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.

Why RFK Jr.’s Former Running Mate OPPOSES Casey Means for Surgeon General

President Trump’s nomination of Dr. Casey Means for Surgeon General had many MAHA fans cheering. But RFK Jr.’s former running mate, BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan, has major reservations. She joins Glenn, who has been a fan of Casey, to explain why she believes there are stronger candidates. Means, Shanahan claims, may have “conflicts of interest” because of the “biometric harvesting company” she founded and its close ties to Silicon Valley. Shanahan also questions whether RFK Jr. is playing “political 4D chess,” or if she was lied to when she was promised that the Means siblings wouldn’t be in government. Is RFK Jr. reporting to someone other than Trump? Shanahan explains why she believes it’s possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. Nicole, how are you?

NICOLE: Glenn, how are you doing?

GLENN: I am very good. It's great to have you here.

So I want to ask you, the Surgeon General thing, are you for Casey Means? Or not for Casey Means?

NICOLE: Well, I will tell you who I am for, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

NICOLE: I'm for all of those Americans. Those hundreds of thousands of doctors, seeking truth, honesty, and dignity in our medical system once again. That is what I'm for. That is what propels MAHA into existence.

That's what propels Bobby Kennedy into the position of running for president of the United States. That's why I joined the campaign. It really is about listening to this group of doctors that did the right thing during the COVID pandemic.

That spoke up, when it was dangerous to speak up.

That lost their licenses. And so when I hear from that base, concern or research. About individuals, in and around MAHA.

I have to listen to them.

And I do listen to them.

Because oftentimes, they are right. They're brave, and they're principled. So the concern I've been hearing from that group of people is that MAHA -- you know, any movement. MAGA had this issue too of infiltration by different groups that are more self-serving, than they are for the movement itself.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

NICOLE: And so just one example, Casey Means is a founder of a company that does biometric harvesting. She's very close with many of the big data biometric harvesting companies.

In Silicon Valley. And this -- I noticed with all these people. You do not want them running in a government position that is responsible for everybody equally. Right?

GLENN: So wait. Wait. Wait.

What is -- what is that?

They're harvesting, what?

NICOLE: Well, so biometric data is anything between heart rate data, to all of the data that is collected from your FitBit or high glucose monitor. It could be labs. It could be -- then there's all the DNA harvesting. And big data that's being done.

So, you know, I think that the base -- MAHA really came from medical freedom. And medical sovereignty.

And the idea that we have to keep conflicts of interests. Out of the government.

And so when I -- you know, see some stuff going on. That we could be doing better.

Right?

Our job.

And I learned this from the MAGA base.

Our job is to ton seek the best possible people. For government, that are truly putting the principles of this country first.

The principles of American sovereignty first.

GLENN: So you wrote yesterday.

It's very strange. It doesn't make any sense. I was promised that if I supported RFK Jr. in the Senate confirmation, that neither of these siblings would be working under HHS or an appointment.

And that people much more qualified would be. I don't know -- I'm sorry.

RFK very clearly lied to me. Or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversations that he's reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions, and it isn't President Trump.

With regards to the siblings, there is something very artificial and aggressive about them. Almost as if they were bred and raised as Manchurian assets. Wow!

NICOLE: So keep in mind, I was responding to Dr. Suzanne Humphries.

Who was also expressing very similar sentiment.

GLENN: Concern. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

NICOLE: Concern. There's better candidates.

So what's going on? I also heard from other MDs in the field.

That there was another doctor that RFK had wanted for the position. Very, very qualified doctor.

And -- and, you know, he was caught by surprise as well. By -- by this other choice.

So, you know, there's -- again, they -- they don't call it the swamp for no reason. Right?

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: And, you know, I'm not officially within the administration at all.

In fact, I decided to take the path of staying an independent --

GLENN: Smart.

NICOLE: -- media person. Which I think -- I think and you know this, Glenn. It's really important that when you are an independent media voice, that you -- you stick by your principles. And that you are not just a mouthpiece for any government organizations.

That you're really on the outside, reflecting back the hopes and wishes of the constituents.

GLENN: Yeah. There's -- it's very hard to do.

I mean, I take stances against the president.

And for the president. You always have to -- you always have to balance, you know, I have my opinion.

And I'm never going to be bought out by anybody.

I'm never. But you also want to make sure that you're being fair to the people that you trust. And I know you have trusted RFK for a very, very long time.

And for what struck me on this. Is, you know, I don't know if RFK lied to me. Which I hope he didn't, or what's going on. It's been clear in recent conversation that he is reporting to someone regularly, who is controlling his decisions.

That's a remarkable thing to say, especially about RFK.

Because he does not strike me as somebody who is afraid of somebody else.

NICOLE: You know, I don't know if it's fear or that he's playing political 4D chess. And, again, they don't call it the swamp for no reason.

It's just, at some point, there's certain decisions, that are worth fighting for.

And I do appreciate what a very complex political environment this is.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

NICOLE: And I do understand that even within these agencies, there are groups that are intentionally keeping and withholding information from the new leadership.

So, you know, I -- I fully appreciate how complicated it is.

So I fully appreciate how complicated it all is, but there are definitely things that the base is -- is, you know, like, this is an easy one. This could have gone better. Right?

You don't truly -- and, you know, everyone is guessing what precisely this 4D chess is all about. And why these moves are being made. And trying to anticipate the next one.

But it's something that I think that, you know, there's just certain things that indicate that whomever he's giving -- whoever his chess coach is. Could be making some better decisions for him. And --

GLENN: But Casey.

I mean, when I talk to the twins, during -- or after COVID.

They seemed pretty clear on what was bad and what was good.

They -- they both seemed to be good on -- on COVID. And the vaccines. Didn't they?

Or is my memory --

JEFFY: They talk a great talk.

I will say, I was once a fan of it as well.

It was only after I received many comments from individuals, in and around the transition team.

As well as new research that came up.

And then really, like, you know, when the base expresses these things and provides that degree of inquiry, and it shows that kind of concern.

I think we owe it to them.

GLENN: Yes. I agree. I agree.

ANNA: Yeah.

GLENN: So overall, how do you feel things are going?

NICOLE: I think, again, there's been a lot of focus around food dives. Meanwhile, there's millions of people suffering from vaccine injuries, that still feel very neglected.

So I do think -- I do appreciate the executive order, regarding gain of function and limiting overseas research.

GLENN: And shutting down a dangerous -- and shutting down a very dangerous bio lab here.

NICOLE: Yes. And there are many of these bio labs that are kind of flying under the radar.

GLENN: Right.

NICOLE: So it's a big step in the right decisions sedition. I'm a huge Jay Bhattacharya fan. Probably one of his biggest.

I really am excited for him, as he built out his team.

I hope, he has a very, very strong team around him. In the next coming weeks. Because he's going need to it.

As far as HHS goes, you know, I would love to see Bobby bring in more of those doctors that have been around him for the last ten years, very regularly.

Because these are the individuals that, you know, I -- I trust these people with my life. They have sacrificed everything to do the right thing time and time again.

They are so deeply principled. They will never take a check over helping a patient out.

And they actually do have the answers. So I'm hoping to see more of those people around Bobby too.

GLENN: So I'm wondering because this is the way I feel about a couple of things with the FBI. And Intel.

That if I don't see some people in the next year or so, go to jail, or at least brought in for a fair and honest trial, you know. I don't want to just scoop people up. And just assume that they're guilty.

But build a good, strong case. Bring it to trial.

Have it a fair and honest trial. And let the chips fall where they may.

But if I don't see some prosecution, at least. I think I'm very upset at the G O.J.

Pam Bondi. Head of the FBI. Kash Patel. And I don't -- and I'm trusting them so far, that they are doing that.

Do you feel the same way at all, about -- you know, if you don't see some people who go to jail there, that clearly lied about the vaccines.

If they don't go to jail. You have -- you really haven't fixed anything.

You're just eating around the edges.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah. I think that really explains it. And this is why I think it's important to continue to voice those concerns, because they're only going to grow and mount.

And it really is the American people, that were sold this vision of accountability.

And as we want to see it. We have to see it. Anywhere. Several months into the administration now.

HHS, you know, lags behind the Oval Office in terms of getting going.

But they're -- people were seriously injured. There were many crimes committed against the American public.

Crimes committed against our bravest doctors. Crimes committed against children.

We need accountability.

We really, really need to see that.

Because, you know, there's -- there's a preciousness in this moment. We have to -- we have to deliver. This country deserves it.

GLENN: And, I mean, if we're -- if we can't correct the things that, for instance. Washington State. Just passed a law where if there is another pandemic, everybody seems to be, you know, claiming there's another one, right around the corner.

But if there is another pandemic, that they will have absolute control, over what you put into your body. And what you do. That's terrifying.

NICOLE: I do.

And those emergency orders, they will scrutinize them. They have revisions.

GLENN: Washington State just revised it to just codify it. Washington State just codified it. It's crazy.

NICOLE: Yeah. Yeah.

So I would like to see more focus around that, not Red Dye 40 and not Kellogg's.

I'm totally fine leaving Kellogg's alone, in favor of HHS spending. All of its energy. And all of its focus. And all of its leverage, making sure that we are actually properly ready for the next pandemic.

And not to cause the catastrophic harm, that was caused during COVID-19.

GLENN: Nicole Shanahan. She's got the podcast Back To the People. And it's now coming to Blaze Media.

It's the same podcast she's been doing. Now as she says, with a wider reach. Glad to have you.

Nicole, thank you very much.

NICOLE: Thanks, it's a pleasure to come on.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again.

Is America’s Grid a Ticking Time Bomb? Trump’s Energy Secretary REACTS | Glenn TV | Ep 430

President Trump is working hard to right the wrongs of the Biden administration. But did Biden harm our energy grid even more than we thought? While Glenn was on vacation in Italy, two other European countries — Spain and Portugal — suffered one of the biggest blackouts in their history. The mainstream media, as they always do, rushed to blame it on ANYTHING other than the countries’ heavy reliance on unreliable green energy. But Glenn has the receipts and the evidence that leftists tried to make America’s grid just as unreliable. Glenn speaks with Energy Secretary Chris Wright about how the Trump administration is reversing these dangerous policies. Secretary Wright also discusses his department’s discovery that Biden shoveled out $93 BILLION in energy loans after Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election and before Trump could take office. Plus, he comments on Trump’s plans to deal with OPEC, why Trump must refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and why Trump is planning the biggest energy project in American history to help accommodate AI. But first, Glenn recaps the biggest media lies that he missed while on vacation. Topping the list: Are these elitists like Axios and Jen Psaki finally admitting that they lied about Biden’s cognitive decline, or do they STILL not get that their charade is over?

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Is the New American Pope Catholic? | Bishop Strickland | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 256

A new pope has been chosen! As the recording of this episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" began, white smoke emerged from the Sistine Chapel, signaling the selection of the first American pope. Glenn and Bishop Joseph Strickland react live to the news as the whole world wonders if Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV, will continue in the ways of his predecessor Pope Francis or go a more traditional route. Bishop Strickland, who was removed from office by Pope Francis, says the former pope pushed a church “in the world and of the world” and reviews “duplicity,” “corruption,” and potential abuse overlooked by the Vatican, including the infamous McCarrick scandal. The pair discuss the resurgence of the Latin Mass, globalism, the Catholic Church’s approach to homosexuality and gender identity, and whether the Shroud of Turin is an “icon” or a “relic.” As the new pope greets the world, Glenn asks, “If we have a more progressive pope, does that set the Church back?” Bishop Strickland advises that “even if we are disappointed and dismayed,” we must pray and keep our focus on God.

Meta’s AI “Friends” Nightmare: How Zuckerberg’s Latest Move Could Enslave Your Mind

Meta and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has a new goal: to give lonely Americans AI “friends.” But Glenn sounds the alarm: this must NEVER happen! Glenn explains the hidden danger in Zuckerberg’s seemingly kindhearted plan: “AI cannot, must not, and will never be your friend.” Opening that door will only give Meta insane levels of potential for manipulation and control over you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's start with this: Mark Zuckerberg. Good guy. I mean, he brought us Facebook.

And, you know, that is the thing that brought all of us together.

Brought out families together. All the people that we lost touch with.

Oh, the world is so much better now that we have Facebook.

So now, he's got another idea. Could we play the clip of Mark Zuckerberg?

VOICE: There's a stat that I honestly think is crazy. The average American has I think it's fewer than three friends. Three people they consider friends. And the average person has demand for meaningfully more. I think it's 15 friends or something.

I guess there's probably at some point, I'm too busy. I can't deal with more people. But the average person wants more connectivity, connection than they have. So, you know, there's a lot of questions that people ask.

Of stuff like, okay. Is this going to replace kind of in person connections or real life connections?

And my default is that the answer to that is probably no.

I think it -- it -- I think that there are all these things that are better kind of about physical connections, when you can have them.

But the reality is that people just don't have the connection when they feel more alone, a lot of the time, than they would like.

GLENN: Hmm. True.

Now, let me ask you. Is there a time when you don't remember feeling so isolated? When you didn't really feel like I don't have any real friends?

When you didn't -- you had real connections with people, instead of a million connections with people that are your friends, but not really your friends?

Can you think of a time, way back in history?

I mean, probably have to go back to the cavemen, to find a time.

Oh. Before Facebook, and social media!

When we weren't all killing ourself, because we have no meaning.

Now, from the people who brought you kill yourself, because you've been on Facebook too much.

Brings you new AI friends. Oh, this is going to be good.

By the way, you know, that's a crazy stat, I think the average American has, what? Three friends. And they have a capacity for, I don't know. Fifteen or 20. I don't know.

Really think about it right now.

How many true friends, do you have?

How many true friends?

People that when you are down and out, there is nothing -- the whole world is against you!

That that person will actually stand by your side. And go, yeah.

I'm their friend.

And I don't care what you say.

How many? How many do you have?

I think I would count myself lucky if I have three.

Now, I have a lot of consequences.

I have a lot of people who we all think are friends. But as a recovering alcoholic, I've been there.

I've done that. As a recovering alcoholic,
who then also is a conservative and spoke out about the Obama administration, I know who my friends are.
I know who my friends are not.

And I think there's a lot of people that have counterfeit friends.

If you've got. Oh, I've got ten or 15 friends.

Eh.

No, you don't. No, you don't.

I've always grown up thinking, you're lucky, you're lucky, to have three, five, really good friends.

That will walk through anything with you. Do you agree with that, Stu?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never been there.

STU: For you? Oh, God no. But I'm just saying, generally speaking. No. I think -- I mean, you're describing a great friend. You're describing a really --

GLENN: A real friend.

STU: Yeah. Like someone you know and stick around for multiple decades.

GLENN: Yeah, I have lots of friends. You know what I mean? I have millions of Facebook friends.

STU: Right. Those aren't real.

GLENN: Right. And I have lots of friends. But the ones that are there for you always, no matter what, I have family.

And I have family.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And I have a handful of friends. I would consider you one of those.

STU: Thank you. I would as well.

GLENN: Why?

Remember, I have a drinking problem.

STU: Yeah. A lot of brain cells killed to make that decision.

But I think that you -- yes. I think the only thing that I think I'm drilling down a little bit on to try to understand. When you say, well, I have a lot of friends.

In a way, I think that's what Zuckerberg is talking about.

It's not even necessarily a great friend that you have for multiple decades. And can count on at any time.

Just the mid-level consequences, are drying up for a lot of people.

GLENN: Yeah. And why is that?

Why is that?

Because we don't talk to each other anymore.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Because of social media.

You know, when this generation says, I don't know.

I just think it's weird. I'm just now in a bar someplace.

And some stranger comes up to me and wants to strike up a conversation. I'm like, hello, weirdo. I don't know!

You think it's less weird to go online?
When people can fake everything!

Thank you, Mark Zuckerberg.

But no thanks. Okay.

STU: And they're just -- to build up on this point for one second.

There's a study that came out, the last 20 years, of how much time do you spend socializing with the people.

Again, that's not with your best friends.

This is just socializing with anyone, a human.

Every single group. Every single group has massive drops.

GLENN: Massive.

STU: Massive drops. Just give you some examples.

Ages. Fifteen to 24-year-olds. Thirty-five-point down.

In 20 years. 35 percent. So a typical 15-year-old, as compared to what they are, in 2003 and 2025, where were the two measurement years?

They're spending 35 percent less time, with other human beings.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second. Can you please stop distracting me? Because I'm trying to figure out why our kids are killing themselves.

STU: No, it's really hard.

GLENN: It's very hard to figure out.

STU: To understand.

And this is the coup de grâce of this entire study, which is, the typical female pet owner spends more time actively engaged with her pet, than she spends face-to-face contact with her friends of her own species.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: That is unbelievable -- not like you're in the same house as your cat.

Right? No. More face-to-face time with your cat!

GLENN: And I've got news for you. If you think your cat is your friend, wait until you die, and your cat is trapped in the house with you and you have no friends to check. They will eat your face.

STU: They will still have a use for you.

GLENN: Yeah. They will have a use foy.

STU: Not the other way around.

GLENN: Okay. Here's why I'm bringing this up today.

This is a lie, that is going to be sold to you, like crazy. And it's going to be wrapped in a beautiful, shiny package. And it's going to have from Mark Zuckerberg and others like him, on the tag.

They want you to believe, that AI and bots can be your friends.