While Americans are distracted with the House vote on a possible President Trump impeachment, Democrats conveniently shoved some BIG policy changes into the new omnibus bill. So what did they sneak in? Well, not only will it significantly increase federal spending (which is already nearly double from the Obama-era), but it raises the legal age for smoking tobacco, grants amnesty to "sponsors" bringing unaccompanied minors to the border, AND changes Obamacare laws and that's just naming a few. So, where is the national debate on these issues? Why is everything being swept under the rug? Daniel Horowitz from the Conservative Review explains to Glenn and Stu why this is so significant for our nation.
Those at the World Economic Forum say that misinformation is one of the largest threats left to tackle and that critics of the organization are ‘agents’ of spreading lies. In this clip, Glenn is joined by author Michael Shellenberger, who recently wrote about how the World Economic Forum is a 'cult' bidding for 'global domination.' He explains why the World Economic Forum is so dangerous to personal freedom, why it represents a kind of ‘thuggery,’ and how its leaders — like WEF Chairperson Klaus Schwab — is using ‘mob rule’ to push forward their plans…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Michael Shellenberger. You're a -- user growing into one of my favorite people on the planet, Michael.
MICHAEL: Oh, thank you, so much, man. Good to be with you.
GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. I read your -- your takedown or your observations of the World Economic Forum. They are coming out today, and saying misinformation is one of the things that they have to tackle. I think it was number five on their list of most dangerous threats, was misinformation.
And they're claiming people like you, people like me, are just nothing, but misinformation or disinformation agents. About the WEF.
MICHAEL: Well, yeah. You know there's been just dozens, I mean, hundreds of articles saying, there's these conspiracy theories about this thing called the World Economic Forum. The conspiracy theories claim that the World Economic Forum wants a great reset. That they want you to eat insects rather than meat. And that they don't want you to own anything or have any privacy. And that you'll be happier if you do that. Okay. Those are all supposedly conspiracy theories.
Well, my colleague, Isabella Kaminski, who actually used to work at the Financial Times, which is a great fan of the World Economic Forum. And she had been investigating them for almost a decade. And I both published a piece, where all of those things are not only true, the Great Reset, insects as the new meat, and -- and owning nothing and having no privacy.
Those are not only true things. They're actually from the World Economic Forum's Davos summit itself. And from the website. They say they want transparency, but they've actually deleted a number of those things.
MICHAEL: They say they want more -- they want to know our financial information. Okay. That's like part of what gets promoted at these conferences.
MICHAEL: Like, we should know what's in your bank account.
And we should probably be able to control it too.
As we saw in Canada with the truckers. That comes in handy, if you're trying to move away from a democratic system, to an authoritarian system.
So they want that too. But when we say, how do you invest your money? They wouldn't tell us. They just said, Swiss law says, we don't have to tell you. Sure Swiss law tells you that. Are you familiar with Switzerland's banking laws.
GLENN: Well, yes. Maybe Klaus may not have, but I think his father was clear about the Swiss banking laws.
MICHAEL: You know, his father ran a Swiss company in Germany during World War II, during the Holocaust.
Historians who have listened to this, said that indeed he did use forced labor, you know, Jewish labor, during the Holocaust.
During World War II. That's not actually in question.
He is a very creepy person. And so the natural sense -- I mean, I think it's okay to say that. I'm using it in a technical sense.
MICHAEL: The creepy feeling you get from Klaus Schwab is accurate. The basic picture of World Economic Forum as a creepy event, is accurate.
GLENN: Yes. Well, his father believed in public/private partnerships. Which is fascism. That's the definition of fascism.
You own the company. But the country. The authoritarian leadership tells you exactly what you're going to make. When you're going to make it. How to do it.
And you get to keep your -- it's exactly what's happening in China. That's not communism. That's more fascistic. In nature.
The way they run their -- their -- their businesses over there.
He was a fan of it. Klaus is still a fan of it.
That -- that -- I mean, forget about the -- the Holocaust for a second. But that's the basis of what Germany was going for, on the economic front. Correct?
RILEY: Of course. Yes. I mean, that's what every schoolchild learns. I mean, it's almost a kind of -- it's a thug -- it's a kind of thuggery.
MICHAEL: It's a kind of magazine rule, by the -- by these con artists.
MICHAEL: I mean, look, your intuitive intuition against eating bugs is correct. There's all sorts of parasites in these bugs.
It's obviously not a human custom. You know, my -- my wife is Korean American people, and I spent as much time in Korea, and her parents ate bugs. And I ate some bugs. In Korea. It's a little bit of a novelty. Most people don't. Most Koreans like to eight beef.
And when my wife asked her father about the insect-eating.
He says, you know, we were poor and starving, you know, during the war.
MICHAEL: So insect eating -- insect eating is something that noble Asians and Africans do is nonsense.
And so it really does come out. And they say it very clearly, in promoting insect eating, that they don't want you to eat meat. So then if you go and report that, what it is, they come out and say, it's a conspiracy theory. But when you go check on their own website. That's what they say. And it's basically all the things that you've been writing about.
I mean, I think ultimately, you and Russell Brand and the other major critics of the World Economic Forum are proven correct, in what we discovered. And not only that. I think it's ultimately going to destroy the organization. Most world leaders, I think in part because of this heavy backlash against World Economic Forum, did not go. Only the German chancellor went. And he has to go to every one of these events to suck up to world leaders and sheiks and stuff. Because they need world gas.
So -- but other world leaders don't want to go, because they know it's bad for their PR. They know it hurts their image, and you saw Elon Musk responded to me on Twitter.
You know, saying, yeah. It seems like -- you know, while everybody would support dialogue, it's a creepy event.
GLENN: But didn't he just say, it seemed boring.
I thought that was an odd statement, for him to make. He's smarter than that.
MICHAEL: I mean, sure. I mean, I think -- look, I think part of the thing we discovered as well, that this is how they rip you off. This is the grift part of it. Is that when you and I buy, you know, stocks or people have pensions.
And retirement funds, that are buying stocks. They're not getting the early stock or the early investment money. That's the stuff that gets traded at Davos. So in the front house, they talk about, we love the environment. And racial equality. That's the main story. And then behind the scenes, they're just doing grift-y type deals, and we're seeing it bust on people. A lot of people got into crypto. A lot of money got lost.
You know, it wasn't a real asset. So for me -- I think for Izzy and me, that's been my coauthor on this.
We -- so we were like, what is the right thing to say? Is it a grift? Yes. Is it a cult around this kind of creepy dude, Klaus Schwab?
Yes. But it is also a bid for global domination. In the sense, they want to take hold of the economy. And they are doing that. I mean, the energy economy, at this point in Europe, and heavily in the United States, is overwhelmingly controlled by governments.
Because they put so many subsidies in it. They're basically controlling it now. And they've made electricity reliable in the United States. They will have to create another set of subsidies, just to pay somebody to try to keep power plants operating, when the sun is not shining, when the wind is not blowing.
So it is making progress. Klaus Schwab is sick.
It may be that in the future, because you and Russell have so demonized the World Economic Forum so successfully, it may be like something else.
But definitely global elites are constantly trying to take advantage of ordinary retirement-holding citizens. With their stocks and bonds and whatever.
But there's also this kind of creepy low energy return to, you know, 18th century economies.
MICHAEL: Kind of an ideology behind it. We've talked about it before. It's low energy. And you should be basically -- the idea is basically, you should be poorer. That's the idea. Eat insects. Don't eat meat. Don't own anything. Don't have any privacy.
GLENN: Right. This --
MICHAEL: It's pretty terrible.
GLENN: It's gone back to serfdom. You don't even anything.
Because the king owns it. Or one of his lords. You're not going to invent anything. Because you're not going to get anything from it. You can't improve your life because you can't. You can't improve your station ever. Because you can't own anything.
I mean, it's -- it's right back to the feudal system.
The -- in the meeting, Klaus Schwab opened up yesterday, and he said, we have to master the future. And what he was talking about was there are so many crisis -- crises, that are going on right now, that they have to master them. And use them, to push us into this new world.
That's the only thing that -- I mean, if we had time on our side, I would think that we are going to beat them.
But I think this is going to be a photo finish at the wire on who wins on this if people don't wake up to -- their tentacles are everywhere.
And when you have a crisis, and they create -- they're creating all of these crisis, when you have a crisis of food, when you have a crisis of money, people will just reach out for whoever is going to say, I have the solution.
MICHAEL: Well, yeah. Absolutely. I think the one thing that's proven, that you've proven, that Russell Brand has proven and others have proven, is that the World Economic Forum, when you actually know what it's promoting, it's wildly unpopular. That's why the change in the media environment. It starts, of course, with radio. But the internet really takes it to another level. Means that the old regime struggles constantly. So why are they always talking about disinformation?
It's because people like us are out here, explaining actually -- that is what they want.
MICHAEL: They want the bugs. The not owning anything. And a move to low energy living. Great reset was always just like, we're going to stop using fossil fuels and nuclear and reliable energy. And we'll use unreliable and solar and wind. And only when that is possible, because of the weather. That was what The Great Reset was. And fundamentally, the organization is about what they call sustainability, what I think we would call basically making everybody much poorer.
MICHAEL: Returning to a kind of immiseration, that we had before the Industrial Revolution, before we had reliable energy sources, and energy dense fuels.
So, yeah. It's a pretty -- all I can say is that you're right. I totally agree. There's a fight going on, between those of us that think that individuals and families and nations should be able to determine their own identity. And a group of other people that think it should be worked out bay --
GLENN: The elites.
MICHAEL: The supposedly smart elites. Working out the think tank and UN meetings. And business conferences. And Elon, he's a complicated person. And I've gotten to know him a little bit. And what I would say, I think he's seen the dark side of that hyper wokism. And his purchase of Twitter, is maybe the most significant thing he's done.
GLENN: I think so too.
MICHAEL: Because he's basically said, ordinary people should be on an equal platform to communicate as elites.
And we should stop censoring ordinary folks, because the elites demand it.
GLENN: Michael Shellenberger. Thank you for everything that you do. Appreciate it. Always great to have you on. God bless.
MICHAEL: Great to be with you, Glenn. God bless.
GLENN: You bet. Michael Shellenberger, he's the author of San Fransicko.
If you haven't read his work, he's not a conservative. He's just common sense -- and was at one point, the -- the friend of the earth, from TIME Magazine. He was like on the cover of TIME Magazine.
As the -- you know, the best climate justice kind of guy.
Nope. Nope. Not so much. He doesn't agree with any of the stuff that is going on right now. He thinks it is a grift.
And good to have him check in on the world economical forum
One of the far-left’s greatest goals for a while now has been to create a registry of American gun owners and purchasers. And now, they’re using backdoor methods — like financial institutions — to achieve that big dream. But they certainly won’t be able to obtain that registry in West Virginia. Riley Moore, the state’s current treasurer, joins Glenn to detail his new bill which would stop the far-left IN ITS TRACKS.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: West Virginia has been a great state to stop a lot of this nonsense. Probably, I think maybe only behind Florida.
But it -- most of it comes from the state legislature. I'm sorry. The State Treasurer, and the legislature getting on board. And the treasurer, is Riley Moore.
Hello, Riley, how are you?
RILEY: Glenn, how are you thanks for having me back on.
GLENN: You bet. First, thanks for all your work on ESG. You know, the AP is reporting today, that all this great reset stuff is all -- it's all fiction. It doesn't affect the average person. And these people in Davos, they don't have any power to do anything.
RILEY: Oh, sure. Sure. No. Just the trillions of dollars under their control, give them no power whatsoever.
GLENN: No power. No power.
You are -- actually, I wanted to have you on. Because you have introduced legislation prohibiting the tracking of guns and ammo purchases, via debit and credit card transactions. And this is something that the administration is working on. And he's -- they're working on it, through the banking sector. Can you explain?
RILEY: Yes, Glenn. And, you know, this is a -- going to sound very similar to what we've heard on the fossil fuel side, as it relates to ESG. But this would be the S. The social part of ESG.
So I've introduced what's called the Second Amendment, financial privacy act. And let me give just a little bit of background here. Just so people understand how this came about. So in September, last year, 28 members of Congress, led by senator Elizabeth Warren, sent public letters to the large -- to the largest credit card companies and also to the financial institutions out there, that deal with the banks.
And what they asked for, is a new merchant category code. NCC. And this is how they code all different transactions. But what they wanted specifically, is an NCC code in place, to track purchases of guns and ammunition. And now, they were very up front about why they want this.
This is a back door national gun registry.
The liberals have wanted this forever.
RILEY: They talked about it. They can achieve it at the ballot box. So now they're using the financial services sector, to be able to achieve that goal. So what we've done here in West Virginia.
Is introduce this bill. And it's going to do four separate things here.
One, any financial institution that's under our jurisdiction, is going to be prohibited from sharing any information, as it relates to purchases of guns and ammunition.
Secondly, any financial institution, in the state of West Virginia, that operates here, is going to be prohibited from utilizing a firearms code, to engage in discriminatory conduct, right? That would say, all right. We will not work with this gun shop or merchant, or we're going to deny credit card transactions for people that want to buy guns and ammunition.
Thirdly, and this is important -- it's going to create a civil action. It is going to create a cause of action for people who have had their Second Amendment rights violated by these woke financial institutions, to be able to sue for damages.
And lastly, any financial institution, that has violated this bill. Violated this act, will be prohibited, from the bidding process, on any contracts with the state of West Virginia. Moving forward.
So this is -- and, you know, we've talked about -- what are we going to do on the S? They're now taking the fight to us.
We are responding, and this -- this is all about The Great Reset. Total control of our lives. They're going to control with the environmental side. How we power our lives, right?
They're now getting rid of the gas -- they're getting rid of gas stove tops. And now they're going to control our guns and ammunition. And here's one of the scariest things about this. You're going to have financial institutions. Credit card companies. Banks. Have the sole discretion, to decide when something is, let's say, suspicious activity. Okay.
I bought too many -- too much ammunition this month, or I bought too many firearms this month. They're going to then decide to flag that for the feds and law enforcement. I mean, this is unbelievable.
GLENN: Is -- how is the legislature in West Virginia reacting to this? You think this is going to pass?
RILEY: Oh, this is definitely going to pass. And this bill is going to run in the House next week. People are very excited about it. I will say, certainly, Florida had a great big red wave there. We also had one for ourselves here in West Virginia. In the House.
We now control 88 out of 100 seats in the House. And we have 31 of 34 senators in the Senate.
And this bill, is going to fly through.
GLENN: So that's really weird. Because Republicans didn't do well a lot of places. And yet, the places like Florida and West Virginia, that took on these issues, head-on. Seemed to have done really well. That's interesting.
Riley, I'm sad to say, if this is true. That you're looking to leave your Treasurer position. And go to Washington.
Is that true?
RILEY: I am. I am, Glenn. I've announced a run for Congress. I think we need people, that need to get in there, and fight to do -- there's only so much I can do as a state, on a bill like this.
And we're going to fight like hell, here in West Virginia, to protect our Second Amendment rights. But these people in Washington, DC, need to get off their cans and start to do something about this ESG movement, immediately.
And there's several things that they can do. And that's why I want to take the fight to Washington. I will be leaving the treasurer's office. But I'm going to continue this in Washington. If I'm so lucky to be elected in 2024.
GLENN: Are you -- have you prayed on this?
RILEY: I've prayed a lot on this. And spoken with my family.
GLENN: All right.
RILEY: And it was a hard decision. It was a very, very hard decision.
But I got to keep my faith in God.
GLENN: I know. I know.
RILEY: Doors open here. And I'm going to go in there, guns blazing.
GLENN: Good. I really appreciate everything you've done in West Virginia. For the State Treasurer. I would hate to see you go from -- from a job that you're really, really good at. For him, but we need more people in Washington, that have your sensibilities as well.
Riley, can I ask you: There was a new federal restriction or ban on the firearms with the collapsible stock. Do you know what I'm talking about?
RILEY: Yeah. Yes. Yes.
GLENN: And it's like a 20-year prison sentence, if you don't register them. And I think you even have to change the stock.
I mean, if it wasn't for that boating accident, I would have had one of those.
What -- what do you do?
Do you know? I mean, is that like la la now?
RILEY: Well, this is an ATF regulation.
My understanding is that they've been working on now for a while, as it relates to collapsible stock.
You know, Washington is constantly doing this. Okay. We'll put this regulation, and this rule in place.
And then when we come in, we'll repeal the rule.
These are the type of things that the new Republican majority, in Congress, and the people who are going to be running in 2024, so we can retake the Senate, need to be talking about.
Back to your point in Florida and West Virginia. These are the things we talk about. And shockingly, guess what, we win elections. We win elections, because we go out and we do what we've been talking about. What we say.
But this is all about control. They don't care about the Constitution.
It had been reaffirmed time and time again.
We have a Second Amendment right, to have firearms, to bear arms in this country. And that goes back to the founding of the United States. They don't care about that. They're trying to remake the United States.
GLENN: I know.
Thank you so much again. By the way, we're going to have more on this particular issue on tomorrow's program. Just to figure out, exactly what we're required now to do.
West Virginia State Treasurer. Please, keep us up-to-date on this passing. Or, you know, running into any kind of trouble there in West Virginia. I don't expect any.
Riley, thank you so much.
RILEY: Glenn, thank you so very much.
GLENN: You bet.
RILEY: And I would love to see this pass in every state in this country.
GLENN: And is it posted in some place, so other states can look at it.
RILEY: Yes, it is. And it is on my website. MooreforWV.com. You can go there.
It's HB 2004. House Bill 2004, here in West Virginia.
And I have shared this with many other states around the country. I want to see this happen everywhere. And have these liberals come challenge us in court.
GLENN: Yeah. Thank you so much, Riley. This is really important. These states that are leading. You need to take their legislation. And run it through your state. Every state that has the ability -- and we've got, what? Sixteen of those states, that have total control by Republicans.
They should all be the strongest states. But you have a lot of wieners in there, that are not actually -- they're just big government progressive Republicans. You need to figure out which ones those are. Vote them out. But you need to get them done in your state. The state is where we can -- we can truly make a difference.
The Supreme Court has investigated the Roe v Wade leak, and it announced earlier this week that it was not able to identify the person (or people) responsible. But that’s an outcome Pat and Stu have a hard time believing. So, they provide their own theory as to who MAY have been involved (purely spectacle!). No matter who was responsible, do YOU believe the Supreme Court has no idea who was behind this all?!
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
PAT: So the investigation into who leaked the information on the Roe v. Wade decision.
Who leaked that?
They've investigated it, and could not figure it out. I can't believe it. I can't believe that's what they came back with.
STU: That's incredible.
PAT: It is -- can it really be that hard to figure it out?
STU: I mean, just think about this for a second?
How does this document, get into the hands. Was it political that actually printed it?
How does it get into their hands. It wasn't like a reprint, where someone typed it all out.
Like, for example, you're in front of the computer. You see it there. You're some staffer. You take photos of the computer screen. They can see the text.
This was the actual document.
PAT: Yeah. Yeah.
STU: So this document must have been either pulled off a drive. Sent by email or some other form.
Or printed out. And a physical copy removed from the Supreme Court offices. That's pretty much it.
PAT: Either way.
STU: Or a hack. Which is, they did not completely rule that out. But they did not see any evidence of a hack.
PAT: So which ever method they used, there's going to be traces left behind that you can track. So how did they not track it back to the person who did it? Incredible.
STU: I would think so. Now, maybe they were so loose with this stuff, that, you know, a bunch of different people had copies of the document. And one of them brought it home and made a photocopy, and that was it. You know, it's possible. But if so, that's a real problem, with security in the Supreme Court.
I mean, I --
PAT: No kidding.
STU: Again, I'm just flabbergasted how this is all available. It should not be possible to do. Any digital way would be traced, you would think. If you're on the system of the Supreme Court, you have this document. Unless they're just emailing it around to a million different people. How could this get out?
And then the fact that they can't come up with anything. No -- no leads. Nothing. No information.
STU: They really came up with a giant zilch.
PAT: After almost a year of not knowing who this is. What happened. And everybody is waiting, kind of with bated breath, to find out.
Okay. When are we --
STU: Almost immediately.
PAT: Yeah. Before the actual decision came out. Before they officially released it. I thought, they will find this person. And we will know soon. And we still don't. What was it? March? March when that happened?
Or May. It was either March or May.
And hard to believe, that here we are, going into February.
Yeah. We investigated, couldn't find anything. Huh.
STU: So let me ask you an important question. Are we there?
Are we at the point, where we could get to start to wildly speculate with conspiracy theories? Can I do it? Is it okay? Is the okay time?
PAT: Yes. So do you have a wild conspiracy theory?
STU: I do have one. Would you like to hear it?
PAT: Okay. I would love to hear it.
STU: Okay. If let's say, not an aide, not an intern, not a -- just somebody who -- the janitor, who works Supreme Court. If it wasn't one of those people. And let's just say, it was an actual Supreme Court justice who just emailed it out of their account to somebody. To Politico, directly.
And let us just -- just for speculation here, since that's what we're doing.
Let's say that person's name was Sonia Sotomayor. Let's just say.
PAT: Okay. You're just picking a name out of the nine.
STU: A name. I could have said John Smith, but Sonia Sotomayor.
PAT: But you didn't. And John Smith isn't a Supreme Court justice, so that wouldn't have made sense.
STU: It wouldn't have made sense. But I just came up with the first name that popped into my head.
PAT: Okay. That was the one. Not Clarence Thomas.
PAT: Not --
STU: No. Sonia Sotomayor. That's the name that fits this particularly wild example.
PAT: Not John Roberts. Okay.
STU: Let's say Sonia Sotomayor emailed from her Gmail, to Politico, and they just put it in their publication.
And after this investigation, that's exactly what they found.
Let's just say that happened.
STU: This would be incredibly damaging to the Supreme Court.
PAT: Yeah. Wouldn't it?
STU: Because it's not just some aid trying to get attention.
Or trying -- this is some -- the reveal of such pathetic and blatant ideology, that the person who would do such a thing should not even be on the Supreme Court in the first place.
PAT: Should be impeached from the US Supreme Court. Yes.
STU: And I think, let's just say you had an institutionalist, like John Roberts. We'll call -- again, making up names. A John Roberts.
PAT: And it just so happened, that a John Roberts, happens to be the -- the chief justice of the US Supreme Court.
STU: Are you serious? I didn't know that.
PAT: So it's weird that you picked that name.
STU: I don't follow it. So let's just say, that when the investigation came back. The person who -- maybe was in charge.
John Roberts says, this would do too much damage to the court. We need to just throw this in the trash.
STU: I'm not saying, that that happened.
Because as I said, we are in a complete speculation period here. We're just making up conspiracy theories.
And to be true about it, I don't have evidence that this occurred. I want to make sure --
PAT: No. There is speculation around those lines.
STU: There is speculation around those lines. And I do not find it completely implausible, that that's what happened.
PAT: I don't find it at all implausible. It's more plausible than, yeah. We just -- we couldn't find anything. We couldn't find anybody. I don't know what happened. It's more plausible than that.
STU: It really is.
You know, from the beginning, I -- I was -- very, very suspicious of Sotomayor and her aides right off the bat. You know, she's, again, in the a different category than other liberal justices. She is an idiot.
STU: She is not -- she is not the same -- she's not in the same universe, as Elena Kagan, who is very liberal, but very smart.
STU: You know, this is --
PAT: And Kagan has made some rulings or been part of rulings, that have really surprised me, a couple of times.
But that almost happens, with the liberals in the court.
STU: Totally. That's exactly what this situation is.
She's an embarrassment.
She really is. She's an embarrassment to the court. Sotomayor. Not Kagan. Again, is liberal.
But respectfully. You can respect Elena Kagan and have some credibility.
You can't do that with Sonia Sotomayor. She's terrible. She's your run-of-the-mill, boilerplate, Huffington Post editor that's working on the Supreme Court.
She is just -- that's who she is. And, you know, it's -- it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing.
And so it fits exactly with what you would think Sotomayor would do in this situation. Having no respect for the institution. Just a liberal activist, who found herself in a lifetime appointment, in a job, she should not have.
That's who Sonia Sotomayor is. I don't know if Ketanji Brown Jackson is that. I don't think she is. I don't know that she's maybe as talented or intellectual as Elena Kagan.
But she seems to be smarter than Sonia Sotomayor by, you know, leaps and bounds. Again, Sonia Sotomayor is special. And she is unique.
PAT: In her terribleness? She's special in her terribleness.
STU: Yes. She is unique. She's not the normal liberal judge. You can't just put them all together. She is different.
And I don't know. Speculating on her bending the rules, I don't think is crazy. Speculating on her thinking in her head, oh, well, this cause is too important. I must do something. Blah, blah.
She's an activist. That's who she is. And so I -- I don't think any of that is without -- without reason. It's not wild speculation from the point of, there's no reason to believe it. Like, if you were to say. There are some people saying, I think it was Alito. Why the hell would Alito do this?
This makes no sense. Why the hell would Samuel Alito ruin his own ruling? It doesn't make any sense at all. They keep trying to come up with justifications why a conservative would do this. And no one should do it.
If a conservative did do it, first of all, it's a really dumb move, because you put the entire thing at risk. Okay. If that happened, those people should be punished as well.
I just -- again, it's complete speculation. But Sonia Sotomayor, probably just emailed this to politico.
PAT: I wouldn't be surprised.
STU: It's one of those theories, I would not be surprised by at all.
PAT: Yeah. It definitely could have happened.
But the official ruling, yeah. We can't find anybody who did this. So hmm. Okay. That's really weird that there was no trace.
PAT: Someone really good did this.
STU: I keep coming back to this, Pat. No one relates to this more than you. Every time Pat Gray rolls through a stop sign, there is a cop there to catch him doing it. Right?
PAT: Yes. Yes.
STU: Right? This is what's happened. Pat has been pulled over 16 times.
PAT: Just since we've been back here in Texas, just in Dallas. Yeah. Uh-huh. Sixteen times.
STU: And honestly, your pace has slowed at the beginning. It was like eight times in the first year. It was really a lot.
PAT: I think it literally right around there. It really was.
STU: It's incredible.
But that's what happens in my life. If I mess something up, if I speed, if I roll through a stoplight.
PAT: You get caught.
STU: One day, Pat. I was coming back from a dinner. You know, it was relatively late at night on a Friday night.
Came back home. Streets are empty. Not a lot of people are around.
Pull up to a light. Now, do I roll through it a little bit while I'm taking my right?
Yeah. Probably. Maybe a little bit. And the reason I know that is because about a week later, I got a picture from the police officer in the mail, that said, you blew through this light. And then it linked -- this is real. Linked to a video of me rolling through a stop sign, taking a right on red, with no one around.
PAT: Yeah. We stopped that in Texas, by the way, which is awesome.
STU: Oh, they did stop that?
PAT: Yeah. They don't use the red light -- they don't use the cameras at the lights anymore.
STU: Good. No wonder I haven't been getting tickets lately. I didn't know that.
PAT: Yeah. So you don't have to worry about that anymore.
STU: But if I can get caught doing that, number one, how does no one find out this ruling? And number two, how does Hunter Biden get away with having sex with 900 prostitutes while doing crack on camera. How do these things happen?
PAT: Right. And how does Joe Biden get away with saying, I've never talked to anybody about business with Hunter, including -- I've never talked to Hunter about his businesses.
I don't even know what he did. I don't know what he does. How does he make a living?
I don't know. And now even CNN is admitting, yeah, he -- he had meetings with -- with business associates of Hunter Biden.
Well, thank you, finally, for verifying that.
Because we've been saying that for several years now. Really amazing.
STU: Do we have that report, Sara? We played it in the four-minute buzz. And, yes, they did say that. But I was actually impressed by CNN, for going into some depth on this. You know --
PAT: Kind of amazing.
STU: There is a change at some level at CNN. We can maybe taken this a little bit today.
Something is going on there. I think they're actually trying to be better. Which is a big statement, from me. And for --
PAT: What's the name -- is it Chris Lick? Did he -- he said from the beginning, he was going to try to make changes because he didn't like the bias. And he was going to get rid of the bias.
STU: Yes. And, of course, we all looked at him and said, we don't believe you.
The ATF is in the process of passing a new rule that could soon turn 40 million Americans into FELONS. In this clip, Glenn explains exactly what the ATF would like to achieve, and how this new rule is just a ‘gateway drug’ in order to ‘disarm’ Americans. Why? Because the far-left FEARS YOU, Glenn says. ‘They’re trying to do anything they can to take away everything that gives you at least a CHANCE to give them pause.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: There's something that is -- the ATF is doing. That is absolutely beyond the realm. While you feel less safe because more criminals are on the streets, because the DA's office usually when the office is controlled by George Soros. They are just letting criminals go.
The DA used to be the guy that would stand up for the victim. But now we've switched that. Without -- with disregard to, you know, thousands of years of precedent. Of showing that when the prosecuting attorney. When the DA, if you will, when that person that is declared by law, to clean up crime, when they are clean. And they are looking to defend the victim, things are great.
When they're dirty, or they just have just a sweet, sweet spirit for, you know, the criminals and disregard the victim, society falls apart.
Well, that's what's happening. Because, again, we're not applying any common sense. We're -- we're listening to, quote, men of science.
When we now know, men of science have been totally corrupted. The ATF has just put a new rule out. It puts 40 million people at risk of being felons.
Joe Biden, he instructed the ATF, a bunch of unelected bureaucrats that don't -- you don't know their name. You didn't see this process.
Nobody voted on this process. But thanks to Woodrow Wilson, we have an out-of-control administrative arm, and now the ATF is just making up new laws.
They have finalized a rule, that will turn 40 million Americans, into somebody that can be hauled off into prison.
They have reclassified firearms. With pistol braces, as short-barreled rifles.
Okay? Short-barreled rifles are illegal. You can get a special stamp for them. The ATF. If you have any kind of special weapon. You know, you have an old Gatling gun.
You have an automatic rifle. You have to have an ATF stamp. You get it from the government. They do all -- they do months of investigation on you, to make sure that you're going to be safe with that.
And then it has all kinds of rules. That if you don't keep it safe, if you're traveling without it, you hand it somebody else, who is not on your stamp.
That you and they can go to prison. I mean, it's crazy.
Now, they have just decided, that these guns that were legal to buy, are not going to be grandfathered in.
They were absolutely legal to buy.
They now have to be surrendered to the ATF. So you have to give them to the ATF.
Or you have to ask for the stamp. And you'll have 120 days, to come into compliance.
Either give them the gun. Or get the stamp. As someone who has one of those stamps, but would have to apply for a new stamp for a gun like this, I can guarantee you, that there's no way in hell, that you will get that stamp in 120 days.
There's no way. First of all, they have to issue 40 million.
Now, as somebody who has done this, under the Obama administration, it took me eight months closer probably to a year, to get that stamp.
Never thought it would ever come honestly. Now, they have rules. You have to -- they have to do it, within I don't know, 200 days or whatever it is.
They have to issue that stamp. Otherwise, you know, it's their fault. And what are you going to -- I'm going to call the police?
What am I going to do?
They issue it, when they want to issue it. So you have to now either say, I want to get a stamp. Here are my fingerprints. Here's the picture of the gun. Here's where I'm keeping it. Here's all of my information.
You send it in, and I want to get that stamp. But if you don't have the stamp, in 120 days, you're a felon. You're committing a felony.
Now, you could say, this is just -- they just overlooked that. They just didn't think that one through.
But that's the way it's written. There's no out. It's not like, oh, well, you're in the process. Forgetting a stamp.
No. In 120 days, you're just a felon.
Now, they're not going to arrest 100 -- or sorry. They're not going to arrest 40 million people.
But I can guarantee you, they'll arrest some. So what do you do?
Do you apply for the stamp that you're not going to get? At least in 120 days, and roll the dice?
Are you going to turn that gun into the ATF? I don't even know how to call the ATF. Are they in the phone book?
Where are they? How do I turn that in?
This seems a little German, if you remember my history right. You know, hey, turn your guns in. Then if you were in the street with the gun, that was illegal. Then they could legally shoot you. I kind of remember something like that. I would like to make sure that doesn't happen again. How do you do that?
And are they going to have 40 million people?
By the way, this is just the gateway drug. This is just the gateway.
Okay. This isn't a machine gun or anything else.
This is a gun, that is about the size of a -- of a very large, larger than a very large pistol. Okay?
And the stock goes into the gun. It collapses into itself.
So you could use it, you know, as like a pistol. But like, you -- it's built to put up against your shoulder.
And anybody who knows anything about guns, if you're using one of these, you better just be spraying everything with bullets. Because you're not going to be very accurate.
And they're not machine guns. So you're not spraying them.
Anyway, these were perfectly legal. Now it's ten years in jail. And a 10,000-dollar fine.
So you just have to reclassify now. I don't remember anything where we've ever done this before. Maybe we have. If anybody can remember, I would love to hear from you. But I don't think they've ever dub this before. It's always been grandfathered.
STU: And this also seems like the type of thing, we have a big debate about.
We have a bill that's proposed. It goes through a process. People need to vote on it.
Like, what is this process?
All of a sudden, this stuff -- there's 40 million illegal people, they've created out of thin air?
That seems like -- that doesn't seem like how our government runs. Is there a court challenge, that we can?
GLENN: No. And I think that's what people are waiting for. Say court challenge.
GLENN: But what -- I mean, luckily, all my guns -- I mean, unfortunately, all my guns.
STU: You said luckily. What you meant was unfortunately?
STU: All your guns were...
GLENN: All my guns are at the bottom of a lake. I was going to -- I was going to take them and throw them off the top of Mount Crumpet. Just take those guns and dump it.
And on the way, they just slid down, and they all went to the bottom of this lake.
STU: Do you remember which lake? We could look for.
GLENN: I can't.
It was somewhere around Mount Crumpet. So look at that up. That's at least where I remember the name.
But it might not be the name of the mountain. I don't know. I've got to call and report those, all at the bottom of the lake.
STU: I just don't understand. Again, there are these protections. But the Second Amendment quite clearly protects these things.
You can't do this. I think we've already done far too much. The process you had to go through, should not have existed in the first place.
And I think, you know, there is -- there has been attempts to overturn things like the automatic weapons ban, for example. Which, again, you can say, you don't want automatic weapons in this country. That's -- it's very -- maybe even sensible of you, however, you can't just overwhelm -- constitutional amendments with what you want.
GLENN: So, but this is the problem here.
No matter what Joe Biden says, and no matter what common sense would tell you, and only the people without common sense would tell you that common sense says this. You know, Joe Biden. You're going need to F-16s. And you're going need to tanks to fight the United States. Really?
Because the Taliban did a pretty good job. I mean, they're back in the power. Huh.
Who would have thunk it? They didn't have F-16s.
STU: Well, they do now.
GLENN: Of course. But then if you just have some old weapons that barely function, you can beat the United States, and then you would get the good stuff at the end.
STU: Really difficult to go door-to-door to take out a population that is at war with you. By the way, of course, this is a ridiculous scenario. That's what they want you to do.
They want you to believe, like think of yourself. Look down your driveway. Here comes a bunch of tanks. And all you have is this gun, you can't do anything.
Well, then that situation would be very difficult. But, of course, going door to door, and trying to clear a city of people fighting back against you. This is all stuff you hoped, never, ever occurs.
And would only occur, if they went down this road, even farther. Right?
We're not on the verge of -- as much as, it feels like atmosphere at times. We're not about to have a Civil War. Let's calm down a little bit here. Let's not have a Civil War. That's really, really bad. You really, really don't want to be at war with your government. It's really, really bad.
GLENN: It doesn't usually work out for anybody.
STU: Anybody, ever. It's really terrible.
But like, this idea that you can't stop a more powerful force, with small arms, is just not -- it's not true.
GLENN: It's ridiculous.
STU: And, yes, in theory.
GLENN: How about David and Goliath?
STU: Yes. Kind of a fundamental story to the human experience. But what are you going to do?
Yes, you could, I guess, nuke every single city. You could nuke everyone. And kill all your allies and every opponent. Right?
And then what are you ruling over?
A nuclear wasteland? I don't understand -- this is not -- this is just a ridiculous argument to make you not think.
Having the ability to protect yourself against a government, that could go into tyranny, is exactly why you don't have tyranny.
That's why it happens. Because you have that ability.
It's why we are still on the same Constitution, from hundreds of years ago. And every other country on earth, has switched numerous times.
This is an important part of our culture. And our foundation. And we need to keep it.
GLENN: Yeah. I just don't -- I just don't understand other than, they are trying to disarm you.
The only reason why we haven't fallen into real tyranny, is because the government still kind of fears you. Okay?
Used to fear you at the election. You know, at the ballot. I'm not sure that really is -- is there anymore.
They used to fear you. Giant corporations used to fear you, because you could stop buying stuff.
I'm not sure. Because now the government will just partner with them. And they will buy the stuff.
They are trying to take away everything that gives you at least a chance to give them pause.
That's all it is.
And that's why the Second Amendment is there.
And that should never be infringed.
My question is: If you have one of these guns, what are you going to do?
Back in a minute.
Good Ranchers. Where is the meat, that you put on the table, for your family, come from. I don't mean which store. I mean which farm?
Where does it actually come from?
Does it even come from America?
If buying meat that's sourced from local farms right here in America is something that matters to you, then you really, really need to try out Good Ranchers.
Not only is all of their meat grown here in the US, but it's of amazing quality.
Right now, you can get over 2 pounds of chicken free in every box for an entire year, when you subscribe.
You can get a year's worth of chicken for free, when you subscribe to any Good Ranchers box at GoodRanchers.com. Change the way you buy meat. Switching to Good Ranchers is a great idea. Make sure you subscribe today.
Use the promo code G-L-E-N-N. And claim your free chicken for a year. And $20 off your first box. New year. New you. More like the new year, we need new ideas, and new meat, with Good Ranchers. Good Ranchers. American meat delivered. Ten-second station ID.
GLENN: I want to tell you a great story, we were just talking about ranchers. And farmers. There was a farmer. His name was Jodi Childress (phonetic), and he lived in a small little town called Geraldine, Alabama. And he had, you know, his life savings, retirement savings. He was not living high on the hog, so to speak.
About ten years ago, he walked into his local drugstore, and pulled the owner aside, and said, are there people here in town, that just can't afford to pay for their medications? And the pharmacist said, yeah. Unfortunately, a lot.
That farmer said, you're not allowed to tell anyone. And he gave $100 a month to that pharmacist, so he could help people in his community, without ever being owed.
He died last week, and the pharmacist thought, his town should know.
This guy do a lot and never took any credit at all. There are really good people, still among us. And -- and we don't know them, but they're everywhere.
When most of your time is spent in pain, the thing that you're constantly looking for is pure and simple hope, that's it. It's hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel when you are down. But there is light. There is hope. I know. I've been there. Relief Factor. Relief Factor helped me get my life back.
If you or someone you love are dealing with pain. Please, give Relief Factor a try. It's not a drug.
It's developed by doctors. It has four key ingredients to work with your body. To fight inflammation, which causes most of our pain and, quite honestly, most of our disease. The three-week Quick Start is only 19.95. Right now, it's a trial pack, and hundreds of thousands of people have ordered Relief Factor. And about 70 percent of them go on to order more.
So call Relief Factor at 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. Get the 19.95 three-week Quick Start now. ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief.
Relief Factor. Feel the difference.
STU: Head over to BlazeTV.com/Glenn. And use the promo code Glenn. Save ten bucks off your subscription to Blaze TV today.
(OUT AT 9:28AM)
GLENN: We have an expert on what's happening with these firearms. The -- what do they call? They're called now, short-barreled rifles. Because the -- the government has changed that.
But they're -- you know, they're these -- these little like, they are AR-15s. But they have a collapsible stock.
So it comes out, pulls out. And it just makes it smaller, easier to carry. Everything else.
But I -- I don't even understand this. I don't even understand this. The ATF, have they passed this, or not?
I mean, decided. I have read this two ways. That they have already decided. And 120 days is starting soon, if not now. And then the other is, well, they haven't officially decided. But they -- but they're -- they're saying at the same time, if you want to avoid 10 years in jail, and have a potential 10,000-dollar fine, you must reclassify your legally obtained weapon as short-barreled rifles. And you have to do that through the tax stamp system, which is the worst.
It will take you months. With this administration --
STU: It sounds like something out of the revolutionary times. The tax stamp system? It seems like something with powdered wigs discussed.
GLENN: Oh, it's horrible. It's horrible. Right. You will only have 120 days to bring your firearms into compliance. ATF warns Americans with pistol braces are likely already violating the national firearms act, by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches. So they're saying, you have to register it. But even if you're doing that, you are most likely already violation -- in violation of the firearms act.
Which is a felony.
STU: Oh. Just that.
STU: This does -- now, Glenn. This feels like the type of thing the courts will get a hold of and say, no. Of course, you can't do that. Obviously, you can't do that. Now, I hate depending on that, because it seems like it's the bast barrier between us and insanity over and over again. And eventually, it will not work.
GLENN: All right. So here's the thing: If this stands. If this stands. What's to stop them from saying. Because Joe Biden has already said it. There's no reason for semi automatically handguns.
Almost every handgun in America is a semiautomatic. All that means is that it's not a revolver.
GLENN: We used to have like the cowboys. 6 barrels and a revolver. Just, back in the 1900. 1800s period, they redesigned the revolver.
And you got the 9/11 handgun. Which just loads, instead of a circle, in a line underneath. He's now saying --
STU: It's every gun. For people who don't know guns. It's basically every gun you buy. What is it? Eighty-five percent, 95 percent of guns?
GLENN: Every gun. At least. I think you have to buy old-timey guns.
STU: Shotguns, I guess. I mean, there's a couple of them.
GLENN: My shotgun is semiautomatic.
STU: That's true.
But a typical shotgun you wouldn't describe that way, but there's a few. But it's very rare.
What's to stop them from saying, well, by the way, you have to register all your semiautomatics. And if you don't -- if you don't get the tax stamp, then you're -- you're committing a felony. This is -- this cannot happen. This cannot happen.
STU: Nixon looked at this closely. To try to make all handguns illegal. Back when he was president. Again, this is not all of Democrats.
This is a progressivism problem. And it goes back to even the Nixon administration, where he -- on the Nixon tapes, used about highway he wanted to get rid of all handguns. How did he get rid of all of them?
You think these guys aren't doing the same thing?
If Nixon was doing it. You don't think these guys have updated this approach. This is obviously a first step in this direction. Clearly, if they get away with this, they'll do it with other models.
GLENN: So here's the ATF director. He said last week, the rule prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago.
Now, people are saying, he's redefining rifle. You can't redefine, you know, what a rifle is.
He says, almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements.
Today's rule makes clear firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections, simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles. But the same FDA -- ATF, determines determined in 2012, that pistol braces do not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm.
So what -- do we listen to the ATF then, or listen to the ATF now?
That was 2012. That wasn't under Trump. That was under Obama. So which one was right?
Do we follow the science? Is the new science the right science? Don't eat butter. Eat butter. Don't eat butter. Eat butter. This is -- this is insanity. This is insanity.