Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Morning Brief
Books
More
AboutCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2022 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live
GLENNFebruary 20, 2017

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade — Norma McCorvey --- was a self-proclaimed confused 21-year-old mother who found herself pregnant. Three years later, she would take on the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and become the prominent plaintiff in the history-making Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. After the landmark Supreme Court decision, McCorvey dedicated her life to overturning it, and became a notable pro-life advocate.

On Saturday, McCorvey died as a pro-life advocate at the age of 69.

"So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on The Glenn Beck Program.

Of her role in the landmark court case, McCorvery had this to say in 2012:

I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought "legal" child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: The reason we have abortion on demand today is because of someone named Norma McCorvey, just a young woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and she decided to have an abortion.

STU: Just 21 years old.

PAT: Yeah, just 21.

STU: She herself said she was very confused at the time.

PAT: Right.

STU: She had gone through sort of crazy relationship issues.

PAT: And she was only pushed toward abortion when she went for help. She was pushed toward abortion. And from just about the minute she had the abortion, she regretted it. Actually, did she have the abortion?

STU: No.

PAT: I don't think she even wound up having the abortion, now that I think of this. She didn't even have an abortion.

STU: Yeah. That's the interesting part of the story.

PAT: She actually wound up having her child.

STU: Because the court case took too long.

PAT: That's right.

STU: She had birthed before that. And it wasn't immediately after. She had a period where she was still on board.

PAT: Still okay with it. That's right. That's right. Took a few years.

STU: And advocated for abortion and eventually turned around. One of the interesting things about it is, in the abortion debate, you always hear this: Well, what? So if the life of the mother is in danger, you want there to be no abortion. That's what you want when you say you want Roe vs. Wade repealed.

PAT: And, by the way, first of all, thing one, that almost never happens.

STU: No. Almost --

PAT: If this were 1783, it would happen all the time.

STU: Yeah, yeah, very important in 1700s.

PAT: It isn't the 1700s anymore. Or even the 1800s or even the 1900s. It's 2017. And doctors will just tell you that just doesn't happen. I've talked to doctors who have delivered thousands, tens of thousands of babies. And they've told me it's never happened.

STU: I will say particularly with partial-birth abortion, they say it never happens. You know, a pregnancy can complicate a lot of different things, obviously. And so it's not -- you know, the earlier it is, the more common. But, still, the issue with this particular thing, which I find to be so interesting is that when row -- Jane row, also known as Norma McCorvey, went to the doctor back in the day -- at that time in Texas, abortion was legal in the case of the mother's life being endangered.

PAT: Hmm.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: That was the only exception they had at the time. But they had that exception before Roe vs. Wade in the state where Roe went to get the abortion. That is how ridiculous this has been twisted.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: That has always been an exception. It is a pre Roe vs. Wade exception. And honestly like an understandable one in that at the very least you're making some decision -- it's at least justifiable in that you might make the decision based on -- you're essentially choosing one life over the other at that point.

PAT: Oh, if it's between my wife and the unborn baby --

STU: Of course.

PAT: -- you're choosing the mother of your children every time. The love of your life.

JEFFY: You have to, right? You have to.

STU: So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often.

She -- the case went on for a long time. It wasn't until the mid-'90s that she became a born-again Christian and was received by the Catholic Church. I think she was Catholic for a while. I think she converted from that too. But she remained Christian. She said that she became a real -- a real outspoken opponent of abortion. I mean, think about this. You know, think about -- like what if Rosa Parks was, "You know, I was wrong about those buses." This is a big change. You know what, we should be sitting in the back. I got to be wrong on that one.

That would be a story, I feel like.

PAT: Yes, it would be a story.

STU: I don't think that would have ever happened. But it's an interesting thing in that this is the case, the name that everyone knows, Roe, this is the woman who came out and advocated against this procedure for two decades.

PAT: If it was Wade, you wouldn't have minded as much.

STU: No.

PAT: Because Wade was the person trying to allow her to have the abortion, right?

STU: No.

PAT: Or actually Wade didn't want her to. She was fighting for --

STU: Roe was the one. Yeah.

PAT: But, I mean, it's never talked about that even the person who got this law overturned, all through America and legalized abortion, even she was a very staunch abortion opponent.

STU: So she went as far as to work for an abortion clinic. Okay? She was working at an abortion clinic. And she had an anti-abortion group move in next door to her. I mean, think about this. They always say, "Oh, you shouldn't be able to protest out in front of one of these clinics." Think of this story: They moved in next door. During smoke breaks -- during smoke breaks, someone from Operation Rescue, which is Reverend Philip Benham said she was completely pro-abortion.

They started talking. Slowly, they became friends. And that was kind of the genesis of her conversion. And, I mean, it's an incredible story.

If this was the opposite -- like, for example, you know, some terrible ruling that the person who was involved in it recanted and went the other way. And I say a terrible ruling as far as the left's perspective. This would be the ultimate movie. This woman's story would be an incredible movie telling this incredible conversion.

JEFFY: Conversion.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of a good example of one. But there's been many of those stories, where the person comes out and at first advocates for the wrong side of the policy. And then history proves that they wound up being on the right side in the end because they converted in the middle and took a tough stand and couldn't believe what they previously had stood for. That's this story.

PAT: Right.

STU: It's just a policy they don't like, so almost no one knows it. And --

PAT: You're right. She would be celebrated. I mean, there would have been many, many major motion picture movies released about her.

JEFFY: What's interesting that too is that she began her conversion just by talking, you know, out back, smoking a graduate with the people that were against it next door. Didn't have anything to do with burning cars, throwing signs, hollering, dragging crosses across the street. It was just --

PAT: Killing abortion clinic doctors. None of that extremism.

JEFFY: Right. None of that. None of that.

PAT: How old was she?

STU: She was only 69. And she was in an assisted living facility.

JEFFY: At 69?

STU: Yeah, really -- really sad. Because, you know, was an important voice. The voice, really.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And an incredible thing -- an incredible turn of events. And I still think to this day -- and I've said it before on the air that I think this is going to be looked back in whatever -- 100, 200 years -- I don't know what the time line is, as the slavery of our day. The type of thing that people who believe and advocated for it will be trashed by future generations, the way they trashed the Founders for having slaves. And, again, a lot of that is unfair. And you have to view it in the period of the -- you know, you have to view it in the context of the time where it occurs. But it's the type of thing that will be so unthinkable, particularly as technology advances.

We're to the point now -- we showed a video on Pat and Stu the other day of a new type of ultrasound.

Thank you, Jeffy.

A new type of ultrasound where you can see the baby doing baby things. This is not like it's blurry and you can kind of see the face. They had the 3D ultrasounds that came out, you know, within the last, what? Fifteen years. And now they're kind of common. You can get them. They're more expensive.

But it's like to the point of basically you see the baby playing and turning around and doing all sorts of things that you'd recognize from a baby. And this is at 20 weeks.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: This technology is going to prove to people that this is a crazy process.

PAT: And you think, wow, that's an active piece of broccoli in there.

STU: No, it's not broccoli, Pat. No, it's going to be a baby. Yeah, it's a baby.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: My heart must be working on that carburetor for that Buick moving around.

STU: No, it's not a Buick. It's not a Buick. It's a baby.

PAT: Are you sure?

STU: And over time, technology is working against the, quote, unquote, pro-choice argument here. The more we see these little pieces of broccoli as babies, the harder it is for people to justify this decision.

PAT: Yeah. And it's interesting because Beyonce is being celebrated right now because she's so very, very pregnant. And she's not pregnant with tissue or a Buick. She's pregnant with twin babies. Babies. And they've said it. And she says it. And, well, okay. Then how is it that nobody else is pregnant with babies? They're pregnant with tissue or a fetus or you don't want to say the word.

JEFFY: It's really strange that she's --

PAT: It's a weird phenomenon.

JEFFY: I mean, Beyonce is celebrated for -- because, well, she's the queen. But, I mean, over the past few years, they've really celebrated several -- numbers of celebrities for having babies, that it's this wonderful thing.

Like, what are you talking about?

STU: Well, and that's, of course, because they all know it's true.

PAT: Sure they do.

STU: They all know it.

PAT: They do.

STU: They all realize.

PAT: And that's why I cut them no slack for the time period. Because the time period is 2017. They know what's growing inside the woman and it's a human baby. They know that.

STU: Understood. However, I will say, it's a legal process. Society has decided --

PAT: Still.

STU: And really, the courts have decided that this is a legal process. So it should be viewed within that context. I think there are a lot of people who look -- you know, I'm not thinking about the thinkers. I'm not talking about people who are involved in this debate. You know, the debate as currently constructed is debating about whether it should be allowed before -- or excuse me, only before 20 weeks. I mean, there's -- we're talking -- we're giving you a five-month window to figure out whether or not you're going to keep this thing or not. And that's still considered too restrictive. It's not considered too restrictive in Europe. But it's too restrictive here. So that's completely different.

I think a lot of people who go to an abortion clinic, who grow up in a family where this is approved of, they just don't go into deep thought about it. It's a legal thing. They have a problem. They eliminate the problem.

And that is what -- you know, why it's important for us to continue blabbing about it. I mean, there have been hosts that have banned abortion talk on the air. We didn't talk about it all that often for a decent amount of this show's history. And we've talked about that before. It is important to talk about. It needs to be thought about.

You don't get the pass of, well, I don't know, it's legal, and it would solve my current problem as is. It needs to be considered thoughtfully.

JEFFY: And being against abortion is not hating women.

STU: No.

PAT: It's just the opposite. Just slightly over half of the people born will be women.

STU: Yeah, 27, 28 million would be alive under our policy.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That would not be alive under the left's policy.

PAT: The hateful thing is to terminate all of those women, all of those females. That's the War on Women right there. You know, in Australia -- an Australian politician just said that -- because I guess in Queensland, Australia, they're -- it's still a criminal offense to have an abortion in some circumstances. And some MPs have said they won't support the legislation to decriminalize it. It's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health.

But there's a politician saying that he believes these politicians owe women an explanation. It's a real cop out. If you're voting no, then you're saying it's appropriate for it to remain in the criminal code. Well, yeah, murder should remain in the criminal code.

And they're trying to make a big issue out of this. Because they're acting as if the women are the criminals, when the ones that are charged are the doctors. If you perform -- just like in this country, when there was -- when there was a criminal act involved in the abortion, it was the doctors that were held accountable, not the women.

STU: I see what you're saying. You're saying women can't be doctors.

PAT: Well, okay. Women doctors sometimes could be involved here.

(chuckling)

STU: Unbelievable.

You played that trick on me a few weeks ago. But, yeah, I mean, obviously that's the way it's typically enforced.

But, I mean, really, it's not -- while the legality issue is incredibly crucial. And, you know, when you have something that is -- violates a central tenet of this country being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you have something that so clearly violates that tenet, I can't -- it needs to be more than legal. Right? It's a situation where we wake up. We talked about this a while ago. In the 1950s, 45 percent of white people said, if a black person moved in next door to them, they'd move. Forty-five percent of white people in a poll said that.

JEFFY: What year was that?

STU: 1954. Mid-'50s.

Now that number -- well, and this is a number that's now 20 years old. I haven't seen an update for it because the poll I saw said only 1996 was the latest they did this. In 1996, it was 2 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: From 45 to 2 percent. That's not because of law. That's not because they passed laws saying that black people must move next to white people.

It's because people -- white people over time realized how dumb their position was. Right? And they had a moral change of their heart, understanding the reality of the situation, which is that you shouldn't move out of your house if black people move in next door. It sounds silly.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: To say that now. Back then it was half of white people said that, almost. Forty-five -- and, you know, we know how difficult it is to deal with realtors and all the paperwork and all the craziness. This is not like I wouldn't go talk to my neighbor if he was black. This is, I would move. I would leave my home if a black person moved in next door. That number goes from 45 to 2 percent. Not because of law. Because people had a change of heart. Because people made convincing arguments over a long period of time. And right now, while it's a very split partisan issue, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that.

And, you know, a lot of people say, "Well, you know, you should be able to have it for X amount of time. And afterwards, you know, then it has to stop." The majority of the people say no to late terms. And that's good. But you need to be consistent here.

PAT: It's pretty close on abortion at all.

STU: Yeah, it's about split.

PAT: It's about split halfway down the country right now. It's almost 50/50. But I think it's 53/47. Something else. Right in there. So I think we have the momentum right now, and we just need to keep it.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Good.

youtu.be
RADIO

The U.S. dollar might CRASH. Here's how YOU can prepare.

The U.S. economy is in trouble, and Americans are feeling it. But thanks to central banks around the world, it’s not just the U.S. dollar facing a potential collapse. In this clip, Glenn explains how the world’s central banks are ‘DESTROYING EVERYTHING.’ He explains how — even though it may seem like it’s gaining strength today — the U.S. dollar is facing a potential crash…a crash that could potentially turn America into Venezuela overnight. So, it’s best to prepare for all worst case scenarios NOW. Glenn provides actions YOU can take to prepare today.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: So, Glenn, you have the big special last night on the economy.

And I find it to be a really fascinating situation right now. Let me give you just a couple of stats that I see.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: The pending home sales, in the United States. Down 22.5 percent year over year. That's as low as the 2008 financial crisis. And almost as low as the covid collapse, which you might -- you might remember, we basically shut down the entire world, in March and April of 2020. It's that bad.

GLENN: Yeah. So nobody was really buying houses at that time, because you couldn't leave your house.

STU: You couldn't leave your house.

GLENN: So it's a little better than that.

STU: A little better than that.

GLENN: A little better than closing every business, every bank, every real estate office. All transactions stop. It's a little better than that.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Liquidity positions in the US Treasury market. This is measured by Bloomberg. It is as bad as March 2020 basically. As bad as March 2020.

Then you have this situation, which I find to be fascinating. If you have -- if you want to pay $2,500 a month on your mortgage. Okay? $2,500 a month, with 20 percent down.

Typical sort of situation, you might be going to buy a new home. As of a year ago, you could afford a house that was $759,000. With that outcome, 20 percent down. $2,500 a month.

$759,000 a year ago.

Now it's $476,000 because of all the interest rate changes, all of the inflation, and all of that.

Now, at the same time, almost every currency in the globe is going through the basement floor, and the U.S. dollar is the only one that is showing any strength.

So how do you look at all of that? And come up with some grand unifying theory, as to what is going on?

GLENN: The central banks are destroying everything. They're destroying everything. They all got bailed out. You know, the -- and I don't -- I don't -- I'm not qualified. Nor, do I feel appropriately equipped to talk about liquidity in the bond market. That's something that can be saved for CNBC. It just means that those people, who are in the, you know, stock game, the liquidity is very low. Meaning, there's not a lot of access money slashing -- sloshing around. So if things go down, there's no money there, to be able to bail things out. That is the central bank. What they've been doing. They've been printing money. So there's still plenty of money. Okay?

So that means, that you're going to have to start printing money. That's what happened yesterday, in England.

The -- the union pensions, all went under. Okay?

Just -- it folded up. There's no way we can -- we can pay for any of these pensions. Folded up. And so the Bank of England, who just swore, we're not printing any more money. Inflation is already out of control.

They said, except for now. We're printing money. And they just started printing money, like there's no tomorrow.

So the bond market. The stock exchange over there, went up. Why?

Because the people who are playing the game, and getting the money, from the central bank, they're like, okay. Great.

They're printing money again. Plenty of money. I'll make some more money here. I'll put it back into the stock market, and I'll make money. And then I'll pull it out. This is a game that does not end.

You cannot get out of this. This is something I've been warning about since 2008. And they're not going to tell you. I'm going to -- I'm going to attach a name to something. Because I really respect this guy. And I would have never expected him to say something like this. But he really believes, and so I'm attaching a name. Because I think he's a good guy.

And it just shows, if the good guys are thinking like this, what are the nefarious ones thinking?

I was on Neil Cavuto 2007, and I laid the case out, that we were going to have a collapse. And -- and he pushed back, and pushed back. And I have no problem, if people disagree. In fact, I said, Neil, if you disagree, please, I want to know where I'm wrong. I want to be wrong on this. It just doesn't look like I'm wrong.

We finished, and Neil, who, again, I believe is truly a good guy.

He looked at me, and -- sorry, he didn't look at me. I got up from the table. I said, thank you, Neil. That was good. And he said, you're the most irresponsible broadcaster, I have ever met.

And I said -- and that was crushing to me, because I like Neil. And I said, what?

And I said, what do you -- what -- why -- what did I get wrong? Why didn't you say what I got wrong? Because I want to know.

And he said, no. You're not wrong. We just don't say those things. That causes panic. And panic causes things to get worse.

And I -- my -- my point of view was no. By not telling the American people, what is possibly coming, causes even more panic, when it comes.

The reason why I say this, and I've attached his name to it, for the first time, is because I respect Neil. I think he's a good guy. And there are honest people who have honest differences, on what to say and how to react.

But you have an administration now, and a media, that is doing nothing. They're doing nothing, but lying to you.

And everybody knows, this is a train wreck. So yesterday, the British pound, almost collapsed.

Why is the dollar going up?

Because the euro is going down. Because the British pound is going town. Everybody is on the verge of collapse.

America is the strongest place to put your money. Now, let me ask you this: You have to -- you have to put your product in a store. And you're responsible for everything that is sold, damaged, or lost. Where are you going to put your product? A CVS? In a part of town, that is just -- is getting ransacked every day?

You know, you're going to put it in downtown San Francisco, where people go in, and take the product, and just walk away with it. Are you going to put your money there?

Or are you going to put your money in a place, where it may not happen. But it is happening, but just not at that rate. Yet.

You, of course, put your product there, and stop putting your product in San Francisco. Correct? Doesn't that seem logical?

That's what's happening to the dollar. It's not that we're strong. It's just that, we're the last one to go.

And as I've had this argument with people, I've always explained it as the floatiest poop in the toilet bowl. Because maybe it will get people's attention. That all has to be flushed. Okay?

It is not going to last. It's not going to last. But people with lots of money. Institutions, you know, funds that are investing for other people. Where are you going to put your money? Where are you going to put it?

Tell me the country that is stable. Tell me the country that isn't on the verge of collapse. Tell me the country that didn't play the game of printing money, so they could spend more money.

Tell me the country!

You can't. There is no country. Did you see the video of China blowing up their ghost cities? Have you seen this?

They're taking the parts of the ghost cities, where they hadn't finished them. And I mean, 25 skyscrapers. Okay?

They looked finished. They're not finished on the inside. Twenty-five of them. Taking them all down at once. Boom. Blowing them up.

They're all coming down at once.

STU: It looks like the finale of Fight Club. Is what it looked like to me.

GLENN: It's crazy, isn't it?

STU: It's crazy.

GLENN: They're destroying them, because they can't let them sit there empty. So they blow them up and destroy. Because that never worked. What they were doing was printing money, that didn't have. To keep everybody employed. And build these ghost cities.

Now, what? Now, what?

So you have to start thinking, in a way that you've never had to think before.

And this is a global thing. People in England -- and I doubt they are. Because they don't have talk radio. They have the BBC.

And if you think I was on NPR, and would be allowed to have this conversation, you're fooling yourself. So try to get somebody on the BBC to say this. They won't.

You -- if you're in England, and I think that it's going to go well, it's not. And it has nothing to do with the new tax proposal.

The new tax proposal, lowered corporate rates, by one percent. 1 percent.

That's not going to cause an economic collapse. Okay?

That will actually spur things on. Not very much. Because it's only a 1 percent cut. It's no big deal. The other cuts, were already in the plans. They were already coming, were they not?

STU: Yeah. There's a tax cut for the average person, 20 percent. And 19 percent. The highest income bracket, went from 45 to 40. They say, the difference here is $5 billion. This is the -- the panicky thing. You know, the -- these estimates. $5 billion of tax revenue per year. Which, of course, is nothing compared to what they spent on covid. And is basically what they've already spent on Ukraine this year. Not us. But them.

GLENN: So don't send, what you were going to send to Ukraine.

STU: Or just stop spending the money on covid, which you should be doing anyway.

GLENN: Right. And you saved all that money. You've done it in a year. Save that money.

STU: It's a miracle.

GLENN: What's happening is the banks. The central banks have played the game. We are now coming to the end of that game. So now, what do you do?

I'm not going to talk at all about stocks or bonds, or any of that crap, that you'll find on CNBC.

They know more than I do, I'm sure. But let me tell you, for anybody who is not a big investor, what do you do?

Next.
(music)
Going about your business online every day, is a little like playing a game of chess, where the stakes are everything you own. And you can't see the moves the other guy is making. Maybe it's your first time of playing chess. The other guy happens to be a cyber criminal, and he's not known for playing by the rules. Which is why you need to get LifeLock. It's really important that we understand cyber crime opinion and how it changing every single day. And what their goals are. You have whole countries. I mean, why do you think ticktock. Why do you think tick-tock was created by the Communist Party of China. To collect information. That's all that is. Your information is out. And the more information that is out, the more dangerous it becomes for you and your family. Get 25 percent off a subscription to the people who will protect you. It's LifeLock.

Top of the line cyber security. And both preventive measures to keep you safe. And because nobody can catch everything. A restoration team if you do end up having your information hacked into. You can protect yourself with LifeLock by Norton. Join now. Save up to 25 percent off your first year with the promo code Beck. 1-800-LifeLock. 1-800-LifeLock. Or LifeLock.com. Use the promo code Beck. Save 25 percent. LifeLock.com.
(music)
Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: Jeez. All right. So what do you do? What do you do?

I don't know what people are going need to. I just know people are going to be in need. So if we want to be a blessing to others, and yourself. The best thing you can own is food. Water. Natural gas, or, you know, propane.

Anything that are essentials. Toothpaste. Toilet paper. We are going to see real shortages. And that is going to be coupled with a stagflation kind of market, where people are losing their jobs. We're not growing at all.

And -- and people don't know what to do. You have to think like a German Jew of the 1930s. You have to start thinking that way.

You have to start thinking -- just like a German in hyperinflation. If you read any of the diaries of these people that lived back then, they said no one knew what hyperinflation even meant a week ago. Now it's all that people can talk about.
You have a chance, as we outlined on the special last night. There is a chance, we turn into Venezuela.

And that happens overnight. That is not something -- how does somebody go broke? How does somebody go abrupt? Over a long period of time, and then all at once.

You made decisions all along, and you push it off, push it off. Push it off. Then the straw that breaks the camel's back, it breaks. And you are out.

That's the way it will happen here. Hopefully, it doesn't happen. And I can't tell you for sure, what to invest in.

What to put your money in. I know food will never go out of style.

But will food be called hoarding, well, it was in Germany.

Art. Art. But how long does it take -- because there are going to be people that survive. See, they are just waiting you out.

The people at the top, are waiting you out. When you crumble, and you can't afford it, then they'll scoop in, and buy it at a wholesale price.

So what do you have? What do you have? Gold, silver. We're going to talk about cryptocurrencies? Just a second, with a guy who is going to be the head of the -- or one of the heads of the House financial committee.

When we come back here in about ten minutes.

He's going to talk to us about cryptocurrency and what all of that means. And what the government is doing. Right now, what are they doing?

They're collapsing cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency, I bet you, if it was completely unleashed right now. If there weren't any governments saying, well, we're not going to -- cryptocurrency will probably be at $100,000 for bitcoin right now. You have to have food, water, land, a home, but not the stuff that you're so far in debt.

If you have high interest credit cards, anything that is high interest, or variable, get rid of it right now. It's better to have, you know, five or 7 percent loan on your house. Than a variable loan.

Because the interest rate could become crippling.

Now, what most likely is going to happen, is they're going to just start raising the rate. And raising the rate. And raising the rate. Until, everything falls apart. And then they're going to slash the rate. And at the time they slash the rate. Before inflation is fixed, that is your moment of we've given up. Escalation of inflation is our destiny. You'll start seeing them go to cryptocurrency and everything else. When America is it that, that's when the world really freaks out, and the game completely changes.

youtu.be
RADIO

3 ways Dems used Hurricane Ian DESTRUCTION for political gain

If there’s one thing today’s far-left are good at, it’s using human tragedy for political opportunity. And even before Hurricane Ian made landfall, that’s actually what some Democrats decided to do. From Biden urging Floridians to get vaccinated, to the mainstream media’s onslaught against Governor DeSantis, and potential plans to politicize FEMA, Glenn shows how political gain seems to be the left’s current strategy as this massive storm hits our Gulf Coast…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Stu, how excited are you? Wow. Where do we even begin today?

Well, let's start with Joe Biden. Here's the advice for anybody in Florida. Really important advice yesterday, from Joe Biden.

BIDEN: Let me be clear. If you're in a state where hurricanes often strike, like Florida or the Gulf Coast or into Texas. A vital part of preparing for hurricane season, is to get vaccinated.

GLENN: Ah, yes. Yes. Yeah. Much more complicated.

BIDEN: A natural disaster hits.

STU: This is great news. We have a hurricane vaccine? I didn't even hear about that.

GLENN: Yeah. You just have to vote Democrat. That's it, you vote for a Democrat, and no hurricanes.

STU: That's it! Wow.

GLENN: So he's right there on the front lines for you, America. And, Florida, he's there for you. We got to make sure that they get vaccines, because it will be very complicated, you know, when we're pulling you in from, you know, the water or off the roof of your house. I mean, we'll send a helicopter. But have you been vaccinated?

STU: Have you ever had a vaccine underwater?

It's really difficult to administer.

GLENN: It's very difficult. Very difficult. That's why you should have had it. You red staters. That's why you should have had it. By the way, so far, the president hasn't cauldron DeSantis at all. Can you give us cut seven, please. Here's a FEMA official, saying. Wait a minute. Why haven't you called yet?

VOICE: Can you articulate how those determinations are made. And why -- and why it hasn't been made in this case, to have the president call the governor.

VOICE: Yeah. The president is very focused on making sure that the federal family has the right resources available to support this.

GLENN: Have you been vaccinated?

VOICE: We have a team of my senior leadership that are embedded with the governor to make sure that we're supporting that. Our focus today is making sure that we have the right measures in place to support the life-saving activities that need to happen. Any conversations afterwards, need to be -- see what the damage is done.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOICE: But he's made conversations with the mayors. So is there any reason why not the governor?

VOICE: Again, we have a strong team that's in place, supporting the governor right now, working side by side with him and his staff. How are you working side by side, you haven't called him!

STU: I think they did eventually call him.

GLENN: Good. Good. Well, that's usually very low. I know when the fires and everything were happening. And that evil George Bush, who hates California.

He's like, whatever California needs, we're not going to supply it. In fact, I'm not even going to call and find out.

You know, I wish there was just one person we could call. Do you remember George Bush. It didn't matter what state. Even in Hurricane Katrina. He called and said, please, evacuate the city.

The Democratic leadership said, no. He didn't get vindictive about it. He was immediately there. And he even took the blame for all of it. Even though, he didn't deserve it. Same with the wildfires.

Where is Joe Biden? Have you been vaccinated?

All right. One other thing I want to bring to your attention. First of all, let me say this, and then we'll wrap that section up of Rick DeSantis. Ron DeSantis.

STU: Ron DeSantis.

GLENN: What you have to watch for here, is the media smearing Ron DeSantis. They're going to do everything they can, to make him look incompetent. They'll do everything they can, to make Florida look like a hellhole, that's just out of control. Guarantee it. Guarantee.

STU: Yeah. I mean, number one is obviously the concern about what's going on with the human life, and all the effects of the hurricane. But like, when you look at it from a national perspective. What we'll have here is a story over in the next few months. And actually in this case, the next few weeks. Is there are tons of people, starting with his opponent in the gubernatorial race. But also spreading to every government operative across the country. And every media operative across the country, who see Ron DeSantis as a real threat to Democratic power and have an opportunity here, whether true or not, to try to take him out, not in the 2024 election, but right now in the next few weeks. This is an election that is seven or eight points. Maybe five points in Florida. With DeSantis leading.

You know, if this goes poorly, and they can convince the American people. The people in the middle. Not the hard-core leftists. The people in the middle, who think that maybe Ron DeSantis does a terrible job managing this somehow. If they can convince him of this, they can take him out before this gubernatorial race, and then he's not a factor at all in 2024.

They see this as Democrats so often do. Human tragedy, they see as an opportunity.

GLENN: Well, I want to get into that here in a second. But, first, here's your opportunity to serve. Mercury One working with its partners. We are mobilizing on the ground with food, electrical support, communication support, and cleanup support.

We will be in first and out last. We need your help. Just go to mercuryone.org. And donate to our Disaster Relief Fund. We have many donors in Florida. Mercury One is there to help.

So please, if you can, donate now to mercuryone.org. And we will keep you up-to-date on the latest. And what we're doing. We're just waiting for it to come ashore. And then we'll spring into action. All right. The next thing I want you to know about is FEMA.

We found a paper. This is, oh, I don't know. Several years ago, this paper was written. He's a climate activist. And it proposes that FEMA could be weaponized to, into being reactionary to natural causes. It would be proactive. And it would operate as some sort of a green new deal enforcer. Well, we found this paper, and it says, quote, if the moment is seized, the current crisis and any renewed attention, it may bring to emergency management, can be an opportunity to recast it, as more vital and strategic component, of the future political landscape.

The paper laments that FEMA's previous restrictions when it comes to liberty, and their reluctance, to, quote, propose limitations on private property, end quote.

Really?

We were done with the talk of FEMA camps and Black Hawk helicopters.

No. You're not done with that. Let me put it back in here. For just a second.

This is The Great Reset. Now, have there been any changes at FEMA?

Well, yes. If you go to the FEMA dot-gov website, you'll see integrating sustainability into recovery. Now, it was updated July 22nd, 2020. So this is being set into motion at FEMA in the final months of the Trump administration.

But remember, there's no such thing as a Deep State. We have one of their guides, that is actually linked back to the Department of Energy, going green from the ground up. And the first section says it all: Quote, out of crisis, opportunity. And they're talking about FEMA going in, when there's been a horrible, horrible crisis. And the first question is: Why go green from the ground up?

Because we have the opportunity. And FEMA can lead the way. Saul Alinsky would be very proud. Identify a crisis. And if none exist, create one. And then rebuild society the way you want. Now, keep in mind, this is not from congressional committees. This is from a group of unelected Deep Staters. FEMA and the Department of Energy. As you scroll through the FEMA website, it looks pretty familiar, to stuff we've already seen someplace else.

In fact, it's a damn near carbon copy of the united nation's agenda 2030. The agenda for sustainable development. And their 17 sustainable goals are another carbon copy of what the Davos crew are saying in the World Economic Forum, and the great reset.

It's all the same. What they're significant is, if you actually like or need your high carbon footprint job. If you work in the oil and gas industry. Car industry. Coal industry. 95 percent of blue-collar worker, literally anything they don't like, it's too bad.

And the rebuilding of any city is going to come at a higher cost. Because they're just making it sustainable for the future.

To the new U.S. government bureaucratic great reset, liberty is a liability. As that FEMA academic paper stated. Private property is a limitation.

We'll keep our eye on FEMA, and hopefully they're bringing clean water, and then going home.

youtu.be
RADIO

The Nord Stream pipeline SABOTAGE puts us ALL AT RISK

Was the Nord Stream explosion sabotage? And who was behind the attack? Was it Russia? Ukraine? Or Germany? No matter who was behind the move, Glenn explains, it puts us ALL at risk. Because destroying civilian infrastructure now is 'on the table' for Vladimir Putin, and this may give him enough reason to 'take his gloves off.' The stakes here are real, Glenn says: 'Water, electricity, oil, pipelines...ALL of our infrastructure is at risk.'

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So I -- I am not sure, because of the hurricane, I can't get a -- a good grip on how America is feeling about this Nord Stream bombing. But that's what it was. We know that this was sabotage.

There's no natural explanation for it. And it would have somebody diving about 200 -- 220. 230 feet, below the surface. That is not something that your average diver can do. And this is encased in concrete.

So this is blowing up the concrete and getting to the pipeline, to blow that up. This is -- I mean, it's not -- you know, it's not going to the moon. But it is, you know, rather difficult to do.

So who did it? This is an explanation that it is so important for you to understand. This is now a non-military key infrastructure, that has been destroyed.

If Russia thinks we did it, they've already said, nukes are now on the table. That gives us a green light to use nukes. Forget about nukes for a second. Because if that happens, we all have 18 minutes. I'm going to the bar. I'm going out with a drink in my hand. But you've got 18 minutes. Family, meet me at the bar.

My wife would probably already be there. I've been there for months. Living with you.

Anyway, so forget about nukes for just a second. And let's talk about, what other things can Russia do.

This is non-military key infrastructure. Outside of the borders of Ukraine.

To date, as far as we know, combat targets were either in Ukraine, or were military targets, hit inside of Russia by Ukrainian Air Force or Special Forces. But the target menu, now includes key civilian infrastructure: Electricity, water utilities, energy production.

That makes Russia more dangerous than ever. And that would be true, no matter who carried out the attack.

youtu.be
RADIO

MIDTERM UPDATE: What Republicans must do to WIN BACK the Senate

The midterms are just one month away, and the stakes for our republic have never been higher. If Democrats keep their current control of both the House of Representatives AND the Senate, America may never been the same. In this clip, Glenn and Stu run through the latest numbers: The races currently leaning left, those leaning right, and the ones that are becoming closer each day. These are the races Republicans MUST win if they want to take back control…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Average income lost under Joe Biden is $4,200. Gas prices have risen now, this is the sixth day in a row. And numbers are falling for the Democrats. But is it showing up at the polls yet?


STU: Yeah. Yeah. I think -- I just some of the early Democratic momentum pitch, that we have heard has started to fade quite a bit. We went through this on Stu Does America on Friday. We did our first sort of chalkboard magnet. All the states break down the Senate look. So give you a quick picture of this. The lay of the land, before any elections even start is 36 Democrats and 29 Republicans. That's because all the seats aren't up for election. So they start with a nice lead here already. In the likely category, probably not going to change. There's at least eight races there for the Democrats. There are 13 races on the Republican side, that are likely not really going to be all that close or competitive. Which brings you to 44-42. Some leaner races: Leaning Democrat right now, we have Colorado and Washington, which are two states that are -- the polling is favoring Democrats by a decent amount. You know, Republicans really like their candidate in Washington, for example. So there's some reason to watch those races. Though, they're favoring Democrats. Also, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, we have in the leaning Democrat. Now, Pennsylvania as we've covered is completely insane.

If that's the way they go, they have a man who can't speak, as their candidate. But still polling showing them five points or more up in most of these polls.

New Hampshire just finished the primary. Right now, Maggie Hassan seems to have about an eight-point lead in that race.

Though, that one I can see tightening. It's been tighter in races before the primary, so we'll see how that goes.

Leaning Republican, five races there. A couple of just sort of weird races there. Which is Alaska. Alaska has the situation with the rank choice voting, going on. But it's really Republican versus Republican there. But then again, one of the Republicans is Lisa Murkowski. So do you count that? I don't even know.

GLENN: Yeah, Democrat.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But how is she performing in the polls?

Because the others dropped out, to kind of coalesce around Murkowski's --

STU: I believe Murkowski gets beaten when it actually occurs.

The fact that this woman ran a write-in campaign from the Senate and won. She won, a write-in campaign for the Senate.

The name goes a long way in Alaska. Murkowski. It's almost all Democrats voting for her.
I mean, that has really become the Democrats and moderates sort of going that way, where Republicans are going towards the Trump-favored candidate there in Alaska. So you'll get a Republican out of Alaska and for the Senate. It just depends on if it's Murkowski or not. I mean, she's one of the weakest Republicans you can find. Another weird one, we've talked about a lot, is Utah, with Mike Lee. He's running in a race against an independent. There have been some close polls in this race.

GLENN: I don't believe it.

STU: I don't believe it. I still this is a strong Republican scene. I think Lee will win there. It's closer than I think Mike wants.

GLENN: Mike always -- even when he's not running for reelection. He's like, you know, I have to listen to the people, because the people they can throw me out of office at any time.

STU: Yeah. Sure.

GLENN: And I think there's a part of Mike that, you know, wouldn't mind it, if it's okay, it's over. Go make money. Go do something with your life.

STU: That's got to be the feeling of a lot of people.

GLENN: Yeah, I think so. But he takes it seriously.

STU: Oh, yeah, and look, he should. This is a new tactic from the Democrats. This is what they're rewarding in Utah, if you vote for Evan McMullin.

It's a new tactic. Instead of just running a Democrat, they run a guy who says he isn't a Democrat, but just will vote like the Democrats every time. You can have that if you want. Normally that's done under the D banner. It's now done under the I banner.

GLENN: And they didn't run.

STU: The Democrats dropped out of the race completely, and just are letting everyone vote for --

GLENN: It's crazy. It's crazy. And you will see this in every election, if it works this time.

STU: Yes. Especially in deep red states. They will try to knock off Republicans, by running fake independents in this case.

Missouri is out there as well. Eric Schmidt has a pretty solid size of a lead, he should win there.

Florida is closer than I think it should be with Marco Rubio.

You know, oddly, he's -- most of the polls only have him up four or five points.

GLENN: You're kidding me!

STU: Yeah. And this isn't a race where obviously DeSantis is likely going to win handily. Val Demings is the candidate in Florida, going against Rubio, who was mentioned as a VP candidate for Biden. Somebody thought highly of her, on the Democratic side.

GLENN: She has brain damage?

STU: No, I don't know.

GLENN: She'll never have a leadership role.

STU: And Ohio, we talked to JD Vance last week. He's opened up a lead in most of the polling there. I think he'll win that race. But still too close to say it's a likely race by any means. So it's five. So, basically, what you have there is 48 Democrats. Forty-seven Republicans. If you include the lienors. And five toss ups for the Republicans to take advantage control of the Senate, they would need to win four of these five races. Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Georgia. Their best hope right now, probably North Carolina, where they are relatively consistent, but small lead there.

Nevada seems to be pretty much toss-up. Though Adam Laxalt seems to be moving ahead slightly there. Ron Johnson has had good polls in Wisconsin, lately.

It looks like he might be a slight favorite there. Arizona has narrowed, though still favors the Democrats.

Although, it's hard for me to understand the polling there. You see polling where Blake Masters is down by seven or eight points. And Kari Lake, who is supposed to be the most extreme, crazy person in the world, which she's not. We've had her on the air. She's running for governor. With the same voters, and they're saying, she's only down by one. So it's hard for me to understand how Masters would be down eight, and Lake would be down only one.

GLENN: Name recognition.

STU: And she might be. She might just be a really good candidate, and Herschel Walker in Georgia well. The polling has bounced back and forth. Both very close. Really a pure toss-up race at this point.

GLENN: Oh, jeez. For the love of Pete, get everyone you know. Dig up your father, your mother. Bring them out. I mean, let them air out a little bit.

STU: Democrats do it all the time.

GLENN: Yeah. What's the problem with that? Make sure that everyone goes out and votes.