RADIO

LEAKED China audio unveils possible plan to INVADE Taiwan

Is China preparing to invade Taiwan? Leaked audio that appears to be legit would seem to point to that as a strong possibility. Jason Buttrill joined Glenn to discuss and analyze what the timetable might be. It may not be tomorrow but it's happening soon... ish.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jason Buttrill is with us. He is the main writer, researcher for the Glenn Beck television program.

And he is also our national security expert. He was with naval intelligence for a long time. And can tell us about a new audio tape that has come out of China. Smuggled out of China. That apparently shows that they are preparing for an invasion of Taiwan.

I've got several questions on this. First, Jason, why don't you bring everybody up to speed, on what it is, what they're saying.

JASON: Well, so first a quick little correction. You say naval intelligence. I'm about to invade your office, because Marine Corps intelligence.

GLENN: Same thing. You're on boats.

JASON: Bigger.

(laughter)

GLENN: My apologies. My apologies to every marine. Just said it to set him off. Go ahead.

JASON: Yeah. So this is -- this is -- like a council meeting of their war mobilization.

So I want to make that clarification. Because this does appear to be legitimate. They are talking about a massive war mobilization effort, on basically this is theory crafting. What do we need to do?

So where do we need to get conscripts. How do we retrofit ships to get the amount? Which they're guessing in this meeting, will take about 953 ships, which is oddly very specific.

And they also talk about 140,000 soldiers. They're talking about private companies, that need to be utilized. Yeah. I say private in air quotes. Public/private. Nobody.

GLENN: Yeah, no, it's a partnership. It's a public partnership. It's what we will be soon. But go ahead.

JASON: 140,000 soldiers. They just go on. Very good detail. It goes on for about 56 minutes. I've looked at some of the -- well, I've looked at all the nations. I've matched up all the faces. These are real people. This does appear to be legitimate. I do want to say though, that they're just one part of this massive -- you know -- you know, structure that's within China. That's looking at invading Taiwan. And make no mistake. Invading Taiwan is a national security necessity for China. They will try it eventually. When is up to, you know, interpretation. I think they're still very far off. At least ten years off.

GLENN: Yeah. Now, wait a minute. Hang on just a second. And I think anybody in the intelligence community. Because I've talked to several of them. Would agree with you. We're at least five years off. Between five and ten. Is this different than what we do with the pentagon?

I mean, we should have a plan on, you know, invading Canada, in case they went crazy. That's what they should do, is have a plan for anything. Is that what this is?

JASON: Yes. I think that's what this is. But it has a little more teeth. So when I was in the intelligence community, we did a lot of war gaming. You know, for multiple different countries stop we had to plan in place. If it was -- you know, we needed.

I think the difference here is that this is their -- let's say, it was our national security imperative, that we invade Cuba. And we -- and everyone knew we were going to do it at some point. Then this would be a lot more worrisome. That showed we were this far ahead in the planning. That's a different tear. They will do this soon. They will, in the future.

GLENN: Yeah. So soon for the Chinese, which could be 500 years away.

Let me ask you the next obvious question. In a state, that has total surveillance, total surveillance, and records of everybody, cell phone, what it's doing. Where it's been.

Who smuggled this out? How did it get out? And is it intentionally let out?

JASON: Yeah. Yeah. So there's -- so I was kind of getting to this a little bit earlier. But there's multiple different factions that are looking at this. There's the war mobilization faction like this. Like, their job is to make sure that if we do this, we're prepared to do it. Now, there are other factions in the Communist Party, that are like, are you looking at the geopolitical perspective right now. Are you looking at what's happening in Russia with Ukraine.

We're trying to get our economy going the way it's been going, the past ten, 15 years. That's not going to happen. That's a full stop. Everything they want to get done. What's -- can you imagine what happens to (inaudible), if what happens to Russia happens to them? It completely goes away.

So there are those factions in the CCP. That say, wait a minute. Let's take a step back. Yes. We agree. We have to do this in the future. But this is not something we should be thinking about in the near term.

GLENN: Do you really think it goes -- do you really think that all goes away?

If they take Taiwan, and somebody doesn't blow up the high-tech plants, they control like 99 percent of every chip, and most importantly, the hardest chips to make. That's all in Taiwan.

You really think that, you know, countries fold all the time, because they need something.

JASON: Yeah.

And the issue with Taiwan, looking at the economic perspective, it's almost mutually assured destruction. If you go after Taiwan. You're also critically damaging the Chinese economy. They do a massive amount of business with Taiwan. It's almost like an Achilles' heel that kind of shoves this invasion way down the line, because China is just not ready for it right now.

They don't have a purely, you know, domestic economy. It's purely based off of exports. Purely based off of exports.

And massive amounts of Taiwan. So they're just not ready. I do believe the United States -- I don't think that they can take Taiwan. Not as long as the United States navy is what it is. In the -- I do not believe they can do it. And look at what these numbers.

What they're talking about. 140,000 soldiers. Over 20 airfields and docks. 953 ships. That is -- look at the mobilization that happened in Russia and Ukraine. We were able to see that, you know, months ahead of schedule. This amount of mobilization. I mean, they're going to start, six months later, they'll be ready.

So what will happen, once this starts going down. The United States navy is going to push massive amounts of hardware, you know. Multiple fleets into that area.

GLENN: If we have the fuel. If we had the fuel.

JASON: Start blocking everything off. Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: So did you read my Davos, EF executive summary that I got?

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Can we go through this a bit?

Because Al Gore spoke at the Davos meeting yesterday. He was part of the panel, turning up the heat on green washing. And during the panel, Al Gore and other panelists lamented the fact that far too many companies pledged to lower their carbon emissions, but only a small percentage actually followed through with their commitment. It's what they call green washing. So his solution to dealing with the inaccurate reporting of CO2 conditions. A network of satellites that can track CO2 emissions, down to an incredibly detailed level.

He says, according to an S&P report, on more than 5,000 companies. Only 37 percent had any emissions target at all, for scope number one and scope number two emissions. Only 24 percent have net zero targets. And of the companies that have set emission targets. Less than half are aligned with the science-based approach. To even 2 degrees. Much less 1.5 degrees. 58 percent of the companies don't even report their scope, three emissions.

Let alone have a plan to reduce them. And in a recent poll, 1500 business executives from 16 cubs. Only 36 percent said their companies have tools to measure the progress on sustainability.

So he says, green washing is a major obstacle to solve the climate crisis, made up of falsehoods, clever PR. And it's got to stop.

Al Gore then shares the exciting news. We're about to enter the age of radical transparency.

Now, just hear this. And, Jason, chime in at any time. Entering an age of radical transparency. Not for you to be able to see into the government. Not for you to see into the elites. But for the elites to see into everything in your life. He said, I've been among those who have formed a new coalition called climate trace. Which stands for tracking realtime atmospheric carbon emissions. He says, it's a coalition of artificial intelligence. Technology companies. NGOs. And universities. Using data from 300 existing satellites from multiple countries. Ground, sea, and airbased sensors, and internet data streams, to machine learning. To create algorithms for every single sector and subsector of the economy.

This October will publish the world's first inventory of exactly where the greenhouse gas emissions are coming from. And in what amounts. He said, it's going to make a dramatic difference. So investors, supply chain managers, NGOs, prioritizing their campaigning activities, financial institutions. If they want to know where the emissions are coming from upstream and downstream, it's all going to be laid out for the world to see.

That's a little frightening.

JASON: Radical transparency. Why do you have to always add the word radical to everything? Come on, man. Yeah. This is not surprising to me. Next week, we will be talking about on the Glenn Beck special. About a lot of the executive orders. A lot of the transformation. Which already has gone down in the bureaucracy. Which they call, a, quote, all of government approach. Which a lot of us didn't pay attention to. But the more we've been looking into it. It is shocking the amount of the alphabetic bureaucratic agencies that are already moving in that direction.

So if they're talking about private companies, using satellites to do this, do we not think that, you know, the Department of Homeland Security is not already doing this as well?

GLENN: All of them are.

JASON: I mean, in their own words. That's their main priority right now. A couple of weeks ago, the FCC, just issued out sweeping new proposals on mandating -- I'm sorry. Public companies. To disclose their climate footprint and their carbon emissions. And it's hilarious that they even have to mandate it. Because there are groups, that we have a letter, directly from one of the biggest banks in the country. That says, they're already doing this. They say, we applaud you in you. Making it official. We've all been doing this now for several years. They're already doing it. They don't even have to green washing, whatever. A lot of these companies are already on board. Did you see the second half of those notes, Glenn, the first movers coalition?

GLENN: Yeah. Let me take a break, and come back on this. This is something that John Kerry talked about. The first movers coalition. That is the public/private partnership, that the White House announced a few months ago.

GLENN: This is the Glenn Beck Program. All right. So John Kerry, we're back with Jason Buttrill. And he is talking to us about the World Economic Forum. And Davos. Day three. Jason. The first movers coalition. This is John Kerry, yesterday. Talking about, you know, when we first got together a year ago, with Joe Biden. He announced 35 companies, that were coming in on the first movers. A public/private partner ship with the White House.

And now it's up to 55 companies. What does that mean?

JASON: And this was just the 55 companies that are publicly announcing that they're in this public/private.

GLENN: Correct.

JASON: We know there are far more than just 55.

GLENN: Well, no, but these 55. $9 trillion in worth. And these 55 represent 50 percent of all global GDP.

JASON: It's insane.

GLENN: That's a little crazy.

JASON: This is, again, something we will highlight in our show next week. It's a must watch show. You have to next week. But we will highlight some of the wordings they used, in Biden barrage of executive orders.

And reading some of this stuff, it's just blowing my mind. They're stating, and this coalition is all part of this.

Is they're intentionally trying to manipulate the markets. They don't care. I mean, they're trying to manipulate the markets. They know the United States government is actually the largest purchaser of goods in the entire world. In the entire world. So they're directing all these companies to judge on board what the federal government is already doing. Which is intentionally, only buying certain things that they agree with. Like only things they consider hoe carbon footprint. If you work in some of these industries, that are considered high carbon footprint. Or your social and governance is not on par than what they want. Then they are trying to intentional manipulate the market. To drive you out of business. Or, you know, if your business goes out. Then you are intentional driven out of a job. They really do not care. But that's what this is about. They're intentionally trying to manipulate the market. And radically transform the economy.

GLENN: And that's --

JASON: Not only the United States economy. The global economy.

GLENN: And that's the lie that Biden keeps saying, you know, none of his stuff is affecting the gas price.

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: All of his stuff, including from the World Economic Forum and The Great Reset. That's the point of the great reset. Is to get rid of fossil fuels and oil and gas. And we're going to pay an extraordinary price in human lives, in starvation. Wealth. And progress. This is so dangerous. What they are doing right now.

We'll have all of those. Thank you, Jason. We'll have all of this. And updates on what every agency is doing. And wait until we tell you what FEMA is doing, next Wednesday, on the Glenn Beck special. Next Wednesday. Join us at BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

RADIO

‘STUNNING’ statistics PROVE the church may be in DANGER

A recent report found that only 37 PERCENT of Christian pastors bring a ‘Biblical worldview’ with them to the pulpits. And, for Catholic priests, the numbers are even worse. Glenn breaks down these ‘STUNNING’ statistics which prove that the Christian church in America may be in BIG danger…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: By the way, there's a couple of things hear. Only half of evangelical pastors hold a Biblical worldview.

Now, this might be a little shocking for people who go to church. A study released Tuesday builds on an other report from American World View inventory 2022, which shows that 37 percent of Christian pastors bring a Biblical worldview with them, to the pulpits.

Now, a Biblical worldview is -- do you -- does every person have a purpose and a calling is this

Do you have a purpose for being here? And can God call you to something? I'm asking you, Stu.

STU: Why are you asking me, without the echo in your voice?

GLENN: Because I don't want you to feel damned, immediately.

STU: Oh, okay.

GLENN: So do you feel the purpose in calling?

STU: Sure.

GLENN: Family and value of life. Those come from God.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Do you believe in God?

STU: This is a tough one. After the previous two, but yes.

GLENN: Do you believe in creation? I know this is weird. Creation and history?

STU: I believe in history. I just believe in --

GLENN: I believe in creation. Do you? I mean, intelligent design. I don't know how he creates.

STU: Yeah. I don't find that question to be as riveting as some do. I don't really care how he did it, honestly. But it's on him.

GLENN: It's like, oh, we got you there. So you're saying, dinosaurs aren't real?

STU: Yeah. I don't really -- I don't know all the details to it. It wasn't there. I will say, I don't know how an i Phone works exactly. But I'm glad the texts go through.

GLENN: But I don't believe in Steve Jobs. He never existed. That just, all of a sudden appeared on a beach somewhere.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Let's see. Do you believe in sin? Salvation and relationship with God?

Do you believe in behavior and relationships, the Bible, and its truth and morals?

STU: I think.

GLENN: Yeah. I think those are all pretty easy. Only 37 percent of pastors. Believe in that.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: I mean, you might want to put that on the front sign. You know what I mean?

Like, hey, come in. Try our doughnuts. And we don't really believe what you think we believe.

STU: Well, this happened to you. Right? When you were doing your church tour. Back in the day.

GLENN: Oh, back in the day. We went to every church. Every religion. Because my wife wouldn't marry me without a common religion.

And I'm like. I love God and everything. But religion, I --

STU: This is a long time ago. This was not you, at the time though.

You were not. This church tour happened, in what? I don't remember what year it was.

GLENN: '99.

STU: Wow, it was a long time ago.

GLENN: A long time ago.

STU: You were finding your way. Mainly because your wife wouldn't marry you if -- you're forced into it.

GLENN: Right. I was forced into it. And she didn't believe in premarital sex either. And I'm like, okay. Chickaboo. I said, what is it going to take? And she said, God. Here I am. I'm practically a god, look at me. No.

STU: A Greek god.

GLENN: A Greek god. She vomited. And then I went to church. So we tried everything. I mean, we -- I really liked a Jewish synagogue we went to. Except you couldn't eat a lot of good things that I liked. And I don't speak a word of Hebrew. But it was in and out on Saturday, and it was pretty good. I since learned there was more than that.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But I went to this church. And it was. What do they call those churches? Congregational, right? The white churches on the greens.

Yeah. I think it's congregational churches. And they're non-denominational. And so I'm sitting there in the pew. And Tania and I were listening.

It's okay. It's church. And during it the sermon. The pastor said, now, you all know that I don't believe in God. But if there is a God, we should serve him.

And I'm like, hey, that doesn't make any sense at all. Okay?
(laughter)

GLENN: And that should be on the front door, someplace. Before you go and sit down, you should just know, our pastor does not believe in God. But if there is a God, maybe we should serve him.
(laughter)
You know, good safety tip there. So back in just a minute. I'm going to give you a reason on why I'm telling you this latest survey. It's crazy. Finnegan is a 12-year-old Husky Lab. And Daniel not his owner. That would be wrong.

His adult friend. He said Finnegan used to sleep all the time. We had to spike his food every day with cheese and ham, et cetera. And even then, he wouldn't eat most of his food. Sometimes for days. I was skeptical about ordering Ruff Greens. But I gave it a try. In a month or so, Finnegan was incredibly active, and he runs and plays with other dogs. He even chases rabbits and squirrels again. I wish I would have discovered this for him, long ago.

Well, get it when you can, you know. Doing the best you can, to raise a health dog. Ruff Greens can help you. It's not a dog food. It's vitamins and minerals. And all the other things that your dog needs to live a healthy life. And they love it. And you put it on there. Now, not all dogs love it, I'm sure. So they want to give you a free bag, to make sure that your dog loves it, as much as my dog Uno. And Daniel's dog Finnegan. They'll eat it, man. You just watch over them. They change. It is really great to see. It's Ruff Greens. RuffGreens.com/Beck. RuffGreens.com/Beck.

Get your free bag now. 833-G-L-E-N-N-33. Or RuffGreens.com/Beck. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: On only 30 percent of Christian pastors believe and have a Biblical worldview. I mean, if you're not talking about sin and, you know, how to be a better Christ-like person. And how do you -- 37. What are they teaching?

STU: Those are the questions. The specific questions asked. Certainly, there are differences among denominations. And various questions.

But these are pretty basic points.

GLENN: Are these eight categories. Eight categories. Purpose and calling. Family and value of life.

God, creation and history. Faith practices. Sin, salvation, and relationship with God. Human character. And nature. Lifestyle. Behavior and relationships.

Oh, and the Bible. Truth and morals.

STU: Yeah. I know there are obviously disagreements on some of the intricate matters of faith between denominations and pastors.

GLENN: Sure. But 37 percent.

STU: The only thing I would ask, who is the defining Biblical worldview there? And I would assume --

GLENN: The bible.

STU: If you're assuming broad categories like that, that's a stunning number.

GLENN: Stunning. Stunning number.

STU: To the point of, how is it possible?

GLENN: So 57 percent of pastors leading non-denominational and independent churches, held a Biblical worldview, a nationwide study in February. Conducted in February. Nondenominational and independent churches were more likely to subscribe to a Biblical worldview than evangelical churches. Perhaps most surprisingly 48 -- 48 percent of pastors of Baptist churches, widely viewed as the most enthusiastic about embracing the Bible. Held a Biblical worldview, 48 percent.

Pastors of Southern Baptist churches by contrast were far more likely. 78 percent, to have Biblical beliefs. The traditional black Protestant churches and Catholic priests, I'm sorry. Just -- wow. I just had to read this again.

Traditional black Protestant churches and Catholic priests, were found least likely to hold a Biblical view. With the incidence of Biblical worldview, measured in the single dingles. Black churches. 9 percent of pastors and Catholic priests. 6 percent.

STU: I feel like you ask atheists, if you have a Biblical worldview. You would have higher than 9 percent.

GLENN: I think I could give it to Penn Jillette. And he would be like, you know.

STU: At 14 percent. I'm at 14 percent.

GLENN: Yeah. That's crazy. In churches with an average of 100 or fewer within attending weekly services. 41 percent of the pastors had a Biblical worldview. Larger fellowships with 100 to 250 adults fared better, with 45 percent.

However, 14 percent of pastors leading mid-sized churches, between 250 and 600 people. 14 percent.

And 15 percent of pastors with congregations of more than 600 adults. That's crazy.

STU: Yeah. That's hard to understand how that's possible. Why would you be involved in this business, right?

I hate to call it a business. It's your life's work. It's your career. Right?

GLENN: It's like. You know what it means? It's my uncle who is the head of safety at Boeing for years, and he would never fly. He would never get on an airplane. And he would be like, uncle Dave, what is that? And he's like, if you fly, you have to fly a Boeing.

STU: If they can care about it a little.

GLENN: It is my uncle, who is the head of safety at bowing for years. Okay.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: And he would never fly. He would never get on an airplane.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And you would be like, uncle Dave. I don't. What is that? And he's like, if you fly, you have to fly a Boeing. But there's no reason, logically that that thing should be able to take off and fly. I don't know if you're the best for safety, you know.

I think that's -- my uncle Dave should have been a priest maybe.

RADIO

Glenn reads leftists’ CLUELESS reactions to SCOTUS decision

The far-left proved once again it’s members care very little about ‘peace.’ In fact, some reactions from leftist, blue checkmarks on Twitter show just how ANGRY they can be…especially when it comes to the Supreme Court preserving the Constitution and returning rights to the STATES. Glenn reads several of their reactions to SCOTUS' recent decision that further protects the Second Amendment...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Boy, I just wanted to go through some of the blue checkmark responses from yesterday. Because, gee. I just -- I just don't -- I just don't know what else to say. They were so right on target. Now, that's -- that's a joke. I didn't mean it. I didn't mean it actually target. You know, like Sarah Palin actually meant it. Alicia Sultan. Or Ashia, or whatever her name is. She says, God forbid. Listen, you're listening right now to a guy who is in the Radio Hall of Fame. I am so good at what I do. I don't even need to know how to pronounce names. I don't have to. They were like, this guy is like a radio god.

Yeah, but have you heard him?
Yeah, put him in the Hall of Fame.
Anyway, she said, God forbid, someone you love gets killed by gun violence. I second that. Second Amendment fetishizing will never bring that back, or a make that loss easier to bear. Yeah. I agree with that. I mean, hang on. Let me just take the ball out of my mouth here. I have this fetish thing with the Second Amendment. It is hot. Too many people believe that unfettered access to guns will never hurt someone they love, until it happens. Okay. I don't know what your point is really here. Marion Williams says. People will die because of this. And to be very clear, now, listen to this argument.
To be very clear. They're not doing this to protect the Second Amendment. They're doing it to protect the primacy of property rights.
Well, gosh, that's a good reason to do it too, I guess. Huh. I didn't even think of the property right part. But thanks for pointing that out, Marion. Neil Cattial says, it's going to be very weird if the Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week. Saying it should be left to the states to decide, right after it imposed a constitutional right to conceal and carry firearms. Saying, it cannot be left to the states to decide.
Neil, here's what you're missing, dude.One is actually in the Constitution. It's called the Second Amendment. That tells the federal government, and the states exactly what they can and cannot do. What government cannot do. There is no right to abortion. I -- show it to me. Show it to me. When you can show it to me, I will change my argument. That, when it's not in -- I'll talk slowly for you, Neil.
When it's not in the Constitution, then, there's this part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's -- it's -- just look for the number ten. Okay? And that says anything that's not specifically in the Constitution. That goes then to the states. Yeah. Look at you. You're going to read something.
Jill Flipuffock says -- says the kind of people who desperately want to carry concealed weapons in public, is based on a generalized interest in self-defense are precisely the kind of paranoid, insecure, violence, fetishizing people, who should not be able to carry a concealed weapon in public. Okay. So let me get this right.
If you want to carry one, you're the kind that shouldn't carry one. So, in other words, when -- this is right. Jill, my gosh, my whole world is changing. Thank you for this. Now I understand when Martin Luther King went in and said to the state officials, hey. I need to have a concealed carry permit. He's exactly the kind of guy, you Democrats didn't want to carry a gun.
Yes! Jill, thank you for that enlightenment. David Hogged says, you're entitled to your opinion. But not your own facts. And like your own facts, you're not entitled to your own history. That's exactly what the Supreme Court decision is. It's a reversal of 200 years of jurisprudence that will get Americans killed. David, David
Have you read a book? Come on. Do you know anything at all -- name three founders. Can you do it? Right now, think. Go. Can't do it, David. 200 years.
Our -- the only times -- the only times in our history, and you wouldn't know this. Because you bury all the left. Buries the Democratic history.
The only time that we have any kind of history, where we're taking guns away from people, is when the government is afraid of those people. When the government gets really, really racist. Okay? That's why the Indians, yeah. That's why they're living on reservations now. Because we took away their guns. Yeah. Yeah.
That's why after the Civil War. And before the Civil War, slaves could not have guns. Why?
Because they might defend themselves. And then, after they were freed, oh, my gosh, the Democrats freaked out. Those freed slaves, will have a way to protect themselves. And they got it done through all kinds of laws, kind of like what you're doing now.
Thank you, David for writing in. You're special. March for Our Lives. Blue checkmark said yesterday.
The court's decision is dangerous. And deadly. The unfairly nominated blatantly partisan justices put the Second Amendment over our lives. No. I -- I -- may I quote the Princess Bride? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Okay?
Second Amendment is there, to protect our lives. To protect our property. And to protect our freedom.
I just want to throw that one out. The blood of American people who die from needless gun violence will be on their corrupt hands.
Okay. Wahajit Ali (phonetic) said, let's have a bunch of black, brown, and Muslim folks carry large guns in predominantly white neighborhoods.
I know the Second Amendment advocates will say that's great and encourage it. Because American history proves otherwise. We might get gun control. But we would also get a lot of chalk outlines.(laughter)Mr. Ali, you are so funny.
See, what you fail to recognize is that all of the people that you say are racist, aren't racist.
There are racists in this country, a lot of them seem to come from the left. You know, like the socialist Klan members. Or the socialist Nazi members. You see what they have both in common?
Yeah. Democratic Party. Anyway, Mr. Alley, if someone wants to carry a gun. And they're a Muslim. I have absolutely no problem. You're brown, you're pink, you're polka dot. You have covid and you're not wearing a mask. Or you don't have covid, and you're wearing 20 masks. And you want to carry a gun. I'm totally fine with that. Now, if you get a bunch of people. And, again, I don't care what color they are. Marching down my neighborhood, with large guns. Yeah. I am going to call the police because that's unusual.
What are you doing? We're just marching with our guns. Why in my neighborhood at night?
None of your business. Does Kavanaugh live around here? See, there's a difference. There's a difference. Right-wingers can freak out about nullification or packing or whatever.
No one cares. You broke all the norms of decency, democracy, and fairness. Oh, my gosh. Oh, wait. Wait.
This is from David Atkins. He has a great solution. At the end of the day, California and New York are not going to let Wyoming and Idaho tell us how we have to live in a Mad Max gun climate hell.
Oh, my gosh. David, let's break some bread, baby. Let's come together. Yeah. All right. Let me do my best Marianne Williamson.
Yeah. Yeah. Because we can come together. What you just said is the point of the Tenth Amendment. California and New York, I don't want to live like them.
You don't want to live like us. So let's not. Let's not. However, there are ten big things. And I've heard they've added to these. But there are ten big things, that no government in the United States of America, can do. Now, you want to change that, let's change it. Because what's so crazy, is there's this thing called the amendment process. You want to change the Constitution, you don't -- what -- all norms of decency. Democracy and fairness. You don't break those.
You want to change those amendments. You can do it. All you have to do is go through the amendment process. And then if you say, everybody has to have a pig on their lap. You get the states to vote for that. Put it on the amendment. You have it. Now, probably there would be another amendment that comes later. That says, hey, the big in the lap thing is really, really, stupid, and I think America lost its mind temporarily. So we're going to scratch that one out. From here on out, no. Absolute must have a pig on your lap kind of loss. Okay?
But both of those would be done through the amendment process. That would be doing it the decent way, the fair way, and the Democratic way. But David, you are cute. When you think, you're cute. Tristan Schnell writes in, when American service members die oversees, their caskets are brought to Dover Air Force base to be displayed and mourned. No, they're not displayed. I don't know if you've noticed this. But we try not to display the dead. But when Americans die because of gun violence, their caskets should be brought to the steps of the Supreme Court. So the justices can see what they've done. Yeah.
Tristan, I like that. Why don't we take every baby that's been aborted, and put them in a bucket. I mean, we're going to need a big bucket. Because there's millions of those.
And let's dump them, on the front steps of the Supreme Court. So they can see what they've done. Wow!
I got to thank all the blue checkmarks. Because you've really turned me around.

RADIO

Why the Fed’s ‘MATH PROBLEM’ may result in MORE inflation

Yes, it’s possible for our economy to suffer from extremely high inflation while certain goods, products, and services experience DEFLATION as well, Carol Roth — a financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business’ — tells Glenn. The Fed actually is TRYING to deflate the economy, Roth explains. But while they’re saying one thing, the Fed’s current policy shows the exact opposite. And that ‘math problem,’ Roth says, is what could cause our economy to experience even more, ‘prolonged’ inflation. It’s a ‘dire situation,’ and there seems to be ZERO leadership willing to fix it…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Is it not possible to have super high inflation, on some products. And super low deflation. Prices that are -- that are crazy.

Because they -- nobody is buying them, in other categories. Is that possible to have both of those?

CAROL: Yeah. I think that the best analogy for that would be kind of the '70s. And something that looks for stagflation. Where the economy stagnates. And it stagnates, like you said, because all the money has been sucked up in a couple of categories. And there really is a lot to go around in other places. There's not a lot of investments being made, and what not. But we still end up having high inflation. And we are certainly, a lot of people feel like we're in that sort of stagflation, you know, arena, right now. And it can continue on the trajectory. But you have to remember in terms of deflation. I mean, that's what the Federal Reserve is trying to do. They are actively trying to deflate, you know, not just the bubbles and assets, but they're trying to deflate spending, to cool off the economy. That's why they're shutting off their balance sheets. That's why they're raising their interest rates. It's meant to cool off demand. And that's the math problem that I keep talking about. They keep saying, oh, the consumer. And businesses are going to save us from a recession. But at the same time, the policy is meant to do the exact opposite. The policy is meant to make it, so that people aren't able to spend in the same way. So those two objectives are at odds with each other. And so I do think, that we could end up in this prolonged period, like you said, where the inflation hasn't quite gotten under control. Especially since we have so many supply demand imbalances in our economy. We have a labor imbalance. We have a food imbalance. We have an energy imbalance. And we have a commodity imbalance. And that's not going to it be solved by any monetary policy. That requires real action. And we don't have leadership, that's willing to lead or frankly do anything.

GLENN: So we have -- as I see it, we're looking at a situation. Again, I'm going back. And please, correct me where my thinking is off. But I'm going back to the Great Depression. So people were afraid. They held on to their money. They spent what they had to, and what they could afford. But nothing else.

That caused the labor market to shoot out of control. To -- to about 25 percent unemployment. Because the factories were closing down. Because no one was buying anything, from the factories. Which then, in turn, made FDR say, we're going to build the Hoover damn, to give people jobs. But it was all the government money, which would have just caused more inflation, if I'm not mistaken. Had it not been for the -- and I hate to say it this way. But the saving grace of the Second World War. Right? Were we in a death spiral? I mean, the war was definitely a different kind of reset. And I think a lot of the logic that you're talking about makes sense. If consumer sentiment is really important. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people don't feel confident, they don't go out and spend. They're worried about their inflation. And being able to feed their family. And get to work. They aren't going to spend -- I think there are a couple of things that we have that are different. And it's not necessarily better for the average American. So I just want to be clear. That I'm on your side, and I'm not saying that it's better.

But because of this huge supply and demand imbalance. We have two jobs available for every person looking. The likelihood is that that probably contracts to be, you know, a better match, than having massive unemployment just because of that scenario is going on. And we also have a whole slew of Americans, who are doing -- you know, have done very well. They have been the beneficiaries of this giant wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street. So I think we're going to have a lot of, you know, different outcomes. You know, that inadequately, that's been driven by government policy. And that's never a good thing. Because, you know, the social unrest that comes with it. And rightfully so. Because, you know, these policies have really put the middle class. The working class. And in some cases, the lower class, at risk, to the benefit of the people on the inside. And so the numbers on average, may not show how dire the situation is. And so they'll be able to spend. And say, oh, everything is great. And the consumer is doing well, when people are really struggling. And, you know, that's going to be when we continue to just be furious. And, you know, demand something be done about that.

GLENN: Carol, thank you so much for everything that you do.

She's just issued a new paper. A new piece for TheBlaze. What the heck is going on in bitcoin. And you can find that at TheBlaze.com. TheBlaze.com. What is going on with bitcoin, by Carol Roth. Thanks, Carol. God bless.

Shorts

Glenn: I didn't think Roe v Wade would end in my lifetime

GLENN: We just have to take a minute, and just think of the miracle we just witnessed.

There isn't a soul, not one soul, in this audience that thought that this would happen. Like this. This fast.

I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime.