BLOG

Ben Shapiro Officially Dubs the Trump vs. CNN GIF War 'Clowntastic'

Ben Shapiro is an author, journalist, and Editor in Chief of the Daily Wire, but his specialty is getting under the skin of liberals. The conservative powerhouse joined Glenn on radio Thursday and the two couldn't help but notice the blatant hypocrisy from both sides in the story of Trump's retweet of a video clip of him beating up a guy for a WWE stunt with the CNN logo superimposed on the victims face.

"If Barack Obama would have retweeted something that had an old clip of him beating the snot out of somebody and it superimposed a teabag over a guy's head, we would have gone ape crazy. We would have become animals and gone nuts. Right?" Glenn asked.

As always, Shapiro put the nail right on the head.

"For sure... Because we don't care about how we're acting anymore. All we care about is the reactionary nature of politics right now. It's why President Trump has like a 90 percent approval rating among Republicans and a 10 percent approval rating among Democrats. And the same thing by the end of the Obama term, was basically true. We're so polarized that we're using the polarization as an excuse for bad behavior," Shapiro said.

According to Shapiro, this behavior by the right is disappointing for an interesting reason.

"And, listen, I've spent my entire life -- my entire adult life fighting the left, and I was not expecting moral leadership from the left. I've never expected moral leadership from the left. Because they don't believe in the same values that I believe in. But I did expect moral leadership from the right. And I don't really see how moral leadership is advanced by tweeting out, you know, GIFs of WWE wrestling CNN logos. I mean, this was once an office occupied by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. It's a little bit clowntastic to watch the president," Shapiro said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Good to have you on the program.

BEN: It an honor, of course.

GLENN: Good to have you here.

So I just want to run down just a few of the things that are going on in the world and just get your take on where we are, what we're headed towards.

First of all, quickly, let's touch on the topic that we've been on all day. Charlie Gard, the little 11-month-old child whose parents have the money to take him to America to get the treatment. The courts and the national health care system in Great Britain says no. He's got to die in a British hospital. Literally, he's got to die in a British hospital. Slate magazine just said that the right is going to use this as a case for death panels and against socialized medicine. Yeah.

(laughter)

Where do you stand on this?

BEN: I mean, it seems like a pretty solid case against death panels and socialized medicine. I don't see why we wouldn't possibly use that as a cutchall (phonetic). But, yeah, I mean, I think that -- my wife is a doctor. She's in residency, and she works in a hospital. And she deals with, you know, terminal people all the time.

And doctors will say that it's -- that -- they'll give -- they'll lay out all the choices for people who are terminal and they say, maybe you'd prefer not to be poked and prodded every five hours. Maybe you want to die at home. But this is all about the choice of the patient.

And here, in Charlie Gard's case, obviously, it's not the choice of the patient. It's not about the choice of the parents. When a government and a society decide that the quantity of life is less important than quality of life, you end up in a really dire situation. Because the goal of government at least should be to preserve quantity of life. It's your job to decide what sort of quality of life you want to enjoy. And we all have our different moral standards on that. But once the government decides that it gets to decide what quality of life is worth living, then you run into serious --

GLENN: You're in trouble. So I had my staff reach out to leaders of churches and faith over in England yesterday.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I got several responses. One of them was from a pastor who said, look, the churches and the pulpits, they are not dealing with this. They are not talking about it at all.

However, the Christians in England are talking about it. It's interesting that he -- he hoisted the white flags and said, the pulpits, including mine, have surrendered on this. But the people are talking about it.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: So there's a huge disconnect there. But he said, please tell Glenn that this is not a case of the government just taking away the rights of a child -- or, rights of parents. It is -- it is more so that the government has paid for this child's health care. And he said now that they have the money to take him to America, I see no reason he can't go to America. However, there isn't enough money to work on cases like that here in England.

So he was making the case that if you don't have money, that it would be right and righteous to say, let him die.

If you are in a socialized health care system and you don't have the money, is it wrong? What do you do?

BEN: Well, I mean, this is why socialized health care systems don't work. I mean, eventually someone is making the final call. It's not as if these parents were born into wealth. I mean, they raised this money from a bunch of charitable people so that they could take their kid out and try and save the kid.

As far as the issue with the pulpits, I mean, this is something that happens in the United States also. I think one of the great tragedies of the latter half of the 20th century is that pulpit figures across-the-board in Judaism, in Christianity, have fled from crucial moral battles that are happening in the now, in order to keep on the good side of government because they're afraid that the government is going to come against them. And so they've run from these moral battles. And you see it all the time. And it's really devastating. It sucks the marrow from the bones of religion.

GLENN: So then let's go to another moral question, of much less importance.

The CNN battle with the WWF video. Okay? I don't -- I'm having a really hard time with this because I don't see a good guy on either side.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I see the president doing something that if Barack Obama would have had -- if he just would have retweeted -- not saying that Donald Trump did anything, but retweet it. If Barack Obama would have retweeted something that had an old clip of him beating the snot out of somebody and it superimposed a teabag over a guy's head, we would have gone ape crazy. We would have become animals and gone nuts.

BEN: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Right?

BEN: For sure.

GLENN: So why don't we see now that we would have reacted the same way that the left is reacting to this and -- and forget about how others are acting, worry about how we're acting?

BEN: Because we don't care about how we're acting anymore. All we care about is the reactionary nature of politics right now. It's why President Trump has like a 90 percent approval rating among Republicans and a 10 percent approval rating among Democrats. And the same thing by the end of the Obama term, was basically true. We're so polarized that we're using the polarization as an excuse for bad behavior.

And, listen, I've spent my entire life -- my entire adult life fighting the left, and I was not expecting moral leadership from the left. I've never expected moral leadership from the left. Because they don't believe in the same values that I believe in. But I did expect moral leadership from the right. And I don't really see how moral leadership is advanced by tweeting out, you know, gifs of WWE wrestling CNN logos. I mean, this was once an office occupied by George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. It's a little bit clowntastic to watch the president --

GLENN: Clowntastic. So have we just surrendered to clowntasmia --

BEN: Yeah, I think the Republican Party is broken down into -- and the conservative movement has broken down into maybe three groups: Group number one are people who say this is ridiculous and silly and there's no way he should be doing this. Group two is, this is ridiculous and silly, but at least we got Gorsuch. And then group three are the people -- and this is the growing group -- this is the one that I actually worried the most about is people who actively celebrate this, where this is a feature, not a bug. It's not, well, you're going to get the stupid tweet from time to time. But at least you get Scott Pruitt over at EPA, paring back the regulations. It's the people who say, I don't really care what Scott Pruitt is doing so much. Like, I don't pay attention to that. And Gorsuch, yay. But what I'm really interested -- what really gets you jazzed up is the tweets about Mika Brzezinski's bloody face lift or Trump tackling a CNN logo. Like, that's really what gets me going.

GLENN: Well, it's amazing because we used to say, when I was at Fox, watch the other hand. And the other hand -- well, A, I don't think they're coordinated. I think both hands are just flailing, doing whatever they want. But you could make the case that they're very strategic because as we are -- we're not talking about a health care reform that is absolutely awful. It's not -- it's not any better.

BEN: Well, I'm always hesitant to credit strategy to President Trump when sheer unbridled id would do it. You know, I think this wasn't, he thought, you know what, I really need a distraction for my health reform bill. So I'm going to tweet out a dumb gif. I think it was, somebody forwarded me a dumb gif. Ha-ha-ha-ha. Wouldn't it be hilarious if I put it up on my Twitter feed? And it really was that amount of consideration.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

BEN: So in order for it to be a diversion, a diversion usually requires something for you to divert attention from. I don't think he's diverting attention necessarily from the health care bill because that's a giant -- like, right now, it's a cluster.

GLENN: But what kills me is that there are a lot of people that are willing -- very smart people that are willing to say -- and help me understand it, Ben.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That are willing to say, this is okay. The health care bill. Let's just say everything else is sane. But this is -- the people I trust now are not Mike Lee. They are what's-his-face? Turtle face from Kentucky.

BEN: McConnell.

GLENN: Okay. McConnell. They're trusting McConnell over people like Mike Lee. Help me figure that out.

BEN: Yeah. So, not to break too many groups down to other groups. But I think there are two groups of people here: One is the people who just want to see a win for Trump. And that means something has to pass. And since we're not going to pass simple repeal because Trump basically foreclosed that -- I mean, he forbade that during the campaign. He made a bunch of promises that are not in coordination with simple repeal. And he said, we're not going to let anybody go without health care. The government is going to make sure everybody is covered. I mean, he said this stuff in the campaign.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: So it's kind of difficult to say then now we're going to repeal and we're going to cut back Medicaid. So there's group number one that just wants to see Trump get a win. And then there's group number two who say, okay. Now we're going to be honest. We were lying for seven years. Republicans were lying for seven years when they said they were going to repeal this thing. Now we got to be honest. We're not repealing it. But the best that we can do is Medicaid restructuring and a tax cut. And that's the best we'll do here. And we'll call it Obamacare repeal so that all the idiots --

GLENN: Do you believe -- is there a group -- a growing group of conservatives that believe in socialized everything?

BEN: Yeah. I think there's a growing group of conservatives who at least don't care, who are apathetic. Who are more interested again in the fight in what they perceive to be the left than they are the fight against leftist policy. There's been a mistake that's been made, which is you identify the entirety of leftism as residing in the halls of CNN or the New York Times or at the universities. But when leftism actually starts to infect your party, then it can't be infecting your party because, hey, we're Republicans. We're conservatives. We don't believe in the -- we're not leftists. I mean, come on. We hate those guys.

And it doesn't matter -- this is why Steve Bannon, the White House chief strategist, he was out there floating trial balloons about raising taxes on the rich. And there were a bunch of people going, well, yeah, why not do that?

What? I've been here for a while. This is a new one. But people saying, well, I mean, if that's good policy and if that will help us win Democratic voters and all the rest of it, then why not do it?

Again, I think that what people -- the stuff that you and I were looking at during the campaign, we were saying, this is really -- like, some of the activity that Trump was pushing or things like Gianforte, the Montana body-slamming reporter. Things where you and I were going, this is crazy. How is this happening? There were a lot of people who were seeing that not as -- in spite of that, we're happy because we're getting good policy. The policy doesn't actually matter. All that matters is that we have for so long hated losing to the left, that people literally body-slamming reporters or just going out there labeling everything fake news, all of this stuff is -- that's what we wanted. We elected that. Right? What we wanted was the Twitter.

Okay. The Twitter is not an obstacle to getting what we want. The Twitter is what we want. The policy is the obstacle to getting what we ant because we might not get more Twitter if he doesn't get policy passed that allows him to get reelection. And I think we have to be honest with ourselves about whether we're more jazzed up about the wrestling gif or whether we're more jazzed about Gorsuch. Because I think that --

GLENN: We're more jazzed up about the wrestling --

BEN: I think that's right. And I think Trump thinks that's right too, which is why he keeps doing it. Right? He gets more applause doing that than he does with conservative policy.

GLENN: Right. Back with Ben Shapiro here in a second.

GLENN: Good friend of the program. Good friend and also a good friend to the Constitution, deeply rooted in -- in logical thought, which is rare, Ben Shapiro from The Daily Wire is with us.

STU: And a lot smarter than us, so let me ask a question. The CNN thing, their reaction to the wrestling situation, which was them saying, well, we won't release a name. But, you know, if you act badly, we might.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: I don't even understand that.

STU: It was a weird way of phrasing it. And I'm not defending CNN and the way they handled it. It was very clunky at best.

I was a little surprised at the uniform reaction on the right though, at least the passionate response from the right saying -- sort of giving this real reverence to an online pseudonym, as if this really means you're anonymous. You could try to be anonymous, but that does not guarantee your anonymity.

You know, who are you mad at? You're mad at CNN here, who is essentially, let's say in the school situation, the principal punishing your kid for doing something wrong, right? They're punishing your kid for doing something wrong. I always see the right as the people who are mad at their kid, not at the school. The left is the one that goes and whines about the school. Hey, why did you get my kid in trouble? You're causing real detriment. Where, the right is the one supposed to be saying, wait a minute, moronic kid, don't post anti-Semitic stuff. Don't post stuff online you don't want to associate with yourself. What am I missing?

BEN: Well, I don't think you're missing anything with the basic calculus as far as the right is supposed to be chiding people when they do this sort of stuff. Although, during the last election cycle, as the number one recipient of anti-Semitic tweets in the journalistic community, according to the ADL.

STU: Yes, 40 percent.

BEN: Forty percent of all anti-Semitic tweets directed at journalists came to me personally during the last election.

GLENN: Congratulations.

STU: Congratulations.

BEN: Thank you. That's great. I have a trophy on my desk: Most hated Jew in America, which is a real accomplishment. Yeah, it's great.

But the -- you know, I think that this story is a little bit more than for that for a couple of reasons. One is that the attempt to link Trump with the guy who created the meme and then to link him with all the other stuff that this guy had ever created was obviously a stretch.

STU: And unfair.

BEN: And unfair to Trump. And obviously a hit job on Trump. So that was CNN going over its skis on that.

Okay. So assume that and say, okay. Fine. Well, they disagree. They think that Trump associating with the Reddit crowd, he gets -- whoever he's linked to, we're now going to search for all their ancillary material and link him to that. Which, again, I have a problem with that. That's mistake number one. Mistake number two is that apparently they got the wrong guy. So apparently they didn't even get the right guy.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: And then mistake number three is that they apparently called him. And before he returned their call, he said, okay. CNN is on my tail. I'm going to apologize and pull all the stuff down before I call that. He does that. He calls them back. And then they run that story where they say, and we'll keep him anonymous if he obeys our orders. Okay. That's no longer journalism. That's now activism. So if you're an activist group, that's okay. Right? It's still not moral.

GLENN: What do you think of the idea that Stu floated yesterday, that's really the Buzzfeed crew that kind of came in that was pushing back against CNN, because they are more activist. Don't get me wrong, I worked at CNN. They are activist as well, but not like the Buzzfeed people.

BEN: Uh-huh. I do think that the media have become just generally more activist since Trump was elected.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BEN: They now see it as their -- I wrote a column for National Review where I said the dichotomy right now in the American discourse is that the left sees themselves and the media see themselves as these battered-hat, trench coat-wearing guys who are snooping on the streets, and every nook and cranny for all the corruption over at Trumpany Hall. And then the right sees Trump as a sort of Playboy billionaire Bruce Wayne type, who is an idiot during the day, but then at night, he dons the bat cape and goes out and brings justice to Mika Brzezinski's face. So I'm not sure it's a bridge that can ever be gapped -- a gap that can ever be bridged. But as far as CNN's behavior on this, I think I reacted very strongly to this because CNN is not the gatekeeper of telling people what they can do or we're going to release X. It's either newsworthy and release it, or it's not newsworthy and let it go. You don't get to hold things over people's heads.

GLENN: So here's the thing I don't understand. I mean, today I saw this for the first time. This is apparently what was on that guy's feed.

BEN: Feed or whatever, yeah.

GLENN: This comes from a pro-Hitler group.

BEN: Yeah, I've seen it.

GLENN: You're not on this.

BEN: I don't know how they missed me.

GLENN: This is all the Jews that work at CNN.

BEN: Come on.

PAT: Wait. There are Jews that work at CNN? Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Yeah.

So this is amazing because it has all their faces with a Star of David next to it. I mean, it's so Hitler anti-Semitic kind of stuff.

PAT: Oh, that's bad.

GLENN: By saying, hey, we're not going to release this stuff, they actually I don't think did go as far as they could have to tie Trump to this kind of stuff. If they would have spent two days showing this stuff and saying, "This is the kind of stuff he was doing, blah, blah," then it would have been worse. I don't understand their strategy. I'll get to that in just a second.

GLENN: Welcome to the program. And to Ben Shapiro, who is from The Daily Wire and a -- a really bright guy who is not afraid -- we have very different approaches, the two of us. But I think we believe much of the same stuff.

BEN: Right. You're a nice person. I'm not.

(laughter)

GLENN: No. It's just -- yeah. I want to talk to you a little bit about that too before we go. Because that's not it. I don't think you're a bomb thrower by any stretch of the imagination. We were talking about this earlier today. You're very logical, and you don't mind confrontation.

BEN: Right.

GLENN: But you're not a bomb thrower. There's a difference between a bomb thrower and -- you're not quite Ravi Zacharias.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: But you're on that road.

BEN: Well, I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to think that I'm more interested in saying things that I think are true than I am at offending people. And if the things that I think are true offend people, than so be it.

GLENN: Yeah. There's a totally different -- some people go out to make headlines and to offend. I don't think you -- I've never seen you do that.

BEN: Yeah. Thank you. It's something that I do take some pride in. And it's one of the reasons why -- it's so funny, I'll speak on these college campuses. And there will be these major protests and quasi-riots and all this. And then when people who are on the left actually come to the lecture, they'll say they don't understand what that was all about.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. I know.

Okay. So let's go back to where we were before the break. You were about to answer something.

BEN: It was the CNN thing.

GLENN: CNN. Yeah. So what is CNN's strategy on the way they dealt with all of this?

BEN: I think that the entire media right now are so -- as I said, we're in a reactionary period, which is really dangerous because whatever happens out of a reactionary period, it's rarely good. But the media are so reactionary that they think every story is a kill shot. And so they're interested in just getting the story out fast.

GLENN: Don't they know there is no kill shot on this one? It's just not going to happen.

BEN: Yeah, exactly. But they think everything is. Right? You have Democrats who are saying, based on his tweets last week with MSNBC, he should be impeached. It's like, really? That's your grounds? Like that was it? Have you not seen his Twitter feed?

GLENN: Is that a high crime or a misdemeanor? Which one is that?

STU: It's the Twitter clause of the Constitution.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: They put a lot of other clauses in there. No reason they can't put that one in there too.

They really are -- in order for them to maintain ratings -- also, actually because they believe this. They are living in this mythical world where if they break the right story, then Trump will just collapse and he won't be president anymore. And the entire reality will change. And this is why CNN was pumping the Trump/Russia collusion stuff. Not just saying that, you know, there are people who Trump has associated with, who have Russian connections -- which is true -- but saying there is active collusion in trying to blow this up into some big scandal with no evidence.

GLENN: There is no evidence of that.

BEN: None. And they were doing this for a year. And particularly post-election they were doing it because their viewers are invested in the idea that -- they want to be watching CNN at directly the moment when Trump goes down.

GLENN: Yeah, but don't they -- that's true. But don't they understand that we kind of already paved that ground, and it gave birth to the birthers?

BEN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Okay. And four years into it, Donald Trump is doing the whole birth certificate thing, which only hardens his supporters. That's all that that does. And so by CNN making everything into an -- a grounds of impeachment and a constitutional crisis, they're only hardening both sides.

BEN: They don't care. Why would they care? And I think that on the right, why would people on the right care?

You used to be able to say two things: Number one, it's bad for the American body politic to have these hardening of positions. And number two, it's not going to bring you victory. But clearly that's not true. Right? I mean, clearly -- like, we on the right keep saying, when are the Democrats going to propose something? When are they going to bring their solutions? They don't need to. Okay. Let's not pretend here.

The Republicans brought no solutions for eight years while Obama was president. And they yelled at him. And then the guy who said that he was born in Kenya is the president of the United States. So it's very difficult to make the argument that what we really need is a great unifier in order to win elections when I can't say that we're exactly the party of unification.

Now, that doesn't say something to unify with. The left wasn't providing a lot for us to unify over while President Obama was president and was providing his own form of polarization and racial extremism in terms of polarizing various racial groups for political gain.

But right now, there's not a lot of incentive on any side for a rhetoric of unity or for a rhetoric of reason.

GLENN: Well, a rhetoric of reason and unity -- and I don't like his policies at all -- was Mitt Romney.

BEN: Yes.

GLENN: And he was right down the traditional middle and everything else.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: He was much more conservative than this president is in many ways.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And yet we didn't unify around that. We unify against somebody that will punch back.

BEN: And that's the whole thing. This is a rage moment. And one of the things that's happening for politicians and the media is there's a lot of money and a lot of political gain to be made in humoring people's anger. You know, I'm -- as a parent, one of the things -- I have two kids who are under the age of four. Which means you deal with tantrums a lot. And one of the things that you do with a kid who is having a tantrum is you have to say, you know, why are you having the tantrum? Is the anger justified?

Right? And usually the anger is not. It's a 3-and-a-half-year-old. The anger usually isn't. When people who are adults are angry, we no longer even bother asking them, is your anger justified? Are you mad for a good reason, or are you just mad? And then if they're mad, we say, okay. Well, we can grab that. We can use that. We can channel that anger into something politically useful, electing me or raising money for this cause. Or -- and so if there's nothing to be angry at or if there's less to be angry at than you think, then how are you going to take advantage of that? And I think that that's what you see happening on both sides of the aisle.

So on the left, they're saying, this is the worst president who ever was. He's Hitlerian. Nothing is happening, guys. Like nothing. Zero things have happened.

GLENN: Nothing.

BEN: I mean, Judge Gorsuch replaced Justice Scalia. Okay. Nothing happened. Nothing is happening. Right? There's been zero major pieces of legislation passed and signed by this president. There have been a bunch of repeals of small laws under -- under -- under Obama. But like, come on. This has been a transformational presidency? Not in any way has this been transformational. But the left is treating it like, you have a reason to be angry. They're a reason you're mad.

Not really. And on the right, you have people -- like President Trump did this during the campaign, to great effect, where he was going into these small towns that were shutting down because the industries had left. And saying, well, the reason -- you have a right to be angry. And not a right to be angry at the overregulation, which is legit, but you have a right to be angry because the Chinese and the Mexicans are stealing your job. And if we'd just win again -- if we didn't have all these idiots and we would just win again, then we would be able to bring everything back. All these factories would come flowing back in.

And, of course, none of that is true. And so what you have right now is the media trying for a buck to promote anger. And you have the politicians for a vote to try and promote anger. And never at any point does anybody -- it makes a pathological country.

Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist over at NYU, he talks about how when it comes to psychology, the single best method that's been devised for psychologists is cognitive behavioral therapy, where they trying try to take somebody who is having a chain of bad thoughts that's leading to depression. And then they try to say, why is it -- is it possible you're exaggerating the situation? Is it possible you're reading someone wrong? You break the chain of bad thoughts by saying, maybe your feelings are not justified. Maybe you should reexamine your own feelings and get control over your own feelings, and then you can control yourself as a human being. Politics is the opposite of that now. It's to take that rage and exacerbate it and magnify it and make it bigger and broader and louder.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Ben, that brings you right to you and me. And I wouldn't put us in different categories. You just approach it differently. You're approaching it with reason. But you don't mind the battle.

STU: I kind of want to see Ben Shapiro as a dad with a logical argument to the 3-and-a-half-year-old.

BEN: Thankfully, she's a pretty logical three-and-a-half-year-old. She's still three-and-a-half.

GLENN: I bet.

STU: Actually, the macaroni and cheese is the correct temperature.

(laughter)

GLENN: Right. Are you seeing and are you even looking for those people, not on the left, but the reasonable people -- I think there's -- I don't even know what the number is. On a bad day, I think it's 30 percent. On a good day, I think it's maybe 70 percent of Americans who if were presented with a group of adults that could all get along, even though they disagree and were saying, you know what, just come over and watch that stuff burn down over here. We're just going to start moving and getting some things done. Kind of the Republican Party in the 1850s that really was mainly made up of Democrats at the time that said, you're not serious. And the Whigs that joined them and said, my side is not serious either. And we actually want to solve this slavery thing.

Do you see -- do you see those reasonable people out there?

BEN: I do actually. It's a growing number of people who are disillusioned with the WWE of it all and are sick -- and they see it's kind of fake. That really it's a lot of people that are --

GLENN: And you see it on the left as well?

BEN: I think, yeah. I get a lot of letters from college kids because I speak a lot to college kids and they watch my videos. And I get a lot of letters from college kids who is, I was on the left, and I was motivated to believe the people on the right were nasty and mean and cruel. And then I watched some of your stuff, and now it's opened my mind. I'm doing some reading of my own. And I'd like to kind of examine ideas differently. And I think that there are those people who are getting over this.

I think that what's -- the future for conservatism is not going to be complete Reagan conservatism. It's going to be almost a conservative Libertarian merger. It's going to be a leave me alone thing. Because we're so sick of everybody in our business.

In fact, I think that that's actually the strongest pitch that conservatives can make right now to people on the left is not, come on over here and join us on the Trump train. It's, you hate Trump. It's, okay. I hated Obama. I thought he was terrible. Well, I have a solution for all of this, which is, how about we just take the power away from everyone in Washington, DC, and then you don't have to care who is the president. He's just some guy who lives in a house --

GLENN: Yeah. And we're not going to change your life. You live what you like. Don't change how I live my life. Let's just live side by side. I think there's a real case to be made -- I think that's what's going to come out of this.

I was in Hollywood of all places all last week, and I met with group after group after group, some of them were hardened -- at least one in each group of the probably ten meetings that I had -- at least one was hardened against me when I first walked in.

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And it became a joke of the team that was going with me because they were like, how long before they turn? How long before they turn?

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Turned every single one of them because of Jonathan Haidt, actually used his method of talking their language.

BEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Speaking reason. Being humble, friendly, likable, laugh, laugh at yourself, laugh at the other side. Immediately turned.

I had huge liberals come to me and say, "I am more afraid of the left than I am of your side now."

BEN: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Because of what's happening on college campuses. This is the kind of round people up. And it's usually Jews. You know, they were the liberal Jews that were saying these kinds of things to me.

BEN: Uh-huh. I think the political situation right now, it's sort of a game of ping-pong. And the eventually, the -- people are just going to get tired of bouncing between the two polar extremes, between the Bernie Sanders left and the Black Lives Matter left and the, you know, hard-core --

GLENN: Do you think there's enough Democrats that are still out there that say, I don't want Bernie Sanders? Because the Democrats are moving towards that kind of a --

BEN: I think -- well, I think Bernie Sanders is an interesting case because Sanders is smart enough to actually not play the intersectional game as much as he plays the socialist game. So he's actually a more unifying figure for Americans than Kamala Harris, for example.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BEN: And so Sanders is actually -- the great danger from the Democrats is coming -- I agree with the hard left of the Democratic party, who is Bernie Sanders-ite, that the actual future of the Democratic Party and their victory is going to lie with people like Bernie Sanders and not with -- not with this separate people by their race and then run on the typical Democratic platform.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BEN: I mean, I think if Sanders had actually been the nominee, I think there's a much more significant chance that he is president than Hillary. I think he probably wins Michigan pretty easily.

GLENN: I agree. I agree. I agree.

BEN: So, you know, that's the danger. But that's not just because of his ideas. It's because he has steadfastly refused to engage in some of the --

GLENN: Play the game. He's not playing the game.

BEN: Exactly. That's right.

STU: Can we do one more without -- no politics here. I'm fascinated by something that you've done recently, which I just took my kid to our first baseball game. He's five. I'm indoctrinating him to be a Toronto Bluejays fan for absolutely no explainable reason.

But you actually just wrote a book about your experience of going through the 2005 White Sox championship. How did that come about? I think that's a fascinating thing.

BEN: My dad and I are huge White Sox fans. I picked up on my dad's sports allegiances. So he's from Chicago, my mom is from Chicago. I was born in LA. So that means I've never really been to a home game. I've just been to visiting games. And so we're huge White Sox fans. And in 2005, I was at Harvard Law. He was having a rough year. We just decided we were going to watch every White Sox game. So between the two of us, we watched every White Sox game that season, and they ended up winning the World Series. And so we wrote this book where half the book is us writing notes to each other: How are you doing? And we just compiled all of that into a book. So took notes on the games --

GLENN: See, I wrote you about that. And you said it's a sports book. So really no big deal.

That's not a sports book. That's a dad -- that's a father and son book. Oh, that's great.

BEN: But it is -- it's a lot of fun. If you're a baseball fan, you'll get a lot more out of it because there is a lot of baseball in there. I mean, we do love baseball, so there is a lot of baseball in there. But, yeah, it's my dad telling stories about his dad and me and my dad interrelating. And so that's --

GLENN: What's the name of the book?

BEN: It's called Say It's So.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. He'll be on with us -- I think we're doing a Facebook thing. We're so thrilled to have you on. And keep up the good work.

BEN: As I say, it's an honor and pleasure to be with you always.

GLENN: Thank you.

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.

RADIO

Dems are WEAPONIZING Title IX and JEOPARDIZING kids

The White House is taking another step in its efforts to control EVERYTHING your kids learn in school. The Biden Administration recently announced plans to change Title IX interpretations, which puts every public school — and the kids attending them — in jeopardy. Because if schools do not comply with the new rulings — like by not allowing biological boys to compete in girls’ sports or by not teaching young children about pronouns — they could lose funding for school lunches. Thankfully, some Republicans are pushing back HARD. Missouri’s Attorney General, Eric Schmidt, joins Glenn to explain why this rule change is unlawful, and he details how his colleagues are doing what they can to prevent it…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to Eric Schmidt. He is currently the Missouri attorney general, and been on the program several times. He's a friend of the program, because he is not a friend of ESG. And he has been working against, not only that. But an out-of-control federal government. Eric, welcome to the program. How are you?

KENNEDY: I'm great, Glenn. It's great to be back with you.

GLENN: So you wrote a letter to Joe Biden about the -- the lunch money, being held back from states. And from schools, that are not participating in the -- the gender bathrooms and everything else. I can't imagine how this is even legal for them to do. But can you walk us through this?

KENNEDY: Yeah. It's not legal. And I think you -- the intro to this segment. It's very important to get context. The administrative state is antithetical to this country, and what it's all about. The Founders set up a system of self-government. You could send people there. You could send them home. But they were accountable to voters. The deputy undersecretary of the Department of Education is accountable to no one. No one knows who it is. Yet, that person can issue guidance letters, rules, opinions that can affect millions of Americans.

And we need to -- one of the reasons why I'm running for United States Senate is, we need to fundamentally dismantle the administrative state.
From top to bottom, it's grown out of control. This is the most recent example. You have the Biden administration now, tying lunch money to gender identity politics. And what does that mean? Well, if your state doesn't allow or prohibit men competing in women's sports, you you would be ineligible. If you don't have, you know, these gender neutral bathroom rooms, you're ineligible. So the reach is hard to comprehend, because we really don't know what it means. But it's the most cowardly way to do it. Because the way you're supposed to go about effecting things in this country is: The elected representatives pass a law, right? And we all learn about the separation of powers, and there's certain checks there. Administrative agencies often issue rules that go through some scrutiny. And are the basis of a lot of our legal challenges. Because they don't follow the rules. Or they are unconstitutional, or something should be doing. Or in this instance, they just send a letter, Glenn. And they just write a letter, and create this chaos. And say, this is a guidance letter. And say, hey. Oh, by the way. You're taking this federal lunch money. You need to do X, Y, or Z. And so we're pushing back saying, hey. You're not allowed to do it, number one. And number two, it's unlawful. There's nothing in -- you're trying to rewrite federal law with a guidance letter.

And so we're pushing back on it. Because it's really an extreme agenda. And I think they know. They could never get the votes to do these sorts of things, or maybe they could. I don't know. But they haven't tried. They're just letters now.

GLENN: Here's the craziest thing. Is they continue to do these things, which are absolutely illegal. They're illegal. And they know it.

But they do it anyway. And I think that's because there's a lot of states, that will just go along with it. And if they can get those states through this way. That's great. But we are really, truly. This -- what Joe Biden is doing, is enacting Woodrow Wilson's greatest dream. A president who is nothing more than a chief administrator. And all of the laws. Everything else is run through his administration.

So it makes Congress really -- this is why the gun -- the gun bill yesterday is so scary. They didn't even lack at the bill. They didn't have time to read the bill. And thively is always in the details. And, Eric, I know you've seen Obamacare. I know you've read Obamacare. About every other page. Maybe every two pages. It says, the -- the director shall -- what was it exactly? The director shall define these regulations. So nobody had the regulations. It was left up to the director of the department, to just make up the laws.

KENNEDY: Right. And they say, we will promulgate the rules. Or we'll issue a standard. And all these sorts of things, Glenn. And here's the thing: It's not just the administrative state. The Article I branch, Congress deserves a lot of blame here too.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, yeah.

BILL: Because what the Founders thought was that each branch would jealously guard its powers. I mean, read the Federalist papers. That's what they were talking about.

Jealously guard their power. But Congress does this little two-step now. Where they say, I voted for the greatest bill in the world. But I can't believe the EPA did this. And that's why we got -- we got to put that genie back in the bottle. Make Congress vote on these things. Make them actually -- if it's -- you want to issue one rule. You have to pull back ten. President Trump had a good start on the two-for-one rule, that Biden got rid of. If it's over, take the -- take the number. If its economic impact is over, HEP Congress is owed on. I guarantee, a lot of this stuff wouldn't happen. But you need warriors that will go to Congress to actually fight for those things. But you're right. This is what they did, by the way, on the vaccine mandate.

Glenn, I think I was on your show to talk about this. Missouri was the first state to file. We took that all the way to the Supreme Court. But they knew what they were doing.

OSHA was created to make sure HEP when they back up. Not to force a medical procedure on 80 million Americans. But in the meantime, a lot of these companies. A lot of these hospitals, just sort of went along with it. Either because they wanted to. Or they were concerned about the legal ramifications. So this is part and partial to strategy. You're right. The progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson, one of our worst, if not worst president of all time sort of began this movement, of the experts know better than the people. You know, which is completely antithetical to this country. You know, you reject it. I reject it. But here we are now. The American left has all the controls of the levers of power. And they are bulldozing people's constitutional rights. These red flag laws are unconstitutional. They deny due process. And yet, here we are now: Even Republicans saying, well, we got to pass the bill. I mean, that's Nancy Pelosi stuff.

GLENN: I know.

MIKE: So, anyway, the states right now push back, and that's why we've been so aggressive.

GLENN: So, Eric, tonight I'm doing a special on the Department of Education opinion and the labor unions. The teacher's union in particular.

Those -- those two things, or at least the Department of Labor, has got to be -- or, sorry. The Department of Education, has got to be abolished. What happens statewide, if the Department of Ed was abolished? Because people will say, they're not going to get (?) for our schools then.

KENNEDY: Well, the fact of the matter, most of the money (?) however, there's enough that they can do things like this, right? Tie federal lunch programs to this radical he policies. How about just get rid (?) and block (?) that would be one step -- one way to do it. But also the tie here, Glenn, is. You block grant money to the state. One tie here that is very important, in Missouri, we have taken this issue on, of the indoctrination of our schools. This woke, identity politics, of making its way into our schools. Iridology -- we're going after it in a couple of different ways. We issue subpoenas. School districts in Missouri. Around the country. And these marching orders are coming from DC. That's why it's important to get rid of the Department of Education. Because this kind of ideological rigidity (?) stems from the Department of Education's relationship with the teacher's unions. But here's what they're doing in Missouri. Which they're doing in every other state. You just have the guts to stand up to it. We uncovered that there is a diversity, equity, inclusion consulting firms. One of which, by the way, is panorama. Merrick Garland's son-in law. (?) where they ask about kid's sexuality. Parent's income. Parent's political beliefs. This stuff is crazy. At the same time, we issued those subpoenas, to find out about that activity. (?) where parents can send us stuff, that's happening in our school district. Here's what we found. Teachers, administrative staff, are being trained (?) the oppression matrix. Where you divide up students by oppressor and oppressed. The things like (?) colorblindness, this radical (?) not the color of their skin is considered Corvette white supremacy. So are terms like make America great again. This kind of -- the gender unicorn, is being pushed. And I'll tell you, the other thing that we found just a couple of weeks ago. Kids are being forced, in front of their classmates, to do something calls the privilege walk. I mean, this is --

GLENN: Oh, my God.

KENNEDY: These are struggle sessions, Glenn, for kids. With this Marxist ideology. And we have to root it out. We have to be unafraid and root it out. Because this divisive (?) we need to start getting back to math and science. And how about civics? Why don't we start teaching civics again? But it's out of control. And we're pushing back.

GLENN: So, Eric, you're running for Senate. Your race is close between the other guy. The other guy does not look like he's able to win, or it would be close in the election against the Democrat. You beat the Democrat by 14 points.

A, two questions here. A, will you -- will you stand to abolish these -- this administrative state and abolish things like the Department of Education.

KENNEDY: Yes. And one of the things that I talked about. That a lot of candidates don't talk about. Is this, we have to dismantle the administrative state. And those are -- you know, a lot of fights that I've had as an attorney general has been about that. Right?

You see the abuse. You see the overreach. You take it on. And I'm going to take that experience (?) we need it now more than ever. The country is on the line.

GLENN: Now, the -- the next question is: I know somebody else that could run for Senate. And I'm -- I'm cautioning about it. Like, please, do you have a good replacement? Because we can't lose a great AG. We can't have you replaced as an AG. By some mealy mouthed AG. Is there somebody who (?)

KENNEDY: Yeah. There is. There is a long line, Glenn. One of the things I'm most proud of is AG. We've set the standard (?) we've set the temp let for what an aggressive AG does to push back against this overreach. And I think these important fights will roll through the United States Senate, Glenn. (?) I was proud to have Senator Mike Lee's endorsement. We (?) need more fighters. We need fighters. And the guy I'm running against is a quitter. Quit on the state. That's his track record. We need somebody that is unafraid. Stand up to this nonsense. And fight to save America.

GLENN: Wow.

I know you are. And if you have Mike Lee and Ted Cruz's endorsement. Those are the two -- the two that are an absolute must-have, I think for anybody that is going to be in the Senate. And I so appreciate how aggressive you've been on ESG, and also on the Department of Education, and what's happening in our schools. Eric Schmidt. What is your web address, if somebody wants to get involved in your campaign?

MIKE: Yeah. Schmidt for Senate. (?) the Twitter machines and Facebook too. They want to get involved. Schmidt for Senate is the website. It's a great movement we've got. Again, we need conservative fighters right now. That will push back. And President Trump showed us what that meantime. And we have to take these folks on.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Eric, I appreciate it. Schmidt for Senate is the web address.com.