to make the point, the only reason he has this job, that he's a loyalist that is an automatron robot. Which is like, you don't get both of those things.

They'll try. You can't have both of them.

GLENN: They'll try. Yeah. Touchdown, either direction. You know? Which I think you would be for with the Eagles, so please don't get on your high horse.

Okay. So the thing that drives me nuts is -- and this is the point I couldn't get past with anyone of them.

Excuse me, Durbin. Hang on just a second. Wait. Wait. Wait.

You're worried about the safety of the American people, because people who, in your words, not mine. Rioted and tried to burn the republic down, you're worried about them. But all of the riots from BLM. Burning Minneapolis almost to the ground.

You didn't have a problem with that one? I can't take it. I can't take it.

And I don't think the American people -- I just -- they don't get -- the Durbins of the world. And the Democrats. Don't understand what just happened. America changed on Election Day. This isn't just, you know what, we're going to -- we're going to switch and go with another party.

That's not what happened!

People didn't vote for the Republicans. They voted for Donald Trump's agenda.

They voted for massive change. And they're playing the same game.

And I'm sorry, but it's not going to work, dude. It's just not going to work. And it will come and bite them in the ass like nobody's business.

Look, whenever you try to con people, it's going to come out. It's going to come out.

All of their illegalities. Everything that they tried to do, is any of that really hidden anymore?

Do you really think that Donald Trump's going to let these secrets lay secret?

Let's go to cut three.

VOICE: Trump recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Then we went to a studio and recorded it. Mastered it. And digitized it. And put it out as a song released exclusively on the war room.

We, we, we.

If you had nothing to do with it, Mr. Patel. Why did you tell Mr. Bannon and all his listeners, that you did.

VOICE: That's why it says, we, when it's highlighted.

VOICE: Yeah. And you're part of the we. When you say we, that includes you, Mr. Patel.

VOICE: Not every instance.

VOICE: Well, that's new!

So when you said we.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Is it? Is it?

Maybe I identify as we!

Really? You mean these words have meaning?
Good God Almighty!

This is Adam Schiff, talking to Kash Patel about January 6th! Like he has any credibility at all.

STU: None. Zero.

It's the royal we, is it not, Glenn? The royal we.

GLENN: Well, it's whatever Kash Patel decides it is, quite honestly.

STU: That's right! You're not allowed to ask.

GLENN: That's new.

So when you said we, you didn't really mean you, is that your testimony?

VOICE: Not unless you have a new definition for the word we.

VOICE: Oh, okay. I always thought we included the person that announced the word.

GLENN: Stop! I always thought them/them refers to a group. But it doesn't.

STU: So true. I cannot even read news stories anymore. They say they, and I'm like, who are they talking about?

And they're talking about one person who says they're they. Like, that is not --

GLENN: Right. I wish Kash would have -- I mean, he's too -- he's too cool to do this.

He's too smart to do this, but I would have unleashed on Schiff.

Really? Because I thought, I'm sorry. They told me. Who is they?

Well, that's how I refer to myself. And I was talking to myself. You have a problem with them/they, sir.

STU: So true.

GLENN: You have a problem with we? I call myself we. What's the problem with that?

Now, it's not a logical answer.

But it's certainly worth shoving right down his throat.

STU: We come up with words. As a society. To describe things.

Right?

GLENN: Yes! You've done everything you can, to destroy the meaning of almost every word!

That's what's so -- we always talk about. Oh, well, it's not scientific.

It's not reality.

All that is true. But you're destroying the way we communicate with each other.

GLENN: When you say we, what do you mean by we?

STU: I mean they. Thank you.

GLENN: All right.

STU: But it's true. You destroy that. And you have nothing. You have nothing.

How can you listen to a show? You can't listen to a show. Because you can't understand what people are saying.

When you go to a court of law. This is what they try to do in court cases all the time.

That's not what the founders meant there.

That's what they always do. They're manipulating the language. You said this 100 times. Control the language. Control the argument. If you do control the language, you control that argument.

And we're starting to stop that.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

So sorry, Adam Schiff. We don't like it.

Me don't like it, either.

IHEART FEED

Will Trump's Cabinet Expose the Obama CIA’s BIGGEST Secrets?

During her Senate confirmation hearing to become Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard mentioned an Obama-era CIA program called “Timber Sycamore.” The program gave weapons and training to Al Qaeda affiliated groups with the goal of toppling the Assad regime in Syria. But the American people and many soldiers fighting in the Middle East were kept in the dark. What other secrets are government bureaucrats still hiding from us? Is the CIA connected at all to the Benghazi tragedy? And would Tulsi Gabbard reveal the truth as DNI? Glenn and Stu discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: FBI agents are starting to pack up their desks. As fear of FBI mass firings swirl. That's -- that's sad.

And good. I'm glad.

Benjamin Netanyahu just arrived in DC. He said that he's meeting with Trump. And they hope to redraw the lines in the Middle East.

That's an interesting thing. I think Donald Trump is absolutely headed that way. The USAID headquarters have been closed.

Thank you, Donald Trump, for that. And there was something else.

Oh. And Mexico just came out.

The Mexican president just talked to Donald Trump.

And that 25 percent tariff?

Well, that's on hold.

She said, I talked to Donald Trump, we had and a great conversation.

And he put that on hold.

And I'm sending 10,000 troops to the US/Mexico border right now.

So I've got that under -- and Justin Trudeau. God bless his soul.

He's going to talk at 3 o'clock this afternoon. Yeah. Who is a good Prime Minister?

What a joke. Now, let me tell you about -- I just told you about USAID. And how that is a CIA front.

And Donald Trump is going to do two things with DOGE. He's going to cut all the bad guys. Try to find them.

He may not find all of them. But he will find a lot of them

Oh, did I mention that the FBI people are clearing out their desks.

Getting ready for a firing.

Anyway, he will clean out a lot of the mess, and a lot of the black ops that are happening.

And he will also cut the budget.

So he has that going for him. Now, the left and the Deep State. They're a little freaked out.

If they could have shredders at their disposal, 24 hours a day. I don't think there would be a lick of paper left, in I forget these agencies.

Consider some of the questions that have been swept under the rug. All the way back to Obama.

Let's see. Consider the American lives that are lost, overseas.

Consider the foreign lives lost. Consider the regimes that have changed.

And the chaos that is spread all over the world, in our names, with our tax dollars.

Now, consider what Donald Trump's team has pledged to break and uncover.

So if you listen to some of the confirmation hearings in the Senate, you might hear a little sneak peak at what's to come.

Tulsi Gabbard over on Friday, revealed for many Americans, they don't know about it. It's a clandestine, Obama program, that sought regime change in the Middle East.

And unloaded over a decade of violence and chaos.

Listen to this.

VOICE: Senator, as someone who enlisted in the military, specifically because of al-Qaeda's terrorist attack on 9/11 and committing myself and my life to doing what I could to defeat these terrorists. It was shocking. And a betrayal to me. And every person who was killed on 9/11. Their families. And my brothers and sisters in uniform.

When as a member of Congress, I learned about President Obama's dual programs that he had begun. Really, to overthrow the regime of Syria.

And being willing to -- through the CIA's timber sick more program, that has now been made public. Of working with and arming and equipping al-Qaeda, in an effort to overthrow that regime, starting yet another regime change war in the Middle East. DOD train and equip program, again, begun under President Obama, has widely been known, looked at, and studied that ultimately resulted in half a billion dollars being used to train who they called "moderate rebels," but were actually fighters working with and aligned with al-Qaeda's affiliate on the ground in Syria.

GLENN: Hmm. That's weird.

Most Americans have never heard about Obama's Timber Sycamore. It's possibly the largest gun running and training operation our little spy agencies have ever pulled off.

How many people died in Syria, as a result of this? How many people died all over the Middle East?

How many terrorists received weapons and training from our government?

Al-Qaeda?

We know that many of those same terrorists now control the government of Syria, right now.

And the horror show is not over yet.

Why haven't we heard about this?

Why does every school kid know about Reagan and Iran-Contra, but not Obama and Timber Sycamore?

It is because it not only reveals terrorists receiving our training and weapons, that we supplied. But it also reveals American lives that have been lost.

We still don't know the full details on what happened in Benghazi.

Why is that?

Why is it that Hillary Clinton and Obama made sure of that?

That wasn't part of some gun-running operation to Syria, was it?

Is this part of the peace of the fallout from Obama's Timber Sycamore?

Why was the US ambassador even in Benghazi? Why was there a State Department annexed in such a dangerous place? And why was it so unguarded?

Why was there a secret CIA substation there? Why was it kept so low-key?

Why didn't the military respond? Why were they so quiet and ineffective? Were they trying to keep Obama and Clinton's little secret hidden?

And all at the cost of four American lives. Say their names. They like to say that. Say their names.

Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Sean Smith. Tyrone Woods. Glen Doherty.

They still deserve justice. We deserve answers. I just want you to know, what's happening in Washington, DC, right now, is because cutting the budget.

But it has a dual purpose. In everything they're doing. They're cutting the heart out of these secret ops. They are exposing what our government is doing. By moving USAID over to the State Department. USAID can't that have.

I mean, I don't think of the State Department as someplace that's clean and has a good agenda.

But apparently, that's being cleaned up as well.

What is it we are going to learn, over the next few months?

What is it we're going to see exposed?

It's quite amazing. It is quite amazing.

By the way, Sunday, yesterday, Musk wrote, that career Treasury officials are breaking the law every hour of every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress.

Oh, boy. What's this? Apparently, the Treasury Secretary, the new one, has allowed the department of government efficiency to gain access to the federal government's payment system.

Okay. Wait a minute. So USAID won't allow the DOGE officials any access to their aid programs? But the Treasury is like, yeah. Open up the books!

They discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers, at Treasury were structured to always approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups!

They literally have never denied a payment in their entire career.

Not once!

So why do you have them.

And why would they be told that? My gosh, this house of cards is going to come crashing down.

They are in -- they're going to have serious issues.

Trump's Tariffs EXPLAINED: Will Canada Cave Like Mexico?

Did Donald Trump start a trade war with Mexico and Canada, or is it all part of his negotiation strategy? Mexico has already agreed to help improve border security. But Canada has pushed back against Trump’s promise to slap 25% tariffs on many Canadian goods. Glenn explains what Justin Trudeau doesn’t seem to understand: This isn’t about “punishing” Canada. It’s about national security and getting the best deal for Americans.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Welcome to the program. Donald Trump just got off the phone with Justin Trudeau.

Apparently, they're going to talk again at 3:00 this afternoon.

But he's not -- he's not going -- he's not going light on Justin, which I'm very happy about. Canada, immure -- I'm sorry. When we're there too.
-- I don't want to feel like we're pointing out Canada going, you guys suck! We sucked too. We just woke up and changed leadership.

And we're -- we are going in a different direction. Because we've learned the same things you know. Okay? You know it!

This can't continue this way. Right?

STU: Yeah. The one. I have several issues with some of these policies.

One that I do, is really -- a little bothersome to me. Trudeau is so unpopular, in Canada. So on the way out.

Now there's this nationalist Canadian thing going on. Where they're --

GLENN: Wait a minute. Trudeau is becoming a nationalist?

STU: It's hilarious. He's now getting the benefits of the support, of people who are just rallying around him mindlessly.

Whether the policy is right or not. I just don't like good things happening to Justin Trudeau.

I don't know if that's part --

GLENN: That was an unforeseen consequence.

STU: We will see, obviously, with where this lands, much more important than not.

GLENN: Here's the thing. We have a president that is not actually trying to destroy us.

STU: Yeah. That's true.

Whether you like this policy or not, when it comes to tariffs. You know that the motivation behind it is to make the country better. And I don't know if it's always the motivation behind these policies, when we've seen previous presidents go after them.

Obviously, a lot of Democrats have gone after similar policies. I think a lot of times, their motivations have been much, much worse.

So at least we've got good motivations behind this.

I mean, I think Trump is looking at this and saying, he thinks this will work long-term. I think most clearly, you pointed this out, Glenn, with Panama. With Colombia. Most clearly, he believes they're going to back down from this eventually.

And give us concessions. And I think that's probably the most likely outcome.

GLENN: That seems to be what's happening with Panama.

STU: Yeah, definitely happened with Colombia.

It does seem to be, we are the big boys on the block. And Donald Trump is not only familiar with that fact, but also comfortable with it, unlike other presidents. He's comfortable with us being the big boys on the block.

He's comfortable with us being the world power. That's okay in his eyes. It's okay in my eyes. It's okay in your eyes.

GLENN: As long as you don't become a big bully. I mean, listen to what Justin Trudeau said.

Let's go to cut three, please.

VOICE: Now is also the time to choose Canada. There are many ways for you to do your part. It might mean checking the labels at the supermarket. And picking Canadian-made products. It might mean opting for Canadian rye over Kentucky bourbon, or foregoing Florida orange juice altogether. It might be changing your vacation plans to stay here in Canada and explore the many national and provincial parks, historical sites, these tourist destinations our great country has to offer.

STU: Useless job, yeah.

GLENN: I know he is. I know he is.

STU: He's using this to turn around his own political fortunes. Which is infuriating. He doesn't care about any of this other stuff. He's motivated by his own political interest here.

GLENN: Here's cut six.

VOICE: I think Canadians are a little perplexed as to why our closest friends and neighbors are choosing to target us, instead of so many other challenging parts of the world.

I don't think there's a lot of Americans who wake up in the morning saying, oh. Damn Canada! Oh, we should really go after Canada.

GLENN: You're right!

Why were you targeting us? Why -- why was your -- your number two in command that just quit, why was she targeting people here for, you know, giving to a freedom movement in Canada?

I mean, it's not like you've been our best friend, Justin.

STU: No, he's been horrible.

GLENN: Terrible. But Canadians are great. I love Canadians, and I love Canada. And Canada should love Canada.

STU: Sure.

GLENN: And you should be concerned about what the state of your country is in.

You know, look at your immigration problems. Look at what's happening to your country.

That's what started all of this.

Is the fentanyl coming across our borders. Both north and south.

And the illegals. Stop it. Stop it.

And the great way to stop it is to make sure you stop it at your borders.

From them coming into your country!

That's -- that's really what this is about.

STU: Right. And that's what's clear here.

You know, Trump always says tariffs are his favorite word.

You've talked to him privately about that.

GLENN: I disagree with him on that happen.

STU: A way, I don't think that's exactly what he means.

Tariffs are good, to the extent that they get something else done. Right?

They're not good in and of themselves.

They're just taxes in and of themselves.

They do raise prices on us. The calculation however is, will the pain, that is applied to both sides as Trump has outwardly stated. And it's important to be fair to him.

A lot of people are saying, he's not saying this.

He's saying, there will be pain.

Those are his word. There will be pain on us.

The calculation is, the pain on us, will be the pain less on them.

And they will give first. And then he will get what he wants, outside of the tariffs.

That's the calculation here.

I mean, it is a risky one at times. And, you know, these -- you can call it a trade war or not.

But the bottom line is, when we escalate them, then they escalate. It's -- you could say it's not a trade war. But it kind of is.

I mean, it's a trade competition, if you feel more comfortable with those terms.

But the bottom line is, we believe we're going to win it. That's what he's saying!

And he believes we will win it. And at the end of the day, we get concessions that improve the country. The proof is going to be in the pudding on that.

Will it work? As you pointed out, it has worked kind of with Panama, so far, it seems like.

It's worked kind of with Columbia. It's going to work with some of these countries, it will be more difficult with a country like China.

I think what we saw in his first term.

Was a renegotiation of NAFTA, which basically became the US embassy. Right?

GLENN: Which he still doesn't like. It was the best he could do.

STU: It was the best he could do at the time.

He's I guess not happy with it now.

Because, you know, you're not allowed to put new tariffs either one of these countries in that agreement, which he negotiated. But he wants something better. I mean, how can we be upset with a president who wants something better for the country?

It -- it's just a question as to whether it works or not. The guy -- the Dallas Mavericks traded Luka Doncic this weekend.

The DM came out and said, you'll have to judge me as to how it turns out. We will!

Right? Congratulations, we will!

GLENN: In fact, we kind of already have.

STU: Well, that one, we already have.

That's probably a bad example.

That's exactly what will happen. If this works, and you get something out of it.

People will probably be okay with it, even if it is short-term pain.

Generally speaking, though, the American people only have so much tolerance for that.

And Donald Trump has a finally tuned eye for that type of thing. And I'm sure he will walk that line carefully.

GLENN: He does. Oh, yes, he is.

Yes, he is. And like I said, he's not trying to destroy America. He's trying to save America. And I know that's a new concept, to the American people.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I'm sure it's new to Americans as well. Cut one.

Here's Donald Trump talking about tariffs on Europe.

DONALD: Well, you're asking me a question.

There's a period in here, am I going to oppose tariffs by the European Union? You want the truthful answer, or should I give you a political answer? Absolutely.

STU: He wants stuff, and this is how he gets stuff.

GLENN: Yeah. But what does he want?

STU: I mean, various things from various countries, right?

GLENN: Yeah. He wants. The big things, he wants an end to the World War II order.

Where we are protecting Mercedes Benz. Allowing Mercedes to come in here, and have all kinds of access to our market. And Ford can't.

We don't have that!

We don't have that in Germany.

Why? Because we wanted to make sure the German countries could recover. And all the car companies could recover.

You know, the world is just not a good place without all that citron.

So that's what that is all for.

That's why we did that. And it never changed.

And it's got to change. It's over.

It's got to change. The other thing that absolutely has to change. They have to pay their 5 percent. Into NATO.

You've got to pay it.

STU: That's -- everyone is in this agreement.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It exists with the terms of the agreement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: In place. Follow them.

That's not a difficult thing. We're doing a lot more than everyone else, anyway.

Even if we all pay 5 percent, we're the ones footing the bill. We're the ones basically running that organization.

The least you can do is get to whatever that percentage is.

GLENN: Yeah. And that's fine if you don't.

If you don't want to do that, that's fine.

Then the agreement doesn't exist, and we're not going to protect you all the time.

You know, Winston Churchill. He had to beg the United States to come in because the Americans don't want to be involved in everybody else's business. We don't!

Our government, our state department seems to want to.

The military industrial complex wants to. But the American people don't!

So we're totally fine with that, Europe.

We don't think that's a good idea for you. But, you know, in time, you will learn to defend yourself. And then you will probably get pissed off at the French and start bombing them.

And then we'll be in it all over again. Again, we don't recommend it.

But go ahead. We're not protecting.

What do you think Justin Trudeau will say, if we said, oh, well, you don't want to protect your borders.

Okay. All right.

You want a trade war. Okay.

Well, I think we're done helping your military.

I mean, that's -- we win at the end. Hopefully, we'll never get to that. We win at the end.

STU: They have to know that.

GLENN: Yes, they do. They do.

STU: They have to know that.

I'm not surprised they're retaliating, with the 25 percent tariffs of their own.

Obviously, there are a lot -- we do send a lot of products to Canada as well.

We are the second largest exporter in the world.

GLENN: But --

STU: So we do send products to a lot of these countries. And it will burn those companies. And it will hurt at times.

If these things even get into place. We're not even in place yet.

Would it be surprising at all, if there was a most of negotiating. No.

GLENN: Let me ask you. He was just on the phone with Justin Trudeau just a few minutes ago.

Hung up the phone. What's he doing at 3:00 this afternoon?

Getting back on the gonna Justin Trudeau. This is a negotiation.

GLENN: Yes. Exactly. You can't get too worked about it. Because you don't know where the story ends.

GLENN: We have no idea. We're not the ones negotiating.

Here's what we do know, our negotiator is trying to get the best deal for us.

And he's a businessman. He understands it. Unlike attorneys who run the rest of the world.