RADIOFebruary 05, 2024

DEBATE: Should America elect a modern-day Franco?

Glenn has been hearing growing calls on the right for America to elect a modern-day Francisco Franco. But he warns that if you know the FULL history of this Spanish dictator, you might think twice. Glenn and Stu “debate” the alleged “pros” and cons of Franco. Many have touted Franco’s love for his nation and apparent positive effect on tourism. But he also executed over 100,000 people and buried them in mass graves, abducted babies from families who disagreed with him, enacted Martial Law, seemed just fine with thinning out the Spanish population, and persecuted Protestants. So, Glenn has some words of caution for those on the right who may consider themselves Franco fans: “He was an evil dictator who committed atrocities…that is NOT America.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So for some unknown reason, I said hey, let's do a debate on the good things and the bad things about Franco, Stu immediately said, I want to do the pro-Franco stuff. Because he's -- I didn't realize this, Stu. You're a big fan of Franco.

STU: No. This is all fraudulent information. And you would like that to be known. That he at that Glenn is lying as usual.

GLENN: That's not what America is hearing right now. But we'll go with that little lie of yours. So we looked at.

And I wanted to get somebody to debate the other side, like Stu. Because, you know, he's pretty thorough. He's a fact-based guy. And so I thought, let's get him. Because the facts are I think you can verify this. The facts are overwhelming in Franco's favor.

STU: I would not verify that. Actually, I feel the opposite, frankly.

GLENN: Really?

STU: Yes. And maybe we should start with, why?

Why would we be debating the positives and negatives of Franco? What would be the purpose of that, and why would that occur, in 2024?

A week before the Iowa caucuses.

Why are we talking about Franco of all people?

GLENN: Well, Francisco Franco, you might remember him. He was the head of the Spanish state.

He was what you might call a dictator.

And a lot of people now, it seems, in America, are starting to say, you know, we should have somebody like Franco. That just comes in. And stops all this nonsense.

And I'm thinking to myself, no. No.

We shouldn't have somebody like Franco.

Unfortunately, a lot of the people that are debating this. And are -- who are cozing up to the idea of an American Franco, are conservatives. And I don't -- you either don't know who Franco is, or I wouldn't classify you as a conservative, but maybe that's me.

Maybe that's just me.

STU: And I, of course, feel the opposite. I feel that he was great. And did a great job in his --

GLENN: Right. That's so convincing, Stu.

STU: In his 36 years of being a dictator. I think that's an appropriate amount of time.

GLENN: Yeah. So you're doing a great job so far.

Okay. So here's the thing. Some of the stuff we gathered. Polling, for instance, shows that he's not so bad, to many of the people in Spain.

And in Italy. You know, neither was Mussolini.

You know, as long as you went along with him.

Some of this stuff, comes from the Madrid Center for Sociological Research. A government research center, showed that the majority of the Spanish public now acknowledged that Franco did both good and bad things.

Now, I'm going to ask for a definition of the word bad, because I'm not sure -- I mean, the term bad does that include extermination camps, Stu, or not?

Do you think?

STU: I'm typically of the opinion that they're universally bad. Extermination camps. Never a good idea.

GLENN: Okay. But is that maybe -- I don't know. A significantly understating the -- the badness of extermination camps, or genocide. Or crimes against humanity?

STU: I consider them suboptimal, Glenn.

GLENN: Suboptimal. All right. Okay.

See, we have the right guy to debate the Franco side.

Should we like to start, or should I start?

STU: You go ahead, Glenn. You have that tough task to make Franco look bad.

GLENN: I know. I know.

Okay. So now both sides of the debate. Both good and bad, Franco. They will admit that he committed massive atrocities during the Spanish Civil War.

His nationalists raped Republican women and shaved their heads. They rounded up half a hill people. And put them in concentration amps. A large portion of these prisoners did forced labor or made to fight in Franco's army. And he executed another 100,000 people during the war.

So right off there, I think, I don't think I'm on the Franco train.

STU: Really? The train is an interesting --

GLENN: Well, I thought so.

STU: Use there.

You know, again, I will attempt my best here.

Franco, at least when you're thinking of the Spanish people, at least half of them. Specifically, you did keep them out of World War II. By kind of remaining neutral. Somewhere right.

STU: Now, some might note, you didn't get invaded. You were less likely to be invaded by Hitler. When you did things that Hitler didn't mind all that much. Which was not necessarily a positive. But I am telling you, it's a positive, that, hey, he remained neutral in World War II. And didn't get invaded.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

But he was busy for a while there in his own Civil War, and the public affairs officer for Franco's forces told an American reporter, quote, you know what's wrong with Spain? Modern plumbing. In healthier times. Spiritually healthier. You understand.

The plague and pestilence. They could be counted on to thin the Spanish masses. Now with modern sewage disposal, people just multiply too fast. And the masses are no better than animals, you understand.

You can't expect them not to become infected with the virus of bolshevism. After all, rats and lice carry the plague. So he had a good understanding of servant to the people.

STU: Sure. You could say that. However, we've all become so indoorsy these days. You know, when it's 32 degrees, we don't even go out to outhouses anymore.

The outdoor plumbing was a better approach.

GLENN: Was it?

STU: Yes, much better. And I think we should go back to that.

GLENN: So get rid of modernity, like toilets.

STU: Yeah. Modernity, that's an interesting word. I feel like we've used that with the Russian figures over the past few years. They said, get rid of modernity as well.

GLENN: We have. And some Christian nationalists as well.

STU: Well, what you're not talking about was foreign investment was encouraged, and tourism was promoted.

And by 1962, per capita income for the nation's 33 million people reached 300 dollars per year.

GLENN: Holy cow. Holy cow.

STU: So, I mean -- you didn't point that out, when you -- imagine how went, if we could have gone to outhouses.

Probably would have doubled that number.

GLENN: I hate to throw a monkey wrench into the deal. I wasn't really concentrating on the tourism.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Because after -- after the war. Franco was responsible for the torture, murder, and -- and covert burial of an additionally 114,000 Spanish citizens.

He just -- he just targeted people, Republican loyalists. Atheists.

Jews. Intellectuals. Liberals. Academics. Protestants. But you can see the Protestants. You know.

Anarchists, freemasons, socialists. Catalent, and Basque nationalists. Communists, homosexuals, and trade unionists.

So -- and they just -- they opened up mass the braves all around Spain. And relatives couldn't mark the forgave or anything else.

They just dumped them in, or covered them with dirt.

STU: Say what you want.

But we wouldn't have this nationalist problem, if it wasn't for all this indoor plumbing. And I think Franco nailed that, by the way.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: But you did mention an interesting word there.

Communist. You see, he was an anti-Communist.

He was an anti-socialist. He opposed a lot of the things that we oppose today.

Which somehow is supposed to be a reason enough to love the guy. And that's why I'm making this positive argument for Franco.

GLENN: So wait.

STU: But he did oppose communists it's true.

He did oppose socialists. Of course, I don't want to point out some of the other figures in Europe at the time.

Who also hit that standard and maybe -- are not thought of so positively.

GLENN: Wow. It sounds like you're not convinced he's a good guy.

STU: No. I just told you he was against Communists.

GLENN: Now, let me see if I can flip Stu on this one. You know, the children from Republican families were taken. And they weren't killed.

They were just abducted. Renamed. And given to supporters of the Franco regime.

An estimated 300,000 babies were also stolen from hospitals. And undesirable parents. And then they were sold to approved families.

STU: Have you heard any of the dumb names, parents are naming kids these days? They should be captured and renamed. That's the only way we could save our society today.

Yes. And Franco is one of the few people, who knew that.

And I'll tell you this, Glenn.

He did promote strong Spanish national identity. And culture. And this seems to be honestly what people --

GLENN: But he was kidnapping babies.

STU: Seems to be -- yeah. Sure.

And opposing indoor plumbing. But it seems to be what people do like. Just like me. Who is arguing the pro Franco side.

Is that he did have a bit of a -- he had a national streak, which has some equivalent here in the modern movement on the right.

And also, he did -- (cut out).

Hmm, well, I mean, if you had a good name, then maybe you would change your opinion once the government assigned you your new name. Which was much, much better than your old name. I will say though, you know, Glenn, once he aged. See, here's the thing.

People look at this and say, look, did Franco do some bad things?

Sure, some people will say that. But they will also note that it was a trying time.

A difficult period after the war.

And he -- and the country was collapsing. He needed to act in that way. And once he paged -- he did release and relax some of those rules.

Police -- you know, beating people over the head for no apparent reason.

Declined by like, I don't know. 13 percent or something.

And he did allow some free market reforms.

Now, some would point out, hey, maybe he would put the free market reforms in because they're good. You don't just wait for 30 years of a dictatorship before you do those things.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: But, hey, later on in life. He aged. And he calmed a little bit. And isn't that wonderful?

GLENN: Well, still didn't allow any freedom of the press. But also, he -- I mean, employment. If you were unemployed, you could get a job. If you were a Franco supporter. But people were required to get a -- a certificate of good behavior from local officials.

So you could get a job, which kind of sounds like what we don't want to happen here.

STU: Well, I mean, some would say that. There's certain people out there, that would make claims.

GLENN: I think -- I think while you're making very good points. I think I will just leave it at this.

Only Cambodia, known for the killing fields.

Only Cambodia has more mass the braves and anonymous victims, than Franco's Spain. So...

STU: Well, anonymous victims because they rejected their new names.

GLENN: Right. Thank you. Well, Stu, I -- I mean, I thought you made a lot of good points on Franco. Because there's a lot of them out there, as you well know.

STU: Well, you know, I'm a passionate supporter, apparently of Franco.

GLENN: Yeah. You almost slipped there and said Hitler.

STU: Well, no, I didn't. But I know what you mean.

Too many similarities there to be ignored.

I don't -- look, we had -- we had a lot right, I think in this country, you know.

And I feel like we're at the point where we want to throw a lot of the things that we did correctly, out the window.

Because we perceive this as a period of things not going our way.

There's a reason why we've been a country that has been this powerful for a long time.

Those principles are the ones that got us here. And it just feels like if we were to go back and embrace them a little bit, maybe we wouldn't need to have a 40-year dictatorship.

GLENN: I don't know. Those can be fun.

The -- for the dictators, usually.

The -- the -- what's happening to us, right now. And the reason why Franco. People are starting to say. We need a nationalist. And a religious dictator.

No. We don't. We need one as much as Iran needs one.

You -- oh, wait a minute. They already have one. Oh, I'm sorry.

So some other country other than Iran. We don't need that. We shouldn't want that.

That's a very deprave danger to anyone and everyone.

Because that's a dictatorship, that can just eliminate those whom they deem problems.

I don't want that on the left. I don't want that on the right. I don't want that here, there, or anywhere, Sam I am.

The reason why this is happening is because things are becoming uncontrollable. The -- the government has gone so far awry, that people believe that only an unconstitutional dictator can save the country.

And that's not true. All you have to do is return to the Constitution. If you return to the Constitution, all of it comes back.

Now, you can't give everybody the freedom that they think they have now. Like, I have the right to go in and -- and loot stores.

No. No. That won't stop, until you start enforcing the local laws and the laws of the Constitution.

Once you do that, we fix ourselves

People are overthinking all of this stuff.

You're going need to a very, very unpopular president. Or a president during a war, that's why everybody wants a war so much.

That is able to do things under a War Powers Act. Which is terrifying to me.

I would much rather have a president come in, and just say, I'm a one-term president. But I am going to put everything on the table. And I'm going to get rid of this huge administrative state.

It's gone. I don't want it. It's not constitutional.

Once you get past some of those things. It's amazing how you fix your town. You fix your state. You fix your country.

I don't understand why especially conservatives are talking about Francisco Franco. He was an evil dictator. That didn't do some bad.

He committed atrocities.

And every dictator commits atrocities. Because they force people into compliance.

That is not America.

WARNING: The Feds could SEIZE your private land under THIS act

There’s a new law in the works that would drastically harm Americans’ ability to own land. Called the SUSTAINS Act, it would give the USDA the power to monitor “natural processes” and decide who owns “environmental services.” Glenn breaks down what that means: “They are claiming the processes that are on your land. You may not own the air, the trees, the water … nothing! What is your land worth without water?” Glenn also reviews how Kamala Harris' plan to tax investment income could further hurt the economy.

But it’s not too late to STOP this. You can submit public input on the SUSTAINS Act until Sept. 16, 2024, HERE: https://www.federalregister.gov/docum...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I don't trust anybody anymore.

But I will tell you, we have no country left. I mean, let's just give you some of the headlines from today.

Harris calls for higher taxes, on investment income.

Now, what is that going to do, Stu. Just noodle this with me. She's giving more taxes on investment income.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: What do you think that is.

STU: Some would say, when you tax something, you discourage it. So if you're taxing investments, you're discouraging investments in American companies.

GLENN: Right. Right.

Yeah. But she says, she's only going to be taxing people who have a million dollars or more.

STU: She can say that all she wants. She's lying though.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

But she's also, just so you know, she's only going after the people who have money to invest.

She's not going to go after the poor people on the investment thing.

STU: Good. Really?

She's not going to hit the people in massive debt with no income on their massive 401(k)s.

GLENN: Right. No. They're not going to.

Great story about workers feeling Bidenomic's pain as job creators fear the worse for Kamala. And this is what -- you know, this is what's happening. If you think your employer is going to be like, you know what, I'm going to add jobs. If Kamala gets in, you're out of your mind.

They're all going to batten down the hatches. By the way, job openings fell more than expected in I couldn't like. Which is huh.

What does that even mean? Hmm?

US Steel shares plunge as Biden/Harris prepare to block Nippon Steel takeover. People familiar with the matter told the Washington Post that President Joe Biden is preparing to announce that he will block the $14.9 billion deal. US shares have fallen now 41 percent this year.

Kamala Harris, the presidential nominee said, US Steel should remain American-owned at American operated. That was during a campaign event in Pittsburgh.

STU: What do you --

GLENN: Well, that would be good. That would be good. I would love that. Is anybody offering that to US Steel?

STU: Not according to US Steel. Which is kind of the issue. Which they say.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: And I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Because it's not China. It's not Russia. This is an ally, a close ally, Japan, who is trying to purchase US Steel. Obviously US Steel being like this iconic company, makes us feel weird.

Has the word US. United States in it.

Their point is like, we are screwed without this deal. We're leaving Pittsburgh. We're firing a bunch of people.

A lot of union jobs go away, if you do not let us go through with this deal. And I can kind of -- I kind of have some understanding of like why you would be hesitant to want US Steel to go into foreign hands.

It kind of makes sense to me.

GLENN: No. I don't think it should.

You have to -- as a country, you can recommend against it.

But do you have a plan to save it?

I mean, do you have a plan?

What is the plan?

No. We're not going to approve that deal. Okay.

Are you working on anything that maybe you get some Americans to pool their money together. And think, you know what, we think this is important.

US Steel. This is critical infrastructure, if we can't make steel in the United States, we're screwed. But don't worry about it. She's got everything under control. And you're not going to have to worry about cars or tractors or things like that.

Because we're all going to be living in 15-minute cities. And if you don't believe me, that you will own nothing. And you will be happy about it. Let me just share this.

The -- who owns the environmental services?

USDA now is monetizing natural processes, under the Sustains Act. So the Sustains Act, we told you about a couple of weeks ago -- we told you, that you had to speak out against this and stop it.

It doesn't look like it's going to be stopped. But there's a free market now, on environmental processes. So, in other words, one environmental process is trees breathe in, carbon dioxide. And they breathe out, air. Okay?

So they take the pollution, and breathe it in.

And then they give us, what we need to live, as they breathe out.

It's kind of a weird thing. I haven't heard anybody talk about that for a long, long time now.

But that's how they survive, and thrive.

But now, for instance. I've planted in the last ten years.

I can't count the number of trees, that I have planted up in a treeless area.

And I may not own those trees now.

If the USDA has their way. And this is already passed. They're just looking at how to implement it.

The secretary is allowed to -- to go in and say, you know what, these trees are really important. That water. You're pumping that water out of your well.

Well, that's not your water. That's part of the environmental process. And we don't think you should pump any of that water.

They will -- well, I can't say this. They will regulate. But they won't own.

They are claiming the processes that are on your land. So you may not own the air. You may not own the tree.

You may not own the water. Nothing.

What is your land worth? Without water.

Especially in the West. What is your land worth without water farmers. What is your land worth, when you can't till the soil yourself, because the minerals and the -- the soil is not really owned by you.

You own the space. But you don't own anything other than -- maybe -- maybe your house, if it's already built.

Who owns that? Well, people like Bill Gates will own that. Bill Cosby will come in and say, I just want to save the planet. So I will just buy up all of this farmland. And I will buy the air. And I will buy the trees. And I am going to buy everything.

So that way, when somebody wants to farm on it, like these farmers that have been farming on it for generations, I can tell them no.

No. Because it will hurt the environment.

And all of this is done, by the Secretary of the USDA. I don't even know who that is.

Do you?

This is why our government is out of control.

Who is to answer for this?

It's all at the Secretary's discretion.

No, thank you. (no, thank you. So the Department of Agriculture and USDA, they have administered the program. And the Secretary -- can you look up the Secretary of Agriculture, Stu, because I don't know who that is. I would like to know what brainiac we have put in on that. But I'm sure they're smarter than all of that put together.

STU: A name from the past. Secretary Tom Vilsack. Remember him?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Former senator --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I don't know why I remember him. But I do remember him. Yeah. Good. So we have a senator. You know, and senators know so much about farming and land.

You know, and trees. And all of that.

I think that's -- I think that's fantastic. So the new law sets out how the secretary is to determine ownership of the environmental services that are created on private land. Through the federal conservation ram. Contributing entity, the one who contributes the private funding to the conservation program. Is to prescribe the terms of the environmental services. Subject to the approval of the Secretary.

So that's great. That's great.

The landowner really doesn't have anything to say about it.

So don't worry about it. Don't worry about it.

You can live in a city, a 15-minute city. And you're not really going to have a job. Because you don't have to really have a job because you won't own anything. You will just rent it from your overlords. If you think this sounds like hyperbole, read the news!

Read the news. You can get our -- our daily newsletter, which has just the news stories of the day.

And you can find these, and share them with your friends and family.

What do you mean they're monetizing the natural processes under the Sustains Act? This is a way for them to take control of the land, through private/public partnerships. So the public owns the land.

Well, I shouldn't say that. I mean, it's still a private person.

But he's, you know, part of the public.

So he owns the land. And he partners with the government. To control it.

And I think that is exactly the direction we all want to go in. I really don't understand how people -- you know, I understood when it was my word, saying, you know, I feel like this is what's happening.

We're so far beyond that.

When I came out with the book, on the WEF.

And was starting to tell you about how you were going to, you know, own nothing, and be happy.

I could even understand, that you would say, well, that's what all the documents say. But they're not going to do it.

I can't understand your burying your head in the sand, anymore.

There's no excuse for it, anymore.

This is not my opinion. You can do your own homework.

You'll find all of this, being done, not talked about.

But being done.

What else are you waiting for?

What else are your friends and your family and your neighbors waiting for?

We have to start talking to our friends and our family, not about politics.

Not about Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. We need to start talking to them about principles, and the things that are actually happening.

These things are actually happening. The economy is going to the crapper. The -- the jobs going to the crapper.

If they believed in all of these things, why wouldn't they do them right now?

Because they don't believe in turning the economy around.

They don't know how to do it.

And what they're going to do, is put you all back in chains. You will work for the government, how the government wants you to work, where they want you to work.

Where they want to you live. You will own nothing!

By 2030. This election, takes us to 2028. Do you think maybe this is an important election?

Why exposing Epstein List would be Trump's MOST DANGEROUS move

During an interview on the Lex Friedman Podcast, Donald Trump hinted that he would release the Epstein client list if he wins the White House. But would that be the final straw for global elites? Glenn explains why he believes Trump’s life is in danger: the global cabal was blindsided once. They can’t let him win again, especially if he’ll expose everything. And Glenn isn’t the only one who believes this. He reviews a clip of Eric Weinstein, who recently made the same argument on the podcast Modern Wisdom.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Did you hear Eric Weinstein?

What the podcast he was on. Modern wisdom?

STU: I didn't hear the clip. I was reading about it, though.

GLENN: Okay. You really. This is a good podcast you should probably listen to. A lot of wisdom there. A lot of wisdom.

And it's kind of what we've been saying for a while now.

But I don't know. Eric says it, and it just seems much, much smarter.

It's kind of like, Eric is much, much smarter.

But if he had an English accent, it would be game over.

Everybody would listen to everything he has to say.

So here he is, on Donald Trump. Listen.

VOICE: I don't know whether -- I don't know whether Donald Trump will be allowed to become president.

VOICE: What do you mean by that?

VOICE: I think that there's a remarkable story, and we're in a funny game, which is, are we allowed to say, what that story is?

Because to say it, to analyze it, to say it, is to bring it into view.

I think we don't understand why the censorship is behaving the way it is. We don't understand why it's in the shadows. We don't understand why the news is acting in a bizarre fashion.

So let's just set the stage, believing that was in in February.

There is something that I think Mike Benz is just referred to as the rules-based international order. It's an interlocking series of agreements, tests, and understandings. Explicit understandings.

Clandestine understandings.

About how the most important structures keep the world free of war. And keep markets open.

And there has been a system in place, whether understood explicitly, or behind the scenes, or implicitly. That says, that the purpose of the two American parties, is to prune, the field of populist candidates. So that whatever two candidates, exist in a face-off, are both acceptable to that world order.

So what you're trying to do, from the point of view.

Let's take it from the point of view of, let's say, the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Defense Department, and major corporations that are -- have to do with international issues, from arms trade to, oh, I don't know, food. They have a series of agreements that are fragile and could be overturned, if a president, entered the Oval Office, who didn't agree with them. And the mood of the country was, why do we pay taxes into these structures?

Why are we hamstrung?

Why aren't we a free people?

So what the two parties would do is they would run primaries. You would have populist candidates, and you would pre-commit the populist candidates to support the candidates who won the primaries. As long as that took place, and you had two candidates that were both acceptable to the international order. That is, they aren't going to rethink NAFTA or NATO or what have you.

We called that democracy. So democracy was the illusion of choice.

What's called magicians choice. Where the choice is -- pick a card. Any card. The magician makes sure the card that you pick, is the one that he knows.

In that situation, you have magician's choice in the primaries. Then you would have the duopoly. Two candidates. Either of which was acceptable. And you could actually afford to hold an election.

And the populace would vote. And that way, the international order wasn't put at risk every four years. Because you can't have alliances, that are subject to the whim of the people in plebiscites. So under that structure, everything was going fine until 2016.

Then the first candidate ever to not hold any position in the military. Or position in government.

In the history of the Republican Party. Or Donald Trump. Broke through the primary structure.

This was a full-court press. Okay. We only have one candidate acceptable to the international order. Donald Trump will be under constant pressure, that he's a loser. He's a wild man. He's an idiot.

And he's under the control of the Russians. And then he was going to be a 20 to one underdog. And then he wins.

And there was no precedent for this. They learned their lesson you cannot afford to have candidates, who are not acceptable to the international order. And continue to have these alliances. This is an unsolved problem.

GLENN: Now. I've been saying for a long time, they're going to kill him.

Because it upsets their plans, and he's the one standing in the way, because he won't play their game. Now, Eric may have expressed this -- expressed this, in a more understandable way. But he's absolutely right.

100 percent right.

And that's why honestly, they're playing the game in the Democratic Party.

Where you didn't get a choice. You didn't have a primary.

You didn't have a primary.

And that's because the president is going to run. But the president can't run. So now, you didn't have a primary, and you have the most unpopular candidate. Ever!

She's never been, she was never popular. She wasn't popular just two months ago.

But now, oh, my gosh, she's hung the moon and the stars.

And we don't know anything about what she plans on doing. Okay.

All right. But she won't upset the international order.

She won't upset the -- the plans, that places like the WEF, and the United Nations. And now all of the western leadership, has come up with.

But you'll notice, those plans are extremely unpopular, with the people, all around the world.

Every -- every Western country now, is in turmoil.

Because they're doing the same thing to them, that they're doing to us. And that is collapse us.

Now, I believe this is to be true, I believe they'll do anything to stop him from winning.

They would put us into chaos. They would put us into Civil War, before they would have him win. They would put us in world war, before they would have him.

And Donald Trump, I just -- please, Mr. President. Please.

They've tried to kill you once. Please.

Don't make it worse. Don't make it worse. Yesterday, he was on a podcast, and he was on the Lex Friedman Podcast. And he got a lot of questions on Lex on foreign policy, et cetera, et cetera. The future going forward.

You know, he started talking about, you know, the Kennedy files. And how the Kennedy files, he kept classified.

Because it was protection of people. Which I'm not sure is exactly accurate.

I don't know what is in the Kennedy file. I have talked to people who have seen it.

And they have led me to believe, that it is not about people. It is about institutions.

But who knows? But Trump said, you know, I probably would not release the Kennedy files. However, Stu, what's the one thing you could say as a presidential candidate, that's pretty much guaranteed that you -- you're dead?

STU: Well, you're going to release the Epstein files.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And that would be --

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

But I am going to release the Epstein files. And the client list.

It's very strange for a lot of people, that the list of clients, that went to the island has not been made public.

Yeah. It's interesting, isn't it? Said Donald Trump.

It probably will be.

He said, I'll take a look at it, on the client list. But, yeah.

I'm inclined to do the Epstein thing.

I would have no problem with releasing that list.

Okay. All right. All right.

Remember, Donald Trump is definitely not suicidal.

But if they could put him in jail, he might become suicidal. And some cameras might go down.

Oh, my gosh.

STU: It's happened before, Glenn.

GLENN: This is -- oh, it did?

STU: Yeah. It's happened before.

GLENN: Really? But not related to Epstein?

STU: No. A philanthropist. No.

GLENN: The philanthropist. Yeah.

STU: Do we have this clip here, do you want to hear it? Yeah. Here we go.

DONALD: But a lot of big people went to that island.

Fortunately, I was not one of them.

VOICE: It's just very strange for a lot of people. That the list of clients that went to the island, has not been made public.

DONALD: Yeah. It's very interesting, isn't it? Probably will be, by the way.

VOICE: If you're able to -- you would be --

DONALD: I would certainly take a look at it. Now, Kennedy is interesting because it's so many years ago. They do that for danger too. Because, you know, in dangers, certain people, et cetera, et cetera. So Kennedy is very different from the Epstein thing. But, yeah, I would be inclined to do the Epstein. I would have no problem with it.

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

It's currently with the FBI. And it's under the control of one person at the FBI.

So what could possibly go wrong with that?

If it disappears, that would be unfortunate, wouldn't it, Stu?

And completely unexpected.

STU: Yeah. It would be shocking. That would be a shocking development. Look, sometimes, people lose documents.

You know --

GLENN: Happens all the time.

GLENN: Oops. I just dropped it in the shredder.

STU: Yeah. My daughter lost her homework, just last week.

And it was a rough day at school.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: This happens to people all the time.

There are shredders all over the place.

GLENN: All the time. You sometimes -- sometimes, you get up in the morning. And you almost exit -- I will step in the shower. And you almost step into the shredder. It happens. It happens, all the time.

STU: All the time.

Another example is, you noted yesterday, that your neighbor's property was on fire. What happened if a fire broke out, where that document was.

GLENN: Yeah. What happened? Oh, man. In the safe. In the safe. In the safe at the FBI.

STU: Yeah. Sometimes. Fires can happen anywhere, Glenn. Sometimes there are little fires that start up in safes.

GLENN: I knew we shouldn't have put it in the same safe, where we put the matches and the gremlin. You know.

I don't know what were we thinking?

What were we thinking? Oh, that's too bad.

Some misinformation here, I want to point out. Few fans left divided by major changes to ABC's daytime show, as Whoopi Goldberg and co-host return for a brand-new season.

Just want to give you -- you know, people say it all the time. How do you know when a story is true or not?

This one is pretty easy to point out. Just really in the first few letters. The View fans. There are no fans of the view.

And I would just like to correct that story. And make sure that you know.

We're on top of misinformation.

Alleged New York CHINESE SPY is just the tip of the iceberg

A former top aid for New York Governor Kathy Hochul and former Governor Andrew Cuomo has been indicted on suspicion of being a Chinese spy. Glenn speaks with independent reporter Peter Schweizer, whose book “Blood Money” exposes the shocking amount of shady connections to China that exist on both sides of the political aisle. Schweizer breaks down the story of Linda Sun, who is accused of acting as a foreign agent for the Chinese Communist Party in return for a luxurious lifestyle … and a surprising amount of salted ducks. He also explains whether he’s optimistic that the 2024 election can turn things around, or whether Chinese connections will thrive under a “Vice President Tim Walz.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We are under attack in so many different ways. One of those ways is we have been infiltrated by China. And there are Chinese spies, everywhere, and they're at the highest level.

We now find out, we now find out, that we have Kathy Hochul's assistant, the governor of California, high-level adviser, has been being paid by the Chinese government to help them out. How much is your citizenship worth?

How much -- how much would you sell your country out for?

Peter Schweizer is here to tell us, any details, that he has. He has been following the Chinese infiltration for a very long.

Welcome, Peter. How are you?

PETER: Hi, I'm great, Glenn. Always good to be with you. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: Thank you.

So in your book, Blood Money: Why the Powerful Turn a Blind Eye While China Kills Americans. You talk about how many and both on the Republican and the Democratic side, how many people are selling their souls to China.

Tell me about this case. What do you know about it?

PETER: Yeah. So Linda's son was the deputy chief of staff for Kathy Hochul. Before that, she served for years in senior positions for Andrew Cuomo. She was his chief -- deputy chief diversity officer, for example.

And essentially, what she's being charged with in a 60-page indictment. Is getting millions of dollars, from the Chinese government and from the CCP.

And she took her position and used it, for the benefit of China.

So, for example, she blocked representatives from the Taiwanese government, from even having access to the governor's office. She altered state messages, that were important to Chinese officials. So she literally would change a message, to benefit them.

She also helped Chinese officials travel to the United States. She issued unauthorized invitations, that weren't approved by anyone else.

That allowed government officials to come into the United States. And she gave Chinese officials access to private New York government conversations, during the COVID-19 crisis.

Explaining how they were going to respond.

She would actually patch them in, on these high-level group telephone calls.

And in exchange for that, according to prosecutors, she received a lot of benefits from the Chinese government. She was able to buy a 4.1 million-dollar Long Island home, a 2.1 million-dollar condo in Hawaii.

She and her husband also bought a 2024 Ferrari Roma, and I guess maybe my personal favorite, Glenn, she also is accused of getting 16 meals that were prepared by a Chinese government chef. They were salted duck, which sounds good to me.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, it changes -- I mean, once you hear the salted duck thing, that she got 16 of them. You think, well, maybe. Maybe. It changes things dramatically.

Why did it take so long for this to become apparent? What does her husband do, by the way? Do you know?

PETER: Yeah. Her husband in New York, ran a sort of export/import business, a little bit, maybe.

GLENN: Really?

PETER: But the other thing, Glenn, is that she apparently, according to the indictments, think about this, she's a senior state official for Andrew Cuomo and the current governor of New York.

She apparently ran her own business in China, in mainland China, which is where she was born.

She's a naturalized US citizen. But she actually had a business in China, that nobody knew about it.

And the Chinese government also apparently the gave her cousin, a cushy job.

That is mentioned among the indictments as well.

GLENN: How -- how -- how many more are there?

How widespread is this, Peter?

PETER: Oh, it's a massive problem.

And look, this is something you and I have been talking about since 2018.

You've talked about it on Blaze TV.

And that is, that they have avoided, really enforcing the foreign agent's registration act.

Which requires, if you do anything to benefit a foreign government or a foreign government-linked business. You're required to file with the Department of Justice.

And they didn't really support this law, at all.

And then, of course, they used it against various Republicans.

Which, you know, look, if they're guilty of it, they're guilty of it, they should be charged.

But it's selective. This case was a long time coming.

Of course, there is back -- I think a strong case fort same violations, that took place by Hunter Biden.

Faced millions of dollars.

GLENN: Yep. From the Chinese.

PETER: Yep. Yep.

By the Chinese. By the Ukrainians.
By the Romanians. By the Russians.

I think you can make a fair case in every one of those instances, when it relates to Hunter Biden.

And the Department of Justice now in their tax case against Hunter Biden has even said that he ran a for-influence peddling scene, but he's yet to be charged under this foreign agent's registration act, which is what Melinda's son has now been charged with.

GLENN: And he got more than salted duck.

Well, maybe.

I mean, I saw some of the videos.

He might have. Anyway, let's move on.

You know, Peter, I can't thank you enough

For all the work you've done. My mood never improves after talking to you. But I'm appreciative of the not only.

Can I get a read from you, on -- how optimistic are you, that we can turn things around, with this election?

PETER: I'm cautiously optimistic. Look, the bottom line is we have to be realists. You know, the reminder here is we don't want to be optimistic, because you're naive. And you don't want to be pessimistic. Because you just give up all hope. But the bottom line, I do think there are people around Trump, that have Chinese connections. But there are also people around Trump that recognize this problem. I believe those are in the closer inner circle. When you look at Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.

I mean, Tim Walz, does not get -- did not get money from the Chinese.

But he fits the definition of a fellow traveler. And my fear is, that with him as vice president, because he's at an exchange program, with China for 30 years.

They will make him the point person on China policy. And then God forbid, I think we will be in deep trouble.

GLENN: So -- going to be in deep trouble. Peter, when you look at everything that is going on, and what they are now admitting to, and saying, you know, we're going to do price controls. We're going to do unrealized gains tax. You know, the -- their stance on war. Their stance on everything.

I mean, there is no way, that if that's your plan, which is coming together, oh, so nicely, especially when it comes to controlling free speech, all around the world, and we're involved with it, in England and in Brazil, there's no way that Donald Trump, that they could allow him to win.

Because he really is the only thing standing in the way, of all of these very nefarious plans.

PETER: Yeah. I mean, this is the weird place where we are in America, Glenn, where you have Donald Trump, who sort of breaks all molds.

And one of the people that's vigorously supporting him.

Is Robert Kennedy Jr. Who also breaks a lot of molds.

And they will disagree with a lot of policy positions. But the point is, they've recognized the essential problem.

And the essential problem is this desire for control, and dominance.

Where the left has essentially been fused with corporate America. Big government and big business are not enemies. They're actually allies.

And this is the place that we find ourselves.

And I think what the Harris campaign is really trying to do is bank, that a sizeable proportion of the American population, voting population, is going to be ignorant.

So they play this game, where they talk about these policy prescriptions, that really don't have widespread popularity. You know, this tax on unrealized gains is just ridiculous.

But they're -- they're obscuring it enough, to where they think, that a lot of people won't even be aware, that that is her position.

That's the game that they're playing.

And I still want to have enough faith that people will see to that, and understand what's going on.

GLENN: Yeah. I hope so. Peter, thank you so much.

God bless you. Keep on the trail. You bet.

Peter Schweizer. Investigative journalist, who used to be one of the most beloved investigative journalists, when it came to government corruption. Because he rats out both sides. That's not good enough anymore.

You can only rat out one side. And it has to be the conservatives. If you do it to the other side, you're over.

But luckily, his books are well-read by, you know, millions of Americans. So he continues to do his job.

Glenn DESTROYS The New York Times for calling The Constitution a THREAT

A new New York Times op-ed titled “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” may be the most delusional thing Glenn has read in a while. Glenn reviews the article, which suggests that the Constitution may be a threat to “America’s politics” (hint: IT IS, and it’s supposed to be), that the Constitution may be to blame for Trump, and that our founding document “could hasten the end of American democracy.” Glenn also spots an argument that’s right out of the far-left’s contingency plan for if Trump won in 2020: The Transition Integrity Project. In the end, Glenn points out that the Times isn't the first to suggest that the Constitution is dangerous ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The New York Times just released an op-ed, the America's Constitution is sacred. But is it also the biggest threat to our politics?

Bum, bum, bum. Yes! It actually is a threat to our politics! Yes! As it should be a threat to our politics. The United States Constitution is in trouble. After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. Really? Is that when it became in trouble, Stu? I mean, I'm just. I'm thinking back. I'm thinking back. You know, a little bit before Donald Trump. Like, I don't know.

Woodrow Wilson. And I've been thinking, the Constitution has been in trouble since about then. Maybe it's just me?

STU: Yeah. That doesn't seem like it was a little bit earlier, considering the words of Woodrow Wilson, who tried to basically do to the founding documents, what happened to that neighbor's mountain.

Like, it just -- light it on fire, and watch it burn.

GLENN: Yeah. That was it. By announcing his desire to throw a Donald Trump.

To throw off Constitutional constraints, in order to satisfy his personal ambitions, Trump was making his authoritarian inclinations abundantly clear. Now, let me ask you.

Who is the one that is currently talking about the redesign of the Supreme Court?

I mean, by the way, I just want you to know, that's what dictators always do.

That is the last step to a banana republic. That is the point of no return.

When you -- when you have the president, or the Prime Minister, or whoever.

Change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

That's the last straw. Now, which one of those is doing that?

STU: Glenn, we're just talking about a return to normalcy.

That's all that is.

That whole renovating the Supreme Court into something that has never existed is a return to normalcy.

GLENN: Yeah. May I ask you, Stu. Isn't this exactly the same thing they did with Joe Biden?

They ran him, and he didn't talk to the press. He never was in front of people.

He was in his basement.

When he was out. He was always on prompter.

And then they just made the case, that he was normal.

He was just like you. He was for all the things you are for. Just a return to normalcy.

That's exactly what they're doing. Again, America!

Come on.

Really.

STU: Yeah. And again, it's important to understand the return to normalcy. Just purveys this throughout the entire campaign.

For example, the return to enormous, of having debates that go through the presidential commission on -- on debates. Remember that whole thing?

That's now basically defunct, because the president of the United States, decided he was going to be cocky. And cancel one of the debates.

Leave the normal format, and then taunt his opponent about it, and lose so badly that he had to end his political career.

And then the person who took over for them, not only didn't go back to the commission and say, hey. Let's start this up again. Let's do three things.

No, no, no. She just had the one that was already there. And tried to change the rules of that.

Then also taunted the opponent in the debate. Let's see if she shows up. Because that would be I think the most normal thing possible.

GLENN: Well, you forgot the most normal part of that story. That is getting the nomination without a single vote cast for her.

STU: Yeah. Normal. Normal, guys.

GLENN: Totally normal. Constitutional.

And totally normal. And, really, what people are demanding.

Anyway, it's no surprise, then that liberals charged Trump with being a menace to the Constitution, but his presidency and the prospect of his re-election have also generated another very different argument. That Trump owes his political assent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially anti-democratic. Wait. Wait. Wait.

You say we're a democracy, okay? You said, we've always been a democracy. What would make us a democracy, would be the Constitution.

But we're not a democracy. The Constitution says we have democratic attributes. But we are a republic. And now you're calling this an antidemocratic document?

I mean, after all, Trump became president in 2016, after losing the popular vote. But winning the electoral college.

Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. You're not going to believe. You're not going to believe this, Stu.

He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court for him article three. Two of whom were just confirmed by senators representing 44 percent of the population. Article one. Whose three justices helped overturn Roe vs. Wade. A reversal that most Americans disagreed with. Imminent legal scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky. Yes. I love Erwin Chemerinsky. They put him in place, long time ago.

He's great. He's an eminent scholar, and he's worried about opinion polls showing a dramatic loss of faith in democracy.

It's never been any faith in democracy!

He writes in his new book, no democracy lasts forever. No.

In fact, that's why we're not a democracy. And that's why our Constitution has lasted. When the average Constitution of the world lasts 17 years, ours has survived since 1781.

I don't know. A little longer than 17 years! Anyway, no democracy lasts from her. It's important for Americans to see that the failure stems from the Constitution itself.

Oh, really? Yes, Mr. Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School.

STU: Of course. That's Kamala Harris' hometown, by the way. I just wanted to point that out. It's not Oakland.

GLENN: No. It's Oakland.

STU: I know she's a daughter of Oakland. But actually, she grew up in Berkeley and Montreal, and then went to Howard University.

And then went to San Francisco.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So you want to talk about a path to normal middle?

GLENN: She's red, white, and blue person.

She, like, screams Constitution and small-town America from Berkeley, California.

STU: Just a heavy emphasis on the red.

GLENN: So...

(laughter)

What are you saying? Red, red, blue. That's who she is? Red, blue. Yes. She's all American. Anyway, he says, he -- Americans have a problem with the Constitution.

And Chemerinsky deemed Berkeley political law school seems to place considerable faith in Constitution, pleading with federal progressives in the book, we, the people. Not to turn backs on Constitution or the courts, but by contrast, no democracy lasts forever.

Markedly pessimistic, asserting that the Constitution, which is famously difficult to amend. It's difficult to amend?

Those should be walk in park! We should be able to -- like mama makes apple pie, when she makes that apple pie, she puts it on shelf. And some neighbor can come and just get it.

I see it in American cartoons. And it should be that easy to amend Constitution.

But it's not. It's very difficult. And he says, what would need to happen is a new constitutional convention.

And in the books, more somber moments. Which I wrote, I entertain possibility of secession.

Vladimir Putin not for secession at all. No. He -- he loves the Constitution of the United States.

And west coast states might form nation called Pacifica.

Red states might form their own country.

But he -- he hopes that any divorce, if it comes, will be peaceful.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. So hang on just a second.

So this guy is from Berkeley.

And he's talking about Pacifica. Where did I hear this before?

I remember. Before the 2020 election, Stu. The Democrats had some group together, that was going to save America. Remember? In case Donald Trump won. And one of the things they said was, we will have California break up west coast into Pacifica.

California, parts of -- of Oregon. Maybe parts of Washington state. Would become Pacifica.

And that we would break away. And if they didn't want to us breakaway. Then we demand that Trump add two states.

One would be Washington, DC. And the other one would be make a state out of Puerto Rico.

Oh, I remember that now.

Gee!

And what was their problem.

Oh, their problem was, the electoral college.

Which is weird. Because he just didn't mention the electoral college. The prospect of secession sounds extreme, he says. But in suggesting that the Constitution could hasten the end of American democracy.

Chemerinsky is far from alone. Lots of people have got Boris and Natasha, say same thing.

The argument, that what ails the country's politics isn't simply the president or Congress or the Supreme Court, but the founding document itself.

Right?

That's been our problem for the last 250 years?

Thing longest running Constitution, in the longest running republic, in human history.

And that's our problem. All along. That's our problem. Uh-huh.

STU: It's not like we haven't had a good run of success here.

It would be one thing, if we were -- there's an area of outer Mongolia that the United States looked like. And we were a little disappointed in the progress that we had made.

It's kind of the most advanced country ever -- you know, developed. It's -- it's -- it's overseen. This incredible -- you know. All these incredible innovations.

GLENN: Have you looked at it lately. Have you looked at Aurora, Colorado? That's the Constitution's fault.

STU: Oh, when the Venezuelans are taking over the apartment complexes?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Constitution's fault. How is that Constitution?

Donald Trump.

STU: Yeah.

That's a good point. But you didn't quite -- maybe you need to go a little bit more into depth. Why the words Donald Trump --

GLENN: I won't listen to you, conspiracy theory, anymore. Really honestly.

I'm just looking at this. He says, that the Constitution has incentivized the tyranny of the minority.

It's the Constitution's fault!

You see?

You see? Now, if I remember right, one of the things they put in there, to make sure that there wasn't the tyranny of the minority, was the -- was the electoral college.

That way, California, New York, couldn't dominate everybody in the red states.

You know, kind of what they're doing. And when you talk about tyranny of the minority.

Stu, if it wasn't for -- I mean, it's still a minority. But it's a growing minority.

You know, if it wasn't for 30 percent of all future adults, in America, now claiming to be transgender and gay, and, you know, My Little Pony.

You would say, maybe this is all happening, you know, with the tyranny of the minority.

But no.

No.

STU: Well, that is okay. And as we have talked about, many, many times.

You know, 40. Thirty to 40 percent of the population, being in the LGBTQ population. Is the return to normalcy. We were promised with Joe Biden.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And Kamala Harris. This is -- everything about this is normal.

Everything.

GLENN: Everything is normal. Now, they always say, that they love the Constitution.

But now they fear the Constitution. And they should.

You know, somebody else feared the Constitution.

It was -- I think it was -- oh. King George.

He thought it was a very dangerous document too.

In fact, every dictator, all around the world has thought for the last 250 years. Wow, that's a dangerous document.

But, hey. The New York Times and the left, they love it. That's it why they've just run, is the Constitution -- is the Constitution sacred?

But is it also dangerous? Or this story, the Constitution is broken, and should not be reclaimed. Or MAGA turns against the Constitution.

Or we had to force the Constitution, to accommodate democracy.

The Constitution won't save us from Trump.

Or the story in the New York Times, is the Constitution obstructing the American democracy?

Let's give up on the Constitution. Or the headline, the US lacks what every democracy needs. Or this is the story how Lincoln broke the US Constitution.

They love it!