Senator JD Vance and Charles Buhler dominate this Best of The Program episode, where Vance details his Washington meeting with Donald Trump to unify Republicans against federal DEI programs he claims target white and Asian Americans. Meanwhile, Buhler reveals Exodus Propulsion Technologies' static electricity breakthrough, promising moon travel in under three hours despite lacking NASA sanction. The segment concludes with Glenn Beck mocking President Biden's G7 demeanor and constitutional funding delays for Ukraine, framing them as dictatorial acts that erode separation of powers. [Automatically generated summary]
We have Bridget Fettesey joining us to talk about the old man.
We all know he's an old man and he's doing old man things.
Should he be the president of the United States as an old man like this?
He's completely checked out.
We also have JD Vance on to talk about meetings that he had with Trump yesterday in Washington, D.C. that went very, very well.
Looks like the Republicans are starting to come together.
Then we have a scientist on, Charles Bueller.
He has been searching for a way to put objects into space without propellant.
He has come up with something now.
He works with NASA.
He's got his own company that has been researching this.
Now, he's been working on this with others around the world for about 10 years now.
And they have actually can move things without any propellant.
Like your airplane, you'd be sitting in the engine, but there is no engine.
They don't even know exactly how it works.
It seems to be defying all physics.
I have never found myself in an interview where I didn't even know where to begin.
I thought I understood some of the ramifications of it.
But as we got into it, no, I no, I don't.
We could go to the moon in two hours.
We could go to Mars in five days.
It's remarkable technology and a remarkable discovery.
And that's all on today's podcast.
First, let me tell you about Pre-Born.
It is hard to believe, but this month marks two years since Roe versus Wade was overturned.
We still celebrate that decision, but at the same time, with the good comes a lot of bad.
The number of abortions actually has increased after Roe.
Increased.
Last year, they were at the highest since 2012.
There's a lot of work to do.
The problem is, is this abortion drug?
Now they can mail it to you.
You don't really need a doctor.
I mean, it's crazy.
And this summer, we are going to find out if the abortion cult will win on that front.
There's a chance that that changes in the Supreme Court as well.
But Pre-Born is the largest pro-life organization in the country, and they're leading the charge to put an end to the atrocity of abortion.
Every day, they sponsor free ultrasounds for women, as well as providing them help for up to two years after the baby is born.
And you are the key.
When a mom sees her unborn child on that monitor, when she hears the heartbeat, she is twice as likely to consider choosing life for her baby.
If you have the means, would you contribute $28 a month?
That is the price of one ultrasound.
You could be saving 12 babies every year.
Or if you have the means and you'd like to make a real leadership donation, please do.
You can help them.
A donation of 5,000 will sponsor Ultrasound's entire national network for 24 hours.
This is the largest network in the country right now.
You can donate, dial pound250.
Say the keyword baby.
Pound250.
Keyword baby.
It's preborn.com slash Beck.
Saving 12 Babies a Year00:13:43
You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.
JD Vance is on the phone with us.
JD Vance, senator from Ohio.
Also on a short list for Donald Trump.
I'm sure he's going to, he's just dying to talk about that because they always are.
Everybody who's on the short list, they're like, oh, please ask me about that.
So go ahead, spill it.
Spill the beans.
Spill the beans.
My favorite topic.
Yeah, I said this, Glenn.
I have not talked to Trump about it.
Yes, you know, I'm aware that they're looking at me, and I think that they're probably looking at 20 other people, and I'm sure he'll make his decision.
And if it's me, then, like I said repeatedly, I'd be interested in it because I think it's important to help him.
Because if he doesn't win this election, this country's in a tough spot.
So that's pretty much it.
You were in the meeting with him yesterday, right?
I was, yeah.
Yeah, because he said the guy I'm going to pick is most likely in this room with us right now.
So I didn't see that.
But unfortunately for the Oddsmakers, there were like 49 other people in the room, so it doesn't help.
But look, let me just sort of set the stage.
I mean, one, it was a very positive meeting.
And you obviously have people who are more allied with the president and his agenda, like me and Bill Haggerty, Mark Aruby, and so forth.
And then you also have people in the rooms who are very, you know, even in the last couple of months, have been very critical of the president.
And I think what you saw is just a recognition that we have to unify as a Republican Party and win this election.
And look, there are guys that are running that I wish their primary opponents had won.
And I wish we had a different candidate representing the Republican Party.
But there isn't a single person running, at least in the Senate, who I would rather have a Democrat take their spot.
The other thing that's really interesting, Glenn, is just you to realize the internal psychology of Republican senators right now is they're looking at every single one of these Senate ballots, and the polls suggest that whether it's by five points or 15 points, our Senate candidates are running behind Donald Trump in the core battleground state.
So if we actually want to take back the Senate with a solid majority, we need the president to help us close the margin between our guys and his margin.
And I think he will help us do that as we get down the stretch here.
But there's just a recognition here that he's tapped into something, especially in this cycle.
And if we can get that thing to reverberate to the benefit of our Senate candidates, we can win a major, major victory in the United States Senate.
And he was really kind of conciliatory yesterday.
He seemed to be in good spirits and recognizing that we don't all agree on everything.
At least that was the impression I got from his conversation.
Would you agree with that?
I agree with that, Glenn.
I mean, look, he was extremely friendly.
He was obviously in a good mood.
I think, you know, he was very friendly to Mitch McConnell, of course, who's not always been the best ally of Donald Trump.
He was friendly to everybody in the room.
And, you know, he said, look, even when we disagree, our disagreements pale in comparison to the Democrats.
And we're at this stage, you know, and I've done this now twice, Glenn.
I've been in politics for two cycles where right now we're sort of in the hurt feeling stage where a lot of people who didn't win primaries, grassroots activists, donors, state chairmen, and so forth, they're kind of frustrated and they're exhausted from the primary season and they're not thinking about the future.
And I just think, you know, Trump is maybe the only guy in the party who can sort of stand before everybody and say, look, yeah, maybe your guy didn't win.
Maybe things haven't always, we haven't always agreed on everything.
But now it's time to save the country.
And to do that, we have to win.
He said yesterday that he was, and I'm going to get to something that you want to talk about, the DEI programs going away, which is so important.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
We'll get to that in a second.
But one more question on this meeting yesterday with Trump.
He said that he wanted to abolish the income tax and replace it with tariffs.
So that was not in our meeting.
I think that may have been in another meeting he had that day.
I saw the headlines, but that was not in our meeting.
I mean, look, this is a fascinating proposal, and we could talk for a while about it.
But, you know, we have to sort of think about when we tax something, we get less of it.
And we should ask ourselves, what do we, you know, we have to raise revenues for the military and Social Security and so forth.
Like, what do we actually want to raise revenues from?
And my view would be we want to tax production less.
We want to tax making stuff in China more.
Well, that's what a tariff fundamentally does.
So whether you get rid of the whole income tax, I think it's a really smart idea to say we want to reward people for making things.
We want to reward productive work.
We don't want to reward making stuff in the home country of our chief rival.
And that's, I think, fundamentally where Trump's head is on this matter.
Well, I tell you, there is, I mean, if I think if we don't take control of the Senate and the House and the White House, we're just going to be treading water at best.
If they win those, we are, we're done.
They have put so many deadly fruit trees in all of our agencies and all of our government that I just don't see us being able to survive it.
The fundamental transformation will be finished in the next term.
And you have introduced legislation to dismantle all of the federal DEI programs from the federal government.
Thank you.
Yeah, we have.
And to your point about the Senate, Glenn, the Senate's in the personnel business.
We approve all of the political appointees.
And if you want to root out the deep state and the bureaucracy, you need political appointees who are aligned with the agenda.
And what this legislation does, and I'm not an idiot, Joe Biden's not going to sign it, but Donald Trump would.
And what it would do is really destroy the diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy that exists in our country.
And people say, well, who doesn't like diversity, right?
Doesn't diversity just mean you have a nice Mexican restaurant down the street?
No, no, no, no.
The way that our federal government has interpreted this is to explicitly allow racist decision-making, primarily targeting white and Asian Americans now in the 21st century, but explicitly racist decision-making and contracting and hiring and the provision of grants.
Some of these programs, by the way, have been held flatly illegal by the federal courts.
For example, there was a farm program that explicitly excluded white Americans from the provision of farm assistance for our farmers.
And that's ridiculous.
You can't discriminate whether black or white against people on the basis of skin color.
This would proactively root this stuff out of our government.
And it's a very important first step to getting basic merit back in our federal system, Glenn.
Yeah, and I don't think that even black farmers would have wanted that.
I mean, maybe some would, but, you know, farmers rely on each other and they need to help each other because, you know, if Bill's crop is down this year, it might be my crop down next year.
So we're all in this together.
The last thing you want are now new racial barriers between neighbors where he gets the help from the government and we don't.
It's not a good idea.
It's not a good idea at all, Glenn.
And to your point about how black farmers feel about this stuff, if you look at public polling on this, what you consistently find is that black Americans and most white Americans don't like racial quotas.
They don't like racial discrimination, whether it benefits them, their group, or harms their group.
The one group of Americans that seems to really like racial quotas are very high education white Americans.
That is the one group.
That is the one group that seems, by the way, they're not going to lose out when the quota system comes because they pull all the strings, but they're not doing it for the good of the country.
I think they're fundamentally doing it because they look down on white Americans who don't have their same educational status.
And a lot of, you know, one of my theories, Glenn, is that a lot of what is broken about America is high education whites who really hate lower education whites.
And I think you see that as a main driver of a lot of very stupid public policy and frankly, a lot of very evil public policy in this country.
So we got to root it out.
We got to be proactive about it.
That's what I'm trying to do.
I mean, it's really, I mean, it wasn't like this before because our education system was much more local, you know, and not as, you know, you didn't have all of the smart people going to this one college.
And so they were only surrounded by really, really smart people and then get married to the same kind of thinking.
You know, you would have a great disparity in education and experience in families all the time.
But now the elites, they wouldn't marry into a farming family.
They don't understand it.
They don't like it, generally speaking.
No, that's right, Glenn.
So there is this real classism, right?
I think that's a much bigger problem than racism in modern America.
But it's actually made our education system much stupider.
Because to your point, you know, you used to have, of course, you'd have the smart kids would become doctors and lawyers and engineers, and the kids who didn't like school as much would do something else.
But sort of everybody lived together and worked together.
And it was a good, so the community kind of worked together.
When you silo people by education, what we find is that we send people to colleges and they don't get good training in useful skills.
They increasingly get indoctrinated into how to be crazy people.
So even the educational institutions stop serving their function when you stratify this thing in such a ridiculous way.
And I think you're certainly seeing evidence of that in our country right now.
So what are the chances that this even passes this legislation?
I know Biden won't sign it, but do you think it'll even get passed?
Look, I don't think it's going to get out of the Senate.
I think the House would support this.
But what we're trying to do is plant seeds, Glenn.
One of the things that happened in the 2016 campaign is Republicans really expected Trump to lose.
And so when he actually won, there wasn't the foundational work that had been done to make the, you know, to just pass a bunch of really good legislation.
We're trying to do that.
We're trying to set up the next administration for success and at the very least have a debate about what kind of country we want.
Do we want a country that discriminates based on race?
I think the answer is no.
And I think 90% of people agree with me.
Do you believe that the next administration can fire enough people to make a difference in the deep state?
I do, Glenn, but it will be one of the most important fights.
I mean, I think the two things that hopefully President Trump does in his second term, and I know he wants to do, but will cause massive backlash from the media, is we need to support a large number of the illegal immigrants who have come here over the last few years.
And we also need to really root out the federal bureaucracy to make it more responsive, to make it smaller, but to really make it democratically accountable to the people's elected president.
The media is going to howl about this stuff.
They'll call it fascism.
They'll call it every name in the book.
It's the opposite.
It's the opposite, exactly.
It's accountability, right?
That is the opposite of fascism.
And frankly, we have fascism at the bureaucratic level where people's lives are controlled by people they never elected, right?
That's not democracy.
That's not a Republican form of government.
So look, this is the most important thing structurally that we have to fix at the government.
I think Trump is committed to it.
And I think the question is, do you have enough Republicans in there who have the willpower and the courage to fight alongside of them?
And I think that's the big question.
Yeah.
Well, we've got a lot of people like you where when we did the Tea Party thing years ago, we didn't have the people in there who really, truly had the foundation that they'd been thinking about for a long time.
And I think we do now.
We have a lot of really good people.
We need more, but this is the best chance of success that I've seen in a very long time.
The Tea Party turned out to be, you know, we were really fighting the deep state in the Republican Party.
And I think that one is on its last legs.
Look, we need to win the fight, Glenn.
And if we don't, I really do think we could lose our country.
Yes, I agree.
Electricity and Magnetism Thrust00:12:37
JD, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
Senator JD Vance from Ohio, this is a good seed planting because DEI does need to go from all of our federal agencies and federal programs.
Thank you so much, JD.
Appreciate it.
This is the best of the Glen Beck program.
And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.
Well, I am so excited and just we're about to geek out with Charles Bueller.
He is the founder of Exodus Propulsion Technologies, NASA Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory as well.
He's an engineer.
He believes he's found a way to overcome Earth's gravity.
This is crazy.
Welcome.
Welcome, sir.
Hey, thank you.
Thank you for having me.
So can you explain this as much as you can in layman's terms on what you've discovered?
Sure.
I do have to caveat first that this is not sanctioned by NASA.
This is work that we've done outside of NASA as a team.
Oh.
We're made up of a lot of scientists and engineers throughout the aerospace industry, but this is not NASA work.
And there's several reasons for that.
Okay, good.
I'm actually happier about that.
I like private industry coming up with things.
Okay, so Charles, tell me what you've done.
Well, we've been exploring propellantless propulsion for several members of our team for several years.
Gosh, I've been doing it for 25 years.
My colleagues have been doing it for about 15 years or so.
But when we joined forces in 2016, we were able to see some magic happen.
And then we didn't really understand it until about 2018.
And that's when we kind of hit the ground running once we understood it.
And then we didn't come public with it until earlier this year.
So when you say you really didn't understand it, the articles that I've read say you still don't fully understand what's going on because it seems to break the laws of physics and gravity.
That's correct.
So when I say understand, we understand it from a classical point of view, but we know that can't be the full picture.
There's got to be some kind of quantum mechanics involved.
But we at least know enough to do some engineering around it based on the conservation of energy laws.
And we've tested that.
And we've made about 1,500 test articles in the last eight years.
So we're learning.
We learn every day because we test just about every day.
So what this would allow at scale, and if you could do it not in a vacuum, but space is a vacuum.
So we know it would work in space.
Is that right?
Well, that's this.
You know, we need that verification, you know, to prove that it is actually a separate force that we have not yet seen in nature.
So, to do that, no one will believe you until you can actually do it in space and see it move.
Sure.
So, you, but you have found a way.
I mean, when we think of sending things into space, we think rockets.
And that is probably one of the more dangerous moments when you're going into space is all of that thrust behind you coming from propellants.
And you've found a way now to possibly put rockets into space without it really being a rocket.
What is it that is the propellant?
Well, that's the nice thing about it.
It doesn't use propellant, hence, you know, propellant with propulsion.
So you can imagine the skin of your aircraft being the thruster, if you will.
It's a paradigm shift in the way we think about transportation.
It does seem to violate a lot of old classical laws like the rocket equation and other classical mechanics.
But those equations are, gosh, almost 400 years old.
We have a lot of new physics since then.
And I think this is taking advantage of some of the, not the 20th century quantum mechanics as much, but more of the 19th century EM physics, electricity and magnetism.
So you're right.
It will replace rockets because about 90% of the rockets by mass and volume is just fuel.
If you get rid of all that, if you get rid of all that, then you could theoretically start from Earth and go straight into space and then back and forth all over.
That is crazy.
That will change everything.
So when you say the skin of the plane or the rocket or whatever you're talking about, is it kind of like static electricity?
Is that what you're.
I mean, I just don't even understand at all.
Well, it turned out initially we thought, I thought for 20 years, that it had to do with electromagnetism.
So that's electricity and magnetism together.
But we found out in 2018 it was really just a static electricity effect, which meant no current and the charges are static.
That's a big distinction.
It just happened to be the area of expertise that I am at NASA, is the electrostatics expert for the agency.
So once I knew that that's what it was, I was able to hit the ground running and to get thrusters that, in theory, should be able to lift under their own weight on Earth, provided they didn't have to carry anything yet.
We're still working on getting it stronger, but that's essentially the gist of it.
Static electricity itself has energy because there's energy between charged particles.
We're all familiar with the Coulomb energy, you know, like particles, like positive particles repel Negative particles repelled, but plus and minus attract.
We're all familiar with that aspect of static electricity.
What this has shown is that there is what we call electrostatic pressure in the presence of the field.
It's basically the pressure itself, which is not something I invented.
That's been around for 100 years or so.
But the pressure itself can act in such a way that if it's unbalanced, it can give you a net momentum transfer to your system.
That's what's new.
Now, how exactly this does this, I don't know.
I'm not sure if I'll ever know, but it seems to work.
So, this is easy to manufacture.
It's easy to test.
Now, we've done all the tests in vacuum or the lab.
Now, it's time to take the next step, you know, put it low a little bit and see what it does.
Dr. Buehler, can I ask?
I'm looking at a chart of your success, and it looks like in 2021, you just had phenomenal success.
It just skyrockets up to just over a G of thrust.
What happened at that time where you just exponentially started having more and more success?
Well, we know that static electricity, this force, is based on asymmetrical capacitance.
Now, asymmetrical capacitors have been around for 100 years.
People have seen thrust in them, but they've been kind of ignored from the scientific community because of an ion wind effect.
If you do it in air, but if you ignore that, and if you actually test it in vacuum and test it correctly, you'll see that you'll get the thrust actually in the opposite direction of the ion wind.
But that's a geometry effect.
So, you know, parallel plate capacitors are parallel.
If you change the dimension of one of them, you'll get a thrust.
So, that's a geometry effect.
But there are many ways to make an asymmetrical capacitor other than geometry.
So, that's what we've explored, and that's what we've uncovered.
And that helps.
It makes things smaller, miniature, makes things two-dimensional, if you will, and lighter.
So, that's the big advancement that we've made.
Are there any videos that you guys have made showing this at all yet?
We have a couple on our website, and we're going to put a few more on in the next couple of weeks.
But, yes, so what we're doing now is we're trying to make videos to show people how to build these.
That's really the only way to get it out there to kind of show people how this is done.
We had a couple of videos that we made, I don't know, five years ago, six years ago, that show the thrusters moving in air.
So, we have to encapsulate them in Styrofoam.
So, it doesn't look very pretty, but styrofoam is a great dielectric.
It's light, you know, it stops corona, what we call corona, from happening, which is a gas breakdown.
We don't want any sparks or discharges or currents.
So, we encapsulate everything.
Powerful with light.
It's a good source for that.
So, those videos are online.
You can take a look at those.
Okay, so that's at Exodus propulsion.space.
Easy for me to say.
Easier for you to type.
Yeah.
So tell me the ramifications.
If this is found to be what you think it might be, tell me how our life and the things that it could do and would change.
Well, clearly, it would revolutionize transportation as we know it.
All forms of transportation.
Cars, boats, trains, planes, everything would change.
You wouldn't need an engine.
You wouldn't need a combustion engine or to burn fossil fuels.
You wouldn't need propellers or wheels or tires.
It would just revolutionize everything.
Yes, it would revolutionize everything if we can get this above, much above unity.
Right now we're sort of hovering around unity, but you need a little bit more to carry something.
Okay, so wait a minute.
What's unity?
Well, we define unity as the thrust needed to lift up the weight of the thruster.
That's okay.
So you need to add more so you can put a body or stuff or whatever in that thruster.
Okay.
Okay.
So that's what we need.
So we need at least a double or triple the factor just so we can lift up the power supplies for it and carry load, payload, whatever that is.
So that's what we're working toward.
But right now go ahead.
Well, I'm just saying right now, we are above lunar unity.
So for the moon, and NASA is very interesting to go back to the moon as others are, we actually have way over lunar unity.
So in theory, we can send objects to the moon using conventional rockets today and actually make spacecraft also be the hovercraft for the lunar surface.
Never actually have to touch the surface unless they want to.
That's very exciting.
You don't want to touch the dust.
You don't have to.
You can just hover above it and you can travel with the sun.
There's a lot of cool things you could do with this technology, but a great demonstration of it would be on the moon.
So this would help, like, because as I understand it, one of the reasons we want to go to the moon again is we need a staging station if we wanted to go to any of the outer planets.
This could make that we wouldn't have to have that step if you didn't need the propulsion, if you didn't need some propellant that you would have to get off the moon.
Correct?
You're absolutely right.
Right now, NASA's aim is to go to the South Pole to extract water.
Part of that water could be used for propulsion, which split up the hydrogen and oxygen.
But you wouldn't need to do that with this technology.
You would just go to the moon, and then when you get tired of going to the moon, you could go to Mars.
Right now, we can go to the moon theoretically in about two and a half hours.
It's a very slow acceleration.
Wait, What?
What did you say?
Well, since it's a constant thrust, theoretically, we should be able to put our thrusters in space and get to the moon in under three hours with the accelerations that we have.
The Slow Acceleration to Mars00:13:24
That's huge.
We can get to Mars in about five to six days.
That's very low.
Oh, my gosh.
You're streaming the best of the Glenn Beck podcast.
To hear more of this interview, find the full episode wherever you get podcasts.
Welcome to the Glenn Beck program.
Hello, America.
It's Friday.
Good thing, the G7 summit, where all of the big leaders get together and, you know, have a powwow and talk about what we're going to do to cause some more war and higher inflation.
They got together and they were watching just a fantastic skydiving event that was done for them.
Now, remember, just remember, these are the ones that are always saying, global warming, global warming.
So not only did they fly over in their own planes to get together, but then they sent an airplane up with people in it to jump out for their entertainment.
So I'm taking them seriously, but they're all standing there in an open field watching these guys come down, except for Joe Biden.
He watches for a while and then he decides, squirrel.
And he starts to meander and walk away from, and it's incredible footage to watch because you can see none of the prime ministers or presidents know what to do as he just wanders off.
He's facing the wrong direction.
And you see Prime Minister Maloney from Italy.
She's the only one that gracefully knows how to get him out.
She kind of backs up and then grabs him and like, over here, Mr. Brown, we got cookies.
Who has a cookie?
Look at cookies.
Say cookie.
It is horrifying how bad he is.
And then he puts his glasses on at twice the speed that it takes for him to sit down at ceremonies.
I don't know if you remember that footage from earlier this week, last weekend, where he was trying to sit down and look like he crapped his pants.
He didn't crap his pants.
He was just deciding, should I sit down or not?
Maybe I should stand.
Okay, that's what was going through his head.
He didn't know whether he was, he started to sit down and then he's like, oh, nobody else is.
You just stand up, man.
You just stand right back up.
It's no big deal.
We've all done it.
Whoops.
But he just froze like I'm thinking.
When he's putting his sunglasses on, he's like, I've got to lift my arm.
The pressure on my sunglasses enough to keep him held up so I can put them now on my face over my ears.
Done.
What do they, honestly, what do they jack him up with?
Because they've got to jack him up with something.
Because there's no way.
That's not the guy who speaks to us in like major interviews or, you know, when he comes in to address Congress for the State of the Union, he's like, hey, man, I got to tell you, everything's going great.
I mean, state of our economy is great.
I don't know what they're putting him on, but that ain't Joe Biden.
The difference we're seeing now.
Yeah.
Shocking.
Shocking.
I mean, you look at, I mean, in the interviews, he's with it.
But when he gets on a stage, maybe he's just allergic to stages.
I don't really know what it is.
But he'll just.
In this case, it was a field.
And this is his film.
But yeah, it's that re remember that when he was just, when he got stuck in that one facial expression when he was at that, was that event at the White House or whatever?
Was it Juneteenth?
He just was stuck.
It was like everything just stopped.
Can you play that?
Do we have that video from earlier this week?
I'm not sure.
We still have it.
But that video of him on the Juneteenth celebration, that happened actually last weekend.
The weekend before was, I'm going to sit.
So it's once a week we're getting these major things.
And he was standing at Juneteenth and everybody was moving with the music and everything else.
He had that Joker smile on him.
Go ahead and roll that, will you?
He had this Joker smile on his face.
No, that's not it.
But that's another great one, too.
He has this Joker smile on him that doesn't move.
He's like, I'm happy.
I'm happy to be here.
And everybody's happy.
Jill told me to keep smiling.
Smiling, smiling.
That's all I'm doing now.
I smile, smile, smile.
She didn't tell me to move and smile.
I'm just smiling and not moving.
That's just creepy.
It is creepy.
He is, you know, who looks more lifelike?
The audio animatronic Joe Biden.
It'll be the only one in Disney that's like, man, they nailed him.
They didn't get better.
He just always looks like he's auto-animatronic.
You know, I don't, I don't, I'm, I don't want to be a robot.
I don't want to like presume.
I don't want to try to guess on what might be wrong with him, but I, my father had lupus, and he would have like little like micro strokes.
And he would just, it was just all of a sudden he would just like check out.
He would just kind of stop and like kind of gaze.
And what he was doing, he was having like little micro strokes.
And that is eerily similar to what I saw from him.
Well, this is, I mean, one of my daughters, you know, Mary, she has significant strokes and significant seizures.
And this really cutting edge procedure that I wouldn't have done.
She chose to do it because I would have been too afraid.
Because they said to her, you may wake up and you may not recognize anybody.
You may not be able to speak or know people's names.
I mean, we don't know what we're doing here.
But we think we know what we're doing, but we don't.
And brave girl, she was like, do it.
I don't want to live like this anymore.
Just do it.
And so they did.
And she was seizure-free for about two years.
And now they've come back pretty hard.
And hers are really getting grandma-ish.
My other daughter has a seizure where she is like Joe Biden, but just very short period of time, where she just like, you're like, hello, hello.
What?
And we didn't, for a long time, didn't know they were seizures, kind of probably like your dad.
We didn't know, just thought he just kind of drifted, you know, for a minute.
And yeah.
But that's not, I think he's just gone.
I think he's just gone.
Here's Biden yesterday promising Ukraine a lot more money.
Great.
By the way, the idea that we had to wait till we passed the legislation overall, even held up by a small majority of our Republican colleagues, was just terrible.
And there's a lot more money coming beyond that.
Can you stop?
Can you stop?
Play that again.
I want you to listen to what the President of the United States just said.
Listen again.
By the way, the idea that we had to wait till we passed the legislation overall, even held up by a small majority of our Republican colleagues.
Stop.
The idea that we had to wait for Congress to pass this before we could do it is just horrible.
That's the constitutional process, dude.
He's complaining that you have to wait before you spend money on something that's controversial.
What is that?
That's the cry of a dictator.
Now, you can say, because of our system, we had to wait.
And, you know, it's just the way, you know, a republic and a democracy, it's not pretty all the time, but it's, as Churchill said, it's the worst until you compare it to everything else.
And then you realize it's the best.
It's the best of the worst.
You know, sorry we had to delay on that, but we have certain things we have to do, but the money's there now.
No, he's saying the very idea that we had to wait.
Do you know that famous speech from FDR, you know, a date which will live in infamy?
Do you know what that speech was?
That speech was for the president to make his case in front of Congress to go to war.
There was never a clearer, in least, you know, in the last hundred years, there's no clearer declaration of war than bombing Pearl Harbor, right?
Bombing all of our ships.
Today, we would have just launched.
The president back then, this is how far we've drifted.
The president back then, even after Pearl Harbor, went the very next day to Congress and gave that speech.
And then they voted.
The very idea that we have to vote on things in Congress, I've done everything I can to make Congress and the Constitution just, you know, a rubber stamp, but I'm not there yet.
So let me promise you that there's a lot more money coming.
Oh my gosh.
He does these, you know, that's a, it's, that's an interesting point you make, Glenn, because he's, I've caught him doing that in the past, these very fundamental beliefs of our country, the United States, they clearly just do not believe in.
Like every time he threatens us with the F-15 remark that he said about 16,000 times.
Yes.
I never really got annoyed that it was a threat.
I never really took it that way.
What really annoyed me was he is making fun of the fundamental, you know, right of self-defense that we have in this country.
The fundamental right that if there ever becomes a tyrant, you have the tools to stand up and push back and say no.
You have that right to push.
You not only have the right, as this, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, you have the duty to overthrow the shackles of a tyrant.
And you're right.
But, you know, Jason, as somebody who is in Afghanistan right after 9-11, I don't know.
And those F-15s, everything that we, you know, everything that we threw at them, they're still in charge of Afghanistan, aren't they?
Yeah, I don't think F-15s helped them out too much.
Neither did the Northern Vietnamese.
I mean, history is full of insurgencies that have been successful.
You know, on this Ukraine funding thing, we've done multiple different shows on some of this stuff.
And what will shock you, if you just kind of look and try to trace some of these funds, whether they're coming from Congress or some other agency within this government, it is everywhere.
Like, just look at the news.
You'll look, it's like, oh, Secretary Blinken was in Ukraine yesterday, and he just promised 200 million money.
Where'd that come from?
Congress didn't approve that.
And then you'll hear at the exact same time.
That's the Chevron case.
That's the Chevron case.
They can't do that.
Only Congress has the purse strings.
Only Congress can issue more spending.
It must start in Congress.
We've completely disregarded the Constitution.
It's not only hanging from a thread.
I think the thread is so frayed that it is broken and we're not even using it at all.
Or we are the closest that we've ever been to absolutely destroying everything that everybody worked and died, died for.
Anyway, so he's promising more money, but don't worry, the experts get it.
Here is Janet Yellen telling us that, you know, you just don't get it.
You don't understand.
We're smarter than you.
Cut nine.
All Americans, both those who are well off and those who are near at the bottom of the income distribution, are better off now.