Latest Articles Videos Hands-On History

Live Podcast Serials Stations

About Charity Real Estate Sponsors Shop Contact

RADIOJune 14, 2022

This SCOTUS case could MASSIVELY alter far-left strategy

It’s decision time for the U.S. Supreme Court, with 29 opinions expected to be delivered from the SCOTUS justices in the next few weeks. No major decisions (like Roe v. Wade for example) have been announced yet, but there is one case that Glenn says could ‘change everything.’ Glenn and Stu discuss the climate change case that centers on the EPA’s authority, and they explain how it could drastically alter the far-left’s current strategy to use powerful, federal agencies to bypass Congress.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. We are so glad you're here. It is Monday. And we have some Supreme Court hearings -- or, opinions come out. So far, nothing real controversial or real important. I mean, they're -- they're all important. It's just an honor to be nominated to be an opinion of the Supreme Court.

(laughter)

GLENN: But nothing that is controversial. That we know of. So far. Has the fourth one come down yet?

STU: Yeah. We have on an Alito opinion. Everybody get excited. It's in the Garland versus Gonzalez case. So not the Dobbs case, that would affect Roe vs. Wade. Which is kind of the Alito case we're looking for.

GLENN: So the Gonzalez case?

STU: Yeah. Huge one. So immigration law again.

GLENN: What was -- wait a minute. This was the immigration law one?

STU: Not the one about the remain in Mexico provision, which is one of the bigger cases that we're looking for in this session. However, it's not that one. We're getting multiple other unrelated immigration law decisions. Which, again, there's 29 of these. The American people, generally speaking, care -- care about maybe five or six of them. We talked about the abortion one. Which is obviously the biggest ticket. The gun -- the Second Amendment case, we talked about as well, which is another big ticket item. There's a big climate change one, decision that we expect here soon. Which is about whether the federal government. This is a big one. If you want to go back and listen to Glenn's interview with Mike Lee, you guys probably hit on this, certainly concept. I do remember that. But I don't know if you mentioned this one specifically. But basically, the idea is, do these administrative agencies get to make up all of these rules, or does Congress have to do it? And, of course, Congress has to do it. We've just developed this new policy, to say, what if Congress makes the decision? And they say, our decision is that the administrative hedge to make all these decisions for us. And that's the way our countries run right now.

GLENN: This is game-changing. If the Supreme Court comes out, it's my understanding, you know, we should have Mike Lee on every day this week. Just have him in reserve just in case. But it's my understanding that if the Supreme Court says they can't just fiddle with this. That laws have to be made by Congress. And I don't know how the constitutional Supreme Court wouldn't find that, seeing as though it actually says in the Constitution, those words. That Congress makes the laws. Not the administration. If that happens. That changes everything. Really, truly, everything.

STU: Yeah. It's like, you know, if somebody said -- you know, our overlords said, Stu, you have to make a decision. And I said, I will make the decision. And my decision is Glenn should decide. That is obviously not the --

GLENN: I've been in meetings. I believe I've been in meetings, where that has been happened.

STU: We're not -- we're not affected by the Constitution at this company. I can do whatever I want.

GLENN: We're not. Stu, I need a decision from you. My decision is, Glenn, that you are to make that decision. Oh, thank you. Okay. Good.

STU: I just learned from the government. But that's obviously a problem. And when it comes to climate in this particular case, it's about whether these administrations. Like the EPA can put all these restrictions on power plants, in -- en masse. Like, basically, oh, all these power plants have all this rule. Instead of actually regulating each individual one. This would be a huge knock in the way leftist activists would make changes based on their climate change theories. So that is a big one.

GLENN: And it -- yeah. It also would go to, for instance, can the CDC. Was it the CDC that just said, everybody has to wear masks. No. You don't have the right to do that. You don't make those kinds of laws. Was it the CDC? Or, which one?

STU: Technically, they didn't say that. They had a recommendation that said that. Because we are protected. Because we have a structure of government, that protects us from agencies making those sorts of regulations on their own. They can't just put a national regulation to enforce masks. If you go back and look at the details. Even of the shutdowns, Glenn. I mean, the shutdowns -- everybody remembers a shutdown as this big federal shutdown. They remember Donald Trump in front of the country saying, 15 days to slow the spread. Everybody remembers that press conference. But at no point, was there of law behind every state you need to shut down. And you remember states like -- like South Dakota. And Iowa. Not doing it. They didn't -- they didn't do that. A lot of people decided to stay home, on their own. But there was not a nationwide shutdown at any point during the pandemic. That actually didn't happen. And so that's because of the structure of our country. Right? That is foundational to why we've been a success. Because these states are able to do different things, whether we like them or not. And so the left would love this to be centralized. They just, of course, don't have that right.

GLENN: If you remember, however, when it comes to Obamacare, do you remember reading that? Because that's the one bill where I think we all read all 3,000 pages or whatever. Oh, my gosh. And do you remember how many times almost on every page, it said, the secretary shall make the laws or the rulings on X, Y, and Z.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the reason why Congress has done this, is because they want to go, it's not us. It's not us. We didn't make that law. I don't have any control over that law. And our Founders -- the one thing they did miss is they thought that human beings, because this is the way it normally works. Human beings would claw for power. And so they think and broke the powers up, between these three branches. Thinking, that they would never give away their power to the Supreme Court. Or to the administration. The administration would never give it to Congress or the Supreme Court. But they're all such weasels, that they don't want to actually do anything. They don't want to make any hard decisions. And so they're all like, yeah. Let some faceless, nameless bureaucrat, that's never been elected to dogcatcher. Let him make the decision. That way, we can go, I don't know who made that decision. That's weird. We didn't make it. It was somebody in the EPA. You'll never know their name. Okay. That's not the way it's supposed to work.

STU: Yeah. No. It's not. You're supposed to be able to hold people accountable for the terrible things that they do. This is something the government does all the time. Unfortunately, no matter what this ruling is, it will not unwind all that craziness. It will at least limit the environmental activist sort of agenda, on this approach. And that would -- that would be certainly positive. It does look like, we will not get the huge, big ticket cases, today.

GLENN: I wouldn't think we would.

STU: Yeah. It would have been very surprising, if we did get that. It does not look like -- it looks like there will be one more coming down. But it will not be one of the big ones. So I think we'll get more decisions on Wednesday this week. Who honestly would know though?

GLENN: Yeah. We do.

STU: I feel like they changed these rules every ten seconds. As you point out, in the case of Obamacare, which also broke in the middle of the show. Every news agency, reported that wrong, when that happened. If you were listening to any radio show. Any news broadcast. You thought initially Obamacare was completely overturned. And I -- we were the only ones who actually got that right when it happened. Because everybody was --

GLENN: We were like, wait a minute. Hold on just a second.

STU: Yeah. They skipped to the bottom. And looked at the names. And were like, okay. It must be this. And we went through that, as quick as possible, live on the air. And say, wait a minute. That's not what this says. Everybody is reporting, it got overturned. It didn't. The Medicare point of that, was kind of a false, you know, was a juke to one side. And everyone bought that. And wound up flat on their face that day.

GLENN: Well, also, I think we learned our lesson. If John Roberts wrote the decision. It doesn't mean it went for the conservatives. You better spend a lot of time, looking at every word, that he wrote. I just made the same mistake, kind of. I said, oh, it's Amy Coney Barrett. And so it must be for the -- the -- the conservatives. That's not always true. And that's what people do real quick, while they're on the air, like I did. But hopefully, she's pretty solid. John Roberts, I -- I mean, he's even -- is he anything other than a politician, at this point? I wouldn't call him a liberal. I wouldn't call him a conservative. I would call him a politician.

STU: It seems to be what he sees his job as. He sees his job as head PR operative for the Supreme Court. Like, how do we make people like us more? How do we keep our reputation strong? Well, how about just looking at the damn Constitution, and making an honest decision.

GLENN: Right. During the podcast with Mike Lee. We talked about that. And he said, John Roberts is a direct product of the FDR packing the courts. He said, the chief justice at the time, that was a constitutionalist. And was voting for the Constitution, he said, he suddenly started voting with the administration. And he was doing it, because he didn't want anymore attacks on the Supreme Court. He thought that that would hurt things. And that is exactly what, you know, he -- John Roberts is a legacy. He is sitting as the guy running the Supreme Court. And he feels his job is to make sure that nobody attacks the institution even more. And I will tell you, the way to get attacked, the way to discredit the institution, is to start veering from your path constitutionally. And that was the really big problem with -- with Obamacare's decision. He actually rewrote the law from the bench. The -- the best that the Supreme Court can do, is say, look, this is wrong. And if it was written this way, it wouldn't be. And then send it back to Congress. Basically telling them, wink, wink, nod, nod. You know, we -- we -- we can't pass this. But you can change this, this, and this. It's like, you know, you're turning in a test paper, and the teacher says, yeah. You know, if you just would have answer this had way on this question, this question, and this question. You would have had an A. You know, if you want to resubmit it, you could. That's what John Roberts did. No. I'm sorry. That's usually what they will do. John Roberts actually just changed the answers on the test. He just changed the law, and rewrote it. Absolutely unconstitutional. All right. Back in just a second, with more.

‘STUNNING’ statistics PROVE the church may be in DANGER

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Oh, okay.

GLENN: So do you feel the purpose in calling?

STU: Sure.

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

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Do you believe in God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: Right.

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

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

STU: I think.

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

STU: Oh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: '99.

STU: Wow, it was a long time ago.

GLENN: A long time ago.

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

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

STU: A Greek god.

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

STU: Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But these are pretty basic points.

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

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

Oh, and the Bible. Truth and morals.

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

GLENN: Sure. But 37 percent.

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

GLENN: The bible.

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

GLENN: Stunning. Stunning number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STU: If they can care about it a little.

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

STU: Okay.

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

STU: Right.

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

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

Glenn reads leftists’ CLUELESS reactions to SCOTUS decision

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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