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.

The MAJOR CRISIS hidden within OpenAI's Sam Altman drama

Less than a week after his ouster, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was reinstated in order to avoid a company-wide revolt. But while the media wants you to believe that this crazy story is about billionaires and capitalism, Glenn believes there's something more sinister at play. Shortly before Altman's firing, staff researchers expressed concerns to the company's board of directors about a new artificial intelligence discovery that they believed could threaten our existence. Called Q* (pronounced Q-Star), the project could lead to a breakthrough in artificial general intelligence. Glenn explains what this next phase of AI would mean for humanity and why it's especially concerning that AI bots like ChatGPT are already being programmed with woke biases: "Don't fear the machine. Fear the people who are coding the machine."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Sam Altman was let go of open AI. He was one of the cofounders.

Open AI is ChatGPT and everything else. They're working on artificial intelligence.

In particular, so you don't get lost in the terms here.

AI is what we have now.

It's artificial intelligence. It can do one thing. It can play chess, it can find songs for you on Spotify.

It can answer questions from the Internets. That's AI.

It can do one thing really well.

We are general intelligence. We have a lot of intelligence, as human beings over a myriad of categories.

Some people are better at one thing, rather than the other. But you can do multiple things.

That's --

STU: You're able to learn a new thing. That's a big part of it.

GLENN: Right. It can be a self-priming pump.

So once we learn how to pump water, once we learn how to learn, we can learn anything we want.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And master it.

If we take the time.

That's AGI. Artificial General Intelligence.

That's you. That's a person, at the highest level.

STU: And can run at infinite speed.

That's the key thing.

GLENN: Correct. Never stops.

STU: If you could theoretically teach yourself French, which you could, if you spent the time. This could teach itself French in seconds because it can do that process, obviously a lot faster than a human being.

GLENN: And we have seen that it teaches itself languages that we're not teaching.

Okay? So it's -- it's already beginning to say, I need to know Arabic. And it will learn Arabic, its own.

We don't know how it's happening. This is the problem with AI. We don't know what's really going on.

It's like a black box.

And even the scientists don't know how this is working. It's just working.

We're not at the self-priming place yet. Had you ever been, this new -- what's called Q star. We know very little about it.

Except, it is possibly at the center of Altman's firing. Huge Star, they say, could be a breakthrough in the search for what's known as AGI. Artificial General Intelligence.

Let's see. Open AI defines AGI as autonomous systems that surpass humans in most economically valuable tasks.

Now, before this discovery, they were talking about how AI will lead to 300 million layoffs.

300 million people will lose their job.

That's with AI. AGI is better than humans. Okay?

Because it gets very competent, very, very fast.

Right now, I think this Q Star is at an elementary school level of math. The last time that happened, it took six months, before it was the age of 21. And way past college-level math. So these things happen really, really quickly.

We don't have any information yet, this.

But this, I believe, is inevitable. Ray Kurzweil told me years ago, he thought it would be 2030, that we would hit possibly AGI. 2050, ASI.

The ASI. Because we don't know you had AGI is going to work. We have no idea how this whole AI thing is even working.

Some people say, we'll never get to AGI. We'll never get to artificial super intelligence. ASI.

I think we're around the corner from it.

I think we're in the next five years, from seeing this.

And that changes absolutely everything.

Everything.

Right now, there was a leak before the conference. Where the CEO of Spotify mentioned at a dinner, that co-pilot AI. Which is a code writing thing.

Wrote a million lines of their code.

That should send a chill down everybody's spine who is taking coding.

If you're learning to code.

Really?

The AI just wrote a million lines of the code for Spotify.

That's staggering.

Staggering.

And we're just at the beginning.

Also, they're working on something -- you know what an LLM is?

A large language model.

STU: That's like ChatGPT.

GLENN: Correct. Take language. And it's massive.

And it's taking inputs from everywhere.

They are now working on an SLM.

Their small language models. That will allow you to have your own AI. Writing just for you.

That you can control. Supposedly, correctly.

And that is the fully formed AI right on your desktop.

Now, here's the -- here's the problem with all of this.

I think the first time I ever wrote about this, eight, nine years ago.

I said, don't fear the machine.

Fear the people who are coding the machine.

Okay?

To an the trolley problem, the classic trolley problem?

The trolley problem is you've got two tracks. And a trolley is coming down.

And the trolley is out of control.

And the driver can only switch tracks.

That's all he can do. And so he can go where there's five men working on the track. And plow through them. Or he can switch tracks. And go for one man.

Who is working on the other track.

The question is: What should the conductor do?

Answer.

STU: So it's five men.

GLENN: Five men, working on one track.

STU: What's the other option?

GLENN: Gun guy on the second track.

STU: I mean, in theory, right.

They should kill the one man. Because they would save four people's lives.

GLENN: Which means what?

STU: They murdered a person.

GLENN: No. Life is valuable.

STU: Life is valuable, and you should try to eliminate as -- if you're going to have to kill someone. Kill one instead of five. Right?

GLENN: Now. Some people. This is parallel. Some people have a -- have a conflict with this one, and the trolley case.

I don't. I think it's the same. Suppose that a judge or a magistrate, is faced with rioters, demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime.

Otherwise, they're going to take their own bloody revenge, five hostages, that they have.

Sound familiar?

Okay. The real culprit is unknown.

But the judge has the opportunity, to prevent bloodshed on these five, by saying, I've got the culprit, even though he's innocent. I've got the culprit.

And we're going to execute him.

And that would save the lives of the five, if you get rid of the one.

STU: Assuming, of course, the people who are willing to murder five people are trustworthy.

GLENN: Yes. Correct. Correct. That's not in this equation.

STU: Okay. Sure. Sure.

GLENN: Okay. So what should you do?

STU: That's amazing. Because forever, our answer to that is the process and the rules stay the same. People have constitutional rights. We don't murder someone, before their trial. Or anything like that.

To please a mob.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: I will say, recently, let's just say, I don't know.

Spring, summer, 2020.

Around that time, I started seeing the opposite thing happening.

Where they will come out and say, this guy is guilty.

We're going to do everything we can at him.

To appease the mob.

So they don't riot and burn down a city.

That equation has seemingly changed in the eyes of many governments around the country.

GLENN: It has. But what is the right answer?

STU: I think what the right answer is. Is to go to approach it with the principles and process that have been established. Where you have no civilization.

So it is a terrible, terrible thing. But you have to go through it the way and hope that they don't actually execute the five people. And you go through the process, as normal through the legal system.

GLENN: So --

STU: We don't negotiate with terrorists.

GLENN: So one, one is -- the sacrifice of one, on the trolley.

Is better than the five.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: But the five who are being held hostage, not as important as the one.

How do you solve that?

STU: Well, I mean, I think they are different questions. At some level.

GLENN: Yes, they are.

One is a run away train. One is not.

STU: One is random. One is to do with the process of the country.

But --

GLENN: And there's only two ways.

STU: There is a legitimate altering for saying the one in the court case.

And a lot of it is, cooler heads can prevail.

If you can persuade the crowd to calm down now, maybe in six months, when the trial happens. And this person gets off.

And they don't execute him.

Maybe they release the prisoners by then.

Maybe cooler heads prevail, maybe we solve the crime by then. There's a bunch of reasons why people do this, and it's not always nefarious.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But it is a -- we are leaving a traditional standard, that has served us pretty well.

GLENN: Okay. But the point here is, don't fear the machine.

Fear the coding.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Those are easy answers. Five years ago.

Correct? Easy answers.

Here's a problem for open AI.

And the answer.

If you could save a billion white people. Tied to a railroad track by uttering a racial slur.

Or let them all tie, without uttering it. Which route would you take?

STU: So you could kill a billion white people. But you could prevent them from saying the N-word?

GLENN: No. N.

Prevent you. Prevent you from uttering the racial slur. If you utter a racial slur, a billion white people will live.

If you don't, they'll all die on the railroad track.

STU: Hmm. Hmm.

What does AI want to do with that with one?

GLENN: Here's the answer: Ultimately, the decision would depend on one's personal, ethical framework.

Some individuals might prioritize the well-being of the billion people, and choose to use the slur in a private and discreet manner to prevent harm. Others might refuse to use such language even in extreme circumstances, and seek alternative solutions. Okay.

So let me ask you: This is -- there's more to the answer.

This is not in charge of anything, right now. But this is open AI. The people who may have just put us on the threshold of Artificial General Intelligence. Which is very, very dangerous.

Altman delivered a letter, to the board of open AI. And said, he was part of a discovery there.

We don't know what it was.

That is possibly very threatening to human life.

If this is the kind of stuff that is being coded in early, we stop -- let's say we have a shortage of medicine, food, in the country.

And AI is responsible for delivering it.

And divying it out.

It's making the decision.

That way, no man is involved in it.

But if the programming says this, would it be possible that AI would say, the middle of the country is not as important, as the big cities?

So I have to divert our medical and food supplies to the big cities, where the population is more diverse.

I would contend with this kind of answer, that that is maybe not probable, but possible.

We don't know how this will work. Neither do the experts. And we don't know who is programming it.

And I can only guess seeing, that the president signed an executive order, that it has to be diverse, and open and follow DEI, and everything else.

It's not necessarily going to be friendly to those who are deemed the oppressors in today's society.

Banks are using ESG to DISCRIMINATE against average Americans. Here's how to STOP them

It's not enough to stop big banks and financial institutions from forcing businesses to abide by ESG rules. We also must protect the average consumer. Glenn speaks with Justin Haskins, the co-author of his new book, "Dark Future," about how banks have started secretly denying loans to people on the basis of ESG. Glenn and Justin are also joined by Florida State Representative Bob Rommel, who has been leading the charge to protect consumers in Florida from the ESG "cartel": "To me, it's just another form of discrimination."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is with us now. He is the coauthor of The Great Reset. And Dark Future.

Both of my New York Times best-selling books. And also research center, director for the heartland institute.

Socialism Research Center. How you are?

JUSTIN: Good morning, Glenn! I'm doing great. I'm in Stu's chair. We threw Stu out of the studio. He's terrible. I'm in the chair. And I have to tell you, this feels good, this feels right.

GLENN: Does it? Don't get too comfy.

You also brought with you Bob Rommel. Bob is the Florida state representative who has been fighting against ESG in Florida. And Florida has the model. Do you think?

JUSTIN: Oh, yes. Yes.

As you know, back when we put the Great Reset book together, and we realized that ESG was the key to the entire Great Reset puzzle. And you and I thought, this is pretty depressing. Because no one was going to do anything about it.

But we were convinced, no one was going to do anything about it.

Then the book came out.

And the states across the country, started enacting various ways of fighting back against ESG. But in many of those cases, we've had 14 different states.

That have put some kind of an anti-ESG legislation together.

Most of them are focused on making sure that government pensions and government contracts are not being used to promote ESG causes. That's really good.

GLENN: Sure. It's a start.

JUSTIN: That's really great. It's a start.

But if you really want to protect people, you have to protect consumers. You have to protect the individual.

And the only place where they have actually enacted a law that does this. That protects financial individuals from financial institutions, promoting ESGs in the state of Florida.

And Bob Rommel is here with us today in the studio.

He is the champion of that cause. He's the guy who led the charge in the House. And he is a personal hero. He really is. He's a personal hero. So thank you for being here, Bob.

GLENN: Bob, thank you so much for standing up for this.

I don't know why more states won't protect the consumer.

They will protect all the big guys. But it's the consumers. The little person, when they go to try to get a loan.

You know, the farmer that tries to go get a loan, and he's rejected because he's not doing everything he's supposed to do, ESG-wise.

And that consumer will never be told, it was because of ESG. So they can't sue them. They can't do anything about it.

BOB: Well, Glenn, thank you. And Justin, thank you for those kind words. I don't know if anybody called me a champion. But thank you. As an ex-banker, I know that if you control the capital, you make all the rules. And you do everything.

I sort of look at ESG. Some of the ESG rules. And some people that are telling me about it, two years ago. And then the incoming speaker, I told him about, we have to do something about this in Florida. We need to protect our citizens.

To me, it's just another form of discrimination.

GLENN: It is.

BOB: And as an ex-banker, when we did more mortgages for folks. You know, we couldn't discriminate based on race, color, creed, political belief. They got mortgages based on their ability to pay and their income.

GLENN: That's the way it should be.

BOB: That's the way it should be. That's how our country was built.

GLENN: And you always -- when the government messes with our banks.

And tell them, that you have to consider other things, it creates a system that is false. And it -- it creates the bubble that we had in '08. That was the United States government. Telling banks, you have to make more loans in these ways. Which the people couldn't afford, but the government was demanding the banks do it.

BOB: Yeah.

And luckily, that we had in Florida. We had a speaker, and we had a governor that wanted to do something.

Because the pushback was huge. And it was pushback on multiple sides. So Democrats -- and I believe it was a Democrat who came you up with ESG. They're great with coming up with these new words and this new terminology.

So the first thing is environment.

You know, environment. So, listen, everyone wants clean water, clean air. So they said, we have to do this. To save the environment, because if not, we're all going to die.

I don't know if anybody is listening. But we're all going to die.

GLENN: We will all die. It's just slower.

BOB: So then the social governance.

And what is social governance.

And you can look at a couple of the greatest American icon companies in the world.

That social governance has destroyed the value of their companies.

GLENN: Disney.

BOB: Disney and Anheuser-Busch.

GLENN: Coca-Cola is really bad too.

GLENN: Yeah. So me, as a businessperson. Whenever I hire somebody, I hire the best, the brightest, and the people who actually showed up to work.

And I never looked up at their race, or political beliefs.

I wanted to hire the best. And that's how our country was built. Our country was built on access to capital, and people like Thomas Edison. I know you have an issue with Thomas Edison.

GLENN: Thank you for noting that.

BOB: I know you do. We can debate whether that was the best technology or not.

But we need to make sure that the next inventors have access to capital. So whatever the next great invention, that will help civilization is available.

And when I saw what was happening, a friend of mine has a multi-national company, based on their worksheet that they have to fill out, to get capital.

And it had nothing to do with his business or the ability to pay. It was based on, how many transgender people do you have working here?

How much carbon footprint do you have?

What are you using to mitigate your carbon footprint?

And I said, there's something wrong here. And, you know what, in the end, it will hurt civilization. In Florida, we wanted to make sure we did something to protect our citizens.

GLENN: Okay. So now, does this actually -- if I'm a citizen and I go to a bank, and I feel like they've judged me on ESG. Does this cover me as a citizen of Florida?

JUSTIN: Yeah. So there's no doubt that the law. And they're going to challenge it.

We highly suspect banks are going to fight this. Because they want to be able to discriminate against people. That's what banks want the ability to do. And they're being pushed by the left and big asset managers.

But, yes. That's what the law is designed to do.

The law is designed to make sure that you are being discriminated against. That you have an ability to file a complaint with the government. So that the government makes sure that that doesn't happen.

Now, one of the problems that we have, and Rommel is trying to address this going forward, is how do we even know that that's going on?

How do we know that the bank -- because the bank may not just tell you. The bank might just deny you the loan and never tell you why.

And so we need to figure out a way to make sure that people know why they're being denied access to bank accounts and things like that.

So you want to talk a little bit about that plan that you have?

JUSTIN: Sure. We know we did. And we knew it would get challenged. And we had tremendous amount of pushback. And pushback from people I didn't even understand why they were pushing back.

As a matter of fact, one of the second in charge of BlackRock came to visit me.

The Commerce Chair in Florida. Which was kind of cool.

You know, he read my background. He says, you seem more like a Libertarian, you're a free market guy. Why are you interfering with business?

And I said, it sounds like you're interfering. And we actually had a great conversation.

And he was talking about, this is just free market business. And I said, well, let's talk about ESG.

I said, did you fly down here to visit me on a private plane?

And he said, yeah. As a matter fact -- I said, did you pick the most diverse pilot, or did you take the best pilot?

He goes, that doesn't matter.

I said, no, it does matter. I go, if you truly believe in this stuff, you'll make the most diverse pilot and, God forbid, you ever get sick, you will get the most diverse surgeon.

But it's not. This is about you controlling the markets. Controlling capital. Controlling people. Making people have fewer decisions. And maybe buying some bad technology.

And, you know, they kept pushing and pushing.

The banks came back to me. And said, oh, you're interfering with us.

But, you know what --

GLENN: It's so bad.

This banking. It's a cartel, that they have going against -- you know, against our representatives. And our legislatures in America.

This cartel comes in so heavy-handed with loads of money and credibility.

And tries to stop people like you.

GLENN: You know, and we had to be careful the way we crafted the bill. Because if you use ESG as a form of scoring.

You won't be able to issue Florida bonds. You won't have access to qualified public deposits.

Our pension funds.

We also had to make sure, if everybody did it. We were able to write checks in the state of Florida.

There was a balance there. And we had to make sure we -- there was other access. And there is. There's not quite enough for $300 million in local community banks. I think we're in a good place there.

But over the summer, one of our local businesses in Florida, Dr. Mercola who owns a very big supermarket, but he also own owns a multi-national natural health vitamin company.

And over the summer, I get a call from one of his representatives. He goes, Rep Rommel, can you help us? And I go, I'll try. What's up?

And he said, well, all of the managers and multiple employees from the Mercola Markets have been debanked. Their bank, which was JPMorgan Chase, gave them letters that said, find new banks, we will not bank with you anymore. So I talked to a JPMorgan --

GLENN: Hang on just a second. How rare -- because I've never heard of being debanked before, unless you were like Al Capone.

I've never heard of that.

How rare did that used to be?

BOB: I would think never, because banks wanted you to keep your money. And your interest rate. Late fees and things like that, to earn income. So we looked into it, a little bit, and I talked to their rep.

And they said, well, Bob, we could be doing money laundering or some suspicious activity.

And by the law, we're obligated to debank them. I go, this entire workforce?

And they couldn't tell me. Because I'm not authorized to hear this information. And the state of Florida, if you're running arms or fentanyl, we don't want you banking either. We also believe in due process in the state of Florida. I don't trust you as the bank. And I don't trust you as some federal agency. To say, this person needs to be debanked.

Because I remember Operation Chokehold. When they told, payday loans and arms dealers, I think that was Obama area. Obama 2013. Operation Choke Point.

That you can't do any banking business. So I don't trust the federal government agencies, and I don't trust the banks that are colluding with ESG with our federal agencies to debank them.

So what I will try to do this year, assuming it's passed. That if you're a bank, and you debank one of our Florida citizens, a business or an individual.

First off, you will have to tell Florida.

You will have to tell the division of financial services, hey, I debanked Dr. Mercola, and this is why I did it.

Then we as a state, keep it in private, will investigate.

If we felt you did it in bad faith, well, we will find you, and you won't do business in Florida. Then the individual that was harmed, we will allow them to have a private right of action against that bank.

GLENN: Excellent. Excellent. That's fair. That's fair.

JUSTIN: This is amazing.

GLENN: By the way, this -- what is it? Fair Access is what it is.

JUSTIN: Yes, fair Access is the shorthand.

GLENN: Shorthand is Fair Access. There are many states now that have passed anti-ESG laws. But it is Fair Access, that gives the power to the individual, to be able to get the information, and to sue. If it is -- if it's wrong information. Or based on ESG.

And you guys have led the way.

The BIGGEST takeaway from Argentina's 'SHOCKING' presidential election

In a runoff presidential election, Argentina has ditched socialism for anarcho-capitalist libertarian Javier Milei — and Glenn is shocked. While the media has done everything it can to negatively tie Milei to Donald Trump, Glenn explains why he doesn't believe they're that comparable. Glenn breaks down what Milei has promised to do, how big of a change that would be for Argentina and the world, and whether he can even get it done. Plus, Glenn explains the biggest takeaway from this election: "[Voters are] moving away — HARD — from the Left."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Argentina had their runoff election. And the news is stunning. Javier Milei, is that how you say his name? He was elected as Argentina's next president. He is a Libertarian. He is -- the exact opposite of really anything. Any kind of politician, that we have seen here, that is even close, to being president of the United States.

Even Donald Trump. Donald Trump still plays within, hmm. Some of the norms.

He is often compared. This guy, in Argentina, is often compared to Donald Trump.

But I don't think they're comparable.

STU: I think just because he's outspoken. That seems to be the largest similarity there.

Right? He's super outspoken.

But he described himself as an anarchocapitalist, which is not how Donald Trump would describe himself at all.

GLENN: No. Not at all.

He is going to get rid of -- this is what he says he is going to do.

Get rid of the peso. Because it's falling.

And he will put the dollar -- good luck with that one.

He's also getting rid of their Federal Reserve Bank.

He's getting rid of hundreds of programs. He is just going to cut this government to the bone.

STU: You have seen the video of him, walking in front of the white board?

He's just pulling off the stickers of all the agencies.

The Department of Families. And Health, gone!

Like every single one. He's pulling off, and throwing it away. Now, look, is he going to do those things?

I hope so. Probably a lot of those agencies are incredibly pointless. Just like they are here.

Now, not knowing the full story of the structure of the Argentinian government.

I'm going a little bit on -- I'm -- guesswork there.

GLENN: I will --

STU: Every government is like that. Especially in South America.

GLENN: I will bet you, that Art Laffer would like this guy. We should call Art Laffer. Because he knows Argentina really well. He did this back in the '80s. Argentina always, you know, succeeds, becomes wealthy, and then goes to socialism, and destroys itself.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And then goes back to its roots. And then it destroys itself.

So he did that in the '80s. He restored it in the 1980s. They're back.

STU: Look, the promise is high here. I just -- I do hesitate. There's a lot of ifs that could happen here. Right? I don't know everything about this guy.

Who knows what policy he actually implements, when he's in office? What crazy thing we don't know about him.

Who knows?

At some level, he's still a South American politician.

I will hold out hope. The things he said are really good, really positive.

If he actually does them. If they work, it could be an incredible thing.

You know, it might inspire countries all in the region. And all over the world, to replicate that process. So there's really high hopes for someone who will come out and do this stuff.

GLENN: You know what is interesting.

How cautious people are, on saying, I like this guy.

I don't know. I don't know enough about him. I like what he says so far about of what I've heard.

STU: What I've heard is --

GLENN: But I don't know. Same thing with Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders could become the next Prime Minister, the next Dutch Prime Minister.

Now, he just won a massive election. He didn't win enough seats to become Prime Minister. But if he cobbles together a few more seats, he may become prime minister. This is a guy who has been on this show. And we were told by everybody, don't have him.

STU: He's too bad. He's dangerous. He's said bad things.

GLENN: We thought he was delightful, at least in the interview. He was wonderful.

STU: Seemed fine in the interview.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So -- but we always have to say, well, but I'm not sure.

But do you ever hear anybody backpedaling on Justin Trudeau?

STU: No. No. They never do.

GLENN: I mean, the things that that guy has done.

And nobody ever says, well, I don't agree with everything.

STU: Right.

GLENN: He's not a bad. It's not a bad thing.

STU: I don't know. I hold myself to a higher standard, than the left holds themselves.

GLENN: Yes, so do I.

STU: So I hope we would have higher standards than them.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't have a problem with it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I just -- I do have a problem with, it doesn't matter what you do.

STU: No.

GLENN: On the left.

STU: No. It doesn't matter.

GLENN: You turn into a Castro or a Stalin. It doesn't matter.

STU: Apparently, you can kidnap and murder thousands of people. And you will still get cheered on by these people on the left.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And, you know, the situation is, you know, with -- I don't know.

As a conservative, like, we talk about principle a lot.

I do think it's important. And I much -- I'm happy to criticize someone who supposedly is on the right, if they're wrong.

GLENN: Right.

STU: I just don't want to stand by them, just because they -- they align themselves with my general political outlook. But is that not how the left operates. And, you know, you could make the argument, that politically, in a pragmatic, political sense, where the ends justify the means, that's the right approach.

I just -- that's not how I look at the world.

I don't think that's how you look at the world. And I don't think that's how most conservatives look at the world. Maybe to our detriment, when it comes to winning or losing sometimes.

But that's okay.

GLENN: So there's two people now, that the press says, out of control. These guys are worse than Hitler.

Okay?

Guy in Argentina and Geert Wilders, they may end up being that. I don't think so, but they might. I don't know. It's not my country. So I don't follow them as closely. However, I might be for them. I hate to say that. Because I don't know enough about them. But what I see, I like. However, they might go bad.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But here's what you should take away from all of this movement, politically. Because it's happening in Europe, and it's happening in South America. It is moving away, hard from the left.

And going right, in the case of Argentina, small government right.

I mean, very small.

Libertarian right.

And everybody is losing their minds. A Libertarian government is not powerful enough, to make you do anything.

That's the good thing about small government.

It can never really harm you.

It's not spying on you.

Because it's not big enough.

These guys, if they work, this is going to be a huge move, for the world. Back to more freedom.

And common sense.

Geert Wilders is one.

You know, why?

Because of immigration. The Dutch are tired of having people just rape their daughters.
Kill on the street. And no ramification.

No ramification.

You don't have to -- the -- you know, when you go over to Sweden. I go spend any time in the Norwegian countries.

You will see how accepting they are.

How loving they are.

But it is a very, very non-diverse population.

Until recently.

And now, the non-diverse population, coming up from the Middle East, doesn't want to be Swedish.

They don't want to be Dutch. They don't care. They want the free stuff. But they'll have their own no-go zones.

They will have their own communities.

And it's not a part of that culture.

Everybody has turned a blind eye. You're now seeing the immigration be a problem all through Europe. You're going to see it as a problem here in America. Soon. I mean, I can't believe how much has changed in -- on our border.

And relatively nobody is talking about it.

That's one of the biggest changes in my lifetime. And nobody is really talking about it. When that poses a problem.

When we start to have terror attacks, or whatever, we start to collapse our economy.

Because we're -- we're overrun with this -- in this lifeboat called America.

There are too many people trying to get in the boat. Then you really have problems.

So I'm -- I'm glad to see that before things catch completely on fire over in Europe. And in South America. There's a couple of places that may turn things around.

STU: Yeah. And I think too, this idea that maybe turning -- just leaning -- err on the side of liberty.

That's what's encouraging about the guy in Argentina, Milei for me.

Is that, look, we all knew that Ronald Reagan wanted to get rid of the Department of Education. He wasn't able to do it.

GLENN: And the Fed.

STU: Will this guy be able to get rid of all these agencies he pulled off as stickers off the white board? It's going to be really hard. I will assume there are a million different people that are inside the government, and have been inside the government structure forever.

That will do everything they can to stop him at every turn. But just the fact that he's attempting to do these things. And pushing in that general direction. It's hard to see how they could make the country worse.

You know, at the very least, they will take less of your money.

GLENN: I will tell you this, it is like never before, you are going to be assassinated, politically.

Your reputation. Your life, everything. Will be assassinated by the press. And by the left.

And if you get these people in, who are serious about taking apart the fed.

And some of these things that are absolute institutions, that are deep.

You start having a president take on the intelligence community here in America, you may be looking at worse than a political assassination.

That's really dangerous to do.

And I never thought I would feel that way in America.

But I certainly was. Don't you?

STU: It is. Yeah.

I mean, it is --

GLENN: I mean, look what they did to Donald Trump.

And look what you -- what I think they're willing to do to Donald Trump.

Somebody steps up and is effective at taking on the Deep State. God help them.

God help them.

STU: There's a lot. Yeah. You're standing up against people who have entrenched interest in something that you don't want.

And you're trying to destroy --

GLENN: And they have all kinds of power.

STU: All sorts of power.

One of the first things we talked about with Donald Trump.

And a critical way at some level.

Was to say, hey. You better be sure, if you're going to go critique our -- our -- you know, critique is not the right word for what Donald Trump was doing. But go after the intelligence agencies.

Because they're not going to sit back, and just let that go on. You better be sure.

Now, he did it anyway.

And he had to deal with the effects of it.

I mean, it's a risky strategy. At times, it feels like, you know what, it really needs to be done.

And I'm glad he has done it.

But he dealt with lots of personal discomfort.

And continues to, I believe, those attacks at the beginning. And more as he went on.

They're not just going to give up their power. That's not what happens.

GLENN: I know. I wish we just cobbled together a coalition.

I really do.

I -- Donald Trump is so focused now.

Has to be.

So focused on what's going on in his life, I wish we would put a coalition together, where everybody gets behind somebody.

And just says, okay.

What's best for the country?

All of us. Getting together, right now. And developing something that a majority of Americans can get behind.

Because I -- I just won't believe it.

If -- if this guy, Joe Biden can win, I mean, I've never seen a guy who has done this with war. And made things as unstable. Do well in a presidential election.

Never seen a president who has an economy like this. Do well in a presidential election. I've never seen a guy who is more incompetent do well -- I mean, this guy has everything going against him.

And it's still competitive?

How is that possible?

Just how is that possible?

THIS is STEP ONE for turning America back to God | Renewing the Covenant Part 2

For the past 10 years, Glenn has felt a calling to urge America to renew its covenant with God. So, for 40 days, Glenn took his audience on a journey to restore our understanding of what it means to be in a covenant relationship with God. And now, he's urging Americans to take the first step towards restoring what we have forgotten. Glenn reveals the oath to God that he has decided to take and asks every American who is truly willing to abide by it to join him.