BLOG

FCC Chairman: We Don't Need to Preemptively Micromanage Every Business

Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), joined Glenn on radio to discuss the future of the internet and net neutrality. If a government regulator exists that Glenn likes, it's Ajit Pai, who stood alone in a hostile world at the FCC during the Obama administration. Pai favors light regulation to ensure consumers have a competitive choice and companies have a greater incentive to invest in the internet.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: The head of the FCC. The FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, now joins us.

Ajit, I don't know if you are aware of this at all, but we've been watching you for a while. I have -- I have no idea how you got by Obama. But we're glad you did.

AJIT: Thanks so much, Glenn. I really appreciate the kind words. And grateful to you for making time for me today.

GLENN: Oh, you bet. We have a lot of questions for you. And I want to talk to you about net neutrality. I want to talk to you about the cable industry and this cry of fake news and where you think we're going.

Let's start with probably net neutrality.

Net neutrality is -- is in some ways, a -- a nightmare and will limit people. In other ways, people will look at this and say, "Wait. I don't want my cable operator being able to pick and choose winners and slow down, you know, the speeds of YouTube, if they're trying to promote their own YouTube." Can you make the argument?

AJIT: Absolutely. I think the key point here is nothing about the internet was broken. From the dawn of the internet age in the 1990s until 2015, the internet economy in the United States was the envy of the world precisely because President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that instead of regulating the heck out of this new technology, we would let it develop and take targeted action as necessary.

And that's, I think, part of the reason why we saw the tremendous explosion and activity online. But in 2015, on the party-line vote, the FCC imposed these heavy-handed rules that were developed for Mondale, the telephone monopoly back in the 1930s.

And as a result, we've seen less investment in networks. We're seeing less competition than ever. And I think that's one of the things we want to address going further, is, you know, light-touch regulation I think is the best calibrated to make sure the consumers have more competitive choice, and the companies have a greater incentive to invest. And that's where we're heading.

GLENN: So how would you address -- I said this to Ray Kurzweil who is part of the Singularity University. Works for Google. And I said, "So, Ray, why wouldn't Google develop an algorithm that would find people who are using the search engine to create a bigger and better Google? Why wouldn't they just -- I mean, that's human nature to protect yourself. If somebody is coming -- you can piece together in advance, "Wait a minute. These people are looking to build a better Google." Why wouldn't you just shut them down? He said, "Oh, that would never happen because we're all good people." I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory.

But, you know, we are now in the internet age, playing devil's advocate, of these gigantic corporations that you're just not going to -- the little guy is not going to compete against Google. They're not going to compete against Apple. They're not -- you can't compete around Comcast.

AJIT: And the point I consistently made is we don't put our faith in people or in companies. What's that saying? If men were angels, no laws would be necessary.

GLENN: Right.

AJIT: Well, we have a system of laws, and interest in competition laws on one hand and consumer protection laws on the other. And those are administered by a -- say the Federal Trade Commission or Justice Department here in Washington, by state agencies across the country. So there's a whole framework of laws to protect against that kind of conduct.

What we don't need is the FCC preemptively micromanaging every single business in the United States, not just the big ones that you mentioned, but even the smaller companies that have told us we're holding back on investment now because of these heavy-handed investments.

GLENN: So we're talking to Ajit Pai, he's the chairman of the FCC. You know, as I look at the most hated services in America -- or service providers, it's your electric company, it's your insurance companies, it's your cable companies. Those are all the ones that are the most heavily regulated.

However, as somebody who has tried, without $200 million behind me, to break in and have a -- a groundswell -- a verified groundswell of -- of support behind me, these -- to break into cable is absolutely impossible if you are a voice that the companies want to block. You just can't do it. How do we balance that and make sure that, you know, the app system -- because that's why we -- that's why we're online. Okay. Well, good. We'll do it online. But how do we make sure that the app system isn't blocked now by a Comcast or an Apple, where you're just not going to get in and break through?

AJIT: That's a terrific question. And two different answers: Number one, the way you do it is by promoting more competition. You make sure that the barriers to entry, so to speak, are low. That people like you can express yourselves over a variety of different platforms. And number two, to the extent that that's a concern, remember that the people who are promoting this Title II regulation through the US government are not the friends of free speech and free expression. These groups are consistently saying that they want government control of the internet, not just for its own sake, but in order to regulate how speech and expression happens online.

GLENN: Right.

AJIT: And they've been very open about this throughout the years.

GLENN: But you can't -- as a person, I can't start my own cable company. It's all regulated. I can't start one.

AJIT: And that's why we've had a very aggressive agenda in the three months that I've been in the chairman's office to make sure that we enable more companies to make that decision, to enter the marketplace, removing some of the barriers that they found, in terms of the rules, and making it easier for them to raise capital and to enter these marketplaces. And we want the smaller companies that are getting squeezed by these regulations to finally enter the market and provide a competitive option.

GLENN: Good for you.

So help me out on this. Ted Koppel, who I have a lot of respect for, has done a lot of great journalism over his lifetime -- I was talking to him, and he was concerned about all this fake news. And I said, at the end of the day, go back to the revolutionary war, there was tons of fake news back then. We're just in a new situation. And we haven't found our way to balance it yet. But you got to trust the people.

And he immediately said, "I think that we need to start, you know, having a license for people to be on the internet and to present news. We have to verify those people who are online."

That's insane.

AJIT: I couldn't agree more. And I have a lot of respect for Ted Koppel's career. But, frankly, his comments are repugnant to the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment. In fact, that's the very reason why John Milton in 1644 wrote his great treaties on free expression, Areopagitica, where he said that, you know, look, the king has no business licensing people to allow them to speak. We -- the entire premise of western civilization is that you don't have a gatekeeper allowing you to speak only at the whim of the king. And that's the same here in the United States. The last thing I think we want is government -- sort of regulators like me deciding who speaks and who doesn't. That's the fantastic thing about the internet age, I think.

STU: Don't you think though, Glenn -- and Ajit Pai -- we're talking to the FCC chairman. You have this situation where it's not about what happened in 1644 or anything. It's about what's coming up on May 30th, which is season five of House of Cards.

JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.

STU: People want their Netflix. They want it streamed. They don't want their evil cable company slowing it down. Is that something that needs to be regulated, or does the market actually work that stuff out?

AJIT: To me, the market works it out. The best evidence of that is the digital economy that we had, prior to 2015 when we imposed these rules.

Companies were not engaging in the blocking of lawful content. And to the extent that we have concerns about competition, the best way to get there is not by imposing these heavy-handed regulations that slow down infrastructure investment, especially by some of the smaller companies that would give you a competitive option. It's by making sure we have clear-cut rules of the road, that are market-friendly, that incentivize more companies to enter this space.

And so, you know, look, I'm all in favor of the government looking at any competitive problems as they pop up. Preemptively regulating, from the Fortune 500 companies, down to the tiny companies in Little Rock, Arkansas, is not the way to get there.

GLENN: I will tell you, Ajit, I look at this time period -- and I'd love to hear your point of view of this. I look at this time period of American history as a combination of the industrial revolution and heavy emphasis on Tesla and Edison, all in about a 20-year period. I mean, what's coming in -- in technology and communication has already been profound. But it's going to become even more profound.

And, you know, as a student of history -- and you obviously are one as well. When you look back at those days of Tesla and Edison, in many ways, Tesla was right. Edison was just good at playing the game with the government.

And he was a -- excuse my language, but a son of a bitch. And that's not French. That's English.

STU: Can we say that on the air, Mr. FCC Chairman?

GLENN: Oh, yes, I shouldn't have said that with the FCC chairman.

AJIT: I'll give you a pass, don't worry.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you.

PAT: You didn't think that one through. Did you?

GLENN: Yeah, I didn't think that one through. I forgot who we were talking to. Anyway, we never say things like that, by the way. Golly, gee, darn it. I'm sorry.

But we were pushed back because of the collusion with very powerful people like Edison and very powerful politicians. Do you see us -- how do you see what's coming our way?

AJIT: Boy, that's a great question.

I think the first thing is the empowerment of the citizen that the internet allows. It used to be that to do virtually anything, you had to work through some sort of gatekeeper. If you were buying a car, you had to go through a dealer. If you were wanting to stay in a place, you have to go book a room with a hotel.

And now, because of technology, you can do anything, basically by yourself. And that's an incredible amount of empowerment. But, on the other hand, we always have to guard against this instinct of essentially crony capitalism, the phenomenon that you talked about. And to that extent, I think what people need to understand is that heavy-handed regulation is actually the friend of bigger businesses and for those who believe in big government. Because -- the big companies are always going to have the armies of lawyers and accountants to comply with these regulations, to persuade government to do favors on this or that issue. It's the smaller companies that are disproportionately affected. And the second thing is that it's very seductive for a lot of people to think, "Well, the market just leaves consumers at the mercy of these wild and unpredictable forces." When in reality, the market has delivered more value for consumers than preemptive government regulation ever could.

I mean, the fact that we have billions of people who are emerging from poverty now is the result of free market policies. It's not because the governments of these various countries have suddenly decided to bestow largesse upon them. And so it's a case that we consistently have to make that crony capitalism and big government regulation, those are not the friends of the average consumer.

GLENN: So we have -- we have a situation now of fake news. And it's been around forever. But it's at epidemic proportions because the average person has access to everybody. And the average person, you know, unfortunately doesn't think things through and really read everything. They see a headline, they click on it, and they share it.

We have some really nefarious people, some of them in Russia, that are using our own technology against us, using our own freedoms against us. We have the press -- I told you about Ted Koppel. But we also have the president coming out and saying, you know, you're fake news. And maybe we should be able to sue you more.

Does the FCC have a role in the First Amendment in saying to all sides, "Knock it off. The freedom of the press is the freedom of the press, no matter if it's a printing press or the internet. Knock it off?"

AJIT: Well, I've consistently said -- and this goes back to my time as a commissioner up to five years ago, that one of the distinctive features of America is the fact that we have a First Amendment. It's unique in human history for the government to establish in its very founding papers the notion that anybody in this country has the ability to speak, anybody has the ability to write, anybody has the ability to worship as he or she sees fit.

And that's something that requires not just the cold parchment of the Constitution, but it requires a culture that admires that -- those freedoms. And so I've consistently spoken about -- about the need to preserve that culture of freedom for speech and free press. Because it's a slippery slope. Once you lose it, it's very hard to reclaim it.

GLENN: You have a 50 -- what is it? A 50 or 60 percent of so-called conservatives saying that there's a limit to freedom of the press. Is there?

AJIT: Well, the Constitution speaks for itself. And so long as I have the privilege of occupying this office, I'll keep defending that core constitutional freedom. It's one of the things that I think makes America a very unique place across time and across the world.

GLENN: So I think with that answer, I just have to end where I started: How the hell did you get past Barack Obama?

AJIT: That's a good question. I'm not sure how I slipped through the cracks.

GLENN: I don't know either.

AJIT: But maybe it's the -- sort of like the Forrest Gump of the Washington scene. Just kept gamboling on, and here I am.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Ajit Pai, thank you so much for talking to us.

PAT: Great.

GLENN: And keep up the good work.

AJIT: Thank you, sir. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.

PAT: And thanks for the shout-out to Areopagitica. That's -- I think that's a first.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Oh, how many times have we talked about -- off the air --

PAT: All the time. All the time.

STU: Talked about all the time.

GLENN: Okay. You know what I love --

PAT: Talked about all the time. Milton's Areopagitica.

JEFFY: Right!

RADIO

Glenn reacts LIVE, is STUNNED with Roe v. Wade overturn

Glenn receives the news live on-air that the Supreme Court announced its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, effectively overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly 50 years. It’s a ‘miracle,’ he says, and asks God to ‘please hear the voice of your people. We are trying to mend our ways.'

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hang on, David. Hold it. I'm sorry. We have the Dobbs case?

STU: Yes. We do.

GLENN: I'm sorry, David. We'll move you to another time today, if possible. I just have to take the Dobbs case. It just came out. And I'm sure you understand. I do not mean to be unfair to you on that.

DAVID: I -- I think you're being unfair to me, Glenn. I think that you can certainly -- you can certainly give me some time --

GLENN: I will, sir. By the end of the program. By the end of the program. This is the biggest case in U.S. history. At least in my lifetime. We will move on from you, and reschedule today, on today's program. I want to be fair to him. What has happened with the Dobbs case?

STU: We have Roe vs. Wade overruled. As well as Casey.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I don't think I would ever thought I would see this day, to be honest with you. But it's a good day.

GLENN: We have talked about this. We have been together for 25 years, and we both said, never in our lifetime would this happen.

STU: Nope.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: It's -- it's being widely.

GLENN: Lord, please hear the voice of your people. We are trying to mend our ways. We are -- we are sorry, it has taken us this long. But please hear your people. Please.

Forgive us for what we have done. My gosh.

Is the ruling -- does it look to be the same as the original Alito ruling?

STU: I'm just going through it now. It does seem to be a 6-3 decision. Which is -- you know, there was a question of whether Roberts would -- would come on board for this. It looks like he has. So does seem to be a 6-3 decision.

GLENN: Just let that sink in, America. What Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, that this is -- this was unjustly. And decided, Roe vs. Wade. She thought it was flawed.

And it was. The idea that abortion is covered in the Constitution is not true. It is just -- it is -- it is not true. And everything that is not in the Constitution, doesn't make it unconstitutional, it just means, it goes to the states to decide. That is the law of the land. And has been forever. Even justice Ginsburg said that.

STU: The relevant portion here at the end of the opinion, we end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion.

Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people, and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed. And the cases remain for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

GLENN: Hmm. Okay.

STU: Wow. Thank God.

GLENN: Please, our producers need to be watching the White House. And all others who are going to come out in a statement. This means Jane's revenge is going to be at least what they say, is they're going to be lighting cities on fire tonight. I'm -- I'm prayerful, that that doesn't happen. But I wouldn't doubt it. The media is going to stir things up, like there is no tomorrow. But we can -- we can beg the Lord for peace and protection on all sides.

You know, I think it's -- I think it is so important to know that we have to be on God's side.

Because he's not picking sides. He doesn't. He loves all of his children equally. And we just try to do what we wants us to do. So pray for all of those who are terrified about what this means. All those who are, I think, misguided.

And pray for peace, to wash over us. I doubt -- well, I'm not going to -- I have no idea what the Lord wants. Whatever the Lord wants, we'll -- we'll deal with it.

All right. Would you make sure that we have talked to Levitt's office? And if -- if we can, we'll do it at the bottom of the hour. My apologies to him. I don't mean to be rude. But sorry.

STU: I hope we can prioritize his local race over the Dobbs' decision. Glenn, I don't understand why you didn't do that. That was really rude of you. To cut him off in the middle of that. I mean, what could you be talking about? Only tens of millions of children potentially on the road to living instead of not being alive. But I want to make sure he gets his words in here. Because I know that's a high priority to him. We'll get back to that as soon as possible. Glad he prioritized that. Really important moment for him, to make that argument, and I'm glad he made it.

GLENN: I don't care. Can we get -- let me -- I'm sorry. But we don't have another. We don't have a break long enough.

Can we get analysis on bottom of this hour? Because if we can get analysis on this hour, if they have time to read it. Get analysis on. And move David to next hour. If we can't get analysis, because they haven't had time to read it yet. I'm sorry.

I'm just shocked, this came out. We were just having this conversation, before we went on the air. And Stu said, what are you going to do if the Dobbs case comes out? And I said, it's not going to come out. And he said, but if it comes out. And I said, it's not going to come out. But if it does, we have to take that. And so I'm just shocked, because I did not expect that to happen.

STU: Glenn, one excerpt here. From the ruling: We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision, overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.

Gosh, if that is not the central problem with the Supreme Court, so often. So glad they pointed that out. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply long-standing principles. Of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly. We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, period.

Roe and Casey must be overruled. The authority to regulate abortion must be return to the people and their elected representatives.

GLENN: It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. We're going to see miracles in our lifetime. And I think we just saw one.

All right. Let me pause, tell you about LifeLock. How important is your identity to you? It not only stands as a protective wall, to everything you have financially. And the dangerous world of criminals. It also says who you are, in the community. What level of criminality you have. But with a tiny slip of information. And it doesn't have to be much. All of it can be taken away in an instant. We put everything online right now. And it's important to understand.

This will affect you, if it hasn't already. But that's what LifeLock is here for. You need people, that this is all they do. Is watch for this kind of stuff.

They can monitor things better than you or I think anybody else.

And if you do become a victim, they have restoration specialists that can work with you to help fix the problem quickly. Now no one can prevent all identity theft, or monitor all transactions at all businesses. But you can help protect what's yours with LifeLock. By Norton. So join now. And save up to 25 percent off your first year. With the promo code Beck. Call 1-800-LifeLock. 1-800-LifeLock. Or head to LifeLock.com. Use the promo code Beck for 25 percent off. Do it now. LifeLock.com.

Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Sara, I'm sorry. We just have no time off the air. But I just heard from a producer. I'm just getting a no -- is there something I need to know about what happened on the telephone, before, or was that after this interview? Oh, it was not. It was another one, Sara. Was that before the interview or after the interview?

After. Okay. Well, I'm going to -- I'm going to sincerely apologize one very last time.

STU: Oh, my God.

GLENN: That it was unfortunate, that David Levitt happened to be on, and wanted to express who he is, when the biggest case in the history of my lifetime comes out, and interrupts the interview. I'm going to politely invite him on in a few minutes. If he treats any of my office staff the way he just treated my office staff, he will not be welcome on the air. And, David, I think a lot of people are learning a lot about you. So we can reset, it was an unfortunate timing. We can reset. Or you can leave it as is. It's up to you.

STU: Can we please stop talking about this guy? I literally --

GLENN: I want you to know, that's it. That's it.

STU: Thank you.

GLENN: That's it.

STU: The court writes, the precedence should be respected, but sometimes the court errs. And occasionally, the court issues an important decision that is egregiously wrong. When that happens, stare decisis is not a straitjacket. This is something, of course, we've been arguing for decades. And seemingly is obvious. As you point out, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported this at one point in here career. Many liberal court watchers feel the same way. This is not a conservative -- there's a lot of passion for conservatives on the pro-life side of this. And there's very little appetite for that on the left.

However, there is appetite for this being a terrible law, and egregiously made -- egregiously poor decision, made when Roe vs. Wade was initially -- you know, decided. And so the left has been on this -- on board with this, not to say, we shouldn't have abortion. Which again, it's not what this does. And it's important to remember, that overturning Roe vs. Wade, does very little to stop abortion in this country. It's a very important first step.

GLENN: It won't.

STU: But anyone who wants to get abortion in this country, will still be able to get them. We've talked about some of these organizations that we've worked with so important. It's about still changing hearts and minds. This will not do it on its own. But it's an important step.

GLENN: So do you remember when I was at Fox. And I was talking about why it was so important, to be good. Be steady. Don't fight back, the way they want you to fight back.

Because Martin Luther King was right. When you put good versus evil side by side, the American people will know it. And they will recognize it. And they will see it.

A lot of Americans have been duped. And a lot of Americans. You know, it's very, very difficult. You learn this from the history of Germany and other places. Once you decide and you've gone so far mentally down the road. It takes a huge amount of courage, to say, holy cow. I was wrong about this. And switch sides.

But I think, you're going to see states, California, New York. They are going to become abortion mills. They are going to do abortion vacations. They are going to push the limits, as far as -- they're going to say, if it's up to the state, you will see -- you will see laws in some states, that say, after a baby is born, you can kill it. They've done it already in Chicago. They've done it illegally in Chicago. They've talked about it in Virginia. They're going to do it in New York. They're going to do it in California. Believe me, and this will be the place, where I think a lot of Americans will have to decide, can I live in a state like that? Can I -- can I be part of that?

This is so far -- this will become so far over the edge. That most Americans will be appalled by what is happening. Even those who believe that -- that they want to have reasonable limits to abortion.

They will not find it reasonable, what these death states will do.

RADIO

Biden may use GAS PRICES to expand his powers MASSIVELY

President Biden demanded this week that gas stations lower their prices immediately: ‘Bring down the price you’re charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product,’ he told station owners. But unfortunately it seems Joe may have missed an important economics lessons during his road to the White House, because that is NOT how business works, Glenn explains. The President also urged Congress to approve a gas tax ‘holiday' AND Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm referred to the Defense Production Act as a presidential “tool” Biden may use in the future. Glenn explains what this means and how the DPA could be used to MASSIVELY expand presidential powers — far beyond what the Constitution allows…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yesterday, the Dow plunged 400 more points. The Wall Street banks, yesterday, began to warn of significant downturn and -- and increased recession odds. The White House is still denying that there's any chance at all, of any kind of recession. We're in a transition period. And that's what's so exciting. According to the White House, there's no recession coming. We're just in a transition. And I think that's right. We're -- you know, in a transition from a free market, into some sort of totalitarian state. Where the -- where the administrator, Joe Biden, just keeps wanting to, you know, take things over. Don't know if you saw this, but he demanded yesterday, that gas stations lower their prices. He said, do it now. Do it today. Bring down the price you're charging at the pump to reflect the cost you are paying for the product. Joe, that's not how businesses work. Okay? They can't keep their doors open, if they're only charging what they paid for it. Because they also need to charge for the lights and the building. And all of the supplies. And the people working there at the gas station. They have to have a profit margin, but you have only been in the private sector, your whole life. So you don't understand that. He said, I want the Congress, and the states, and the industry, to do their part. Because I'm doing any part. Now, that's fantastic.

But not as fantastic, as what grand home said later. So they're asking for a tax holiday. Which is ridiculous. Ridiculous. First, we, you know, practically emptied out our strategic reserves. Now they want a -- a tax holiday, on gas tax.

But they're not going to find and cut anything in the federal deficit. And the federal budget. So they got to keep paying for all of these equitable roadways and everything else. So they're just going to find that money. Well, they're going to find it at the fed. And the fed can't sell our Treasuries to anybody. So the fed will just print more money, put it on our bill. And then give it to the United States. So you'll have more money for gas, which is a good thing. But done exactly the wrong way. So now he's talking about a gas tax holiday.

Which, again, would be good for the average person for a while. However, Grandholm came out yesterday, and said, if these companies don't lower the gas price, the president will use every tool he has, including the Defense Production Act.

So this would be the, what? The third time, Stu, that they've invoked the Defense Production Act, something that hasn't been used since the war in Korea.

This is a wartime act. And if you think that they won't declare a national emergency, mark my words. When this happens. Run for the hills. They are going to declare a national emergency on climate change. Which is the worst. Then they'll issue it, and maybe climate change will -- will include the gas prices. Otherwise, they'll do an energy national emergency. They'll do a food national emergency. Which means the president will have total powers to be able to gobble up the free market. And if you don't -- I mean, this is fascism. What he was talking about yesterday, is fascism. Now, can I ask another question?

There's so much to pay attention to. I -- I'm sorry. We can barely keep up. I can't imagine what it's like with you and the family and kids and school. And everything else that's going on. Matt Gaetz said, Saturday, the firearms policy under Biden. He is using every tool he can.

There is a -- a problem that the IRS, from March 1st, to June 1st. A three-month span. The IRS bought 700,000 dollars' worth of ammunition.

Now, why does the IRS need 700,000 dollars' worth of ammunition? There's only two answers. Now, this is on top of the, what? 1.8 billion, that the Department of Homeland Security spent on it.

There's several agencies, that are buying up ammunition now. There's two explanations. One is more nefarious than the other.

Well, yes. One is more nefarious than the other. One is they just have plans of arming everybody and every agency. And you will do exactly what they say, or they'll shoot. That's the most nefarious. The second is probably the most likely. Although, I wouldn't lay any of my money down on it. It's probably more risky than the stock market. The more likely of the two, I think. Is that this is just another way, to stop guns from being on the streets. They're going to use every lever they can. If the United States government is buying up all the ammunition, that only drives the cost of ammunition up. And only depletes the market of ammunition. So in effect, they stop you from being able to have any kind of ammunition. Remember, we told you, on Monday of this week, what was happening with Winchester. Winchester makes most of our 223 and 556, for the military.

They have a military contract. In it, Winchester can sell about 30 percent of their stock, to the open market. And that provides the United States. The average consumer, with about 40 to 50 percent. Of all 556 and 223. The federal government was pressuring Winchester to stop selling it to the open market. That would be really bad for national defense. But beyond that. It's just another sign that they're doing everything, they possibly can, to stop guns. To infringe on your second rights. These are the kinds of things, I think, that might be caught up in a Supreme Court case. Regarding the EPA. Maybe.

Maybe. But we'll see. This is -- you have to understand. Boy, if you didn't read Philip Dru, Administrator. Get it. It's a free Google book. Because no one in their right mind would ever pay for it. It is absolutely the worst book, I think I've ever read. It's just poorly written. But it was done by. I think it was written by Colonel House. He was the guy that was the main adviser, and best friend to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson has said to have read it three times, during his administration. He just loved it so much. It's so great. I think he said that because he wanted more and more people to read it. You should read it. Because it is exactly what Biden is trying to do right now. And I don't think I've ever gone into great detail. It's about the country, as in chaos. The countries having all kinds of problems. And all of these people just love this hero of Philip Dru. He's a war hero, and he's great, and everybody loves him. And he's super, super honest. All he does. He loves the country so much. And everybody knows, he's not going to do anything to hurt the country. Because he's your average Joe.

So he becomes president. But he doesn't want to be called president. He just wants to be an administrator. Because he's not -- he's not qualified to be president. He just -- he's an administrator. And he can just use all of the administrative tools of the presidency, to get the experts in, who know more than he does. Know more than the average person.

And he's going to let science settle everything. And so he gets into office. He begins to do exactly what Joe Biden is doing now. And then he starts telling the country -- the companies in the country, exactly what they can and cannot do. Exactly how they're going to do -- but based on experts. I mean, he's not an expert. So he just listens to the expert. And then when the experts speak. He tells the people, the news. And the people rejoice. Because it's so wonderful having an expert administrate everything in American life.

It goes on by a third -- by two-thirds of the way in. Philip drew is going. He's already abolished Congress. And he has rewritten the American Constitution. Based on what the experts say. And then on top of that, he does something else special. He goes state to state. And abolishes their state administrations as well. Philip Dru: Administrator you can get it free on Google Books. And it is a must-read if you want to understand where this administration is going.

RADIO

U.S. enemies likely LAUGHING at THIS Navy training video

What makes Glenn think the U.S. will lose the next war we enter? Because a recently leaked training video — shown to members of the U.S. Navy — is ALL about gender-specific pronouns. If our enemies saw this, Glenn says, they’d be on the phone LAUGHING to each other. So WHO within the Navy is organizing this? And are they INTENTIONALLY trying to destroy our military machine? It’s time for answers...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You have anything positive to bring to the table?

PAT: I do. I have this great Navy training video. That, you know, I think it -- I think you're going to feel really confident, about how our Navy is protecting our nation right now. Once you see the training video.

Can we show the first --

VOICE: Hi, my name is Johnny. And I use he/him pronouns.

VOICE: Hi. And I'm Fauci, and I use she/her pronouns.

PAT: U.S. Navy. United States Navy.

GLENN: Wait. Stop. Wait. First of all, they're not in Navy uniforms.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: The guy is wearing a rainbow sweater. And they've got a color -- what looks like a box of color crayons on the back that just say -- say pronouns all in the rainbow colors. This is our Navy training film?

PAT: Yeah. Sad, isn't it?

STU: Wow.

GLENN: I would like to give you -- I would like to give you my rendition of what is happening right now on the phone between Mao. Or, sorry. Xi. I think of him as Mao. And Putin.
(laughter)
They have them now, yeah? I mean, this is crazy. We're going to lose the next war.

PAT: This is what we're focused on. If we don't put a stop to this, we are. And could this possibly be why some of our Naval higher-ups are being fired. Because they're objecting to this kind of crap. They're saying, I'm not showing this kind of slop to my Naval cadets. No, absolutely not. And they're getting fired because they don't share the Biden worldview.

GLENN: So I found myself hesitant to even mention that story, when I saw it, what? A couple of days ago. We have, how many? An extraordinary number of high-ranking Navy officials have been fired. And it's highly unusual, and they haven't been given any -- I shouldn't say that. They haven't given the press, or anybody asking, any reason, why these guys were fired. And my thought, Pat, was exactly like yours. I don't want to jump to conclusions. Because I -- maybe it's -- I don't know. Maybe it's something else.

But, I mean, it is -- I don't trust our military. I -- I find myself in a situation, that I've never found myself in, ever before.

PAT: And it makes sense, that if these guys objected to this sort of stuff, you're doing really -- you're talking about pronouns to the U.S. Navy? No. I'm not doing that.

STU: Yeah. And what I find interesting in this, in particular. Is let's just say, it's sane, to care about pronouns like this. Let's just say that was the real world. I mean, I can't get to that world. I don't understand why people care about pronouns so much. But let's just say, this was the nice generous, the right way to go, absolutely.

Isn't going into the military, a big part of that journey, to be tough enough, to not care about stuff like that?

PAT: Yes.

STU: I mean, you're getting -- bullets are coming at you. Explosions are going on. You have to push through hours and hours of endless torture, to try to win a war. If you care about pronouns, that will not occur.
(laughter)

STU: It's fundamentally what a military is. Is to make you tough enough, to not care about stuff like that.

GLENN: We need to put Jason on this. Or if you have any -- any inside information. You just send it to GlennBeck.com. Go to GlennBeck.com/contact. I would like to know, who is -- who is -- who is organizing all of this?

Because there's two ways to look at it. Somebody who really thinks, you know, we just need to be. We're already snappy dressers. But we need to be nicer to each other. And, yes, we're going to be a tough war machine. But we're going to be nice to each other. I don't think that's it. I think it's more like, we need to destroy this machine. We need to do everything we can, to destroy this machine, from the inside. And knowing who is behind all of this, will tell you. If you have any inside information, on any of the stuff going on in our military, specifically who is behind this, please, contact us. It will help our researchers get a jump-start. Because I don't think we have anything in -- in the works, on the military. So please, look into that for us.

RADIO

NYC gun laws CHALLENGED after 'GREAT' Supreme Court ruling

It’s a great day for the Constitution. Why? Because the 6-3 Supreme Court decision announced today should OVERTURN a New York City law that severely restricts concealed carry rights. Legal expert Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what he says is a ‘career-defining’ majority decision by Clarence Thomas, what the ruling means for gun rights throughout America moving forward, and how this decision will ‘suck the wind’ out of the Republicans who supported the Senate’s current gun restrictions bill…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The huge gun case up in New York, where I couldn't get a gun in New York. I had 15 active threats. I had Gavin de Becker and associates. Which were -- they were probably the best security detail in the country. In the world, really.

And they were following these threats. You know, my kids were looking at pursuer lists on our refrigerator. If these people approached. Go run. Get mom or dad.

I mean, it was really bad. And I couldn't get a gun. In New York City. Because they deemed that I didn't have enough cause. To have a gun.

That's been thrown out now. So tell me what they've done. What does this mean for New York? And the rest of the country?

JOSH: So it's a fantastic ruling. Look, I've not had the chance to pore through it. Looks like they have a Justice Thomas majority opinion, clocked in at 63 pages. You know, including concurrences and dissents, we're up to 130. One hundred 40 pages. So I have my reading cut out for me, for the rest of the day.

But based on my quick skimming of it, this is a thoroughly well-researched. I might even say, thus far, career-defining majority opinion. From Justice Clarence Thomas. I was thinking about this recently.

It's unclear to me, today, or at least before today. Whether Clarence Thomas has a career-defining majority opinion. He's written so prolifically for so long, but most of his greatest writings, especially on the hard-hitting cases. Have been in concurrence. Or more often than not, oftentimes in defense. I think in another gun case in 2008, (inaudible) versus Heller had his landmark career-defining opinion. And at least until affirmative action I predict is likely overturned next term. You can get that if you want to. At least until that day where I predict Thomas will also have the majority opinion. This is his career-defining opinion.

This is an issue that is very near and dear to Justice Thomas. He wrote an amazing concurrence in the courts, last major Second Amendment case. McDonald versus the city of Chicago case in 2010, where you had a magisterial 55 to 60-page concurrence. Just working through the history. This issue was very near and dear to him. He's a personal gun owner. He enjoys hunting. And from what I can tell, it's just a really thoroughly well-researched opinion, that reaches the clear and obvious result, that anyone with any degree of familiarity with the Second Amendment text could tell you. Which is that this is a right.

And the very act of talking about burying arms. Not just keening them. But the burying them obviously entails the ability to do so, outside the home, without oppressive restrictions. The likes of which, again, it sounds like you face in my home state. In my home state of New York. The point that Justice Kavanaugh makes in his very brief concurring opinion. He kind of drives down this point, which is, the vast majority of states, which have so-called shall issue regimes for their gun licensing permits. Which means that you have to give the applicants a permit, as long as they go through X, Y Z tests. You know, they shoot the right number of targets. The permit years ago. Those laws are all untouched. The only laws that are jeopardized by today's decision are the more problematic, quote, unquote, may issue laws. Not the shall issue laws, where they basically give the licensing authorities a ton of discretion to arbitrarily decide, where you have to show that you truly, truly -- whatever the heck that means. But, and then, the fact that --

GLENN: Yeah. It's nuts.

JOSH: Go ahead.

GLENN: So I want to ask you, doesn't this make the Senate gun bill a joke? I mean, that will have no teeth to it, after this ruling. Would it?

JOSH: Yes and no.

It's real interesting. I have tracked a lot of the commentary over the next 24 to 48 hours. Next week is a focus on this exact question, right? So in theory, they are different issues. The ruling here today is talking about concealed carry, and open carry regimes in the states. The Senate gun bill is in theory focused on other measures. It's focused on things like red flag laws. But it is a little intellectually inconsistent. Or at least at a bear bare minimum. It would be a little peculiar, right? To have the liberalize. I say that in a good way. A more liberalized concealed carry licensing regime, while at the same time, having a red flag law, in place that would just infringe upon due process rights, willy-nilly. Those two things would seem to be intentioned with one another. At a bare minimum, the timing of this opinion --

GLENN: But it's not the same.

JOSH: It really kind of sucks the wind out of John Cornyn and the other 13-Senate Republicans' momentum. That's for sure.

GLENN: So how will this affect other states? New York, by the way, has just come out. And I'm going to talk about this in a minute. New York has already come out. And said, it's not going to change anything. We're not going to abide by this. Which is ironic, because that's what the Second Amendment is for. To stop an out-of-control, lawless government, doing what they want. And not abiding by the Constitution. I just want to point that out.

JOSH: Well, that's wild. I have not seen that. But that's just wild stuff, that they said that bluntly here. Hook, the entire idea behind the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Which in itself is a legally debatable matter, I should say. But they have held. The court has held that the overwhelming majority of enumerated rights, in developed rights, including the Second Amendment. By the way. That's the McDonald versus Chicago case in 2010. The court has held that these rights are incorporated against the states. Which, you know, to escape the legalese for a minute, means that a state cannot infringe on these rights. The federal government already cannot. But a state cannot as well. So this case is right out of New York State. If New York State wants to go flip two middle fingers at the court, when they themselves are a party to the lawsuit. Look, parties to the lawsuit aren't balanced.

GLENN: Well, let me -- let me read impala what governor Kathy Hochul said. She said, it's outrageous that in a moment of national reckoning on gun violence. The Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those that can carry concealed weapons. By the way, I don't know if she knows this. But Buffalo is in New York.

So her law didn't do anything. In response to this ruling, we are reviewing our options, including calling a special session of the legislature. Just as we swiftly passed nation leading gun reform legislation. We will continue to do everything we can in our power, to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence. So she didn't say, we're not going to do it. She said, we're just not going to find a way around it.

JOSH: Right. I mean, that statement is about what I would expect from a left-wing hack like the governor of New York State. We'll see what they try to do. I mean, they'll try to pass some law. Meaning, they will try to issue something administrative. Inevitably both find themselves, in court again.

And, you know, with the occurring composition of the court. If that ultimately makes its way up to the Supreme Court itself, you have to like the odds of the side of gun rights. The reality is, if I have the number correctly, I think it's 43 of the current states in the country. If I recall the number from the Kavanaugh concurring opinion today. Forty-three of the states are either, quote, unquote, shall issue states. Or just straight up constitutional county states. They simply do not need a license to exercise a right to give them their arms outside the home. So we should note that this opinion did not actually apply to the vast majority of states. We're only talking here about the blue states such as New York State. And look, I mean, cynically speaking. Someone born in New York, and fled many years ago. If it is oppressive laws like this. That incentivizes more people, to flee blue state tyranny or red state freedom. Far be it from me to criticize people to do so. The statement that you read, Glenn, I would expect them to say something along those lines.

GLENN: All right. We're going to -- if you don't mind holding for just a minute. I will do a commercial and come back. And I just want to ask you, if you looked at any of the others. Is there any that you think is a really good sign, on where things are headed. Just some of the other decisions, that came out today from the Supreme Court. Back with Josh Hammer in a minute.

JEFFY: American Financing. NMLS 182334. Www.NMLSconsumeraccess.org.

GLENN: So listen, right now, it is so imperative, that we are very frugal with our money. We are moving closer and closer to the brink of a recession. I know you listen to the president.

He's -- he's honestly, batcrap crazy on this. I mean, you know. And, honestly, if you voted for the guy, even you know it. We're not -- there's no recession. We're in a transition -- we're in a transitional period. Yeah. So was the Great Depression. I don't even know what a transitional period means.

But we're headed for a recession. The major banks came out yesterday, and said it. The fed said it. And the fed also said, by the way, this is not a Putin gas tax. Just taking them apart. But yet, he's living in a delusional world. I want you to make sure that you are prepared with your financing to do the best that you can to save every penny. American Financing can help you do this. By paying off high-interest debt. To shortening the loan terms. You can access cash from your equity. There's so many possibilities right now. And many of them will save you hundreds, not $1,000 a month. Just by calling American Financing. And seeing your options. You will feel better. Call American Financing now. At 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
So my producers are freaking out. Because they want to make sure that I clarify something here. That I just said.

Historically, the reason why the Second Amendment exists, is not for hunting.

Not a sport. I want to go shoot Clay pigeons. Okay. That's not what it was about. Otherwise, you might be able to find, like bowling in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It's not about a sport. It's about protecting yourself. And protecting your community against an out-of-control rogue government. That's what it's about. So I just find it ironic. That if they're like, we're not going to obey Biden's rule. That's what the Second Amendment. That's what the Founders were talking about. As somebody that just decided --

STU: As you just read that statement. That's not exactly what's happening. You're not exactly calling for a Civil War against Albany. Are you? I want to make sure here.

GLENN: Oh, my God. No. No.

STU: Because you were talking about this was the motivation at the time. You have to follow these traditions and these rules. But this is a much, much different case here, as we're talking about it now. As a statement from a --

GLENN: Anyway, I'm just talking about how ironic it is, that that's what the Founders, you know, said, that that's really important.

Because if they're -- as George Washington said. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

And, you know, part of that, is being able to question them. To speak out. To have a free press, to assemble. And also, to own a gun.

Anyway, josh, anything else that -- that you see, that came out today, that you think is -- is good news in a -- in a far-reaching way?

JOSH: Well, first of all, let me chime in briefly on the conversation that you and Stu were just having. I obviously could not agree with you guys more on the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment. Glenn, I know that you all. You will uniquely appreciate this. Just because I know how much you care about this issue. You know, I'm Jewish obviously.

I keep it on my desk at all times. A rock that a rabbi gave to me years ago, that he smuggled out of the crematorium at Auschwitz. And I keep next to that rock.

A rock that I myself took from Treblinka. And then across my room, I have my -- you know, my game of defense AR, with lots of ammunition.

And mags and all that. And to me, I refer to that, as to my friends. As my Warsaw ghetto gun. So no one understands the philosophical underpinning of the Second Amendment more than I do. So I just want to echo your sentiments on that.

GLENN: Okay.

And, you know, the Germans gave -- the Germans gave all of the information of where their guns were, to the Weimar Republic. You give it in gun faith. Because the Weimar Republic said, oh, we'll never use this. Well, then the Nazis came in, and guess who took all the information. And knew where all the guns were. That's why you just don't do these things. But, anyway, go ahead.

JOSH: Exactly. Shifting a little bit, as far as the other cases that came across today. There's an Eighth Amendment case about an execution that I have not had a chance to review yet. A state in Georgia called Nancy Ward. Long story short. All sorts of activist litigation for many years now, where the ACLU, groups like that, will sue -- and they have the effect of the incrementally outlawing or seeking to outlaw various forms of execution, which you have to look harder and harder to find the right cocktail. A very pernicious people passed it with the obvious, not so subtle end goal of trying to re-abolish the death penalty in America.

It looks like the wrong side won today. But I -- a glimmer of hope, though, I see that Justice Barrett actually filed a dissenting opinion in that case. Even though Kavanaugh defected, it's good to see that Justice Barrett is on the right side of this Eighth Amendment issue.

Another case that I've not fully had the chance to break down. It's out of the fourth circuit. It's a case in North Carolina. They basically -- it's a case called Berger versus North Carolina state conference of the NAACP. The court rules, and it's notable. Because it's an 8-1 ruling. An 8-1 ruling. They ruled that Republican state lawmakers in North Carolina are able to intervene to defend their state's voter ID law. That the NAACP challenged. So the procedural posture there, it's not a substantive claim. It's more a procedural claim. The reason why I want to bring it to your listeners. I think it's worth discussing a little bit. Is because it's an 8-1 opinion. The only person who dissented here is preemptively speaking, Sotomayor. And that's a real read into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit. The lower court that heard this. When you, again, reverse won by the court. When Sotomayor sort of disagreed. And it really paints a stark picture as to how much the Obama presidency, changed the Fourth Circuit amongst the other circuits. We do really have a long road ahead of us, to get the lower court in order unfortunately. This case did come out the right way.

GLENN: Josh. Josh, thank you so much. This is Josh Hammer. He'll be joining us tomorrow. More rulings are coming out tomorrow.

And we're coming close to really big ones.