Ep 34 | Kevin Freeman | The Glenn Beck Podcast

I left my blue suit and white shirt off today because I'm talking to one of the world's leading experts on economic warfare and financial terrorism.

He has been a consultant for the CIA, the FBI, the SEC, Homeland Security, the Justice Department, several foreign governments as well.

His research has played a major role in the Department of Defense studies, including the reports prepared for the Secretary of Defense.

He's a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, and we have a ton to talk about Russian interference, the Internet of Things, Chinese hacking, 5G, socialism, surveillance capitalism, the U.S.

economy, and how to weaponize your money.

We're going to cover almost everything in the next 90 minutes.

If you're curious about where the world is headed, where the economy is headed, and you're seeking some wisdom on how to navigate the choppy waters, you don't want to miss this conversation.

The host of Blaze TV's economic warroom and good friend, Kevin Freeman.

So, Kevin, let's start with just your experience with the Pentagon

and

our meeting.

I was, I actually read your work and talked about you when I was at Fox saying, and somebody did a study on what happened in 2008.

And when our stock market was melting down, somebody actually hit us.

That was your

study done for the Pentagon.

Yes, it was.

And when you read it on the air, it was a complete shock.

I had friends calling from across the country.

You're on Glenn Beck.

And I'd actually been interviewed by Maria Bartiromo at the same time.

Really?

Yeah, my response was, hey, give me my due.

I'm on with Maria Bardaroma.

Don't tell me I'm on Glenn.

Big deal.

Maria knows what she's talking about.

No, I was referencing the fact that she's a beautiful woman.

Yes.

And you're

you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I identify today as a beautiful woman.

So back off, Kevin.

Let's talk about what you found and how it really didn't seem to affect anyone.

Well, what we found was without question, foreign entities were manipulating in our stock market.

I'm not saying they were the cause of the 2008 collapse, but they were certainly taking advantage of it.

Right.

And that

can be just as devastating.

I mean, in the end, it's just as devastating as if they caused it.

Probably cost us an extra trillion dollars in response.

Really?

And what were they doing?

How did they do it?

They were exploiting something called naked short selling.

It was a loophole that was allowed in the markets.

Part of it was by Middle East sovereign wealth funds.

There may have been Russian involvement, Chinese involvement, but they were purposely attempting to cause panic on Wall Street.

And they were doing it right before a presidential election.

And we know the Russians were active because the Treasury Secretary admitted that they were trying to collapse Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And he admitted it.

He wrote it in his memoirs.

He also has admitted

that Russia was.

Right before the election, Russia was manipulating our stock market via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, knowing full well it would impact the election.

So how is it, I mean,

you've known that.

They know that.

Our government.

I mean, it was out in the open that they were going to manipulate the 2018 election or 20, was it 2016?

When was that election?

It seems like a thousand years ago and yesterday.

But the last presidential election,

we knew, they said it, they said it out loud that they were going to be doing things to our election.

We know that.

And yet no one is doing really anything except playing political politics.

Yeah.

They've been doing it.

We have been active in other elections.

They've been active in our election for decades.

And I'll give you an example.

Nobody wants to talk about this, but we know when the Cold War ended, the wall fell, the KGB files files were opened, we found out that Ted Kennedy, as a presidential candidate, had approached the Russians, had approached the KGB and said, hey, I will end this Cold War in your favor.

This Reagan arms buildup will stop all of that if you help me get elected president.

We know that.

We know that this has gone on for decades.

They've only made an issue out of it now because they think it's an opportunity to take down President Trump.

I want to get to socialism and our own politics and things like that with you a little later on.

But,

you know, when you say that about Ted Kennedy

and we have the evidence from the Russian files that that's true,

are things any worse than they've always been?

I think it goes through cycles, and we're in a bad cycle at this point.

So I think we've seen bad times.

I mean, when you've got a civil war and the nation splitting, as we had,

that's really, really bad.

So

we're on one of the bad times, but not the worst times.

Do you think that's a possibility for America?

Oh, absolutely, it's a possibility for America.

Isn't that crazy?

You just see that the attitudes are so very different.

In fact, one of the ideas I had for a novel was Red State, Blue State.

And I was going to write a novel about what happen if we just agreed to disagree and the middle of America said, we want to go our direction, and the coasts and the leftist parts of America, the progressives, we want to go our way, but we want to continue to have some kind of trade relations and get along.

And what would life have been like?

I never explored it, but I think it would have been a fascinating premise.

So I will tell you that

I explored that mentally,

and I've said it on the air for a long time.

You could take the 50 states, states and we could say, we want Texas

and you can have anything else and we'll split it down the middle.

You get one pick that you want.

You'll probably pick New York or California.

Fine.

We want Texas and everything else on the table.

You pick first.

They could pick all of them and leave us with the worst of the states, if you will.

We would have to build a wall all around them and we could not have economic relations because I really truly believe that within 10 years, they would screw those states up so bad, and we would be prosperous, even with the worst states, that they would somehow or another find a way to blame us for their condition.

Well, that's likely true.

That's likely true.

But anyway, it's worth exploring.

The question was, though, do I see a potential civil war?

Yes, because we're going such different directions.

There are states that are now saying a minute after a baby is born out of the womb, then you can kill it.

And then others who say that's abject murder.

We do not share in common an understanding of life and so many other issues.

Life, economics, all the key issues,

we find ourselves completely at opposite ends of the spectrum.

How did that happen?

How do we get there?

Do Democrats, the average Democrat,

do you think they believe that?

Do you think they actually, I'm not talking about the politicians.

Do you think the average Democrat believes that it's okay to kill a child after birth?

No, no.

So we actually do agree, but we're still arguing about it, and they won't concede that point.

So

what's causing that?

I think it's the education system.

I think it's the media.

I think it is just the whole general idea of identity politics.

And you put those in the mix, and

you raise up a generation to Texas, and they'd say, Oh, that's absolutely wrong.

You raise up a generation with a different education system, with different media inputs.

And I can say, Well, why is it wrong?

I mean, culturally, we've seen, for example, on the life issue, there are many points in history where a baby's not really a human being.

It's okay to kill it.

Herod said that, right?

So

they're just being taught that.

They believe that.

We find these truths to be self-evident.

I used to think that was true.

I don't anymore.

I don't think there are many

self-evident truths.

If I go to China,

we would think, oh, well, they want to be free.

Well, if you've

for hundreds of years lived under that kind of system, freedom is not self-evident.

Conformity seems better.

That's aberrant.

That's a problem.

Creativity is a problem, which is, by the way, some economists believe that China is in deep trouble because the more that they crack down socially, the less creativity they could ever have.

Correct.

Let me go to China, but through 5G.

Okay.

I've been watching 5G now for a while, and

I remember when I first heard about 5G, and the argument was, should the government build this or should the private sector?

And I'm like, no, let the phone companies do 5G.

I mean, they've done one through four.

Why not five?

Can you explain a little bit about 5G and why it's so important?

Well, 5G is the next generation of wireless, but it's not the same as moving from 3G to 4G, which is what we did.

We got access to movies and we got faster downloads and we could access websites more easily and we could get maps and so forth.

It was easier, but it wasn't game-changing.

Yeah, it enabled us to have the iPhone revolution.

Correct.

The smartphone.

5G is the ability.

All right, so if I had a robot and it was in my house and it was operating on my fast, high-speed network at home and Wi-Fi, it'd be good for about, I don't know, 50 yards down the street and then it would stop.

If I put it on the 4G network, the bandwidth is not fast enough in a lot of places that that robot could continue to operate.

So I'd be limited, and that's where we are now is limited.

But if we have 5G, which is faster than the fastest home network that we have, and the capabilities are far beyond that.

And

that's any.

The pipe is huge.

That robot could go anywhere where that network is available.

So it opens up a whole idea of the Internet of Things that are not bound to a specific location.

Right.

And the Internet of Things, I don't think people really understand.

The Internet of Things is your refrigerator reporting to Amazon, you know, or your local grocery store.

We're out of cheese.

We're out of cheese.

And so

everything you have that you plug in begins to communicate not only with each other, but with the outside force to say, hey, by the way, we're going to need a dishwasher mechanic to come over because something's wrong with the dishwasher.

We're out of milk.

Have milk sent to the house.

And all of that is

gathering information.

in what is now being coined as surveillance capitalism, which I'd like to talk to you about.

But we're looking at it as a good thing.

It's convenient.

It's convenient.

Tell me the dark side of that.

Well, the dark side is that there was a report in Europe.

Why shouldn't we have devices in the home, the Echo Dot in the home, report using artificial intelligence if you're committing a crime?

That's the easy.

Well, that's to our own government or to the government there.

Well, that's a what if it's spying on you for a foreign government?

What if it's being used for blackmail purposes?

What if it's being used to life and death?

There was a movie out

I think Dennis Miller was in it and Sandra Bullock called The Net.

And it was made probably in the 1990s.

And basically, whoever was running the net was running her life, killing people in hospitals because all of a sudden you don't need insulin, you need morphine.

And they just would substitute.

We would be subject to the worst hacking potential or the worst surveillance that you can ever imagine because everything we own has a chip in it and is connected to the internet.

And that's why, one of the reasons why we are pursuing the main phone company in China, Huawei,

because they are so far ahead in 5G.

And

that is

a communist company that is.

It's founded by a former member of the People's Liberation Army of China.

Okay.

And they are trying to recreate the old Silk Road, which was for trade, but this is a digital Silk Road.

They're already in Germany.

They're in India.

They're trying to make a real impact here in the United States, all of our allies.

What does that mean if they have the 5G technology?

Well, the first thing we've got to understand is the Huawei is out denying everything.

We don't put back doors in it.

The Mobile World Congress is taking place right now.

I think it's in Barcelona.

And they're saying, we don't put back doors.

We offer better security.

The U.S.

government spies on you.

But here's, let's go to the reality.

The Chinese government openly admits that they spy on all of their citizens and they rate them on a social credit score.

We also know that when our companies operate in China, the Chinese government tells them you have to operate this way.

So Google pulled out of China at one point and has gone back, but Apple has admitted that, well, they ask us to support this and do this.

So why wouldn't Huawei be subject to not only that level of scrutiny, but an even greater level since their founder was the PLA member?

So there is no question in my mind that

you cannot exist in China as a major corporation without the absolute approval of the military and the Chinese communist government.

So are they compromised?

Absolutely yes, without question.

And that gives them access to the Internet of Things in our home.

Well, they've said there was a Bloomberg report that came out and said that the Chinese chips that are being sold have chips within the chips so that they are able to monitor, control, turn on, turn off.

Yes, it would give them control.

It would give them first control at a blackmail level.

And I'll give you another example on that.

We don't know exactly who it was that hacked the credit score companies.

We don't know exactly who it was that, but if you know the credit scores and the debt of every individual, you have a blackmail list.

And you know exactly who to bribe, offer, cajole, or whatever.

China has, I was once told by the head of the

cybersecurity in Texas that in Beijing they have a better copy of the Texas driver's license database than we have here.

They have more sophisticated technology and they sliced it.

They know every one of us.

They've hacked and understand credit scores.

They've hacked and understand

what credit cards that we carry.

They know the military records.

They know the records of the personnel,

Office of Personnel and Management, the OPM hack.

So they now have gathered information on every individual.

They know who's vulnerable, who's weak.

They can track us.

They could track our phones.

They'd know where we were going.

If you have that level of information, you have almost absolute control, even if you're not sitting in Washington.

Because it is,

let me take you to a new term that I've just heard, surveillance capitalism.

It's a new book out, and it's fantastic.

And it's warning that

we are allowing,

when in 2000, we thought of smart homes, and the idea was it would be helpful to you but you would own all of the information you all the information that it would gather inside your home would never leave your home unless you authorized yes go order milk then september 11th happened and people started thinking differently and the government started thinking differently and then google started thinking really differently and

now all of that information it it absolutely leaves your home.

You don't even have a right to the information they have on you.

Even if you had that right before, you're one service agreement update away.

Correct.

And who reads the service agreement updates?

You make one.

Because I'm dependent on it.

I have to use it.

So you click yes and you go.

If you click one service update and click yes,

the average person,

it will affect you in a thousand different companies, a thousand different ways.

You'd have to go through a thousand different contracts to really understand what you've just done.

And if you say no, then all that technology you're dependent on no longer functions.

Correct.

So

handing that over, when you say they'll have all the information,

you know, Putin says that we're already in World War III.

The West just hasn't figured it out yet.

And he said it's being fought with ones and zeros.

Sure.

This kind of power, they can turn off our gas systems, our banking systems, with really with just a code.

If you have the backbone of the 5G,

you could shut everything down you want.

Huawei not only sells chips that go in phones and is used for development in a 5G, Vodafone says, if you don't let us use Huawei chips, we will be two years behind in Europe and you can blame the Americans that you don't have a modern phone.

But they also sell the chips that go in solar systems.

And one of the recent concerns, Secretary Perry, in the Energy Secretary Perry, just said, I'm very concerned because the Huawei chips in the solar systems give them an entree into the power grid, even without hacking it.

So, Kevin, we're in this weird place where, as a conservative, I've never feared corporations.

And I've never really feared government.

I mean, I had a healthy fear of government, but I believe they were on the right side of things, and I believe that the free market system would sort out bad corporations.

I don't trust either of them now.

And I think they're beginning to work together because they both have

a horse in the game, in the race, of wanting the information on everybody.

Are we...

I know that China is following Orwell's 1984.

It's their China 2020

total surveillance project.

That's 1984.

That's George Orwell.

Are we doing Huxley?

Are we?

The Brave New World.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, when you see, you know, I turn on CNBC every morning.

I watch the stock market closely because that's my history and my profession.

Cannabis stocks are going wild.

I get calls all the time.

What do you do with cannabis portfolio?

It's like, I don't buy cannabis.

I was trained by John Templeton.

We didn't buy alcohol or tobacco stocks.

There's no way I'm going to buy cannabis stocks.

But the whole idea, that's SOMA, right?

We're selling out to the idea that as long as I can have this drug that I take and I can get the entertainment that I want and

be the person that I feel like on the inside and the world has to accept me for who I am, what do I care about the rest of this stuff?

And that's the Huxley part.

Right.

And so it concerns me, you know, Huawei, the decisions on 5G, on whether China enters the West

in a big way with all of our allies, are happening in the next six to 18 months max.

Those decisions are being made.

That affects all of us.

Right.

And we're not even talking about it.

Most people don't even know it.

This is akin akin to the height of the Cold War

and both Russia and America just missile building like crazy, knowing whoever gets to space and gets that nuke first wins.

And no one knows about it.

No one's paying attention.

No, in fact, it's beyond that.

We're being sold the idea that we should invest in the Chinese corporation that's doing this.

We're funding a lot of this.

It's the whole apocryphal saying, you know, that we would sell them the rope with which they hang us.

We're actually giving them the capital to buy the rope with which they hang us.

So, what is our

if we stay as ignorant as we are?

I've never believed, I've always laughed at those movies who are like Blade Runner.

Well, the corporation needs to know.

I've always laughed at that.

But

the corporation, Google, Facebook, those kinds,

Huawei,

they're in bed with the governments.

And

is that Blade Runner?

What our future looks like?

Do you have any concept?

Where are we headed?

I hope not.

But where we are headed is we're in a global economic war.

And you're a big liberty guy.

You talk about liberty.

I believe in liberty.

We have two very strong enemies against liberty.

We have the foreign enemy, whether it's Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, the jihadists.

They're all foreign enemies of our liberty.

We have domestic enemies of our liberty, and I think they're pursuing power.

And they're in bed with corporations sometimes, and sometimes they're not.

But the socialist trend and the ideas that we have, the ideals of

we're going to give free college and free health care and all that,

never mind that it's going to cost $93 trillion.

Never mind that.

It sounds good.

I want free.

So we have those two enemies, and it is the Brave New World and Orwell both going on at the same time.

I don't know which one is going to win, but I know what I'm going to do.

I'm going to fight.

I'm going to fight for liberty.

I'm going to fight.

I think that a small group of patriotic, liberty-loving people can change the trajectory and course of this nation, and I'm going to find them, and I'm going to work with them.

I want to come back to that on some solutions.

Let me,

you know, you said free sounds good.

And what's odd is free sounds great to most Americans unless it's followed with speech.

I mean, we are now entering a time where there is an economic war on speech, on religion, on guns.

And when I brought this up three years ago and said, this is how they're going to fight guns, they're going to fight it economically.

They're going to go through the banks.

Don't worry about the Constitution.

They'll go through the banks.

They're doing that now with guns and speech and everything.

They'll go through amendments three, four, five, six, but they're going after the Bill of Rights.

They are.

They are for control.

And so, to your point on guns, there was something called Operation Chokepoint.

And recently, American American Banker magazine, representing the American Banker Association, admitted, yes, Operation Chokepoint was real.

The FDIC really was encouraging banks to close accounts of gun sellers.

It was illegal.

And we have 900 pages of testimony that prove that it was illegal.

When did that happen?

Wouldn't the American Bankers Association say, or when did that happen?

When was Chokepoint?

ChokePoint was under the Obama administration.

And they literally, through the FDIC, they were encouraging, because, all right, so you're a bank and you work with the FDIC.

You just want to get through your review as quickly as possible.

And the FDIC says, by the way, we think that those companies that sell guns, they're a little shady.

It's going to make it a little harder for us to do the review if you're doing business with them.

If you want to just stop doing business and close the accounts, you can do that.

And so banks did.

If you don't have a gun seller, if you don't have the ability to to buy a gun from a reputable licensed dealer following the Second Amendment rights,

how do you get a weapon legally?

Well, you get it through a private transaction, which they're trying to ban.

You get it through a gun show, which they're trying to ban.

So this was a methodology, and it was purposed, and it was said in the American Banker article, it said they were doing it based on their partisan beliefs or based on their predetermined what they thought was right and wrong, their moral beliefs.

So that's Operation Chokepoint.

Now, about a year ago, Andrew Ross-Sorkin, who is New York Times columnist, he is also the co-host of Squawkbox on CNBC.

Every morning I see him and I see Joe Kernan, and Joe Kernan represents the conservative side, and Andrew Ross-Sorkin represents the pleasant progressive side.

And he's very pleasant about it, and he always makes good arguments, even though I disagree almost.

He wrote an article in the New York Times that said, government will not be able to solve the gun problem because we have this pesky Second Amendment.

But you banks can do it.

PayPal, you can do it.

All of the finance companies have more power than government, and he's openly encouraged them to start canceling the PayPal accounts, the bank accounts, and so forth.

And it's not just with guns.

They're now doing it to people in my business.

They are silencing us one by one, and

people are not seeing it.

You had Robert Spencer on podcast here, didn't you?

Yeah.

He was targeted.

I know he was.

He was targeted.

It's Alec Jones and Robert Spencer, and they're going systematically across anyone who's speaking something contrary to what we find or deem acceptable.

And you wonder, why are these people, why aren't they on the air?

Why aren't, you know, why are they being silenced?

Well, they aren't able to earn a living.

They can't even get a bank account.

Well, we just saw

a few weeks ago that

the paperwork has now come out, and so now we actually know the numbers.

But when we were saying Facebook is crushing conservatives, the algorithm was changed, and it changed the traffic by 70%

to conservative websites.

I mean, we're

you know, when the Germans rounded up the Jews, they put them in ghettos.

You can live your Jewish life.

You can do whatever you want.

We're building building a wall around you.

Well, nobody saw them.

Nobody heard them.

No matter how loud they shouted, it just went into a brick wall around there, and then they could liquidate them.

Aren't we doing that virtually?

We are.

And we cover a lot of this in the economic war room.

So

by controlling and silencing people or changing the algorithms or the search results output, I think it's Dr.

Robert Epstein.

He was published in USA Today.

He said, I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter.

I'm still a supporter today, but here's the fact.

The page results produced by Google had the potential to swing the election, probably move independents by 10 points.

Which means that had they not done that, I wonder what President Trump might have won by.

I think that there are a lot of people who didn't vote for President Trump, but they voted against Hillary Clinton.

And when you do surveys of Christians throughout the South and you're asking, why did you vote for this guy?

Because he's got this bad history here and he's with this porn star and all this, why did you vote for him?

They always say, because she hates us.

And everybody knew who the she hates us was.

But they were silencing free speech, manipulating elections, and they're doing it with search results.

And that is a silencing of free speech.

And in my mind, it's election fraud.

It's nudge.

It's nudge.

It's what Cass Sunstein talked about.

All you have to do is just nudge people.

Just alter the search results just a little bit here and a little bit there.

And all of a sudden, you're on a different path.

And that's what we're...

That's when you talked about before, don't we kind of commonly agree?

And you say, don't we kind of, I think we commonly do, but they've been nudged more than maybe we've been nudged.

And so there are people that may not be that far from us, but they've been nudged, and that dividing wall has been built between us.

When we look at the issue with guns, we see what's happening here.

And people tend to forget Venezuelans had guns up until 2012.

They took the guns from the citizens in 2012.

That's when you can get away with literally murder.

As we record this,

Maduro is still in.

He had just taken

Jorge Ramos

as a reporter and held him captive.

Reports are showing that things are getting much, much worse there.

Russia is now saying

we're going to go to war in Venezuela.

America is going to go to war in Venezuela.

Nobody is reporting the fact that Chinese have a warship off the coast of Venezuela, right next next to ours.

What's happening in Venezuela, do you think?

Well, we've sent in aid, right?

And the Western nations have sent in aid and they shot people trying to get it.

We're seeing the natural result of a true socialist revolution.

It looks good for a while and everybody celebrated and you had Michael Moore and everybody come out and say, look at how good this is.

And then you run out of other people's money.

They nationalized stuff.

They ran out.

I mean, it's the natural outcome of a socialist revolution.

It has to always go to dictatorship, and it ends with the haves and the have-nots, the worst of which is where you have Hugo Chavez's daughter sporting around the world with $3 or $4 billion.

How does a communist dictator's daughter inherit $3 billion to $4 billion?

How does a bus driver?

A bus driver, that's what people loved about Maduro.

He was one of the people.

He was a bus driver.

He wasn't rich.

Now look at him.

Now look at him.

They're flying bricks of gold that he claims are his

out of the out of the country.

What happens?

Well,

let's start here.

President wanted to build a wall, says it's a national emergency.

It's no more of a national emergency today than it was 10 years ago.

However, I think on the horizon, I don't know, are you following what's happening in Mexico with the oil pipelines and how they shut it down and now gas lines are everywhere?

They shut down the pipeline, said we're going to start trucking everything.

Trucking isn't, it's not effective,

at least the way, you know, going back to that, that's why they built that pipeline.

That's a terribly inefficient way to move.

It's horrible.

Yeah, it's a horrible thing.

And there's a shortage of truck drivers in the West anyway.

So

you've got all these problems problems down in Mexico just from that one thing.

You have a president who will not

recognize anyone but Maduro.

He's one of the few of Western countries that won't recognize him outside of Cuba.

If he is instituting the policies that

Chavez or Maduro were,

it's already a thugocracy.

Is it that hard for people to think maybe we would have a huge Colombian-style crisis on our hands, on our border?

Aaron Powell, you know, this is as they're on the precipice of potential economic greatness as a nation, because the Mexican people are phenomenal, smart, hardworking people, and China is collapsing as the low-cost producer.

We have an agreement with Mexico.

They could be the next producer, manufacturer, or whatever for the United States, the wages and so forth.

They're on the precipice of this, and yet they have,

from the thugocracy, from the drug cartel control,

from the fact that we don't have a wall and we have porous and open borders.

I mean, if we had a wall, Mexico would benefit because the drug cartels wouldn't get the massive amounts of money.

They're on the precipice of something really great if they could get their act together.

I mean, that's where we are at so many areas of life.

So many.

It could be really great or really terrible.

So explain that.

Let's take a break from the doom and gloom and go to the really good stuff.

Explain to people.

I don't think people understand.

When I say 2030, you will not recognize life as we know it.

It's going to be completely different

just from technology and what it's going to do for disease and healthcare, all the good things that are coming.

Tell me what you see as good things that are possible now if we would just get our crap together.

Well, science is expanding.

I'm a board member of a biotechnology company that's working on liver disease, and

we've completed a phase two trial.

Over the next 10 years, Our healthcare can improve dramatically from things that we're learning and continuing to advance in science.

If we can, as a nation, get Iraq together on the free speech issue, which I think is maybe the most important one.

And by the way,

there is a Louis Gomert came in the economic war room and gave it a real good suggestion.

He's got a bill that would, I think, solve the Facebook problem and Facebook control problem.

What is it?

Basically, we gave Facebook and all social media a pass and said, by congressional mandate, you all are not going to be subject to lawsuits

because you're just an interplay of, you're like a telephone company and people pick up the phone and they call and we can't hold you accountable for what people say on your phone.

They've violated that.

So if you want to be the phone company and not be subject to suit from people that are on here,

then fine, but you can't throttle.

You can't use the algorithms.

You can't do.

It's the platform versus publisher.

I know this because of the blaze.

I'm a publisher, meaning I have a say who's on and off the platform.

I have a say on we're going to publish this, we're not going to publish this.

So I'm held responsible.

Somebody sues us because someone is making the decision.

But Google, YouTube, Facebook, all of them said, no, no, no, we're a platform.

We're not going to have a say.

It's run by the people.

And now they're having a say.

Editorial.

Correct.

So now they're getting the protection from the government in places that no one should have protection from the government unless you are completely Switzerland.

You are neutral on what is being published.

Oh, well, it's being used over here for bad things.

Oh, well, I'm a platform.

So he's introducing a bill to stop this?

He is.

If you are a publisher and not a platform, if you're doing the editorial and the throttling, then you have no government protections from suit.

I think it's a brilliant answer.

If we could get that adopted, then free speech happens, that changes election trajectory, it changes so many things, and that which we have in common can be brought back together.

If we don't adopt something like that, we'll just continue the balkanization.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: And I keep looking at the things that we agree on.

There's so much.

There's so much that we agree on, and yet we're not allowed to agree on it.

For instance, the border.

I don't want an entire wall wall across the whole border.

I want it where it makes sense.

And I want, you know, sensors or surveillance of some sort where that makes sense.

You don't just put a wall up across the whole border, but it's got to make sense.

And

the left just will not give in.

They're just telling us this is hyperbole, this is ridiculous.

Just looking at the opioid deaths, our heroin and low-grade opioid come across the border.

The high-grade opioids come from China.

Yeah, China.

And as I was thinking about that the other day, I realized,

wait a minute,

isn't that what the opium wars were about with England and China?

Didn't the English know that if they went to India and bought up a bunch of opium and sold it across their border, it would weaken them from the inside china knew what was happening and said to england stop doing this to us but that's what they were doing yeah isn't that what china is doing to us right now yeah the the the whole thing but keep in mind while they're doing it we're also passing

marijuana laws you can use whatever you want so it this is a serious problem it's an addiction problem that our nation has

and it is a i want to tune out and not tune in.

We're trying to fill that emptiness or whatever with

whether it's fentanyl or opioids or marijuana or whatever.

It's a problem.

So we, on the border thing, though, we just had a guest in.

His name is Phil Midkiff.

He's got Blue Servo.

And we opened the show on Economic War Room.

We opened with the idea that 10 years ago, the Democrats, Paul Krugman and Barack Obama, we had quotes, you know, you've seen the YouTubes on them

they were stronger on the border than they are today.

It's all political.

Again, I think that problem is solved if you allow a free and fair exchange of speech.

I think people will see the logic and see and understand it.

So I think Gohmert's solution has an immigration implication, has an implication for just about every issue we face.

So let me talk about the economy here for a second.

What do you see coming, Kevin?

Well, in the stock market or the economy?

Both.

Let's start with the stock market because as this is being recorded, the Dow is right at 26,000.

We had a terrible downturn in the fourth quarter of last year, the worst in decades, fourth quarter, worst December, Christmas Eve.

People went to Christmas Day, and we just had this massive downturn on a day that's supposed to be super quiet in the stock market.

And then January, it's all just popped right back up and people are asleep.

I think that we have some rough economic times that are ahead.

Okay, hang on.

I remember

one time that I was really frustrated or

a bad son to God.

I felt I needed to read about the money supply.

M1, M2, M3 money supply.

And I remember reading it at three o'clock in the morning and having to reread it and then reread it again and then reread it again.

And I was just like, I'm just not smart enough to get all this.

And I remember being in bed, looking up as if I'm talking right directly to God and going, Why am I reading this?

I'm never going to have to use this.

Why am I reading this?

And it turns out I did need to read that.

We have pumped so much money into this system to bail it out.

Right.

And every expert is saying, well, there's no inflation.

Yes, there is in the stock market.

Sure.

It's going to run financial assets.

Absolutely.

And by the way, the idea that there's no inflation is ludicrous.

We're still running 2%, 3% inflation.

That's inflation.

But

I think it was Hemingway who talked about

how you would go bankrupt very slowly at first, then all of a sudden.

Yes.

And that's, I think, the money that we've put in.

There's only one solution for this nation with the debt that we have.

Now, we just passed $22 trillion in federal debt.

And that's just federal debt.

And that's just federal debt on the books.

There's maybe another $100 trillion of promises that we've made, Social Security, Medicare, and all the unfunded liabilities.

It is over $100 trillion.

So, in addition to that.

And then there's corporate debt, and then there's personal debt, and then there's state government debt, and then there's municipalities debt.

So when you add it all up together, it is an astronomical amount relative to the entire economy of the entire planet.

And I just mentioned American debt.

I didn't mention European debt.

So what the response was to the financial crisis, so things did not implode, is they monetized a lot of that debt.

So the Federal Reserve was buying up our Treasury bills, right?

They've stopped doing that, and they're talking about now winding that quantitative easing down.

That has an impact.

The reason the stock market was allowed to rebound is the Fed chairman came out and said, well, we may not do that all of a sudden.

We may not, you know, maybe we don't have to raise these rates as many times.

So that gave peace to the market, but maybe they do have to.

What happens when the unwind happens in Europe, where they not only monetize the debt, but they bought every piece of paper they possibly could to drive interest rates to negative interest rates, which I know you've talked about, negative interest rates where the borrower gets paid to borrow money just to keep the economy moving.

So there's a lot going on in the world.

It's mostly bad, but if we can clean up the regulations, which the Trump administration, if you give credit to President Trump for anything, it is that he has said, I don't want any more regulations.

And we really haven't had any more.

The agencies have really cut them.

We've got a tax cut that's out there, which a lot of people will say, well, maybe that's irresponsible to cut taxes when you have this much debt, but it has produced economic growth.

This nation

with less regulation can grow faster than 3% per year.

We could grow 4%, 5%, 6% if we weren't the massive overreach of government.

So, how do you get to the beautiful is you got to do the responsible thing.

Stop racking up more debt and start increasing your income, just like any householder would do.

I've got this debt and it's more than I can handle, so I've got to take on another job or I've got to earn more money at my current job or I've got to find a better job and I've got to stop spending money.

There is a point of no return.

I don't know where that is.

I don't know if we passed it five years ago or if we pass it five years from now, but we still have to do the responsible thing.

And so there is hope for the economy.

But right now, the economy is assuming everything is good.

The stock markets are reflecting that.

We have unemployment.

The Fed chairman just came out and said, I've noticed that

we've not run up the inflation because there's people that can still come back into the workforce.

The assumption is that, well, unemployment at 4%,

if you have any more growth, you'll have inflation.

Well, no, the unemployment rate excludes all of those people that have gotten discouraged and left the marketplace.

And they're now coming back in.

And so we're not pushing the wage inflation pressures.

So there's hope, and maybe there's time, but the economy right now,

we are assuming everything's good, assuming no recessions, assuming no hiccups.

There will be a hiccup.

There will be another financial issue.

I don't know when it happens, but I think we can go through it.

John Malden, I don't know if you're familiar, John Malden talks about the Great Reset.

So we had him in the economic war room talk about that.

And he says, yeah, when we get on the other side of the great reset, it's going to be really good

but it's not going to be fun going through so that's kind of where I am I don't know when the reset happens when it does it's going to be a big struggle and if we have free speech and if the government doesn't take over everything and these are very real risks but if we can do things right and we fight properly it can be good on the other side

unless we enslave ourselves that's the risk and it's a real risk it's a real risk i don't want to throw that out it's a very very genuine risk.

I think with the way socialism and the Green New Deal and all of this stuff is just being thrown out

at a time when we have 4.5%

unemployment,

4%.

4% unemployment.

We have generally

people feel pretty good about the economy.

We're talking about ending the system as we know it and adopting socialism and social justice and and politicians are now saying the end of capitalism is over.

What will we do when we're hungry?

Well, the term New Deal, Green New Deal, was chosen for a reason.

Because as soon as the economy looked weak and we had problems in the 1930s, the New Deal came in.

So the natural human tendency is going to be to adopt these principles.

Hopefully, and I'm always hopeful, ever optimistic, hopefully if we do enough education and get the word out, we can see this is a failed system.

It didn't help in Venezuela.

They gave up their guns, what did you say, in 2012?

2012.

I guess the economy was pretty good then and things were okay then.

And people don't,

you know, it's the normalcy bias.

People don't expect

catastrophic change.

The woman who is writing

surveillance capitalism, she said at the beginning of the book, she said,

I started doing my research around 2003 on this.

And she said,

it wasn't until about 2009 that I really started thinking differently.

And it's because her house burned down.

And she said

the house caught on fire.

And so she ran up the stairs, got everybody out.

And then she ran up the stairs and she closed all of the bedroom doors so the smoke wouldn't be so strong in those rooms.

So she closes all the doors.

Then she goes back downstairs and she's starting to take all of her pictures out of the living room when

the fire chief comes in, grabs her, takes her out.

As she's walking out on the lawn, the house explodes.

Wow.

And she said,

after that experience, she said,

I realized what so many are struggling with, and that is

we can see damage and we can see a problem.

I could see my house burning down,

but not to the ground.

Right.

Not to the ground.

And I don't think people realize.

I had an economist on just recently, and I'd love to get your opinion.

I said,

category one to category five, five obviously being the worst.

What's the storm that's coming ashore?

He said six.

Hmm.

What do you say?

I'm ever the optimist.

I wouldn't go to six,

but 2008 was pretty bad and we band-aided it.

We didn't really solve the problem.

So I could make a case.

I grew up as a debater.

You have to take both sides of every issue in debate.

I could make a case that six makes sense.

And

it's possible.

I do see there is a hope.

I don't know if it'll work, but there is a way out.

There is a hope.

And I'm going to pursue that.

What's the way out?

The American people, the goodness of the American people.

We've got to educate.

We've got to teach them to weaponize their money.

They don't want to see it.

They're good people.

How do you weaponize your money?

Well, there are three things you can do with your money.

You can well, four things if you want to

count saving and investing separate, but you can spend it, you can save it or invest it or you can give it.

If we get the good people that understand what we're talking about

to weaponize their money to where their spending patterns are to support things that will enhance America and not destroy America.

or they will invest their money in ways which, by the way, Wall Street's telling them to invest their money in ways that are entirely detrimental to the America we know.

In what way?

Well, a perfect example.

The largest initial public offering in history is a company called Alibaba.

And I heard Alibaba mentioned on CNBC yesterday as a China play, and boy, if we get a trade agreement with China, it's going to be a great investment.

Alibaba is

kind of the Amazon

eBay together of China.

When they offered that public offering, they raised $25 billion of capital, mostly from the United States.

Now, they offered the IPO in New York on the New York Stock Exchange because the Hong Kong Stock Exchange said, no, it's not a fair deal and we won't offer it.

It violates our rules on transparency and so forth.

And here are the rules violations.

If you bought Alibaba shares when they were issued, you bought shares in a Cayman Islands

shell corporation that has a claim on Alibaba's earnings as long as Alibaba wants to allow that claim.

Oh my gosh.

You have no shareholder rights.

You can't vote.

You can't have any control or anything else.

But you hope that they're going to share some of the money that they make with you.

Now, what did they do with the money?

They turned around and went into Silicon Valley and started buying the best of American technology with our money.

But that's okay.

We got shares in the Cayman Islands corporation that might get some cash flow from Alibaba.

It really is the worst,

worst, it's the opposite of weaponizing your money.

It's handing them the weapon and the ammunition.

Wall Street loved it.

It was the largest IPO in history and the big banks made a fortune off of it.

If we wake America up and realize, hey, when you buy shares of stock in this company, you're helping to destroy America.

But these good companies, patriotic companies, I mean, you have another way to weaponize it.

You've got a sponsor that's come on your program,

Patriot Mobile.

Those guys are friends of mine.

You can hand your money to the corporation, to the big mobile phone company that's going to support things you don't believe in, or you can hand it to these guys that want to support things you do believe in.

That's weaponizing your money.

Nobody has really gone out.

We talk about giving to weaponize your money.

So you give to this candidate or that candidate, or you might give to

First Liberty Institute, Kelly Shakerford, helping defend religious liberty.

So we weaponize our giving a little bit, but we've never weaponized our investing and we rarely weaponize our spending.

So we need to train people to do that.

America, the wealth of America is still in individual hands.

So do you invest in Google?

I

might have Google.

Yeah.

I might, but I shouldn't.

You look at these and you say, where's my alternative?

Yeah.

And if there's no alternative, maybe we need to start one.

If we would weaponize our capital, then entrepreneurs would have the ability to compete.

But you know,

conservatives don't.

They don't.

You know, you go and look at the liberals

and you see how much money they pour into things.

And they just pour it in and they don't care.

It's almost like they just don't care.

Conservatives, rightfully so,

demand results.

Demand results.

And

because of that,

a lot of things just don't ever get funded that might have a chance, might not have a chance.

To prove your point, the Young Turks.

There are a lot of people with the Young Turks that just send in donations because they believe in the cause.

Yes.

And fund and support that way.

And that's Katzenberg.

One of the ways we can combat that, though, another friend of mine is Ken Eldred, and Ken Eldred wrote a book, God at Work.

And Ken, a great man behind United in Purpose, was heavily involved.

And he says, you know, I don't like the idea of nonprofits because everybody has to make a profit or they don't exist.

We just define it.

That's an IRS term, not a real term.

But we should get people.

On the left, they'll do this.

They'll buy ads on a blog that has five readers on the blog, and they'll buy ads on that blog and support them.

And so the guy can live very well writing leftist garbage.

garbage on the right.

And he's like,

well, when do I get a return on my money?

Exactly right.

So we need to alter the circumstances so that we can do the right thing and produce results because capitalism works better.

In the end, our system is better.

We just need to find a way to weaponize the people and wake people up to it.

So

Starbucks is a good example.

I'll stop at a Starbucks if I'm driving on the highway.

It's 11 at night and I need to stay awake and keep my kids alive.

And I've got to get somewhere.

I'll stop and

get some coffee there if that's all the options that I have.

But when I find other options, I want to go there.

I've begun to weaponize my capital.

We need to do it more.

We've talked about this off air, and I've said this for a very long time.

I mean, I've been a fan of yours for years and years.

And,

you know, we talked about bringing Economic War Room to the blaze originally.

And at that time, it was not a time for me to launch new shows.

And

I had to get my crap together because, quite honestly, when we started the Blaze, we needed to raise $50 million.

We raised eight.

We survived on eight.

And I see these companies now that have Vice

$500 million

gone.

Just blew through it.

We did it on eight.

And it was trying to get nine nine was impossible.

Eight.

And

at the time, the idea was, look, they're going to pick us off one by one if we don't start standing together.

We don't have to agree with each other, but we do have to hang together, as Franklin said, or we'll hang separately.

And I think that time is

coming.

Yeah, we could have the Federalist paper type Federalists and anti-Federalists, but we're all liberty lovers.

Yes, Right.

And we'll stand together until the Constitution's in place.

And then

we're just, we're going to get picked off.

And I still talk to, there were two people that have been banned by PayPal and Facebook this week, conservative voices.

Just banned.

There's two more.

There's two more.

Nobody says, you don't even notice it.

No outcry.

Anymore.

Okay.

It's coming.

And I still can't get conservatives to wake up.

Still can't get the conservatives who read it every day, who know it's happening.

And they still say, well, I don't know.

I mean, what's in it for us if we're going to come together?

Look, keep your money.

We don't need your money.

Just start coming together.

But the money is actually the key.

It is.

It's the key because the Bible says, Matthew 6, Jesus said, where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

And here's the reality.

I'm in the financial business.

I've been in the treasure room of hundreds of people, and I know where their heart is, and I can talk to it.

I'll give you an example.

I met a guy at a book signing.

I signed a book for him.

He's an ER doctor.

He was driving through the area.

He got my number.

He called me and says, can we meet?

We met at a local coffee shop, sat down, and he laid out all of his portfolio, and he said, I'm really scared.

What happens if this happens?

What do I do with my money?

And I said, you're really frightened.

And he said, yes.

And I said, have you shared this with your pastor?

He said, it's none of his business.

No.

His heart was there with the treasure.

He's a good man, but his heart was there with the treasure, and he wouldn't open up to his pastor, but he opened to his financial advisor.

So that's part of our solution: we're going to teach people to weaponize their money by training financial advisors.

There's something in it for the financial advisor.

There's a whole group of people who have no idea.

Do I buy Bitcoin?

Do I buy gold?

Do I buy what?

And they walk into the average financial advisor and says, put it in the stock market.

Buy the SP 500.

Leave it alone.

It'll be fine.

It always comes back.

Well, that may have been true in the past, but it likely will not be true.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Correct.

Likely will not be true in the future.

Because everything is going to change.

And everything.

People intuitively know that, at least a lot of people do, and they're looking for a financial advisor who understands a little bit of this more than them and can help them navigate these waters.

If we train them and then we tell them, your cost of admission is to weaponize that capital to save America and we could build a movement through.

Right now, we have politicized the teachers and the education movement.

We've politicized the media and we've lost all of these grounds.

Andrew Ross Sorikin says the way to control America is through the financial system.

And they own Wall Street, but they don't own the individual investor.

If we can weaponize the individual investor's money to save America and not to destroy America, we can make a difference.

I don't know if we can pull it off, but I'm going to give my life to trying to do that.

Where,

I mean, I think I'm like the average investor.

Maybe not.

I am really risk-averse.

I'm not in my career.

It's crazy.

I'm just, I'll go anywhere.

In my money,

I just,

you know, I played blackjack for one hand in Vegas, and I said, hit me.

He took my $5, and I looked at him.

I said, that wasn't $5 worth of fun.

And that's the last time I've ever played.

I don't like gambling.

I just don't.

Where do you put it?

Where is there going to be a safe shelter, Kevin?

Well, if you start with the idea that the stock market is not a market, but it's a market of stocks, and you realize that in this massive S ⁇ P 500, there's 500 different companies that are doing different things.

If you can define which ones you feel like have an opportunity to benefit.

I mean, you're a very smart man.

You think about the future.

There are companies that will prosper in that future.

Hopefully it's not Facebook and Google.

And hopefully it's or Facebook and Google decide to be free speech companies, which would be even better.

But even on 5G, you know, and I don't take any advice from this.

I'm just saying it off the top of my head.

Like, there will be people like Corning.

There will be other companies.

There will be a

fortune off of 5G.

Right.

So you don't have to go to, you know.

So you look into the future and you evaluate that.

And then what you need is you need a good investment advisor because your personal situation is different from mine, different from the next guy.

The reason we can't, no one should offer personalized investment advice.

We can't legally on television or podcasts or whatever, is because none of us have any idea who the listener is and what their situation is.

The 92-year-old grandma is different from the 16-year-old capitalist trying to learn to invest, who's different from the 34-year-old that's got two kids.

They're all different situations.

That requires an advisor.

If we can somehow combine an awareness of where things are headed, an awareness of what we ought to be doing to weaponize our money in an advisor who then will meet with an individual client, get to know their needs, wants, desires, and so forth, and match that up.

That's how you weaponize.

10,000 advisors would weaponize a trillion dollars of capital.

China has about a trillion dollars of U.S.

Treasury bonds, and you see the influence that they have around the world with that.

If we could weaponize a trillion dollars of American capital, we could change the world.

And 10,000 advisors, I know them.

I've worked with them my entire career.

I know who they are, where they go.

My father is a stockbroker, Morgan Stanley, for years.

He's in that average.

You know, he's 83 years old.

He's in that average of client.

You weaponize 10,000 of those guys that want to save America.

And we have done, you know, the NEA has the big sway.

Nobody has reached the average financial advisor.

And we can do that.

Tell me about

what keeps you up at night as the domino that starts this thing to collapse?

Well, first off, I don't generally stay up at night.

I sleep really well because I trust God.

I believe in him.

And I know at some point there's going to be a mark of the beast, and

it might be Google that has that.

I don't know what it's going to be.

So I just figure God's got it in his hands.

But what keeps me up at night is am I doing everything I possibly can do to serve God in this unique time?

I don't want to be the one who shies away.

But what domino starts it it off is it's going to be debt.

It's going to be some debt failure somewhere.

It could start in Italy.

The Italian banks have problems.

It could start in a separation between China and the United States where they dump our Treasury bonds.

It could start in an AI.

It could start with Brexit?

It could.

It could start with an AI program that decides to take the stock market down.

I mean, you talked about Market Terminator.

We did a segment on Market Terminator.

Artificial intelligence, 80, 90 percent of the trades on the New York Stock Exchange are done.

And when the stock market collapses, it can trigger a Great Depression.

It did in the 1920s.

So

Danielle Dean Martino Booth, do you know who she is?

Okay.

So she said to me about a year ago, she said, I'm watching auto loans.

She said, because auto loans are gigantic, bigger than they've ever been before.

People are way underwater.

They did exactly in the auto industry what we did to houses

in 2006 and 2007.

Subprime all over the place.

All over the place.

She said it's just that's going to trip, and that'll be the first domino.

Then you'll have the student loan, and then you'll have the cities, and it'll just all come undone.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

It could happen.

Sure, it's one of those triggers.

I have no idea what the trigger is going to be, but that could happen.

It could happen with the student loans, or it could happen with auto loans, but it's going to probably be tied to debt, or it's going to be a direct financial attack.

Could be the

worst case,

we've talked about it.

I just had Jim Woolsey and Lieutenant General Quast and David Major Stuckendberg talk about EMPs.

It could be that.

And we just wake up that day and it's all gone.

Do you believe they need an EMP now?

I mean, if you have, if you can hack into the power grid.

You don't have to have an EMP, but North Korea

might.

There are satellites that go over our country.

Every day, they're North Korean satellites that could have a very low-grade nuclear device in them, and they could black out the paragrid.

And we have not done what we need to do, but we're working on it.

I was in cybersecure San Antonio, had a big meeting.

Lieutenant General Quast is in charge of all Air Force training, and they do it down in San Antonio at joint military base.

It's like five bases in one, you know, and

he is actually working with the local authorities and the local power company to cyber secure,

EMP secure San Antonio because the military bases all depend on our civilian electric grid.

So if they can secure that, then people will start wanting to open a business in San Antonio.

And Senator Bob Hall is legislation in the Texas legislature right now that would reward companies that become more resilient against an EMP.

So if we do those kinds of things, then Texas itself will be attractive and people want to move here for that reason.

And then other states will begin to adopt it.

It's not really that expensive.

And then we will never have an EMP because if we can bounce back, no one would risk it.

If we have the ability to stand up as a nation after an EMP, nobody's going to attack us that way.

Did Texas get its gold back?

You know, that's a good question.

I know we built it.

We have a gold repatriation bill.

Right.

And we built it.

Giovanni Cabriglion,

he's my state rep.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He's got that bill.

There's another bill in this, but I don't think we got a, I don't know.

I know we built, didn't we build this?

We get a lot of money.

We got permission to build the vault, and they were working with the Texas Comptroller.

And my dream on that, which I think is

my dream, is that you take the gold that we get back and we say, everybody's welcome to deposit in our Texas vault.

We're going to back it with blockchain technology to validate that it's there.

And you carry a little card that's the Texan card.

If you want to go into Walmart and shop with it, it will convert your gold into the currency that they want to accept.

And you just buy goods and services, and you just have your deposit buy gold and stick it right.

We could do that.

It's constitutional currency, right?

Because it's gold and silver coins.

It would be Bitcoin, electronic coins, but it's backed by the Constitution.

That would be the soundest money possible.

Because you have, I think Milton Friedman said, the US dollar is a fiction, but it's got the strength of being backed by a government.

Gold has an intrinsic value, but it's not backed by a government.

This would be the best of both of those worlds using blockchain.

China and Russia, Special Ops, just announced that they are going to start

focusing on China and Russia

over terrorism.

That is shocking after 20 years of being terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror.

Tell me what you think that means.

What is that?

I think it's an awareness that the existential threats are real from Russia and China.

I remember I went into the Pentagon, I worked with the Office of Net Assessment, I worked with the Defense Intelligence Agency, I worked with multiple branches inside the Pentagon, and I told them that we're in a global economic war, and it's serious, and it's existential.

And the issue there was we were worried about IEDs.

Almost all the money was

focused on IEDs and protecting our soldiers and the risks there.

And I said, those things are a problem and they're real and you should deal with them.

But if you don't pay attention to the global financial system, if you don't pay attention to some of these other threats, including EMP,

none of that is going to matter.

And I think that that thinking has gotten through to enough people that they say we're going to have to begin to shift to an awareness.

We are in, as you said it, I actually wrote on Blaze an editorial article on Blaze several years ago, World War III is started.

You just said it.

It started and it's ones and zeros.

I think there's that recognition that we have an existential threat from avowed enemies.

And there are solutions for that too.

I think about all of these things and how do I solve that problem, this problem, this problem.

There are solutions for that too, but it's a recognition by the Pentagon that we're in World War III and that if we are solely focused on stopping terrorism with our Pentagon, then we're missing the bigger threat.

Yet,

we have missed the threat

of the Islamists.

I mean,

I think Congress is

you've got a couple of very concerning people even in Congress right now.

You have the Democratic Party around

some nefarious people, and they don't don't seem to reject

Louis Farrakhan or his ilk.

You have the Awan

brothers,

which

no one even knows about.

No one knows about.

We did specials on it.

I know you have.

And

what happened to that?

What happened?

Explain that story for people who don't know.

Well, the Awan Brothers, essentially, the Republican leadership decided that they didn't want to get into it.

And And so they get

on the wrist.

That's a fair question that Congressman Gomer can't answer.

Suspicion is that they dug up dirt on the Republican leadership.

They had access to the innards of congressional servers.

They had emails.

They had all this.

So they dug up dirt.

I mean, it was a perfect scandal.

It was foreign interference in our Congress.

It's something you would think the Republicans would have made a huge deal out of while the Democrats are talking about Russian interference.

I think it got covered up because of the corruption, the deep state in Washington.

This was Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

She hires this one guy,

last name Awan.

Imran Arwan.

And he hired his friends and he hired his brother and his mom.

Yes.

And he had all kinds of shady dealings like car dealerships.

And he was the guy who was running the IT

for Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

And then all of a sudden.

He posted the Democratic Party.

Right, then all of a sudden all the Democrats start to do it.

And she, did she ever turn on him?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

No, she didn't.

And not only that, but you've got him controlling.

She was the chairman of the Democratic Party at the time.

And that's when the Democrat emails got leaked out.

The hacking of the DNC happened right there.

And the best forensic experts say that it wasn't an external hacking.

They say that it was somebody putting in a thumb drive and downloading information because the speed at which the data transferred, you can see the data transfer speeds on the logs, the speed at which it transferred was too fast for someone, even the fastest hacker in the world could not have gotten that data out across lines.

It had to be someone local.

And he was running, he had her password and he had her iPads and he had access to her computers and he was running all kinds of other things where they were buying iPads for $499 and they didn't have to be reported.

There was all kinds of dirty stuff going on.

Luke Roziak has done an incredible job of researching this and it's been covered up.

So how do we get to the truth?

Well, you said about the Islamic threat being real.

It's more of a domestic threat than it is potentially an international threat at this point.

The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, has been defined as a terror group by Saudi Arabia, by Egypt.

I was in Egypt.

I met with the Egyptian.

They wanted to understand financial terrorism, so they brought me over, treated me great, and had a great time in Cairo, got to see the pyramids and all those sorts of things.

They treated me great.

They hate the Muslim Brotherhood for obvious reasons.

Yes.

But we have not designated them a terror group.

So that's a domestic problem.

And that is a domestic, which is why the military probably is not going to focus on it as much, because we actually have that terror threat here from homegrown or people elected to Congress or whatever

greater than we do from

you have people who have ignored this problem, enabled

this problem,

made excuses for this problem,

and now we're we're sitting here those are the same people who are pushing down everybody's throats social justice and socialism so let's go to socialism here for just a second

Kevin you know me I have been saying for almost 20 years there's going to come a time when you don't recognize the country There's going to come a time where everything you thought was solid, you thought you knew, you thought we agreed on, will be upside down.

Liquid will be solid solid and solid will be liquid.

We passed that about three years ago.

Now we're hearing people actually talk about the end of capitalism, the end of the free market system, the end of freedom.

And people are saying, gee, that sounds neat.

What does socialism really mean?

Because people are convinced that it's Sweden.

No, in Sweden, actually, I think I saw it on a Blaze article that came out.

The former head of Sweden said, that's not us.

He basically dissed the whole concept.

He attacked Sanders on it.

Socialism is controlled by an elite over the masses.

That's what it is.

And are we headed that way?

Well, young people are buying in.

I want the free college.

I want the free health care.

I want to be fair.

But inside it are the seeds of its own demise.

It never lasts.

And right now, when you see the whole idea of fairness is what's being driven, and you see the top two NCAA athletes and women's

cross-country or whatever, women runners are transgender, their male bodies, and I heard you talking about that this morning, people say, wait, that's not fair.

And so inside the socialism is never fair.

And when people recognize that the idea of socialism means that they're going to take what you've worked hard to get and give it to somebody who's not working or doesn't want to work, which was in the Green New Deal, people will say, wait, that's not fair.

And I think that the fairness is actually fair opportunity, equal opportunity.

And that's what we're going to have to push.

It's everything that Martin Luther King said in his I've Got a Dream speech of, you know,

I just don't judge me by...

my skin, judge me by the content of my character.

That's what capitalism is supposed to do.

It looks for merit.

And the system, without anybody steering it, awards merit because you say, as a consumer,

they're making something I like.

And I want to invest in them because I believe in what they're doing.

And people are buying it because it helps them make their life better.

And no one's running it.

So it is, it's an equal playing ground.

Come up with a better mousetrap.

and people will beat a path to the door.

And that is weaponizing your capital.

That's what we want to, we want to essentially turn people back into capitalists, that they're going to make investments that will be colorblind, that will not be playing the identity politics, that will be actually successful.

And I think that if we educate people, weaponize capital, get the free speech things, if we do the right thing, I mean, frankly, you know, on the international side, the president ought to be appealing to Putin and saying, hey, look, China is going to eat you.

Russia will not last.

Nixon went to China and broke China off from Russia, Russia, from the Soviet Union.

If Trump's smart, he'll go to Russia and break them

off of China because Russia has a brilliant, beautiful future ahead, but not if China dominates this planet.

China 2025.

That's their plan.

World dominance by 2025.

And Russia will be a vassal state.

It sure will.

And right now, we ought to be game-changing.

So I'm thinking through all of these different solutions to these problems.

You've identified the problems accurately, and we may not be successful, but we got to try.

And that's what I'm doing.

It's so good to talk to you.

If you haven't seen The Economic War Room, you should.

It's on the Blaze Television Network, and

we invite you to become a subscriber.

I hope we see a lot more of you, Kevin.

Thank you.

Thank you, Glenn.

Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.