SCOTUS justices are UNSAFE & the left's to blame

A man was arrested near the home of Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday morning with plans to harm the Supreme Court Justice. SCOTUS justices — especially the conservatives ones — have faced intense backlash since the alleged Roe v. Wade decision was leaked, and the left’s rhetoric against those justices hasn't helped. In fact, that rhetoric may be DIRECTLY responsible for terrifying events like this one. Newsweek’s Josh Hammer joins Glenn to discuss what’s next for our Supreme Court justices, including the most important — and 'tragic' — question yet: Are they even safe?!


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: From the Washington Post. Breaking news today. Man with weapon detained near Brett Kavanaugh's home.

California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh's Maryland home, has been taken into custody by police.

After telling officers, he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The man described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon, and burglary tools.

These people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police apparently notified, that this person might pose a threat to the justice. But it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip.

The man apparently did not make it into Kavanaugh's property in Montgomery County, Maryland, but was stopped on a nearby street. Thank God.

This is -- this is truly, truly the result of the left being primed by left -- leftist and Democratic politicians. I don't believe that you can be held responsible for, you know, ginning people up, if you're not -- if you're not actually saying, you know, somebody is going to get you.

You know, it's -- it's really difficult. But listen to this quote from Chuck Schumer. Do you have it, Stu?

This is -- this is when they were talking. This is before the decision that was leaked. But he's talking about the court decisions, that are coming, including Roe vs. Wade.

STU: Yeah. He says, I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind. And you will pay the price. You won't be know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions. That's unbelievable.

GLENN: Okay. That is truly unbelievable. These guys do not have protection. They have had since the leak, thank God. Josh Hammer is joining us now.

He is the opinion editor of Newsweek, and the host of the Josh Hammer Show with Newsweek. I was just on it, I think last week or the week before.

He's really wicked smart. I think one of the real intellectual leaders of the conservative movement. And a good friend.

Welcome, Josh. How are you?

JOSH: Glenn, you're way too kind. It's great to join you again.

GLENN: So, Josh, you're watching this.

I've never seen anything hike this. Apparently, it happened Tuesday night. As it's being reported. No. One report said it was Tuesday. And this one says, 11:50 a.m. today.

Are the justices safe?

JOSH: First of all, it's tragic, that we have to even ask that question. I mean, this is not a question, that a healthy, republic, with a healthy rule of law. With a healthy law apparatus. Where there is no sense of this kind of two tier system of justice, between the deplorables and everyone else. Where, again, in a healthy functioning democracy, are the justices safe? Is just simply not a question, that ought to be asked.

So the very fact that we're opening a conversation with that question, I think is telling in and of itself.

But the tragic and short answer, Glenn, I think is no. And the answer right now, I think is -- it's a rather foreseeable consequence, unfortunately, of just the culture of anarchy, of lawlessness, of disrespect for institutions, of widespread iconoclasm of the Democratic Party, and their leftist minions have fomented.

They have directly fomented this culture.

Think back to the George Floyd riots in the summer of 2020. Kamala Harris, they're in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with bail funds for people who were rioting in the streets.

This is their safe. This is their safe. But even -- it was lawlessness and anarchy, as being rejected. The problem obviously, it apparently has not trickled up to the Biden administration.

Because there was a direct statute on the books. Eighteen U.S. Code 1507. That prohibits the protesting throughout the justice homes, and Attorney General Merrick Garland had some mealy-mouthed memo, where he said, oh, this is not appropriate.

But, you know, he hasn't brought a single case. He can do that. So he should.

GLENN: Right. And yet, tomorrow, we'll see the January 6th show trial.

First show trial that I know of in my lifetime here from America. We know about them in Russia and other places like that.

Yesterday, terrorists firebombed a pro-life center in Buffalo. This is the second time that there's been a firebombing by the revenge -- or Jane's revenge.

And they are calling for a -- a nationwide 8:00 p.m. riot on the day that they release the Supreme Court releases their decision. And yet, yesterday, the Homeland Security came out. And they didn't really point out the anarchists. They didn't point out the left. Again, they said, there is some on both sides of the issue.

Well, I would like to see that.

JOSH: Look. Here's the thing. You and I both review the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution obviously does provide you with the Constitutional right to peaceably voice your opinion in the street, on a sidewalk. And so forth.

What it does not allow you to do, is to issue threats or to act violently, or to try to tear down institutions of governments. And, therefore, violate the most sacrosanct, rudimentary principles in the rule of law.

I think another takeaway though, that I have from this. And I think back to the leak that just happened a little over a month ago now, in early May, when Politico released it. Because we've been in uncharted waters since then, right? This just simply never happens in modern Supreme Court dates. The very fact that it was leaked in the first place, I think is the biggest assault on the court's institutional legitimacy over the past half century, full century. Go back as (talking over), obviously. And the fact that we have not discovered the identity of the leaker is crazy. But I think back, the very night that that was released. It was a Monday in early May. I was at the time, watching very carefully. I was trying to see if any Democrats, MSNBC, left-wing cable news, talking head type figures, what if they condemned the leak? To this day, I haven't seen a single one. A single one.

GLENN: No. They praised the leaker.

JOSH: Yeah. Exactly. They are praising the leaker. They have directly abetted this culture. They really have. At this point, you're playing with fire. And every day, the Dobbs opinion is not released, I think.

Only exacerbates the threat to the justice of personal safety.

GLENN: So do you think -- I mean, the thing to do. Because they have a couple of really controversial things coming. And they're supposed to be come in the next few weeks. Usually, they leave the most controversial for the last. So they can just get on a plane and get out of town. But that's not going to help it. Why would they hold these things?

Just -- just release them.

JOSH: So generally speaking, that's what they do. You're right about that. They typically hold the highest profile opinions for the last week of the term. And that's not a legal thing. That's not like U.S. codes are not legally bound to do that. Just kind of the customs that they do that.

But in this particular case. Because, again, we are in you be chartered waters here. This has not happened, period, full stop. I and many others said, that if you care about the justice's personal safety. And, by the way, not just the justices. But also the Loefflers. I hate to make it personal. But I have a number of friends, who support this term.

Probably at least five, six, seven, personal friends who are clerking this term. I am worried about their personal safety too. People have tried to dox the identity of the clerks who are clerking for the conservative Supreme Court justice. I saw some horrible Instagram posts.

As you said, here are their names. Go find them. Just awful, awful stuff.

GLENN: Jeez.

JOSH: And every day, that they don't go about releasing the Dobbs opinion, or at the bare minimum, Glenn. What I said, prior to the end. Probably what they should have done, is the very next day, or at least that week, they could have issued a one line sentence. That said, you know, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit is hereby overturned. And Roe vs. Wade is reversed. Opinions to follow. That is what they could have done. But they chose not to. And at this point, they're really, really playing with fire, and I just hope after today's horrible incident with Justice Kavanaugh. That the chief justice realizes that the moment is now to release this opinion. It is now.

GLENN: So two things, as we talk to Josh Hammer from Newsweek.

And I hate to say he's from Newsweek because he's one of us.

But the -- the -- the two questions that I have for you: Are this. I talked to Mike Lee. And he said, he thought that as soon as this court was finished this year. That we would know the name of the leaker. And he said, I hope, at worst, or at best. I guess. Would -- that they would be -- their law license would be taken away. They would never be able to practice again. Any kind of law. Anywhere in America.

I would hope that that would happen. I hope that more than that would happen. He said, they were waiting on that. Until they got all these -- he thought, it would come out the last day. So that, coupled with, he also said, he felt they knew pretty close if not right on, who that person -- who that person was.

Do you agree with that or not?

JOSH: So, first of all, Mike Lee, I respect so -- actually, my first year of law school summer. Actually, with the Loeffler kind of Senate judiciary staff, so I go pretty far back on these matters. It's always so valuable here. I want to agree with him. What he's saying, should be happening. That's exactly what should happen. The leaker should be disbarred. Should be formerly shunned. Unfortunately, I fear something, somewhat approximately in the exact opposite of that will happen. If my intuitions on this are correct. And it's a liberal clerk. It's someone from the Justice, Sotomayor's chamber in particular. Or perhaps Justice Kagan's or Justice Breyer's chambers.

What I predict will happen. The identity will be exposed. It's crazy it's not happened already. There's literally 37 law clerks here. Twelve from the liberal chambers. Not particularly big sample size. But then he probably will be exposed, assuming the marshal of the Supreme Court.

A woman named Dale Curly, is even remotely competent at her job. But what I predict will happen after that, is that the leaker will effectively try to forfeit, you know, will -- will forfeit some law firm career, perhaps.

But then we'll get like a very rich, kind of speaking MSNBC talking heads gig.

And frankly, it would not surprise me, if a top ten, top 20 law school actually hired her as a professor, or reproductive rights study. Fully constitutional field like that.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

JOSH: So I want to agree with Senator Lee.

But I do fear something closely approximately the opposite might transpire.

GLENN: No. Yeah. My gut tells me the same thing. The last thing. God forbid somebody kills one of these justices.

And kills a conservative. That means Biden gets to pick the next justice. Which would change the balance of the court. And would absolutely set the country on fire.

On fire. What do we do to make sure that these guys are safe?

And I say that about both sides. I don't want either side that experienced violence or threats. What do we do?

JOSH: So one thing that has been pointed out here. I could be wrong. I don't think any of the nine justices actually live in the District of Columbia. I shouldn't say that.

It's possible that Sotomayor. The vast majority of them live in Maryland or Virginia. Where it's worth pointing out, despite those being in recent years, light blue states.

Both those states have Republican governors. It's Glenn Youngkin in Virginia. It's Larry Hogan in Maryland.

So in a situation like this, where the federal government is just completely dropping the ball. They're just not going to prosecute. If they're not going to send out whatever kind of DOJ, kind of FBI mercenaries, that they would need to send out. That the onus can and should fall on Governor Hogan and Governor Youngkin, to do what has to be done, a state national guard level or something like that.


It's unfortunate, it's hardly the first time that governors have had to kind of step up, and the federal government -- I think about the immigration on the southern border, of course.

I mean, whether it's Texas or Arizona. Any of these border states. I mean, whenever the federal government, failed to do its job, it's incumbent upon the states to do that job for them.

I go all the way back to the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case. Arizona versus the United States.

It was kind of the whole point to Justice Scalia's remarkable dissent in that case, exactly.

He basically said that at the time, when Arizona was doing with the statute of illegal immigration, was its constitutional prerogative. And, indeed, its duty. The federal government failed to do its job. In that case, to secure the border. The states must and can step up.

So I think something similar could and should happen with respect to Maryland and Virginia, if the federal government fails.

GLENN: Okay. Josh, can you hang on for one quick second. I got to take a quick break


‘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…


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?

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.
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.

Get your free bag now. 833-G-L-E-N-N-33. Or Ten-second station ID.

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.


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...


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.


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…


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 What is going on with bitcoin, by Carol Roth. Thanks, Carol. God bless.


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.