A HORRIFIC 'LOVE STORY': How the Hong Kong protests began

Glenn tells a horrific "love story" between two Hong Kong citizens - and how the murder of one of them in Taiwan led to the mass protests occurring there today.


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...


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.
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.

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 Go to 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.


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…


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.

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 Ten-second station ID.
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.



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…


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.


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


White House TARGETS ammunition sales with ‘INSIDIOUS’ plan

Thanks to a recent report from The Federalist, we now know of an ‘insidious’ White House plan to significantly alter commercial sales of ammunition. But not only would this plot skyrocket the price of ammunition for everyday consumers, but it could create a national security risk by limiting one factory’s ability to produce for the military under war-time demand as well. Larry Keane, from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, joins Glenn to detail this White House move, and he explains how he knows the government is LYING about it too.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There was a story, I think it was last week in the Federalist. And we saw it. And we began to do our own homework on it. Because it was very, very disturbing. And it came out of the Federalist. While Democrats claimed to engage in talks on bipartisan gun legislation in good faith, the White House is behind the scenes, trying to shut down nationwide ammunition sales. In northwestern Missouri, major government-owned ammunition plant is now facing closure, as the Biden administration escalates its war on American gun owners. The Lake City ammunition factory is one of the largest manufacturers of -- of 556 and 223 ammunition, which is the most popular caliber for the most targeted firearm in the country, the AR-15. In operation since 1941 to produce ammunition for the U.S. Army. The government contracts with the private firm, Winchester, to run the enterprise. And sell any excess supplies to the open market. So here's what happened: Winchester called them. I'm sorry. The government called Winchester. Apparently, allegedly. And said, you know, you've got a cute little business going on here. And it would be horrible for something to happen to that business. You know what I'm saying? So what I would like you to do is maybe -- maybe stop selling the 30 percent of the ammunition, to the private market. And Winchester said, most likely, well, if we do that, then if there's a war, we can't ramp up to be able to make more ammunition for the war machine. I don't think you heard me. You're going to stop selling that ammunition. Now, celebrity voices are impersonated in this scenario. But I think that's pretty much what happened there. Otherwise, maybe we find somebody else to make our ammunition. You know what I'm saying?
So public/private partnerships always work out so very well. So we started doing our homework. It looks like Susan Rice was involved in this. But, again, nobody is talking because they're all afraid of their legs being broken. One group, that we have spoke to, that knows the situation. Very well. Is the national shooting sports foundation. And we have Larry Keen on with us. Hello, Larry. How are you?
LARRY: Good to be with you, Glenn. How are you?
GLENN: Very good. Very good. So, you know, I know -- I know it wasn't quite as mob-like. Perhaps with Susan Rice involved. Maybe it was more. But can you tell me, is the just of what I just said correct?
LARRY: Basically, yes. Winchester was contacted by the army. That runs or owns the Lake City amnesty facility. That Winchester runs under our contract. And they were told that the army is considering issuing a policy edict, which Winchester would no longer be able to sell into the commercial market. Excess ammunition. Above the needs of the military. To the commercial market. Which it counts for -- between 30 and 40 percent of the market for 556 ammunition. Which is the caliber most commonly chambered for modern sporting rifles, including AR-15.
GLENN: That's crazy.
LARRY: So that's going into effect on the commercial market for gun owners, as well as to harm national security and military preparedness.
GLENN: So there's a couple of things here. First of all, let's talk about the commercial side. The commercial side. You dropped 30 to 40 percent. Your price. I've read your price of ammunition would go up three to four times. Is that true?
LARRY: Obviously, you know, economics being supply and demand. If you cut the supply, there's already strain by 30-plus percent. It's going to have a significant impact on a price in the commercial market. For sure. It's also going to have an impact on what the military pays for ammunition, manufactured at the Lake City facility. Because the cost -- the economics of running that business, for Winchester would change dramatically.
GLENN: So the other -- the other part of this is for the military, not just in cost. But the reason why, if I'm not mistaken. The reason why Winchester has that 30 percent, and they make 30 or 40 percent of the commercial market. Is so they have the staff, in case there's ever a major war. They have the staff. They don't have to ramp up. They can just shift all of that over to the military, immediately. So we have enough adjust to be able to fight a war. Is that true?
LARRY: That's precisely correct. And if they can't sell us to the commercial market, those employees are gone. Our production capacity is gone. In a surgery situation. Let's say hypothetically, we were engaged in a shooting war, with an adversary like Russia or China or something. The ability to Winchester to meet that surge and demand would not exist. You would not be able to meet that need. Whereas, now they can. They can simply shift that production to commercial market, to the priority of meeting the needs of the war fighter. So that ability is gone, and we can't meet surge and demands. And the price that the military pays for the ammunition they get now, even in a non-surge situation, would go up considerably. And the salience of the commercial market, also helps to fund capital expenditures. At the Lake City facility. So it's not just that Winchester sells that ammunition in the commercial market. They -- they also are putting money back into the POD, to -- for capital improvements. Capital expenditures at Lake City. So that it is paid and can meet surge demand for the military.
GLENN: So as this was revealed last week, we had some congressmen start to write some letters to the White House. Some press started to sniff around, at least on the right side. We started to sniff around. And immediately, the gates are closed to the White House. And they say, this is -- and I want to quote them here. The reports on a possible ban are way off. Uh-huh.
Do you believe that?
LARRY: The person making that is either woefully uninformed of the facts, because there was a meeting at the highest levels of the military on Friday. To discuss this very issue. Or, they are not being truthful. But it -- it happened. It is happening. And there is a letter from 50 House members that has gone to the White House yesterday, led by Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, in whose district the Lake City facility is located. And Senator Blunt's office from Missouri has been engaged in this issue as well. So in 2015, the Obama administration tried to ban this ammunition, under this incorrect legal feeling that it was somehow armor-piercing ammunition. It is not by definition, armor-piercing ammunition.
GLENN: Okay. Hold on. Hold on just a second. Because that's really important. Because I just read another story today. That said, this is armor-piercing ammunition. Now, you say by definition, it's not. What does that mean?
LARRY: Go look up the gun control act. Section 921. And you can find the definition for armored-piercing ammunition. And if you look at this M85532 ammunition, it does is not meet the definition of armor-piercing ammunition. It is not by law, armor-piercing ammunition. So the Obama administration's effort in 2015, to somehow declare an armored-piercing ammunition was withdrawn. And when this was a reaction by Congress, and there were over 300,000 comments. Public comments to a notice that ATF had put out. They backed off. Unable to make it illegal. The Biden administration now is trying to make it unavailable. This is all because they can't pass a ban on modern sports rifles. So if you can't -- ban the ammunition.
GLENN: Without burning any bridges here, because I think it's very important that we know the truth. And I certainly don't want to cause any trouble. How do we know your information is accurate? How do we know the White House is lying here?
LARRY: We have had direct conversations with officials at Winchester. And we've had conversations with staff and Senator Blunt and Congresswoman Hartzler's office. So this is, in fact, happening. And they may have decided, they've been caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. But for them to say, it was never under consideration. Again, either the person making that statement is woefully uninformed of the true facts, or is misleading the public.
GLENN: Another way of saying that is lying. The White House has been lying about many things they continue to say. Things are conspiracy theories. Or they're -- or inaccurate. And then all of a sudden, what do you know? It turns out to be true. Has this stopped? Do you know? Is the pressure off of -- of Winchester? Is this not going through now that they've been nabbed?
LARRY: We have not been informed, that -- that this -- this definitively has been withdrawn, and is no longer being considered. But this -- you know, this is not the first time we've seen an effort by first Obama. Now Biden. To ban this ammunition. To make it unavailable. So we are going to continue to pursue this issue. To ensure that this is not -- no longer a recurring problem. And that -- that whoever holds the contract, for the Lake City facility, has the right to sell this excess ammunition, into the commercial market. Because, again, it's necessary for military preparedness. It's important for the taxpayer. And it helps to fund capital expenditures, at the facility. And it's important obviously for Second Amendment rights, for the exercise.
GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. Larry, is there anything the public can do?
LARRY: They should contact their elected representatives in Washington. Their congressmen. And their representatives. And insist that this issue be fixed once and for all. So we don't have to visit it every couple of years.
GLENN: And how do we fix it once and for all?
LARRY: We make it clear in statute, that whoever holds that contract has the right to sell this excess ammunition in the commercial market for the reasons we've just talked about.
GLENN: Okay. Thank you so much. Larry, I appreciate it.
I appreciate everything that you guys are doing, keeping our second amendment right safe. Thank you. Appreciate it. We'll stay in touch. That's Larry King. He's from the national shooting sports foundation about the Missouri ammunition plant that the Biden administration is trying to curtail, which would cut off a third to 40 percent of the 223 and 556 ammunition, which is the ammunition used by modern sporting rifles.
All right. Our sponsor this half-hour is Relief Factor. Brian wrote in about his experience with Relief Factor. He said, I was suffering with a ton of shoulder pain. And I actually thought, I should have surgery on it. But decided, before I do that, I'll try Relief Factor. Well, he said, the pain literally went away within the first three takes. Brian, that is great news.
Taking Relief Factor will relieve so much pain. I've been on it, for several years now, and I used to be in the kind of pain that I'm in today. Because I'm up in the high altitude. And it's very cold up in the mountains. And I haven't had this pain for quite some time. And very rarely does the pain break through, with Relief Factor.
I used to be in this kind of pain. I couldn't paint. I couldn't use my hands when I was like this, all the time. It's been years since I have felt like this.
And I think it's just the season up here. Anyway, Relief Factor, it works. It works for me. It gave me my life back. I kind of forgot what it was like to live with pain all the time. Call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief.It's Ten-second station ID.(music)Welcome to the program. Stu Burguiere, our executive producer. I find this story that's coming out of Missouri to be really insidious. Again, the president said yesterday, he was talking about gun control. And he said, there's many ways to skin a cat. And believe me, they're going to use every way to skin a cat. Here's the one thing that the Democrats are very good at, that the Republicans suck at. And that is, while they're not in power, they are making plans. And the plans that were being laid before Biden won the White House, and we know because we reported. They were open about it. And we reported on it. They had committees, getting together, to find out, to look at all of the cabinet positions, and to see what instruments they had, or could be construed as having, that they could turn those levels, and change the way of our life, without going to Congress. This is one of them. And, you know, if the White House wants us to believe that they're not doing this. You know, it's -- it's a bridge too far. Because you would have to ask yourself, if you're a progressive, why wouldn't you be doing this? This is what ESG is all about. Why wouldn't you be shutting down the things -- the -- all of the funding, to things that affect global warning, or things that help guns. On the street.
Of course, you would. If that's the way you're operating, through an administrative arm, why wouldn't you be doing it? Of course, they're doing it. Of course, they are. And it's very, very dangerous.
STU: Yeah. There's an interview with Chris Murphy, the guy who is negotiating the bipartisan gun control bill. And it was with the New York Times. So it was arguing -- the Times was basically saying, wait. You're not getting enough here. You're not getting enough here. You need to get more. And his position was, look, what we need to do is pass this even if it's not the best bill in the world. Because the goal of this is not just to save lives. But it's also to convince Republicans that the sky do fall on them politically, if this thing passes.
We just need to show them, that if they go along with some of this. They're not going to get punished, like they think they will. They're always scared of the sky falling. We need to show them that the sky won't fall. So it's really up to us. To make sure if something like this passes, to remind the Republicans that, yes. The sky will fall, if you do something like this. It will. And we need to make sure it does.
GLENN: Besides Cornyn, who is -- because, I mean, the phone should light up at Senator Cornyn's office. If you're in Texas. Can you give me the names of all the people that are involved in this, on the Republican side? Because the sky needs to fall in on them right now right now. It needs to fall in.
STU: Yeah. So four of them I think are retiring. The other six are not up for election this year.
GLENN: What cowards. What cowards.
STU: And, honestly, you would trade -- I would trade nine of these senators for one toasted cheddar Chalupa from -- from Taco Bell. Only one who has been any value in the group of ten is Pat Toomey, who has always been a pretty good senator with one exception, which has been guns. Other than that, he's been pretty good, but the other nine are just, you know, garbage.
GLENN: I think that -- I think that you're asking too much to trade. All of those senators.
STU: One Chalupa?
GLENN: No. I don't think so. I mean, stop being unreasonable. We're negotiating here.