RADIOJanuary 08, 2024

THIS government SCAM would be the 'DESTRUCTION of rural America'

There is a new government proposal that Glenn believes is "horrifying." The SEC proposal would allow for the creation of a new type of company called a "natural asset company," which could buy up land to use natural processes — like the generation of fresh air — to write off carbon emissions. Utah Treasurer Marlo Oaks joins to explain what he believes this would mean: "It will permanently stop economically essential activities like grazing, mineral extraction, modern agriculture ... we're basically talking about the destruction of rural America."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Marlo Oaks. Welcome to the program, sir.

MARLO: Thank you, good to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: Thank you very much, and thank you for alerting me to this. This is horrifying. This is a new SEC proposal to allow for a creation of a new type of company.

Tell us about it.

MARLO: Yeah. Yeah. So basically a natural asset company. And really, the heart of the problem is that it will permanently stop economically essential activities like grazing, mineral extraction. Modern agriculture. Severely curtailed recreational access. We're basically talking about the destruction of rural America.

And really, it's an effort to take control of America's natural resources.

This could be done through these natural asset companies. From hostile nations that put money into these.

And we're essentially placing a value on natural processes.

Things like, you know, the -- the biological systems. That provide clean air.

Water.

Food. Things like that.

Putting an economic value on those. It's really an arbitrary value. And that represents massive transfer of wealth.

GLENN: This is just another scam. This is another financial scam. To make people a lot of money.

But this one, you know, unlike the scams that cost us, you know, almost our freedom last time in 2008. This one, actually if it goes through, if you buy let's say, this stock, in this -- in this company, you then can -- you would be giving the money to buy up the rights of all the minerals.

And even like the air.

And you can't -- and you can't develop it. It's a forest. And there's lots of clean air that's being generated. Right?

MARK: That's exactly right.

And so basically, the New York Stock Exchange, went to the security and exchange commission, said, we need a rule that will allow us to lift companies whose purposes isn't to make money, it's to provide ecologically services. And what are those ecologically services?

Well, it is the biological systems that are creating clean air.

So think of a forest. Right?

Taking carbon out of the air and converting it into oxygen. What is that worth?

What are underground aquifers worth? You know, the water that seeps into the ground and creates clean water.

It's those kinds of what we think of, as God-given processes, that are now going to be monetized in some way. And people who own these companies, who put money into these companies.

They stand to benefit from that. At the expense of our country.

GLENN: So now are they -- let's say -- let's say I'm a landowner. And I have farmland, and I have a forest.

Do I participate in this?

Do I have to say, yes, my everything is up for sale? Or is this just kind of like air rights in New York where you're just buying the rights of air?

MARK: Well, there is, you know, from ESG. The climate crisis is really driving the ESG environmental social governance discussion. It's the same thing here. And there's a push, really an attack on energy. Agriculture.

GLENN: Right.

MARLO: And so when we look at agriculture, we're seeing the squeezing of ranchers.

And these natural asset companies.

Ban what's called industrial agriculture.

Which is essentially all agriculture that happens around the globe. Because that -- that is what producers the yields that are needed to feed the world population.

And so if you ban industrial agriculture, you're talking about something that happened in Sri Lanka. Which is the reduction of -- of rice harvests. Forty to 50 percent, leading to an 80 percent increase in prices there.

It -- civil unrest unbelievably there. And that's what we're talking about.

GLENN: So let me have a very western conversation with you. Most people in the East. They don't understand BLM land.

And that is not Black Lives Matter. That is Bureau of Land Management.

They own in the West a great portion of the -- the land that farmers use to graze their cattle on, because it's just open land.

And you pay a fee. And you can graze your cattle. Cattle on that land.

And the government is supposed to take care of it.

This would -- this company, this new natural asset company, would then not take control of the land, right?

It would just say, no grazing cattle on that land, because we need it pure for the carbon offset or whatever.

And so it would grab that. But could it grab -- could it grab my land, if I'm a farmer?

MARLO: Well, it could be inside of a designated area.

So right now, in Montana, the 5 million acres. They're trying -- the federal government. I have forgotten which agency it is. Designated 5 million acres.

They're trying to create a national monument out of this.

There's private land, within that.

So your land could be inside of a designated area.

And the government wouldn't necessarily, you know, buy your land. But you will end up with fewer options.

GLENN: Yeah. You won't have any roads maintained. You won't be able to expand. Or do anything. You might be able to be grandfathered into what you're doing right now. But nothing else, right? And the infrastructure will be left alone.

MARLO: Yes. That's right. And so even in the east. So in the east, you have -- you have conservation easements. So landowners in the east, have placed their lands in conservation easements. Which effectively means that no development can happen.

And they do this to get a task benefit. But over time, because it's in perpetuity. That land -- the use of the land, when you entered into a conservation easement cannot change.

But the subjective nature of creating a sustainable agriculture. Or sustainable land, going forward. Means that that land can be placed in a natural asset company.

These conservation easements can go into a natural asset company and -- without the landowner's consent, essentially.

And so this really effects people in the East and the West.

It's just under different --

GLENN: Wow. It --

MARLO: -- designation.

GLENN: Wow. Yeah. And it will affect all of us. Because our food prices will go through the roof.

MARLO: Absolutely.

GLENN: And good luck going to a national park.

Let me ask you this: How is the New York Stock Exchange pushing for this.

Because what the -- what this natural asset company, this new -- this whole new category.

It is noneconomic.

The land that they would buy, as a private entity, must support only replenishable activities.

So that means.

They can only replenish the land.

They can't have any economic activity on it.

It's assigned an arbitrary value. And then it's traded on that.

But this is a -- there's no -- you cannot make profit on this.

So who would be buying the stock for this?

Because you're not going to make money?

MARLO: Well, you're not going to make money through traditional economic activity. But if companies have to be net zero. Let's say.

GLENN: Ah.

MARLO: You're emitting a lot of carbon. Then you will have an incentive to buy into natural asset companies, that will provide potentially carbon offsets through these natural processes. That's one way to drive artificial value.

GLENN: So I'm putting a lot of pollution in the air. But if I buy part of Yellowstone or part of Montana that can no longer be developed, then I can use that and say, yeah, but I've got all these trees producing all this fresh air.

MARLO: Exactly.

GLENN: This is so evil. This is so incredibly evil.

MARLO: Yeah. We've got to -- we see natural processes as sort of God-given, right? And you and I are walking carbon-emitters. I mean, when we breathe out, we're emitting 4 percent carbon.

And so what happens when each of us individually have a carbon footprint that we have to offset? You know, the wealthy can easily do it.

They just go out and buy access. But it's the poor among us. Are they going to have to pay for their carbon emission and then that -- that is going to incentivize car reduction, you know, getting people out of cars and walking and bicycles and things like that?

You can see where this goes.

GLENN: Yeah. Most importantly, this gives a public/private partner ship a chance to enrich all of the very wealthy anyway.

And it is -- and it is like, what was it that almost brought us to 2008?

Derivatives.

It's like derivatives.

You're selling garbage.

You're not selling anything. Nobody really owns anything, if you keep selling, you know, these derivatives.

It's a scam. This is the same thing, at a global scale.

MARLO: Yep. Well, and you think about, what is America -- what's one of the greatest assets of America is our natural resources. They're incredible.

And this allows, not just wealthy investors. We're talking about countries like China or Russia. Or, you know, Iran. Whomever. That has a ton of money, in these sovereign wealth funds. To buy into a natural asset company. Because they will raise money globally.

GLENN: Oh, if I'm in China. And I want to cripple the United States. I just take West Texas, and I buy up all of it in one of these companies. And origin drill.

MARLO: That's right. That's exactly right.

GLENN: We're suicidal. We're absolutely suicidal.

Okay. So there is a public comment period, right? And it's right now. And it's been shortened. And surprise, everybody, during the holiday season. So for the average person, can they go online or call or what?

MARLO: Yes. Absolutely. So I'm telling people to contact their federal legislators. Their state legislators, you know, to have them reach out to the SEC. So people can reach out to the SEC, but also encourage your legislators to reach out to the SEC. And even the New York Stock Exchange. Contact your. Your attorney general, even the State Treasurer.

They need to take action to oppose this. And you can reach out to the SEC directly.

GLENN: Will it be too late after January? They say they will decide after January 2nd.

MARLO: Well, one of the decisions could be to extend the decision out further.

GLENN: Okay.

MARLO: So that's why I'm hoping, that we raise enough awareness and pushback that it makes it difficult for them to finalize this on January 2nd. But, you know -- the fuse is incredibly short.

GLENN: It's incredible.

MARLO: And it's by design.

GLENN: Of course, it is. Of course, it is. And once again, the destruction of everything that we -- what is America about, if you can't come here, buy a piece of land, and do what you want to do with it?

Well, what is America about? This goes back to agenda 2020. Agenda 2030. Where they're trying to push everybody into the cities.

And this will do it. This will do it.

MARLO: And this is the whole of government approach. You see all of these agencies. The Forest Service Station. Wildlife. BLM. You know, the Bureau of Land Management.

All of these agencies are pushing this agenda.

Now, the SEC -- right? And the SEC, of course, with ESG.

But this just takes it to a whole other level.

But you see the entire government apparatus pushing this goal to really permanently -- essential economic activity on our land and really lock up our natural resources.

It's incredibly disruptive.

GLENN: Marlo, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. We'll talk to you again.

Marlo Oaks. He's the Treasurer of Utah, who brought this to my attention.

It needs critical attention right now. We're going to have this section of the show clipped. We'll put it out online. Please, share it with everyone. Share it with every legislator. And senator you can find. Make sure they know about it. Make sure your friends know about it. This is a way to lock up all public and private lands. It is -- it's obscene and evil, and it's got to stop. And they will decide by January 20th, unless as he said, we kick up a storm and make sure that our ledgers, state and federal, are calling and saying, no, no, no. Not so fast. Not so fast. They've got to call the SEC. So here's the thing.

You are telling your congressman or whoever about the Natural Asset Company that the New York stong exchange is creating, along with the SEC.

The SEC, the Security and Exchange Commission, cannot allow for the creation of this kind of a company. They cannot do it.

Why the FBI's Mar-A-Lago Classified Documents Photo is A SHAM

This story should disturb every single American, Glenn says, no matter if you support or hate Donald Trump. Reports reveal that the FBI placed “cover sheets” onto alleged classified documents found during its raid of Mar-a-Lago in order make the photo it took of the documents seem even more scary. The media then fell right in line and used the doctored evidence to slam Trump. The judge presiding over Trump’s classified documents trial has now delayed the trial indefinitely. So, not only did Biden’s FBI raid the house of his likely political opponent and arrange a photo session, but they basically planted evidence. “That is at best propaganda,” Glenn says, and neither party should be comfortable with our government doing this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I think there's a few things that should concern every American.

Take Donald Trump. Take Joe Biden out. Let's just look at the system. Whoever you're for. Would you be cool with this being done by the president of the United States, to anyone? Okay?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Okay. Last August, 2022, Department of Justice released stunning photograph depicting alleged contraband seized from Donald Trump's Palm Beach estate that day.

It showed colored sheets representing scary classifications and their classified levels attached to files, discovered in Trump's private office.

Right. You remember that?

STU: I do remember that. It was a big story, Glenn. I remember the pictures. They were everywhere.

GLENN: Huh. Huh. Okay. So at the time, one ex-CIA officer told ABC News the cover sheets indicated the highest levels of secrecy. And in the wrong hands, they could have resulted in murder.

STU: I remember this. You know, the case was Donald Trump so egregious at this particular matter. He didn't care about the security of the nation. He didn't care about our nuclear secrets. He just took a bunch of stuff labeled top secret and brought it to his house and put it in his shower. Remember that?

That was terrible. Why would he do such a thing?

GLENN: Thirteen boxes or containers contain documents with classification markers. And in all, over 100 unique documents with classification markings were seized.

Okay. Certain -- certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. Okay. The DOJ's clever wordsmithing, however, did not accurately describe the origin of the cover sheets, in what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence, but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and a threat to national security. Agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage that photo.

Here's what they did.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: Classified cover sheets were not recovered in the container. Contrary to what the FBI originally said.

In fact, after being busted recently by defense attorneys for mishandling evidence in the case. Rhett (phonetic) had to fess up about how the cover sheets actually ended up on the documents. The new version of the story, where he admits kind of a critical detail that he failed to disclose. If the investigation team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a place holder sheet.

The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose. But before the official cover sheets were used as a place holder, agents apparently used them as props.

FBI agents took it upon themselves to paperclip the sheets to the documents, something evident, given the uniform nature of how each cover sheet is clipped to a file in the photo.

They laid them out on the floor, and then snapped a picture of it. This is never done.

STU: You don't think?

GLENN: No. No.

This is never done. Now, the federal judge that is looking at this case, which is now in court, they have postponed the document trial. Because they've said, there are too many things here that don't add up. There are too many things the FBI did, that they never did, nor should they have ever thought of doing.

So there's too many irregularities. Whether this thing even goes through or not. But here's the point.

If I said to a Democrat, how would you feel if Donald Trump, when he was in office, wanted to get Joe Biden so badly, that he went into the house and he had the FBI arrange a photo session, and change documents and made them look much scarier than they were.

Basically planting evidence that was not there. They came in with that evidence. Would you be okay with that?

STU: Planting evidence?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: No.

GLENN: No. Isn't that what they did.

STU: I mean, certainly to manipulate public opinion, right?

GLENN: Yeah. They walked in with the things they photographed. That said, were in Donald Trump's home.

They were not marked that way. They did not have those covers.

STU: That's incredible. I mean, I definitely thought -- my impression upon seeing that photo.

GLENN: Is that is what they pulled out.

STU: That that's what they pulled out. They basically made it more egregious for Trump. He saw that it said top secret all over it. And still took it. And when you -- if you don't know anything about this. You say, well, he should have known. It said top secret all over the place. But it didn't say top secret all over the place. They just added that later for these photos. That's what we're arguing. That is incredible.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes. That is, at best, propaganda. At best, propaganda.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Would you be happy as a Democrat, if Donald Trump was engaged in that sort of at best, propaganda to sway people his way? You would say no.

I would say no.

I say no now.

Why aren't you saying no?

Here's the next one. Do you remember the name Robert Malley?

Robert Malley was the subject of some controversy and some scrutiny last year. Because he is our envoy to Iran. And all of a sudden, we're going to Iran, and then all of a sudden the envoy was like, he can't go. Why?

Well, he's taking some time off. Why?

Well, he just is. Why?

Well, we're not sure.

What do you mean you're not sure?

Well, we can't tell you.

What the hell was going on with that? Well, we just found out. Now, this on the heels of what I just talked to you about with Donald Trump. He was -- he lost his top secret classification.

And when they finally came out with that. Why?

Well, he just did. Why?

He just did. Specifically, now and this did not come from the Biden administration. This came from whistle-blowers, we believe.

He was suspended because he allegedly transferred classified documents to his personal email account, downloaded the documents to his personal cell phone, and somebody received them. But we don't know who yet.

It's unclear whom he intended to provide these documents. But it's believed that a hostile cyber actor was able to gain access to his email and his phone. And obtain downloaded information.

These were top secret. These allegations have a substantial impact on our national security, and people should be held accountable swiftly and strongly.

But we're not doing anything about him. We just downgraded his security clearance. And he was suspended for a while.

Are you -- are you kidding me? This guy is a spy, for the Iranians.

You're trying Donald Trump, and you are using propaganda techniques to make it -- to hype it up, and this guy, you won't even tell the American people, what he did.

How he did it?

We have to find out through whistle-blowers. And nothing is happening to him.

STU: Honest question to anyone who might have, you know, a passion against Donald Trump. Which one are you more concerned about?

Someone who is doing this with Iran. Or classified documents being in the private home of the former president of the United States.

GLENN: They say Donald Trump.

STU: How?

You have to be insane to say that.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And we keep letting these people go. We keep letting them go!

Try this on for size. The Republican governors of Texas and Florida, have penned letters, condemn a proposal that would effectively allow the democratic administration or any president, to rest control of the National Guard units away from their states without governor's permission.

This is the US Air Force Legislative Proposal 480. It's not just Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott against us. Forty-eight governors are against this.

Joe Biden wants it. Why?

The National Guard cannot be called away from their home state without the permission of the governor. Now, let's just say you are on the left, and you have always argued, hey, a well-regulated militia. That means the National Guard.

Okay. Then that makes this even stronger. If that's the well-regulated militia for each state. The federal government cannot take it from the governors or the state.

Because it is their last defense. And who -- what states do you think he would take those from? I'm guessing Texas and Florida.

And they would be off fighting some war in God knows where. And Texas and Florida wouldn't have access to their home state defense.

Do you want Republican -- Democrats, do you want a Donald Trump to have the power to take your National Guard away from you on his whim?

Of course you answer no. And I answer no, as well.

Why am I saying no now, would say no under Trump, but you don't seem to care when it's Biden?

Who is really protecting democracy and the republic? Here's another one: Biden administration hid the pause in arm sales to Israel from Congress.

Wait. The javelin missiles going to Ukraine. Donald Trump was -- paused those. They say, only for his personal or political enrichment. He was going to be able to get dirt on Joe Biden.

And that can't ever happen. Okay. Well, we all know there is corruption over there. But why worry about that, then and now?

We just keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars over to Ukraine. This time, with the American people, are for the arms sales. When Congress passed the sales.

President Biden secretly stops the arm sales to Israel. Even though it was passed by Congress, approved by the people as much as you could possibly approve anything anymore.

Well, why isn't he -- well, because he really believes this. Oh. And Trump didn't?

You can read the hearts of men? Hmm.

And you don't think this has anything to do with the election. You don't think that Mr. Flip-flop on Israel. I love him. I hate him. I HOV him. I hate him.

Hey. What are the Muslims saying in Dearborn, Michigan. Yeah. That's right. I remember. I hate him.

That's not a political move?

Why am I against somebody doing political moves, unless it is -- because it is not in national -- the national interests. If it is in the national interest, we should have a conversation about it. Wait. The president did something. Why did he do it? Can he do that?

This one, pure political. Pure political.

That's it. We know it. But you don't have a problem with it this time.

SECOND Epstein Black Book For Sale?! Will Glenn BUY IT?

A second "Black Book" belonging to Jeffrey Epstein is up for auction and Glenn is considering buying it. The book has reportedly been verified as Epstein's and contains the names and information of many famous people he either met or did business with. Glenn, who is preserving artifacts that show both the good and bad sides of history, explains why he has debated entering the bidding pool. And one thing could make this artifact even more disturbing than it already is: "Will we ever find out if Epstein was an operative for our government or other governments?"

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I am -- you know, I collect American people history. And I collect it to preserve it.

And I want to tell the whole story of American history. The good and the bad. Probably the best example is, we have a lot of stuff from Patton. And he was an amazing guy. But we also have one letter from Patton. Where he is a monster. And I mean a monster.

No better than the Nazis. And, you know, we all have these conflicts in us. Some bigger than other. And we wanted to make sure we showed both sides of Patton.

That we don't make anybody into a hero.

Without showing this is the heroic stuff they did.

And this is the questionable or really bad stuff they did.

Jeffrey Epstein's black book is up for auction. Now, this is not the book that he had when he died. This is a book from around the year 2000, that he lost. Somebody had it. They found it in the street of New York. It's been verified that it is his handwriting, and it is his book.

They picked it up, and then just put it in a box and left it in a storage, you know, unit. And ever since this Epstein thing has been going on. They're like, I have to find that book. I have to find that book. Where did I put that book?

They went through their storage unit and found it. Then they brought it to Alexander Historical Auctions, which is a really good auction house.

And they -- they put it up, with unredacted names and numbers. You can't see it. You can go and, you know, visit the book, if you're interested in buying it. And look through it.

You can't take pictures of it or anything else.

But the black book is for sale. They're saying, it will go between 100 and $200,000.

Now, my question is: Is this -- is this just a passing big -- but still a passing blip.

Like I'm not really interested in the Lindbergh trial. Who cares, you know what I mean?

STU: Right.

GLENN: It was a big thing at the time.

Is this a big thing just at the time, and what would change that I think is, was he or will we ever find out, he was an operative for our government or other governments?

PAT: Hmm. I don't know. That's kind of the rumor right now, right?

CIA.

GLENN: Yeah. What is your thought on Epstein's book, having it. I mean, I would love to. I would love to have it, just to read the names on the air.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You would have to believe, if there was George Soros. Like we already know about it.

GLENN: That page would be missing. Shockingly all the S's are missing. And the G's.

STU: Right. So I think that maybe there won't be a massive story in it. Though it's an incredible --

GLENN: Well, if we were really considering buying it. I would send somebody up to look through it. And tell me, is there anything in it worth -- you know, if it's like "Squeaky" Fromme. I don't really care.

STU: I would care. If "Squeaky" Fromme had done it, that would be crazy.

GLENN: Yeah. That would be nuts.

STU: That's an interesting -- is it just -- here's a guy who did some really terrible things. Like Jeffrey Dahmer merchandise. You're not buying that.

GLENN: Yeah, I'm not buying that. I'm not buying Michael Jackson stuff.

PAT: Would you buy O.J.'s stuff? Because that was pretty big.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That wasn't just a flash in the pan. That was pretty big.

GLENN: If it's something pretty big. O.J. Simpson baseball card.

STU: Baseball card. Wow. That's incredible.

GLENN: Shut up. Football card.

STU: Because I think O.J. is on the level of Lindbergh. Historically. To us, right now, it obviously is a lot bigger, because it happened in the '90s. Fifty years.

GLENN: The only thing that would be worth than that, is somehow or another, finding a way to capture the -- the African-American response to O.J. Setting him free because he was -- he was finally able to beat the man.

STU: Right. And, by the way, the jurors from the trial have said that is what they did. This is not Glenn making things up.

GLENN: Right. So if you could capture that, because we're having the opposite right now.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: You know, people not looking at the facts of anything, because they want somebody to win. One way or another.

And so that is -- that is something to happen with yours. And so it would tell that story. But I don't know how I would capture that.

STU: Remember, the Epstein thing is tied into powerful people.

Prince Andrew. There's certainly. I don't know if he's in that book, per se.

I will say, my instinct is, yes. He should have been on it. Largely because I think one of the things you do at the museum. And as part of your mission statement over there is to preserve history that will be erased.

And, man, the Epstein thing falls directly in that category. Like we know about it right now. Kind of. I don't think we know the whole story.

And the powers that be, will do everything they can, to make sure that goes down some memory hole, that we don't remember it. Like the Lindbergh case. Right?

They want that to go away. So actually preserving some of that history. I think is -- is a good use of -- of resources.

Of course, if there's nothing interesting in it, I suppose, maybe that's not the case.

But, man, I don't know. It seems like we still don't know the story on that one.

PAT: But won't they let you see the whole thing before you buy it?

GLENN: Yes. You can go up right now, and make an appointment.

And you can go up -- I was thinking about sending Jason up there, and you can go up, and make an appointment. And seeing it. See it.

See what's in it.

You can't take a photograph of it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And, you know, no copies of it. But you can come back and then he could tell me, this is what's in it. These are the kinds of the names that are in it. That he could remember.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And you need someone with a photographic memory.

GLENN: I know. Do we have a listener with a photographic memory? That would be great.

STU: I will say, it seems like they're showing it to people. And we don't have any leakages on the actual story.

GLENN: Well, they just announce it had yesterday, I think.

STU: Okay. At some point, you think the story would leak out. If there was something amazing in it.

GLENN: Not necessarily. Because if you were qualified to go see it.

You're a buyer. And if there's -- you don't want anybody to know.

STU: Until after you have it. Right? That's good.

GLENN: They leaked from over a few lines, to ten or 15 lines, or more, each. Each of the entries have several more names included, additionally 94 names bear black hand applied checkmarks. Five have been highlighted in yellow. All five names, including that of President Donald Trump, interesting that that one is out. Are well-recognized financial and industrial figures. The significance of the checked and highlighted names is unknown. The details included in the vast majority of the entries are -- are most extensive.

Epstein not only includes the name, address, and telephone number of his contact, but in most cases, also adds other residential addresses and numbers, contact information of family member, secretaries, media employees, associates, cell phone numbers.

And at least one instance, contacts girlfriend's number. There is a good deal of information hinting at Epstein's sordid past, including the very first entry, contact information for the front desk, and five apartment numbers, corresponding with telephone numbers at 301 East 66 Street.

This address was home for many young models, girlfriends, pilots, and lawyers, associated with Jeffrey Epstein.

Book contains entries for former Ford models, CEO Kate Ford, as well as an entry for masseuse, which lists 24 women's names and numbers, with pager numbers as well.

The history of this criminal relic is fascinating in the mid-1990s. Musician living in Manhattan discovered the book lying on Fifth Avenue's sidewalk in midtown. She eventually put it in storage. It was not until 2020, while cleaning out her storage unit, that she realized it belonged to Jeffrey Epstein. She reached out to several media outlets, not this one, who failed to react. Assuming that the book was a copy, she listed it on e Bay, where it was purchased by a graduate -- how is this possible?

PAT: Who is it purchased by?

GLENN: A graduate student in the northeast who has possessed it ever since.

PAT: For how much? Do we know for how much?

GLENN: No. Don't know.

2004, Epstein's black book was discovered by the FBI and used in legal proceedings. But this copy which came to light after Epstein's death was not considered as evidentiary importance at the time of its discovery. According to Business Insider. The 1731 names contained in the two volumes together, do not appear in the 2004 book. During its six-month investigation, Business Insider journalist had respected forensic document examiners examine the book to determine its authenticity. After a researcher looked at the binding and the data within, the examiners determined, there are indications or evidences suggest that the Q1 address book predated the online version of the address book and was in existence in the late 1990s. A copy of that was available.

PAT: So there's 1700 names?

GLENN: Names.

PAT: But we don't know why they're named?

GLENN: Nope.

PAT: That's interesting.

GLENN: What they released. And it's interesting again.

They released Donald Trump and Alan Dershowitz. As names on this.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. Of course. Of course.

GLENN: Of course. Of course. Donald Trump. Alan Dershowitz. Frédéric Fekkai.

Do you know who that is?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Christie Hefner. And Edward Kennedy.

PAT: Huh.

STU: Frédéric Fekkai, French hair stylist and entrepreneur.

GLENN: Of course. Well, who doesn't -- a French hairstylist in their black book.

STU: Makes a bunch of products though. Seems like a big -- has a big company. Making stuff, it appears.

GLENN: What is your first stop, yes or no?

PAT: Wow. I should say yes.

GLENN: Should we look at it.

PAT: Yeah. I would look at it. And then depending on the names.

GLENN: What is its significance in history, long-term.

PAT: What dirtbags we had in office, I guess. I'm sure you're going to find out some things about people, right?

Although, it doesn't say why they're in the book.

GLENN: No.

STU: We know the Alan Dershowitz thing. We already know, the person who accused him said, maybe it wasn't him.

GLENN: He was in there, because he was the attorney.

STU: So not necessarily going to happen. You don't know if it's going to be some major story that will change history.

GLENN: I'm sorry. We do also know that Donald Trump threw him out. Right? Of Mar-a-Lago.

STU: Yeah. They had a falling out, long time ago.

GLENN: Big time. Because I guess he was trying to recruit some of the females. And Donald Trump said, get out. Don't come back.

STU: The Trump thing is -- I think that's a complete disconnect from the Epstein story, long, long ago.

PAT: Otherwise, they would have made political hay out of that a long time.

STU: The Clinton one is much more significant.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And I think the Bill Gates one too. Some of his comments have been really weird about that.

PAT: Really weird. So are his wife's.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I think Bill Gates has flown under the radar as just a weird, quirky guy for so long. I think he may end up being one of the true villains of our time.

PAT: I think it's quite possible.

GLENN: Uh-huh. The things he wants to do on population role.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: His connections there. His divorce from his wife who was like, get away from Jeffrey Epstein, we know who he is.

And he wouldn't get away from Jeffrey Epstein. And they divorced. That's kind of a big deal. Kind of a big deal.

STU: Yeah. When he's occasionally been pressed on that, it's not gone well for Gates. I mean, we don't know what happened there, but something weird went on.

PAT: Very. And he stole all the technology from Zerox in the first place anyway. So...

Is the Economy About to Return to 1970s-Era Stagflation?

After April’s dismal jobs report released, some experts started wondering whether America has entered a period of stagflation. But what does that mean? And should we trust the data? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to break it all down. Plus, she reviews “one of the most painful” videos she has ever watched, featuring Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein trying his hardest to explain why the Federal Reserve’s never-ending money printing is fine.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, the author of the book, you will own nothing. The former investment banker. Carol, yes -- or last Friday, I think it was. The jobs report came out. It was much lower than expected.

And I started seeing things like Bank of America saying, we're in stagflation now.

Are we? And if so, what is it?

And what does it mean?

CAROL: Well, let's talk about some of these data points, Glenn. And then we can go into stagflation. First, we've seen a couple of bad data points. And as we've talked about before. The data is garbage. So we're doing the best we can, what it is they're telling us, without any sense of the actual reality behind us.

We saw before the jobs report, that the first quarter GDP was down, about a percent lower than expectations. Down to 1.6 percent on an annualized basis.

Then we get the April jobs report. And that is also down. It's the slowest job gain. That we've seen in -- I think about six months.

Again, if you believe the data. And what that first is telling me, is that all of this money, that the government has spent to basically window dress the economy. To avoid the double-digit recession.

Remember, we did have a recession. Two quarters of negative growth back in '22. Then we popped out of it. Then we expected that it would employ it down. The government ran these massive deficits, about two times the historical average, on a debt to GDP basis.

That we would normally see. And they tried to prop up the economy. So it wouldn't show we were in a recession. At a very expensive cost, by the way. Normally, when you have an expanding economy, you would see a shrinking deficit. They have did you not opposite.

They ran a big deficit, to try to create this appearance. And with an interest rate. Financing that deficit. You know, at the largest point in 15 years.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: So we know we are not getting a good return now, on this window dressing. And it is not creating these amazing outcomes for the economy.

You know, on the GDP front. On the jobs front.

Which again, could turn around. It's one set of at that time points. Would shift.

Stagflation is something that I talk to you about. I have been talking about for years. As a very possible outcome here.

And it's very much what it sounds like. It's when the economy stagnates. When you have a low growth number. But at the same time, you have inflation.

So you have sort of the worst of all worlds. You're not making gains of productivity.

You're not making, you know, gains in wages and things like that.

The economy is just hanging out. But you get this long-term sticking inflation.

Which again, we said was very likely, because the government continued to spend at these massive levels.

And they were working against what the fed was trying to do, to break down inflation.

So they are actually at this point, a likely cause of long-term inflation.

Because we have to continue to finance these massive deficits.

And so that's the reality of this sticky situation.

When you hear somebody, like JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon saying, I'm worried that the economy is going to look more like the 1970s, than anything else, this is something that they experience. Experience at that period of time. And he is seeing those parallels. Although, we're in a much worse fiscal situation from a fiscal foundation standpoint, than we were strangely enough in the 1970s.

GLENN: Because of our deficit and debt.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: Yes.

So this means that jobs, everything just is the same. It doesn't get better. It could get worse. But it doesn't generally get better for the individual. And prices continue to go up. Right?

That's what --

CAROL: Correct. You're not seeing your growth in wages. You're not seeing massive growth in companies.

The economy just sort of putters along.

You know, you're not seeing the massive layoffs. Or things you might see. With a recession.

Things are just kind of going along.

But not really growing at all.

You're not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But at the same time, we're encountering that bond, going sticking inflation, that we know destroys purchasing power and is really born, particularly by the middle and working class.

GLENN: All right.

So Carol, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. Because I have a couple of other things.

But you said, at the beginning of your conversation. You said, if you believe the numbers.

I don't believe the numbers.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: But the only reason you change and fudge numbers is not to stop them from looking so good. But stop them from looking so bad.

And the reason why I don't believe them. Is it's just too many times, where they've been adjusted. And there's always adjustments, but not like it's been in the last year or so.

And there's just contradictory information. If you're somebody who is listening now, and, you know, you don't -- you don't necessarily have that. You don't think that, you know, the administration would go that far, and fake numbers.

What leads you to say, if you believe these numbers?

CAROL: Well, like you said, there have been a lot of anomalies in the numbers. And, you know, if you -- you can kind of go back even further. You know, we've changed the method of calculation, of these numbers. At the governmental level, many times since the 1980s. One of the things you have to remember, for something like let's say inflation.

Inflation feeds into things like cost of living adjustments. The amount they have to increase Social Security payments by. So there is an actual reason why it is, that they would want to suppress those numbers.

Another piece of data which I think is very important. Is that entities and individuals no longer want to participate in government surveys.

So we have seen an absolute massive decline in the participation of the data that is being collected by the government.

Which means, when they don't have people in businesses, responding, there are more biases in the data, because it's a smaller subset of people who want to do it.

And it means they have to want to run it through their own adjustments. And seasonal adjustments. In the model.

And it's garbage in. Garbage out. You put bad data in, you'll get bad data out.

There are a lot of things. This isn't just the, hey. The numbers are adjusted massively. And we're seeing the numbers over and over again. Speaking to the bad data. There are some real structural issues as to why many of us think the data sort of isn't worth anything.

GLENN: By the way, we're talking to J.D. Vance in 15 minutes. Right now, we're with Carol Rother. I want to bring up something that is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen. It's an interview where they're trying to make the case for modern monetary theory. Which is not modern. It's a very old theory. You can just print money, and no big deal. Nothing bad will happen.

And they talked to Joe Biden's economic adviser.

Now, I -- if you would, explain who Jared Bernstein is.

He is -- he is the chair of the council of economic advisers for Joe Biden.

But he's not just some schlub, right?

CAROL: Well, I mean, I will not opine on that. But what I will tell you, is that he's very powerful economically. This is Joe Biden's right-hand adviser who has been, by the way, since the Obama administration, he was Biden's adviser.

And this is the guy who analyzes and interprets economic developments.

He comes up with economic policies. He puts that forth to the president. He's been entrenched in think tanks. He's been a contributor to CBS. He writes op-eds. He was a chief economist, in economic adviser. You know, previously.

This guy is like from the left and far left standpoint. One of the people, who they hang their hat on, to be the economic adviser. And I don't know.

Are you going to play the clip.

It's one of the most painful things I've watched in my life.

GLENN: I want to get your comment on it. And I want to set up. This is a real player in the economy.

This is someone our government depends on.

Listen to him try to explain our deficit, and what's happening with our money. Listen.

VOICE: The US government can't go bankrupt, because we can print our own money.

VOICE: It obviously begs the question: Why exactly are we borrowing a currency that we print ourselves? I'm waiting for someone to stand up, and say, why do we borrow our own currency in the first place?

VOICE: Like you said, they print the dollar. So why does the government even borrow?

VOICE: Well, the -- so the -- I mean, again, some of this stuff gets -- some of the language that the -- some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money.

And it definitely lends that money, which is why the government definitely prints money. And then it lends that money, by -- by selling bonds. Is that what they do?

GLENN: No. No.

VOICE: They -- they -- yeah. They -- they sell bonds. Yeah. They sell bonds. Right. Since they sell bonds.

People buy the bonds. And lend them the money.

GLENN: No.

VOICE: So a lot of times. A lot of times. The language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing. But there is no question, that the government prints money. And then it uses that money to -- so, yeah.

I guess I'm just -- I can't really talk.

I don't get it. I don't know what they're talking about.

Because it's like, the government clearly prints money. It does it all the time.

And it clearly borrows. Otherwise, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

So I don't think there's anything confusing there.

GLENN: Oh, my God. This is -- would you feel --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: If that was your captain, and you got on to a plane, and he said, hey. We're going to be traveling at 40,000 -- 4,000 -- I can't -- how does this work again? Would you get on that plane?

CAROL: Okay. So I'm going to be generous here first, Glenn.

And then I'm going to be not so generous. The first generous thing I will say is that we've all been in the media for a very long time, you longer than me. And we've all had days, that are somewhat like this. Where we know something really well. And we just can't get it.

So I will -- it could be today for me.

There have been a few times. When I made absolutely no sense, on something I know very well.

So it does happen. That can said. Now that I've been generous.

This is sort of the chief architect of the US economy at this point. Going through a discussion about MMT. I call it magic money tree. I've heard that somewhere along the line. I thought that was great.

And their main thesis. Oh, you got the checkbook. You can just write checks. The question he asked. Which anyone who lives in Zimbabwe would probably know the answer to. Why can't the government just print as much money as it wants.

We all know it's highly inflationary. And we've been living through that for the past few years. That's the very short answer. Of course, there's nuance to this. Of course, there's wonkiness that we can go in and explain the Treasury and the Fed. Just very simple.

So it begs the question to me. Does he not know the answer? Or does he very much know the answer, but he doesn't feel like he could admit it.

And hasn't done the prep. Which, again, these are politicians. Politician mouthpieces. They could just talk around us. Which they do all the time.

I think the answer is that they are just entirely decoupled from reality. So they don't care.

They don't care what it is, Glenn. Money is something very discreet. Money has three definitions. It's a unit of account. It's a median of exchange. It's the value.

At the end of the day, putting it together, what is it? It's a proxy for productivity.

It's an estimation of the labor that you have. Because it used to be. If you were a farmer. You had apples. Somebody who was a doctor at doctor services. You would have to figure out that exchange. Now this creates something that is seamless. So it stands for something.

GLENN: Stands -- time is money.

CAROL: It is. It is your output. So if you don't have an increase in economic activity. An increase in productivity. And you put more dollars in the system. What are you doing?

You're putting in more sort of proxies for productivity. They're chasing the same amount of goods and services. It means that those goods and services have been inflated and valued. Because each one of those proxies are worthless. If you go to Congress. And you ask them, to give you that definition of money. That I just gave you.

Anyone who knows anything about economics. I guarantee you 99 percent of the people couldn't tell you that. And the people on the left do not care. Because it doesn't serve their purpose.

They don't care that this is a proxy of what you have worked hard for.

They want to inflate that away for their own power purpose.

So it is very inconvenient for them to understand reality.

And that's why he can't explain this.

GLENN: I think he knows what it is. But can't explain.

Because he doesn't. He doesn't want to take a position on it.

Because I think they're all in bed with MMT. So he can't -- he doesn't want to say, I am in bed with MMT. Because it's insanity. But I think he also extent can know how to bridge that gap. There's a huge gap between reality and insanity.

CAROL: There is.

GLENN: And I think that's what it is. He just doesn't want to be seen crossing that bridge. Because there's no sane reason to do it.

CAROL: No. And the fact of the matter is, you had all these MMT people, selling this fantasy. And up until a few years ago, there were a lot of people who bought into the fantasy. Although, many of us said no. This is something that stands for reality.

You can't just make it up. Just because you have a checkbook. You can't write unlimited amounts of checks. It doesn't work that way. We have now lived through the worst inflationary period in 40-plus years. And these MMT people have not gotten enough shame. They should be walked through the street and we should go, shame, shame, shame.

Because it's their BS they've been selling into the government, into schools, that has allowed this to occur. And has allowed this decoupling from reality. Because they want to believe in unicorns that, you know, fart rainbows.

How GEORGE SOROS is Connected to the Pro-Palestine College Campus Protests

Surprise, surprise! Politico is shocked to find out that the pro-Palestinian protests taking over college campuses are financially backed by George Soros and the Tides Foundation! Glenn, however, isn't as surprised. But he and Stu also review something they haven't heard before: An anti-Israel protester praising North Korea for training Palestinian fighters. And then, there was the protester who wanted to liberate not just Palestine, but the Congo ... and Hawaii and Puerto Rico. So, that leads Glenn and Stu to debate whether there are any other states besides Hawaii that we should get rid of. He has a few in mind ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, let's say hello to my friendly chap, Stu. Hello, Stu.

STU: Hi, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I'm great.

STU: Are you? Things are looking up?

GLENN: Wow. So great.

STU: Great. That's so great to hear. I was worried that things in the world were a bit of a downer. Not at all?

GLENN: No. Not at all. I have something really good. You're going to love this.

This is from politico. Pro Palestinian protesters are backed by a surprising source.

You're going to be so surprised.

STU: Chuck E. Cheese. I would be surprised if Chuck E. Cheese were behind them.

GLENN: No. Not Chuck E. Cheese. No.

STU: Wait.

GLENN: George Soros and the Tides Foundation.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: No!

I am surprised by that. Not quite as surprised as Chuck E. Cheese.

You know, every morning, I get up because I can't take NPR and the New York Times daily anymore.

So I listen to daily wire. And the update for daily wire.

And one of their reporters said, and people who give to -- like the Tides Foundation should make sure to tell them, that they don't want their money going -- no. That's the whole point of the Tides Foundation.

STU: To launder money.

GLENN: You're not giving money to -- I hope it goes to Mother Teresa. It's not going there.

STU: I mean, you can give money to whoever you want.

So there's no real reason to have to wish and hope and pray it goes to a specific place. You can just give the money to that place. If you want to hide where you're giving the money to --

GLENN: Well, what do you mean by that, Stu?

STU: Well, that's the setup of the Tides Foundation, and they're not alone, of course. There are organizations that do similar things, where you give to this general organization.

GLENN: You mean, like Act Red?

STU: Is there a Win Red? There's some other roughly equivalent organization with the color.

GLENN: Well, good. Quite honestly, good.

STU: They don't do the same stuff, of course.

GLENN: They're not fomenting revolution on the streets?

STU: Well, I don't know. Not here at least.

It's one of those things. Where you can give to a centralized place, maybe not have your name on a destination list. It's a very convenient thing. If you're supporting things that you maybe don't want to publicly announce that you're supporting.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

So some of the people. Susan and Nick Princer. You know who Nick is, right?

Hey, Nick. No? He's the heir to the Hyatt Hotel empire. So makes me want to go stay at a Hyatt right away.

Let's see. Also, George Soros. I like this one. The Jewish voice for peace.

Which is, they describe themselves as anti-Zionists. I'm trying to figure this out now.

I mean, just -- somebody help me. Just do the math. Do the math.

You're a enjoy. And the history of the Jews, is to be chased out of wherever it is you live.

And you can never really defend yourself, because you don't have a country. Okay?

There's no place to go, and every place that turns on you, takes away your guns and puts you in a camp and tries to kill you.

Okay?

Now, for the first time since, oh, I don't know. 2000 years. You get a country.

And the world gives that country to you. Because its main -- its main objective is, you are free to defend yourself. And nobody is telling you, you know, go back to where you came from.

Okay? Now, you're a Jew. And you're against that.

Help me out on the math, because I can't seem to complete the numbers.

STU: It's a difficult one. You can be critical of an Israeli leadership, right? And still want the Jews to be alive.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: So you can be that. But being anti-Zionist, it's hard to know, exactly how that works out for the Jews. Not well in the past. We know that.

GLENN: So Rockefeller is giving significant grants to Jewish voice for peace.

Which blamed the October 7th attacks on Israel, and the United States.

So I don't know if you know that. We're so bad. We're so bad. We're so bad, we're even stealing the bad things that other people do. And claiming that they're ours.

That's how bad we are.

All right. So we have that. Now, the students at NYU. Let me see if we have this particular cut. I do believe we do.

Yes. Cut 45, please. Students at NYU.

Here's what they're chanting.

STU: I can't wait for a new chant. I hope it's something new. I hope it's something we have.

GLENN: I don't think so.

STU: Oh, really? That's always exciting.

VOICE: Which idea do you think North Korea support, Palestine or Israel? Just guess.

VOICE: Palestine.

VOICE: It is Palestine.

It actually never recognized the state of Israel. They have always upheld the right of Palestinian people to self-determination and resistance.

And this is beyond moral and rhetorical support. They've actively armed and trained --

GLENN: Yeah. North Korea. North Korea.

VOICE: -- have trained troops by the DPRK.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: This is the second one of these I've seen. People just sitting there. And she's reading this, by the way. Not as much chant unfortunately.

GLENN: This is crazy!

Yeah, I know.

STU: But you have to come up with something a little more catchy than that. But she is -- that has to be a North Korean operative. Right?

GLENN: Or -- or a Columbia University student, that otherwise known as a complete and total dolt.

STU: Yes. I would agree with that. That's the second one I would see in these protests.

Not talking about the Palestinians. Particularly praising North Korea for the reference. Oppressive regimes in the world.

GLENN: It's time for non-drag queen story hour, okay?

Where the non-drag queen comes out and says, listen, kids. North Korea, they starve their own people.

Really bad. Concentration camps. You know, that kind of thing.

Throwing babies up in the air. Seeing, who can catch it with a sword. North Korea.

Well, I learned a lot from that non-drag queen story hour. How about you, Stu?

Sounds like North Korea. Bad place. How -- how -- how is this person with a straight face really saying, North Korea?

And you know whose side they are on? Yeah. Our side. North Korea is on our side. They're even training people. I mean, they're with us.

Who could stand against us?

Oh, I don't know. All the forces of good.
(laughter)
Amazing.

STU: Imagine advocating for -- I mean, that person is not even advocating for the Palestinian cause.

It's more of trying to win people who already support the Palestinian cause, over to the North Korean cause, which is fascinating. But imagine wanting to be on that side of any debate. This isn't even like the high-minded like olden days of Cuba or something.

GLENN: No. This is --

STU: This is north freaking Korea.

GLENN: We know what they do.

STU: This is one of the most oppressive regimes -- probably the most repressive regime on earth.

But I think China is -- China is at least, has people in their country.

GLENN: Who are not starving.

STU: Or who are wealthy. Right?

They do international business. North Korea does none of this. Everything in their country is controlled by this one family. And this is the mace that won't even give like basic surgeries out to their people. That doctors have to come across the border, to give them basic things like cataract surgeries. They all think they're blind for life. When these basic surgeries would cure them.

North Korea is the worst of the worst.

Now that's the argument they're making?

I like being on the opposite side of that.

GLENN: You know, it's kind of -- people who say, you're on the wrong side of history. What do they know?

Well, in this case, I think we could say, pretty certain. North Korea is never going to be looked at like, you know, those guys were really great. Back in the day, those guys were really great.

STU: Yeah. It would be surprising how this turns out.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Here's another one I think you will really enjoy. Why are you out protesting today?

VOICE: Because I want to see an empire fall!

VOICE: What empire?

VOICE: From the US to Israel, the empire that's propped up by capitalism.

STU: Oh, shocking.

VOICE: Free Palestine. Free Congo. Free Sudan. Free Haiti. Free Hawaii --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Free Hawaii. Free Puerto Rico.

STU: Yeah, I'm worried about the freedom of Hawaii right now. It's a huge issue. And Puerto Rico.

GLENN: I know. You know, honestly, if Hawaii knows want Hawaii back. I'm cool with that.

STU: It's pretty awesome. I kind of like it. It rounds out our country a little bit. It's like when you have a delicious meal and there's just a little bit of garnish on top. Kind of rounds it out. I feel like that's Hawaii for us.

GLENN: Are you saying -- this is kind of like a DEI thing, we have to keep it in, to keep our diversity?

STU: No, I think it improves the recipe a little bit of our country. You know, you get this great island. You get to go on vacations there.

GLENN: Right. Right.

But we did kind of just, hey. Nice island you have here. It's ours. And I have no problem giving it back.

I really don't.

STU: You just --

GLENN: No. I have no problem.

STU: What about the military bases we have there. They'll rent them to us? Well, that's a unique proposal. You want to go to the 49 states. What about Alaska?

GLENN: No. Alaska stays.

STU: You want Alaska over Hawaii, why?

GLENN: Absolutely. Because some day we can drill for all the oil and rare earth minerals.

STU: You're saying that Hawaii just gives us tourism, not enough to fight for it.

GLENN: I mean, yeah. Colonialism, not willing to fight for it. You know, Hawaii, not willing to fight for it. Really not. Really not.

STU: Hmm. But you won Alaska. It's a lot of land. It's a lot of land.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a lot of land. We won't give that one up. That's kind of like Texas to me. Texas. Alaska. Nope!

STU: Really?

We need to turn something else into a state. You can't go 49. You have to go to a round number.

GLENN: How about we go to 48. Why are you going up. Let's go down.

STU: Well, I want a round number.

I have to knock out four or five. At least 4 to get me to 45. Or 40.

I mean, we can do that. We can knock out --

GLENN: Why not 48?

STU: Because it's not a round number. Am I not saying these words out loud? I keep hearing them in my head. Am I saying a round number out loud? I want a round number of states. Okay? That's what I want.

GLENN: That's a stupid rule.

That's a stupid, stupid rule.

I can cut ten. I can cut ten easy.

STU: You can cut ten easy.

GLENN: New York. New York.

STU: Okay. This is going to help. Every time we list states that we don't want in the union. This works out well.

GLENN: New York. Massachusetts. Oregon. Washington. California.

New Mexico, really doesn't do anything for us.

It's just kind of there.

STU: Really, breaking bad. That was a great series.

GLENN: Yeah. But it wasn't really filmed there.

STU: I thought it was. I think it was, but you can film stuff there.

GLENN: Then I balance it out with radiation. You know, the whole dump.

You know, with every place. Every community needs a dump.

And so maybe we keep New Mexico.

Just based on, we need a dump. Okay?

STU: That's quite an analysis of the beautiful terrain.

GLENN: Well, it is beautiful. It's the nicest looking dump I've ever seen.

STU: Okay. All right. Uh-huh.

GLENN: I'm not saying we dump our garbage there.

I'm saying we dump our nuclear waste there. Not the -- the same as garbage.

That's expensive waste. That's like waste from rich people.

STU: So you can get me to 40. You don't want to go to 50. No interest to 50.

Wasn't there a split to Idaho. Part of Idaho wanting to pull out. Or Oregon wanting to pull out.

GLENN: Yeah. Oregon.

No. That was just going to become part of Idaho. Half of Oregon was like, you people are crazy.

And they were like, I would rather be the potato people.

STU: What about east Oregon, get you a new state. Get you to 50.

You get two more senators from a conservative state there, doing it that way.

GLENN: No. Because then they'll demand Puerto Rico. No, we freed Puerto Rico. Right? Of course we have.

And --

STU: I didn't know that.

GLENN: And I think we've also evacuated the dump called Washington, DC. That's where we keep our dump. That's where we're like. Hey, all our garbage goes to the District of Columbia. And our prisoners.

STU: That would be interesting. And the prisoners. This is a good idea.

Because too big.

First of all, Washington it can't. Very liberal.

Two proposals, they're very interested in.

Number one is freeing customers, right?

They always want prisoners free. They always say the prisoner industrial complex.

So free them. But they all go to DC.

Right. You're allowed to walk around in DC.

Except for the hardened prisoners. We just lock the front doors, and the front doors and the back doors and the side doors. The hard criminals have to stay there.

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. But everybody else has to walk around.

STU: And then the trash, you know, they're always worried about the environment.

I mean, what better motivator to help clean up all the trash problem. Then all the trash goes directly to Washington, DC.

GLENN: Amen, brother.