Glenn talks with Lord Monckton


Evil Conservative Industries...

GLENN: Last night I had dinner, and I don't think they are the same one but last night I sat next to Lord Monckton. This is a guy who was advisor for Margaret Thatcher and the reason why I wanted to bring him on, fascinating to spend a couple of minutes to talk to the guy who is the guy who actually brought Al Gore to court or The Inconvenient Truth, who spearheaded the effort to get a balanced view taught in schools in England. This is the guy who got it done. Lord Monckton, how are you?

MONCKTON: I'm fine, Glenn. And you held up your own end of the conversation very well last night.

GLENN: I'm sure I did. First of all, I have to ask you. Was I -- did I -- I mean, I've never met a Lord before. At any point was I supposed to say, "My lege" or anything like that?

MONCKTON: No, you acted entirely correctly every time you spoke. You conducted the entire dinner kneeling, quite right.

GLENN: Okay, good. So Lord Monckton, you're a guy that -- tell this story. How did this -- how did it happen that now the other side of global warming has to be taught in Great Britain?

MONCKTON: It's a very interesting tale. What happened is that I looked at Al Gore's movie with mounting horror and I identified three dozen scientific errors in it. So I had a weather mate of mine who takes an interest in these matters and also had the money to pay for a court case and I said I thought this film was rubbish. Two weeks later he rang up and said he wanted to do something to fight back against this tide of unscientific freedom-destroying nonsense, which is what global warming is really all about. And so I said, well, the best thing is that you dish your review, a rather peculiar kind of court case in the high court in London in front of custard faced judges. And he said, right, I'll do it. So we went to the government and said --

GLENN: Hold on, hold on. Lord Monckton, hang on just a second. Stu, would you write this down? It's a very good slam. I need to use custard faced judges from time to time. That's very good. All right, go ahead.

MONCKTON: Yes, okay. So we went to the government. They didn't reply satisfactorily. So we then served papers on them through lawyers and the case came to court and it was very interesting. The first judge who heard the case threw it out without actually watching the movie. So we went to the judge and said, did you watch the movie or didn't you, and he didn't reply. So we were able to demand to get a rehearing in front of another judge also we think somehow chosen by the labor government who we were fighting because they were wanting to put this wretched film into every school in England.

GLENN: Right.

MONCKTON: So the second judge who had in fact been a labor candidate before wanted to see it very much the labor party's way, but what we did was to pester the government scientific spokesman so that they themselves would either have to look scientifically stupid by pretending that Gore's film didn't have inaccuracy or they would have to admit that it was inaccurate. In the end they decided that for the sake of retaining what little scientific credibility the office still has, they better admit this were errors and once they admitted them, the judge, even though he wanted to, couldn't find that Gore's film was accurate.

GLENN: Okay. So you told me last night -- because I said to you, I have no problem with Al Gore's movie being shown in school, as long as the Great Global Swindle or something like that is also shown side by side. Show both sides. Teach both sides. You said that the same thing that happened over in Great Britain can be done here but it requires about $2 million to get it done.

MONCKTON: This is absolutely right. So if any of your listeners out there have got a spare $2 million and you would be willing to take Al Gore on in court, then get in touch with Glenn Beck and he'll get in touch with me and I'll put you in touch with the guy who originally fought some of the early environmental cases 30 years ago who's still in practice. He is now a judge himself.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. You didn't give me your -- you didn't give me your digit so I could ring you.

MONCKTON: Right. Well --

GLENN: Yeah, okay. Wait. Go back and tell the part of the story where you said there is somebody here that -- if I get the story right -- that is an environmentalist or a former environmentalist who is sick and tired of this, that wants it done here and knows how to get it done here.

MONCKTON: That's right. This is John Yaniker (ph) who originally represented the Environmental Defense Fund 35 years ago when they managed to get DDT banned. Now, once he won the case for them, he said to the Environmental Defense Fund, look, what you mustn't do is insist that the ban be applied inside people's houses in these poorer countries because if you ban it even inside houses, lots of children will die of malaria. And he said, I've got scientific papers, I read them all up, which is what will happen. So you mustn't push this too far. Then fired him on the spot and as he left the room, he heard the then head of the Environmental Defense Fund say we would never again employ a lawyer who knows any science.

GLENN: Okay.

MONCKTON: And since then you know what happened. Between 30 and 50 million children died of malaria who would not have died if DDT had still been allowed to be used inside people's houses and it was only two years ago that the World Health Organization finally made a statement saying politics has ruled this debate until now; now we're going to allow the science and the data to take place and we are lifting this ban and encouraging the use of DDT against malaria.

GLENN: Surprise. All right. So this guy was the attorney that got it done and he says now he knows of the way to overturn Al Gore and get the truth taught in schools here in America.

MONCKTON: Absolutely he does indeed. There are a number of different ways this can be done, a number of different courts in which it could be tried and obviously once we know that we've got somebody who can back us to do this, we will then consult with Judge Yaniker (ph) and find the best forum to do this. Interesting as you know that just this morning John Coleman, who is a veteran forecaster in the U.S.

GLENN: Yeah.

MONCKTON: Has actually said that Gore should be prosecuted criminally because he is peddling a false prospective in his generation investment management company by talking all this science, pseudoscientific rubbish, which is absolutely in correct, exaggerated all in the direction of alarm.

GLENN: What do you think -- we're going to have him on here in a few minutes. What do you think of that?

MONCKTON: Well, I've already made that complaint about Gore and James Hansen who has political and financial links with him. James Hansen is a scientist at NASA who has been pushing all sorts of alarmists and again scientifically inaccurate results onto the public. And Hansen made the mistake of issuing a public statement condemning a presentation which I was going to make to both houses of the Kentucky state legislature last year and he hadn't even seen what I was going to say. But he condemned it anyway.

Now, that's not scientific. So I wrote to the administrator of NASA and I said, this conduct is not acceptable; I want it investigated and I think there are financial irregularities behind the conduct of your people in this matter and given that they have financial links with Al Gore. And so they are, in fact, now investigating it. It was referred to the inspector general of NASA who is their internal affairs officer, and he is now looking at this. And if they don't come back to me very soon and say that they have disciplined this man for making unscientific statements when he's a paid public official against a private citizen -- that's what he did -- then I am going to refer this case via diplomatic channels to the U.S. attorney general's office because they are the only office who are allowed to refer investigations to the Securities & Exchange Commission.

GLENN: Lord Monckton, thank you so much. And you say again it's going to take about $2 million to mount a case here in the United States?

MONCKTON: That's right.

GLENN: Is that what it cost you over in --

MONCKTON: Cheaper in the U.K. but here it's much more expensive, a more complicated legal some. So it's better to say, rather than underestimate it, it's going to be the thick end of $2 million anyway.

GLENN: So it's $2 million, not 2 million pounds which now translates to about 14 -- I think it's like $14 trillion U.S. dollars now.

MONCKTON: Yeah, $2 million should see us right. And what I can say is that you will have exactly the same success here as we had there because Gore's film is full of such obvious stupid exaggerations that any judge in the end, when confronted with the facts, will have to find that this film cannot be shown to innocent schoolchildren unless corrections are made.

GLENN: That's fantastic. Thank you very much. Lord Monckton, always great chatting with you.

MONCKTON: Thank you.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.