RADIOFebruary 28, 2022

SELF-SABOTAGE: How Putin Exploits Biden's INSANE Energy Policies

There’s several logical steps the Biden administration SHOULD be taking to end Putin’s current power grab in Russia. Unfortunately though, when President Biden took office 14 months ago, he ended what President Trump had worked so hard to gain: America’s energy independence. Now, thanks to Biden’s self-sabotaging decisions, Putin has taken advantage of the West’s oil weaknesses as he tramples over Ukraine. So, is it possible to turn America’s oil, gas, and fossil fuel industries back around? Daniel Turner, Founder & Executive Director of Power The Future, joins Glenn to discuss…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All righty then. But we want to bring in Daniel Turner. He's the Founder and executive director of Power the Future. And we will talk about the things that maybe we should be doing right now.

Daniel, welcome to the program.

DANIEL: Oh, it's great to be on with you, Glenn. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You're welcome.

I don't know if you saw Marc Andreessen's tweet yesterday. But he said, we should be building 1,000 nuclear plants all the way around the world. Starting today.

We're not going to do it.

But there's a lot of logical things we should be doing today.

One of them is get off our dependence of Russian oil.

DANIEL: Yeah. Absolutely. A lot of the problems we're experiencing right now, have begun 14 months ago, with the Biden administration.

And I'm not pinning the Ukraine invasion on him. But I am saying, we have been tinkering. This administration has been really punishing, the -- the -- America's energy industry. Specifically, the fossil fuel industry.

For months and months. And when oil hits $70 a barrel. And $80 a barrel. The White House is silent. Well, now it's at 100.

And Joe Biden is saying, he wants to do something. So it's a little too late.

Energy is one of those issues, that people don't want to pay attention to. Until it starts to hit the purse.

Right?

Yeah. Exactly. But we need serious energy policy, and not Greta Thunberg, not John Kerry. Right?

We need serious energy policy, because it is national security as well.

GLENN: I just. I keep hearing him say. We're going to tap into the strategic oil reserve.

Hang on just a second. We -- on one hand, people are talking about World War III.

And the biggest conflict possibly, since World War II.
I'll was kind of important, that's why we have the strategic oil reserve.

And so we're -- he's telling the west, we should release more from our strategic oil reserve, while we're facing this.

No. Open a freaking pipeline.

DANIEL: Yeah. Oil is so important to the world economy. That even this administration has not sanctioned Russian oil. Germany Italy today, bought more natural gas, than they did yesterday from Russia.

In fact, Putin has increased the amount of natural gas exports because he knows, he has Europe on -- on the hook.

And he's using that to his leverage.

And so look, we have to stop being Plato. There is this ideal world. We all need to live up to it.
And we all need to be better. But the reality is, our economy, our military. The world runs on fossil fuels right now.

And whether or not we want to change that as one conversation, but the reality is, punishing fossil fuels now, in the hopes of a better tomorrow.

Has made us weak now. And Vladimir Putin has taken advantage of that weakness.

GLENN: This is -- this is exactly what The Great Reset is about.

The ESG scores. Energy is the first thing.

DANIEL: Absolutely.

GLENN: And we are -- we are committing national suicide. And it's not just national. The entire West is committing suicide.

And I don't understand -- and is that -- is that -- is that hyperbole?

DANIEL: No. Not whatsoever. And look, when this administration began, and Joe Biden said, which I believe is a flat-out falsehood.

When he said the generals tell him, climate change is our biggest national security threat, I'm sorry. If anyone really said that to you in the military, that person should be fired today.

And any politician, Republican or Democrat. This is not a partisan issue. Many Republicans went to the Glasgow climate summit. To learn how to tackle climate change.

We can have a conversation about the environment. But if you generally believe in your heart of hearts, looking at the global stage, that climate change is the biggest threat, then you do not deserve elected office. You are a danger.

Because Russia is a threat. China is a threat. Iran is a threat. North Korea.

And these world regimes, unfortunately, as the prices of oil have gone through the roof. Have become richer. And what does Iran do when they have more money?

They launch attacks on Israel. And they launch attacks on the UAE. And they fund their nuclear bombs program.

And what does Russia do, when they have more money? They build their army, right?

So this fight against reality, that you can have a conversation about the environment, but there are real threats. And we need to put on our big boy pants, and face the real world we live in.

GLENN: Even if you -- if you believed that climate change was the existential threat. And the largest threat against all of humanity.

If you really, truly believed that, and you make the moves, to stop American oil, and everything else.

Does that explain why we are not sanctioning the Russian oil? We're increasing our imports of Russian oil.

And we seem to be making it easy for Iran, to flood the market, with their oil.

I don't understand this.

Why wouldn't you go to America, and just say, hey, it's temporary. But we're going to -- we need you right now, to relieve the pressure?

I don't understand it.

DANIEL: Yeah. You know, for the first time in nearly 40 years, America has been purchasing Iranian oil. Very quietly.

The administration clearly did not put out a press release. But you say, why is America buying any oil from -- from Russia? From Iran.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

When did that happen?

I've not heard that.

DANIEL: Started in April of this year. And we've -- and we've purchased about a million barrels of oil, from Iran.

Now, there's going to be an argument. And they're going to say, I'm playing fast and loose with the nuance. Because we purchased a lot of oil with from the world. And we refine it, particularly in the gulf.

All right. We have the world's largest refining capabilities. Also something China is trying to compete with us on, but that's another conversation.

We are the world's largest refiner. So this crude that comes out of the ground. Has to get refined.

So we buy Russian. We buy Venezuelan. But we don't need to buy any oil. If we produce enough ourself. And we're not.

We're producing 2 million barrels fewer than we did, a few months ago, before Biden became president. The reason why we're producing so much fewer oil. Is because this administration has made it impossible to produce.

You mentioned the ESG movement. Every agency is looking at climate change. When it comes to permitting. Lands access. Permits in the Gulf of Mexico, on federal land.

Fracking moratoriums. Pipeline construction. So all these cumulative actions have made production of oil domestically hard. Of course, we have to get it from somewhere else. So why not Russia? Why not Iran? Why not Venezuela? Why not put a bullet to our head, because that's what we're doing by enriching our enemies?

GLENN: Let me ask you. When Obama said that he was going to stop the drilling. I think it was in the gulf.

The deep sea drilling. The concern was, that if you stop that, you're not getting a lease on those deep sea drills for another 20 years.

They're not coming back. And you just don't make them overnight.

With the damage that has been done, just to the economy, and to the oil and gas industry, are we doing permanent damage, or are these things just going into mothballs, and we can turn this around quickly?

DANIEL: We can turn it around. But I don't think quickly.

This is a very capital and labor intensive industry, and even if all the permitting is in place, and the government is a friend of the industry, which we want. Like we saw under President Trump.

It really took till the end of 2018, the beginning of '19, for the industry to produce as much as it was.

So it did take two solid years, of -- of believing that the government wasn't going to punish you.

You look at something like Keystone. That was ten years, and a billion dollars in the making. And then the rug was pulled out from under it, and all that money is lost.

So who is going to invest in the oil and gas industry right now, if you think the government can shut it down?

And that's one of my pet peeves, Glenn. And you can hear my voice getting angry.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

DANIEL: Jen Psaki will say, well, oil at $90 a barrel. You would think these rich fat cats will invest. It's not that they don't want to invest.

It's that they know, it's a risky investment. Because government is going to punish you. Deb Haaland, the interior secretary, is going to punish you.

The EPA administrator. Biden is talking about fed nominees, who look at banking issues through the lens of climate change.

So if you need a 50 million-dollar loan from the bank to finance this industry.

GLENN: I get it.

DANIEL: No.

Because the bank will not lend it to you. Because the Federal Reserve will raise your base points, and penalize you.

So, again, this administration is punishing the industry from every angle. Then they have the gall, to say, well, they better not raise prices.

Or take advantage of this. Like it's our fault.

When Elizabeth Warren blamed big meat. Remember that one?

GLENN: Yeah.

DANIEL: I mean, it's offensive.

GLENN: I -- I -- I will tell you, I -- I don't understand what's happening to us.

Unless the president and this administration, and those on the left. Have an agenda that is clearly not in step with the traditional American.

They -- I mean, this is -- this is self-inflicted wounds. And they're soon going to be mortal.

What do you -- what do you -- what are you thinking about the gas and oil prices and what's coming with this -- this war in -- in Ukraine.

DANIEL: Yeah. It's down a little bit today. Which is good news.

But I think overall, if this continues. And I don't think Putin is going to stop until he has everything he wants in the Ukraine. And maybe even more.

You could easily see gas at $150 a barrel. Like it was in 2008.

I mean, 125, by the end of March. Is very feasible. And that means six and 7-dollar-gallon gas.

But you know. Your audience knows. There are millions. Literally millions of products, that are made from -- from fossil fuels.

And so when the price of fertilizer goes up. When the price of pesticides go up.

Everything goes up in price. So when you go to the store, and you buy your chop meat. And it's expensive. It's the cow. The cow's diet. The transportation. The butcher, the slaughter house, the packaging, the plastic.

All of that stuff gets added on to your cost. You're ultimately, the one going to suffer.

And that's the frustration. This administration, before Putin even launched his first incursion. This administration was willing to let the American people suffer because they are so eager for this green revolution. These renewables. That they had to punish fossil fuels. They wanted fossil fuels to be the bad guys.

So that maybe you would go to the government and say, please, please, Mr. Biden. Please give us a Green New Deal. Please give us a Build Back Better.

We can't afford this anymore. And that's the really sad thing.

They were willing to punish the American people, for their agenda. And that's not just un-American. Unpatriotic. Quite frankly, it's immoral, and it's evil.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree with you.

Daniel, thank you so much. The Founder and executive director of Power the Future.

Daniel Turner. God bless. We'll talk to you again.

EXPLAINED: Could Democrats DISQUALIFY Trump if he wins the election?

Democrats like Rep. Jamie Raskin have threatened to use the powers of Congress to keep Donald Trump out of the White House if he wins the 2024 Election. But is it even possible to disqualify him? “MoneyGPT” author James Rickards joins Glenn to explain how this could be done if Trump is declared an insurrectionist and why January 6th, 2025 might be a historic day. Plus, he explains why he believes Americans should prepare for the possibility of an “Acting President JD Vance” …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jim Rickards, he is the Money GPT author, Strategic Intelligence editor.

He is a guy who historically has been calling all the big ones. All the big disruptions in our society in our economy.

And, Jim, I don't think -- I mean, I've heard you be pessimistic.

I don't think I've heard a more stern warning than the one you're giving right now.

JIM: Well, thanks, Glenn. It's great to be with you. Yeah. I don't think of myself as a pessimist. I'm an analyst.

And I just tried to be realistic. That's kind of bad news. So be it. I try -- and I have a lot of readers and followers. And so forth.

And listeners on our show today.

And I just try to get it right. And I'm looking at the election. Of course, everyone is.

You know, come November 5th, I remind people, the election is pretty much over already, with the early voting and all that. So we know that.

The drop boxes and the mail-ins. So people understand that. But we'll get to November 5th.

I don't think we'll know on November 5th, or even that night or early the next day. You have the usual trouble spots. Philadelphia, Maricopa County. I don't know what's going on there.

But they seemed to ship the ballots off to the warehouse. But beyond that, most Americans are not familiar with the actual electoral calendar, so to speak. And it was devised in the late 18th century. People were like, well, why does it take from November 5th to January 6th, 2025, to figure things out?

Well, you know, back in the 18th century, they got around by horses and carriages and all that. It just took time. But anyway, when you get past that, let's say Trump wins. That's not a short thing. It will be a close election.

But my -- my models show Trump winning. So he gets more than 270 electoral votes. So we come up to December 17th, when they actually count those votes in the state capitols. And there will be disputes and litigation. Let's say we make it. I'm just kind of looking ahead, as far as we can. To January 26, 2025. Everyone is spun up about January 6th, 2021. We know what happened.

But this is January 6th, 2025. Those electoral votes go to the House and the Senate. Now, here's the key. And this is why Trump's campaign in places like New York and California. He's not going to win New York and California. But they're fighting over House seats. Is if the Democrats take the majority of the House of Representatives, which is possible. There are only a four or five-vote difference right now.

Led by Jamie Raskin. They're going to pass a resolution, saying Trump is an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

Now, a lot of people say, now, a lot of people say, wait a second. Didn't the Supreme Court throw that out?

Not exactly. Colorado and Maine tried to kick Trump off the ballot on that grounds. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, states cannot do it.

They couldn't do it. Nor could any other state. They explicitly said, there's a federal issue, exactly.

So now you passed this resolution. What happens?

Trump's votes would be disqualified. Let's say he has 300 electoral votes.

And pick a number over 270. Those are disqualified on the grounds of he's an insurrectionist. So then what happens next? Well, now, nobody has 270.

Because in this scenario, Kamala Harris doesn't get 270. Trump does. But he's disqualified.

So now the election goes to the House of Representatives.

This, by the way, is happening before 1800s. 1824, and then 1876. We still can't figure out what happened.

But it has happened before, so but now you flip over for the 14th Amendment, to the 12th Amendment.

I happen to be a lawyer. So enough of a geek to able to read all this stuff. Now you're at the 12th Amendment of 1804. And what does that say?

Well, the House votes could choose the president. There's a couple of caveats. One is they could only vote, someone who got in the top three electoral votes. This is, you know, back in the day.

So maybe three or four people get electoral votes in 1968.

George Wallace got electoral votes in 1968. Top three. But there's only going to be one. If you disqualify Trump, no one else is going to win a state. And Kamala Harris is the only one you could vote for. Because top three. But she would be the top one. Because that's it.

GLENN: Why wouldn't it go to J.D. Vance? Why doesn't he take those?

JIM: Well, I think that's what's going to happen. But you have to sort of follow. The 12th Amendment is a playbook. That's where it will end up. I agree with that. But you have to kind of look at the sequence.

Now, in the House. Here's the interesting part: There are four to five members. But you don't vote by member, you vote by state delegation. So Texas would get one vote. I live in New Hampshire. We would get one vote, the same as Texas. The Republicans control a majority of the state delegations by a bigger margin. They barely control a majority of the House. But when you go by state delegations, it's more like 20, 22.

The Republicans have a substantial majority. But the problem is, you can only rote for Kamala Harris, no matter what. Because nobody else has any electoral votes.

The answer then, 12th Amendment says this, it's for the Republicans that they have the big cajones to go out and stand out on the mall, in the snow.

And then the House will ask it for them, and the 12th Amendment says, you can't do anything what we're talking about, if you don't have a quorum.
If you lack a quorum, then what happens? The 12th Amendment says, the vice president becomes the acting president.

Now, J.D. Vance would not suffer this disqualification, going back to the insurrection.

So J.D. Vance would go become the acting president of the United States. If the House acted for him. And I described this, Glenn. It's all in the 12th Amendment. It's in the 14th Amendment, it's been litigated years past.

It sounds crazy. But just think what we've been through the last months.

You know, two, maybe three assassination attempts.

A coup d'etat on Joe Biden. A nominee who didn't get one vote in two tribes.

Not one vote, in the primary. So there's enough craziness to go around. So, again, I'm just reading the Constitution and applying it. It's happened before. And as in the 1800s, we ended up with Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who were bitter enemies and opposing parties. But that's what happened.

And here you could have Kamala, J.D. Vance, worst case. Or J.D. Vance is acting as president. If the Republicans walk off the floor, and they lack a quorum.

GLENN: Jeez. This is craziness! You know, one of the reasons we were successful. We had cheap energy. Don't have that anymore. Well-educated populace, we don't really have that anymore. Cheap labor, we don't have that anymore.

And a stable country. If this happens, what happens to the economy?

JIM: Well, the stock market, you know, it can -- there are bull markets and bear markets.

It goes up and down.

The one thing the stock market hates is uncertainty.

What we just described is maximum uncertainty. I give gave you a scenario. Just laid out in the 12th Amendment, 1804. But you can bet that every step that I described, will be litigated in some manner.

So -- and -- and the courts want nothing to do with this. And when you go back to 2020, you know, the New York Times and all these people say, well, there were 15 cases.

And all of them were decided that there was no voter interference. That's not what the court said. The courts dismissed all those cases.

Either on standing, jurisdiction, timeliness. They went to all these procedural things, to get rid of the cases. But the actual fraud was never litigated. They're doing a lot of the forensic analysis since then. And that's just the question that, hey. You, Congress. State -- state legislatures.

You have to figure it out. You don't want to be involved in this. They still feel burned by Bush versus Gore in 2000. Having said that, they have a job to do. And I think these things will end up in their laps.

If you put the courts to one side, and just go by the playbook on the 12th Amendment. Now, this is all what happened in the 1800s, you would have ended up J.D. Vance as acting president.

GLENN: And because the Congress can say, that he's an insurrectionist. You don't need a trial?

I mean, he's never been charged with insurrection.

JIM: Of course. You're right. And I agree completely. But the 13th amendment -- sorry, Section three of the 14th amendment. Hasn't been litigated since -- well, we had the case last summer.

Colorado and Maine.

Before that, you have to go back to the 1930s.

And even -- of course, that was designed.

That came after the Civil War of 1968. It was designed to disqualify confederates and federal officers, et cetera. Over the years.

Section five, section three is the insurrectionist clause. But section five, powers to Congress to make laws, to interpret section three.

They sometimes -- I don't know the exact date, sometime in the 1920s.

Congress granted full amnesty to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. They said, they were not insurrectionists. So there has been legislation. It's been litigated in recent decades.

If you're willing to cut Robert E. Lee a break. I don't know why they wouldn't do it for Trump.

GLENN: Well, they did that. They did that to heal. That's why we have these statues of Robert E. Lee. The north said, build a statue. These are heroes for you as well.

They didn't prosecute these guys, because they said, we have to come back together, as a nation.

Nobody is going to do that, this time.

JIM: That's exactly right.

The bitterness is where -- sorry to say that. It's there.

By the way, the leader of this. He's open about it. And kind of the Constitution. The legal homework.

The guys said, this is what we're going to do, is Jamie Raskin. Another congressman in Maryland. Most people, they're worried about election fraud on November 5th.

They should be. I think Lara Trump has done a good job. I think they mobilized 500 lawyers. They're on that. Republicans are finally waking up to the fact, that you may not like it, but you have to do it.

But this is much further down the road. This is the endgame. This is the final lawfare attack.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Kirk Cameron: Christians CAN Save This Country | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 231

Jesus isn’t on the ballot, so how should Christians engage in the 2024 election? For that matter, how should Christians engage in politics in general? Kirk Cameron explains that “Christian Nationalism” is a “slur thrown at people who love God, love their family, and love their country.” Now is no time for Christians to “tuck our heads in our knees, pray for the rapture, and cry into our Chick-fil-A soup.” In an age of “murdering babies in the name of reproductive care,” the mutilation of children for the sake of gender identity, and when too many Americans are being seduced by the “comfort of communism,” it’s time for Christians to get to work. Kirk and Glenn agree, the government shouldn’t be the first responder — not FEMA, not the Department of Education, and not our public schools, which Kirk describes as the “new secular church.” As we’ve seen during Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton, we — the American people — are the real first responders. If Kamala Harris is inaugurated in January or Donald Trump, if Jesus returns tomorrow or in a thousand years, these are the “hard times that make strong men” and just could be “our finest hour.”

Surgeon General warns parenting is HARMFUL, so give THE GOVERNMENT your kids?!

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy has issued an advisory about PARENTING, declaring it HARMFUL for mental health. But his "solution" may be even more terrifying. Glenn reviews the Surgeon General's argument that the cost of parenting is causing high levels of stress. But instead of saying the solution is fixing the economy, Dr. Murthy suggests giving the government MORE control over your kids! Glenn speaks with Isabel Brown of ‪@theisabelbrown‬, who is just as furious. But she makes the case that all hope is NOT lost ... thanks to Gen Z.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, thank goodness the Surgeon General has come out with that warning.

That marriage and having children could be hazardous to your health.

STU: Everything that's good is bad, Glenn. They could just say that instead. Everything that's solid is liquid. What?

GLENN: Yeah. Up will be down. Down will be up. And everything that is solid will be liquid. That is where we are.

Now being a parent is hazardous to your health. And do you know why?

Because parents both have to, you know, work two jobs. And then take care of their kids. And it's so stressful. It cuts years of their life off.

So do you know what their suggestion is?

STU: Robots. Robot children?

GLENN: Right! Elon Musk. I told you, he was in on it.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: No. Their suggestion is: That you give the government more money, and they'll watch your kids for you.

Now, of all the ideas you could come up with, that one is the worse. I mean, just not having kids is really evil and bad if that's what your message is. But, well, if you're going to have kids, give them to us, to care for.

STU: Give them to us. Yeah.

I want to give it to the people, who came up with the Epstein client list.

Are those the people that I want to give my kids to.

I do feel like, that's how the matrix probably started. Right? Like you just start giving your kids over to the government, and suddenly, they're on giant wall with tubes going into them.

GLENN: That's exactly right. Well, listen to this. Did you hear -- here in Texas. In the Texas Spring Independent School District, these kids' preschool. Yeah. Preschool.

They started coming home, and they would not sleep at night.

And the parents are like, what the hell is going on with my kid? And then somebody else is like, what the hell happened to my kid? Then one of the can I see said, look, I got my sleepy sticker. Your what?

The teachers were actually giving the kids sleeping stick to hers put them asleep. So when you would come in, you drop your child off. They would go, who is going to sleepy sleep. Yeah, you are.

And they put a sticker on the kid. It releases melatonin and other kids, and put all the kids to sleep.

Are you kidding me? And these are the people that care about our children, more than you do.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Isabel Brown is somebody who I really. I tell you, I have seen the official birth of one star in my career that I think is massive.

And going to be --

STU: You know, when you say --

GLENN: Not you. It's Allie Beth Stucky. And I -- I have been watching this other talent for a while now.

And I think she is huge. I think she is one of the best commentators. And knows how to use the media probably better than anybody else.

Isabel Brown.

And she's the host of the Isabel Brown Show.

STU: It's the end of her career right here. When you get an intro like that from Glenn Beck, it's all over.

GLENN: You're dead. It's over, Isabel. Welcome to the program, how are you?

ISABEL: I am so great, Glenn. Huge fan of yours, and thank you for your kind words. What a wonderful way to start my Friday.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I watch your stuff online.

And I just -- I mean, you really get it. You're very, very smart.

You're relatable. You know how the media works.

I mean, you have -- you have it all. You have it all.

So --

ISABEL: Thank you very much.

GLENN: You bet.

So let me talk to you about a couple of things that I just don't understand going on in society.

One of them is now the Surgeon General's warning, about how having kids can be hazardous to your health.

So give them to us. Kind of sounds like a bad idea.

ISABEL: One would think. Although, I say quite often, especially in speaking with my own generous, that we live in what's called the upside down. In this parallel universe, where lies have become truths. And truths have become lies. Just a few weeks ago, the United States Surgeon General, the top physician for our country did, in fact, actually put out an official health warning. A declaration, that parenting is hazardous for your health as a young adult. Because, get this, it makes you more lonely and isolated than if you never had children at all.

And instead, we're just alone. And I find this incredibly concerning. I was premed in college. And have 2 degrees in biomedical sciences.

And yearned to be a physician. I just got married at the end of June.

I'm thinking of about this next stage of my life as well.

GLENN: Why would you go into media like you are?

What is wrong with you? You had an out.

The rest of us schlubs could do nothing else.

ISABEL: It's crazy. But, you know, I'm in this phase of my life. I'm watching all my friends go through this.

And it is just alarming to me, the strategic advantage that the media are using to convince you that marriage and family, the most important bedrock foundation of our society, is somehow bad for you and going to destroy your life.

GLENN: Well, I've put the label on my children's foreheads.

Just to remind people.

If you're thinking about having a kid.

Look at my forehead. Surgeon General warning.

I think they should. I think they should all have it.

Also, the solution is, you know, if you're going to have kids. You know, because everybody is working, you know, two jobs. Their solution is, well, take some of the stress off.

Let us take care of them.

That's a horrid idea.

How about the idea of having a country where one income can actually support a family?

Instead of maybe three, or three and a half incomes, supporting a family?

That doesn't seem like a better goal?

ISABEL: One would hope. But unfortunately, it seems like our elected officials, in particular, are asking all of the wrong questions about how to fix all these ailments in society.

Their answer is always the same. More government. More regulation. More of the -- on your day-to-day life.

And the sad reality is, I really do believe that the United States of America is not the country that I grew up in.

It has the capacity to be. That's what we're fighting for every day. To go from the upside down, to right-side up, again.

If we keep continuing in this trajectory. We are leading in a race to the bottom for the developed world.

And I think it shows in our crime rate.
In our fertility rate, plummeting to an all-time low. In our marriage rates, currently standing at an all-time low. At the lowest they've ever been since 1867. We're starting to have the conversation, finally about nutrition and food and pharmaceuticals. And that's fantastic.

What's really disheartening to me, that so many of the people. Older than us. Older generation.

Haven't realized that these problems have been festering under the surface for decades because good people have sat down and been quiet and done nothing.

And I hope that it's not too late for us to tell the truth to the world, that desperately needs to hear it.

GLENN: So how do you think Gen Z is going to vote?

What is -- what is connecting with, you know, people under 30? That are going to vote?

ISABEL: I'm incredibly optimistic about Gen Z, which I often get a lot of scorn for. Particularly when I speak on cable television and mainstream media. I actually came out with a book in March. Called the end of the alphabet. How Gen Z can save America. Making the case that we are America's next great generation.

And they've been studying these trends for the past several election cycles, that are proving Gen Z is actually the most culturally and politically conservative generation we've seen since World War II.

There is a massive pendulum swing happening before our eyes. And I think we're first and foremost seeing that in this election. With young men, who are overwhelmingly politically conservative.

So when I'm saying these conversations happening on college campuses. And online, where I spend most of my time with my piers. What I'm seeing people struggle with is this sense of, we don't live in the same country.

That the people running for office claim we still do. They've been in office, longer than twice the time we've been alive. And they're wildly out of touch with the financial struggles we're dealing with.

With the cultural tug-of-war we're dealing with. I think what people are looking for, under 30, right now, more than anything is a sense of new generation of leadership. New ideas. Who is in touch with the cultural battles we're fighting today?

And being willing to just tell the truth when everyone in position of power, seem unwilling to do that right now.

GLENN: So that would go in favor of the people that Trump is surrounding himself with, I would imagine.

RFK Jr.

Even though he's an older guy.

You know, Tulsi Gabbard.

Elon Musk.

Is that translating at all in favor of Donald Trump?

ISABEL: It certainly is. It certainly is. And this idea of a unity party, I think is a fascinating idea from a young person's perspective as well. When you're seeing this Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Elon Musk, Donald Trump coalition start to build.

GLENN: Yeah.

ISABEL: It's almost in a sense, breaking the two-party system. Which I think has been a fearful conversation for a lot of people in politics, up to this point.

Because we don't know what happens after the two-party system. But in reality, it creates a much better opportunity for coalition and conversation for better ideas, to come to the surface. Rather than, the same four or five people, constantly pulling the strings of power, in both political parties.

If anything, it's really been an eye-opening experience since 2015, when we have had the curtain pulled back a bit, in the era of Trumpian politics. What we talk about in Washington, as a Uniparty, is absolutely real.

And all of the attacks we're seeing on young people right now is coming, really from a bipartisan perspective, in many ways.

The fight to ban TikTok, the fight to censor you from misinformation.

The fight to make you inject your arm with these crazy substances. We don't know what's going to happen, four or five years down the line. This is coming from both political parties.

And I think young people are speaking up to realize, it's time for something new.

GLENN: Right. You know, it's really interesting. They're conservative.

But it's almost the same thing as the hippie movement back in the '60s.

Except, this time, it's conservative. And it's like, look, we want to be natural.

We want to have freedom. We would like to have peace.

You know, we just want to get back to what's real. And in some way, except for the drug part. That's kind of what the hippies were. And don't believe anyone over 30 was what Nancy Pelosi is saying.

And now, I guess, it's you have to believe them, until they're at 90, or maybe 100.

But it's interesting to me.

I think Generation Z is the revolution. I mean -- are you familiar with the Fourth Turning of the pendulum?

ISABEL: I sure am, yes.

GLENN: Yeah. They are the hero generation. They are. They just haven't been given the opportunity to step up to the plate yet. But I'm telling you, they are going to save us.

ISABEL: Absolutely correct. And I love the hippie analogy. Because the truth is, Glenn, I don't know that the hippie movement really ever went away. The culture we're living in today, sure has changed a whole lot, since we thought about the rebelliousness of the 1970s and 1980s.

But truly, to be a punk rock radical, counterculture individual today, is to stick it to the man. And say enough to the establishment. Today, that just happens to look like, getting married and starting your own business. And saying no to a $250,000 degree in underwater lesbian basket weaving and going to church on Sundays. Eating real food. This is the type of revolution we're seeing with Generation Z. And it's so inspiring to see it take root and take place.

Because it's the same origin that our country was itself founded upon.

This idea of speaking truth to power, and fighting for liberty, to the next generation.

Our Founding Fathers, in 1776 were not 85 or 95 years old. Like we're seeing in Congress today.

They themselves were 18, 19, 21, 25 years old. So Vivek Ramaswamy often says, we're in the midst of a 1776 movement, and I couldn't see anything more obvious than that in 2024.

GLENN: We are. It's great to talk to you. Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it. And I mean everything I say. I think you're a superstar. Don't go to medicine. We need your voice. I think your voice is very important. Isabel Brown. Thank you so much, appreciate it.

ISABEL: Absolutely. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. God bless.