GLENN

Read the Fine Print: iTunes Is NOT Liable if You Start a Nuclear War

Don't even think about blaming iTunes for that nuclear war you're about to start. You can't hold them liable. It's in the fine print of the terms and conditions you agreed to but didn't read.

Filmmaker Cullen Hoback, director of the documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply, has read the fine print, and he joined Glenn in studio today for an enlightening --- and frightening --- conversation about your online privacy.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Cullen, welcome to the program. How are you?

CULLEN: Oh, very good today. Glad to be in studio.

GLENN: Yeah, it's nice to have you here.

We wanted to talk to you about this ISP discussion that was going on last week with the government rolling it back. And we had a discussion here that I don't like the government getting involved in private relationships. I have a relationship with a company. If I don't like it, I'll go switch to another company.

CULLEN: Right.

GLENN: You are saying that there's a difference between that and -- and Apple. The ISP is different than Apple.

CULLEN: Well, I mean, the ISP is very different than a Google or a Facebook, right? Because with a company like Google, it's a search engine company, primarily. They also provide email. But you can go to some other search engine.

GLENN: Ask Jeeves.

CULLEN: Yeah, you can -- Ask Jeeves, if you wanted to. And same with Facebook. There are other social media tools out there, and they're free.

An ISP, we're already paying, you know, however much they can charge us, depending on how much competition is in the region. Right? And many people only have one option, especially when it comes to a higher speed broadband. So what we're essentially saying now is that, you know, you get the internet or you don't. And if you want the internet, well, everything you do online now is the property of that internet provider.

PAT: As far as terms and conditions do apply. How did this start with you? Did you just -- were you curious about what all these rules and regulations were that we were agreeing to, and then you started reading them? How did this begin?

GLENN: It was a lot of boring reading.

GLENN: I bet it was.

PAT: So you actually did read the terms and conditions that do apply?

CULLEN: I did.

PAT: Wow. You are the one.

(chuckling)

CULLEN: And that actually -- in fact, actually a lot of these companies just copy and paste other company's terms and conditions.

PAT: Do they really?

CULLEN: Yeah. They don't -- yeah, this happens.

PAT: Word-for-word. And so how long are these things generally? And what's the longest you've seen?

CULLEN: Gosh, it's between Apple and LinkedIn. LinkedIn has some of the most egregious concerns. And Apple is out to protect themselves. They're not really in the business of taking your data because they're trying to sell you a really expensive product.

PAT: Right.

CULLEN: So Apple, you'll just read through everything they've got. I mean, they go to the extent to protect themselves from an incident where you may use their technology to start a nuclear war.

GLENN: Seriously?

CULLEN: Yeah, if you read in their terms, yeah, they say, we are not responsible if our technology -- you are not allowed to use it for this purpose. Therefore, if you do, we are not liable.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: What -- what could I possibly buy on iTunes that could start a nuclear war?

STU: Well, the documentary War Games.

CULLEN: Talk to Kim Jong-un. It's a message just for him.

GLENN: That's amazing. So how much trouble are we in with privacy? For instance, Stu and I used to be the biggest advocate of -- of keeping our fingerprints sacred. You're not -- no, you're not taking my fingerprints. And we've handed them over.

And we actually don't mind it now because we're so mentally lazy.

PAT: In fact, Stu loves it.

STU: I was telling Cullen off the air. Because I had him on Wonderful World of Stu, I don't know, three years ago or something. It was right when the fingerprint thing came out for iPhones and I didn't have it yet. And I remember it was kind of a story at the time, of, wow, you're putting your fingerprint in these things. And it's digital. And maybe it is locally stored. But, still, it was like another step of you, you were giving up to technology.

And at the time, we were talking about that, and I was critical of it in that like -- just like, this kind of freaks me out. Now, the one-tenth of a second that saves me every time I log into my phone is irreplaceable. I would fall on my sword to defend it. And because at any time you can improve convenience just a little bit, these things seem to go down the tubes.

CULLEN: And you're right. With each step, we're just turning up the heat up a little bit more. You know, the Constitution guarantees us a reasonable right to privacy. So what is our reasonable expectation of privacy?

And when we come to accept fingerprint scanning, or we come to accept going through an airport or having some kind of naked monitoring of our bodies, the bar keeps getting pushed back. And so now I think when it comes to all of the technologies that we're using, our experiences online, what are we willing to accept?

And I think that it's very difficult right now for people to feel the cost of digital services spying on them. Because they can't see it.

And what you can't see is hard to feel.

GLENN: Like what don't we -- what should we feel every time?

CULLEN: I mean, you should feel like a bunch of -- hundreds of weird people you've never met are looking through your -- through your window, rifling through your diary, getting into your brain and trying to know you better than you know yourself.

PAT: And they truly are doing this. They're going through all our stuff?

CULLEN: Everything.

PAT: Or is it just there, and they could go through it if they wanted to?

CULLEN: Well, there's not some person sitting around --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And they're not looking at Pat, per se.

CULLEN: Yeah.

GLENN: They're looking at metadata.

PAT: Habits, trends.

CULLEN: Well, who is they?

GLENN: I don't know. You're the one with the conspiracy theory.

CULLEN: I mean, you have the companies. Right? And then you have the government. And there really is no separation between the two.

PAT: Really?

STU: That's a big problem.

GLENN: Why do you say that?

PAT: So the government has access to the things that Google and Apple collect?

CULLEN: Yes. I mean, this is what Edward Snowden and the PRISM program showed us, is that there was backdoor access.

PAT: That changes the whole thing. Wow.

CULLEN: And there's something called the third party doctrine. And it's the ruling from the early '80s, which says, if you give your information to a third party, a Google, a Facebook, a bank, you've given up your right to control that information.

PAT: And that includes going to the government? Holy cow.

CULLEN: Yeah, it's way easier for the government to go to one of those companies and get our information. They can get it directly from us. There's virtually no firewall there.

PAT: Let's get into the time tunnel, Glenn, and go back three days. Now how do you feel? Because that changes it, right? That changes it. Because the government is involved. It's not just selling to private companies. The government does have access, right?

STU: But the problem you have there is the firewall between government and corporation.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah, I still don't think the government should be passing laws. I mean, that's just like passing another bad gun law. Pass the right law. Put a firewall in between the government and the private companies.

STU: And we've argued with that on the Snowden -- with all the Snowden information. I mean, we disagreed with a lot of people who would be conservative in the audience and a lot of the candidates that ran last year. Because a lot of them embraced that sort of NSA needs to be seeing everything you're doing.

GLENN: No.

STU: And we're not on that bandwagon. The conversation initially started here -- it's an interesting one in that with this ISP ruling where they're talking about -- can your ISP sell the data? Pat was arguing I think the same way you're arguing. No, you have this agreement. And we were kind of arguing, I don't want the government involved in that. I don't want the government to make a rule saying they can't --

PAT: To mandate. Uh-huh.

STU: And my issue with that is, while I agree with you, it's a terrible policy. And it should be one of those things that they shouldn't do. They should not sell your data.

But even if -- let's just take it to a crazy extreme. There's only one provider. And they say everything that you search for, we're going to publicly put on our Twitter page with your name and face. And we're going to identify every aspect of what you've done online publicly every single time and we're you're only option.

Still, the government does not have a role there. Because of the fact that the government does not give you the right to get on the internet. If a corporation decides to build the infrastructure that lets you get on the internet, well, then they can put the terms that they want to allow you to access. It's not the government's job to guarantee you access.

GLENN: And, Pat, I want to just say that my argument hasn't changed. Your argument has changed. You're saying because the government --

PAT: No, it hasn't, Glenn. No, it hasn't. Your argument has changed.

GLENN: You're saying that, well, now, Glenn, your argument has changed because the government can get it. Well, no, what he's saying is, the government is getting it whether they sell it or not. The government is getting it. So the problem is not selling it. The problem is the government is getting it.

PAT: But still -- it's still a problem for me, but...

GLENN: Right.

CULLEN: Well, I think the factor here -- I think we can all agree we like the Constitutions.

STU: We're fans.

GLENN: Yes, big fans.

PAT: Yes.

CULLEN: Right now, the Constitution doesn't apply online.

GLENN: Anything.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: The Fourth Amendment in particular.

CULLEN: Yeah, it doesn't follow us into the digital realm. And so when the government I think passes laws related to the Constitution on the internet, we're not talking about egregious regulations, we're talking about constitutional regulation, which is different. It's different -- in essence, they're blocking themselves from easily getting access to this information.

PAT: Uh-huh.

CULLEN: Though, ISPs are required to retain -- I think we should be moving more in the direction of ways to stop the government from being able to access this information.

GLENN: Yes, I agree. I agree.

CULLEN: That's --

GLENN: Because the Constitution is a document on what the government can do, not what a private corporation can do.

PAT: Can't do. Yeah. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Or can't do. So I don't have a right to privacy in my -- I have an implied contract of privacy with Apple. But not a constitutional right to privacy with Apple. That's the government.

I have a constitutional right to privacy with the government. And they're not fulfilling that in any way, shape, or form. And they're trying to look like they're great guys by saying, "Oh, look, we're protecting your privacy with the ISP.

No, you're not. You're not -- you're not filling your fundamental mandate of the Fourth Amendment in the first place. So which is all just a puppet show.

CULLEN: So if there was a -- say your phone provider suddenly developed a tool where they could hear all of your thoughts and maybe they didn't tell you that this is -- this was going on.

GLENN: Yes.

CULLEN: Is there then a role for the government to say, no, you can't record people's thoughts and not let them know about that?

GLENN: If they didn't tell people, then yes. But I think there would be such an uproar that this phone company had installed this and didn't let anybody know about it.

CULLEN: So many years ago when I first made Terms and Conditions, I discovered it wasn't me. There were lots of technologies who knew -- there were keyloggers recording every single thing that we do on our phones. All of it without our knowledge. There was never uproar.

PAT: Wow. Did we agree to that in their terms and conditions?

CULLEN: No. No.

But they would have some way to justify it. If you're a good lawyer, you can kind of come up with some wishy-washy way to describe it. But they weren't specifically saying, we're recording every stroke.

GLENN: Does the AI thing bother you at all, there at that there doesn't seem to be any restraint on anyone anymore. Especially in technology. It's -- it's not should we do it? It's, can we do it? Can it be done? Yeah. Okay. Do it.

There's no -- there's no -- there doesn't seem to be real ethics applied on a lot of things. And when we get into AI. We're starting to get into territory now that things are going to change so rapidly. And we're really going to be boxed in to -- I mean, you know, fingerprints, six years ago. We're not going to use fingerprints. How dare you -- now -- because it's convenient. Brave New World was correct. Not 1984. They're just packaging everything the way we want it. Is there any concern with you on where we're headed?

CULLEN: I mean, if you look at what's happening with privacy since basically the advent of the internet, the march is moving more and more towards this kind of idea of total transparency. But that total transparency doesn't seem to apply to the government.

PAT: That's for sure.

CULLEN: So it's -- they want us to be as transparent as possible, have as much access to everything we're doing.

GLENN: Should be the opposite way. We should be --

CULLEN: Yeah, who is watching the watchers?

GLENN: Right.

CULLEN: And when you talk about this kind of technology, it is in direct relationship to how much information is shared and captured in the background. It's part of Google's master plan. It's why they want us to share all of our searches and desires with them.

GLENN: Right. Edward Snowden, hero, traitor, somewhere in between?

CULLEN: It's somewhere -- it's somewhere in between.

I consider him a patriot. He -- he made that decision, not for his own benefit. He lived a pretty sweet life in Hawaii, making a pretty decent wage, with a -- with a pretty hot girlfriend. So things were not bad for him. I'm going to tell you they were a lot worse in Russia for him right now than they were before.

GLENN: Sure. Sure.

CULLEN: I think what's a challenge here for him or for me at least what he did -- he released documents that were beyond just domestic spying. So you had released the documents related to Angela Merkel.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

CULLEN: You had released the documents related to spy programs abroad.

And that's where I think things start to get kind of gray. I wish he just focused on domestic. But, again, we're talking about one individual. Tens of thousands of documents. It was difficult for him to go through that. And he trusted a news outlet to then, you know, disseminate information in a way that was responsible. So that's where I think it's gray.

STU: What I find so incredible is that we went through the Snowden thing. All the conspiracy theories leading up to that would have said, this is happening. This is happening. And then Edward Snowden shows that it was actually happening.

GLENN: And nobody cared.

STU: And we still are going down this road faster and faster and faster.

GLENN: Is that crazy?

CULLEN: I thought everything was going to change after Edward Snowden came out with those documents. I was so hopeful.

PAT: Not at all.

CULLEN: And the only thing that Congress passed was something that separates their ability to directly have metadata. And now it's in the hands of the company. But we know that they can easily just get it from the -- that's all that really changed.

GLENN: It's crazy.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: Everything since the last -- since Snowden and this last election, everything I thought about the American people, I'm like, no. Uh-huh.

PAT: We don't know them at all.

STU: Oh, crap.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, you keep using that word "American people," I do not think it means what you think it means.

Thank you so much for being on with us. Appreciate it.

PAT: Really fascinating.

CULLEN: Yeah, glad I was in town.

STU: Where should people go to check out your stuff?

CULLEN: Oh, sure. Well, this film was Terms and Conditions May Apply. The new one is What Lies Upstream. And actually, I was in Dallas, at the Dallas International Film Festival with this new --

STU: Very cool.

CULLEN: Again, it's investigating corruption at the top level.

PAT: Is it coming out in theaters? Or the internet? How is it being released?

CULLEN: It will be in theaters. It will be on TV come the fall.

PAT: Awesome.

CULLEN: Yeah, there's lots of ways to see it.

GLENN: Good. Send us a preview copy. So we can see it. I would love to see it.

CULLEN: Will do. We'll have a spirited conversation about corruption at the EPA.

GLENN: You'll be back. You'll be back.

JEFFY: I'm sure that's zero.

GLENN: Thank you so much.

CULLEN: Sure.

BEHIND THE SCENES

'This is how I spend my vacation': Glenn gives behind-the-scenes look at new radio theme recording

If you have ever wondered where Glenn gets the music for his radio show or assumed he used pre-made stock music or cheap computer software, now you know, it’s the real deal. Glenn's vacation technically started this week, but that couldn't keep him away from his natural habitat—the recording studio—where he spent several hours working on an updated radio theme track with pro composer Sam Cardon and Millennial Choirs & Orchestras (MCO).

Glenn was looking for something that sounded more urgent, and from the preview Glenn shared, it sounds like the creative team nailed it. The epic score sounds like it would easily feel at home in a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars film.

The new theme will be on air at a future date, but if you can’t wait, make sure to watch the video for a sneak peak!

RADIO

Glenn's message to his son's birth mom: THANK YOU

‘I truly thank God for living in these times,’ Glenn says. ‘Look at the miracles that are happening,’ he adds, just moments after the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade. No matter how much America changes, it’s still the greatest place on earth…and the Supreme Court victories we’ve witnessed in the last week — by justices who truly value the Constitution — prove it, Glenn explains. But there’s still work to be done. Glenn shares a story about his son’s birth mom — a teenager who decided to give her baby a chance to live — and he gives a message for us all: Now is a time for compassion toward ALL pregnant women, no matter the decisions they make...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I -- I just walked outside. I have a barn here on the ranch. And it's where my broadcast studio is. And I just walked out to get some fresh air a few minutes ago. And it's -- this is a day that you will remember where you were. Whatever side you were on, you will remember this day. And I walk outside, and my son and another guy standing by this enormous tractor. And he is hitching it up to a trailer. Because they're moving a bunch of logs from one field to another, because they're building a corral. And I don't have my glasses on. And I'm looking. And I'm like, is that Raphe? And I can't -- I'm not sure. Because he's a man. This is the first summer, where he's up here. And he is a man. And it was an interesting thought to have about my son. Who now, in a couple months. Eighteen years ago. A very brave young teenager decided not to have an abortion. Decided that he had nothing to do with her mistake, or whatever happened.

And I remember we prayed so hard for a baby. And I felt almost from the beginning. That we were supposed to adopt.
And this is really hard for moms. Really hard. Baby not from her body. And I think as guys we don't understand that. Because I don't want anything coming out of my body. And if something comes out of my body, I'm not putting it in swaddling clothes, I'm telling you that. And we both wanted her -- how is this going to work? And there is something about God, that he is my son. And there is no difference between him and any of my other children. None. Zero. Not even a shadow.
Just by chance. If his birth mother happens to be listening or his birth grandparents happen to be listening, thank you. Thank you for giving this young man a chance to live. He is -- well, he's been a pain in the ass. But he's also my greatest joy.
We have to look at the things that we do now. Because there's a lot of -- she was 14, I think. Imagine being a 14-year-old. I remember she called her mom, because she -- she went to school. And she had to tell her mom. But she couldn't look her in the eye and tell her. So she called. Didn't know what her mom would say. And her mom was so great. She immediately said, come home, sweetheart. Come home. And they worked it out together what was going to happen.
People who fight for the right to abort children say, you know, who is going to take care of them? There's lots of us. Lots of us. Millions of us. Millions. Millions of us.
You know, today, Roe vs. Wade was -- it came to an end. Catholics would point out on the -- on the feast of the sacred heart of Jesus. And I doubt that they think that's just a coincidence. Because we know that the heart of Christ, I mean, the only thing he really got smoked at, was children. Being abused. It was clear, he liked children, much more, you know, than us adults. But then, again, I don't blame him. I do too. But we can't just think of the children today that are going to be saved, and then say, that's a good thing.
We have to think of the moms. And, you know, I'm like this with Christians who just really want to get people baptized. They don't really care. It's all about the number. You want to bring somebody closer to God, in baptism, that is a fantastic gift. Not from you. But from God. Fantastic. But no one is going to do that. If you don't actually love them. The people who -- the people who need salvation. They don't think anybody loves them. The women who are pregnant, most, not all. But most, who are pregnant. They feel trapped. They don't know what they're going to do. We have to be there for them. Not just during the time they're pregnant. But if they choose to keep the child. To help them. To support them.
You know, it's so funny. I guess we both give up on, you know, once the baby is aborted. Or the baby is saved. Then society auto both sides kind of just turns away. Planned Parenthood, are they concerned about the mental health? Because they deny it. No, no, no. People are celebrating their abortions. I don't think so. I don't think you can do that. And you may have felt like there was absolutely no way out. But at some point, that's going to -- it will haunt you. What could have been. Think about just the mistakes you will make in your life. And how they bother you. I shouldn't have said that. I mean, there were times in my life, where I said things to my mom, or whatever. I carried those things around for 25 years.
We have to have compassion for -- for all of these women. Now, if you're going to use this for contraception. I don't really -- I don't know how to talk to you. I'll try. But I don't know how I can relate. Because -- but I'm hoping most people aren't like that. I'm hoping that's the anomaly in our society. That just thinks, this is the way to have birth control. And one more thing on birth control.
Why is that still a prescription? I would like to say I'm not a doctor. But technically I am. But I'm not sure why that's still a prescription. Don't we know what that does? I mean, are we pretty sure? Yeah. That's what -- that's what happens. This is all it does. It's a pretty safe drug. Do we not just trust people to use only as directed?
I mean, we -- we trust people. I mean, I see stuff all the time. That says, do not drink. Okay. Well, it's turpentine, so I'm not going to drink it. But thank you for trusting me to know I'm smart enough not to do that. Don't put in eyes. Okay. I'm going to make sure that I don't put that -- you know, that cream in my eyes. Thank you. Good safety tip.
I mean, just making contraception over-the-counter. The pill over-the-counter. Would be helpful. Wouldn't it?
It's a lot better to have them get a pill over-the-counter, like that, than have our daughters or anybody else think about the abortion drug, that the FDA now will make sure that everybody can get. That thing is brutal. That is -- that's brutal.
Anyway, I truly -- as I go on vacation in a minute, I truly thank God for living in these times. It's -- would you live at any other time? I mean, I'm a little selfish. Because I'm a whiner. Absolutely, positively nothing before air-conditioning. Nothing before air-conditioning. I even would say, I want to still live in a time where all my meat comes from a counter on a little plastic, Styrofoam tray. Really, that's about as roughing it, as I want to go. I don't want to go past those two things. Indoor toilets. Yeah. But look at the times we live it in now. The miracles that are happening. The miracles of science. The freedoms that we do have.
I have a guy who is on my staff. He's from Scotland. And once in a while, he gets tired of me hearing, this country is just -- and he's like, come to Scotland. Come to England. He's like, I know it's not what it was. But it's still the greatest place on earth. And it is.
And just the victories, just this week. There's going to be more I think next week. Just the victories in the Supreme Court. And it's not -- it's not because of ideology. It's because the people who are put on the court now, actually respect the Constitution of the United States.
You know, Clarence Thomas and Kagan ruled together, on -- I don't know. Something with Medicare today.
What! I don't think they could agree on a dinner menu. But that's not because Thomas sold out. Or Kagan sold out. I know with Thomas, at least, that's because he believes that's what the Constitution says. And that's what is so great about it.
It doesn't cut your way every time.
You don't always win. You don't always get your way. Today is a great day. Praise God. Praise good we have taken this huge step today.
Lord, see your people. And keep them safe. And keep the people who are actually working in these pro-life clinics. Our judges. Our police. Our cities.
Please, keep them safe.

RADIO

Riots & White House defiance: What may come AFTER Roe ruling

Many members of the far-left already are calling for a ‘Night of Rage’ after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the White House has been discussing plans to defy the ruling too. In fact, one idea floated by Biden Administration officials, according to the New York Times, includes providing abortions on military bases. So, will America experience another summer of riots? Are YOUR taxpayer dollars at risk? And what does this mean for deep-blue states? Josh Hammer, legal expert and opinion editor for Newsweek, joins Glenn to discuss what may come next...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Josh Hammer, he's the opinion editor of Newsweek. He's the host of the Josh Hammer show. He is really quite brilliant. One of the leading minds in the conservative movement, I think. Josh Hammer joins us now.

To tell us, what did you find in this decision?

JOSH: Glenn, great to be back with you, on such a momentous, and really such an emotional day, honestly. So, you know, look, as you said, this dropped recently. Funny enough, I was in the middle of getting a guest lecture from an organization on the advisory board as to when it drops. So I barely had any time to kind of skim through, let alone guess the concerning dissenting opinions. But it looks like this looks very similar, to the draft opinion that was leaked, by the Politico story, a month and a half ago, in early May. And I think those of us who were praying that the five justices from this leaked draft opinion, would have the fortitude to stiffen their spines against this unprecedented assault. Now knows that our prayers were answered, Glenn. That's really my takeaway right now.

This looks a lot like the leaked opinion. Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh have some reconcurring opinions.

But unbelievable. And really just holding aside the constitutional law stuff for a second hear. Just speaking as pro-lifers, on a day like today, I think we really just need to pause. And I tweeted this out earlier. We need to just be grateful for our half century of pro-life activist forbearers. You know, this -- Glenn, this issue could have gone away after 1973. That was a long time ago. 1973. I mean, this issue could have just gone away. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the pro-life moral activist. Political activist. And, of course, yes. Legal activist. Who fought day in and day out, that makes sure this great injustice stayed front and center of our national, political conscience. And in many days, the culmination of a half century of fighting for truth and justice. But in many ways, it's also a new beginning for the pro-life fight as well, interestingly.

STU: How do you mean a new beginning for the fight? I just it's going to turn, I think we're going to see abortion turn even darker in those states that allow it. Is that -- is that what you're meaning by this?

JOSH: Well, look, for a half century now, Roe vs. Wade, and its project any, specifically, the Planned Parenthood versus Casey case of 1992.

They took away from the states obviously. They arrogated authority away from the states, the ability to attempt to nationally codify one view of the morality of abortion.

It happened to be a profoundly immoral view. So these -- the fight now shifts to the states. And the pro-life activists. And all the 50 states. Especially, obviously in red states. Purple states. I mean, admittedly some blue states like New York and California, probably won't be able to touch them there.

But we have to make sure that our side is well positioned in the state Capitols for every red, purplish, probably even light blue state, to make sure we fight for successful, cogent, and morally consistent pro-life legislation. The state of Oklahoma, actually, just north of Texas. Right where you are now, Glenn. They have been leading on this actually. Governor Kevin Stitt signed into law, a fantastic pro-life bill there in Oklahoma. A few weeks ago. Maybe a month ago or so at this point, that basically just bans abortion straightforward from conception. And there are some -- you know, obviously, likable the mother. So forth. But we really need to start thinking about trying to craft legislation now, at the state level. But to your point, I do fear that the blue states will only double down in their radicalism. Unfortunately within that will only lead to an ever greater divide, in our country, that we have today. But obviously, at the end of the day. We're going to save at the end of the day, millions and millions of unborn children. We are going to save human beings who can grow up to cure cancer, who can win Nobel prices.

I mean, this is just a tremendous win for the human species. I don't know how to say it other than that.

GLENN: I will tell you, I saw the stat, that I think it was last year or the year before. 20 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion. 20 percent.

JOSH: Wow.

GLENN: That is -- that is a shocking number. And we do have our -- our work cut out for us. Because I -- I think that these states are going to double down. But I think, you know -- God doesn't waste anything. You know, there is no waste with God. Even the -- even the worst things that could possibly happen, turn out to be something good. You know what I mean? You're like, holy cow, how did that just happen.

And I think that evil is going to fully come unmasked. I'm telling you, Josh. I don't know how you feel about this. I think this could be the day of America's Kristallnacht. I can see these pro-life centers being burned to the ground today. They're calling for a night of rage around the country. I think evil is going to show itself. And that will scare the American people, hopefully.

JOSH: You know, I've been thinking about this a lot this week, actually. Because I've been bracing for a new kind of George Floyd summer of love, happening this summer. Coming to a city or suburb near you. Unfortunately, myself. Look, I live in Florida. I know, Glenn, you live in Texas. It is in moments like this, where I do think that where you live matters. And who your mayor is. Who your governor is, matters.

Because law and order and rioting and anarchy is not really a federal issue. It is to a limited extent. June 2020, Tom Cotton wrote this op-ed that was pretty controversial at the time.

I happen to agree with it. Where he said, quote, unquote, send in the troops. And there is some federal legislation from the reconstruction era that would justify that.

But most kind of quelling and quashing of anarchy does happen. Constitutionally speaking, at the state and local level. So at a moment like this, where I fear that you're probably not wrong. I take some solace. That Governor DeSantis is my governor. I think Texans should take some solace, that they are represented by -- by a Republican governor. The legislature there as well. So I -- I fear that you are right. I pray obviously, that no one -- it's hard.

I fear that it's something -- that something bad is happening. At the end of the day, of course. It does not mean that justices cannot do what they are supposed to do. So thank God they did that.

GLENN: So, Josh, have you looked into what the White House has been saying? The White House yesterday. In fact, do we have a clip of -- of this?

What the White House said yesterday, about the guns. And then they were turned to the -- the Scott us ruling, for Roe vs. Wade. Do we have that, please?

JOSH: Will the president accept this decision, even if he disagrees with it?

VOICE: I think it's going to come from the Supreme Court. So it's a decision we certainly are going to respond to. I'll leave it at that. Just like any other Supreme Court decision. Just like the one they did today on guns.

GLENN: So the White House won't say that they're going to accept it.

Which I don't think they will. They're talking now about taking doctors and moving them into places like Oklahoma or Texas, where abortions will be outlawed. And putting doctors on our military bases to perform abortions.

I mean, where does this go, when you have a government, that is in defiance of -- of one branch of the government?

JOSH: So there's a lot to unpack here. So we should start from first principles. The idea of judicial supremacy, and this is a peculiar thing, to say on a day like today, where such a pro-life victory has happened in Italy. But if we're going to be consistent here, the idea of judicial supremacy. The idea that the justices, have the sole and exclusive ability to interpret the Constitution for themselves. And no other Constitutional actor, in article one or article two, let alone the state. Has the ability to tentatively interpret it. That is erroneous. In fact, actually it was really Abraham Lincoln actually, who in the Dred Scott case, famously opposed judicial supremacy and flouted the Dred Scott ruling, at least as it pertains to everybody other than Dred Scott himself. I have actually argued, a former legal scholarship, in a law review article actually, that the Laconian view of how each branch of government should interpret the Constitution for itself, is correct.

Having said that. Having said that, there is a thing called prudence. And there is a thing called comedy. And in a moment like today, when it really does look like -- and I agree with you, that we are now bracing for riots through the streets. When the political rhetoric is at DEFCON one. When people are trying to assassinate Supreme Court justices. I think it would be -- at its bare minimum, a profoundly imprudent act. For the Biden administration, to try to undermine this ruling.

Now, what they might do, is they might try to kind of issue some kind of executive orders, or issue some regulations, that might try to kind of undermine it, at the edges here. But at the end of the day, the idea that this returns to the state. There's not really a whole lot they can do about that. Basically, at this point, throughout the country. Kentucky within West Virginia. Kansas. Whatever. If they want to go ahead and ban abortion, what can the Biden administration literally do about that? I mean, short of sending in the National Guard, to protect Planned Parenthood, if the state legislature of Kentucky goes ahead and bans it. There's not a whole lot they can do. And it's very difficult to envision a world, in which the Biden administration literally sends in troops to red states, to protect Planned Parenthood, if that state legislature goes ahead and bans it. So for practically speaking. This is a lot of tough talk and rhetoric. Obviously the campaign here in 2022. There's not really a whole lot that practically speaking, they can do to actually prevent red and purple states from enacting pro-life legislation.

GLENN: I'm glad to -- I'm glad to hear that. I know that they have been working on things. I mean, he has said, you know, there's executive orders, that I can employ. There are things that I can do. He's talked about a national public health emergency. Which I think is just -- is crazy. But I would hope, that the president would come out and say, we strongly disagree with this. And you're right. The court is not the end all. But the court did not end abortion. It just said, the people should decide. I think that's the best kind of court ruling, on any of it. The people should decide what this is. And send it back to the states. Josh, I thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Was there -- there was another ruling, that came out today. Was it important?

JOSH: Oh, no. In comparison to this. A total nothing burger. A 5-4 decision on Medicare reimbursement related. So nothing, honestly.

GLENN: Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Josh. Josh Hammer, opinion editor for Newsweek. And the host of the Josh Hammer show.

Shorts

Good vs EVIL seen in Dobbs case reactions

GLENN: There are two things trending on twitter right now.

Number one is praise God.

Number two trend is Night of Rage.

Good verses evil.

Build up or tear down.