©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Glenn reveals the facts that the media refuse to share and breaks down the entire Ukraine timeline on the chalkboard. Tune in to watch as Glenn makes yet another complex issue simple.
View the research and supporting documents for this special here.
This is part of a 4-part series. Here are links to all 4 parts:
When she was Vice President, Kamala Harris and her staff carried around a spreadsheet of Republican judges who could swear her in as president if President Biden either died in office or had to step down. "Fight" co-author Amie Parnes joins Glenn to detail just how serious Harris' plan was, as well as the DNC’s plans, since they knew the real mental state of Joe Biden. Amie describes what was hidden from the public by the White House: Biden was forgetful, needed constant makeup to make him look more alive, and much more: "they were clearly concerned about the optics around his age and around his mental acuity." She also details why Biden agreed to his disastrous debate with Donald Trump and why she believes this information is only now getting out.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Amie is with us. Amie Parnes, Hill senior political correspondent. Author of Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House.
Amie, how are you?
AMIE: Hi, Glenn, thank you for having me.
GLENN: You bet!
You know, so can we play the -- just that little collage of all the people that said, this wasn't happening. Do we have that? Can we play that real quick?
VOICE: Joe Biden has vision. He has knowledge. He is a strategic thinker. This is a very sharp president, in terms of his public presentation. He makes a slip of the tongue here or there, what's the deal?
VOICE: You're asking me my personal opinion. He is sharp. He is on top of things. He -- when we have meetings with him, with his staff. He's constantly pushing us. Trying to get more information.
VOICE: I can tell you, this was the day before that interview. I can tell you, he was sharper, than anyone I've spoken to, about --
GLENN: Okay. Stop.
This was happening all the time, Amie. Everyone was saying, how sharp he is.
That was, according to your book, just absolutely not true, and everybody in the White House knew that. Go ahead.
AMIE: Yeah. No.
It's something that we really did you go into in reporting out this book.
And we have questions about what interactions certain people had with the president.
We detail how Eric Swalwell, a congressman from California, for example, attended a congressional picnic with the president, a year before this debate debacle, this disaster.
And, you know, I'll just remind them, President Biden who he was.
And this was someone who they competed against, in the presidential 2020 election. He should know who he is. And there is detail after detail in this book. You know, in your book, you talk about how there were bets being made. How they were looking. Shopping for judges. On who was going to swear her in.
They thought he was going to die before the election.
I mean, did you -- did I get the sense from anyone while you're searching this book, that anyone thought, maybe. This isn't really good for the Constitution?
AMIE: I mean, that's why you're seeing a lot of arrows being thrown in the direction of the former president and his aids.
People are really, really upset about -- they think it's a cover-up. They think that they should have been more candid, even within their own party, about the president's cognitive abilities.
And, you know, Glenn. I -- I covered the president for a long time.
And I tried to get after the story.
And the White House was constantly -- I know my colleagues were as well.
It's not like I -- but the White House would batter us. When we asked questions about his mental acuity and his age. It was a constant, constant battle.
GLENN: But was there anybody that knew, that should have spoken out, I mean, in the press or anything?
I mean, it's one thing to -- it's one thing to speculate.
It's one thing, to I hear rumors.
And if you're shut off from it.
But, you know, in the White House, it seems like, there were quite a few people that knew, this is a disaster!
Who is -- who is running the country, at that point? Who was the president?
AMIE: I mean, this close set of advisers kept him really close. And that's why I think you didn't see him as much.
Right now, President Trump is out there, talking to reporters every day.
I think the press corps wanted Biden to see Biden do similar things. And take a similar media approach. He did not.
And, you know, we detail in the book, there's a fundraiser, where someone, you know, says that these -- he's going to die at the fundraiser.
There are other moments, where, you know, we take you inside bill Murphy's house.
And we detail how he's speaking to just a couple of -- a couple of dozen fundraisers, at a small house. And he was on the floor, to guide him from place to place. He needs a teleprompter. You know, these aren't common things.
GLENN: At a house. At a house.
AMIE: Yes.
And, you know, makeup. This was -- this was another revelation in our book.
Whenever he traveled overseas. He was met with a makeup artist. That was his first order of business. Sometimes he missed meetings because the makeup artist wasn't there to touch him up. There were clearly concerns about the optics around his age and around his mental acuity.
GLENN: You write at one point, that the makeup artist. He goes in, he sits in for the makeup. And he calls it a day. And that was it.
AMIE: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And these were aides talking to us about it. Obviously, they knew about it. They said, at times, he looked really frazzled. He would get out of the limousine. And would look around, and wouldn't know where he was. So, yeah. It's very startling even to people who were telling us these stories.
GLENN: But, you know, it's one thing to be -- it's one thing to go, yeah. That was really weird.
It's another to realize, that is the man, that has to make the decision, you know, for the country, God forbid we're attacked or whatever!
And he's not there.
Was -- was there anyone inside fighting and saying, we have got to alert the American people?
We have to invoke the 25th amendment.
25th, isn't it, Stu?
We've got to invoke the 25th amendment.
This isn't right. The people have put their power in this man.
He is no longer capable of making these decisions.
I think a lot of people would have had respect for that!
Instead, I walk away going, was there no one that cared about the Constitution?
And cared about what could have happened with this guy in charge?
AMIE: No. And I think that's why you're seeing so much fire aimed at his close set of advisors right now, because they could have been more candid.
And, you know, Democrats in general, I think were confused as to his cognitive abilities.
I think the reason why he wanted to do this debate. And his advisers wanted to do this debate, earlier. This disaster born in June last year. Is because they wanted -- they knew that he was losing in the polls. Obviously, they wanted to change the trajectory of the phrase.
And they thought that that was a moment, that could help them. Instead, it brought out, you know -- it displayed everything, for the American public.
GLENN: Wow. So I honestly thought, for the longest time.
They did that. Knowing -- somebody was like, no. Let's put him on the stage. And let's do it now, before things get completely out of hand.
And he's going to be running for reelection.
I -- I really thought they put him on stage that early.
Because I've never seen that happen before in American politics.
Put him on stage that early, so he would be exposed. And everyone would be like, okay. We can't run him.
AMIE: No, and what's fascinating, Glenn, is we take you inside. We open the book, inside Nancy Pelosi's living room. And she's watching the debate alone. She's warned President Biden, at the time. She said, oh, you don't want it to be Trump.
She mentioned it under the guise of, oh, why would you belittle yourself, and appear on stage with him, but she knows.
And Jill Clayburgh, who is also watching the debate alone, in his living room. He's there, he's having a drink and watching it. They're all alone. They're not at the debate watch party together. Because they almost know what is about to happen there. Watching the train wreck unfold, bit by bit, and alone.
GLENN: So what do we do to ensure this -- let me ask it before I ask you that again.
Again. Who was running the country?
AMIE: That's a very good question.
I think, obviously, his -- his close set of advisers had a great big role in that.
You see Ron Klain these days. Trying to distance himself. He's the former chief of staff.
Trying to distance himself from the optics of what was happening.
GLENN: But it's not -- it's really not optics. It is the truth.
AMIE: Yeah.
GLENN: Somebody was making decisions because the president could -- you know, I've -- I was always fascinated in history by Woodrow Wilson.
Edith Wilson ran the White House for a while. It was his own party that came in -- it was the same thing. People were like, rumors.
And they were like, I don't think he's really there.
And he wasn't seen for a long time. So the leadership of the party came. Finally forced the First Lady. And said, because she was the one saying, he's going to run for a third term.
And he said, no. No. No. Or we'll expose ail of this right now. He's not running for a third term.
And, you know, it seems to be the same thing. I'm wondering how many presidents have we had that, you know, nobody seems to really care that the elected official, isn't actually doing what that official is supposed to do.
They're just unelected people making the decisions.
AMIE: And the fact of the matter, Glenn. You see the former president all, but disappear from public view, since leaving office.
And that I think speaks volumes about his state of mind.
GLENN: Was -- was Kamala that in the know.
Which, I mean, if God forbid, something would have happened. Who would have grabbed the football.
Who would have been the one.
AMIE: It would have been Kamala Harris.
You teased this earlier. But her communications director would carry around this spreadsheet of Republican judges.
Because he felt almost like she had to be validated in that moment. And only a Republican judge could really swear her in.
And have that validation, from Republicans. He thought that there was no way, that such a divisive country, and, you know, people would support her.
And so we detail how he came into that role. With the spreadsheet.
He traveled with it.
The DNC had plans.
If things happened to the president.
And we expose all of this for the first time in this book.
GLENN: Can you find anything?
I'm a self-taught historian. But I'm pretty good at it.
I've never seen anything like it, in American history.
Have you?
AMIE: It's pretty rational. It's really unprecedented.
It was really interesting to report out.
You know, I think people have questions about the media. And how we went about reporting this.
And it's -- it's almost like the president needed to leave office for people to actually admit what was actually happening.
GLENN: Why?
AMIE: And tell us stories. That's what's interesting. I think when you cover a president, they're always worried that the White House is going to come down hard on them, and so they're -- they're less prone to want to tell you things.
And then when they leave office, this is when the floodgates open up.
GLENN: Is anybody going to be held accountable for this?
AMIE: I mean, I think right now. The party. I think that's why you're seeing the democratic party scrambling.
First of all, they have to come out and admit what happened here.
And almost look themselves in the mirror, and talk about Joe Biden. The other day, Jake Tapper asked Tim Walz about it. And Tim Walz kind of stepped around the question. I think they need to be very frank about what was happening.
And what they were witnessing. And they don't -- they don't want to do that right now.
GLENN: You know, it's interesting to me.
I just told this story on the air, because people are kicking around, Donald Trump wants to run for a third term.
No. No. That's against the Constitution. And that was put there for a very clear reason. And it wasn't put in there, by the Republicans.
It was put in by the Democrats.
FDR's own party when they saw what had happened to the presidency. It just gained far too much power.
And it's not good for anybody when that happens.
And, you know, here you have -- as soon as FDR died. That's when all the Democrats were like, okay. Okay. We have to make sure that doesn't happen again.
But they were for him, when he was alive.
It seems like the same thing here. That everybody was like, okay.
It's cool.
But is anybody going to step now, and say, this cannot happen ever again?
AMIE: I think that's what has to happen, Glenn.
Somebody has to take responsibility for it.
And no one is.
And I'm curious to see how the Democrats reckon with this.
GLENN: Hmm.
Amie, thank you very much.
I'm glad somebody finally told the story. And got the story.
It is -- if we don't fix this, it's just going to happen again.
And it will happen with the other party.
I mean, it will.
You give people, in power, an inch.
They are going to take a mile.
And this cannot happen. This just cannot happen again.
Amie, thank you so much.
AMIE: Thank you, Glenn.
GLENN: You bet. Amie Parnes. Fight, inside the wildest battle for the White House.
Are pro-Hamas groups planning an intifada in America? Capital Research Center investigative researcher Ryan Mauro tells Glenn that many of these groups that called for the destruction of Israel after the Oct. 7 attack are now talking about restoring “occupied Turtle Island.” Ryan explains how this term is the American equivalent of calling Israel “occupied Palestine” and why these groups could become much more mainstream soon. Plus, he reveals whether they’re receiving government funding.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Ryan Mauro is a counterterrorism expert, investigative researcher from the Capitol Research Center, where he monitors extremist groups in the US.
He is also an adjunct professor at Regent University. Ryan, welcome to the program. Good to have you back.
RYAN: Of course, Glenn.
GLENN: You bet. Man, I read your story today. And America faces pro-Hamas intifada on its own soil. It is terrifying, the facts.
Do you want to take us through this? Right sure. So over at Capitol research center, where I work, we've done a series of studies. Because we wanted to collect data, to see just how anti-American the so-called pro-Palestinian movement. I think so-called. Because it's really not pro-Palestinian in groups. Don't even talk about that issue all that much.
But we want to see a level of altruism within that movement.
As I talk about in your program before, the latest study that we did, we wanted to see, how he has changed from the 15 months before the October 7th attacks. And then also look at the 15 months after the October 7th attack. Seeing, if they have changed. Who they found, based on their online postings. And their engagement and everything.
Anti-Americanism which they've always existed. Has now basically taken it over.
It's absolutely exploded. To the point where, it calls for anti-American violence, particularly towards the police has increased by about 3,000 percent.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
RYAN: When you look at about 500 of the so-called pro-Palestinian activists and organizations, charities, and groups like that.
GLENN: Oh, my goodness.
RYAN: And the overall within anti-American vitriol has increased by 186 percent since the October 7th attack.
GLENN: Okay. So tell me about these organizations. You say, they're not even really pro-Hamas anymore. They're anti-American.
Is this -- have these just been shill organizations, kind of Marxist organizations, from the beginning?
Or is this just a natural morphing from -- you know, we've got to get rid of baby Satan. To get rid of the great Satan?
RYAN: So many of them were Marxists or anarchists to begin with.
And you can tell, they weren't really forward about it. They have since become more forward about it. Many groups that have suspected terrorism are more open about it. They have a comfortable environment, an environment where it was rewarded. So the mask was able to be dropped. And October 7th was kind of like that, that tempting moment, where to show to your own radical audience, whether you're authentic or not.
You have to say something.
You couldn't just be silent anymore. And so the result is, that the mask has dropped on a lot of these pro-Palestinian groups, as to what they were really about. And they have a lot of new groups for them. Some as nonprofits. And some just as online groups that are unregistered as anything.
And so the anti-Americanism that was always there, is now a central focus.
And in some cases, more than the focus, than it is on Israel, even.
GLENN: So when you say they're really anti-American, your article talked about Fourth of July.
And how many of these anti-Israel groups, how they reacted to Fourth of July?
RYAN: As cynical as I am, I was even shocked by this. So I looked at, as many groups as I possibly could.
With a limited time frame. How they reacted to the Fourth of July holiday, last year. And what I found was over 250 anti-Israel groups, condemning the holiday. They refused to celebrate it.
In most cases saying, America is an illegitimate colonial state, using the same terminology, to delegitimize Israel.
They should -- so blatantly endorsing violence.
I saw one that was ridiculing Martin Luther King for being non-violent.
And so I look at all of this, and you can really see the infrastructure, and we're talking about easily hundreds of registered nonprofits.
And thousands of unregistered groups.
GLENN: Any of them getting money from our government?
RYAN: Yes. That has been seen in the past, particularly as regards to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Various organizations. I've done research into that. So that is certainly an issue. They get money from the big donors. The predictable names. Like the George Soros network.
And so you have these sort of mainstream left-wing democratic money powerhouses.
That are just giving money out, whether they realize, what they have to do with it or not.
They might say, oh, social justice. Then they might say, oh, you're a good guy.
But this is a business!
Like, they condemn capitalism. Either -- like, they get bonuses and raises as they fundraise more off of this.
GLENN: So tell me about the Students for Justice in Palestine. I'm trying to remember, because I know I have done in-depth stories on them.
But they now are just a blur.
Who is -- who are students for justice in Palestine?
And who is funding them? And what are they doing?
BRANDON: So Students for Justice in Palestine is kind of the back bone of the protest against Israel and the United States.
That you've seen since the October 7th attacks.
They have a presence on -- they claim, over 200 college campuses. So they're all over the place.
They're sort of the main focal point.
Not much is known of their leadership and fundraising or anything like that, because there is a particular arrangement, through complicit non-profits that they have, to make it like, you can't see anything.
I mean, there is no transparency.
We know there is a link to American Muslims for Palestine, which is run by people who come from the Hamas network, as groups are shut down. They then gravitated over to this group, that formed American Muslims for Palestine. And Students for Justice in Palestine is kind of part of that, even though we don't know too many details.
We know that they're tied to them.
And Students for Justice in Palestine did get some negative attention for their protest after the October 7th attack, especially because they openly supported them.
They were one of the first groups to actually celebrate them. Many of these groups before the Israelis even retaliated in large measure for the attack, were already saying, Israel is a genocidal state.
Stop them from retaliating. And these attacks are wrong. So what really wasn't noticed, because everyone was so shocked by them supporting the October 7th attacks, was that that same statement.
Also, where they said, they don't just support the groups that did it. They were part of that. They were part of Hamas. They were part of the popular front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is like the Communist counterpart to Hamas. And they called for violence, to resist occupied places. And then referred to the United States as occupied turtle island. That's a call for violence on American soil.
GLENN: Explain turtle island.
BRANDON: So turtle island is a terminology that comes from a Native American myth, that when the world was created. Particularly north and Central America. It was created on the back of a turtle during a global flood.
And the Native American tribes referred to it as Turtle Island collectively. Until the white man -- the settlers showed up. And then genocided them all.
And so when these groups refer to the US as Turtle Island, it's the same thing as saying, well, Israel shouldn't be called Israel. It should be called Palestine. Because this is an illegitimate country, that everyone's moral fiber is obligated to fight and to destroy.
GLENN: And truly, they're just at the beginning. And so it seems ridiculous.
But it -- it's not ridiculous. And it is working in many ways, over in Israel.
It's the erasing of the entire history, of a country.
Its legacy.
Everything about us.
By taking and saying, this is -- let me give you the quote.
Liberating colonized land is a real process, that requires confrontation, by any means necessary!
In essence, de-colonization is a call to action, a commitment to the restoration of indigenous sovereignty.
It calls upon us to engage in meaningful action, that goes beyond symbolism and rhetoric.
Resistance comes in all forms.
Armed struggle. General strikes. And popular demonstrations. All of it is legitimate.
And all of it is necessary!
Wow.
RYAN: It's unbelievable.
And the people involved in this. The students involved in this. Those are your future employers. Your future politicians. Your future influencers. I mean, that's where everything is headed. And the trend lines are not good. I was looking at a poll from 2017. And obviously, everything has gotten much more radical since then.
And they polled American results and asked them about various things related to that. And that poll in 2017, found that 8 percent of American adults supported Antifa.
Another 8 percent said that they liked white nationalism.
That's a total of about 16 percent, in 2017.
Now, if you consider the fact that Trump won the election by about one and a half percent, what that means is that -- and these groups coalesce, and form a voting bloc. Or even if they don't vote, they are just able to influence minds.
They can determine elections. And you better believe the political, industrial complex, and politicians are going to increasingly realize that and be tempted to pander to them.
GLENN: Is this why the Democratic Party seems to have just completely lost their mind.
And are going with AOC, and everybody else is a massive radical?
RYAN: I think so. I mean, this is the grassroots now.
These are the activists. The people that -- they may not represent the majority of the opinion. But they certainly, formed the majority of the online opinion makers.
GLENN: I -- you see the numbers of support for Israel.
Compared to support for the Palestinians.
And it's the support for Israel is now at record lows.
On both sides.
That -- is that a result of these organizations?
RYAN: I believe so. I think it's also a result of foreign governments that promote seditionist type beliefs and behaviors.
They want to achieve what's called discourse collapse. Where basically you fill the American news ecosystem with so much BS. That people just kind of believe what they want, or believe what appears upon their eyes most often. And I think that's why you're seeing these crazy fringe beliefs becoming mainstream.
That's great. I think if you put it all together, I would say -- when we hear death to America, we think it's crazy. But I would say, death to America is crazy as a belief system.
But as a goal, it's actually achievable. And I hope people wake up and realize that.
GLENN: Right as always. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're doing just God's work on this. Thank you. Ryan Mauro.
RYAN: Thank you.
GLENN: Capitol Research Center investigative researcher and counterterrorism expert. It is. It is truly something we need to be very, very aware of. We -- we have won a four-year period here. But that can change on a dime.
As we're seeing this week, you know.
Economy goes away.
And Donald Trump does not win. The Republicans don't win.
And you go back to crazy town USA.
That surrounds themselves with these kinds of people.
Do you want to live in a society, that is built on the backs of these kinds of people?
The answer should be a resounding no!
But because we have such a bad media, education system, and everything else, and we're so polarized in politics, that we can no longer see the truth, these people are going to -- they are going to be the -- well, they will make Thomas Jefferson's prediction of, if we don't fight the Muslims now, he was saying this. When he was president of the United States.
Our first foreign war was with the Muslims over -- with the Barbary pirates.
And he stopped it.
And he said, I want you to know, there -- they're never going to quit.
They're never going to end.
They believe all of these things in their Koran. And they have a right to enslave you. To kill you. To take over all lands.
They have a right to the entire earth!
And if we don't defeat them now, they are going to be our first foreign war, and maybe our last foreign war.
We have been lied to from the very beginning about globalization. From Europe’s Muslim no-go zones to America’s heartland, Glenn argues that unchecked immigration and deceptive NAFTA-era trade deals are dismantling Western society. To people and entities like Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, nothing was worth protecting. They wanted to “redesign the world.” But how’s that working out for them? Populist uprisings are happening in Germany, France, and England. And yet, it seems Europe’s fate may be our future with an Islamic foothold in Texas. Governor Greg Abbott (R-Texas) opened an investigation into a controversial Muslim neighborhood development — EPIC City — proposed by the East Plano Islamic Center near Dallas. The developers say the community will follow the Constitution and local laws — NOT Sharia law. But an unearthed video from one of the Muslim leaders behind the project paints a different picture.
President Trump suspended his global tariffs for 90 days, except for China. But is this strategy enough to win the trade war and fix the economy? Glenn speaks with renowned economist Richard Werner, who makes the case that Trump’s next move should take place here at home. It’s not enough, he argues, to pressure the big banks. He must also cut the government red tape and help local banks flourish. Plus, Werner also argues that Trump is fighting a hidden enemy in Europe: the CIA.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Richard Werner. He is an economist. You can find him at ProfessorWerner.org.
ProfessorWerner.org. Richard Werner. Professor, how are you, sir?
RICHARD: Very well, thank you. Good to be on your program.
GLENN: Yeah. Good to have you on again. You are looking at the situation, and it is changing by the hour. What are you feeling, especially you're -- you're from Germany. Are you still in Germany today? Or are you here in the United States?
RICHARD: I'm actually in the US, in Florida as well.
GLENN: All right. What is happening in Germany and in Europe, and how is -- how this whole trade thing affecting everybody?
RICHARD: Well, it is affecting everyone.
Because actually, if you have the sort of lists of terrorists.
And where it was last week. Presently suspended.
If you look at the numbers. For some countries.
There were significant changes. And potentially, even now, that they're being suspended.
They're still in place with China. Very, very high numbers.
You mentioned, you know, in triple digit percentage. Tariff.
To China. And China retaliating. And as it's escalating. That's very dangerous.
Because China is part of the supply chains, across the globe. Even in other countries.
And, of course, the US.
Trump has a point. The US is the most attractive market. And exports being -- so it's true. That the US had some leverage there.
The question is, what do we want to achieve? And how do we go about it, in order to make sure we actually achieve it?
There is a risk, a situation which it will escalate, particularly if there's confrontation now.
Later coming from China, it's a bad guy. And, you know, it's -- it's in Asia. It's very important, not to lose faith.
And not to be publicly humiliated.
GLENN: Yes. Right.
RICHARD: And at the moment, you know, of course that's why they can easily give in. Want to shut the opportunity, the opening for compromise.
GLENN: So what would --
RICHARD: At the moment, the way it's done, it is very hard.
GLENN: President Trump said this yesterday. He said: Look, it's important in China, that they don't lose faith. That they're not humiliated. And he said, I feel like they're being humiliated right now.
So what should he be doing, while still staying tough?
What kind of opportunity, should be presented, to de-escalate this?
RICHARD: I think it's important to take it off the -- I mean, President Trump is very -- publicly. But maybe in this case, where we are at this point.
It's an important thing.
You know, the public focus.
And have some private conversations with China's leadership.
And maybe they even suggest a way in which they may be done. Essentially, someone needs to face a solution that makes both sides look good.
This can be done because the Chinese are as much interested in, you know -- as President Trump is, they are commoners, trading, sort of doing deals.
So it just has to be done, in such a way, that they're not forced into a corner.
And then they feel obliged to also, you know, stand up to all of these people. And to then -- they actually should be at this stage.
So I think it can be done.
I mean, I would be glad to help. You know.
Get me into the Trump team.
I had good relations. I was invited to be the professor of finance as well, the top university, Fudan in Shanghai met very senior people in China. And I've been in Japan for 12 years. And I know how to talk to Asia.
At the moment, it was perhaps -- yeah. This -- this lack of the right approach.
But it's about, as you mentioned, that President Trump is now acknowledging this.
And I think this -- this creates an opening.
And with the right advice. The other point I would like to make actually. Is that I think it is very smart of President Trump to raise fundamentally, you know, the tariff issue.
And how the US has not always been treated equally by other countries. Right?
When it comes to trade and tariffs. That is very valid.
And Paris in history, have been, well, actually mixed. They have been very successful and good for America and other countries. They use in combination with the right policies.
GLENN: Yes, uh-huh.
RICHARD: Domestic policies. That's where I think the Trump team needs some good advice. The Trump team knows the official mainstream neoclassical economics is not to be trusted.
And that's very true. But they're still acting with the right advice. I'm an expert of high brow economics, and I think the US can have 15 percent growth in 14 years like China had.
Which can be done. There is no real --
GLENN: What needs to happen? What needs to happen? What is he missing?
I think what is missing is the Congress doing their jobs. And putting other things in place. What are you saying, that is missing?
RICHARD: Yes. Well, a key thing is -- is to do with money.
And those who create money.
Now, the fed has created a lot of money.
Too much. And has caused inflation and everything.
But actually, normally central banks, only create 3 percent of the money.
97 percent of the money supply normally is created by the banks!
The banking system.
And the banks normally. And this is capitalism.
Where central planners are making decisions.
Private, commercially. Enterprises making decisions.
And so the more diverse banking system.
Particularly, the more small local banks you have, the stronger the economy. The stronger job creation.
GLENN: Yes.
RICHARD: And that's where in the past, the US has been extremely strong. But in recent years, you know, the -- have really reduced the number of small local banks.
And it's collapsed in the number of community banks. And local banks. Almost across the United States.
And that's very bad for job creation, and then competitiveness. And China is the best case in point.
You know, they used to have this centralized Soviet-style system, you know, in only one bank.
And then when they deleted -- you know, in 1978. He felt -- let's forget about all this ideology, under Mao. Chairman Mao. Let's deliver -- let's deliver performance and growth.
And how do we do it? Well, let's learn from those who did it.
And it went to Japan and ask China, what's your secret of success?
And they told them. You need -- you need banks. How many banks do you have?
One bank. Are you serious? For 600 million people at the time. Something like that.
You need more banks than that, how about 5,000. And that's what he did.
He went back to China to create this 5,000 small banks, local banks, billionaire banks. Credit unions. Regional banks. Rural savings banks. Conventional banks.
GLENN: So what does Trump need to do to do that here? What does he need to do to create that here? What should he be encouraging?
RICHARD: Well, first of all, one needs to take the pressure off the small banks to merge. Because the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have been closing banks. That's why thousands of banks have disappeared in the US. Job. Job creation. Job creation. But who is the main employer? It is small firms.
They've been employed between 65 and 75 percent of total employment. And there's a special thing about small firms, and they can't get money from Capitol markets.
GLENN: Correct.
RICHARD: Wall Street is not open to them. The only external source of funding is banks. Local banks that -- big banks don't lend to small firms. It doesn't make sense. So who lends to small firms?
It's only small banks. That's why American policy is very strong. They were going a few decades back. More than 20,000 banks.
And they need these thousands and thousands of small local banks. Community banks.
But the regulators. And the centralization. Have led to mergers. And the number of banks have been going down rapidly.
For some reason, they think it's a good idea. Same in Europe. You know, the European Central Bank says, we have too many banks. We have to close the small local bank. Well, that's how you kill the middle class.
That's really what happens to the middle class. That the small firms are not supported anymore. There's new technology coming out. The small firms. They're not necessarily, the innovators.
But they're ones that have to quickly adapt, adopt a new technology, but for that, you need money!
If you have a small local bank that knows you, you will get your funding. You can upgrade. You can maintain the market share and stay competitive. And expand jobs, basically.
But in countries, where the banking system gets too concentrated.
The US now is at risk of becoming one of those countries.
Looking at the UK.
Five big banks. The small firm gets nothing from these big banks.
They have to do big business.
They lend to the hedge funds. In billions.
And that works for the big banks.
Is it really good that the US is headed that way? No. We have to change that. So we have to change policies, at the FDIC. They have to be bank friendly.
And therefore small firm friendly. And therefore employment friendly.
If we combine tariffs with the right monitoring and banking policy, the US can be hugely successful.
You know, Glenn, just help me to get to the Trump team.
GLENN: I'll put a word in for you. But I'm lucky to talk to the janitor.
So, Richard, let me -- let me go to Europe here for a second.
Because I think what Trump is trying to do, on many of his things is to break this elite, almost world economic forum grip on dismantling the West. He doesn't believe in the -- you know, slow decline of the West.
He is looking to change directions, 180 degrees.
And I think that's part of what these tariffs on Europe and everything else. Is to say, look, we're going in a different direction. We have to go in a different direction.
Who is with me?
Die read it that way, or not?
RICHARD: Well, I think that is a similarly -- is one possibility. And it would be -- you know, that would be a good goal. Because Europe is really still under the World Economic Forum and Deep State.
GLENN: Yeah.
RICHARD: And including the US Deep State. You know, there's variations in Europe where you get that. Sometimes when President Trump ends up arguing with European leaders, he's still arguing with his old enemy, which is the CIA.
They're in Europe. They have all their assets in place.
In the CIA app. You know, the CIA funded his program, which brought Klaus Schwab to the floor.
GLENN: Jeez.
RICHARD: So it's something to realize.
He's still planting the old enemy. He won domestically. But the old enemy is strong in Europe and other places still.
Where they've had to have a foothold to -- to the traditional military foreign basis, where the US army is, and so on.
To kind of -- and that's -- that explains a lot of his friction. So, yes. In many ways. It's good that Europe sees, okay. There will be a change in policy.
But they're just going to now run this bill under instruction, from their minders at the CIA.
Just really engaged the United States, against Trump.
They're talking about, well, we have to decouple. We can't trust America anymore at all.
GLENN: I know.
STEPHEN: And when the reality is, they're now just totally still following their minders. The Deep State minders.
