Over the weekend, Glenn realized there are two types of Americans that have emerged from today's coronavirus crisis: there's the kind of American who is acting responsibly by practicing social distancing, and the American who STILL went to the crowded bars for Saint Patrick's Day. But for every coronavirus positive person who's walking around without realizing they're spreading the disease, they can begin a chain reaction that infects 248 MORE PEOPLE. And, based on today's statistics, two of those people will eventually die of COVID 19. The media IS being completely overblown and they ARE trying to create extra hype to make President Trump look bad. But that doesn't mean Americans shouldn't take this virus seriously. Work from home. Keep your kids home. Skip the get togethers and the bars. Cook dinner in. Quarantine does NOT mean vacation.
©2023 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
EXPLAINED: Why the Donald Trump indictment is BEYOND 'STUPID'
Donald Trump just became the first U.S. president to be indicted by the Department of Justice on federal charges. He’s facing seven counts related to his storage of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home. But something about this smells like it’s ALL about politics. In this clip, Pat and Stu — filling in for Glenn — break it all down…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
PAT: You know, there are cynical people who are going to say, this is all about politics?
STU: No. You think?
PAT: Yeah, they will. I think they will.
STU: Where would they get that idea from?
PAT: These right-wing kooks. Things they come up with. Spur of the moment. They're just so nutty. But some will say, Donald Trump was indicted simply because of political reasons.
And, wow. It's true. He was. First US president former or otherwise to be indicted on federal criminal charges. So fascinating. And it's all over the document thing. It's all over the Mar-a-Lago documents thing.
He had, you know -- what is he -- he's indicted on espionage? Espionage charges?
STU: Well, I think we've all seen spy movies, right?
STU: And most of the spy movies are based on a person with legal access to documents, that then stores them in their closet.
PAT: They're almost all like that.
STU: Most of them are like. The drama is here. And you find out, oh, he kept him in his closet. Then they bring him into court.
PAT: You know, like a James Bond scenario. That's exactly what comes to mind, right?
STU: Right. Not that they sold them to spies, or foreign entities.
PAT: Which he didn't do, of course.
STU: Or he tried to profit billions of dollars on the nuclear secret. That's -- there's an occasional movie that sounds like that. But most of them are, hey, wait a minute. That area where the closet was, was too highly trafficked. That's usually the plot for most Bond films.
PAT: That area was too highly trafficked. But the garage, where Joe Robinette Biden stores his Corvette, nobody has ever been in there. And it is impenetrable.
STU: Right. You saw mission impossible. The one where Tom Cruise was hanging down from the cables.
PAT: In the garage. Where he was hanging from the garage.
STU: That's where it was shot there.
PAT: Joe Biden's garage.
STU: That's how it happened.
PAT: You would think.
STU: There's so many ways to go here.
PAT: It's crazy.
STU: And I think the most obvious one is the fact that Trump is in the middle of a bunch of investigations by his political opponent. And what are the ramifications of that?
But can I take one little step back from that, first, Pat?
PAT: You may.
STU: Am I the only one who doesn't really care, if Donald Trump or Joe Biden had a few documents from their time in office, that were in their garage or closet?
PAT: Yeah. Yeah. You don't care.
STU: I just don't like really care.
PAT: You don't care.
STU: I just don't care.
PAT: Oh, my gosh. So.
STU: These are documents. Again, like espionage. The guy that was recently leaking stuff to his discord group. Remember this? He had the documents about the Ukraine war. And he was leaking it to his friends in this group. You can see how something like that is a real problem. He put them out into a public forum. A bunch of people who should have had no access to that information whatsoever, got access to that information.
STU: Real problem. We don't know what happened to it.
Maybe you can leak two foreign entities. Maybe you can threaten American security.
Maybe you can threaten Ukrainian security. Which seems what they're interested in.
PAT: Oh, that's way more sacrosanct than American security. You are kidding me?
STU: I can see why that would be a real thing to be concerned about. Now, this guy's evidence.
His motivation in this case, seems to be like, I want to be cool among my friend group. I don't think it indicates he should be in prison the rest of his life.
I can understand why this would be a big story. The story we're talking about now. Even if you take, at least what we know of this indictment. And we don't have it yet.
We won't have it until Tuesday, yet. But basically, what's going on here. Donald Trump was president of the United States. He could see any of these documents.
He had all of this information, already.
He left office. You might remember. Pretty chaotic time, when he left office. The period between January 6th and January 20th. Was a little rocky. I don't know if you remember that. He leaves office with a bunch of documents. They say, hey, we would like those documents back. He gives back a bunch of documents, but not all the documents. And no one is accusing them of selling them to the Saudis. No one is accusing him of selling them to the Russians. No one is accusing him of using these to launch a secret war in another country.
What they're accusing him of, is not giving them back in a timely fashion when they wanted them.
PAT: Right. That's crazy.
STU: Look, can they find a legal loophole in this law to get him in trouble on that. It's possible. But step back on that. Does this change the way you think of him? Does this change of the way you think he would govern as president of the United States? Do you actually care?
PAT: No. No, I don't.
STU: I just don't care. And to be honest, I don't care if Joe Biden did it either. I don't really care.
PAT: However, I will say, if it's this big a deal, with Trump, you have to reciprocate with Biden. You have to. You have to.
STU: That's my point. Neither of these stories should be the first time a president is indicted on federal charges. It's too stupid of a story.
Like, at least, some of the other accusations, that have been thrown at Donald Trump. Again, most of them have nothing behind them. But at least some of them were serious accusations. This is record-keeping.
What did he, put it in the wrong filing cabinet?
This is what we'll bring a president down on?
It's stupid. It's just freaking stupid.
PAT: Right. But I love the fact that the narrative from the left right now is that it is so important to mention that special counsel Jack Smith would never have brought these charges, if he didn't have mountains and mountains of evidence of wrongdoing.
STU: This one again? We're getting this one again, Pat.
PAT: Yes. We are. Wasn't that the same thing with what's-his-face?
With the Russian hoax garbage?
STU: Right. If you were to plot all these story lines on a chart. And they all started at day one. Right?
And they all had this one run of -- when you found out about them, till their expiration date. Russia. Ukraine.
I don't know. I can't even name all the scandals that they name at this guy. At this point, on the chart, they always say, they have all the information.
They always leak to the press, that they have impenetrable evidence that will bring this guy down.
They always say the same thing at this point.
PAT: It's wishful thinking. They want it so bad. That they claim they have it. And they don't.
STU: They want you to believe it. They want you to believe it, before you see the evidence.
PAT: They're trying desperately to stop him from running for president. At this point, I think they're pretty afraid, that he'll be --
STU: I think that's certainly possible.
They certainly don't want him to be president again.
PAT: Oh, well, that's --
STU: Yeah, I think. You know, I don't -- I go back and forth, on what they're trying to do here a little bit.
PAT: I know. I do too.
STU: From the perspective of, I don't think they could be so naive. That they would not understand, that this would help him in the primary. They have to understand --
PAT: It will be a big boost.
STU: To help him in the primary. It will hurt Ron DeSantis. Tim Scott. And Nikki Haley. All the other opponents. It will galvanize other people in his support.
So it likely will help him get through the primary. It's not a guarantee, he will win the primary by any means. But it's possible, it will help him.
I think it's likely, it will help him. If you consider that the option, then I guess you are saying, either they believe they're either going to beat him in the general. They will hurt him in the general, which I think is a plausible argument.
You know, yes. Us the right, that have followed every aspect of the Russia investigation, are going to say, I can't believe they're trying this again. I can't believe there's another one of these. Some moderate who doesn't know anything about the Russia investigation. Other than what they say on their Twitter feed. Or Facebook feed.
And have no information on this. And just keep seeing. Indictment. Indictment. Indictment.
Could be another story in the general. You it's a real concern, when you think about this stuff.
PAT: Did you see what Jamie Raskin, who was a Democrat from Maryland had to say yesterday about this situation?
STU: Really hard for me to not turn him off. I applaud you, Pat, for sticking with it. And reading what he said. Because I was not willing to go that far.
PAT: Now, I didn't listen to what he said. But I did read it. Because it's only one line.
But he said, Trump put US national security in grave danger.
STU: Oh, stop it.
PAT: By pursuing, quote, yet another lawless personal agenda.
STU: What's the agenda?
PAT: Really? What did he do? He had these in boxes, did he go down there and look at them from time to time?
Probably not. He probably didn't do that. But if he did, so what?
He knew about it, in the first place.
STU: He already knew what they were. That's why he took them.
PAT: If you were alleging that there's evidence that he sold them to Russian spies in the FSB, or KJB, or whoever is in power, in Russia now.
If he sold them to some Russian spy, okay. You have evidence of that. Maybe you have photographic evidence.
Okay. I can go with you on the grave danger thing.
STU: I want to throw him in prison.
PAT: Absolutely. Absolutely.
STU: As I think every member of the audience would. However, that will not be alleged.
PAT: No, it's not. They're not even accusing him of that. Which I guess pretty much means, it's not even alleged.
STU: That's my understanding.
You could be mistaken. Forgiven for that. When you see the word espionage on that. As if this guy was hiding on a trench coat, in a parking garage somewhere. Leaking to Chinese spies.
Look, if Donald Trump had a three-some with Eric Swalwell and a Chinese spy and gave them the documents, I would be really worried about that.
PAT: Well, did he wee-wee on him?
STU: I don't know.
Let's ask Christopher Steele, and then maybe we can find that out.
But, Pat, I don't know what happened here yet. Right? It will be months and months and months after, you know, today, that we will probably find out.
PAT: And maybe after the election.
And they'll just continue this garbage.
They'll just continue to throw stuff at the wall, to see what sticks. So they can hopefully derail him by hopefully November 2024.
STU: And at that point, when we do find out, what went on after the election, they will just bury it. Like they'll say, oops.
PAT: What have they said about Russia?
Nothing. They just don't bring it up.
There's no apology. There's no nothing.
STU: All this goes on.
What's the most likely scenario. Donald Trump leaves office. He's a guy who thinks he's been wronged in the election. He's angry. He pulls a bunch of boxes of documents. That he believes is his.
I was in the middle of this.
This is a letter from Kim Jong-un to me. To me. Donald Trump. That's me. My name is at the top of it. It says to me. I bring it home to my house.
Then these people who just screwed me out of -- again, this is Donald Trump.
These people who just screwed me out of an election, now want this stuff back. Screw them. No.
PAT: Oh, absolutely.
STU: Highly plausible.
PAT: Yeah, it is.
STU: Now, is that consistent with the president records act? Probably not.
You know, probably not.
If that's the scenario that played out, they may very well be able to come up with some legal justification, that if he did it, and they knew his intent, they have evidence of his intent. They may very well be able to get him on something.
PAT: We're hearing that every president since Reagan, has done this.
STU: In some form.
PAT: In some form.
STU: Intent is the difference.
What they're saying. Is he intended to do it. Is it possible, he was so angry.
It's possible. It is.
PAT: But so what.
STU: Is that a huge deal?
PAT: No, it's not.
STU: They weren't leaked to foreign entities. Anything in a Mar-a-Lago closet, is certainly more secure than something stored online. Right?
How -- go -- if you live near Mar-a-Lago. Go in there. And try and steal a Diet Coke. See how that goes for you. Go just try to play golf on the course without actually --
PAT: Are you encouraging criminal activity, Stu?
STU: No, I'm not.
I should probably clarify that before the DOJ shows up.
I am not -- I am saying this as a hypothetical thought exercise. It would be darn difficult to play the eighth hole at Mar-a-Lago, getting away with it.
You think stealing stuff out of Donald Trump's closet is going to be easy?
It's not -- it's ridiculous.
The whole thing is completely absurd. And, yes. You might be able to go in there, and find some legal thing you can catch him on.
Fundamentally, what are we asking as people -- as citizens of the United States now. Voters in the United States.
Is this a reason to vote for him, or not vote for him. And the answer is, of course, it's not.
Neither. It should make no impact whatsoever, on his ability to govern.
Why global elites now are targeting agriculture and OUR FOOD
It’s the next ‘shoe’ in their plan, Glenn says. Global elites now are targeting our food production and farming as a way to battle the alleged climate crisis. John Kerry, Biden’s ‘Special Presidential Envoy for Climate,’ spoke about their plans recently, saying that ‘we can’t get to net-zero…unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution.’ In this clip, Glenn explains why they’re REALLY going after agriculture and just how catastrophic this could be…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Well, let me just talk you to a little bit about, you think you're hungry now, Joe Biden's special presidential envoy for climate, Senator John Kerry. Made a revelation this month, as he spoke about the need to, quote, transform the way food is produced. In order to lower emissions.
This is the next shoe in the Great Reset. It's the new crusade for climate activists.
Food production. The -- the -- the -- the emissions have got to be reduced. Have to. I mean, most people -- well, let me just quote him. A lot of people have no clue, that agriculture contributes about 33 percent of all the emissions of the world. Depending a little bit on how you count it, but anywhere from 36 to 33 percent.
And we can't get to net zero. We don't get this job done, unless agriculture is front and center. Is part of the solution.
So all of us understand here, the depths of this mission. Reduction in fertilizer. Land use and cows are a big push, to seek the -- to reduce the emissions created by our food production.
Our food production. One idea that has been put forth, to help reduce methane, is to shift to eating bugs.
Another idea is to feed cows bugs, to reduce fertilizer emissions generated by growing food for cows.
So either you'll eat the bugs, or you'll eat the cows, that were raised on bugs.
John Kerry said, the agriculture sector, quote, needs innovation, now more than ever.
We're facing record malnutrition. Oh, my gosh. At a time, when agriculture, more than any other sector, is suffering from the impacts of the climate crisis.
He said, residents of earth, had only nine years left.
Nine years. Nine years left.
That's it. And I refuse to call climate change anymore.
It's not change. It's a crisis. There are scientists who will tell you today, that the probability of a large portion of Africa, that is a huge food supplier to the continent could implode in terms of agricultural capacity, if we don't get under control what we are doing.
Fifteen million people are dying every single year around the planet, as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions.
Wow. Wow. I would like to see that.
And the atmosphere, in the air, which travels around, at drops in the form of pollution.
Warming the ocean, at a record rate.
Changing the chemistry of the ocean itself.
Without action, millions of lives and livelihood on the planet.
And parts of the world. Climate crisis has now got growth in agricultural yields by as much as 40 percent.
Wow. Now, he was speaking -- well, let me ask him. If you want to transform agriculture, our food process. From quoting them. Not me.
From seed, to fork.
Who are the first people you will invite to the table?
STU: Klaus Schwab, would be my first.
GLENN: Exactly. Exactly.
STU: Anyone from the World Economic Forum.
GLENN: When do you get to the farmers?
STU: Last. I would say last.
GLENN: Well, just tell them what to do, because they're stupid.
STU: Right. That's the point.
GLENN: They have knowledge partners, Stu.
STU: Oh, good.
GLENN: And these knowledge partners are meant to share best practices, to increase the equitable diffusion, and positive returns to agricultural innovation efforts, focused on adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change.
It's got to be flexible, inclusive, and targeted collaboration. Focused on specific innovation areas, guided by the values of openness and transparency.
It is great.
STU: This always works out well. You know, when you take the people.
GLENN: Well, no.
STU: For example, if you were to put this together. Where all you did was listen to, quote, unquote, experts.
And let's say, health.
And then not at all listen to what parents wanted. Maybe the teachers unions in there. A bunch of other groups.
But never ask the parents or the kids.
And then afterward, the kids are -- you know, have their educational lives destroyed, by the policies, implemented by the health officials. That have no educational expertise whatsoever.
That would be an interesting system to try.
GLENN: I would be interested to see how that works out. Has that test ever been done?
STU: You know, I think it was done once.
Let's say globally in 2020, and 2021.
GLENN: It was a different world back then.
STU: The repercussions were table. But of course they would be different this time.
GLENN: Of course. It always is.
For instance, I can go back in history, and say, exactly what has been done here. This isn't new.
I mean, they're calling it new. But this is the Department of Agriculture.
The US Department of Agriculture, in league with the United Nations climate change conference. Or cop 28.
That's coming up in November. They're just getting ready for that. Now, I don't know -- maybe it was -- maybe it was cop one or two.
I'm not sure.
But Mao tried this. Back in the -- back in the '50s and '60s.
It was his five-year plan to transform farming.
GLENN: And it -- okay. There were 5 million deaths.
But when the experts came to him and said, hey, this is really not working out.
He said, because you haven't tried hard enough.
And so they did it for the full five years. And millions starved to death.
But I think that was different back then. That was different. The experts were different.
STU: You know, eggs, omelets. You know what they say.
STU: That's going to happen.
GLENN: They learned some important lessons. Which we will not learn from.
But they learned some important lessons with those millions dead.
You know, some could say, this is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. You know, strangely, two communist, Marxist countries, that tried this very thing.
It's weird. But they -- of course, the farmers didn't know anything. So they killed the farmers.
And then they just got some elites to go in and farm. Which they know everything about farming. Everything. Everything.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: Because they studied it in a textbook.
STU: And people who put on suits, and uniforms, and go work for the government, for 30, 40 years have a real sense of working with their hands. You know, if we go to their hands dirty.
GLENN: Right. In the real word.
STU: Yeah. They understand that stuff really well.
It always goes well, when they micromanage it.
GLENN: I think farmers would be good if they were made up of lawyers. Because every time the crop failed, they could sue them. You know what I mean?
I'm suing that corn.
STU: Right. And that corn would learn its lesson next time.
GLENN: It would. And it would grow next time. It would be great.
STU: You know, I keep coming up to the idea, there wouldn't be all these farming problems, if it wasn't for all these farmers. I'm taking all the steps out of the communist playbook.
GLENN: Well, I was thinking, we wouldn't have a problem with all these Republicans, or all these poor people, if we just got rid of all the Republicans, and the poor people.
STU: Oh. Easy-peasy, you know.
GLENN: Yeah. That really stops the problem, really quickly.
STU: It does. It does. And it always, without.
I mean, China has done it. The Soviets did it.
There was a really good experiment in that. They were having no problems with Ukraine since.
GLENN: So I think John Kerry has it fixed. Because when I think of somebody who understands farming, I think of John Kerry.
STU: Oh, yeah. You know, every time I see him parasailing off the shores of Nantucket -- no. Was it windsurfing?
I just remember that picture, in the middle of that.
STU: Yeah. Windsurfing off the shores of Nantucket. I think, here is a man, whose next step is to make sure he has manure. And he's out there in the fields, working hard to make sure your food gets to you.
GLENN: He's up to his neck in fertilizer, most times.
And he's a guy who likes to get his hands dirty.
I can see him all the time, getting his hands in the soil. You know?
STU: Doing manual labor.
STU: That's the John Kerry, to raise a Heinz Kerry way! He's fertilized. He's out there in the fields. Working hard, to make sure that your field gets you to in fertilizer.
GLENN: He's up to his neck in fertilizer most times. So and he's a guy who likes to get his hands dirty. You know, I can see him all the time.
Getting his hands in the soil. You know.
STU: Doing manual labor.
STU: That's the John Kerry to raise a Heinz Kerry way.
GLENN: Yeah. I will tell you, that -- I will tell you that I would like to send him someplace, where he is doing hard manual labor.
I would like to send a lot of these people into a place like -- like a farm, you know.
STU: Of sorts. You know, with lodging obviously.
GLENN: Of course, we have to provide lodging.
Three squares. Three squares a day.
STU: You know, Glenn. I like those open environments. Even though, it might be a small area.
You can see for a long distance between bars. Like the bars come down.
GLENN: Oh, that's kind of old school. But I like it, kind of feel.
This could SAVE YOUR LIFE if medicine shortages hit America
The COVID pandemic showed us all just how fragile America’s supply chain can be. So, what will happen if there’s another — possibly an even worse — breakdown? And more specifically, what will happen to our medicine supplies? It’s something JASE Medical’s Founder and CEO, Dr. Shawn Rowland, thinks about often: ‘I could sit here for three hours and talk about the the razor-knife edge that we’re on' with potential supply chain issues, he tells Glenn. So, in this clip, Dr. Rowland describes one solution to medicine shortages recently devised by his team — and it’s a solution that potentially could save your life…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: All right. Full disclosure, before I get into this. Jase medical is a -- a sponsor of -- are you just Blaze? You're not radio too, right?
GLENN: Okay. I talked to these guys a year ago.
And they had what they put together was the Jase case.
And it has five different antibiotics in it. And I thought that was really great. Because as we were talking, I said, you know, my daughter takes anti-seizure medication. You know, I'm on high blood pressure.
And if you know anything at all, about when the system breaks down, your anti-psychotic drugs run out in 30 days.
Your blood pressure. Your antiseizure. All the things that are keeping people alive, that probably wouldn't have been alive, you know, a few years ago.
They all run out in 30 days.
Where are you going to get that?
That's the question I asked you guys, a year ago.
And you said, we're working on it. So let me bring in Dr. Shawn Rowland. He's the founder and CEO of Jase Medical.
What are you bringing?
SHAWN: Well, as you mentioned, yeah, this was a year ago. We have been working on this for a while. Bringing to market the antibiotics. Knowing that that was just really the first step.
And a very important step. A vital step.
But to your point. Everyone is out there, dealing with different personal conditions.
And so finding a way to do our same service with the Jase case. Which is our antibiotics. Being able to do the same thing for chronic conditions.
So we're -- we're super excited.
We're here to let everyone know. They can now go to Jase medical.com.
They can get access to up to a year supply of their -- whatever chronic medication they take. Blood pressure. Thyroid. Seizure disorders.
There's quite a list.
GLENN: How expensive is it to buy -- to buy a year's worth.
I know my daughter's medication for her anti-seizure is like $700 a month. It's something outrageous.
CAROL: Yeah. So that's a really good question. It's so dependent on the actual medication you're taking. Some of them are pennies. Some are not.
And so really, it runs the gamut. But what we've tried to do is basically make it as accessible as possible.
It's not just the medications you have to pay for. You have to pay for the physician visit, to have that encounter, to get the prescriptions. And then go to the pharmacy. Get your prescriptions, and have them sent out.
So packaging that all together, turns out though, it's probably a lot more accessible than people realize.
Just because we're so used to dealing with insurance companies, and copays. And we're disconnected from the true cost of the carrier that we received.
CAROL: And so this kind of -- has taken all that out. And made a much more direct connection between ourselves, the patient, and the physicians.
GLENN: So you put together a list here.
And I don't recognize any of these drugs, that I'm on one of them. Duloxetine.
Isn't that anti-depression medication, or not?
SHAWN: Yeah, that is one.
GLENN: And a 12-month supply is 60 bucks. That's great!
SHAWN: Right. Yeah. There's some on there that's 40, 50, $60. You mentioned some seizure medications. Those may get up a little more too.
GLENN: Yeah. I'm sure.
SHAWN: And right now, is limited to pills, tablets, for the most part.
So injectables aren't yet on the list. Insulin, which is a big request.
GLENN: How could you even store it for a year, though?
SHAWN: So if it's stored properly, you can, in some cases, get up to a year of viability out of your insulin.
As soon as you take it out of the fridge, the clock starts ticking. You get your 30 days or whatever it is. So there is a way to do it.
That's another one, that we could maybe come back and talk about. But that's another one that is in the works.
GLENN: Right. And how are you -- because the government is so freaked out about every kind of pill for you.
And they're cracking down on everything.
And, you know, they're creating all kinds of problems and shortages. And everything else.
But do you have to have your doctor call in to you guys? Or what do you do?
SHAWN: Right. The biggest thing, bringing up kind of regulations, you know, our goal, we want to empower people. And we want to do that through access. Access to physicians. Access to the medications, at a reasonable rate.
And part of this though, is not everything is on the table.
Is not everything is an appropriate or safe option. So of course, controlled substances, is just an immediate off the list. There's no way I can get you a year supply of your ADD medication. Or your pain medicine.
There are certain medications that are just disqualified, right off the bat.
And that, is appropriate.
It's the best way to do it.
GLENN: Yeah. That would cause you all kinds of trouble.
SHAWN: Yeah, and I think trying to balance access and empowerment with appropriateness, is also really important for us.
SHAWN: So when it comes to the controlled substances, that's just something that we're not able to help with right now.
Again, though, coming up with some other things in the works there. So really, we're talking about the legacy drugs. These are -- you've been on your blood pressure meds ten years. You see your doctor regularly.
Things are under control. You haven't saved your dose. You're a safe patient. You are someone I as a physician, would feel comfortable, knowing that you have regular follow-up.
I will give you a year of prescription for this medication. And why not?
And that can be applied to a lot of different medications and conditions.
And they're all relatively, I'm going to say low risk. When you compare them to opioids and things like that. So that's where regulatory-wise, it goes through a board-certified position, licensed in your state.
Goes to a pharmacy. That also is licensed to do business in your state as well. So...
GLENN: And the Jase case has, what? Five flights of antibiotics?
SHAWN: Right. So you have five antibiotics in there. Covers really quite a range of different potential bacterial infections.
They were especially curated and selected because of things they cover.
You know, we want to cover things that are common. That might be common in a scenario. Where you don't have access to medical care.
Things like UTIs. You know, urinary tract infections. Or sinus or pneumonia. We also want to cover things that are really deadly. Like a bioterror attack.
There was an incidence of bioterror in your city. Some aerosolized anthrax which is one of the agents that have been identified by the government.
SHAWN: Plague is another one.
GLENN: And don't worry anybody. Just in China, the same lab, they're doing experiments with the lab. I mean, with the Black Plague. And it should work out fine.
SHAWN: So there is treatment for that. And prophylactic treatment. That everybody would need to be on. One of the drugs is doxycycline. In the event of one of these attacks -- to prevent the -- to prevent getting sick, right?
So how that gets from the national stockpile into your hands as a citizen, in whatever citizen you're in. I'm not sure how well that will go. We kind of saw how the vaccine roll out went. And things like that. And it needs to happen within 24 hours. So probably not going to happen.
That's one of the things we include. And we include it in an amount that would be appropriate to take. Which is two months. You have to take the medication for two straight months.
SHAWN: That's in the Jase case. Yeah. It's a long, long prophylactic.
GLENN: And you get it for each member of your family?
SHAWN: Yeah. This is another one. Where you need to operate within these appropriate bounds. Right now, it's for one person. Because it has to be prescribed to that person for that physician.
Age-wise. It's adults.
If you have a minor. If you have a child, that's 14 or older in your family, they basically will be taking adult doses anyway.
We will do it for adults as well. So it does leave a big portion. We've talked about pediatric patients. Those are that are younger. So that's another.
GLENN: I have to tell you -- are you guys preppers?
SHAWN: Well, I am going to say yes. I guess preppers is -- everyone -- there's such a range.
GLENN: I know. I know.
Let me just say this. You're worried about the supply chains. You're worried about things.
SHAWN: Oh, yeah.
I could sit here for the next three hours and talk about the dangers. The knife -- the razor's knife edge that we are on. That is at its core, why I did this.
Is -- is because of that -- because of living through preCOVID. Being in a hospital. A Community Hospital. And dealing with shortages, at that time.
Which is, for me, what is going on? How can this be?
GLENN: We stopped being the America I know, during COVID. For multiple reasons.
But one, I remember people saying, well, we're out of that. We won't have that for six months. I'm like, what the -- what do you mean, six months?
SHAWN: Well, yeah, and that may work for your computer chip in your car. Maybe you can wait a year for a new stove to install. But that doesn't work for medications.
GLENN: Right. And if we go to war, China even just does a trade war with us.
Don't they make like 18 different ingredients, that we don't have access to?
Like most of our drugs.
SHAWN: At least. Yeah. All roads lead back to China when we're talking about pharmaceutical supply. Even when we look at factories in India, which is another big supplier for the world. Not just for the United States. We're in line with everybody else.
For the world. Turns out, and this happened over COVID, actually. India's government came out. And said for the first time. These are numbers that are really hard to find.
The FDA can't find them. And the government is trying to figure out, how can we get more transparency in the supply chain.
India came out and said, around 70 percent of their active pharmaceutical ingredients for their manufacturing process comes from China.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
SHAWN: Again, kind of all roads lead back to China.
Certainly, when we talk about generic medications. Which is 95 percent of what we take in the United States on a daily basis are generic medications.
Virtually 100 percent of those are produced out of the US, and mainly have some tie, whether it's an ingredient, or outright manufacturing in China.
GLENN: Well, it's good to talk you to. I'm interested to see how this all will work out.
The -- I want you to go to additional and this is not a commercial. I was so excited, when they talked to me about the Jase case. One of the first things I said, what about all the people that will die in 30 days, if the supply chain breaks down?
And they said, we're working on it. And I said, when you guys have it, you come on the show. Because this is the one piece of the prepper's job that has not been able to be solved.
SHAWN: Absolutely. You have your food and water. But without your health.
GLENN: Yeah. Just -- just America without its psychiatric meds. The number of depression we have that are killing themselves now.
Imagine in hard times, and no medication.
In 30 days, you start to have --
SHAWN: It's terrifying. And some of them are life-threatening. Particularly you're talking about some of the psychiactric medications.
Those are ones -- if you stop taking your Staten or your cholesterol, you probably will be okay. You can get back on -- you have some time.
SHAWN: Those other medications specifically in that kind of psyche realm and some others.
You can't just stop them cold turkey. There will be consequences.
And you're right. We just haven't had a viable option, to -- to protect ourself. Or our family.
GLENN: Yeah. Protect your family now. Go to Jase Medical now. Find out all about it.
Jase. J-A-S-EMedical.com. Congratulations. Thank you for solving this.
SHAWN: Thank you.
I feel like we have a lot more work to do. And we're just getting started.
This is great. You've been great helping us get the word out.
GLENN: You bet. One step at a time. Make sure every step is exactly right.
You make one false step, and then we lose this opportunity. So thank you. JaseMedical.com.
Alan Dershowitz: THIS is the ONLY way to STOP George Soros
Despite it potentially making him even more ‘unpopular,’ lawyer Alan Dershowitz tells Glenn he has ZERO plans to stop condemning billionaire George Soros (and his recent, scathing op-ed about Soros proves it). Dershowitz, Host of ‘The Dershow,’ explains why Soros’ money is incredibly dangerous to America, why the media refuses to call him out, and the ONLY solution to ending Soros’ harmful influence within the Western world…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: You are an amazing group of people. The world really didn't know about ESG.
We started talking about it, when it was just a conspiracy theory. And I think because of this audience and the audiences of Russell Brand, that people now know what ESG is.
And they're standing up against it.
The other thing that this audience, and I did it out of stupidity. I just didn't know, you don't touch this rail. I bet -- began talking about George Soros, 20 years ago, and speaking out loudly about him. And found him to be a very dangerous person.
Because of that, a lot of money was spent through Media Matters. And everything else. To in particular target me. And my voice.
And he has -- and he has rallied people, to say that I'm an anti-Semite for it.
Nothing could be further.
I won the defender of Israel award. I'm just saying. But you always claim, that you're an anti-Semite. If you speak out about him. I don't care what his religion. What his creed. What his race. I don't care about any of it.
I don't care.
He and America is now seeing it firsthand. Is systematically dismantling the West.
Look at what he's done to some of our cities.
His influence is dangerous. Alan Dershowitz has just written a very brave article. Alan, welcome to the program.
ALAN: Well, thank you so much. I think I was there, when you got the defender of Israel award. And I stood up, and I gave you a standing ovation.
You deserved it. And you're not only a defender of Israel, you've been the defender of the Jewish people. You have been the defender of religion. How dare anybody, call you an anti-Semite.
The only anti-Semite, that we discussed on the show, so far, is George Soros.
Who is a self-hating. He's not even a Jew.
He started his life by collecting the property of Jews, who are being sent to the concentration camps. That's how he made his first money.
He's devoted his money to hurting Jews. To hurting Israel. To hurting America.
And nobody is attacking us. Because he's a Jew. He's hardly a Jew at all.
As a friend of mine would put, he's Jewish only on his parent's side.
His mother, his mother, he brags, his mother was an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite.
So how dare anybody suggest, that criticizing George Soros is anything, but good for America. Good for the Jewish people.
I will continue to criticize him. As I've been doing along with you, for the last 20 years. Let people call me an anti-Semite.
GLENN: I tell you, this is not going to make you more popular.
I mean --
ALAN: Less popular.
I used to be one of the most popular guys around. And I defended Donald Trump, so all the Democrats hated me.
And I decided not to vote for Donald Trump, so a lot of the Republicans hated me. So it's me and my wife and my kids. And you.
GLENN: So, you make the point.
I mean, I don't know what it will take, because the media, is all in for George Soros.
He -- he funds, so many things.
And his son, I believe, is worse.
And he's got control, I think of 17 of the $19 billion. Of these funds.
But no one in the media will say anything about George Soros.
And he is dismantling our country.
ALAN: Well, and it's worse than that. The Jerusalem Post, had an article saying, every Jew must support George Soros. And I wrote back and saying, not this Jew.
I'm not going to do it. I see evil, where I see evil. I see good where I see good.
I support Christians when they do the right thing. I support Jews when they do the wrong thing.
And you do the same thing. I mean, you're not going to defend someone just because they're Christian, obviously. Some of the worst people in the world, have come from various backgrounds. And various ethnicities. You don't have to question, you know, what's your religion? But you don't ask the question, what is your religion? You ask the question, what did you do?
What have you done to America?
What have you done to fund prosecutors, who are not doing their job and politicizing the criminal justice system?
What do you do when you take an organization, like Human Rights Watch, which is a wonderful organization. Neutral, unbiased. And you turn it into a hate America, hate Israel, hate human rights.
And just use human rights as a weapon against conservatives and in favor of the hard left. That's what George Soros' legacy is.
I know his son. He has a house on Martha's vineyard. He seems like a nice enough guy.
For all I know, George Soros can be a nice guy in person too. But you judge people by their actions. And by his action, George Soros is -- is an evil -- I mean, you know, I think that -- that Elon Musk got it right. He's a super villain.
He's a super villain.
He may not be a cartoon character, super villain. But in real life, he's done an enormous amount of harm.
GLENN: You said, in your op-ed. You said, you won't call a Magneto.
Because you don't really know who Mr. Magneto is.
However, I've always said, I always thought he was more like the emperor in Star Wars. Oh, you think your friends will save you.
Anyway, you know, there are a couple of countries, I think one in Asia.
I think Hungary by may be another one. That has banned his, you know, Open Society Foundation. And his NGOs from coming into the country.
I -- it -- I mean, I think we should do that here.
THOMAS: I don't agree with that. But -- and I also think that there are some countries in -- in -- in Poland, and in Austria, and in Hungary.
There have been people that have you used sources, against him, in order to promote anti-Semitism.
We all condemn that. We all condemn that. In the same way, we will condemn if anybody used a Muslim heritage. Or Christian heritage. To condemn them.
You condemn the person, for what they did. Not what they are.
So I'm going to continue to condemn those Europeans, who point out, Soros' religion. Who compare him, for example, the Rothschild family.
The Rothschild are real Jews.
They establish Israel. They -- for the most part, were great people. And in that case, they only use their Jewishness to demonize them.
But that's not the case with George Soros.
And I'm going to continue to criticize them. And I encourage others to criticize them. Without reference to his religion.
GLENN: So I've never referenced his religion.
And I've actually given him the benefit of the doubt, his childhood, during the Second World War.
I mean, I wasn't in that situation. I don't know what I would have done.
And I don't want to judge somebody for that.
What has bothered me about that, is he's said, he's never given it a second thought.
He's never had any question about what he did.
ALAN: And he said, if I hadn't done it, somebody would have. That's what everybody said, during the horrible, horrible things in Germany. No. You stand up for what's right.
You know, I still love to hear him explain his statements. His bragging statement that his mother was an anti-Semite. Because that's something to be proud of.
You know, my father was a hard-working guy. I'm very proud of him.
He put me through college and law school.
I'm proud of my father. But the idea of saying, your mother was an anti-Semite.
There must be something about that. That makes him gloat with glee.
You know, what he argues, is he doesn't like particularism. He likes universalism.
Just an excuse. That's just an excuse.
What he doesn't like, is Israel. He never has.
What he doesn't like is America.
The country that saved him. And saved so many of us, and our parents, and our parents, and our grandparents.
You know, my -- my grandmother came from a little -- Poland. Was such an American patriot.
She would take us on July 4th, to the Statute of Liberty. Make us pledge allegiance.
And then sing in her broken accent, the Star-spangled Banner, including the second verse. Which nobody knew, but my grandmother did. The accent. Knew the second verse.
Because she just loved America.
And she loved Israel.
And, you know, she -- I'm so proud of -- of her.
She made it from nothing.
And George Soros, he made a lot of money.
That's automatic. That's -- but to use his money. And the way he does.
In such a destructive manner, is appalling.
And deserves to be criticized. And I will continue to criticize him.
I got a lot of flak for doing it.
But I will continue to do it.
GLENN: All right. So let me ask you this.
So the only solution to -- and I am asking you sincerely.
I don't have an answer.
The only solution to his use of money, the way he uses it. For instance, in all of our cities, is just to expose him, and talk about it?
ALAN: I think so. I mean, there are ways of limiting expenditures.
But they run into the Constitution. And generally, I don't support, you know, money as free speech.
ALAN: And so let him do what he wants to do.
But, you know, let's condemn him, for the way he spends his money. And the way he tries to influence America. So I wouldn't take away his money or take away his ability to influence.
GLENN: Oh, you can't.
ALAN: But I would hope that people wouldn't be influenced by his money to defend him. I think a lot of people jump to his defense. And criticize us are probably direct -- or indirect beneficiaries of his money.
GLENN: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.
ALAN: That's why other organizations like that jump to his defense, immediately. Because they want his money.
GLENN: Thank you so much, Alan. For everything that you do.
And just -- just another notch there, on the popularity poll.
For Alan Dershowitz.
Thank you so much, Alan. I appreciate it. You bet.
Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Law School professor emeritus. Host of the Dersch Show, which is a great podcast. And the author of Get Trump.
Not that he was saying, get Trump.
STU: I don't think we've ever had a guest on, that's been more negative on George Soros than you.
I think we just set a new record.
That was impressive.
Can you call Alan Dershowitz an anti-Semite? Is that what the next step in this little charade is?
GLENN: No. They will ignore it.
Or they will just say, he's going senile. Or whatever it is.
They will find their attack.