GLENN

Thanks GOP, Obamacare Has Become Trumpcare

Philip Klein, managing editor of the Washington Examiner and author of Overcoming Obamacare: Three Approaches to Reversing the Government Takeover of Health Care, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday after spending hours reviewing the GOP Obamacare replacement plan, released the previous day.

"Philip, thank you for your hard work on this. It's my understanding that this is worse than we thought it would be," Glenn said on radio.

Klein didn't disagree.

"Yes, it is. And I think if we take a step back from the details, which we can certainly get into, as much as you think your listeners want to hear, but basically the bottom line is that this bill says and declares that liberalism has won," Klein said.

The proposed plan is essentially a watered-down version of Obamacare, highlighting the GOP's inability to act courageously even when in control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

"So, we put some bondo on this car and gave it a new paint job --- and it's now Trumpcare," Glenn said.

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

Glenn: All right. Let's go to Philip Klein. He's the managing editor of the Washington Examiner

Philip, thank you for your hard work on this. It's my understanding that this is worse than we thought it would be.

PHILIP: Yes. It is. And I think if we take a step back from the details, which we can certainly get into, as much as you think your listeners want to hear, but basically the bottom line is that this bill says and declares that liberalism has won.

And the reason -- the big question during this repeal and replace process was at the end of the day, when the dust clears, would we end up with a system that's something resembling a free market system, relative to the system that existed before Obamacare? And if we do not, then it means that liberals, through Obamacare, moved the ball forward and put us irreversibly on the course to a European-style single-payer system.

And this bill clearly is not a free market plan. You could argue -- and Republicans certainly will -- that relative to Obamacare, it taxes less, spends less, and regulates less. However, relative to any conception of what a free market for health care is, this would not be it. It still essentially has the federal government try to use a -- make sure regulations and mandates, social engineering, and massive government subsidies to try to expand the number of people covered and dictate the type of coverage that people have.

GLENN: Okay. A couple things. Cadillac tax, is that still there?

PHILIP: Basically they delayed the implementation of the Cadillac tax.

GLENN: But it's still there?

PHILIP: It's still there, but they've got rid of another plan to cap the exclusion. Because basically, keep in mind too, that the -- earlier versions of Republican and conservative replacement plans, going back a decade, did want to move away from the employer-based insurance model because if individuals have control over their own health care dollars, there are more choices, and they can take insurance with them from job to job. This is the idea of portability is something that we used to often hear about when Republicans talk about health care.

But in this case, they were afraid of disrupting the employer-based market, so they backed off from a measure that really would have tried to cap the number -- the amount and the generosity of the employer insurance deduction. But they stuck with Obamacare's Cadillac tax. They just sort of delayed it further. And a lot of this has to do with budget gimmickry for -- to work the congressional market off the score --

GLENN: Right. So, in other words, if we say we have a Cadillac tax, it looks like it can pay for itself. Or it gets a little closer to paying for itself, even though we have no intention of ever putting it in. Which really is just something that every conservative should hate because this is going to be a boondoggle.

PHILIP: Yes. Well, it's the same thing that Republicans criticized Obamacare for.

GLENN: Yeah.

PHILIP: Remember how Obamacare, what it did was it started taxing immediately. And then it delayed the heavy spending until the second half of its implementation. So there were able to say that it cost around 900 billion in the first decade, when in reality, it cost close to 2 trillion. And it looks like Republicans are doing a lot of various things such as that.

For instance, there's a lot of upfront spending that they're giving tens of billions of dollars to states to try to fund various health care initiatives. And the actual state for repeal of the Medicaid expansion and the Obamacare subsidies doesn't come into place until 2020.

Now, I don't know about you, if you're confident that going into a presidential election year, Republicans are going to allow repeal to kick in, which they're afraid to enact now. But I'm kind of skeptical that it will ever happen, in 2020.

STU: Think about this. And I actually thought there was a chance that Trump would come out and oppose it based on this because they're going to put this into effect so that all the free money goes away January 1st, 2020, in the midst of a presidential election, a few weeks before Iowa, on the Democratic side.

So that just seems completely ridiculous. There's no way these -- these guys, with all the power, don't have the spine to do it now. They're not going to do it in 2020. They're going to find out a way to extend it even longer.

GLENN: No, they think they'll still be in control. I don't think they will. They think they'll still number control. Then they can look like the sugar daddy.

PHILIP: Yeah. And the amazing thing too is it would have -- there was a much simpler solution, which is that they could have just frozen new enrollment in the Obamacare's Medicaid expansion or the exchanges. So if they were worried about transitioning people and disrupting people who already have Obamacare benefits, one thing they could have done is say if as the enactment of this law you're receiving Medicaid through Obamacare's expansion, you could continue to receive those benefits. However, we're not going to allow new enrollees. And what we've seen from other -- there was an example in Arizona, for instance, in 2000, where they got ahead of their skis in expanding Medicaid and they decided they had to scale it back. So they froze new enrollment. And within a few years, two-thirds of people have left the expanded Medicaid. That's because people find jobs. They move in and out of the health insurance market. Not everyone stays static the whole time. So if they would have been able to just even freeze it, then you would have seen dramatic wind down in the number of people that are attached -- dependent on Obamacare.

GLENN: Philip, when you say that liberalism has already won. I really don't like the word liberalism because I feel like I'm a classic liberal. And I know that has been changed, all the way from FDR. But this is really progressivism has won. The progressives in the Republican Party are just as excited as big government, fill in the blank, as any progressive on the left. They just want to be in charge of it.

PHILIP: I mean, I guess the liberal progressive thing could be argued both ways.

GLENN: Yeah.

PHILIP: Because there's also an argument that liberalism became a dirty word. So now they just want to use the word progressive because it hasn't been sort of -- it hasn't been as tainted in the public mind yet.

GLENN: Right. Well, that's because -- that's because FDR had to stop using the word progressive because they had made progressive a dirty word. So he made them liberals.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, it's the same thing.

Is there anything -- I've heard Trump talk about buying --

PAT: Across state lines.

GLENN: -- insurance across state lines. Is there anything like that in it?

PHILIP: I don't see that.

PAT: Wow.

PHILIP: But I don't see that from the initial bill. That might have been -- again, it doesn't mean that it won't end up somewhere. I think the buying across state lines though is kind of a limited type of thing because even in Trump's campaign, if you looked at the details, it said, "As long as you meet your state's requirements," which the whole argument for allowing interstate purchase of insurance was that there were a lot of states before Obamacare that were passing all sorts of mandates to drive up premiums. You had situations in which premiums in New Jersey or New York were double of what they were in neighboring Pennsylvania, just based on all of the regs that they were putting on it.

And so the whole interstate purchase of insurance was to try to get around that. But if you're saying policies have to meet the standards within the state, then it kind of negates that. And I also thinks there's a federalism argument in favor of not doing that and letting states formulate their insurance -- their own insurance gains. If Massachusetts wants to have a health care program in -- that more resembles Obamacare and they're willing to pay for it, then should they be allowed? And isn't it up to their citizens if they're frustrated that premiums are half the price in New Hampshire?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Right.

STU: Philip, we kind of did this in reverse. But can you do a quick outline of what in Obamacare is staying in this bill? Because there's a substantial amount.

GLENN: We have about a minute.

PHILIP: Okay. Basically a lot of the regulations and requirements on insurance. So, for instance, the insurance -- the preexisting condition requirement.

They got rid of the mandate, but they say that, if you go without insurance for a year -- or, for more than two months over the course of a year, you have to pay a 30 percent penalty on your premiums.

GLENN: So the mandate is still there, just a different way?

PHILIP: Yeah. So then there is also -- there's -- they get rid of Obamacare's style of tax credits, but they have a new version of tax credits. So it's another form of subsidization of health insurance. And then the Medicaid expansion, they do -- it seems as though there's still going to be higher funding, relative to what would have been the place before Obamacare. However, it does move toward more of a block grant type of system.

There's some expansion of health savings accounts. But the overall scheme in terms of the requirements on insurance coverage, there's a lot more of that. It still limits the amount that people -- that insurers could charge younger -- older people, relative to younger people. Although, it would expand that to five times as much, instead of three times as much.

So basically in -- in all of the -- it basically, in many ways has less regulation, but still regulation. Lower taxes, but still includes taxes.

GLENN: All right.

STU: Obamacare-lite.

PHILIP: Lower spending, but still has the spending.

GLENN: So we put some bondo on this car and gave it a new paint job, and it's now Trumpcare.

Philip, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Philip Klein.

PHILIP: Thank you.

GLENN: He is the managing editor of the Washington Examiner.

STU: Also, the book Overcoming Obamacare. Three approaches to reversing the government takeover of health care. If you want to read what a good solution would be like, that's a good place to start.

PAT: That's a long title.

GLENN: Well, it's going to remain fiction.

STU: It will be down in the fiction section.

(laughter)

RADIO

Does Pfizer employee’s MELTDOWN hint at HUGE pharma secrets?

When Jordan Trishton Walker, an alleged director with Pfizer, realized he’d been caught in a honeytrap by Project Veritas, he went into FULL MELTDOWN mode. Glenn plays the Project Veritas video in this clip, arguing that 1) This man — no matter what his position with Pfizer may be — should immediately be fired and 2) Though we don’t know if the information he provided is correct, it’s likely Pfizer IS conducting gain of function research to further vaccine development. And that MUST be stopped.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So let me take you back a few days ago.

Pfizer is caught honestly in a honey pot trap. Somebody from Project Veritas. You know, gets on the radar of this guy who is -- his name is Jordan Walker. He's not a nobody. This is -- this -- let me give you his title. He is the Pfizer director of research and development.

Okay. The director of research and development.

He is strategic operations. And mRNA scientific planning. So he's the top of the food chain on this.

And he's out on a date. And he's talking to this guy.

Now, the guy is not like, oh, really?

That is so cool.

You can hear him say, but is that a good idea?

All right. Listen to how flippantly he talks about this, and what he is saying. This is -- and this is only 40 seconds out of ten minutes, that need to be heard.

Okay. Listen.

VOICE: The story will not -- you know the virus keeps mutating?

VOICE: Yeah.

VOICE: Well, one of the things of your story, why don't we just mutate ourselves, so we can focus on developing new vaccines. Right?

So if we're going to do that though, there's a risk of like -- as you can imagine, no one wants to be having a Pharma company.

VOICE: Yeah.

VOICE: Do we want to do this?

That's one of the things we're considering in the future.

Like maybe -- groceries in the backseat. Things like that.

VOICE: Okay. So Pfizer is ultimately thinking about mutating COVID.

VOICE: Well, that not only saying to the public, no.

I mean, that's -- there's a thought that came up in a meeting, and we're like, why don't we not -- it's like, we're going to consider that. More discussions. And exactly, actually. We're like, wait a minute. People are like that.

GLENN: So he's not saying they are doing it. He said, they're considering it. It's one of the options.

Okay. I believe that, 100 percent. If we, again, are in a meeting, and all options are on the table. What do we do to fight this?

Somebody would say that. Why don't we get ahead of it. But he's like, yeah. Why don't we?

We still have to talk about it. No, no, no.

We don't mutate viruses to be able to come up with a vaccine that will fight that virus.

That's a really bad idea.

Stop it.

He goes on to talk about monkey testing. And how it's done with monkeys. And how all of this.

Now, this comes out. And Project Veritas. James O'Keefe confronts him like -- I don't know. In a Starbucks or someplace.

He's at a restaurant. James O'Keefe sits down. And starts to ask him questions.

What you're interest to see, is the director of research at one of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies, out there. Freaking out.

Really freaking out. Go ahead, roll it.
(music)

VOICE: Is this seat taken?

VOICE: You work for Pfizer. My question to you is why does Pfizer want to hide from the public, the fact that they're mutating the COVID and (inaudible) viruses.

VOICE: I'm literally a liar.

VOICE: I was trying to impress a person on a date, by lying. This is absurd.

VOICE: Please, don't touch me.

VOICE: Well, this is not --

VOICE: Don't tell anybody.

VOICE: Literally he's just working and trying to --

GLENN: Stop here.

Why are you doing this?

You're just talking to a man who is literally just trying to save lives.

Okay. No. You might be trying to save lives. Mengele was trying to save lives.

STU: I don't know Mengele was trying to save lives.

GLENN: I understand that. I'm using an extreme to make the point.

STU: Right.

GLENN: There are lines that you don't want to cross. Mengele crossed a thousand-plus. Okay?

Is Pfizer crossing a pretty big line, in saying, well, you know, maybe we should mutate it?

Now, if you're also a responsible human being and you knew how much trust you had lost, and you're a director of Pfizer, you're not out on a date, lying about mutating viruses.

That shows, you have absolutely no idea how your company is being perceived. Real or not. And you are just playing into everything that people are already starting to say about you.

You should be fired just for that.

STU: I think that's true. I mean, he should definitely be fired. Even if his answer is completely true.

I mean, certainly, this is going to surprise many women in the audience. But occasionally men do lie on dates, when they're trying to sleep with the person that they're sitting across from. So it's not entirely -- what this is valuable for is it gives us a thread to pull out. Right? What is really going on?

And this gives us a direction. Which, by the way, with a Republican House, that has investigatory -- investigatory power. Which is important, right?

So this is a way you can -- you can -- something you can look for, here. It's possible, he's lying.

Maybe he was. It's a weird way, to try to sweet talk a date.

Hey, we might start another pandemic. I don't know.

GLENN: And you heard the date was not like, oh, tell me more.

STU: One thing I will tell you more about this.

GLENN: So hot with the monkey talk.

STU: With Project Veritas. As far as I know, eventually release the entire thing.

And I think there's a possibility here, in another part of the video, he's sounding super skeptical or giving some indication, that would lead you to believe maybe his excuses a little bit more valid. Like, he's trying to show that side of him. Perhaps. But that does not --

GLENN: Please make note how this show always --

STU: I'm trying.

GLENN: Gives the benefit of the doubt.

STU: I want to understand.

GLENN: All times.

STU: And look, I think your main point there is true.

Would you -- if you were Pfizer, want this guy working for you, even if what he is saying, is true?

I was just lying on a date, to sleep with some dude?

GLENN: Again, not just some guy. All right?

This is the director of research. All right.

STU: Yeah. It's bad.

GLENN: So now he starts to go a little ballistic. You're going to see someone absolutely lose their mind. And you tell me, if this is reasonable behavior from an officer in Pfizer. Watch.

VOICE: (bleep) off. You really did --

GLENN: He said, I'm feeling very safe.

And he's asking you to lock the doors. He grabs the -- he's down on his hands and knees. And he's trying to destroy this i Pad.

Look at him.

VOICE: I lock the door.

STU: Whoa. Who pushed him at the end there?

GLENN: I don't know. It was obviously some --

STU: It was a big altercation.

GLENN: He was trying to grab stuff, trying to destroy things. I mean, I don't know this. But your i Pad usually does not have all of the information alone.

STU: It's called the cloud.

GLENN: It's called the cloud.

But that guy was out of control.

STU: That -- you know, there's probably legal questions about what he did, in that -- in that video there.

I mean, certainly, taking someone else's property and smashing it. Is a legal issue, above and beyond whether you'll get fired or not.

GLENN: So now, his statement is, I'm not even a scientist. Why would anyone take me seriously?

I don't know if you've checked your card, director of research.

STU: Now, there is some skepticism on that claim.

Now, Project Veritas tried to release some documents, that indicate it's true. Some people who are super skeptical on Pfizer and the vaccine are pointing out, there's a lot of inconsistencies in this guy's bio.

And the question is whether it was actually true, that he was that high of a level there.

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know it's been determined yet.

GLENN: That he should be cleaning out his desk yesterday.

STU: A degree in neurology, I believe. Which is, again, not necessarily the person you would think, would be the director of COVID vaccine research.

It doesn't completely add up. But these are just -- again, what's valuable about this, is just like, what thread are we pulling at?

What roads are we going down? If Pfizer is doing this.

The bigger problem maybe, is that this is not illegal. Remember, the ban on gain-of-function research. Was a ban by the Obama administration, that stopped public funding for gain-of-function research.

Didn't ban it. Didn't make it illegal. Trump lifted the ban on funding, and then put it back in after COVID happened.

But that funding ban is different than saying Pfizer just can't do it. They could just do this.

Now, we don't know that they're doing it. We don't know -- he kind of says, this might happen in the future.

But this is a bigger problem. We need to stop companies from even doing this.

GLENN: And if anyone thinks that's not happening.

You're -- you're living in a dream world.

STU: Well, it's legal.

We know it's happening. That's a huge problem.

GLENN: I know that. But they denied it with EcoHealth and everything else. And EcoHealth, we now know our government was paying for research that EcoHealth was doing in Wuhan, which was the gain-of-function research.

We know it now. We know it. There's proof positive of it. Everything we said, is true.

Now, we had the documents. But nobody paid attention to it, a year or year and a half ago, whenever we did that special on COVID.

We had the documents on EcoHealth. Our government is funding it. And we know it.

And we also know that more money has gone to EcoHealth, since COVID came out, from Fauci.

So it's going on. This has got to stop. It's got to stop.

We -- we are going to wipe humanity out.

I -- I swear to you, I feel like, you know the Seed Vault up in, what? Norway, Sweden, or up at the top of the world. I feel like we should just freeze some humans and put them in the seed vault. Because of all the things that we're doing, man. It's not good.

STU: Okay. Can I pick the humans?

GLENN: Can I be in? Just freeze me, please?

RADIO

Attorney: THIS is what’s DEEPLY wrong with new ATF gun rule

A new ATF ruling may turn as many as 40 MILLION Americans into felons. The rule, which concerns firearm pistol braces, doesn’t leave law-abiding gun owners with many options to obey: Either destroy the firearm, turn it in, or apply for a tax stamp that likely would take years to receive — within the next 120 days. Stephen Stamboulieh, Attorney for Gun Owners of America, joins Glenn to explain exactly what’s going on at the ATF, how YOU might avoid felony charges if affected, and specifically what it is about this new ruling makes him ‘wholly uncomfortable.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: We have Stephen Stamboulieh, on the phone with us. Stephen, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

STEPHEN: I'm doing well. It's an honor to talk to you, Glenn, and even Stu.

STU: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: And even Stu.

STU: Don't lower yourself, Stephen. It's terrible.

GLENN: I've lost so much respect for you already. Hey, I watched your YouTube show, I think it was from the shot show last week.

STEPHEN: Yes.

GLENN: And I am trying to even understand what is going on, with the pistol brace rule. Because this could make 40 million Americans felons.

STEPHEN: Right.

GLENN: Has -- has this -- is this -- is this in effect now, as the clock started to tick. Where are we on this?

STEPHEN: Okay. So on Friday the 13th, they put out this final rule. But did not publish it in the Federal Register. I got back late Friday night.

I have not even checked the Federal Register, to see if it's, quote, published in the Federal Register.

But publishing it in the Federal Register, starts the clock ticking for you to do the things you need to do, to either remain compliant with the law.
Or their new law, that they just created.

Because, well, they hate all of us. Or, you know, turn in your rifle. Your pistol, whatever.

Or just ignore it, and become a felon. And go spend some time.

GLENN: Jeez.

Okay. So it could have started? We don't know yet. We can find out.

Can you see -- how do you check the Federal Register? I don't even -- how do you do that? Can the average person do that?

STEPHEN: Yeah. And that's exactly what they say. Is the average person has -- their -- their -- I can't even remember the exact language. But once it's published in the Federal Register, everyone is just deemed to be on notice, that it's been published on the Federal Register. And have knowledge of what's in the Federal Register. Even though most people don't have this masochistic streak, where they want to punish themselves by reading thousands of pages of bureaucratic regulations.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: I'm just about -- I'm on the page to search for it.

And there's 908,512 documents, which surely, I know everything that is in those documents.

GLENN: Well, you would if you were responsible and you check it every morning, like I do.

So what do you search for in this? Do you just search for, you know, bad guns?

STU: Evil gun.

GLENN: The -- the stabilizing braces?

STEPHEN: Stabilizing braces, correct.

GLENN: Okay. Look for stabilizing braces. Okay.

So once this has been published, we have 120 days to either get rid of the gun. Let me actually read this to you. This was the way it was pushed today.

Let's see, that you can get rid of the brace. Destroy -- get the tax stamp. Which is impossible. And you can explain that later. At least in time to comply.

Or destroy the pistol brace. Or you can -- or you can turn your if one into the ATF. I don't even know where the ATF is. Or you can go to prison.

So can we destroy the pistol brace?


STEPHEN: So they say that you can destroy the pistol brace. And the ATF has various methods of how you're supposed to destroy it. I mean, the easiest thing would be to crush it up. Throw it away, right?

But, yeah. That is one of your options. You can absolutely destroy your firearm, if you're so inclined to do. And you can 100 percent turn in your firearms to the ATF. I'm sure they would appreciate free guns.

GLENN: Oh, free guns. Last thing.

STEPHEN: Right. Well, for them. Right. The other thing they tell us to do, is since they're so kind. And so gracious. They're going to allow us this one time opportunity to get a free tax stamp. And, Glenn, you spoke about how hard it was to get a tax stamp. You know, you're looking at over -- over a year wait.

I mean, it's like a year wait right now. Before they want to add --

GLENN: 40 million. Right.

STEPHEN: Right. And if you take the ATF number, it's 3 million. If you take congressional research services, you know, bipartisan. They say up to 40 million.

Let's go with 40 million, right? Or anywhere in between, it doesn't matter. They're going to over -- just completely inundate the system with people trying to comply, right?

Because most citizens want to comply with the law, so they don't get their door kicked in. Their dog shot. And their gun seized. So, yeah. It's not going to happen within a year. I mean, maybe two years.

GLENN: Maybe. And you are a felon, if you have it, in those two years. Correct?

Even if they apply.

STEPHEN: So the way they say this. And this is what gives me so much heartburn over this. They're saying, we were wrong when we told you over and over and over again, that a braced pistol is not a short-barreled rifle.

It's always been a short-barreled rifle. We just said the wrong thing. And it's our bad, sorry.

So you're a felon if you have it now. But since we're such nice people. If you go through the process of registering it, right?

So you go and you do your E form one, or your paper form. Whatever. And you submit this to the ETF, along with your photographs and your fingerprints. Your address. And a picture of a firearm.

We will deem you to be in compliance, even though you have a short-barreled rifle. Because you've said it's a short barreled rifle.

Because they said it's a short-barreled rifle, and you don't have a tax stamp for it.

You are for saying in violation of the law.

But they're going to use their enforcement discretion to not come after you, assuming you do the things they tell you to do.

GLENN: Well, the ATF has also warned, reading from the article.

Americans with Pistol Braces are likely already violating the National Firearms Act by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches.

To they're -- they're already saying, yeah. Even if you're doing all this, you're probably already a felon. This is madness.

STEPHEN: You're already committing the crime. You've committed the crime, by having, with their new definition, a brace pistol that fits into one of their multiple subjective criteria. You are committing the felony now.

And that's why they use enforcement discretion. Because you only use enforcement discretion, if you're violating the law. There's no need to use enforcement discretion, if you're not in violation of any law.

Because there's nothing to enforce.

GLENN: So let me -- so what do we do?

Because I don't think -- I mean, this can't pass a test in the courts.

I mean, it would maybe in California or New York.

But it's not going to -- even the ninth circuit, would probably even overturn this. Do we have time -- what do you do? Do you just sit here and wait it out?

STEPHEN: You know, that's a good question. What do you do? I'm wholly uncomfortable admitting to the ATF, that I have committed a felony, even though they said, they're not going to prosecute me. And their enforcement discretion. Because that changes. You've seen from almost everything the ATF does. They constantly change their minds. Along at the bump stocks. Look at the 80 percent lowers. Now look at the pistol brace. They have a demonstrable history of being wrong, and changing their mind on everything. So what's to stop them from changing their mind on enforcement discretion or saying, well, Mr. Beck, you just didn't do it good enough, and now we're going to prosecute you.

So, I mean, to answer your question, what did you do?

I mean, there's going to be some organization that will be suing them on this. Pretty soon.

GLENN: Okay. I can't imagine what that organization would be. But...

Okay.

STEPHEN: Right. Right. It's a secret to everybody.

GLENN: Yeah. It wouldn't be the gun owners of America, I'll tell you that right now.

Okay. So some organization is going to be suing them.

And how is that -- how long is that going to take?

STEPHEN: Well, it depends on -- on -- on -- oh, gosh.

So many different things.

You know, we would -- the organization would absolutely seek a temporary restraining order in a preliminary injunction throughout the litigation. Right?

So if that organization could get the rule held in, you know, abeyance law.

The court is deciding whether or not, the ATF can willy-nilly change its mind on everything.

Within 120 days, we would expect to have some kind of answer.

And 120 days is plenty enough time for the court to decide, whether or not to hold -- hold a rule, and, you know, just enjoying it, pending litigation.

I mean, it's plenty of time for them to do that.

STEPHEN: And it gives them 120 days. And it gives you lots of opportunity, in case they go against you. Can you give -- like, for instance, I live in two different counties. And I love my sheriffs.

And, you know, until this thing is worked out. Can I just go to my sheriff and say, here take this.

You can use this.

If it turns out to be a felony to own it, you guys take it. And you guys use it.

But I -- I don't want to possess it.

Because I am -- I would be the perfect target. You know what I mean?

They're not going to throw 40 million people in prison. But they will throw maybe a couple of hundred.

And that will teach everyone else. You can do this to them. We're coming for you.

STEPHEN: Right. You can absolutely turn it into your sheriff for, quote, safekeeping. While you're paying attention to what we're doing in the courts, to see if we're successful in the courts. I don't know why we wouldn't be.

I mean, this is just so --

GLENN: Obvious.

STEPHEN: It's like the definition of arbitrary and capricious. If you open up a dictionary, it would have a picture of the ATF right there.

GLENN: Yeah. But you would also have -- if this passes, then they can say, all semiautomatics.

I mean, Joe Biden is already saying, semiautomatic handguns are a problem. There's no use for them. That's every gun sold, unless you're buying an old western gun.

STEPHEN: Right. And that's funny that you say that. It just jogged my memory. I think it was the Sixth Circuit GOA bump stock case, the senior deputy counsel for DOJ could not answer whether or not all semiautomatic firearms were machine guns. Like all AR-15s.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STEPHEN: When the court asked him, h's like, I'm not prepared to answer them. And I thought, well, by God, that's a really easy question. No. The answer is no.

GLENN: Right. Right. But if you don't answer it now, you can answer it when you do it in a rule.

I mean, is this the first time that you've seen something that hasn't had a grandfather clause in it?

STEPHEN: No. Because look at bump stocks, right? After Trump directed the DOJ and the ATF to basically strike bump stocks with a pen. You know, all of them, turn them in. Mr. and Mrs. America. You're now felons.

And you've always -- this bump stock. Even though we said, prior to this, it was legal. One hundred percent legal, not a machine gun.

I know this is a common theme with the ATF.

We were wrong. And they are actually machine guns, and we are going to use our enforcement discretion, not to come after you.

However, you can't register them, because 18 USC 9220 does not allow you to have new machine guns, just prior to 1986 machine guns.

GLENN: Okay. So --

STEPHEN: You can still own a machine gun.

GLENN: Does the fact that that wasn't challenged, or did it lose --

STU: Can we say the fact that Republicans have rolled over as Trump did this and said nothing about it.

GLENN: Right. Does that hurt us on this now?

STU: Now there's more precedent for it.

GLENN: Well, what's great about the bump stock stuff, is in the Sixth Circuit, GOA 1 at the panel.

At like the three-judge panel stage, and basically, the court really just called out the ATF. And said, you can't do this. And then when -- basically, the full court. They evenly split, and an even split say bad thing. If you lose in the trial court.

Because what it does, is it affirms the trial court ruling, because the -- the court couldn't free on how it was. However, a Fifth Circuit came in for the win a couple weeks ago in the cargo case.

And basically, involved 13-3, told the ATF, bump stocks are not machine guns.

So, you know -- you know, your move to ATF.

So the circuits are split on that because all of the different circuits can't agree. And what does that do?

It sets you up for the perfect Supreme Court case.

Because you can't have Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, apply one federal law one way, and then the other states applying it a different way.

So the Supreme Court is going to have to step in and resolve that circuit split. Because that's a pretty big deal.

STU: Of course, all these companies that are making these things are now out of business. Right?

You know, three years down the line.

Yeah. It's like -- this is the process, which is the punishment half the time.

GLENN: So we've been talking about Stephen Stamboulieh. And he's with the Gun Owners of America.

You can follow all of the information at gunowners.org. Gunowners.org. Or you can follow Stephen on his Twitter handle @Stambo2A. I like -- Stambo2A.

Stephen, thank you so much, I appreciate it. We'll talk to you again.

STEPHEN: Yes, sir. Take care.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Modern Scottish Warrior Goes 'BRAVEHEART' on Elites | Neil Oliver | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 171

Neil Oliver — a Scottish television presenter, historian, and author — is one of the courageous people willing to let his “no” mean “no.” At the height of his impressive career as a TV presenter, he realized the people promising the solutions to our problems are the same people responsible for them. But instead of bending the knee to the status quo, he became a modern “Braveheart” hero and defiantly said, “No,” to the tyranny of BLM, woke politics, and COVID lockdowns: “We're not extreme, THEY’RE extreme.” On this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Glenn talks to Neil about the difficulties he has experienced ever since he began standing up for what's right and details how you can stand up as well. They also dive into Neil’s fiery reactions to BLM, the rewriting of history, and the odd phenomenon of “excess deaths.” On any and all of it, Neil’s stance could not be any clearer: “I just believe in freedom.”

RADIO

Glenn Breaks Down Bodycam Footage from Paul Pelosi Attack | Friday Exclusive | Ep 248

The bodycam footage of the attack on Paul Pelosi was finally released — over two months after the altercation occurred. But first, on today's Friday Exclusive, Glenn flashes back to the original, now-deleted, NBC News report that left us with more questions than answers. Then, he breaks down the recently released bodycam footage that some of America's most powerful seemingly tried to keep from going public. Finally, Glenn asks, "Why was this footage not immediately released when it could have cleared up all the confusion and controversies?" The lack of credibility and trust throughout society is getting out of control, and the delayed release of this footage may make it all worse.