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.

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.