Latest Articles Videos

Live Podcast Serials Stations

About Charity Books Sponsors Shop Contact

RADIOJuly 13, 2022

The SHOCKING ways Democrats want to ALTER the Supreme Court

A new poll reveals the SHOCKING ways some Democrat-likely voters wish to fundamentally alter the Supreme Court. In fact, 39 percent of likely Democrat voters favor a constitutional amendment to allow the UNITED NATIONS power to reverse any SCOTUS decision that UN member nations feel violates human rights. Um, WHAT?! In this clip Glenn and Stu discuss why giving sovereignty to the UN makes NO sense and the other INSANE changes some Americans want enacted onto our judicial branch…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hey, I just got a new poll in. Which is great, from the Heartland Institute.

It's -- hmm. It's going to come out tomorrow. Tomorrow, afternoon. The results are pretty terrifying. The poll was done by Rasmussen to see how Americans, how they feel about the Supreme Court.

Yeah. So here's what we have: Majority of Democrat likely voters. Not just registered Democrats. But likely voters, believe the Supreme Court is fundamentally racist. 56 percent. And fundamentally sexist, 67 percent.

That's not good. That's not good. Further, 53 percent of Democrat likely voters, want to abolish the current Supreme Court and establish a new Democratically elected Supreme Court, with justices chosen by the American people, directly. Can you even imagine, what a nightmare scenario that is?

39 percent of Democrats would strongly or somewhat favor a constitutional amendment, that would give the United Nations the authority to reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions, that UN members believe violate human rights.

Could -- I mean, who are the Democrats?

Who are they? I -- I -- really? I mean, I've met this many dumb people, but that would mean all the dumb people in America are Democrat, and I don't believe that.

But I'm beginning to. I mean, 53 percent? 56 percent say it's fundamentally racist. Sixty-seven of Democrats say, fundamentally sexist. But 53 percent of those who are likely to vote, say they want to abolish the Supreme Court, and hold elections for the -- I mean, why don't we just -- why don't we just do America's Got Talent. America has judges.

STU: Look, that idea worked really well with the Senate. Look how great our Senate is doing now. Now that we elect them directly.

It's really improved that process quite a bit. You can kind of understand. Okay the fundamentally racist thing. Well, Democrats think literally everything is racist. Okay. Maybe. Fundamentally sexist. Maybe they just went through the Roe vs. Wade thing. A lot of Democrats are angry about that.

GLENN: I can cut you some slack on that. Maybe.

STU: No one is even proposing, that the UN is taking over vetoing our Supreme Court decisions. And still a giant chunk of Democrats believe that that's the way we should go. That is remarkable.

GLENN: So 39 percent of Democrats would strongly favor a constitutional amendment that would give the United Nations the authority to reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions that UN members violate -- that's 39 percent. Here's the crazy part:

48 percent of all voters aged 18 to 39.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Favored giving the United Nations the power to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court cases.

So wait. You want to give up our sovereignty?

To that group of people? Can you tell me what that group of people have done? One good thing! Honestly, one good thing. Audrey Hepburn was -- was -- was an ambassador for them.

And I loved her. She was great. That's it. That's as far as I can go.
(laughter)

STU: It's -- it really is amazing. Why would you want to do that, of all things? I guess at this point, they just want to overturn everything. Because they see the Constitution being upheld. And that's the problem here. Is that, again, the Supreme Court did not take away a right. They said, the right didn't exist the whole time. Which is true. And they took the power away from themselves. The Supreme Court initially created this right, out of thin air. Which is their argument, by the way.

Not my argument. Their argument is, they acknowledge it wasn't around during the time of the 14th Amendment. Because almost everybody had banned abortion at the time of the 14th Amendment. They can't argue that it was the initial intent. They just said that later on, they believed that updating standards. It's a living document. Now that power of the 14th Amendment, includes abortion. They, the Supreme Court, a bunch of men, created the right. And then a later Supreme Court, said yeah. You can't just create rights like that. That's not what you do. So we took the power out of their own hands. And people are still incredibly angry at them.

It really is ultra amazing.

GLENN: So I don't think people understand the second part of that. They took it out of their hands, because they said, it's not a right in the Constitution.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's not like they said, nope. That's not a right. They said, that's not a right, that the federal government has purview over.

The federal government has certain things that they have -- all the Bill of Rights. All those. That's what the federal government cannot do. Okay?

They can't violate any of those. Well, they're violating all of those right now. Nobody seems to care. It's what the government cannot do. Any other right, not listed there, goes to the people, and to the state. So you might have the right.

I haven't heard a good case on it.

You might have a right for an abortion. But that's for the people and the state to decide, not the federal government.

STU: And some state Constitutions allow for that right. Again, I think that's morally reprehensible. That's in several state constitutions. And you can get those abortions there, for the time being at least. You know, the whole point of this, and this is in several of these.

It was also in the EPA and several others in this session.

It was a theme. We are not the ones that are supposed to make these decisions.

If you guys want to do these things, pass laws.

Start passing laws, if you want these things to be done.

Go within the constitutional bounds of your power, and pass laws. Stop acting like we're going to do all this stuff for you. That's not our job. That's them saying, hey, we aren't going to take the power. We are actually going to cede the power, which for some reason the left wants us to have. We're going to cede it back to the legislatures, where it belongs.

That is what they've been doing over and over again. That's how this is supposed to work.

GLENN: So what is -- what's crazy. Let me do one more thing here. On abortion.

If you look at the numbers, more than one in three, 37 percent said their state should allow abortion only in cases of rape and incest. 37 percent. Another 12 percent, favored allowing abortion only in the first six weeks of pregnancy. And that's when you can detect a baby's heartbeat.

STU: 16 percent you said?

GLENN: Twelve.

STU: We're at half, basically.

GLENN: Yeah. We're at 49 percent of the country that would say, six weeks, that's it.

STU: Six weeks or less.

GLENN: Half of the country.

Yeah. Okay?

Another 23 percent would support a ban at 15 percent, meaning 72 percent of the country agrees with what Mississippi brought in front of the Supreme Court.

Because they said, they wanted a 15-week ban on abortions.

Women are more pro-life than men. And I think that's absolutely -- absolutely explainable. It's a woman's body. You don't have a right to say anything. I completely disagree with that. But how many guys, A, I'll keep the options open?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And, B, just been bullied into not having an opinion?

STU: I think that's true. I think, look, think of this stereotypical situation, that you would think of in these situations.

Guy goes out, hooks up with a girl he finds at a bar. They go back to the house. They do their thing. She's pregnant. And he's the one that is like, oh, I don't even want to talk to her again. Let alone raise a child with her, so, yeah, please, yeah. Abortion is great. Women's rights. Please, oh, my gosh. Women's right to choose. It's so important to me. What a fundamental right this is. They just want to get out of what they've done. Right?

They want to avoid the responsibility. So stereotypically, you assume that the guys would be the ones pushing for this. By the way, I might remind you, it was seven guys who brought the right to you.

So, you know, for all the thoughts that men shouldn't have an opinion here, the only person involved in a major abortion case, that actually decided it, that was a woman, really was -- was Amy Coney Barrett.

I mean, I guess in Casey, you can make the argument. Amy Coney Barrett is the one who is involved here. She's a woman. There were no women involved in the Roe vs. Wade decision at the Supreme Court level.

GLENN: Here's the most telling part of the poll: Majority, if I felt 5 percent said they opposed overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Even though, 72 percent would support a law, that Roe would have struck down. What's more, 25 percent, only 25 percent agreed that the Supreme Court, as opposed to state or federal lawmakers, should set the standards on abortion.

So wait.

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: 72 percent support the law, that it just overturned?

Or, that it just made possible by overturning it.

And only 25 percent say the decision should be in the hands of the Supreme Court. Which is what the Supreme Court said.

STU: Yeah. So basically, what that tells you is that people just don't know what Roe vs. Wade means. They think Roe vs. Wade means, if you overturn it, abortion goes away completely.

They, of course, will learn very soon, that that that's not the case.

Because 72 percent support the Mississippi law. And, you know, 25 percent. Like want the Supreme Court to make these rules. Well, that's what Roe vs. Wade was.

So you can't support Roe vs. Wade. And oppose the Supreme Court coming up with the rules.

Their whole argument in Roe vs. Wade was, you guys are really kind of at odds here. Why don't we come in and say, we'll just make up a standard, and that will kind of solve the problem.

And then Casey came along and they said, hey, that Roe vs. Wade thing sure didn't solve the problem. We'll give you a new standard. A new idea. And that's going to be viability. And that will solve it for you guys. And it didn't solve it at all. And then this Supreme Court said, hey. Maybe we shouldn't be giving us you the standards. Maybe you guys should solve this on your own. Through the normal process. Instead of us coming up with a universal solution for everybody. That's what everybody seems to want in the poll. They have no idea what Roe vs. Wade is, other than people who oppose it, are evil.

GLENN: Yeah. And the people who are for it, apparently love children and women. Even though now, New York has gone crazy. Absolutely crazy. Not only their new gun concealed carry permit. What do you call it? I don't even know.

Bureaucracy. It's worse than it was. It's worse than it was now. And there's no way this stands up in court. No way this stands up in court.

STU: No.

GLENN: And New York also said, they need to crack down on the pregnancy centers, that are offering life. Because they say, they are offering disinformation by saying that it's a baby already inside of you. And the other disinformation is, you're already a mother. You're carrying your child right now. So you already are a mother.

Those are the two pieces of misinformation or disinformation, they say, that they have to crackdown on. So they are now cracking down -- it doesn't matter. No longer. You can have all the abortions you want.

Celebrate all the abortions. We'll send you cakes. Just all the abortions you want. That's not good enough. They have to stop those 20 percent, that go to these pregnancy centers, and have their minds changed.

Interesting times, we live in. You will be forced to participate.

Will Biden let YOUR tax money BAIL OUT striking California writers & actors?

California is already struggling to pay its unemployment insurance and has been taking out federal loans — aka YOUR tax dollars — to pay unemployed residents. Now, California's legislature has passed a bill that would give striking writers, actors, and other union members unemployment insurance. Glenn warns that this ridiculous system would practically allow people to strike forever on YOUR dime. Is the Biden administration okay with this? Because if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs this bill, the state will probably ask for a lot more money from the federal government. Will your tax dollar pay for the unions? And even worse ... will your tax dollar bail out California's far-left welfare state?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me tell you two other things that are going on. In California, you also have California, now struggling. They can't pay their unemployment insurance.

Because they've been in the hole, forever.

With this. They've been taking out low-interest loans, from us. The United States government.

Your tax dollars have gone to pay for the unemployment insurance of the state of California. Because they can't balance a budget.

They can't get it done.

So they're paying us, low interest on the loans.

Do you think that's ever going to be paid back?

No.

Here's what they're doing now. California's far left government, is now working with the Biden administration, to bail out striking Hollywood actors. On your dime.

This is happening. California's ultra liberal leaders are on the verge of giving unemployment payments now, to striking Hollywood actors and writers.

Both houses of the legislature, passed a bill to that effect, this week, it only needs Gavin Newsom's signature. And do you think he's not going to sign that? So here's what you have: You have unions who are taking all of this money, from all of their union members.

And part of the deal is: If you have a job, and the union says, we have to strike. Then you're going to get a portion of your pay.

The union will help you out.

But you can't get unemployment insurance. Because you are employed. All you have to do is go back to work. If you're paying people to strike from the union. And also get unemployment insurance. You can strike forever. See, the idea is: Which one is going to fold first? Is it going to be the labor union, or is it going to be the business? Which one -- and it hurts both sides. And so beet are incentivized to get to the table. Would you be for bailing out the giant Hollywood moguls. And the studios. I wouldn't be for that. No, you can't make it work. You can't make it work.

It's your choice. So why are we bailing out the union workers?

Why are we bailing out California, who now cannot making its own payments on insurance for everybody else. Unemployment insurance.

Can't do it.

They're in the hole.

Now they want to add unions to that.

And what happens, when it happens in California?

You think it's not going to happen in Michigan?

You will be paying for the unions. But that's what happens, when you have over $2 billion going into Joe Biden's campaign, from the labor unions.

He's the most labor-friendly president of all time.

Oh, by the way, so you get Gavin Newsom's signature. That's happening. Then what has to happen?

Well, then, it's just because it's the administration. So does the president need to act?

No. It's in the secretary's purview. So the Secretary of Labor, has to make this decision on how to spend our tax dollars. So the Secretary of Labor has to personally approve the request.

Now, who is this? Well, she's the acting secretary for the administration. Because the Congress won't approve her. So they're just going ahead with it anyway. Go ahead. Take the job. And you're just acting. You're not, actually, the secretary.

Why won't Congress approve her?

Because she was the one who came from California, and was in charge of the state's unemployment program. She oversaw $32 billion in fraudulent payments, occurring the pandemic.

Time for a promotion.

That's my red line. My red line has always been, I'm not bailing out California. I'm not bailing it out.

I'm not bailing out any of these perform

I've always wanted to live in California. You know why I didn't?

Because it was insane. I knew it wouldn't work. I didn't want to spend all of my money. Paying for taxes, for things I knew would only make society worse. And knew it would collapse at some point.

So I never got the beach of California.

And yet, now I have to pay for their mistakes?

How do you feel about that, Alabama? How do you feel about that Michigan? You probably like it, at least if you're a politician. Because, you know, your state will need it. Another reason not to live in Chicago. It wouldn't work!

DISTURBING move? YouTube DEMONETIZES Russell Brand after allegations

YouTube has demonetized comedian Russell Brand's account after allegations dropped that he sexually assaulted and raped multiple women. The BBC has also announced an internal review of Brand's time at the network and is "urgently looking into" issues raised in a Channel 4 documentary on Brand. Glenn points out the apparent hypocrisy of the outlet, which had no problem paying Brand, despite his alleged behavior — which he has denied — being an "open secret," according to one accuser. Plus, Glenn and Stu discuss how disturbing the companies' quick reactions have been, given that Brand hasn't even been charged with or convicted of anything yet. If YouTube can demonetize someone for accusations of "off-platform behavior" from over a decade ago, Glenn says, then "we live in Salem Witch Trial times."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Russell Brand, is in trouble.

Now, here's something -- I want to read this, from the BBC.

From the BBC. Russell Brand resurfaced clips, give a sobering reminder of noughties culture.

The noughties are the noughts, you know. As the 00s of the early -- of the early century.

The early part of the -- the zeros. The noughties. We're being very noughty right now.

From BBC. The noughties aren't so long ago, that it's possible to dismiss them as a different age. There are parts of the decade that British culture would rather forget.

Russell Brand was at the center of a messy celebrity scene of the 2000s that now feels like the cool Britannia Party gone sour.

The recent allegations against the comedian, and resurfaced clips of things he said and did on the air and on stage, have provided a sobering reminder of the seedier side of the pop and media culture in that decade.

Okay. All right.

First of all, Russell Brand is kind of like their Howard Stern. Okay. Okay.

You didn't know exactly what you were getting in those days with Russell Brand. Okay?

Just think Howard Stern. Now, it's provided a sobering reminder of the seedier side of pop media culture in that decade.

Could I just ask the BBC to turn on the radio and listen to the lyrics of songs, they're now playing. Because I guarantee, there's something playing on the BBC about somebody's butt doing something.

Among the claims. Now, listen to this. Resurfaced clips is what this is all about.

Among the claims in channel four's recent dispatched investigation. Into the star. There was a clip from his BBC radio two show in 2004, that seemed to have gone largely unnoticed at the time.

In it Brand interviewed Jimmy Savile. Now, Jimmy Savile was a big, big radio host.

You know, the --

STU: Top of the pops, right?

GLENN: Top of the pops. Everybody loved Jimmy salve I will.

They found out, he's a child predator.

And was molesting kids, in the hospital, while he was visiting. Review, but nobody knows this.

At the time.

Among claims Channel 4's recent dispatches, shows him on BBC, in 2007.

In it, Brand interviewed Jimmy Savile and apparently offered up his very attractive assistant to go meet him naked.

Sound like Howard Stern?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay. This is in 2007, he said this to the BBC host, of.

Of top of the pops. Another BBC host said, you go ahead and take my assistant here. She'll go get naked. Funny. He said, naughty word. Naughty. Get it?

Okay. When did they expose, so to speak, Jimmy Savile, being a child predator? When was that, Stu?

STU: 2012.

GLENN: 2012. So something that went unnoticed, in 2007.

STU: Because no one knew about the accusation.

GLENN: No one knew about this. Okay.

While the clip was from before salve I will had been exposed as a serial sexual predator, it scarcely believed now that it was broadcast Britain's biggest radio station.

You know, wait a minute. Hang on just a second. Not that Russell Brand said that. That's not really the problem, BBC. The problem is you hired that guy and held him up as a hero for decades on the BBC.

There are several clips of Brand pushing the line between outrageous and offensive stuff that were used in the Channel 4 documentary on a Saturday.

Okay.

They're doing an exposé, on what they aired twenty years ago, and making Russell Brand into the bad guy.

You aired it. You aired it. It's like Westwood 1, coming in and saying, let me tell you something.

I want to show you some videotape, of what Howard Stern was doing.

Yeah. Because you were paying him to do it.

How is that a problem for him, and not you?

I don't know. It's crazy.

STU: Ask they actually are sort of doing that to Stern right now. There are definitely people out there looking for --

GLENN: Looking. You spent five minutes, and you could find it. Of course.

STU: Just over the September 11th, you know, anniversary. Happened to stumble upon this Howard Stern Show, from September 11th.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: It is a different era. The -- the -- the difference in -- as that's going on. They're watching buildings in realtime. It's a fascinating thing to watch from a historical perspective. But the anger on the show, and the way that they were talking. The words they were saying.

The things that came out of their mouths.
It was --

GLENN: Were they singing songs about doing things with people's butts?

STU: They were not.

They were doing that right before the planes actually hit the building.

But it was interesting to hear the occasion -- Robin Quivers, who was ready to nuke the entire Middle East.

It was like -- it was pretty interesting to watch. You go back and watch those shows. Look, it was a different time.

You're going to judge these by today's standards. That's always dumb.

It's always dumb to go back to a previous era, and judge it by today's standards. It's always dumb to do that.

And it does seem to be what everyone wants to do.

GLENN: Well, I just can't take the employer, doing a documentary on how outrageous he was. And how he should be stoned to death, at the time they were paying him to do those things. I mean, that takes quite the balls.

STU: Well, and the BBC in particular, is in the Russell Brand situation, is specifically accused. Like, they are --

GLENN: They were --

STU: They were saying, they were helping it along. That's the accusation.

GLENN: Like listening to a documentary on BBC.

STU: Right. Like they were sending cars to pick up the girls that were 16 years old for Russell Brand.

GLENN: Which, by the way, was not illegal at the time.

It sounds horrible, but it wasn't illegal at the time.

STU: And no one was saying it was illegal. Not necessarily the best --

GLENN: Now, why is this all happening to him? Why? Why? Why?

STU: It's a good question.

I think there's a very obvious answer to it.

GLENN: Go ahead.

STU: Well, when he was famous and married to Katy Perry and doing all this, there was no news of these accusations. He was known as a bad guy. Right? Like a very promiscuous guy. To his own telling. He was addicted to drugs. He was addicted to alcohol. He was addicted to sex.

GLENN: Has a changed all of that.

STU: He's changed all of that. And has become a commentator who has been skeptical of some of the things you're not allowed to be skeptical of, like COVID. Climate change. ESG standards.

GLENN: Yeah. And the World Economic Forum is his biggest thing.

STU: Now he's been --

GLENN: Now he's being targeted for that.

STU: Look, of course, you would agree, if he committed horrible crimes against people, he should be punished for them, even if he has reformed his character.

He still is held responsible for crimes.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: But this does not seem to be what's -- it may not be what's going on.

GLENN: We have a hard time in this culture. Where we just make accusations, and we destroy people.

STU: Agreed.

GLENN: Now, listen, Russell Brand has now been demonetized by YouTube.

Now, what does that mean?

Russell Brand makes his money on his YouTube videos. Okay?

So they have just demonetized him.

So they won't sell or give him any money for what he's doing.

The BBC said it removed some programs featuring him from its streaming services.

So they were still paying for the guy.

Now, it looks like YouTube is doing the same, because the quote from YouTube is absolutely amazing.

Where is it? Where is it? Brand took his online social media platforms. Saying it was a coordinated attack.

Yes, it was. They said that now. I can't find the exact quote.

STU: While you're looking for that. Can we talk about quickly what the line is here?

Because there is a process that goes on.

When you're going to be convicted of a crime. And that begins with an accusation. Then comes that investigation.

Then comes a charge, filed against you.

Then comes a conviction, that comes a sentence. Right?

Why can't these companies just draw a line? Like make a line. What's the line?

A charge. Right? If someone gets criminally charged with something, we're going to pull them off of our service.

GLENN: Is that fair?

STU: I don't know. I think --

GLENN: We used to believe it was a conviction.

STU: That's where I would go. If you're convicted of a crime. Even if you might say you're innocent, we have to have some way of sorting this out. That's what our legal system is for.

GLENN: And if you want to do that. If you want to take it off early, just pay the person. Pay the person. So you don't destroy their life.

STU: The NFL, you're under contract. And someone comes up with an accusation, and they think they need to pull you off. They pull you out. They put you on the commissioner's suspended list. But you're still getting paid. Because, look, there's no conviction.

Nothing has been proven. If you're proven in a court of law to be guilty of a crime, It makes sense. That is the line, probably.

Instead, what it is, if someone accuses you -- now, of course, people have been saying bad things about Russell Brand for a very long time.

He's been saying bad things about himself, for a very, very long time. All the money that was coming through was fine. Until this news story had been written.

He was not charged with a crime. Let alone convicted of one.

He may be charged and convicted later.

But he hasn't been yet.

GLENN: Correct.

He said his relationships were always consensual.

He was accused of rape and sexual assault between 2006 and 2013.

He denies the claims. Was any -- were any charges filed?

Did anybody go to the police at the time? Anything.

Anything. He says, no.

I don't want to judge, because I don't know the man. We're not in a courtroom.

But here's what YouTube said. You ready for this standard, Stu?

See if this is -- if this is a little earlier than conviction.

If a creator's off platform behavior harms our users, our employees, or ecosystem, we take action.

Now, I don't know how his off-platform behavior in 2006.

STU: Existed.

GLENN: Yeah. Harmed your users, employees, or ecosystem.

What they're saying is, if somebody calls in our ecosystem, and says, I can't believe you guys are doing this. I'm not going to advertise. Or I'm not going to provide that chair for your conference room. I'm not going to do it. Because you will keep him up. That harms the ecosystem, and they can take action. This is -- we live in the Salem witch trial tames.

STU: It's true, though.

And, you know what, though. I can understand how these companies react this way.

Going back to your book, Dark Future. And the Great Reset.

And then great example of this is Twitter. You know, you go to use Twitter or whatever the heck they're calling it this week.

And, I mean, if I get another ad for Cheech and Chong gummies. Like every one of their ads are just trash. Because there's no companies on there anymore. They've all just left. Because Elon Musk said, you're allowed to speak freely. So all the companies just left. I mean, he himself is saying, that revenue is down 80 percent.

GLENN: And he himself is being charged with crimes that are not crimes. He's charged with not hiring new migrants that don't have green cards, don't have anything.

That is the DOJ and the Pentagon's rule for a rocket company!

WHY are we giving Ukraine a DIME if journalist 'KILL LIST' and trans spokesperson are REAL?

There's an alleged Ukrainian "kill list" going around that includes the names of American journalists and reporters like Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald, and Human Events' Jack Posobiec, as well as Elon Musk. But Glenn isn't sure whether to be relieved or disappointed that he isn't on the list. However, it makes him ask, if this is at all associated with the Ukrainian government, why are we sending them a DIME of our tax dollars? Glenn and Stu also debate whether transgender American Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, who claims to be a spokesperson for the Ukrainian military, is for real. Ashton-Cirillo has also called for the punishment of journalists who won't tow the Ukrainian line.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: So you're not on a kill list?

GLENN: Good. Good. I'm not on a kill list.

STU: That's advertise appointing.

You're losing your touch. If you're on a kill list, I mean, I've seen them. You're not on the new kill list.

GLENN: No. I'm not on a new kill list.

And the new one has just put, you know, a friend of the program, from human events, Jack Posobiec. He's on the kill list now.

STU: Congratulations.

GLENN: Congratulations.

And the kill list has targeted Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, and Glenn Greenwald. When I saw Glenn, in the article. I'm like, oh, dear. And I saw Greenwald. And I was like, well, wait a minute. I wasn't even nominated. And this list is called the peacemaker.

Now, when you hear the peacemaker, you think, oh. It's peaceful.

No. It calls for a retribution against perceived enemies of Ukraine.

And positive Sobic, is -- is pointed out. He's an anti-Ukrainian propagandist and provocateur.

Is he's going to be killed. Or at least, that's what they're threatening.

And I love the fact that we're sending money over to a country, that is developing kill lists for Americans.

STU: Now. This is not an official government document, I assume.

GLENN: This is -- let me see here.

This is -- this is -- this is from the guy who is -- you know, the woman. Who pretends he's a woman.

Who is an American. Here, let me -- let me just play. Have you seen. You have seen the new he/she, that is now -- hmm? What?

STU: The spokesperson for Ukraine?

I don't believe this. Can I come out and just formerly say?

GLENN: Come out?

STU: Not that way. Formerly say, I don't think this is real.

GLENN: It is real.

STU: We've checked it. And, no. This is really the Ukraine spokesperson, who happens to be a trans person.

GLENN: Yeah. That's an American.

STU: An American.

GLENN: That went over to Ukraine. Was in the army.

STU: I just don't believe it.

GLENN: Fighting. And then pulled from the front lines.

STU: That part, I believe. That part --

GLENN: From the front lines.

And then put in the propaganda of -- and ministry of information.

STU: I just don't believe it's true. It can't be true.

GLENN: If you're watching us on Blaze TV. This is worth the price of ignition for the month, okay? You're welcome.

We're giving you the bonus by showing you the video of this. Watch.

VOICE: Russia hates the truth. But their excessive focus on the Ukrainian volunteer, is simply allowing the light of the Ukrainian nation's honesty to shine brightly.

GLENN: Can we just stop for a second?

STU: Come on. This can't be real.

GLENN: Let me tell you something, I'm going to give Russia such a hit. In a minute. I'm going to finish this. And then I'm going to slap him across the face. All of Russia. I'm going to do it. And I'm going to look beautiful while I'm doing it. Go ahead.

VOICE: The teeth of the Russia devas will gnash ever harder.

STU: Come on.

VOICE: Uncontrollable frenzy.

GLENN: Stop. Stop.

STU: Seriously, there's -- this can't be real. It can't be real.

GLENN: Their rabid mouth are going to froth.

STU: They're foam.

GLENN: They're going to. It's -- they're foaming.

STU: They're going to foam. Is that what's happening?

GLENN: They're rabid dogs. And they're going to gnash their teeth. One.

STU: It's legitimately impossible this is real.

GLENN: This is real.

STU: How can --

GLENN: Stu, how can anything today be real?

Do you --

STU: This is a country that didn't even allow gay marriage.

They're not -- this is not a progressive --

GLENN: This is aimed to America.

STU: I know. But come on. First of all, it's aimed to America. It doesn't make any sense. They would -- they found a -- none of it makes sense. It makes more sense to me. That Russia is producing this. Specifically, to try to make Ukraine look bad.

That makes more sense.

GLENN: This is where the kill list is coming from. Okay. This is the kill list. It's coming from that department right there. Now, go ahead, he was talking about the uncontrollable frenzy.

STU: The one you were also -- the frothing.

GLENN: Quiet.

VOICE: Uncontrollable frenzy. As the world will see their favorite Kremlin propagandist paying for their crimes. And this puppet of Putin, is only the first. Russia's war propagandist will all be hunted down. And justice will be served. As we in Ukraine are led on this mission by faith in God, liberty, and complete liberation.

GLENN: Okay. I just have to -- I just want to point out, we are led by God.

And even though the Ukrainian people don't believe in transgenderism at all because of God. I'm their spokesperson. And because we are led by God, we will hunt down these people who disagree with us, and kill them.

I mean, it is hard to believe.

Tell me. And I've had quite a weekend.

Tell me what you believe. Tell me what you believe in. Right now!

Tell me you can tell me the difference between truth and fiction on any topic!

STU: I mean, I can't.

GLENN: No. I can't either.

STU: I can't. I've seen this has been confirmed by all these media sources, and I still don't believe it. You ever get a story like that. No. I won't believe it. I don't care how many times. I won't believe it. That's where I am on this one.

GLENN: I am on that, just about everything now. I look at everything. And I'm like, I don't know what to believe. I don't know who to believe.

I came in yesterday, and I looked at Stu and I said, I don't know what to believe. Who am I to get a radio and say, you know what, this is the truth. I have no idea.

STU: It's a very strange world.

GLENN: Well, just the guy in the dress. So the hair --

STU: And the guy in the dress with the hair, is the guy who made the kill list?

GLENN: Well, I don't know if he made it himself. He might have been doing his nails or something else.

STU: Who made the kill list?

GLENN: Well, it's coming from him.

STU: He's saying that Tucker Carlson, and Jack Posobiec, are on the kill list.

GLENN: Yeah. I was trying to rope him in.

Look how easily he just called him he. You are mis-gendered.

STU: Oh, oh.

GLENN: Cut two of the spokesperson.

STU: Oh, more?

GLENN: There has been much discussion in this entire role, within the armed forces of Ukraine.

Senator Vance recently asked the US director of national intelligence, along with the secretaries of state and defense, if I was working in some capacity for the American government.

STU: Believable.

VOICE: Simply put, I'm an American, serving as a Ukrainian infantry soldier and a combat medic.

Who is brought from this, and assigned to the TDF's media team in the dual role of spokesperson and Russian disinformation analyst.

The remaining speculation surrounding me is disappointing.

Why in Ukraine, we're fighting for global liberty, and the ideology of victory.

Too many in Moscow and across the world are still caught up and focusing on the tired trope of gender chaos.

GLENN: Stop. Stop.

STU: Stop for a second.

People who are critical of gender ideology. Use the term gender chaos.

GLENN: That's what he said. They're using the old tired trope of gender -- what did you say? Chaos.

STU: Chaos. Yeah.

GLENN: He's saying that's an old tired trope.

Like, they're focused on the old tired trope of gender chaos.

There is no chaos here!

It will all make sense. Give me that cigarette. I'm just going to have a cigarette right now.

STU: Highly suspicious.

GLENN: I'm going to kill you. I'm going to kill you.

STU: Senator Vance, a good question to ask, I would say.

Because there's two things that would make sense here, sort of.

One, like, there's someone in our government saying, you know what, sure, we'll give you these billions of dollars.

One of the conditions is, yeah, you have to appoint us a spokesperson.

Someone in the LGBTQQIA2+ community to show your tolerance. That's believable. That's believable.

GLENN: You're telling me, there isn't somebody, that you find this too hard to believe. That there's somebody like, you know who we could get rid of?

We could get rid of all these people.

You can't do that. You can't do that. No? We could put a guy that is pretending to be a woman, that everybody is dismissing. And give them whole bunches of money. And they could come and kill people.

I mean, I'm not saying that's happening.

But I'm not, not saying that either. Because I don't know what's happening anymore.

STU: There could be a trading places thing. Where like there's a couple of people. All the people with monocles, who are like, what if we made them have a transgendered person, come out as their spokesperson.

GLENN: By the way, J.D. Vance is going to be joining us in ten minutes.

STU: He is? Let's ask him about this. Because I don't believe it.

GLENN: No. We shouldn't ask him about this.

STU: I would like to know. That's not why he's coming, is it?

GLENN: No. He's coming auto about other things. My first question is, tell me about the dude in the dress. With the kill list. Why are we giving them money?

If this is from the Ukrainian ministry of whatever, why are we giving them money?

STU: Well, if it's an official document, anyone associated with it, should immediately be fired.

And we should who would money until that happens, right?

But these are American citizens we're talking about.

GLENN: I'm so tired of you just blabbing. I'm still listening to the spokesperson, go ahead.

VOICE: Ukraine is a nation that embraces individual liberty, and maintains that devotion to God. The freedom that Ukraine is fighting for, is not based on carving out privilege, but creating a pathway of prosperity and success, founded in hard work and the rule of law for all.

Neither I, nor any Ukrainians, fighting for tolerance, acceptance, for any one group. But for the freedom of every human.

GLENN: Oh, is that very --

STU: Come on.

I would like to say, yeah, there is something off here. But that's fairly obvious. But what I would say is that, I think --

GLENN: Yeah, you think.

STU: I don't think this is real. I don't think it's real.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Well --

STU: Isn't there something that --

GLENN: I will put you on my list. Not on my kill list.

Because you're not that important, but my slap across the face list. If I ever see you walking across the street. Slapping you. I will slap and slap and slap you, until you're silly.

STU: You should not be on the Ukraine list.

You have been very fair on your coverage, right?

GLENN: Well, we did go in and rescue children. I mean, other than that.

STU: There you go.

You shouldn't be a kill list.

GLENN: No.

STU: You've helped rescue people in need.

GLENN: Yeah. But I do think the government is completely corrupt.

I don't think we should be spending money there. And I also don't want to be -- you know, in any war, sending planes or anything, really.

Anymore.over to Ukraine. I --

STU: There's some risk associated with such things.

GLENN: Well, it's only nuclear annihilation.

STU: Right. That's the risk I was talking about.

GLENN: Yeah, that's the only risk.

So I think that's probably we should -- I think it's enough. I think it's enough.

STU: So you're saying, just the nuclear annihilation is enough, to not send over the --

GLENN: It is. It is for me.

They're saying, you know, we might be in a nuclear war. Our president is not too well. And he will have about ten minutes to make the decision, whether to fire or not.

And I'm -- I'm just -- I'm out on a limb here in today's crazy world. But I'm saying, I don't think so.

I don't think so.

And I could put on a wig, if it would make more sense to you. But I don't think we should do it. Uh-huh.

STU: Now, doesn't Biden have a speech at the UN?

So I'm sure, that will -- that will ease any of your concerns. Because he'll knock that one out of the park.

And will know, okay. He's got a really good vision. He has it all under control.

GLENN: Sure. And Zelinsky is there too. Zelinsky is meeting.

STU: Maybe come out, as a woman for the speech.

I mean, that seems to be a very effective tactic.

GLENN: Let me tell you something, I wouldn't be surprised.

STU: We would all be told, we should accept it. And it wasn't anything different than normal. And if you notice it, you're a bad person.

And even more.

GLENN: She's the most beautiful president I've ever seen. She is --

STU: The first female president, by the way.

GLENN: First female president. And the most beautiful person I've ever seen.

STU: And if you disagree with that.

GLENN: And if you're like, it's Joe Biden in lipstick.

STU: No. No. No, it's not. No, it's not. You've mis-gendered that, Joe Biden.

GLENN: And we'll put you on a kill list,

After TERRIFYING 'Exorcist' trailer, is ANYTHING safe to watch with your kids?

Over the weekend, many NFL fans were shocked to see an incredibly frightening and evil-looking trailer for "The Exorcist: Believer" that played during the games. Is anything on TV family friendly anymore, Glenn asks? Because plenty of young children saw this ad while watching the games with their families. Glenn and Stu discuss how innocence has more or less disappeared from the entertainment world. Before, we had Disney and sports. But now, is there anything left that parents can let their kids watch without needing to monitor every second of it?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Oh, now it's starting to sound interesting. I will say, can I -- on the horror movie thing. You said you watched some football this weekend. Watched some of the Chiefs. Jaguar's game. Is that what you did, at some point?

GLENN: No. But my son talked to me about it.

STU: You didn't actually watch it. But you listened to your son.

A lot of these -- I don't know. I have kids right in that age of -- you know, they don't watch.

I don't have them watching all sorts of horror movies. Or, you know, like -- keeping them pretty much away from that. And people are saying, hey. You're keeping your kid in a bubble.

Look at this world. I want this bubble to be thicker. That's what I want.

GLENN: It's not a bubble. It's more of an actual wall.

STU: Yes. I built the wall.

I'm doing it as long as possible. My belief is, I remember this growing up.

And as you get older, you have plenty of time to do all the really bad things that the world offers.

GLENN: Oh, no, there's nobody there to nag you or stop you.

STU: No. You can do whatever you want.

So he will have plenty of time. My daughter will have plenty of time to do all the terrible things that the world offers. But for right now, I would like to keep them away from that.

And they're still young enough, in which, they're watching a horror movie.

They can get stared. I don't know what time --

GLENN: Sure. Twenty-four and 21.

STU: But like, seriously, I don't know. I remember moments from my childhood.

It seemed like moments from a Stephen King movie, and being terrified for weeks.

GLENN: Oh -- oh, I know what you're going to talk about.

STU: You do?

GLENN: Yes! Because I watched the Cowboys game.

STU: Yeah, right!

But they are running an advertisement for some exorcist sequel in the middle of these games.

GLENN: That looks scary as heck.

STU: That looks freaking terrifying. And like, as a dad, who knows, who will be the guy getting up in the middle of the night, if my kids are terrified about this.

Can you make it? I don't know, 80 percent less terrifying?

There's just like --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I saw it. I saw it.

I saw it like every commercial break.

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm watching. What is happening? What is happening?

I thought, at first, because I was only half watching.

I thought this has to be a parody of something.

STU: Because you've seen Exorcist in such a -- it's been done so many times.

GLENN: Right. Everyone is like, no.

Hold on. I mean, I remember the exorcist.

I remember. I've been -- I never saw it. I -- you know, after I -- you know, after I moved out of my parent's house. Then I saw a little bit of it. But I never watched the whole thing.

I watched 15 minutes. And I'm like, I cannot watch this movie.

My sister went. She snuck out of the husband.

She was 16. She snuck out with her friends. Because this isn't the time when everyone was vomiting in the theaters and everything else. And she's like, I've got to see this. Then she comes at night. And she's too afraid to sleep in her own bed. So I have bunk beds. She sleeps in the bottom bunks for like a month. And every night, she tells me about it. And I'm like, I -- I'm like seven.

Mom, I'm afraid. What are you afraid of?

Demons. Why are you afraid of demons?

Not because they went to the exorcist, and told me all about it.

STU: You're the big brother, I can see.

Really, it's terrifying.

STU: Especially because we live in a world, in which basically the only thing you can safely allow your kids to watch are sports.

Like, everything else is terrible.

The Disney Channel has become terrible.

GLENN: Terrible.

STU: Right? For your kids.

So you can put them in front of sports, mostly.

And most of the time, it's okay. And then -- but then occasionally, there will be a commercial, in which the devil's hand comes out of the screen. And grasps their throat. That's all.

And it's like, can you -- I don't know. Sentiment.

GLENN: There used to be an unwritten rule. First, I think it was an unwritten rule.

Then it was a written rule. The family hour. When the family is watching something together, can we make it something the family can watch together?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

Now, again, if you're up in the fourth quarter. And it's 11 o'clock at night on a Sunday night game, Monday night game.

You know, I understand, you might have different rules there. But the NFL, how much money did they make?

How -- I mean, billions and billions and billions of dollars.

The networks all of the top-rated shows for the entire year, are NFL games.

GLENN: Do you expect us -- do you expect us to turn down money?

STU: Yes! No. I am not even asking you to have a standard.

GLENN: I'm willing to pay. What, my politics aren't good enough for you?

STU: Just take the money to somebody else. Take it from some other -- put cigarettes back on television.

GLENN: Oh, they're so much better than I am.
(laughter)

STU: Please.

Wait. Do you even have a Satan button over there, do you?

GLENN: No. I don't know what are you're talking about.
(laughter)

STU: So that's all we're asking.

GLENN: Just don't scare the crap out of the children.

Quite honestly, and me.

I could see that face, in my head right now.

I don't want to see that face. I don't want to see that face. My gosh, Sara, look, think of that face.

Now look at Stu. Very similar.

STU: Very similar. Yes.

GLENN: And may I just say, you should brush your teeth occasionally.

STU: Occasionally. I think that big fluoride is already in the water.

GLENN: Toothbrushes are evil.