Has Jeffy Ever Been a Healthy Weight?

July 27, 2017

WRITER

The medical community uses weight charts to estimate what a healthy body mass index should be – but their approach was too one-size-fits-all to suit Glenn and Jeffy on radio Thursday.

While looking at a weight chart to measure BMI, Jeffy was skeptical about the recommended weight for his height. A former football player, Jeffy said his lowest weight was 200 pounds.

“Was that when you were born?” Pat Gray joked.

Glenn talked about his lowest weight, saying he “looked like a stick,” and puzzled over the recommendation on the chart they were looking at: “I don’t know how you have any muscle mass at 180 [pounds] and 6’2”.”

GLENN: All right. So let's talk about surgeries. What you're dealing with in the government and what we're dealing with the military and elected surgeries and then also in the general population. I want you to understand what is coming your way. Before I tell you this, because it is bad new. Before I tell you this on tomorrow's program, and I believe it is at this time tomorrow; right? It's either hour number one or hour number two, we have the CEO of a new kind of insurance that will help a lot of people. It was a carve out in ObamaCare. And at this time tomorrow, if you are paying exorbitant rates, if you are having problems with insurance, listen tomorrow at this time. We may have an answer for you.

Now, let me tell you what we're headed toward. This is from the NHS. Now, this is from last year. The British NHS, the national health service. This is what we're headed for. A single-pair system. This is what the VA is, and this is why the VA is so bad. The socialized health care system, they now said that in May of last year, they spent $3.26 billion more than they actually had. That's hospitals, clinics, and doctors. 3.26 billion. So if you think you can buy the lie that this is going to save everybody money, you're fooling yourself. This is not an answer. This is another prescription for the death of our country because it's all just going to be added to our bill.

Played a remind your congressmen and senators that that bill will not go away. If we don't pay the Chinese their money back, if we don't pay people their money back, all they will do is claim our land and our resources. They will get their money back.

In north Yorkshire, hospital leaders have decided now to cut back and not provide hip or knee surgeries to smokers or those with body mass above 30. So if you're 5'10" and have a BMI of 30, that means you weigh 209 pounds.

If you're 5'5" -- 5'5", and you weigh 180 pounds, you are not allowed to have surgery. Why are they doing this?

PAT: In England.

GLENN: Yes, in England. Listen to this. Major surgery pose high risks for severely overweight patients and this who smoke. If somebody who is 5'5" and 180 pounds severely overweight? Who's defining severely overweight?

The NHS has for decades had a waiting list. Let me tell you what's happening, and this is before it really begins to collapse. NHS doctors routinely -- this is all backed up with facts. This is from Forbes magazine. NHS doctors routinely conceal from patients information about innovative new therapies that the NHS does not pay for as to not distress, upset, or confuse them. Does Charlie Gard come to mind?

Terminally ill patients are now classified as quote close to death. So the NHS does not have to provide any kind of life support or end of life benefits.

PAT: Wouldn't this be the very definition of death panels?

GLENN: Yes, it is. It's just the beginning.

JEFFY: What?

GLENN: If you're having hip surgery, and you smoke or you are horribly overweight, all you have to do -- if you think there's going to be, like, oh, that 180, scientifically that was the number.

No, the only number that they care about is 3.26 billion. That's it. So if everybody got their weight under 30 of the BMI, they will reduce it and say only this who have a BMI of 25. NHS expert guidelines on the management of high cholesterol are intentionally out of date. Putting patients at serious risk to save the NHS money.

When the government approved an innovative, new treatment for elderly blindness, the NHS initially decided to reimburse further treatment only after the parents. Blind in one eye. And reclassifying blindness as someone who didn't have sight in both eyes.

While most NHS patients expect to wait five months for a hip operation or knee surgery, leaving them immobile or disabled, the actual waiting list -- so you got your BMI under 30. Now you're put on a waiting list. You have 11 months to wait for a hip. 12 months to wait for a knee. That compares in the United States to this broken, awful system of three to four weeks for both hips and knees.

One in four Britains with cancer are denied treatment with the latest drugs proven to extend their life. One in four. Those who seek to pay for such drugs on their own are expelled from the system for making the government look bad. They're forced to pay for the entirety of the rest -- for the rest of their lives of all costs.

So you can't say. Okay. Well, I'll pay for that. You guys just pay for what's covered. If you say I'm going to pay for this drug myself, you are then spit out of the system, and you must pay every dime for everything you do for the rest of your life.

Britain's diagnosed with cancer and heart attacks are more likely to die.

Britain's survival rate for heart disease and cancer are little better than former communist countries. That's where we're headed, gang. So what did congress do yesterday? They didn't call for a full repeal of this socialized medicine that we're headed towards. This is what we're going to get. Because the system that we have under the ACA does not work.

Okay. So what do we do? Common sense would tell us let's super serve the people that we have. You're between jobs, and you have no insurance, and your company has gone out of business, so there is no cobra. Okay. Let's make it easy to get onto Medicare or Medicaid right now so you can get into the system and have that bridge of four or five months while you're unemployed.

The minute you're employed, and your health care system kicks in, you're out. Why is it so hard to do that. If you have a preexisting condition and no one will cover this, then you can get onto Medicare or Medicaid, and you can get that treatment that you need. Not experimental because we can't afford it. But we must be able to do experiments. We must be able to develop new medicines. And the only way to do that is with a free market. There's no new medicine for cancer coming out of Great Britain because they won't pay for them. If we go to a single pair system, you won't pay for experimental treatments because there will be no one to pay for it.

We know that there are people that are clogging up -- nobody's dying on the streets here. We know that there are people clogging up the hospitals, the ERs because they're using those as clinics. Good. Let's get them Medicare coverage, not at the hospitals, unless it's an emergency. But instead at a urgent care center. At a clinic in our towns. Let's get that done and provide them clean, good, basic care.

These problems are really easy. But what they're trying to do is they're trying to make themselves rich, they're trying to make themselves powerful, and they're trying to fix problems that don't exist. And by doing that, what they're doing is they're causing more problems, and they're causing your premiums to go up. They're causing your deductible to be absolutely outrageous. Let's see. I can pay $1,500, and then -- I could pay that every month. And then if I spend more than $10,000 then it will kick in. So I have to pay plus the $10,000 in medical cost. I don't have the money to take my kid to have an ear infection treated because I'm spending it on the $1,500 a month for in case they have cancer or a broken leg. And I don't even know if a broken leg would be -- would fit into that $10,000 if I haven't spent anything. It's almost like kids. I need he need to break an arm January 1st. We're all going to the hospital. I mean, it's crazy. It's absolutely crazy.

There is a solution. Tomorrow on this program, we're going to show you somebody who has started a company for a carve-out, and it may help save your family a lot of money. And we'll do that on tomorrow's program.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep