BLOG

Bill O’Reilly: Here’s Who Is Really Stopping the Obamacare Repeal

Democrats are out to “paralyze” the Trump administration so they don’t accomplish anything, but self-interested Republicans are also part of the problem, Bill O’Reilly said on Friday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program.”

Important measures like “Kate’s Law,” a bill that would target sanctuary cities that try to shield illegal immigrants with multiple felonies and deportations, will be blocked by Democrats. But Republicans can’t get it together to repeal the Affordable Care Act either, partly because conservative senators are being too idealistic about what can happen with a health care bill, O’Reilly asserted.

Glenn Beck countered that the health care bills that the GOP has put forward are simply “Obamacare Lite” and won’t fix the problem.

“[This bill] will make the average person’s health premium go up even further faster,” he said of the latest effort to reform health care.

O’Reilly suggested the best thing that Republicans can do is support a bill that gives them most of what they want and then add more reforms later.

GLENN: The one, the only Bill O'Reilly on a very important news week. What is the media missing? That's a long list. Bill O'Reilly begins right now.

Mr. Bill O'Reilly from BillOreilly.com. Buy his books. Buy his pants. Watch his daily show on BillOreilly.com. The no spin news where you can get no spin and news together. It's like a -- it's like a stepping class or something. A spinners class and the news at the same time with your congenial host Bill O'Reilly at BillOreilly.com. Hello, Bill. How are you, sir?

BILL: Congenial? That's me? I am.

GLENN: I say a lot of things I don't actually believe.

BILL: Now your audience knows, Beck. You're just a hollow man.

GLENN: I know. I know.

So, Bill, what a week. What a week.

BILL: Yeah, so where do you want to start?

GLENN: Well, this is your section of the show. I think you should start with what you can't wait to say.

BILL: Let me -- I have a good lead off. This encapsulizes the week. So throughout the day now that I don't have to trek into New York City and, you know, suffer three hours on the road, I'm in and out, and I'll watch a little news just to make sure that I don't miss anything and all of that. I'm not sitting there on my butt, but it's on, and I'm kind of cruising around.

So I walk by CNN's on, and the lady anchor's breathless. Breathless. She's really excited. She says to the audience "We have video of Donald Trump meeting with the Russians. And I mean, she's just epileptic about it. And we'll be back in a moment with that video.

So I've got to sit through three minutes of Viagra commercials. Okay? And then it comes back, and I'm sitting there. Okay. You have video. Donald Trump meeting with the Russians. You know what it was? It was a 2013, he met with some Russians about the Ms. Universe contest. That was the breathless video.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Wait, wait, wait, because I watched the same thing, and I sat through the same Viagra commercials, and I'm, like, what? And they did come back. And, again, Bill, you tell half the story. It was the Russians of the 2014 Ms. Universe. However, it was in particular the Russian that is involved in the story in the -- the one who met with the crown attorney for Russia or the attorney general of Russia that was in that e-mail. It was that guy that he was with. And they were just trying to show.

BILL: It was the pop star and the ridiculous British PR agent.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: But it had nothing to do -- and this was how it was sold -- with Trump and the collusion accusations. Nothing to do with it.

GLENN: So let me go here with this because I didn't see it on CNN, I saw it on MSNBC. I walked by that nightmare. And that's where I saw it. And they handled it exactly the same way. However, I was surprised because when they came back, and they showed that, the point they were making with that -- and I don't know where NBC found these people that were willing to go on NBC -- but the point was, to me, this shows -- not that Donald Trump was colluding or anything else, but that the Russians had been targeting him for a very long time. We know that in 1976, the Russians, the KGB said "I'm shocked. I don't know who this Reagan guy is. Somebody needs to find out who he is. He might be president."

The KGB didn't believe that KGB agent until, obviously, 1980. But they assigned him to watch. And the same thing we know has happened all throughout history. Anybody who looks like there's a chance they might be president, they try to put lures in front of me that are not connected to the KGB. And so the discussion --

BILL: You're being very generous here, Beck.

GLENN: No, I'm telling you the truth of what they said.

BILL: Dopey contest where they're trying to get it into Moscow. I don't think anybody in the world with any idea that Donald Trump may run for president some day.

GLENN: He had been saying it since the 1980s.

BILL: And here's another one today. Just today, Beck. Just moments before, I picked up the phone to come on your fine radio program.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: They're screaming Donald Trump Jr. met with a former Russian intelligence agent at that meeting. All right? Oh, my god. And it turns out who's the guy? He's an American citizen, a lobbyist, a lobbyist for Russia who during the Soviet Union -- and remember, quite a few years -- had a low level job with intel in the Soviet Union.

It's -- look, what I'm trying to point out it's hysteria now. Hysteria. And there may be a good story here. There may be a good story. But it's certainly not surfaced yet, and the cover is as blatantly dishonest as I've ever seen any story covered.

GLENN: Okay. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because this is exactly the kind of stuff that you said to me about George Soros and about the progressive party back in the day. You were, like, Glenn, I could believe you, not believe you, it doesn't matter. There's no story there yet, and that's why you always said I report the news. I don't report what it looks like and could be. Okay? So I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to give that benefit of the doubt to others on left or right that are on television. But you, at least, are being consistent here.

So let's not --

BILL: What I'm going to do with the no spin news on BillOreilly.com is to try to have a home for Americans who want to know what has been established as truth. Not slights of fancy, not sleight of hand, not Three Card Monte, which is what now the network television news is doing. It's different from what the newspapers are doing, by the way. It's very interesting because the newspapers, the hate Trump newspaper industry is doing, is they're just flat out trying to create a system that will impeach Trump. That's what they're doing. That's what their goal is, and they're working toward that goal in any way they can. They'll use any kind of blind source, they'll print any kind of innuendo. It's different than what the cables are doing. The cables and -- to some extent the nightly news and the morning news shows -- are basically hysterical. All right? You listen to them, and you go "What the hell are they talking about? What really happened here?"

And what really happened here, we don't know. And that's why Muller will find out. He's got to investigate this, and he should. He should -- look, I don't know if Donald Trump Jr. has enough to get through all of the hearings that he's going to have --

GLENN: That's full fledged motor oil.

BILL: He's got to stock it up, but he should. He should.

GLENN: All right. Let me switch subjects here. First of all, this is the difference between Bill O'Reilly and I. We -- and I think this is why we get along is because when Benghazi happened, three days after, I was on the air with a chalkboard showing exactly what I thought happened, and it turned out to be true. Bill was not reporting that because Bill reports the actual news. I tie things together. I can tell you now, I can put a chalkboard together that will show you not collusion but entrapment. A luring in of the Trump family, and they played into the hands unbeknownst to them of Russia, which is a very dangerous situation. I can show you that the Clintons knew what they were doing when they would go, and they would sell access to foreign countries, just give it to us with the Clinton foundation. We can show you that. It's not proof. Bill will report on the story. I will tell you what I think it means in coming what really happened, in my opinion. It's a difference between us. But let me change stories.

You and I both know that this is out of control and nobody is listening. Let me play some audio for you from WMAL in Washington, D.C. This was on a talk show. This is the Trump -- many people who voted for Donald Trump, I want you to listen to the desperation in this man doesn't voice, Bill.

>> Allen in southern Maryland, you're on WMAL, go on.

>> I'm sick of the Donald Trump stuff. All the Donald Trump stuff. I consider myself one of the forgotten men and women. I'm worried about job creation. I'm worried about tax cuts, I mean, more money. I'm living paycheck to paycheck. They just cut off my cable bill. I'm rubbing two nickels together. My girl can't find a job to help me. We're out here struggling. These people don't get it. They really don't get it. I don't have money. I'm cutting back on my medicine, my groceries. She can't find a job.

>> Allen, do you feel like the president is keeping his head down and doing what he promised to do to try to help you?

>> If they let him do it and give him a chance. They're fighting him every step of the way. We need help out here. We've been struggling for years under Obama, and he had the right message. We voted him in because of that, and we need tax cuts. I need a couple every dollars in my paycheck every week. We need jobs.

>> Thanks, Allen.

>> We need Trump, and these liberals, the press, all of this, they need to get off of that and think about us. Putting your boots on every day getting up at 4:00 in the morning going to work and trying to provide for families, and it's hard.

GLENN: So last hour, I laid out my opinion on how -- what this all means and what this means is I don't -- I could lay out a plan for -- or a look at what happened in Russia, and I could lay it out like I used to on Fox and make a very strong case, and I believe that case is accurate.

But instead of doing that, why don't we listen to people like Allen, see their pain, figure out how to give them the things that they need. But more importantly, why aren't we pressuring congress to pass a damn tax cut while the media's in a feeding frenzy. Misdirection or overwhelm is what they've been doing to us for the last eight years. Bill O'Reilly at BillOreilly.com, his opinion on that when we come back.

GLENN: (888) 727-Beck. BillOreilly.com. He is free. Free at last at BillOreilly.com. And he is able to tell you the truth, as he sees it, and what the media is absolutely not seeing, and what they're missing.

So when we last left Bill O'Reilly his always cheerful disposition, we were talking about a guy who called into a radio show WMAL in Washington, D.C. and he was desperate. Bill, why are we focusing as the media on the right? Why are we focusing on Russia did happen, didn't happen, doesn't matter, yes, it does. When really, if we went to congress who are scared of their own shadow and said, "Pass tax reform. Pass the legislation of repealing ObamaCare. Pass these things and overwhelming the system."

We know Donald Trump would sign them. Why don't we do that?

BILL: Well, you say why don't we do it? Then you're calling for, like, demonstrations of people who would come out of their homes and have signs and stand in front of the capitol. I think that would be an effective thing. But people are working so hard and, you know, trying to raise families that they're not going to do it.

GLENN: I just think holding congress would help. I mean, they're afraid of the Trump voter.

BILL: Everybody should do that. But you basically have a system where the democratic party is trying to paralyze the Federal Government. That's the most important thing. The democratic party is trying to paralyze the Trump administration, and so they get nothing done.

GLENN: Okay. Well, but they can't -- they can't do that with the Republicans having both houses. They have the senate and the house, so they can pass things.

BILL: They can in a certain way because they are, for example, Kate's law. Slam dunk; right? Well, you need 60 votes in the senate to get Kate's law passed and probably you're not going to get them because the democratic party has gone so radical left. And this is how frustrating it is. But under two big issues of health care, which is hurting working Americans because the high deductibles they have to pay and the premium's going up and the tax cuts. You basically have a Republican party that just can't get it together. You know, I was watching Rand Paul again today on television. He's not going to vote for the new health care bill. And he's not going to -- he is not going to compromise. He is going to vote against it, and that means ObamaCare may then survive, and that means Republican party will get hammered in the next election. But Rand Paul doesn't seem to care. All right? So you have.

GLENN: That's a little harsh. Earlier does care.

PAT: He cares about a good bill, which this is not. This is not a --

GLENN: Well, this is better than it was. They did go for the Cruz.

PAT: Marginally better. Marginally better.

STU: No tax breaks now?

BILL: Take the policy out of it. Take the policy out of it. You can try very hard if you're Rand Paul to get what you want in the bill. But in the end, if it comes down to voting against it and having ObamaCare then survive for another year, you vote for it.

PAT: It's mind-boggling to my, though, Bill, that it's Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and Mike Lee and the guys who are really trying to tow the line on conservatism, they're the ones getting the beating, rather than the bone heads who think that ObamaCare light is what the American people want. That's not what we want.

GLENN: It's not what they want. It's not what the Trump voters want. They need relief, and these bills -- Rand Paul will turn out to be right because this bill will make the average payment that has already gone up 140 percent. It will make the average person's health premium go up even further faster.

BILL: Not if it includes Cruz's --

GLENN: That is the hope, and that is why the one thing in there that I think is possible.

BILL: It will. It will. They'll put it in that all insurance companies can compete nationwide. If you have that, that will drive the premiums down. But I'll tell you what. Even if that's in there, I don't think Rand Paul's going to vote for that bill. And I don't think Susan Collins is going to vote for it and the guy in Nevada. He won't vote for it because they're voting their own self interest. They're not voting for what's good for the country. You're never going to get -- like Reagan said. If you can get 70 percent of what you want, you vote for it from within. But, look, that's policy. You're -- I was really affected by hearing that guy in Maryland talking on WMAL. I mean, this guy, he needs help. And if he doesn't want the corrupt media, which -- and they couldn't care less about him. They think that he's an idiot. Okay? But the corrupt media is never going to stop trying to get Trump impeached. Never. And all Americans should know that. So, yes, the route that people listening to the Beck program today should take is call their senators and congresspeople and say you've got to give us tax relief, and you've got to give us health relief.

GLENN: Yeah, there is the amendment.

BILL: The mass movement has to happen.

GLENN: The McConnell plan does include Ted Cruz and Mike Lee's backed version.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, let's talk to Ted and Mike.

STU: Mike is saying he's undecided on this bill, and they're saying --

GLENN: With his plan in it.

BILL: We will vote for it. It's Collins, it's Paul, and the guy in Nevada.

GLENN: Okay. Back in just a second with more from Bill O'Reilly at BillOreilly.com.

STU: Dot com.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly.

STU: Dot com.

GLENN: He'll be joining us when we come back.

GLENN: All right. Let me take Bill O'Reilly over to England and talk a little bit about Charlie Gard. Yesterday, Charlie's parents went to the high court and the judge over in England said, "All right. Charlie, the 11-month old child that has been doomed to death now by a court in London said, "All right. There is a U.S. doctor that will offer him treatment. They will fly him over and listen to Charlie Gard. If we think he has something to say, then we'll talk about treatment for Charlie. But if Monday if we don't agree with his assessment, we're pulling the plug on this 11-month old. Your reaction to that, Bill O'Reilly.

BILL: Well, first of all, thanks for covering the story. Nobody else is covering it.

GLENN: It's amazing.

BILL: Second, I don't understand why the British government just doesn't hand the child over to the Vatican and let the Vatican doctors and the pro-life movement --

GLENN: Bill, couldn't they do that if they take their British passports and instead use the Vatican passports. The Vatican said that they would give Charlie and his parents Vatican passports. They might even have to deny their citizenship. But I have to tell you. If I was living in a country that was doing this to my son, I would deny my citizenship.

BILL: There isn't a legal precedent to deny citizenship. The British government can cooperate with a state. The Vatican's a country. All right? And Charlie's parents have signed off on it. So what's the problem? You know, the British government does not have the power to limit travel. They can't tell Charlie's parents you can't fly to Rome.

GLENN: They can, actually. They can stop the parents from taking -- Charlie is not just scooping him up and taking him out. He has to have the breathing machine and everything else, so he has to be moved.

BILL: Yes, as long as you're tethered to the British health care system financed by the government, this is why Americans don't want that. You know, there are logistics. But I will submit to you that this could be done, you know, with private health on a private jet with private doctors and private -- everything could be done.

STU: But they don't let him leave the hospital, and that's the issue. Listen to this argument from the attorney. In a submission from the high court, the hospital's attorney wrote that while the institution understands that the parents believe they alone have the right to decide the treatment for their son, the hospital holds different principles. Like, I --

BILL: Yeah, that's how insane it.

STU: That's incredible.

BILL: That's why you don't want the government basically telling you what you can and can't have. You know, but here's something that nobody's mentioned. In Great Britain, you can reject their health care system and go private. You can do that. A friend of mine runs a private practice over there. The problem is people don't have any money. So not only is it --

GLENN: Well, they do now. They do now. That is true. But what happened is they didn't have any -- they got him into the hospital, and now the hospital says "No, he's ours. That they've raised, you know, at last I heard was 1.7. It has to be way over that now.

STU: This world that we're looking at now with the way we're looking at life is changing so fast. Listen to this. The hospital says a world where only parents speak and decide for children and where children have no separate rights or identity and no court to hear and protect them is far from the world in which this hospital treats its child's parents. That's their quote. That's their quote.

BILL: Yeah, because what they're saying is because of Charlie's catastrophic medical condition, the odds are he will not recover. So Charlie -- they're thinking for Charlie. They're saying. Okay. He's a minor. So we're going to say if Charlie were 20, and he had an opinion, he would say pull the plug. That's what they're doing.

STU: That's terrifying.

GLENN: But here's what's amazing, Bill. I just talked to Bobby Schindler, who I think you know. And he just got back from England where he was with the parents and everything else, and he said that he's never seen anything like this. He said it's not the news media that we have. He said in London, the news media is all for Charlie. He said all of the news reporting over there is pro Charlie, and the government is rejecting the parents, the baby, the people, and the news media.

That's pretty remarkable.

BILL: It is, and I'm surprised to hear that because the British press is so left wing. It has to do with euthanasia, it has to do with abortion on demand for any reason. You know what the subtext is. It's not just about Charlie and his medical condition. If it were, it would have been taken a long time ago. The Vatican would have him and provide the medical care and Charlie would live or die based on what happens to him. But it's not, it's about power, it's about euthanasia, it's about abortion on demand. And the far left, progressive left does not want those things questioned. They don't want to debate on them anymore. That's what the real story is underneath this because it doesn't make any sense. If I'm the prime minister of the UK, I said, look. Thank you, pope Francis for the offer, and we're going to make that happen because the parents want it, and the British government is going to do what we can to put the boy in your hands, and we're going to all pray -- can't use the word pray because that's politically incorrect. That some miracle occurs, and he gets his health back.

You know, that's the way to solve it. But then, you know, the progressive "Oh, no, you can't do that. Euthanasia is --" it's just really, really gassily.

GLENN: So BillOreilly.com is where you can hear Bill and all of his views. Every day, the new spin news at BillOreilly.com. Make sure you sign up as a member so you can get his podcast every day. Bill, one question on Donald Trump's trip to France. Did you see the press conference -- this is not the question. Did you see the press conference?

BILL: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Did you notice that the two of them standing there, it looked like Jack and the bean stalk?

BILL: With physicality.

GLENN: Donald Trump made the French president look like a muppet.

BILL: And he had a better tie. Why can't Trump tie his tie correctly.

GLENN: Oh, thank you for saying that.

BILL: Middle of the belt.

GLENN: No, yesterday it was not the middle of the belt. It was the middle of the zipper.

BILL: No, I know that. I'm saying his tie has to hit the middle of the belt. You're going to trip on it.

GLENN: You told him that?

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: You have told him that?

BILL: He likes that look. He likes that tight look. I mean, if there's a big gust of wind, he's in Switzerland. It's dangerous. The Secret Service should be tying his tie.

GLENN: All right. There's a new poll out, Bill, and I want you to answer these questions. All right? What do you call the insects -- this poll shows where you grew up and your language.

What do you call insects that glow at night?

BILL: Lightning bugs.

STU: Does that fit?

GLENN: That's about Connecticut and New York. Although, Stanton island and Manhattan prefer fireflies.

STU: Yeah, go firefly on that one.

BILL: They're lightning bugs. Fireflies are feminine. They're lightning bugs.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Look at that oppression by Bill O'Reilly.

Okay. Here's the next one. What do you call the sale of household items out on the lawn or on the driveway?

BILL: You call it a sale of household items out on the driveway.

GLENN: No, you know, where somebody does it in the neighborhood, and they put a sign up on the telephone pole that we're having a.

BILL: Yard sale.

STU: See, I would go tag sale there.

GLENN: You are a freak just freak.

STU: I'm a freak on that one.

GLENN: I've never seen that. There's parts of Michigan that say it's a rummage sale. But most of the country says garage sale.

STU: He said yard sale. Is these four different options.

GLENN: No, the yard sale is the mid-Atlantic and some southern states.

How do you address a group of people? Hey.

BILL: Hey, guys.

GLENN: Okay. Hey, guys. Hey, you guys.

People in Pittsburgh say Yens. Part of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, they say yous.

PAT: Baltimore says yous.

GLENN: Really from the Nixon Dixon line, it's mainly y'all. Kentucky says you all, and the rest of the country says, hey, you guys.

This one we kind of fought over yesterday. Bill, what do you call a carbonated beverage?

BILL: Soda.

GLENN: Okay. So that is northeast and California, parts of Utah, and Arizona.

Pop --

BILL: Yeah, New England, it's tonic.

GLENN: Oh, that's not even on here, so --

BILL: Far New England.

GLENN: I think that's for the alcoholics, Bill, so keep that to ourselves. Pop is for the west and the north. And surprisingly, I didn't see this, this poll does say -- because I grew up calling it Coke. I'll have a Coke. Okay. What do you want? Seven up.

STU: That's insanity.

PAT: That's weird, but it's true.

GLENN: Because Coke is Kleenex, and it shows that Atlanta and the southern states even Texas says it calls it Coke.

BILL: Yeah, no Coke Pepsi. Saturday Night Live wiped that out about 30 years ago. Do you remember that?

GLENN: No, I don't remember that. We're far too young, Bill.

BILL: Because locked away in the basement. Not a lot other than television.

GLENN: Where do you throw out the trash?

BILL: Garbage can.

GLENN: Garbage can is all the north, trashcan is at the bottom.

What do you hall freight in? What kind of truck?

BILL: Garbage truck.

GLENN: No, fright.

BILL: Oh, fright. I don't know.

PAT: Semi.

STU: Semi.

GLENN: From the northeast, it's all tractor-trailer. 18-wheeler in the south, and semi for the rest of the country. This one caused all kinds of problems. What do you call athletic footwear?

BILL: Sneakers.

STU: Yes.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: That is only the northeast.

PAT: Tennis shoes.

GLENN: Tennis shoes for the rest. And this one is insane. And if you happen to say the third choice, I'm going to lose my mind. What do we drink water from in public places? That device that, you know, was in school hallways.

BILL: A water fountain.

STU: Amen.

GLENN: That's the south and all of the northeast. Drinking fountain is the west. But there are two places. One in Michigan and one in Boston. They call it -- have you ever heard get your water. Go drink -- there's a bubbler over there.

BILL: A bubbler.

GLENN: A bubbler. It's the word of the day. Bubbler.

JEFFY: That may be the alcoholic again. May be the alcoholic again.

GLENN: Bill, thank you very much, sir.

BILL: That was more fun than I've had in about two and a half minutes. Thank you very, very much.

GLENN: Right. You're welcome.

BILL: And I just want to tell everybody a little plug if they go to BillOreilly.com. Sign up for premium membership, they get the no spin news, they get the straight story, and then they can listen to you for the conspiracy theories. You get a free book.

STU: Oh, wow.

BILL: A free book.

GLENN: Which one?

BILL: Any one of my books free of charge, which covers most of the membership, and big discounts on things.

GLENN: But what is the incentive to sign up?

BILL: The incentive is you get the private newscast that you can watch anytime. They call it a podcast.

GLENN: Right. Okay. All right.

BILL: The body snatchers. You get that anytime.

GLENN: And just to even things out, you also get a book from Bill O'Reilly.

BILL: Free book. Any one. And you know I have 14,000 books.

GLENN: I do know that. I have a friend who's building a house out of those.

Yeah, all right. Thanks so much, Bill. BillOreilly.com.

BILL: Beck, I really appreciate you having me on. It's always fun to talk with you guys.

GLENN: I was on his show I think Wednesday. I love how Bill sets things up. He just announces it, and then I get an e-mail from somebody that says you're on Bill tonight? And I'm, like, no, not that I know of. And then I call and apparently I'm on with Bill that night.

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.