Transcription
Hello, America. Well, this past weekend was the No Kings protest. Wasn't that exciting?
Now, the best way, uh, I can think of to tell you what's really going, um, on here is to weave to tell it in the way Shakespeare would do it, into a three-act play. And here are the three acts tonight that you'll see. You'll see useful idiots, intellectuals, and organizers. And finally, follow the money. Okay.
So, we've got to get through all of this, what's what's happening. And to truly understand what's happening, not only here in America, but in the entire world, really important you understand that, you need to look at all three of these things, not just the street thugs, okay? Not only where the money is coming from.
Tonight, I'm going to give you a couple of names that you need to know, and I'm also going to give you a couple of new books that I think you should read. And just like Thomas Jefferson, um, and the way he thought about the Quran, he had the Quran published and wanted everyone to read, not just excerpts, the book, read it. Because he said, if you understand what they are talking about here, it might be our first foreign war, but if we're not careful, it will also be America's last foreign war. So, let's really understand what we're dealing. We need to know this material back and forward.
So, I'm going to bring in an expert here in a few minutes when it comes to following the money, because where does the money trail actually end? Peter Schweiser is here to break that all down. But I want to begin tonight with Act One, Scene One, Useful Idiots.
The No Kings organizers, who we'll get into in Act Two, estimate, now, I love this, nearly 7 million people showed up for the demonstrations all across the country. Uh-huh. Now, I highly doubt that's how many showed up, but let's just say, okay, that's what they're saying. 7 million people. That's roughly 2% of the population. Now, keep that number in mind because I'm going to come back to that number, 2%, in a second.
These protests, strategically, they were set up in cities all over the place, and attendees consisted of mostly older white people, aka '60s era's, you know, super hippies. But in summation, the Speaker of the House gave a pretty good description of the attendees. Listen to what he says.
>> Now, tomorrow, the Democrat leaders are going to join for a big party out on the National Mall. They're going to descend on our capital for their much anticipated so-called No Kings rally. Uh, we refer to it by its more accurate description, the Hate America rally. Okay? And, uh, I'm not sure how anybody can refute that. If you think about what's going to happen here tomorrow, uh, you're going to bring together the Marxists, the Socialists, the Antifa advocates, the anarchists, and the pro-Hamas wing of the far-left Democrat party. That is the modern Democratic Party.
What did he just say? Marxists, socialists, anarchists, and Islamists are now working together to destabilize the United States. Gee, that sounds familiar. You know, if he would have said that destabilization would cascade all over the world and then onto our shores, it would have been half the monologue from every monologue I did at Fox back during the Arab Spring. But I'm glad government is now catching up. I'm un— It's unfortunate that it has to happen in real time. You know, I wish it would have happened back in 2011 because we wouldn't be here. But any rate, the useful idiots showed up on Saturday by the thousands.
And now I've broken this, this group up into two categories. I have the dangerous idiots. Okay? And to break it down into super smart language, these people, uh, you know, the the language that these people would use would be, uh, the dangerous idiots and then the more iditor. I, I don't know. I'm more of an idiot than that guy. The more idiot of the protesters. Okay, case in point. This idiot of a woman.
Why are you protesting?
>> Um, how much time do you have?
>> Couple minutes.
>> And what's the main reason you're out here protesting President Trump?
>> Agree with a lot of the decisions that are being made.
>> Is there any decision in particular you disagree with?
>> Where? Okay. So, I, I would start with, um, well, I don't even think I don't even think it's appropriate for me to have this interview.
>> Ah, okay. Okay.
Is it weird how that's how all of the interviews end? "I'm not talking to you anymore." Why are you uncomfortable? Because you have no idea what you're talking about. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of the people that showed up over the weekend are the more iditor and they're confused.
Okay, so let's cut this woman and the majority a bit of an intellectual slack here because intellectually, they're twisted in so many knots that they don't know which way the sun comes up. They're out there shouting "No Kings," but they were fine with kings during COVID. They were fine with lockdowns and canceled church services and threatening pastors and and firing people for not getting the jab. That sounds like a king. They wanted a king when government weaponized against free speech. They watched people get indicted for internet memes and they were fine with with it. Okay. They cheer this happening right now in places like the UK, which, by the way, actually has a king. They wanted a king when the person they voted for in the primary was Joe Biden. Uh, they were like, "We can't have him." Quick, somebody replace him with some person nobody even voted for, Kamala Harris. That is the definition of a king. They wanted a king as they watch propaganda seep into our kids' schools. And when parents pushed back, the Feds put them on watch lists. That's what a king does. And when anything threatened the king's commands, people were deplatformed. Alternative media was threatened. The opposing viewpoints were all but outlawed. That's what a king does. Those people have to be silenced. And when that didn't work, they just begin assassinating people. Okay. So now, wait a minute. You're— You're not for a king? I don't— What? Why are they shouting it? Because they're being told to shout it. They have no clue why. And that's why suddenly it's a bad thing to oppose. And they're confused. And they're like, "I'm not being manipulated. Are you kidding me?" And I'm going to show you later by whom.
But the dangerous useful idiots are not confused at all. Okay, these are the Marxists, the socialists, the anarchists, and the Islamists. They know why they are there. The New York No Kings rally was co-sponsored by the Communist Party as well as the Young Communist League. They don't want kings. They just want a politburo. Antifa was using No Kings rallies to infiltrate and spread violence. And it wouldn't be complete without the Islamist in the globalize the intifada crew. Now, all of these are part of the actual dangerous useful idiots. But guess what? Those too are all being manipulated just the same. After all, at the end of the day, they're all idiots. They all are finding themselves a part of the No Kings movement in some way or another. All idiots. And their presence is needed for appearance. The numbers don't matter. I mean, no matter which group they fall under, are required. The numbers— that's that's all they need.
I told you at the top of the show, the No Kings participants, based on the numbers by the organizers, which is probably bull crap, represented 2% of the population. Now, why is that important? Well, we've got to move into Act Two, the Intellectuals and Organizers, because they have targeted 3.5% of the American population. That's what they say they need. What do they need 3.5% of the US for? Revolution. You see, the intellectuals and the organizers of the No Kings movement have been studying this for a very long time. They've been looking at color revolutions all over the world, and they found in all of their research that only 3.5% of the population is needed to successfully bring a country down.
Well, this is exactly what our founders warned us about back in the 1700s. In the Federalist Papers, the founders called this the tyranny of the minority. How a small percentage of people could effectively make their voices look louder and larger than they really were, and force their will on the majority of people. This is why our government was designed the way it was. Direct democracy was shunned. We were made into a constitutional republic. The Electoral College was created specifically to protect us from tactics like this. But the color revolutions, they're— they're all designed to bring all of this down.
Early in the show, I promised you two new names and two new books that I would want you to read and understand. But before we get there, first, let's talk about the main organizers of the No Kings rallies. When we come back, I'll go into the money trails to groups like Indivisible. But first, the ideology behind it. Indivisible was created by a couple of former congressional staffers named Ezra Levvin and Leah Greenberg.
I've been talking about color revolution for years now. And the reason these revolutions have been dubbed "color" is because of the marketing tricks the organizers use. For example, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution. Now, listen to this little No Kings planning webinar hosted by Ezra and Leah. Listen to what takes— what takes center stage for all of their preparations. Listen.
>> What's getting organic pickup that we can start to pull out and and capitalize on, right? And so thinking about things that, uh, we're seeing pop on the internet, things that we're seeing start to like take off in places like Reddit. Um, the color yellow, yellow and black have come up a lot, which is obviously very like, you know, kind of people taking pieces of the No Kings logo and running with it as a color scheme.
Did you know that they were encouraging people to wear yellow? I immediately thought of the Yellow Vest because remember the Yellow Vest? That same kind of thing. They're discussing in public which color to use for their revolution. This is a color revolution, and it is being planned as a color revolution, and they are consulting intellectuals who have made color revolutions their main field of research.
Which brings us to the first name I want you to know and the first book. In another planning webinar for No Kings, Ezra and Leah featured a Q&A with a Harvard affiliate woman named Erica Chenowith. She, or they, as this person likes to go by, whatever, uh, has been researching color— successful color revolutions for a very long time now. It was her study of color revolutions that found the number 3.5%. She called it the 3.5% rule: How a small minority can change the world. You want to know what the next few years, if No Kings is an indicator, is going to look like? Read this book. The book titled *Why Civil Resistance Works*. Okay.
Her work looks like it was heavily influenced by another color revolution intellectual. And I want you to listen to this part of her Q&A with the Indivisible co-founders where she mentions resources people can look up to further the cause. Listen.
>> There's some interesting stuff happening there. There's a good list, um, that's easy to find if you went to, like, Gene Sharp's list of 198 nonviolent methods is like just one of those low-hanging, easy access, um, resources. And there's under economic non-cooperation, there's like a really long list. Um, and then there's other kinds. There's social and and and political, uh, non-cooperation as well.
Okay. So, that's the second name I want you to research and bone up on. And Gene Sharp. Sharp was a political science professor at the University of Mass, Dartmouth. Oh, and he also wrote a book in the '90s that was later characterized as the Bible of activists, *From Dictatorship to Democracy*. It was a successful handbook for a successful revolution by peaceful means. It would go on to be translated into more than 30 languages. It has been smuggled into multiple countries, and color revolution typically follows soon after. From revolutions in Eastern Europe to the Arab Spring, activists on the ground reportedly were trained off— right off the pages of this book, *From Dictatorship to Democracy*.
If you want to be able to understand, predict, and counter the narratives being thrown around at No Kings and other color revolution events in the next few years, you have to read this book. Give it to your elected officials. Show them what all of this is being based on. This is the playbook that was referenced by Erica Chenowith and apparently the principles that are guiding the organizers behind No Kings.
Now, let's go to Act Three. Where's the money coming from? Follow the money in Act Three next.
So, uh, do you wake up every morning wondering how your pain is just going to affect your day? Michael in Connecticut used to, but not anymore. Let me tell you his story from Relief Factor. Michael said he was dealing with elbow pain. Made everything, his hand, everything his arm had to do, really hard. Nothing he tried worked until he started taking Relief Factor. Then he said his elbow pain went away, and his other aches and pains went away, too. And on top of that, he felt like he had more energy. Look, if you're living with aches and pains, see how Relief Factor, a daily drug-free supplement, might help you feel better and live better. Join the over 1 million people who have turned to Relief Factor, just like Michael. Just all you have to do is try their 3-week quick start for $19.95. It's less than a dollar a day. Don't let pain keep you from living every day the way you want. Visit relieffactor.com or call 800-RELIEF. That's 800-the-number-four-RELIEF.
All right. Um, there's a color revolution going on here in the United States, and that is so important to understand because that's the way countries fall, and they are— they're following that playbook. It's happening. We have to follow the money. It's not going to be easy. In fact, it was designed to be as dark as possible.
I want to show you a spreadsheet here recently shared by Congresswoman U. Luna. This allegedly is the financial trail behind No Kings. Over $294 million in total. The money trail comes from the who's who of left-wing activism. $45 million from Tide, $72 million from Soros, Rockefeller, Ford, Buffett, um, and $79 million from Arabella Advisors. You've seen these names over and over again. Doesn't surprise me, but that's a lot of money, and the spread— the funds are spread all over the place, and it's a headache to track it down, but it's supposed to be.
So, I wanted to bring in a big gun because this guy has brought clarity over finances for a very long time. He, he is the, um, best of the best. He's the president of the Government Accountability Institute. Been tracking this kind of stuff forever. He is the author of multiple New York Times bestselling books. Peter Schwicer joins us, um, now. Peter, have you seen this latest, and I know this disagrees with some of your work. Have you seen the latest number of $294 million going to No Kings?
>> Yeah, I have, Glenn. And in fact, the spreadsheet that Congressman Luna shared is a spreadsheet that Sheamus Bruner, uh, our vice president at GAI, put together. So, I'm glad she put it out there. Yeah, the numbers continue to mount. Uh, and the reason, Glenn, is you touched on it in your introduction. Tracing this money is very hard. Um, sometimes the money goes through pass-throughs, sometimes the money is donated anonymously, sometimes the money is crowdfunded. Um, so, yeah, the numbers are going to continue to climb, uh, the more we find details on the specific trails.
>> So, I mean, $294, over a quarter of a billion dollars. I assume that's not just for this, that's to fund the whole thing and, and what's still yet to come. Um, an astounding number. Um, how, how clearly can we trace it to the actual movement itself, the ground operation?
>> Yeah. So, what that spreadsheet shows is that, let's say, something like the Tides Foundation gives $20 million to an organization. Um, that could be for general funds, that could be for anything. But if that organization is playing an active, central role in these protests, they are included in the database. And the problem, Glenn, as you know, is money is fungible. So, you could have a Ford Foundation, for example, funding an organization on something to, let's say, get out the vote. Uh, but that money can be used also for protests. And I think the way that we need to understand this is it's not just about the No Kings movement. They are creating, and have created, an infrastructure to create social dis— uh, disintegration or social destabilization in the United States. Many of the same groups behind No Kings are the same organizations that were engaged in more violent protests, uh, during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, or when, in, in October of 2023, when Hamas brutally attacked Israel, and all the protesters came out in, in favor of Palestine. It's many of those same organizations. That's why we have sort of jokingly, but only half-jokingly, called this "Riot Incorporated" because they have an infrastructure for social destabilization. It includes the groups on that list. What it does not include, Glenn, are the foreign entities that are also involved in this movement in places like China, uh, and Iran, etc.
>> I mean, it is stunning, Peter, that I mean, that's a lot of money. Um, you know, $300 million, that's— that's a good-sized company. Um, and, uh, it's, it's amazing to me that that kind of money can be swimming in our streets and nobody really understands it. When, when you look at the crowds that came out this weekend, what is the percentage of people that have any idea how badly they're being used?
>> Oh, that's a great question. Uh, obviously depends city by city. I think in a place like New York or San Francisco, it's probably a higher percentage, um, are aware of what's going on, uh, because you have a lot of professional activists there. Same thing in Portland, Oregon. But I would say if you look nationwide, I would guess maybe 20 to 25% know what's actually going on. I mean, let's remember, these protesters, in some cases, are standing next to other protesters that have a sign from PSL, the Party for Socialism and Liberation. This is an organization that, um, communes with the Chinese Communist Party. They travel there. They coordinate with them. They say their program is the Party of the Chinese Communist Party. Uh, there have been some reports that there are financial ties there. I would imagine that, that there are a fair number of people at these protests that have no idea, uh, that the people that are protesting next to them are tied to our foreign adversary, namely the Chinese Communist Party.
>> Do you see anything that you look at and say, this is actionable? This is something the government can actually do something about.
>> Uh, yeah, I think the key thing is when you're looking at violent protests. What's very interesting to me, Glenn, is that, um, the protests, the, the recent No Kings, uh, the No Kings 2.0 protests, not a lot of violent activity. I honestly believe part of the reason is the President had a meeting in the White House, a very public meeting about violent protests. And part of that discussion was who's funding them, and Department of Justice looking at entities that are funding violent protests. Um, that's the reason I think we didn't see a lot here, um, at No Kings 2.0, because of the deterrent factor, because there is actually a pathway. If you are a businessman, if you are a foundation, if you are an individual, and you are funding an organization that is known to engage in criminal activity, meaning violent protest, arson, attacking police officers, etc., you could be potentially charged under RICO and other statutes. Uh, so I think the President voicing concerns about this, saying that DOJ is looking into it, is having a deterrent effect. Because while a lot of these, let's say, esteemed or, or publicly, uh, acknowledged foundations have a sort of revolutionary attitude, they don't want to go to jail. They don't want to be prosecuted. They don't want to be charged. So I think it is having a deterrent effect to have this conversation, and I think that's very good and healthy.
So, a lot of these, you know, a couple Wednesdays ago, we did an episode. We just show— we just laid down some easy things. Um, and, um, their argument will be, "I'm only doing things that are protected by the First, you know, First Amendment of the Constitution. I'm not doing any— not I'm not— we're not giving our money to any of the violence, any, any of that." How do you get there, Peter?
>> Well, you get there a couple of ways. First of all, a lot of these organizations, um, are outright open in their advocacy for violent protests. They use words like "direct action." That's that's a term from the left which means violent engagement. Um, you see a lot of times in their literature things like, "Holding signs is not enough." Okay. Well, then what, what are you saying besides holding signs at these protests? What I would say that the Department of Justice should be doing is a couple of things. Number one, following the money. Uh, we provided that information, all public-sourced, all public record from tax returns, etc., uh, to the Department of Justice. Number two, uh, looking at the communication. I think they should subpoena the communication records because if you have some of these businessmen, um, some of these foundations that are communicating with organizations that have a history of violent protest, and they are aware that there may be violent protests, that is the very definition of a RICO charge. RICO was set up, um, during the time of, you know, high organized crime, because the police and law enforcement were tired of busting the guy on the street corner who's committing the violent act, but not being able to get to the guy who's actually, you know, financing it and organizing it. Uh, the same parallel would apply here. So I think that's what you need to do is you need to look at communication. You had actions in Georgia, uh, in this entity called Stop Cop City, where you literally had organizations that were funded by the Tides Foundation. We've established that these organizations were throwing Molotov cocktails. They were assaulting police officers, and the local prosecutors, who, by the way, were Democrats, charged these protesters with RICO and also with domestic terrorism charges. The question I would have is, did the Tides Foundation know the history of this organization? Did they communicate? Did they know what was planned? Because this was a very public act that was planned and discussed that they were going to engage in these violent protests. That to me is the very definition of where you could prosecute somebody.
>> So, could you explain for people who don't remember the Tides Foundation, what is it? How do they work?
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, the Tides Foundation is a, a grant-giving foundation. Uh, meaning that they give money to nonprofit organizations. Uh, they show up quite, uh, frequently on the database that we attended. The challenge with the Tides Foundation is they receive donations from people in Silicon Valley. Uh, Mark Benioff, the, the, the founder and CEO of Salesforce, has donated to them. Then the Tides Foundation takes this donated money, uh, and then doles it out to these various organizations. So if you're Mark Benioff, you can probably, I think, very legitimately say, "I don't know who Tides is giving the money to. Tides made that determination." So it, it allows the Tides Foundation, in a sense, to screen people, uh, from the consequences of where the money might be going. Again, I have no idea if Mark Benioff or, or Bill Gates, or the many, uh, other people that have given to the Tides Foundation are aware that they were going for violent protests, but Tides is at the center of a lot of this. Uh, and that's why I think the investigation needs to start there. Uh, and again, if these large investors, these well-known philanthropists are giving money to Tides, and they have any inkling that it's going for violent action, they should be held into account as well.
So, I, um, I talked about this, what, last week, week before. It was a Saturday. I get a call from the FBI on my wife's phone. Um, "Mrs. Beck, is your husband around? He, we're with the FBI. We would like to send some agents over to the house to talk to your husband." And she, she looks at me, and I'm like, "What, what was happening?" Um, and, uh, and so they came over to the house, and there were three of them. And I, I said, you know, "Are you a good witch or a bad witch? I, I, you know, I wouldn't, I wouldn't necessarily welcome you from the DOJ, uh, you know, from the last administration, but come on in." They said they just wanted to gather some information, some things that we had talked about, and, and the things that we had looked at. I was really shocked, Peter. I felt bad for the, the people who are actually fighting this fight because you and I have talked about this stuff for 20 years. They haven't heard of it. No one, no one in the Department of Justice has done any legwork on this in 20 years, because they have just been ignoring it and turning a blind eye. And then when the Republicans get in, they get in for four years, and they don't really, they weren't taking it seriously enough. H— How difficult is it for the FBI to be able to start from scratch and be able to get these people?
>> Yeah. No, it, it, it shouldn't be that difficult, but I agree with you. It's all about the priorities of the people at the top. Yeah. Uh, and, you know, 20 years ago, obviously, there was a lot of focus on Islamist terrorism, etc. I understand that. But, you know, they devoted their resources to going after Catholics in Richmond, Virginia, right? Um, rather than, um, these radical organizations. And what's very encouraging to me about all of this, Glenn, is, um, look, you and I both know there's a lot of information, a lot of exaggerated stuff out there on this subject that has no credible information. I've known you for a long time. The research that you guys do, everything's verifiable. Everything is sourced. You can hand it over and say, "Here's where we got the information. It's all credible." We work the same way. So, I think it's very encouraging that the FBI, uh, is reaching out. They're reaching out to people to have this information, and we can help them move along this process much quicker than they would if they were trying to develop this organically. As you said before, this is a tangled web.
>> I know. I, I brought your name up. I said, "If you guys aren't talking to Peter Schweizer, you've got..." Have they? Have they contacted you?
>> Um, or have you?
>> Yeah, we, we have had contact. We have had contact with the FBI. I'm still curious, by the way, that they called your wife's phone, that, >> because I don't have a phone. And, you know, we talked about it. We're like, "How did they get this phone number?" Uh, but it's the FBI. Um, but, uh, I will tell you, Peter, I gave him the name of a few people and I said, "Look, this is what they do." I said, "We have archives and stuff we can show you." Um, but these people are on it every single day. Um, and I'm glad that that you have reached out to them or they have reached out to you because I, I, like I said, I actually felt really bad for them because they could have told me everybody who has seen a Latin mass in the last five years, but they could not tell me anything. And, and they really are, I mean, you can tell the administration is pushing and they want to, uh, respond and have some names. Here in Texas, you know, they're going to start prosecuting some people, and they, they need the money connections. As they said, if we can track money and connect it, then the whole thing starts to come down. More with Peter in, in just a minute. Hang on just a sec. Peter, first let me tell you about our sponsor.
>> It's Jace Medical. You and I have learned sometimes the hard way that the pharmacy counter is only as reliable as the supply behind it. And there is a moment, uh, when a storm might hit, or a strike, or a border closure, or just, you know, a run on inventory, whatever, and you're left hoping your family doesn't need something it can't get. And, you know, in my family, I have two daughters that need, um, seizure, anti-seizure medication. We don't have the anti-seizure medication. They, that's not good for them. Jace Medical exists so you are not living at the mercy of out-of-stock. Through a simple online consultation, licensed medical professionals review your history and, when appropriate, prescribe a Jace Case. It's a thoughtfully curated supply of emergency, sorry, emergency antibiotics and essentials, packed with clear doctor-written instructions so you understand what each medication is, when it's used, how it's used, how it's dosed. And Jace has been and continues to work hard to expand their lineup so you have total preparedness solutions tailored for your family's needs. Um, look, I, I'll bet you, you know, you store additional food or water because you care about your family. You can store peace of mind in your medicine cabinet the same way. The very same reason you need to go to jace.com, enter the promo code BECK at checkout for a discount on your order. That's promo code BECK@jace.com.
So, Peter, I want to go through a couple of names. Um, Zuckerberg, uh, his organizations funneled $50-plus million dollars into Riot Inc., as you call it. Um, and he did it through Arabella. Um, we have that big, uh, investor or, you know, um, funder from overseas, Weiss, I think is his name. What's his first name? He's from Swiss, from the Swiss, uh, area of the world. We have, uh, Bill Gates, another hundred million dollars, again through Arabella. But these guys are all really smart. I mean, you don't be— you're not a billionaire and not know how to funnel money in a way that is not going to come back to you with any, any problems. Um, are, do you think we're going to be able to crack this code with people like Soros or people like Gates? Because that's where the real money is.
>> Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to say it's, uh, it's going to be easy, but look, I think it's, it's absolutely the step we need to take because it's one thing to increase enforcement on the street level, which we absolutely have to do. I mean, if you assault an ICE officer, if you're trying to firebomb an ICE facility in Portland, Oregon, um, you absolutely should be charged. But let's be completely blunt here. I mean, this is, you know, to use an analogy with a mafia, those people are disposable. What you really want to get to are the people that are organizing, um, these protests, who are providing the communications equipment, who are providing the logistic support, who are providing the legal support to what they're doing. And that means you've got to work your way up the food chain. Um, do these, uh, guys like Zuckerberg and Gates, everything they do, do they, do they engage lawyers? Do they, uh, you know, use, um, uh, institutions to shield themselves from possible liability, whether it's in business or their philanthropy? Absolutely. Uh, but the bottom line is there is somebody, uh, and I would say it's with some of these foundations and some of these advisory firms, uh, that are acting as the pass-throughs, know exactly what they're doing when they donate this money. Um, when they're giving it to the organizations down in Georgia with Stop Cop City, they know what they're doing because they talk about it month after month, year after year. And those are the people that need to be held into account. And again, to use the mafia analogy, Glenn, you can try to work your way up the food chain. You know, you can ask somebody who's at one of these entities, okay, you are communicating with this organization engaged in violent acts, who directed you to do it? Um, and if you don't want to tell us, that's fine. We're going to throw the book at you. Uh, that's how I think you need to approach it. I never come and, and, and say whether it's when you and I talked about the Bidens or the Clintons, I never say that this stuff is easy. It isn't easy, but it's a worthwhile endeavor that has to be done. And whether it's legal charges or ga— greater clarity on what's been going on, it's absolutely something that's necessary for our country because look, we are in an era of American history where, uh, social, uh, uh, cohesion is being challenged by large funders and entities that wish us ill. Some of them are domestic, some of them are overseas, and we have to expose this in a consistent way.
>> Let me go to overseas here for a second. Let's, let's start with China. What do we know about China?
>> Well, we know there are a couple of people, uh, that are involved in funding what I would regard as radical movements in the United States. Uh, the trans rights movement, which has emerged kind of out of nowhere, really. Who's talking about this 10 years ago? Uh, two of the biggest funders of the trans rights movements are, are Chinese billionaires. Uh, one of them is Joe Sai, the, uh, the chairman of Alibaba, which is kind of the Amazon of China. Uh, he's given tens of millions of dollars to trans causes in the United States, which, by the way, by the way, he does not fund trans rights in China itself, right? Uh, which is, which I wanted to ask you about. Interesting.
>> That, that, that says something. He is, I mean, he either believes it and is afraid to do it in China, or he doesn't believe it, but he knows it'll set us on fire. Which do you think that is?
>> Well, I mean, I don't know. I would think that, um, if he was passionate about this, uh, he would be consistent, uh, and he would be pushing it in China as well, but, he's not. And of course, the situation with regards to the LGBTQ, uh, whatever community in China is much more dire than it's ever been in the United States. Uh, so Joe Sai would be an example of somebody in that particular area, the trans rights movement, has funded those causes. Uh, the other one that I would point to in China is Roy Singham. Uh, now Roy Singham is an American, uh, but very interesting, uh, Glenn. He had a tech company called Thought Works. He sold it in 2017 for a billion dollars, made him a billionaire. Uh, what's interesting is the investment firm that bought Thought Works from him, uh, is partly owned by the sovereign wealth fund of China, which I find very interesting. But when he cashes in, he leaves the United States. He now lives in Beijing, China, uh, where if you look at the Chinese media and, and other reports, he is very chummy with the CCP. He attends CCP events, etc. Uh, he considers himself a Maoist. He always has. Uh, he is not only involved in, in supporting the trans rights movement in the United States. Every sort of, you know, violent, uh, agitated protest in the United States, you can look and see that Roy Singham has been connected in some way. And that's because he's got an entity in New York called the People's Forum. He poured $160 million into it. Uh, and the People's Forum has been sort of ground zero for the Black Lives Matter movement in, in 2020, the, uh, um, the, the so-called, uh, uh, anti-Israel, or pro-Palestine protest beginning in 2023. A lot of them originate or organized within the People's Forum. And now, of course, the, uh, the No Kings protests and the protests by other organizations. So he is very actively involved, in my mind, in destabilizing in the United States, and he's done this in other countries like India, where his entities have faced legal peril, because they say that he's essentially trying to subvert, uh, the state of India. So, I mean, the same thing with George Soros, but nobody seems to act. Um, I mean, I don't know why we allow George Soros just to continue to do this. He's been banned in, I don't know, three countries around the world for doing exactly this.
>> Peter, when you look at, let's stay overseas for a second. When you look at what's happening in Europe, it's the same exact playbook happening in country after country, all Western countries, but Europe is still headed in the wrong direction. They don't have anybody willing to stand up against this. Um, is it, are any of these players financially tied to Europe? Do you know? Are they doing any of that? Is that a separate, whole new separate group of funding for Europe? And, uh, are they too far gone?
>> Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I've got family, uh, in Europe. My mother was from Sweden, my father from Switzerland. So I track events there pretty closely. Uh, what's interested— interesting to me is you see kind of almost a, a, uh, division of responsibility or duty, uh, by these, uh, radical groups in the United States. We've discussed kind of in detail the funding, uh, how they operate, the issues they've latched on to. Uh, when it comes to Europe, it's almost entirely an issue related to Islam, uh, and Muslim communities. And that's because that's what the demographics show. Uh, you have a situation in Europe, whether it's, uh, Sweden, where my mother's from, or the situation in France or Italy, uh, where much of the base of the institutional opposition to what I would call Western civilization, uh, comes from a specific ethnic or religious community, which is Islamist. And that model has worked in places like the UK. You've covered this extensively. Uh, some of these local governments now that are essentially run by Islamists. And I think you're seeing a kind of a replay of that, an attempted replay of that in New York, uh, with the Mumani campaign. Yes.
>> And Texas is re— is in real trouble. Mandani is, I mean, that looks like it could happen in, in England or France, but the, the, um, number one seeming destination for Islamists, uh, seems to be Texas right now.
>> Yeah. And, and, and they look for opportunities to build out what they call civilizational jihad. Um, and, and the notion, if you look at the literature, you've talked about this as well, Glenn. If you look at the literature, they don't need to be a demographic majority. Um, they, they talk extensively about how people don't really vote in local elections. So all we need to do is have our core base and make sure they turn out and vote. Um, and we can take over a local, you know, local government with, you know, 9 or 11% of the population. And once they have that base of local government, what does it allow them to do? It allows them to, uh, create local statutes and laws, but even more importantly, they now have a financial base upon which they can operate. They get federal grants, they get state grants, they raise money locally, and they can steer that money in a manner that, that moves towards, uh, their ultimate goal, which is this sort of civilizational victory over the Judeo-Christian West, uh, as they put it. So, it's, it's a very serious and real problem. I think for Europe, it's a bigger problem because the demographics there are much more dire than they are in the United States. But there's no doubt they are trying to replicate that in New York City and in areas of Texas and parts of California.
>> And Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis. I mean, it's, it's, it's crazy what's happening. Peter, hold on. We have one more, uh, one more break together and, um, want to get some more information on what exactly is happening. But first, let me tell you about Pre-Born. For a baby, life or death sometimes hinges on a single moment. It's a decision made by an expecting mom. You know, Pre-Born is there in that moment. They're the ones who provide the free ultrasounds to women facing the toughest decisions of their life. No pressure and no condemnation, just compassion, love, truth, and the beautiful sound of life. When a mom hears that heartbeat, something inside her changes, and she realizes this isn't an idea or a theory. It's a child, her child, and it deserves a chance. And Pre-Born doesn't stop there. They stay with these women long after the decision is made with counseling and baby supplies and real community support that says, "You're not alone." Because saving the life of the baby is only the beginning. Helping it grow. Helping save the mom, helping her grow. That's the mission. Every donation to Pre-Born gives a mom another chance to hear that heartbeat. To choose life because somebody out there cared enough to show her what was true all along. This is not the time for silence. It's a time for courage, time for truth, and a time for life. Give now. Dial pound 250. Say the keyword BABY. That's pound 250, keyword BABY. Or go to pre-born.com/glenn. That's pre-born.com/glenn.
You know, Peter, over the years, you've come to me with, um, books on the Clintons and the Bidens and, and the right as well. Um, and you have said at times, "Oh, this is, I mean, this is such an obvious, shocking case. How tough is this case to prove?"
>> I think it's very hard to prove legally. Um, but again, I think it's an effort worth taking. Um, anytime you're dealing with somebody who is sophisticated, who is wealthy, uh, who is successful, um, you have to realize that you're facing a very monumental legal battle. But, but this is the way our system is supposed to work. Uh, and that's why I've always done what you've done, Glenn, which is follow the money, look at what the law says, look at what the details are, and based on that, uh, argue what action should be taken. And I don't see, uh, unless we are prepared to tolerate going forward that we are going to have permanent disruption in our streets, that when federal law enforcement officers are simply trying to enforce the law, like ICE is trying to do, you're going to have people targeting them. You're going to have local law enforcement shielding them. Uh, you're going to have organized protests consistently helping people to evade, uh, being held accountable for violating federal law. Unless we're prepared to to accept that, uh, this is the necessary step to take. And what they're counting on, the people that are funding this and organizing this, what they're counting on is that we don't have the attention span. We don't have the capability to expose it, and we don't have the fortitude to actually do something about it. Uh, and I think they're wrong. I think I'm seeing a lot of energy in Washington D.C. I'm very encouraged and excited about it. We'll wait and see what's done, but I think it's absolutely necessary for the future of the country.
>> I mean, at some point, I mean, it's the Insurrection Act, isn't it? At some point, if you can say that they are funding these organizations that are trying to overthrow the stability of the United States, you know, that, that's a whole different ballgame. And the rules change when that happens.
>> Yeah, the rules do change. Uh, and look, it's interesting to me that, um, uh, going back to January 6th, um, how eager, uh, so many people on the left were to say, "Oh, this is insurrection. We're going to use the Insurrection Act. We're going to use all of these sort of, uh, political crimes based on an event where, sure, there were people that, that, that hit cops and trespassed and did things they shouldn't do, but this was not an, an organized effort to overthrow the government." But they wanted to use this act somehow to do that. What we are dealing with in this particular case is not an individual incident where there was excess and people made some dumb mistakes. What we're talking about is an organized, consistent effort that has been taking place now over the course of several years, uh, that is using violent weapons. Things like Molotov cocktails. You know, law enforcement officers have been shot. This is much more of a clear-cut case of the Insurrection Act than anything ever related to January 6th was. So if they are prepared to be honest about it, which they're not, they would recognize that this is the clear insurrection we're talking about, not what happened on January the 6th.
>> You know, I only have about 80 seconds. Can you talk to me a little bit about NGOs that maybe were getting money from the government? Have you found any evidence of that? I mean, this is what USAID does all around the world, is this kind of thing. Are we seeing any government money going to any of this?
>> Yeah. Well, I'll tell you right now, Glenn, we are working on a research project. I don't have the final details yet. I'm glad to come by and talk to you about it when we are, but, um, actually, the tens of millions of, of taxpayer dollars in the United States right now that are going to radical Islamist groups. I was shocked about it as well, but I mean, tens of millions of dollars going to radical Islamist groups. These are Islamist groups where the leaders, you know, call Jews cockroaches, uh, that talk about the need to overthrow Western civilization. So, yes, we are finding that.
>> Peter, as always, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Um, as you know, we have been following this story of revolution before anybody believed, anybody believed that anyone in our government could possibly be involved or any Democrat or neighbor. We've, we've told you this was the plan. I told you that, um, the Democratic Party would be eaten by the left, and we have seen it. It is, it's in the final, you know, the final, um, uh, carving up and eating of that, uh, right now. We'll continue to follow it and show you, uh, what we can find and share it also with those in power that might be able to do something because hopefully we can stomp this out before it is too late. We'll see you tomorrow on radio from Dallas. Good night, America.