RADIOMay 04, 2022

WHAT'S NEXT: Could packing the Supreme Court END America?

Thanks to the recent leak of a drafted Roe v Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will ‘never be the same,’ Kelly Shackelford tells Glenn. ‘I just think it’s going to damage the court permanently,’ the President & CEO of First Liberty Institute explains. ‘We’ve crossed that Rubicon now.’ So, with a ‘damaged’ court, what comes next? Well the left already is pushing to pack the Supreme Court — something Shackelford says could be the END of America as we know it: ‘When [court packing] happens, that first time, you’re done. You’re tyranny.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Kelly Shackelford from First Liberty. How are you, sir?

KELLY: Great, Glenn. It's great to be you with you.

GLENN: First of all, is it illegal to leak this document?

KELLY: I'm not aware of any criminal violation.

GLENN: Okay.

KELLY: Obviously, it's -- it's a really, it's an attack upon the institution of the court. And I don't know if people understand. I mean, the court will never be the same.

I don't know what they're going to have to do now, but the ability of all the justices to have -- these are some of the brightest young attorneys in the country. They bring in new ones.

And the ability just with your own clerks. The opinions you're working on.

I mean, I just think it's going to damage the court permanently. And there's a reason why this has been never happened.

And it's -- we've crossed that Rubicon now. And the court will never be the same.

GLENN: I'm not sure it will change forever, if they put the hammer down on anything that was involved. Wouldn't that send a strong enough message to bring it back?

KELLY: I hope. I mean, number one, are they going to figure out, who it is? I think it's highly likely to be one of the 12 clerks, or the three liberal justices.

I mean, you know, what if, God forbid, it ended up being involved with the justice.

I mean, to me, I think that's impeachable. I just think that people don't understand the -- this is why sort of shooting a rocket, at the Supreme Court, is -- it is something that could -- that we might not return from, as far as the court being able to be what it is.

Which is the ability for justices. I don't know if people know this, Glenn. But what happens is, there's a majority a a dissent. And they voted, just a few days after the argument. They vote. And they start to write on the opinion. The majority writes there. And they share votes.

And people end up being convinced. This is the marketplace of ideas in a different way. It's very important. They want to know what the law is. What does the law really say?

Oh, my gosh. I didn't really think of that. And people switch.

And there's lots to that, that's happened. Where people go to a concurrence, or a consent, or a consent to the majority. And if you can't share the opinions and have that discussion, without people, you know, taking what's being written and taking it out in public, to try to use it as a political tool. I mean, you just destroyed the internal deliberation, going on, and the exchange of ideas.

It's a really horrible thing, what this person did.

GLENN: What about -- what about the idea that it might have been a conservative clerical, that thought maybe they're going to switch to the other side. This will lock them into position.

KELLY: It doesn't make sense on a lot of levels. I understand people think it's really, really cute. Because it locks them in.

Number one, the whole point is that conservatives don't do that. Conservative justices actually restrain themselves -- and no matter what I believe, I'm going to follow what works. What is the original meaning?

The whole philosophy of those people, is not just warp the court into what they want it to be. That's a liberal approach.

GLENN: Right. And that is clear in this -- in this ruling. I mean, that is mentioned several times. That we're not a political body. We can't acquiesce. We have no idea what this is going to do with the American people. But we can't care about that. We have to do what our job is.

And that is to interpret the law against the Constitution.

VOICE: And here's the thing about that, Glenn. Nobody talks about that.

This is a deal. Talk about populism. This is a massive return of power to the people. And away from a few oligarchs who control everything. In a darkroom in the Supreme Court. They weren't supposed to.

It's not the Constitution.

So this is a huge return of power, to people, at the United States. To make their decision, to decide what they think is right or wrong. And not have just a handful of people, tell them what morality is. So it's not talked about that way. But it really should be. This is what the Founders meant.

GLENN: It really is incredible. Because I saw signs last night. Power belongs to the people. And they were protesting. No. That's -- that's what this document says! Now, can -- can this go to -- we know it can now go back to states, as it should be. And they can vote and do whatever they want.

Does this -- can this also just go back to Congress, and have a federal law?

KELLY: They can. They can, if they can pass it. Because, again, the Constitution doesn't speak to it, and therefore it's up to the people. So they can pass a law. But they would -- they would have to do one of two things. They would have to -- you know, in the Senate, get 60 votes. In order to -- it's called filibuster. It's really cloture. They can either get 60 votes. Which they will not be able to do. Or they can destroy the filibuster. And that will be a permanent damaging of the Senate. I mean, the last time they didn't have a filibuster was before Thomas Edison. You know, invented the lightbulb.

So we're talking about. This would be -- change the Senate forever.

Because the reason the Senate is considered probably the most well-known deliberative body in the world. Is because you can't just pass it with raw political power. You have to get some consensus of the other side.

It takes that 60 votes. And it slows things down.

So you only have one party taking over, flipping the country, one major direction to the other. The Senate kind of stops that and makes there be some consensus.

If you take -- if you destroy the filibuster, we're going to see court packing. We're going to see Puerto Rico becoming a state. DC. I mean, we're not going to recognize our country.

I think I've mentioned this before, with your audience, even, Glenn. But if people don't understand -- once you do court packing once, your country is over.

So this is the kind of stuff that would happen, if they do get rid of the filibuster, as Bernie Sanders and others are advocating today. Because they know they'll have to do that, if they're going to push through a new law. A new Roe v. Wade by federal mandate.

GLENN: And is court packing just one justice? Or does there have to be several? I don't know who would go five to five.

KELLY: It's four. They already filed a bill to add four justices to the Supreme Court.

So it would add four. Which would then make the liberals have the majority. And they would just start doing whatever -- basically, like a super legislature. But the problem is within once you do it, the court is over. It's just a subsidiary of the majority party in power. And there's no rule of law anymore. And you don't have any rights anymore. You have whatever right the majority party wishes for you to keep, and that's why --

GLENN: And you never really go back.

KELLY: You don't. You look at -- and people wonder what happened to Venezuela. That's what happened.

Argentina. We can go through lots of countries. People don't understand. But when it happens, that first time, you're done. You're tyranny.

And really, a dictatorship is where you go. So it's something they tried in 1936, '37. FDR did. Because he did not like the fact that they were not getting his new deal through. But even his own party turned against him, before it was over.

And said, this is tyranny. We're not going to do this in this country, and it failed.

But it's very dangerous. And it's something they can only do. If they destroyed the filibuster, which would be what they had to do to pass a Roe v. Wade in federal statute.

GLENN: So that is the thing that, you know -- you know, I'm looking at here.

I'm not sure they released this to do anything, but to pour fuel on the fire, right now.

Why wait until summer? Power fuel on the fire right now. To get court packing done. And the end of a filibuster. I think it has more to do with that, than the judgment from the court. Would you agree?

I think it's both. Probably. They're hoping that they can intimidate one of the justices. This is the beginning of what I've been predicting for months. I think we were just together recently.

And I said, this is coming in June. When these decisions start coming down.

And I think they're going to go for court packing in a frenzy. I think this is going to be their new election approach. Because they obviously are not working well under the current polling, and et cetera.

And I think this is going to be their attempt. And we're seeing just a sort of release of that. In addition to, I hope they can intimidate one of the five justices, that supposedly are on this opinion.

It only says Alito, but, again, part of the leak was that four other justices, not the chief. But four of the other with them. So my hope, is that they can pick off a Kavanaugh, or a Barrett, who will lose their nerve. I don't think that will happen. I think this would entrench them even more. It will just destroy. Everybody would know that they changed their -- their principled opinion, because of pressure.

So I don't think that's going to happen. So I agree with you. Long-term, this is their strategy, and this is what they're going to do.

GLENN: Kelly, can you hang on for just a second?

I want to talk to you about the other cases that are coming up in June, and the impact that they will have.

We will do that in 60 seconds.

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford is on the board of trustees of the United States Supreme Court historical society.

He's earned his law degree from Baylor University.

And he's also the president and CEO of First Liberty Institute.

If you are thinking about donating money to any cause, I can highly recommend First Liberty Institute. They can use your money, and they are winning and actually leaving permanent marks.

It's FirstLiberty.org. So, Kelly, we have been in front of the Supreme Court. We were talking. And you said to me, we're probably more free. By the end of the summer, we will be more free, religiously speaking, than we have been in our lifetime.

You also said, because of Roe vs. Wade, and the other opinions that you think are coming down the pike, that the left is going to lose their mind. What are the other cases?

Well, obviously you've got Dobbs. Which is the Roe v. wade, which we're now seeing the precursors too. And, by the way, the way this works, is the court issues all of its opinions by June, because the session will end. And they will mostly leave the country and speak and teach and stuff. Other places. So the opinions are out by the end of June. You would expect Dobbs to be issued that last week, probably.

GLENN: Hang on. Let me ask you a question. Why don't they just finish it now, and make it official?

KELLY: They might. They might. I don't know how far along they are. Because what we saw was an early draft. But if I'm the chief, I think I might move it along now. And say, we'll get this out quickly. So all this nonsense will stop. But it normally will be late. But in addition to Dobbs. You've got a Second Amendment case, which will be -- I think in favor of the Second Amendment. And against the New York restrictions. On guns.

GLENN: Which will do -- which will do what?

KELLY: It will just bolster the Second Amendment, and say that these types of restrictions are unconstitutional. Because there is a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And this violates that fundamental right. I think you're going to get that kind of -- I think we're going to -- we argue it's a major school choice decision in September. And, you know, it's expected, the way the argument thing. That we're going to win that case.

GLENN: Which would mean, what?

KELLY: Which means any time, there's any school choice program, anywhere in the country, you cannot exclude religious schools or religious choices from the parents.

And that will make clear, that school choice has to be fair. And that everywhere it's going on. And there's a lot of programs out there. The exclusion of the religious schools is over. And so at a -- that will cause a lot of religious schools to come into being, because now there will be resources, that the parents have to choose what they think is best for their kids.

So that will be a big decision. Because the Kennedy case, which we just argued a week ago, Monday. That's a huge case. And it looks like, it's going to be even bigger than expected. Depending upon how they write the opinion.

Again, this is a coach. She was fired for going to a knee after the game, to say a 20-second prayer, thanking God for the privilege to coach the young men, he coached. It's the first time the court has ever had a case, on the free exercise. Or religious freedom rights, of a teacher. A coach. Anyone. So there's never been a decision on this. So it will affect a lot of people that way. But what people didn't expect. During the oral argument within the court the bottom into a discussion about possibly ending the Lemon case. Which has been around for 50 years. And if people wonder why our whole lives, we've seen attacks on nativity scenes, and menorahs, and veterans memorials with religious symbols. And Ten Commandments monuments, and all that.

It's not because the Founders said anything about that. It's because of this really bad case 50 years ago. And it's been the weapon of choice. For secularists now. For 50 years. To wipe our society clean of religion. And it's pretty clear that maybe a majority of the justices are about to say, that's over. And that's a sea change. If that happens as well.

GLENN: Jeez.

KELLY: So those are just a handful. And there's some others as well.

Finance. There's the border case that was argued this last week. So all this stuff is coming down, at the end of June. And my guess is, the Marxist left is not going to like these things.

GLENN: It is amazing to me, as -- as we are traveling down this road, where the country seems -- the government seems to be going in entirely the wrong direction.

And you're kind of losing hope.

That the Supreme Court now rides in, and is doing remarkable things, that, quite honestly, I think would find favor in the eyes of good. It's -- I mean, hopefully it buys us some time.

KELLY: Yeah. And, you know, what it's doing -- is these justices aren't themselves. Politicians. They don't go one way or another. But they're going back to the original meaning of the texts of the Constitution. Which takes us to our founding.

GLENN: Yeah.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute. You can find it and donate at FirstLiberty.org.

I highly recommend that. That's the thing about constitutional judges, it doesn't always cut your way. Because it's all about freedom, and rule of law.

Explained: Why the Fed lowering interest rates might be a BAD sign...

The Federal Reserve just lowered the interest rate by half a point, the first time it has been lowered since 2020, and only the 2nd time it has been lowered by half a point since 2020 and 2007. Is this an accommodative move, or just another restrictive move to try to avoid disaster for as long as possible? Recovering investment banker Carol Roth joins to break down what this lowering means, the possible good and bad signs for why this is happening now, how it'll affect you and your bank account, and what we must continue to look out for.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Carol Roth.

I'm hoping you can make sense. And maybe some good news out of what happened yesterday.

Because I can't find a way to it. Because of the history of cutting the interest rate this much.

My first thought is, this is election interference by the fed.

My second thought was, when did they last do this?

And it didn't -- neither of those things lead to good things.

So what's really going on here, Carol?

CAROL: Well, I just want you to know, Glenn. I'm unburdened by what has been. Now the market, in terms of interest rates. Because we are in a rate cutting environment. And I think the important thing to remember is that when we talk about, you know, rate hikes. Rate hikes.

Anything the fed is doing. We have to keep it in context. And the backdrop is that we came out of 15 years of what's called zero interest rate policy.

Where the interest rates were at or near zero.

Unprecedented. As well as the fed putting $9 trillion, plus on its balance sheet.

So this is an unprecedented -- does not have analogue, that we can directly compare to.

Not to say, it's not important to go back, and look at what happened historically. But it doesn't mean exactly the same thing.

And cutting 50 basis points. And half a percent today. Is different than we are cutting it. When interest rates are at 2 percent.

I just want to put that out. Also, somebody, who as we said, on this program many times. That I think the Fed has been way behind the curve. I think they went up too high. And that they were too slow, to cut to begin with. So we'll put that from a backdrop standpoint.

So how does the market interpret, and how should individuals interpret a cut?

Well, there's potentially the bad. And potentially the food. We'll walk through both of those real quickly.

The potential bad is the signal.

When you are saying that the economy is doing amazing. And is just -- you know, it's ripping along.

And then to do a very large cut. They could have done half of that. They could have done 25 basis points. But to come out after not doing anything. And say, oh, we have to move 60 points.

Can send a signal, to say things aren't going so well.

If you looked at the market, yesterday, they were not taking news.

GLENN: It went up, and then when he cut it, it went way down.

CAROL: And once they gave back all the gains yesterday. But today, they have had a day to digest it.

And the market thinks that this is a good thing. Now, the market is not the economy.

GLENN: Yes.

CAROL: But again, after 15 years of zero interest rate policy, you know, it does make sense for us to get back to say to what is considered a neutral rate.

GLENN: Is this a -- is this an inflationary move though?

CAROL: So that's the question. So if you think about what the neutral rate is. Which is theoretical. We don't know the number. But basically, it's the dividing line between policy that is restrictive and policy that is accommodative.

And what we're trying to do is have the Fed have no influence in either direction. I believe that we are still in that restrictive area.

So bringing it down, from -- two, four, and three-quarters, to 5 percent. Again, is not the same as bringing it down to 2 percent.

And so I don't think that will cause inflation. We have to remember too, again, going back to where I started. Companies and individuals have 15 years.

To take out debt. And basically no cost.

This is sitting on company's balance sheets.

They took every piece that they could.

And consumers right now, don't have a lot of runway.

So the idea of, you know, a rate cut, unleashing massive demand, when we've gone to, you know, three-quarters to 5 percent.

I don't see this as something that is going to unleash massive demand.

GLENN: Okay. Here's. Here's. I would just like your opinion on this.

As a businessman. I know, I wouldn't be spending a dime right now, on hiring. Building. Anything.

Not a dime, until I see what happens at the election. And depending on the election, if we go with Harris, and we become much more restrictive, and harder, and more global, and everything else.

I'm -- I mean, I'm just battening down the hatches. If Trump gets in.

I would be willing to they have. Because all right. Good. We have somebody who understands business.

We can hire some more people, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't see anybody making those moves rationally, no matter what the interest rate is.

At this point. Do you?

JASON: I think that's a logical way to digest it. I think in terms of one of your first statements. Is this term, political.

The Biden Harris administration, will be pushing out and saying, look, we have inflation under control.

The Fed said so, otherwise we wouldn't have lowered it or lowered it by so much.

So I think that is the push that they are going out and trying to convince people. Now, they've been trying to convince people of things that makes absolutely no sense, for the last three and a half years. So if I'm a businessperson.

Do I go ahead ask make the investments?

But are there some people that might? It is a push. I think the challenges. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That if you get worried. That there is a recession.

And you create these restrictive behaviors. That becomes self-fulfilling. And that's one of the things that we end up worrying about.

GLENN: Correct.

So let me ask you about one more thing.

He mentioned the problem with unemployment. Unemployment is going up.

Because you just added 70 to 20 million people to the country.

Is -- I mean, people are saying, anecdotally that -- and we are I guess, seeing it in numbers, that the jobs that are being filled. Are being filled with illegals.

And not American citizens. How long can that go on, before it's just, you know, an absolute wreck?

JASON: So the way that I've interpreted the economy. Is I see it as K shaped.

If you think about the letter K. You have one at that one part of the K that goes up. And the other part that goes down.

And you have the people who are at the lower end of the K. Who have been struggling. And the people who are at that higher part in the K. The asset holders.

The people with the white color jobs in the homes, who have been doing well. And you have to remember, what we've been seeing, is that it really is that higher part of the K, that has been pulling the economy along.

So not only do we have those illegals who are coming in. And creating drains on everything.

Right?

They're creating drains on employment. On the national debt.

On housing. On everything.

But we're also starting to see, these cracks in the white color labor market.

When you hear Amazon saying, oh, we want everybody back in the office.

It means that companies now have the power to demand that. When they didn't have the power. And buried in that statement was. Oh, we're trying to get rid of some managers.

We're seeing more and more layoffs on the tech side.

So if we see that crack, from the white-collar piece. I think, at least in the short-term. That will have the biggest impact on shifting what's going to happen here.

And I think that's what the fed is signaling they're trying to get ahead of.

Whether or not they can do that remains to be seen. Because usually they're always late. But it's true. We have the drag on both sides. We have that drag that's happening on the white color piece.

And then we have this massive illegal immigration that is putting strains on the system.

And, you know, that is going to you, you know, completely shift things.

And I will say, Glenn. We hear all these people talking about technology. And AI.

And how it's going to replace jobs. You know, if you think it's going to replace jobs.

Jobs it will replace are unskilled workers. Right?

The person who is making your burrito with Chipotlé and the like. You can possibly make an argument that we do not need any more legal immigration in this country, with the exception of some very high merit-based people at all.

In addition to this, you know, travesty that is happening with the illegal immigration. So this is going to be, you know, hopefully, we can get President Trump in there. But this needs to be attacked in a serious fashion. Because it will have massive implications on the economy. On top of the biggest issue. And it feeds right into it.

Which is the debt and deficit spending that continues to grow that debt. The fact that that's unwieldy. So all of these things are puzzle pieces. But we can't let the noise about a fed rate cut. Or what's happening. Distract us from that big issue. We need to grow the economy. And we need to reduce spending.

So we can get debt to GDP back to a normalized level. And be able to save our country.

GLENN: Carol, thank you. I appreciate it. Carol Roth. The author of You Will Own Nothing. Former investment banker and a contributor to Blaze.

And also, to this program. I just love her. She explains things the way, you know, people like me, talk. Who -- just regular people. Carol, thank you so much.

It's CarolRoth.com/news.

CarolRoth.com/news.

Former RFK Jr. running mate: ‘Democrats feel entitled’ to destroy democracy

One of the biggest talking points from the Democratic Party is that they're the party that respects democracy while portraying the GOP as the party standing in the way. But according to RFK Jr.'s former running mate, Nicole Shanahan, the exact opposite is true. In fact, according to Nicole, it's the LEFTS treatment of her and RFK Jr. during his 2024 presidential campaign that made Nicole reevaluate everything after seeing the attacks and attempts to destroy their campaign coming from one side of the aisle.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan is joining us. How are you, Nicole?

NICOLE: I'm doing well, Glenn. Thanks for having me back on. I'm good.

GLENN: I'm very good. I'm very good. You know, a few months ago, when RFK was running, and you joined.

I thought, well, there goes the conservative vote.

And anybody, you know, anybody who is watching it, because you are Oakland, California.

You are much more liberal. Or progressive.

And now, I'm reevaluating everything, again.

Because there are people that are on the left. Not left.

Well, that are -- well, lean left. That are -- have different points of view, but still love the country.

And we don't see those people very often. In -- in the -- in the news.

You know, and those people, we can get along with, all day long.

If you love the Bill of Rights, I'm with you.

I'm with you.

NICOLE: Yeah. There's a huge population out there right now. And they don't know where to go. A lot of them were attracted to our campaign. And our campaign was really a place to go, if you were kind of socially progressive or liberal. But intellectually educated. And saw what was happening with the Democratic Party, and just none of it reconciled. I mean, if you look at the Democratic Party, over the last eight years. You can't reconcile their relationship with the economy.

It doesn't make any sense. So if your businessperson went to -- and top educational institution, came out. Got a job.

Spent, you know, 20 years, of your career. In front of spreadsheets.

And you're seeing what's going on, under democratic leadership. Even on the state of California, it does not reconcile.

And so a lot of these folks, and lawyers too. Have nowhere to go right now.

And it's been really interesting for me, just in my personal experience. I'm an attorney. I came out of Oakland.

And I worked hard. And, you know, I did -- I did rely on government safety net.

To catch me. I was on government assistance. At times, as a child.

But it was -- it was never a place to stay. The goal was always to work your way out of that. And those were the foundations of the ethics that I grew up on.

GLENN: Right. Those are the ethics that I grew up on too.

You know, I learned about welfare from my father. He owned a bakery.

And a woman came in. And I was little.

And she used a welfare stamp.

To pay. And I had never seen one before.

And I said, Dad, that's not real money.

And he gave me the look of death. This little old lady, who was buying stuff. And he pulled me back, after she left. And said, don't ever say that. Ever. Ever again.

That woman is struggling. That's what we do.

That's what a government safety net is for.
For people who need it like her. Don't ever embarrass her again.

And I'm like, sorry.

Then later, I don't know, about six or eight months later, my dad happened to come up front.

And it was a guy who had food stamps. And he paid. And my father was pretty nasty to the guy.

I mean, he was very cold. And I asked him. I'm like, well, that guy gave you the same kind of money.

And he said, that man, I know. That man can work. He decides to live off the rest of us.

That's where it goes wrong. I think all of us kind of grew up with that. I mean, most of us.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah. Well, except for young people today. And I think that's where the left is cannibalizing the best of itself.

And I think cannibalizing because it's actually working against its own interests for compassion and social growth.

And -- and, you know, trying to figure out how to help people.

Get through difficult times. I think that how it's cannibalizing itself really exists. And the identity politics.

I know you talk a lot about that. But I experienced it as a philanthropist. Trying to go back to Oakland.

And trying to really work on the issues that matter. And identifying them, with just a straight logical process.

I looked at the issues, around homelessness.

Around drug abuse. Around the education gap. And I realized so much of it has to do with nutrition and health.

And so I went about, trying to fix that, and I will tell you, all of the NGOs, I was approached by. And worked with.

None were interested in real food.

A lot of them were interested in activism, and funneling millions of dollars into these regrant programs.

That don't actually help people.

And make them reliant on these nonprofit dollars.

And so the mechanics of social mobility.

And you can look at it, strictly through the lens of economics. You can look at it through social dynamics. And you come out, realizing that you have to invest in -- in schools, in education, clean water say huge one. But also food.

Kids underperform when they don't eat well. And the fact that they're not addressing this on the left. That there's no NGOs. That are sincerely working on this.

Made me realize, that that entire framework. The culture of that -- that thinking about poor versus wealthy. Or black versus white.

It's all wrong. It's just the wrong way of looking at it.

And then realizing, how many people are profiting off of that. Model of the world. That framework of the world.

It's very predatory. It's predatory.

GLENN: It's grotesque.

NICOLE: Yeah. It's grotesque. It's predatory. It actually feeds into the cycle of racism. And it doesn't work. And things have actually gotten worse, as these NGOs have just gotten away with this kind of bad behavior.

GLENN: So, Nicole. What, what moved you to say, I think I've got to go stand with Donald Trump?

I mean, what?

That had to have shocked you, when you thought that.

What moved you there?

NICOLE: Well, you know, I -- there were so many things that have led to it.

But I will say that, when I left the democratic party, there were threats, kind of lobbed my direction.

But they were -- they kind of seemed like silly threats.

Like, oh, you'll never make it.

We'll -- they will do everything they can to ruin your reputation.

The machine is going to be pointed at you.

And I don't think you realize what we have in this machine. And I was like, oh.

Yeah. I can overcome that.

That's all silliness.

And -- and then, you know, and the then the media.

So first they unleash the media on you.

And I'm like, you know, maybe these things can be disproven.

Lost a lot of respect for the media. But I already had lost quite a bit of respect for them, prior.

And you can kind of get over all that name-calling. And once people have a chance to know, they realize that the media really had so much of you wrong. But then -- you know, then came the attack on our campaign directly.

And it all came from the left. None of it came from the right.

And even though, Republicans have actually out earned or out raised the Democrats. Republicans don't spend the money attacked their opponents, the way the Democrats do.

And this is the really underhanded stuff. That really makes you question election integrity.

In ways that I had actually never questioned election integrity.

I didn't believe that, you know, there was election interference in 2020.

I didn't believe the narrative coming from the right. At the election, was stolen.

And so --

GLENN: Do you now?

NICOLE: I do now. I do now.

GLENN: You do now? What brought you there?

NICOLE: You know, lived experience. They say the two things that really get people to change their minds are grief and God.

And I have to say, there are some really heart breaking moments during this campaign. We gave it everything.

And we followed the black letter law.

Very precisely.

GLENN: Yeah.

NICOLE: And we did -- the amount of heart and soul, and tears. And running around.

I mean, people were just constantly sweaty on our campaign. Because everyone wore six different hats.

And, you know, they would be crossing the country, four times every few days. I mean, it was -- it was so much work. And we did. We succeeded.

What many people thought was impossible.

Which was even just getting on and off the ballots. All 50 ballots. And we did.

The day that we did. That same, just within a few hours. You found out that New York. And they had been suing us.

We had won, seven cases. Seven of these ballot cases, where the Democratic Party came in, or they're running PACs, and sued us.

Attempted to sue us, to get us removed from the ballots. Which I can't believe is even legal. That a political opponent can sue you, can take you off the ballot.

But it's apparently common practice for the Democrats.

GLENN: It's crazy.

NICOLE: And Republicans still do this.

Republicans just don't, because they respect third parties. They respect democracy. They respect the things that make democracy a democracy.

So, anyway, we won all seven. We were seven-zero. We were feeling good. We just did this big press event.

Then New York came along. And the case in New York really opened my eyes, because this was a judge that was not acting on behalf of the American public.

This was a judge acting on behalf of the democratic party.

And there was -- there was just no room, for a legal argument. They seemed to have already been made by the time they arrived.

They treated Bobby with a petty criminal.
I later testified. My experience testifying. So it just got awful. Like I had done something wrong, by trying to run as a third party in this country.

And I think through this process and then realizing the extent of how much they're willing to denigrate the democratic process. In this country.

To win, and how entitled they feel, doing so.

And, you know, Bobby and I are -- our personalities are very much aligned with that California liberal mentality.

And to -- to be treated by friends, colleagues. People that know you. Like this.

Made me realize that that, something was very, very wrong.

And so -- I will say Trump. But, sorry, I don't want to cut you off. Go on.

GLENN: Nicole, you were -- you were in the middle of talking. And you were -- you know, when you said, there's two things that change you, God and grief. And you started going down that road. You know, about the grief you felt.

I remember early on, when I realized, oh, my gosh.

This system is not what I thought it was. I actually felt like I was in mourning trial.

It felt like part of me. My belief died.

And it was really hard to get through.

But if you get through it. It makes you stronger.

NICOLE: Absolutely.

And I will say, that the people that I'm trying to reach out to, today.

Are those that have a lot at stake.

These are moms. Who have their life of their children at stake right now.

Who have seen the system failing them, and their kids.

Trying to dissect a way, parental rights from their children.

And they dislike Donald Trump, because they view Donald Trump as a misogynist. And these are the conversations that I will be investing in, over the next several weeks. In the lead-up to the election. It's really digging into people's perceptions of Donald Trump, as this, you know, really kind of unsavory character.

And I have personally been doing my own fact-checked.

I will be releasing some of that soon.

We have -- I did a series with this really wonderful young 25-year-old journalist, Blake Warren, called TDS Therapy Hour.

Where I read letters that I've received from people. With grave concerns about our alignment with Donald Trump. And we impact all of those concerns very patiently, one after another.

GLENN: Great.

So great.

NICOLE: And I think that's how we do it, again. I know you were a Never Trumper. But I think once you realize how manipulated and programmed we are, by the mainstream media, to see Donald Trump, as this horrific personality. And once you start unpacking truth. You can begin to see truly what they've been up against.

GLENN: So, Nicole. I know you're out of time.

I know you have to run as well. I would love to have you back. I think you're absolutely fascinating.

And you are a very important voice to speak to women, who do have that feeling.

And are absolutely convinced to their core, and I would love to have you back.

Nicole, thank you so much.

NICOLE: Thank you. Have a good one.

GLENN: Backtothepeople.net. Backtothepeople.net. Nicole Shanahan.

Targeted attack?! Hezbollah leaders dead after mass pager explosion

Thousands of Hezbollah leaders throughout Lebanon carrying pagers were left injured, and some dead, after the pagers simultaneously exploded. While Israel has not taken responsibility for the attack, it appears that this was a coordinated attack and not just happenstance. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Conricus joined me to lay out how this attack may have been planned out, why the attack occurred now, and if Hezbollah will retaliate.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus is with us now. He is a former Israeli defense forces spokesperson. Welcome to the program. Welcome back, sir. How are you?

JOHN: I am well, thank you for having me again.

GLENN: Good. I think the world was a little amazed at what happened yesterday. Just how -- how it was done, and the thinking that went behind it.

Can you talk about how Hezbollah got these pagers?

JOHN: Yeah. It's definitely the stuff of movies.

And I'm sure that movies will be made about it. And that this will inspire novels and thrillers in the future.

But if we connect ourselves back to the horrible reality that Israel is facing. Where about 70,000 Israeli civilians have been pushed out of their homes.

And Israel is under relentless rocket and drone fire from Lebanon.

They happen yesterday's operation. And what I'm saying here isn't an official Israeli claim of responsibility.

But I think it's safe to assume, that Israel is behind it. Well, basically Israel -- appears to have been able to do. Is to intercept. And if you would, contaminate the supply line of Hezbollah.

And to insert explosives into these beepers. The pagers.

That were disseminated by Hezbollah, to key personnel. And then once wanted to, to cause these devices to explode.

Now, it's unclear, the technical details are unclear. Whether it was causing the battery to overheat, and that caused an explosion. Or if there were inserted explosives inside the beepers. But what I think we can agree on, was that it was quite -- it had quite a massive effect on Hezbollah. They report about 5,000 of their members, that were targeted, some of them killed.

Eight, I believe, is the updated number.

And some of them significantly wounded. Many of them lost their eyesight. Others lost part of their body.

Now, what I think is interesting to look at now.

Where does this take us? Where does it take Hezbollah?

If Israel is indeed behind it, why did Israel choose to do it now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait.

Before we get to that, let me just ask you. Before we move off the pagers. How did you know?

Or -- I mean, I'm just speaking. At fiction here. Generally speaking, how would they know it was Hezbollah that had those pagers. That's an awful lot of pagers.

How do you know that those were going to Hezbollah? Do you have any idea? Speculation?

JOHN: Yeah. I will try to explain that. Hezbollah, they're a secretive organization. They're a terrorist organization. And they are aware of Israeli efforts to listen to their communications.
And to follow their activities by tracking cellular devices. Cell phones.

And as such, they have prohibited, most of their officers and ground personnel and terrorists, et cetera.

From actually having cell phones. And definitely not bringing them into secret locations. So these beepers.

They were basically an attempt by Hezbollah to circumvent Israeli listening. And eavesdropping.

I think Israel, somehow, found out about that Hezbollah was actually purchasing new beepers. And they were doing it in a large number.

And according to the reports that I've read so far, Israel was able to intercept where they were being manufactured from.

And they were able to, at some level, contaminate them. Either by implanting explosives or by having the ability to control them remotely.

I think it's more likely that they were -- yeah. That they were likely.

That they had explosives inserted into them.

From the videos, I have seen. If you haven't watched the videos. They're quite amazing.

It's really explosions that you see. And it's not a flash or a fire of the battery that is, you know, burning. But it's more, looks like explosives. And it is quite remarkable. I don't think that any other Intel organization has been able to do such a thing. To get into the supply lines of its enemy.

And to do -- and one thing I think that is important to mention. Is how targeted this operation is. Very little, if any, so-called collateral damage. Because the people who had these beepers. Were Hezbollah.

They were militants and terrorists who had this machine for a reason. And they had it for a reason.

Because they were persons of value, from a Hezbollah point of view. And they needed to get information. And messages quickly.

It's kind of like the best way of striking only the ones that you want to strike. And only striking the bad guys.

That's what Israel did. And it is in short, quite amazing.

GLENN: Yeah. I will tell you, that my first reaction was, that's why I always say on the air. We don't need to fight Israel's war for them. They'll do it. Just let them fight.

I thought this was ingenious. And, of course, Israel is saying, they could have harmed innocent people. Blah, blah, blah. How much more targeted does a war need to be? Other than right to the individuals?

All right. So why did they do it yesterday?

JOHN: Yeah. Yeah. By the way, I have to comment on what you said.

I think that's exactly what Israelis want. Let us fight. And help us win.

But we don't need anybody doing our fighting for us.

I think that's a super important point.

Especially for people who support freedom and democracy.

And, you know, want to do good for America.

I don't think Israel is asking them to do its fighting for it.

But we'll leave that aside. In terms of time.

This is where it gets interesting. And here are question marks. Because up until now.

We're almost 22 hours after the event.

Israel hasn't made a move.

And it makes sense, that, you know, for Israel to unleash, to do such an operation, it makes sense for this to be part of a bigger strategy. Designed at achieving something with Hezbollah.

GLENN: Right.

JOHN: So the questions was, was there something that Israel did because it sensed that the capacity was going to be exposed.

And it was either use it or it will get uncovered. Or it will be for nothing. That's all for nothing.

That's one option. Second option, that it is part of the negotiations. And it's part of the messaging campaign.

And basically, another effort to apply pressure on Hezbollah, which doesn't cause a war.

Because Israel has been under attack from Hezbollah now for 11 and a half months. And Israel, I think is still trying to do everything possible to get its people back home, without having to do a war in order for that to happen.

And this could be. What Israel did would perhaps be more of a blunt way of telling Hezbollah, listen. We have penetrated your organization from an Intel point of view. There's more to come.

It's in your interest. To agree to a deal.

And I think it's no coincidence. It could be no coincidence.

That envoy Volstead is in the Middle East now. Trying to bring that apart, to the parties.

Are those the two reasons. Otherwise, the third option.

This would be something that would be a preamble for an Israeli strike.

If that were the case. And Israel wanted to do more. Then, of course, the strike would be two hours after the --

GLENN: Yes. Or doing it, even.

JOHN: Exactly. Exactly.

GLENN: How is Hezbollah going to react to this? Do you think?

JOHN: Yeah. So Hezbollah, they have a few options. It will be interesting to listen to their leader. Hassan Asan (phonetic) is going to be speaking, 5:00 p.m. local. Middle Eastern time.

And we'll see, how -- what he says.

I would assume, that it would be a fire and brimstone kind of speech.

But they will get back at the evil Zionists.

And he has a lot to answer to now.

Because it's very humiliating.

And it's a significant blow.

Not that it will bring Hezbollah to its knees. But it's probably demoralizing, and there are important people who have serious injuries.

So they'll have to respond. My assessment is, that they will push back. And that they will not use this as an opportunity to de-escalate.

And to say, okay. We're in a bad spot.

Let's recalibrate. And think what we should do.

I think they will escalate from here. And that we will here very fierce rhetoric from Hezbollah.

I think that there's -- there's a slight, slight chance that the Iranians tell them, stand down. And don't escalate.

I think that what we will see from Masalah and from Hezbollah will be a response with rockets. And that they will -- enhance -- enhance the range of rockets that they are firing into Israel.

And it's quite likely, that we'll see other Iranian proxies, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iranian militias in Iraq -- enhance their attacks on Israel as well. Perhaps not quite at the level of all-out war.

But to do more, in order to try to get even. Last, point seven, as I say, that this event happened yesterday.

But a few hours before that, it was exposed that Hezbollah had planned and was actually quite close to planting an IED at Claymore. An anti-personal device in Israel. And the target was a former senior Israeli defense official. I think it was supposed to be assassinated. And that was something that the Israeli security forces. Our equivalent of the FBI. Were able to expose just hours before that.

And the things are connected.

GLENN: You shouldn't compare yourself to the FBI.

Especially now. It would have been on their radar. But they wouldn't have found it. Or done anything to stop it.

Let me -- let me take you here. I was reading today. And I think I saw it again yesterday.

That the people of -- of -- of Gaza. Are now starting to turn to Hamas. Do you believe that?

Is that propaganda? Or do you think that is war fatigue?

JOHN: That is war fatigue. There's a the brain of truth to it.

Sadly, I think there still isn't in Gaza, an alternate system, an alternate government that can come in.

And oust Hamas from power. And it's a sad situation for Palestinians. Because they have been under the oppression of Hamas. 2 million people have been oppressed. And ruled under this tyrannic organization for 17, 18 years. They have been brainwashed. But at the end of the day, they're suffering now.

And many of them are coming to the understanding, that the cause of their suffering is not Israel.

It's Hamas' rule and Hamas' tactics. And Hamas' strategies. So there are uprisings. Currently, they're being dealt with, very bluntly by Hamas.

They're killing anybody that voices any criticism, towards, towards Hamas.

And I think that the most important thing that I find missing is structure, and a political organization. That could move in.

And push Hamas out of power. And also, very importantly, as long as Hamas controls the distribution of food and human aid in Gaza.

And as long as there is an UNA organization. The UN Relief and Works Agency.

As long as they're there, Hamas will be there, and Palestinians will continue to suffer.

GLENN: Wow.

Thank you so much, Jonathan, for being on and explaining this. Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus. He is the former Israeli Defense Forces spokesperson, with an update on the Middle East.

Tulsi Gabbard: Democrat leaders PROVE they don't want “UNITY” after 2nd Trump attack

Democrats like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have called for "unity" after the SECOND attempt on Donald Trump's life. But how can they say that after calling him a national threat for so long?! Can there even be unity with a party that is now BLAMING Trump for his own assassination attempt?! Former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, who is now supporting Donald Trump for president, joins Glenn to make the case for REAL unity...not with the political elites whose dangerously hypocritical rhetoric got us here in the first place, but between freedom-loving Americans. Many average Democrats are waking up, she says, to what's really going on...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me play a new Trump ad, that is exposing the rhetoric from the left. Here it is. Cut four.

VOICE: If you had to be stuck in an elevator with either President Trump, Mike Pence, or Jeff Sessions. Who would it be?

STU: Listen to this cackle.

VOICE: Does one of us have to come out alive?
(laughter)

VOICE: They always asked me, don't I wish I were debating him? No, I wish during high school, I could take him behind the gym.

I said, no. If I were in high school, I would take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.

VOICE: I just don't know why there aren't you uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be. That you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.

VOICE: If you see anybody from that cabinet, in a restaurant, in a department store, in a gasoline station, you get out, and you get them on the ground, and you push back on them. And you tell them, they are not welcome!

VOICE: You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives.

VOICE: Enemies of the state.

VOICE: President Walker, how do you resist wringing her neck?

VOICE: When they go low, we kick.

VOICE: Please, get up in the face of Congresspeople.

VOICE: Yes. I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.
(music)

STU: Unbelievable. I mean, that is incredible. That's where we are.

And whose at fault, Glenn, for all of these -- you know, actual violence that's happening?

It's not the Democrats, of course. Listen to this.

VOICE: This really seems to be the confluence of two very bad, very bad things going on in the Republican Party.

On one side, the attempts to divide, to enrage the population. To put out false rumors. And misinformation.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: We know the -- the mayor in Springfield is begging the Republican Party. To stop with the false information.

On immigrants. They have portions of the town on lockdown. At this point.

And an increase in all of the partisanship and the fearmongering that's going on.

And then on the other side, we have this complete availability, of assault rifles, too.

It seems almost anyone who wants to have access.

GLENN: Oh, my God. Okay. Okay. Okay.

STU: I've got --

GLENN: First of all, how did -- how are you blame the -- the bomb threats on Trump, when we now know, it's been confirmed, all of those came from foreign sources? Outside the country.

STU: At least they were all hoaxes. Most of them apparently, from outside the country.

GLENN: Okay.

So that's -- really, I'm having a hard time with that.

The assault rifle thing, for the love of Pete. Why are you concentrating on that? Why aren't you asking the question, he was arrested, and charged with possession of a weapon of mass destruction.

Okay? That's the left's way of saying, he had a machine gun.

So if you have a weapon of mass destruction, I would think, that you would go to prison for a very long time.

I know if I had an illegal machine gun and I wasn't waving it around or doing anything, I just owned one, I would probably go to jail, for 20 years. To prison.

Because I think that's what the penalty is.

Why didn't he -- why -- why is there zero record of him going to prison?

Why?

Don't take to me about taking all of the machine guns.

He must buy it.

He didn't go and buy it from a store.

He had already had gun charges.

But there's no record of him spending any time in jail.

What is that? How -- how did that happen?

If that's not a Jeffrey Epstein kind of question. I don't know.

How does this guy just keep doing this? And then it just goes into a memory hole. And he never serves any time.

What the hell is that? Now, I'm not suggesting that, you know, he's like Jeffrey Epstein.

Was killed by the elites on the left.

STU: Oh, breaking news.

GLENN: I -- I am -- I'm not suggesting that he was a spy. But, I mean, he might have been. He might have been.

He had to be on the CIA's radar. Had to have been. I mean, he was praising the ayatollahs in Iran.

He tweeted, you have my permission now, to kill Donald Trump. How did he not have an FBI guy, going to his house?

I mean, if you say something like, we should meet to pray, in front of an abortion clinic.

You're in prison.

But you have my permission now to kill the president of the United States?

Huh. No prison time, after you've had gun charges. After you've been, you know, charged, and -- and convicted of -- of having a weapon of mass destruction.

What -- what?

Hmm.

It seems to me, that we're -- we're really missing some logic here.

First of all, how could Donald Trump's own rhetoric, get him killed?

I don't -- I mean, that's -- because that's some bad. That's some bad rhetoric. Really!

STU: It's the same time, Glenn.

GLENN: If you're ratcheting up the rhetoric. And you are the target, by your own supporter.

Which, by the way, is not the case.

The guy gave 15 times, to the democratic party, in Act Blue. So, I mean, the guy is -- he is -- he is a Democrat, through and through.

STU: I think, Glenn, it's the same. The same logic, that applies to turning a new page and finding a new way forward. With the current vice president.

If that works in your head, then all the stuff works.

GLENN: Yes. Exactly right.

Tulsi Gabbard is with us. Hey, Tulsi, how are you?

TULSI: Hey, good morning. I'm sorry, I'm a little bit late.

GLENN: No. No. No. Not a problem. We were just talking about how we find unity and how we reason with people who are really at a place to where they're saying, the problem is Donald Trump's rhetoric. He brought this upon himself.

Or it is a -- you know, it's the -- the problem is, that you can just go in and buy a gun.

The guy was convicted of owning a fully automatic machine gun, they called it in court. A weapon of mass destruction.

He had several gun charges. He was not -- he didn't go into a store and buy it legally.

And if he did, where was the breakdown. And he never -- we can't find any record of him going to prison.

When -- when your logic is -- will not allow any facts in, how do we change people's minds?

How do we reunite?

TULSI: Yeah. Glenn, you know, this is -- it really is about people who are reasonable. People who have common sense. People who can see clearly, continuing to speak the truth.

And point out, how dangerous, and insightful, their rhetoric is.

And how even as Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris, and other influential people in the Democratic Party, they say the word "unity." They say there is no place for political violence in our country, and yet, their actions and their inciteful (sic) rhetoric have the exact opposite effect and consequence.

You know, when we hear people like Kamala Harris call for unity, while at the same time, she and her surrogates. And those in the Democrat elite are over and over and over again. Calling President Trump, the most dangerous threat to our democracy.

Trump is saying, he's the modern day Hitler. I saw this morning. David Close, who is on Kamala Harris' campaign team, who was on President Obama's campaign team and presidency, saying that Donald Trump and his kind must be gotten rid of.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

TULSI: Period. Never to rise in power again. They have this sense of -- of so-called righteous justification for their rhetoric.

Which it should be no surprise, then.

To those who are listening to them.

Who feel that they must take action for the, quote, unquote, greater good.

To do what this guy tried to do the other day.

To do what the guy in Butler Pennsylvania, tried to do.

As long as they continue this.

And as you said, even on the day of.

On the day of. Within minutes, of this assassination attempt.

That happened in Florida, the other day.

We say some of the most influential Democrat continue this insightful rhetoric.

So those of us who cherish and love ask appreciate our country and our democracy. And peace.

We have to keep on speaking the truth. And speaking about reason, and common sense.

And pointing them out, for what they are doing, and how dangerous the consequences are. Their hypocrisy, is so glaring. To call for unity.

While, at the same time, you know, Hillary Clinton, calling anyone who voted for Donald Trump, the -- the deplorables. We have people on MSNBC, the other day, saying that every single voter and supporter of Donald Trump is despicable.

You know, this kind of rhetoric is what is dividing our country. And can lead to a very dangerous place.

GLENN: So I -- I believe that there are millions of good Democrats, that love the country. Want to do the right thing.

They may not like Donald Trump.

And they may not agree with all of their policies.

But that's where you and Bobby Kennedy.

And Alan Dershowitz. All of these icons. I mean, you ran for president. For a -- for the Democrats.

All of the icons, of the democratic party. It's not that you are coming out and saying, you know what.

I just woke up, and I just think, all of Trump's policies are just the very best.

I wouldn't change a thing. You actually -- correct me if I'm wrong. Are saying, there are some things that I really like. But I cannot vote for these people.

I have to vote for this. Because this party has become so dangerous.

Am I right?

TULSI: You are right. And, quite frankly, that really speaks to the very clear choice. And the different mindset, that exists between these two candidates. President Trump and vice president Harris, who are running for president.

And those who are supporting them. You know, there are those of us who stand with President Trump, because we recognize that in this election, he is our best hope, to preserve freedom. To work our way towards peace and prosperity. And Kamala Harris guarantees the exact opposite of those things, and this is not my opinion. The proof can be found in her record.

And we look at the reaction, that's held, for example. There's a very famous actress, who in this past week, expressed some appreciation and empathy for Melania Trump, former First Lady Melania Trump.

In her very heartfelt video, about what she went through. And what it was like for her, and her family. To see her husband, almost assassinated.

And this very famous actress, fell for her and her feelings. And was excoriated by Hollywood and by the propaganda media.

How dare she express empathy for this woman, whose husband was almost killed.

Almost shot in the face. And kudos to this actor for not backing down.

And simply saying, what are we as a country. When you have people, who are eager, to celebrate the death of another human being.

And that's how sick their mindset is. When we heard people after Butler, Pennsylvania, saying, oh, well, too bad the shooter missed. Be a better shot next time.

This is who these people are. And it speaks to how they see our country. How they see the American people. How they see the world. We don't want these people anywhere near the levers of power.

Anywhere near being this a position where you're making decisions. About life and death for Americans.

Or people in the world.

There's a huge the difference in that mindset. These people are motivated by hate. And fear of losing power.

And what I've seen, a number of rallies these past few days. I've been around a lot of Americans who are motivated by love of our country.

GLENN: Are you seeing Democrats? Are you seeing people?

TULSI: It was the other day. I was in Arizona the other day, with Bobby Kennedy. We had a great event. The first one of our Reclaim America Tour.

I asked the audience, raise your hand if you're a Democrat or a former Democrat. And almost half the hands in that audience went straight up in the air.

GLENN: Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. Tulsi, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate everything you're doing. Thank you for taking the risk.