Sen. Ben Sasse Introduces Bill to Protect Babies Surviving Abortion

Hard to believe we even need legislation that protects babies who survive abortion, but here we are. Thankfully, senators like Ben Sasse (R-NE), who joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday, are leading the charge to protect the rights of the most helpless.

"In the legislative domain, we ought to be able to start with things that we can agree on. Americans are the kind of people who cheer for the vulnerable. We fight for minorities. We protect the powerless from the powerful. And a little baby boy or girl that's just been born, fighting for their life, I mean, it's the most basic thing that people who are humane defend," Sen. Sasse said.

The senator also spoke about gains being made in the pro-life movement outside of the legislative process.

"People are seeing diagnostic technologies of babies in utero, and they're realizing that that's a baby. It's not a squirrel. So there's a lot of good stuff happening in the pro-life movement, as people are celebrating a culture of life," he said.

Watch the complimentary video above or read the transcript below to learn more.

GLENN: Senator Ben Sasse, welcome to the program. Senator from Nebraska, we're glad to have you on.

BEN: Thank you for having me. Good to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: So you're reintroducing the born-alive legislation. Let's get to this first before we talk about all the other things that are happening in our world.

Tell me what this is and how we can help.

BEN: Yeah. Thank you. Well, this is a bill that ensures that babies who survive an attempted abortion get a fighting chance. It requires that hospitals and doctors give the same medical attention to an abortion survivor that would have been offered to any premature baby at the same age. And it criminalizes the intentional killing of a baby that was born. So last week I introduced it with 27 other senators, which is sort of a good thing, but you're like, "How in the world is this not introduced with 99 other senators?" It passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote last year, but didn't go anywhere in the Senate. So please let your senators know that this is just common sense legislation.

GLENN: Okay. So I want to make sure I understand this. This is not you can't do partial-birth abortion. This is, if the baby survives the partial-birth abortion or any abortion and is still alive, you can't lock him in a closet so they just die?

BEN: You got it. I mean, there's a lot -- I mean, I'm a solidly pro-life guy on anything we're going to talk about, but this is a different thing than that. Republicans and Democrats obviously don't agree on a lot of things, but everybody should be able to agree on this, that life isn't disposable. And when a baby is born, you can't lock her in a closet and just leave her alone and cold to die, struggling for breath. And, you know, it's crazy that we haven't yet criminalized --

GLENN: Ben, I have to tell you, partial-birth abortion is so far beyond -- I mean, it's into the Mengele territory. It really is.

I don't know -- and the only reason why partial-birth abortion is happening is because people don't understand what it is. There's no life of the mother that is even possible with a partial birth -- she's already given birth to the baby, except for the head. And then they hold the head in the birth canal, while they cut its neck and suck its brains out.

It's horrible, that tactic. I can't believe we need a law to tell doctors that after that, they still can't kill -- because the -- the line that they have in their head is, well, it's still inside the woman's body. So, you know, that head is still in there. So it's still part of her body.

But once she survives that and the baby is born, why do we have to have a law?

BEN: Yeah. I mean, let's back up a tiny little bit too and just talk at the macro level about the fact that so much of the pro-life movement is having real success. And it's outside of the legislative sphere. Really good things are happening as young people are becoming more pro-life than the generation above them. And that's because they're a heavily image-driven culture. There are a whole bunch of places where we'd have debates about deliberation and reading and reflection, where we want all sorts of things to happen in a more orderly way for our teenagers and our 20-somethings that are coming of age.

But one of the good effects of the image-centricity of this culture -- and it's problematic in general, but one of the good things is, people are seeing diagnostic technologies of babies in utero, and they're realizing that that's a baby. It's not a squirrel. So there's a lot of good stuff happening in the pro-life movement, as people are celebrating a culture of life. And frankly, as those of us in the pro-life movement are getting better at making sure that we actually are checking our own energies and zeal and consciences to make sure we're loving moms and trying to persuade them -- not just try to think this is primarily about legislation. Because it's mostly not about legislation.

But in the legislative domain, we ought to be able to start with things that we can agree on. Americans are the kind of people who cheer for the vulnerable. We fight for minorities. We protect the powerless from the powerful. And a little baby boy or girl that's just been born, fighting for their life, I mean, it's the most basic thing that people who are humane defend.

GLENN: Is this happening very often, Ben?

BEN: Well, I mean, we don't know. Highly unlikely that it's happening often. But you remember the Gosnell case a few years ago.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

BEN: So I guess, what? Been four or five years ago, this Philadelphia abortionist -- for those of your listeners who don't know -- Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murdering newborns. I mean, court documents reveal that he made millions of dollars over the course of 30 years, performing as many late-term abortions as he could.

So, again, this is the late-term abortion stuff you're talking about. He had this simple business model: Offer abortions to women who couldn't find them elsewhere because they were too pregnant.

And we know that there are cases where he delivered living, breathing, struggling newborns and killed them with a scissors and just discarded them as waste. And he destroyed his medical files, so relatively few of the cases were prosecuted. But court documents indicate that he induced, you know, abortion on a 17-year-old woman who was seven and a half months pregnant, and a baby there was born, breathing and moving, and weighed about 6 pounds. And severed the baby's spine, and he joked that this baby was so big that the baby could have walked into a bus stop.

GLENN: Jeez. But he's in jail. So why do we need this law?

BEN: Well, we need -- we need clarity in this movement about the fact that people -- I mean, to the point you're making about late-term abortion. Late-term abortion is totally morally abhorrent. And there should be movement on a whole bunch of different domains. But the people who argue against -- the people who argue for all abortion on demand all the time without any questioning ever, we need to be having a debate about what life is. Because the babies in utero are babies. And we need to be able to have that talk, that conversation.

GLENN: Okay. Ben, last night I was on CNN, and what I didn't know is that about an hour later, Milo, what's-his-face, from Breitbart, who is a despicable alt-right guy, who has said we live in a post-fact world, and I revel in that because you can do whatever you want. Wasn't -- had a talk scheduled at UC Berkeley. Then the anarchists -- not the anti-Trump -- the anti-government people, the Occupy Wall Street that said, afterwards, "This was a victory, and we're going to burn the whole system down and take the government down. And this is war."

These two were going at it last night. There's no good party here.

I said last night on CNN, I asked the press, "You guys keep punching Donald Trump. We know that when you punch him, he punches back twice as hard. So that means you're going to have to punch him back, and then he'll punch you back." I feel like I'm the computer in -- in War Games. "The only way to win is to not play the game."

And I asked the question for the left and the right, "How do you see this ending? How do you see one side winning?"

BEN: Yeah. So -- so many things to say there. So let me just start by admitting that I don't know the details of what happened last night. I, you know, saw some headlines this morning about some of the debates at Berkeley and whatnot. But let's just step back from that for a minute and say, America has always been an idea founded on the premise that we're not going to -- thoughtful people -- people who are grappling with mortality and heaven and hell and love and beauty and truth are not going to agree on everything. And so we have to decide, what things do you solve by power, and what things do you not solve by power?

And the vast majority of life is not about power; it is not about politics. The vast majority of life is about persuasion. It's about volunteerism. It's about entrepreneurship. It's about love.

The vast majority of life is the things that you persuade people to join with you in doing, and that you figure out a way to lovingly disagree about with people that you can't persuade on things, often in our own families and in our own neighborhoods and our companies and our own churches, et cetera. Right?

So the vast majority of life is about these places where we debate lovingly, winsomely, but you don't try to solve these problems by power. And so the First Amendment -- the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, protest, or the redress of grievances -- all of these things are a way of saying, there's a difference between physical violence, which government exists to protect us from. And you can't let that word "violence" drift into places where we're having debates.

We need to have the debates. A safe space movement is the antithesis of education. If you're never going to encounter an idea that you didn't already know, if you're never going to refine your own beliefs, if you're never going to have to admit, "Hey, I was wrong on this," or come to say, "You know what, I think I'm right on this, and now I know how to explain it with a little more empathy and a little more persuasion with people who disagree with me," I don't know why mom and dad are writing the tuition check. The purpose of education is frankly to be pushed out of your safe spaces.

STU: Yeah, it's so true. As Senator Ben Sasse, we're talking to right now -- senator, can we move to the Supreme Court? You mentioned really our foundational principles as you were speaking there. And, you know, I got to admit, I was a skeptic on whether Trump would come up with somebody who really respected the Constitution to be named to the Supreme Court. I think he hit that mark. And I think he hit it in a really impressive way. Can you tell us about Senator -- Justice Gorsuch, or hopeful Justice Gorsuch?

BEN: Yeah. Let's applaud the president. This is a tremendous pick. This is the kind of guy that the Founders envisioned serving on the Supreme Court. He's a judge's judge.

I really do want to applaud the president and his team on picking somebody off the list of 21. They campaigned about it. They were transparent. Many of us have, you know, disagreed with the president on a handful -- a number of things and whatnot. But on this, he kept his word. He picked somebody off the list of 21. And, frankly, he picked somebody great off the list of 21. I've been -- I've been reading Judge Gorsuch's opinions, dabbling in them for three weeks, when it became clear that he was one of the likely finalists. And I don't have a clue what his policy views are. I don't know what his personal preferences are on things. And, frankly, I don't care. That's not a judge's job. And he gets what a judge's job is. He's a worthy heir to the Scalia seat.

STU: Yeah, and that's really impressive.

One of the things that I think is important is you read this in -- in many of the reviews about it, and I'm sure you can speak much more eloquently on it than I can on it. But the things like the Dormant Commerce Clause, which to me, if it is dormant, it's not in the actual Constitution, which is kind of a problem. And it seems like Gorsuch has that same problem.

BEN: Well, I mean, you guys are pros at mass communication. And, you know, the one thing that I know about a national talk radio audience is the main thing they want on a Thursday morning is views on the history of the Commerce Clause.

(laughter)

So, I mean, let's just say, top line, Dormant Commerce Clause relates to what states can do with regard to taxes and regulations that would impact people in other states.

And there are lots of nerdy debates here. I think I'm one of only a hand of people in the whole US Senate who is not an attorney, let alone the fact that I'm serving on the Judiciary Committee. So like Chairman Grassley from Iowa, we are the non-technical nerds on the Judiciary Committee.

But the big point to be made is that the Commerce Clause has just swallowed up almost everything. So many things, government finds a way to try to claim that it has the authority to get to, through the Commerce Clause, and that's a mess.

Underneath that, there are a lot of nerdy debates about the Commerce Clause in general and the Dormant Commerce Clause, as you flagged.

STU: Our entire audience is a bunch of nerds, so they appreciate the Commerce Clause talk in the morning.

BEN: I really thought you had an audience bigger than 11, but I stand corrected.

(laughter)

STU: Senator Ben Sasse, we actually lost connection with Glenn in the middle of this. But it was really interesting to listen to you. And, you know, I think a lot of people came to -- after the election, were really worried about what Trump might do with the Supreme Court. And not only am I thrilled, I think it's also a real statement on people like yourself who oppose him on some of this, but was able to say, "Look, when he does a good job, we're going to say it. And that's the most important thing we can do."

BEN: Amen. I mean, you know, Gorsuch is the kind of guy that becomes an occasion for us to teach our kids civics.

I mean, this is a guy who -- I mean, he writes really clearly. He says things like, "Judges are different than politicians because we took an oath to apply the law as it is, not to reshape the law as we wish it were."

Well, that's pretty darn good School House Rock right there. You know, Congress is the people -- we're the people who are supposed to make policy, because ultimately, the voters of America are supposed to be preeminent, and they can hire and fire us.

If you're a judge and you have a lifetime appointment, you don't get to make policy because the people can't fire you. That's not the American way. And so a judge has a different job. And this guy guys that.

And, frankly, I really do hope Democrats come around to recognizing that this is the kind of guy that everybody should be applauding. You don't -- when he takes off his robe at night and turns on ESPN, I have no idea what his personal policy views are.

What I know is he distinguishes between the time he had his robe on and the time when he has his robe off. And when he has the robe on, he's not a super legislator.

GLENN: Senator Ben Sasse, I'm actually back. We just reconnected. But I've been listening to the whole thing. I have one more question. Can you hold for just a few minutes?

BEN: I have to run into a hearing -- you know, for two minutes.

GLENN: No. I tell you what, why don't you go. And we'll have you back on next week. Because I wanted to ask you a couple of other questions. Thank you so much.

BEN: Let's do it.

Hey, by the way, when they were talking Dormant Commerce Clause, Glenn, we heard you snoring.

(laughter)

GLENN: No, I was actually fascinated by it. I was one of the 11. So thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BEN: All right. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: All right. Senator Ben Sasse.

Good guy.

STU: He's great.

GLENN: And held to his principles, and it's good to hear him say that about Gorsuch.

And now, this. It would be prudent on our part to examine the possible negative side effects of doing away with cash or the possible negative side effects of saying that, "Oh, the problems are all fixed."

I want to talk to you about -- I want to talk to you about a meeting I had here in Los Angeles, with some very big financial people. And I said, "What do you think is coming?" And the gobbledegook that came out of their mouth, "I hope their right." I said to them, "I hope you're right." But they were talking to me about how, "Oh, this $4 trillion that we printed, they can print more, and it's not really going to affect us." Oh, we can have tariffs, and it won't be a big deal. We can pretty much wall ourselves off from the rest of the world, and it won't affect our economy. Oh, this -- the housing market, that's not a bubble, and neither is Wall Street. Those are all -- it was incredible to listen to. It was really incredible.

The next meeting I had was with a billionaire, okay?

And I sat down with him, and he said, "Where do you think the world is headed?"

And I said, "That's what I wanted to ask you." And he said, "Oh, my gosh, the world is headed for an implosion."

I said, "It's really weird because the guys who try to sell people stocks, they don't think so." He said, "Don't listen to those guys."

youtu.be

RADIO

Do these 5 stories show IDIOCY or planned economic DESTRUCTION?

Either far-left elites are just absolutely STUPID or they’re actually TRYING to completely destroy our economy. In this clip, Glenn runs through 5 different stories that exemplify either the left’s sheer idiocy OR calculated, planned moves to end the Western way of life. So, which do YOU think it is…?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So I want to -- I want to go through a few stories, and ask you if this is a coincidence, if this is just global stupidity unlike we've ever seen. Or as I believe, it is intentional.

And it is an intentional thing to bring down our economy. And when I say our economy, I mean the entire western economy.

To bring down our economy, to reset it, to something new. The Great Reset.

Also, to take down our electrical systems. Our power generation. And to be able to put us on the ropes, with energy. Then to dismantle our food system. And as crazy this is, I'll explain in a minute.

That is part of the great reset. Plus, at the same time, turn our children into people that don't want to procreate. Take our young girls and stop them from being able to reproduce.

Confuse children. So they can't think logically. And then destroy all truth. Are those things happening as a coincidence? Is it really all of those things? Let me give you a couple of stories. Switzerland is looking at banning electric vehicle use during an energy crisis.

Now, how is that possible? How can the all-blessed battery and electric car be considered as something we could ban during an energy crisis.

It's supposed to save us energy. No. That's a lie by the left.

It takes more energy to produce one of those cars, than it does to produce a regular gasoline engine car or diesel engine car. So you'll start at an energy deficit. And then the thing that they never talk about, is where does that magic electricity come from, inside of your wall?

It comes usually from a coal-fired plant, a hydroelectric plant, or a nuclear plant.

It could also come as it is in Texas, in a natural gas plant. All of those things are being dismantled. So where are we going to get our electricity, when we have an energy crisis? Which they have now, but they'll blame it on the war. They have now in Europe.

But we're getting rid of dams here. We're shutting nuclear power plants down here. We're banning coal here. We're banning oil production here.

Where is that magic energy coming from?

Next story. Soros has a -- another little -- spooky dude. Problem-solving counsel. It's called the government impact. Funded by me. Spooky dude. George Soros. We just put out a memo, now. Advising the Biden administration that the Clean Air Act grants the Environmental Protection Agency, the authority to control or prohibit the manufacturing and sale of gasoline. Hmm.

Wow. So in this republic of ours, the president through an edict. Through one of his departments. The Department of Ed.

Or, sorry, the Department of Environmental Protection. They can just ban gasoline. There's your republic for you.

By the way, LA has voted the ban of any new oil wells. So what does that mean? If they're not pumping oil, they're going to have to buy it from someplace else. And you ain't buying it from America. Because America isn't allowed to drill either.

The city is going to get rid of operations, that are already running, after a 20-year period to phase them out. This is the most important step toward environmental justice. Is it environmental justice?

Because I don't even know what environmental justice is. I know what they say it means. But here's what I think it means: The intentional destruction of our way of life.

All right? Let me give you this one. Is this a coincidence, or is this very well-planned?

A joint resolution has just gone to the House in Michigan. Michigan is -- let me see if I can find the stupid PDF here.

Because I have to read it to you. Michigan is now looking and putting a joint resolution in. Joint resolution Y.

They are looking now to control all gasoline production. Oil. Gas production, as a natural gas.

And distribution. And creation of electricity in Michigan. The state is now discussing a takeover of the entire energy sector, in Michigan.

And they want to do it through eminent domain.

So Michigan is now talking about a state takeover of all electricity. All gasoline. All natural gas.

I couldn't see what -- what could possibly go wrong there? I think Whitmer is probably the most important person in the electric production and distribution family. Do you know anybody who is more qualified than the governor of Michigan?

Is this an intentional enslaving of people? Or are they just this stupid?

You'll have to decide. Let me give you this story. Yesterday, I told you about the Netherlands. And how farmers are being bought out by the state, if they won't stop using nitrogen fertilizer. The farmers have been protesting, saying, we will not be able to grow enough food. We will not be able to have enough cattle, to be able to feed Europe.

Now, remember, you might blow off the Netherlands as, who cares about the Dutch farmers? The Netherlands are the second largest food exporter in the world. The second.

So all of Europe will starve if you destroy the farmland in the Netherlands. That's exactly what they're doing. They've said, because of global warming, the World Economic Forum and The Great Reset says, we can't use any kind of modern fertilizer.

So because we can't use modern fertilizer, we're not only going to be cold in the winter because we can't use fossil fuels, but we also are going to be starving. Now, I told you that story yesterday. And warned you, that it is coming here.

Let me give you today's story: German farmers are ordered to slash their nitrogen fertilizer usage to -- to comply to the EU and World Economic Forum green laws.

So Germany is banning farmers from using nitrogen fertilizer. Which, by the way, because of nitrogen fertilizer, we probably have 50 percent more yield to our crops. That means, 50 percent less food, if you don't use it. It's not like we have a better solution. We're just saying, stop using this! Exactly what we're doing with energy. We don't have the magic green energy yet. But we're just stopping producing. Hydroelectric. We're taking down dams. We're shutting down nuclear power plants. We're shouting down coal plants. We're shutting down oil. And replacing it with? Nothing! Just a different lifestyle. You won't own anything, and you'll like it. I'm sorry. But all of this -- all of this is the intentional destruction of your way of life.

And I'm not saying that our way of life is the most thrifty. Is the best.

I'm saying, the western world saved millions. Hundreds of millions of lives, just from starvation. In the last 50 years.

Our progress actually helped people become more educated. To become better people. Stronger people.

More inventive people. All of that is being destroyed.

And it's being done intentionally. I mean -- I just found a -- a report from the APA. The American -- I think it's Psychiatrist Association. And in this, they talk about the social benefits, and the social drawbacks for identity conflict.

So identity conflict is, I don't know if I'm a man or a woman. I don't know who I am.

I -- I -- I don't know if I'm part of society. I'm an outcast of society.

I'm a male. I'm a female. I'm a bambi.

Okay? Social conflicts. The current increasingly complex environment, people often hold multiple social identities.

For example, an Asian-American may identify both as an American and an Asian. A mixed race person may simultaneously identify with both races. Whenever the different identities are simultaneously activated and give conflicting behavioral direction, people experience social identity conflict. Seven studies, both measured and manipulated social identity conflict in surveys, secondary data, controlled experiments, show that social identity conflict shortens one's planning horizon in future-oriented choices. Now, what does that mean?

It means that our children cannot plan for their future. They don't know how to plan for their future. They can't look to the future.

So not only have we confused them, we're also not teaching them critical thinking. We're teaching them, never to question. And because we've confused them, they can't think critically and make any long-term decisions.

Now, is all of this being done, because somehow or another, the whole elite world has just forgotten science? Or is this being done intentionally, by a group of elites who, quite honestly, are anti human? You'll have to ask yourself that question. And your friends that question. But I urge you, America, to ask your friends to hurry. And answer that question.

youtu.be

RADIO

How the Fed's digital currency could END ECONOMIC FREEDOM

Right before Thanksgiving, when Americans were distracted with travel plans and family feasts, the Federal Reserve announced it is testing its own CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency). Carol Roth, former investment banker and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ joins Glenn to detail how this CBDC is the OPPOSITE of decentralized cryptocurrencies that interest millions of Americans. Yet, the Fed is trying to confuse Americans into believing the two kinds of digital currencies are just alike: ‘It’s a new scheme to maintain power and control.’ Plus, Roth explains how this CBDC — if it becomes the norm — WILL END our economic freedom...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, how are you?

CAROL: Glenn, you're sounding very feisty for a Monday morning. I'm not sure I can handle this. But coming up the weekend here.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I can't take the mainstream media, and half of the country, that is like, that's a conspiracy theory. What? That you're stupid?

That you don't pay attention.

That you can't read?

What is the conspiracy theory at this point? Because all of the things that people like you, people like me, we have been talking about now for years, are just being verified, one right after the other.

CAROL: Yeah. I think the definition of a conspiracy theory at this point is something that the media will report on three years later after we all knew that it happened.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. There's a difference between conspiracy theories and conspiracy facts. So let's -- let's talk about the -- the facts -- let's start with the CBDC. The central bank digital currency.

CAROL: Yes. First of all, CBDC is not a bar at New York City. So this is actually something different.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: But it is tied into the monetary system. And basically, this is something that more than 100 countries around the world, who are losing control of their Fiat currencies, because of their government overspending. And because of their central bank printing. They're trying to come up with a new scheme to be able to maintain that power and control. So the idea of the central bank digital currency is to confuse you. People are interested in cryptocurrencies because they're deindustrialized and because they don't have that centralized power. And so they're trying to glom on to that interest and say, oh, yeah. We're just like that. Except for, they're exactly the opposite. They are completely centralized. And they give entire control to the central banks. So imagine today, you know the Treasury prints up a Federal Reserve note. We call it a dollar, route?

And imagine that dollar had a chip in it. And so when you went to go pay with your dollar, the fed was trapping you. The government was tracking you and saying, nah, you know, Glenn, you've had too many burgers this month.

We really don't want people eating meat because it's bad for the environment. So this dollar is no good anymore.

This is what a central bank digital currency, assuming that it's a retail facing one, one that the consumers will use, is going to do. And, oh, guess what, the New York fed is doing a 12-week digital dollar pilot. That is including Wells Fargo, the very Group, MasterCard. And about six others.

GLENN: So, Carol, they are saying that because they're not sure. If they can convert our system of transferring money, which doesn't involve any trucks.

But the digitizing of actual physical dollars. And sending them overseas in bulk. They're not sure they can work out the math, on how to do that, without the US dollar.

That sounds like the biggest bunch of bullcrap, I've ever heard.

They're wondering if it's going to work for the data transfer?

You're doing it every day now.

CAROL: Yeah. So the US is the leader in payments. And if you go and look at all the different -- the Bank Policy Institute. All the different folks who are kind of looking at policy around this, everybody is going, you know, America doesn't need this.

It's one thing for a small country that doesn't have the infrastructure. But we have laser fast settlements of payments. We have laser fast transactions through private entities. There is no need for this.

The need is a wanton and a desire for control and power by the people who are in charge and by the people who have not been taking care of those dollars. And so they need a new scheme. And this is the scheme. And, oh, by the way, this is how they're going to do this, Glenn. And my best guess right now. All this stuff we're seeing with the crypto woes. The FTX collapse. The -- you know the hacking, the fraud. They're going to tell you, oh, we need regulation. We need regulation around crypto. Because crypto is bad.

And they are going to regulate it, and they're going to sneak in congressional approval. Because that's the one thing. That a central bank. Digital currency. The fed does not have authorization from it. It must come from Congress. Not that that stops anyone anyway.

Just theoretically speaking. So keep an eye out. Whatever bills are coming down the pike. They are going to try to stuff this in here. And I'm not joking at all. I'm not -- this is not hyperbole. This will be the end of economic freedom. If a retail CBDC comes to fruition.

GLENN: I -- you know I'll go a step further. I'm not saying this is the mark of the beast. But it has all the earmarks of just not being able to live in society without it.

You won't be able to do anything, without it. Correct?

CAROL: Yeah. I mean, listen, it impacts your livelihood. You know how you get paid. How you transact.

I mean, it is the foundation.

Stable money is the foundation of a stable society.

GLENN: Now, people will say, though, Carol. That I already -- I already interact with my money this way.

I don't get an actual paycheck and bring it to the bank. It's digitally transferred into my bank. And then I spend, either a credit card or a debit card, everywhere I go. I go to a gas station. Put a card in. What's the difference?

CAROL: If I really, you're doing by choice. And you have a choice of providers. And the providers aren't the government. And it doesn't have the authority to come in and say, I'm sorry.

We're just going to cut off your ability to take in money. Or to put out money. We're going to freeze it.

Think about the trucker convoy up in Canada. They just froze their assets. They can do this, you know with just a flick of a switch.

Just one off, and say, I'm sorry. But that's it. You can't -- we've abandoned -- we've gotten rid of cars. We're not going to let you hail an Uber. Let you do this.

You said something bad on social media. We didn't like it. So we'll let you come down. This is a tool to let people submit to what the government wants. And it's the ultimate bullying tactic. The ultimate control tactic, to be able to control every facet of how you transact.

GLENN: I will tell you, that it is -- it is -- what people will say, well, I'm not doing anything wrong. You don't have to do anything wrong.

You just have to want to spend your money on hamburger. As opposed to fish or bugs or whatever it is.

You just want -- you want gasoline, and there's a shortage, and you're not part of the crew, that is deemed essential.

So you get no gasoline. This -- this is -- you know everybody complains about socialized. -- or, you know about free market health care.

First of all, we don't have free market health care. We haven't had free market health care, in a very long time. Government is all over it. Now with Obamacare, it's worse.

However, this is the point. Look at what's happening now, with Canada.

Canada actually said to a Canadian veteran, who just needed -- she's like probably 40, she couldn't walk up her stairs anymore.

Because of the pain. So she calls Veterans Affairs, and they say -- she says, I just wanted one of those chair things that go up the stairs.

She said, that they told her. And she's not the only one. We can assist you in suicide, if it's just so bad. She's like, what!

This is what's happening.

CAROL: Yeah.

GLENN: You'll have no options. No options.

CAROL: You will own nothing. They'll put it out there. And like you said, the word I wanted to key in from what you were talking about earlier. Was essential.

Because this is what they did to us in 2020. They said, some of us were essential. Some of us were not essential. So it's not like we don't have a case study, that's less than a couple of years old, to say that they will pick winners and losers. They will do that based on political clout and connections.

And guess who will not be in that inner circle? Probably everybody listening to the program. Including you and me. So this is an epic, epic disaster. And this is something everybody should be writing their representatives and senators. Saying, absolutely not. This is a complete affront to our freedoms.

youtu.be

RADIO

Far-left goal in Colorado SCOTUS case is FORCED COMPLIANCE

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in a new First Amendment case involving a Christian graphic artist who does not want to be forced to design wedding websites for same-sex couples. This case — coming from Colorado — marks the second time in five years that SCOTUS will grapple with religious business owners vs. gay weddings. But the far-left’s goal in this case seems to be much more sinister than hoping the two sides can conduct business peacefully. Rather, Glenn predicts, this case is about forced compliance: ‘It’s about forcing everyone to do exactly what they say, when they say it, and [to] have you profess a belief that you don’t have.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So does the First Amendment even exist anymore? We have a White House telling us, no. Will we have the Supreme Court telling us no, as well?

I want to play a couple of things that happened in the Supreme Court, and outside, concerning the court case now, that is involving this web designer, who says she cannot make a website, you know, with gay marriage announcements and everything else, because she's a Christian.

Well, let's start here. This is the Colorado attorney general that is insisting on television here, that even if you have moral objections, you have to do the work.

Listen to this, cut three.

VOICE: You talk about -- it's the slippery slope argument. If this happens, what is the next argument to fall. There are 29 states, including Colorado, that have nondiscrimination laws. What is the impact? If the court sides with Smith, what is the impact for, you know, makeup artists, hair stylists?

You know, people in this sort of -- considering themselves having expressive professions?

What is the actual big implication here, if this case doesn't go your way as you see it?

VOICE: Well, first off, we're going to have to figure out where to draw that line.

If someone makes specialized lattes, do they have an expressive interest in saying, I'm sorry. I don't want to serve Mormons, because I don't believe in the Mormon religion?

That set of hypotheticals could become reality if we lose this case.

GLENN: Hmm.

Now, hang on just a second. Isn't this what cancel culture is doing?

Aren't these businesses that disagree with your political view, not a status as a human being. But your political view, aren't they canceling you?

So aren't they already having the right to do it, you are just trying to take away the religious right?

Because I don't want to cancel anyone. But I'm not going to work for MSNBC.

You know they're never going to hire me. But I'm not going to go work for them. I don't do that. I don't want to do that.

I don't want to say those things. If I worked at MSNBC, well, then I had made a choice to take that job.

Because that's what they do. Do I have a right to get on MSNBC and do the exact opposite? Don't I have a -- a right to my own conscience, and what I deeply believe. Especially when it comes to faith.

Now, listen to Ketanji Brown.

She got a lot of heat on this. She was talking about It's a Wonderful Life from the stand yesterday.

VOICE: Public business. I'm a photographer, my belief is that I'm doing it's a wonderful life scenes. That's what I'm offering. I want to do video depictions of It's a Wonderful Life. And knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic, and so only white children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can -- I'll give to everybody else, I'll sell them anything they want, just not the It's a Wonderful Life depictions. I'm expressing something, right? For your purposes, that's speech.

GLENN: Okay. Ketanji Brown Jackson, sit down. You're a moron. You're a moron. First of all, yes. I am making It's a Wonderful Life scenes. That is clearly a vision that we've seen. We can put the standard side by side.

So if I'm creating that scene, yeah. I can discriminate and say, no. I need white people in this. Because I'm re-creating that scene.

Now, if I'm updating that scene, if I'm showing It's a Wonderful Life in today's America, well, then, I could include and should include everyone. I don't even know what she's talking about here. First of all, It's a Wonderful Life is not a religious objection. If I have a religious objection, I can't change what I believe, just like you can't change your skin color. I cannot change a deeply held religious belief.

STU: But in -- it's true, first of all. But it's also, an additional thing. Right?

Like, the religious part of this gives you additional protection, beyond what is already there. You can't compel someone to say something.

That is like really a bright line in our country. You can't -- take it to this example.

If -- if -- if Kanye West opened up -- decided to open up a website that said, hey, I will customize birthday songs for you.

Which, by the way, given his career arc, may be a real possibility very, very soon.

GLENN: He's working on the pancake recipe now.

STU: Right. And let's just say, hey, I will customize your Happy Birthday rap, just give me your name. And then someone decides, hey, in fact, how about do my bar mitzvah instead? Does he have to do that?

The answer to that is no. You can't ask -- despite his anti-Semitic views being abhorrent to most, you cannot force him to sing a positive song about a bar mitzvah because that would be compelling his artistic expression. You cannot do that.

That's already there. Whether it's a religious belief or not. Just because he does --

GLENN: And in his case, it is both. In his case, it is both.

STU: You can argue, I guess the black Israelite -- maybe that's where it is. Even if it's just not about religion at all, you still can't make somebody do that. Add on to that, the religious protection. It's a whole 'nother layer. I mean, really a lot of this case has been less about religion and more about the idea whether you can compel speech.

There was a famous case that happened recently, where it was a religious institution. I can't remember which one it was.

But was saying, hey, there's a new state law that says, if you're going to counsel people on pregnancy, you have to post a poster that says, abortion is an option and here's how you can get one if you want to. And the Supreme Court said, no. You can't a religious organization, who doesn't believe in abortion, to post that. You can't compel them to speech. And that speech was defined as posting a poster.

This has been a bright line forever!

And hopefully, this Supreme Court will actually have the balls to cast a very broad net here, to make sure this is protected for everyone.

You should never be forced to say or express something you don't believe.

GLENN: So here's what Barrett said, yesterday. She said, Canada's designer declined to serve a Catholic club because they disagreed with their views on marriage.

The -- the -- the Colorado attorney respond, yes.

Because that's not status-based discrimination.

Wait. Hang on just a second. She went in and said, wait. But the designer can't decline to do a same-sex marriage design.

Yes! Because same-sex marriage is inextricably intertwined with status. And religion isn't.

Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second.

There is a -- a whole right that was defined as a very bright line, as Stu just said. So it's not like we're looking and trying to read in, well, we've got to have freedom of speech. And does freedom of religion fall into that?

No. Freedom of religion is entirely separate. Entirely separate. And so it is protected, clearly. There is no trouble so my comma in this one. It is clearly protected.

But if you want to argue that you have the right for a designer, a web designer to discriminate against a Catholic church. Which they do have that right. I don't want to do your design. Great. I'm glad you told me, that you hate us, because I don't want you designing our website. I don't think you'll do a good job. If I can decline the church, why is it the church, that has a deeply held religious belief. I mean, my church was founded on the family. And the sacredness of men and women and gender. Gender is ordained by God, before birth. There is no confusion. That's like 40 years old in my church.

Wait. I have to change now? No. Because I can't change because the government tells me I have to change. This is something I believe to the core. And I either believe it, or I don't. Now, you think that I can just change my belief, because you're right. No. No.

I believe God has set these standards. Not man. Not you. Not me.

I can't change the standards. Neither can you. And as long as I'm consistent in that, I have a right to assert my religious exemption, from your little rule.

I'm sorry. I -- my faith tells me, I cannot go there.

If you have a religious object injection to war, and you are a pacifist, and it's a religious exemption, you don't have to go fight in war.

Because you're a Quaker. And it is a deeply held religious exemption.

And it's a deeply held relief. Or belief.

STU: That's a great example too. Like, we have come. Think of what that particular exemption is. We are saying, our country is under attack. Our nation may fall. It's the literal most important thing, that a government can do, right?

GLENN: Without your nation. Without people fighting this war, we could fall to the Nazis, and you won't have your right to your religion. That's the argument against.

STU: Right. And even with that scenario, we say to the Quakers, you know what, you don't have to do it. Your religion is more important than the war. Your religion is more important than the entire country falling or not.

GLENN: Because we don't have the right.

STU: Because we don't have the right.

GLENN: To get between you and God.

STU: And here we have an argument about lattes?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We're acting as if wedding sites. Are they even a thing? I guess I got married too early. Wedding websites, we're acting as if that's as important?

We've said the actual defense of our to Nazis is not important enough to overwhelm this right. And we're talking about lattes and photographers and cupcakes. This is completely ridiculous. And then you add on the free speech element of this. Which is what this case seems to be surrounding more than anything else.

Whether the government can say you must say two plus two equals five.

With this -- with the way they're describing this right, the government could tell anyone to say anything.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And either one of these rights, is clearly defined. Either one of them overwhelms the left's case on this, and they have both of them working in conjunction here. This is not a close call.

GLENN: This is a freedom-breaking decision.

If they decide in favor of Colorado, this is a freedom-breaking -- you have no right anymore. You'll have no right.

And this done in conjunction with what they just passed, the Defense of Marriage Act, or interracial act. This is what they're hoping for.

This is what they're shooting for. To be able to shut down anyone that objects. It's not about living together and tolerating one another.

It is about forcing everyone to do exactly what they say, when they say it. And have you accept and profess a belief you don't have.

That's a dictatorship. That is Naziism. Communism.

It -- it is a religion. We are headed towards a -- a theocratic autocracy.

Their religion is just a Gaia. And Baal. And whatever it is that worships the earth in slaughter and perversion of children.

youtu.be

RADIO

Glenn: 1 reason Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' are DISTURBING

The information Elon Musk handed over to journalist Matt Taibbi concerning Twitter corruption during the 2020 election season — which has now become known as the ‘Twitter Files’ — probably isn’t shocking to conservatives. After all, we already knew most of the information a LONG time ago, even if the mainstream media refused to accept the facts. But there is one, big takeaway from the Twitter Files that you should recognize. In this clip, Glenn reveals what he believes is the 1 reason this information drop is truly ‘disturbing.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's talk a little bit about Twitter. Did you go over the exposé, that was done this weekend on Twitter?

STU: From Matt Taibbi?

The journalist?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Elon Musk, basically seemed to give him a cache, of some sort of a bunch of emails about whatever the Democrats were doing, around the Hunter Biden laptop era. Right before the 2020 election. And he was going to go through it, and kind of see what was there. It was interesting, Musk wasn't trying to do it himself. He was doing it to, he was a responsible journalist to go through it.

GLENN: Oh, boy. Oh, boy. Okay. That's the second time you've said that word. And I just can't -- you said a journalist. And then respected journalist. The guy is a blogger. I know because I've read it in the New York Times. I've read it in politico. I've read it and heard it from NBC. MSNBC. CNN. ABC News. He's a blogger. I heard it from the rolling stone.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: And they should know.

STU: Because he worked for them, didn't he?

GLENN: Well, he was a contributing editor to the rolling stone. And took down some major things. But, I mean, does that make you a journalist?

STU: And now he's -- so even rolling stone is saying, now he's a blogger.

GLENN: He's a blogger. He's a blogger.

STU: Okay. And I assume they would say the same about Bari Weiss, who is one of the bigwigs over at the New York Times.

GLENN: Of course. She's a Substack blogger.

STU: Right. That is what they're trying to do here, to push this off.

GLENN: Which to me, don't you think that's changed?

I think journalist is actually less credible, than blogger. I mean, especially a Substack blogger.

I mean, oh, that -- you mean like Glenn Greenwald, and Bari Weiss.

And Taibbi. Yeah. I think I'm -- I think I'm going to run in that PAC and not the others. You listen to Bari Weiss, talk about her departure from the New York Times. And she talks about how there were all sorts of pressures within the organization, to not say what people believed.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And they went after people who questioned the narrative the wrong way, over and over again. So you would think, when you're free to do whatever you want to do you at least will be honest about it. You will come out and say what you believe. And I think you got that from the initial Twitter files release. Which kind of deal with both sizes.

Saying, well, there were some stuff on both sides. And there were good Democrats in all this. But generally speaking, what it pointed to, was a real effort by the Biden campaign, as we suspected, to go after narratives, they thought, didn't serve them. But part of that was the Hunter laptop. Part of the reason why I wasn't all over this so far, is because I don't think we have the real picture yet. We have only a small slice.

GLENN: Right.

STU: These documents were turned over to a couple of journalists, who have not had -- or, bloggers, who have not had the time to fully go through them and give us, you know, a moment by moment look as to who did what and how they did it, and I think it will take time for that to sort of marinate and go through the system.

GLENN: So here -- from 40,000 feet, here's what we discovered. Elon Musk released some of this inside information, and some of the documents that showed, a couple of things. One, the FBI was meeting with them monthly. And that is, as it got close to the election, they were meeting with them weekly. That is troublesome. Again, not something that we didn't know. But it is something that was called a conspiracy theory for a long time.

That's they were taking the Hunter Biden story. And they were getting advice from the FBI.
And the people inside of Twitter, were the ones that were torpedoing it, with the advice from the Biden campaign.

Well, that's what we found. So it's not new to any conservative. However, it is new to the press.

And it is new to the press. This is why this is a big deal.

You're not going to -- in my opinion. You're not going to feel like, whoa. Wow.

Look at that smoking gun. Because we've been talking about it.

We've known this was going on. The whole world has known, this was going on. And what they found was, the -- the right will get some things, you know on their side. As well.

But the disturbing part to me was, it comes through personal contacts. So it is truly -- would you call it nepotism. You know you have to know somebody. And if you knew somebody in Twitter, you could get the world changed.

And so you had people reaching out to their friends in Twitter. Reaching out to their former coworkers. Maybe at the White House. Saying, hey, look. This is a problem. Can you take care of it?

Yep. I got it. I'll take care of it for you.

STU: Of course, implicit in that, 90 percent of the people who worked in that, were liberal.

All their friends were liberal. So most of the stuff that got edited, were stuff that people wanted edited.

So it was not fair, as they pointed out. It's not balanced. It's not like both sides did the same thing by any means. The only thing --

GLENN: Well, both sides did the same things. But not anywhere -- you know when it's -- you know when it's one time for every nine times.

STU: Right.

GLENN: That's not doing the same thing.

STU: Right. And I think the only thing that we need to see here. This is one of the things that confirmed what we were seeing going on. And what we had he would have of always occurring.

We already have evidence going down this road pretty significantly. This has backed it up. It hasn't reached to the level yet. That is to what I expect. I set the standard so high, for this. Because I assume what they've done is so terrible, during these election periods.

That we haven't seen that evidence yet. I think it will come out. We'll see it eventually.

So far, we haven't seen it. We have only seen 80 percent of what was going on. Not 100 percent.

GLENN: So here's why this is important. If you are in with the it crowd, the it crowd controls really, the narrative still in America.

Because the New York Times and television and everything else, still is caught in that.

Now, I don't know if the American people are still caught in that. But unless you get both sides, talking about something, it's not going to filter down to the average American.

Okay? And here's -- here's the really interesting part. First, they said, that this was a conspiracy. That that wasn't happening.

Now that we have the evidence and the actual documents to show that it is that way. What do they do?

Now, I am somebody that I just don't believe in coincidence. I just don't.

Sometimes, wow. What a coincidence. Sometimes, but I always look first, hmm. That's a weird coincidence. Are we seeing this anyplace else?

For instance, when they talked right after COVID started. They were all saying the same thing. And then they all started to say, the new normal. And then it went from the new normal to the great reset. And everybody -- all of a sudden, one day, everybody is talking about The Great Reset. As a positive. And they're not explaining what The Great Reset is. They're just saying, we need a Great Reset. Do you remember any of that?

This is what happened over the weekend. To take Taibbi. And destroy him as a journalist, they accuse him of PR work. He is just being a public relations person. To whom?

To, quote, the richest man in the world.

And what does that make it? Sad. Embarrassing. Humiliating.

Now, let me go through some of these things. This is the prime time editor for Mediaite. Matt Taibbi went from a fierce and intrepid journalist taking aims at the wealthy and powerful, to doing mundane PR for the world's richest huckster. Embarrassing.

Ben Collins. Senior report for NBC.
Imagine throwing it all away to do PR work for the richest person in the world.

Humiliating.

Bloomberg. Editors are great at not just because they make your work sharper, but because they will ask things like, hey, should you be doing PR work for the richest man on the planet? MSNBC. Imagine volunteering to do online PR work for the world's richest man.

Let's see. Media Matters.

Matt Taibbi thread is a great example of overwriting when you don't have the kids, but you want to admit you're just doing PR for the world's richest person.

Matt McDermott. Doing PR for the richest person in the world should come as no surprise.

The correspondent for the New York Times, CNN, Daily Beast, Huffington Post, and as a host on Al Jazeera. Tweeted, Matt Taibbi, what sad, disgraceful downfall. I swear. He did good work in the old days. Should be a cautionary tale for everyone. Selling your soul for the richest white nationalist on earth.

Oh, my gosh. The editor-in-chief. Something called popula.com, wrote one minute, you're scouring Goldman Sachs. The next, you're doing PR for the richest man in the world. Funny.

It goes on and on and on.

They all said the same thing. They're doing -- he's doing PR work for the richest man in the world. So what they're doing is, he sold out.

But did Matt sell out?

I mean, Matt left the mainstream media for a reason. What was that reason?

Bari Weiss left the mainstream media for a reason. What was that reason?

What was it? To sell out? Or to be able to tell the truth, that they saw, without some editor going, nah. That Hunter Biden is not really a story. Because it's a conspiracy.

No. No. It turns out, that the FBI was lying to you. It wasn't a conspiracy.

It is a big deal. Now, Elon Musk has put the Democrats on notice. He said that there's more smoking guns, to come.

He also said, he's not going to sign autographs, anymore. And he doesn't -- he doesn't want to be in crowds anymore.

He's -- he's a little concerned for his health. And I don't think it's because he's a smoker. He believes that he's living in some sort of a spy novel. And I think he -- he might be.

By the way, according to the Daily Wire, it looks like they may have interfered at Twitter. May have interfered in the Brazilian election as well.

Interesting. It's almost as if, these public/private partnerships, between those who want to control the world, and those who are the mouthpiece for the world, are seeing the opportunity by coming together and working together to make sure that the little people know exactly who they should vote for, and what they should think.

Glenn's Show Prep

Sen. Ben Sasse Introduces Bill to Protect Babies Surviving Abortion

Do these 5 stories show IDIOCY or planned economic DESTRUCTION?

Transcript

How the Fed's digital currency could END ECONOMIC FREEDOM

Transcript

Far-left goal in Colorado SCOTUS case is FORCED COMPLIANCE

Transcript

Glenn: 1 reason Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' are DISTURBING

Transcript