©2022 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Would Dems REALLY booby trap campaign yard signs?!
GLENN: Booby trapped yard signs for Democrats that have been put in the yards of people in Pennsylvania and they haven't been asked permission and they're Democratic signs* and they put them in the yards.
And when the homeowner comes to pull them out, there are razor blades that have been taped into the sides of the post and also the edges of the sign.
And people are cutting their hands with razor blades.
Glenn: Vietnam RAT FARMS prove the free market ALWAYS WORKS
In this clip, Glenn takes you to Vietnam in the early 20th century with a story that shows exactly why central planning NEVER works but the free market ALWAYS does. Glenn begins with colonial authorities in Hanoi, a plan that spun WAY out of control, and rodents that began to terrorize the city. This is a story about unintended consequences, and why government today FEEDS off of rat farms…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: I want to show you why central planning never works. And why the free market always does. Because the free market doesn't have to anticipate to things. It reacts to things quickly. Let me give you an example. I -- I looked into rat farming over the weekend. Don't ask me how. Don't ask me why. But it started with an article written by Charles Hugh Smith of Two Minds blog. And it is fascinating.
And it takes you back to around the turn of the century. 1900.
And it is the story of how colonial authorities, in Hanoi, came to establish would it kinds of rat farms. And one was intentional.
The first rat farm was unintentional. The French colonial authorities decided to modernize the French quarter of Hanoi, where the Westerners lived by constructing a modern sewer system. The goal was establish a little Paris in the east.
Now, their understanding of sewers was limited to the First Order Effect. First order, second order effect, important to understand.
First order effect, this is where it ended.
Sewers collect and dispose of human waste. That's first order. What are you trying to do?
Build a sewer. Well, what's the effect of that?
Oh, it will take all the flushy parts, and flush them out into the ocean, or wherever. Okay?
That's all they understood. They didn't -- they didn't anticipate the second order effect.
Which was, sewers are paradises for rats.
Now, there was a whole new rat's nest ready to crawl through. All of these pipes. And it was full of food, that rats just loved.
So the second order, is unintended consequences.
First order is, that's what we're going to do. Second is, oh, crap. We just did this. And it was a good thing. Now we've created this problem. Okay?
So second order effects, consequences. Have their own consequences.
And so on, and so on. So the rats started in the sewers. And they began roaming the streets of Hanoi, not exactly the Paris of the East.
So the Bubonic Plague hits Hanoi 2000 -- or, sorry, 1902.
And now, you've got a -- a real health crisis going on. What caused the health crisis?
Oh, the rats, which were caused by the sewers, which was caused by the idea, I really want to have a nice Paris type town. So what did they do?
Well, they hired crews to go down into the sewer and kill the rats. It was not fun. Crappy work, and hazardous.
Now, they killed thousands of rats every single day. But rat fertility is more than a match for the extermination crews.
So then the city said, you know what, everybody, you catch a rat. You catch a rat. We'll give you a bounty for every dead rat.
Well, everybody got involved. And then it was we have a pile of dead rats. Just bring us the tail. Because the pile of rats, waiting to be disposed of, was too expensive. So what did they want to do? Make sure they didn't have a pile of dead rats. Unintended consequence by saying, okay. Just bring us the tail.
Rat farms began to sprout up, because you could cut the tail of a rat off, and hand it in.
And I'm not sure if the rat would degree another tail, but it would at least be there to breed.
STU: That's incredible. I love this scam.
GLENN: Is this not great? Great?
So they discovered that they had -- they had started to have perverse incentives.
Rat farms were built all around Hanoi by private sector entrepreneurs to maximize the harvesting of profitable rat tails.
So in effect, the government created two rat farms. Both unintended, really. The sewers and the private sector rat farm.
In 1998, the Vietnamese authorities, closed restaurants selling cat meat, which was marketed as little tiger meat.
Because they thought of it, if the cat population increased, rats would invade the Rice fields, showcasing the same mentality, that had happened before.
Happened -- happened again. Happened again. Rats. And what do we do with the rats?
Here's the thing: If you look at our society now, everything we are trying to fix. Let's fix education. Let's fix -- let's fix health care.
Let's fix homelessness. We're going to fix our intelligence gathering, our national defense. What do we do?
We pour all kinds of money into this sewer system, people who are now administrators, support staff, consultants, con artists. Some good people in there. But the system wants the money to keep flowing.
So they're not incentivized to actually solve a problem. They actually become people to protect the paradise of more and more funding.
This is why -- this is why the free market works. And why the government must get out of the market. Because once they start protecting their boys, it becomes a rat hole.
It's another rat farm.
You've got to get the government out of the farming business.
Out of the rat problem.
Because they're the biggest source of them.
STU: This reminds me of -- of a story I freaking love from a couple of weeks ago.
In New York, they had a gun buyback.
GLENN: Oh, exactly right.
STU: And first order effects. We'll get guns off the streets. We'll make everyone safer. Of course, they don't think of the second order, which means that law-abiding citizens can no longer protect themselves. But I'm not even talking about that one.
One guy saw how stupid it was. And got his 3-D printer out, and started 3-D printing a small device that can convert firearms into fully automated weapons under the rules of the buyback. And this is by Leticia James, by the way, in New York.
And city police, that entitled him to $350 for each printed part, including a 100-dollar premium, since they redeemed ghost guns, lacking serial numbers. So these are just little 3-D printed parts.
He kept doing it and doing it and doing it. And eventually made himself $21,000 for just printing them. He's never going to use as automatic weapons.
GLENN: And he shouldn't go to jail.
STU: No, I don't think he is. He played by the rules. Did exactly what they asked him to do. Made $21,000.
He said, he didn't do it for the money, however. He said he called the idea of buybacks, ridiculously stupid.
Adding that, quote, the people running this event, are horribly uneducated about guns, gun crime, and the laws surrounding the regulation of guns.
The possible DARK ORIGIN behind THESE far-left policies
Stacey Abrams recently said during an interview that the burden of inflation is directly linked to the burden placed on women who are unable to receive an abortion: ‘Having children is WHY you’re worried about your price for gas.’ In this clip, Glenn reveals Democrats’ DARK history with efforts to control population numbers. And he shows why Abrams’ statement — or even Biden’s recent statement on climate change — may have more to do with that dark history than it seems…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So it's almost as if the Democrats have a different goal. Isn't it?
STU: I almost spit out my drink as you said that. Yes, it's almost that way. I don't know what it could be.
GLENN: It almost feels that way. Right. Well, let me tie a couple of things together. Do you remember when Stacey Abrams, a couple of weeks ago, said something incredible about inflation. Listen.
VOICE: I would assume, maybe incorrectly, but while abortion is an issue, it nowhere reaches the level of interest of voters, in terms of the cost of gas, food, milk, things like that. What could a governor, what could you do as governor, to alleviate the concerns of Georgia voters about those livability daily, hourly issues that they're confronted with.
VOICE: Let's be clear, having children is why you're worried about your price for gas. It's why you're concerned about how much food costs. For women, this is not a reductive issue. You can't divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy, from the economic realities of having a child.
GLENN: Okay. Stop. Now, maybe I'm old-fashioned. But I never thought I would ever hear an American political party say, the answer to inflation, is to kill your kids.
I mean, isn't that what she's saying?
STU: Abort your way to prosperity.
GLENN: Right. Now you want to understand that. I want to play something that was said this weekend, from President Biden.
BIDEN: The biggest thing though is that we have to change what we are -- those things that are affecting the environment.
GLENN: Okay. I barely understood that. But he was saying, the main priority here, is the environment.
And climate change.
Okay? Now, how does that explain, what Stacey Abrams said?
About to give you a decoder ring. So Jason, lead researcher on my staff. When he heard Stacey Abrams say that, he decided to Google, two words. Inflation. And abortion.
Just roll that out. See what's happening. You wouldn't believe what Google pumped out.
Activities relevant to the study of population policy for the United States.
You see, long before the cult of climate change. And before there was the -- the global warming. There was global cooling. But before there was global cooling. There was the population bomb. Okay. This is about early 1960s. Progressives were all on board with the cult of population control.
This is American eugenicists. Okay.
They were respected by progressives and tyrants all over the world. These were the guys. Back in those days, in the early '60s. These were the same guys that had come from Germany, that were doing all kinds of experiments. And they were expected for their knowledge.
So we started to read the memo. And I think it reads like a script from a horror movie. But it reveals what the left truly stands for. Whether they remember their origins or not, I'm going to just give you this memo. And I -- the first part is directly from the first page. And I want to quote it exactly. This memorandum is responsive to your letter, January 4th, seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities, relevant to the formation of population policy. Defined as legislative measures. Administrative programs. And other governmental actions, that are designed to alter population trends. So right off the bat, kind of makes you wonder. Wait a minute.
Was the abortion thing, was that about women's rights?
Or was it about some post apocalyptic strategy to control population?
Well, it appears, that at the time, they blamed American families. But not all families.
Just families they wanted control of.
Okay. Listen to this quote.
Justify an explicit US policy, new of encouraging a specific universal limit, on family sized.
As distinguished from proposals aimed selectively at welfare recipients and racial groups.
Wow. Now, listen to this.
The minorities. The poor.
That's who they were targeting. The people on the left, claimed to care about the poor.
And minorities. Kind of makes you wonder about LBJ's great society, right?
And his War On Poverty. Makes you wonder why the real effects of ensuing massive welfare state, ended up making people poorer, and breaking up families. And those families, those mothers, being single, now having to have abortions. Wow.
The memo goes on to mention, a mass wave of contraceptive handouts was the preferred method. But, this is the part I found interesting. Effective contraception is officially distributed to all those who want it. And if abortion is available on demand, as a backup measure.
So abortion on demand was not even their main plan. It was the backup plan. But I thought it was about women's rights.
Now, here's where we get to the Stacey Abrams weird comment about inflation and abortion.
It references inflation.
As something that goes hand in hand, of full employment, and thus to accept relatively high or at least not preventable unemployment levels as necessary. Yet more women enter the labor market under conditions of full employment. And the relationship between employment of women and lower fertility seems well established. An examination is needed of, in effect, the question of, how much inflation could or should we risk to achieve lower fertility.
Let me unpack that here.
For one, they wanted women in the work. Not for equal opportunity.
But because, as it says in this study.
Women tend not to have so many babies. So fertility goes down. And they thought that all of the women getting jobs might spike inflation. Which it did.
The price of housing doubled. You had two incomes now. So everything doubled.
So they figured, we have to measure this. The party of virtue. The memo comes up with an attachment, that listed other proposed measures by population control experts. Now, it never said that these were actual plans by Planned Parenthood.
These are other proposals that they included.
Restructure the family. Postpone or avoid marriage. Alter the image of the ideal family. Compulse other education of children.
Encourage increased homosexuality, educate for family limitation. Fertility control agents in the water supply, encourage women to work.
Now, these are a few. And they get nuttier and nuttier.
Now, I'm not saying that Planned Parenthood had planned to do any of this. But it shows, to what lengths the academics were willing to go. Fertility control agents, in the water.
How many Democratic issues can you find in this memo? Compulsory education of children?
How many of us have wondered, why they are claiming, their kids as -- or our kids, as their kids?
And they will -- they do not want -- and we -- excuse it saying. Well, they don't want to. Well, because the unions. The unions are blocking it. Because they'll lose the jobs. Is it? Is it that?
Why are they ramming sexually explicit comprehensive sexuality education, into our school.
Is it encourage increase -- encouraged increase homosexuality?
Because that's what it seems like, the LGBTQ2+I lobby is fighting.
They want more homosexuals. It's not, you want rights. Okay. You have rights.
You won that. Why are -- why are the hyper sexualizing of kids. And exposing them to drag queens in schools and libraries.
Educate for family limitation. Who has wondered why they've advice. They've shouted, destroy the nuclear family. Encourage women to work. Isn't workplace gender discrimination illegal?
So what's the fight really about there?
Regarding the education, they keep referencing both kids and families, check out this quote from the full memo. Quote, in this area. It seems particularly important to distinguish between education and indoctrination.
Whatever may be the merits and effectiveness of truly, a truly educational effort, an indoctrination campaign, may well have the only negligible effects on fertility values. But may provide unintended support, in building public opinion, which seeks legalized compulsory fertility control for selected groups. And I'm quoting. Particularly welfare recipients.
The admission here is insane.
Indoctrination. They admit, has its bonuses. Especially on poor people.
Google the words, until they change the algorithm. Google the words abortion and inflation. You'll find the whole memo.
So when I played cut three from Biden. Play it again, please.
BIDEN: The biggest thing though is that we have to change what we are -- those things that are -- affect the environment.
GLENN: Okay. Have you noticed that the policies that they are pushing put the environment over people?
Right now, common sense would say, we're about to go to war. With Russia. We must have oil.
We've got to open up oil fields. And pumping. And gas lines.
You've got people that are going to freeze to death. In Germany, and all over Europe.
And they won't open up and -- full power -- their nuclear power plants. Why?
It's almost like it's Malthusian. It's anti-human. Yeah. Not a lot has changed. Not a lot has changed. This is Planned Parenthood in the 1970s.
This is what they were saying, behind closed doors.
Glenn: How can John Fetterman’s staff LIVE WITH THEMSELVES?!
It’s clear — to anybody with eyes — that John Fetterman currently does not have the ability to serve effectively as Pennsylvania’s next Senator, Glenn says. And the Democrat candidate’s debate with Dr. Oz last night proved it. In fact, Glenn says the debate was ‘DISGUSTING,’ because no one on Fetterman’s staff stopped it before he embarrassed himself on live television: ‘How can that staff live with themselves?’ In this clip, Glenn and Stu dissect the debate and what Pennsylvania voters SURELY must be thinking after it…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Did anybody feel like they needed to take a shower, after the debate last night? It was so uncomfortable and so -- it was almost inhumane.
GLENN: It was disgusting. It really was. Suboptimal, if you're a politician. Disgusting, if you're a human being.
I -- it is -- it is clear Fetterman does not have the ability to be able to -- can you -- I mean, what is he going to do? You think he's going to go around and talk to senators and make a good case for his point of view? He is nothing, but a place holder, to be told what to vote on. Not somebody who is being brought in for his intellectual capabilities. He's just a vote. He's a puppet. And it -- and it was disgusting how -- how that staff can live with themselves, is beyond me. How do you -- how do you put a guy -- you don't walk out -- when you see this guy, operating at that level, you don't say, come on, guys. This is just -- this is just wrong. This is just wrong. This is the best candidate in all of Pennsylvania. Really?
STU: The entire campaign staff, should have walked out. Should have walked out and resigned weeks ago. If he insisted on going through with this. You know, from a political standpoint, under no circumstances, should they have agreed to this debate. They should have come up with some excuse.
We're not going to debate Dr. Oz. He lives in New Jersey.
We'll never find him in one of his mansions. He's having too much crudités. Whatever you wanted to say, to avoid this night happening, you needed to say, if you wanted your candidate to win. But that ignores the moral consequence of what they've done.
They put a man, embarrassed him in front of the entire country. They allowed this guy, to go up on stage. Which obviously. Obviously, anyone with eyes, could have told you, that that should not have occurred. They should not have put him out there. They should have months ago, said, look, we were really hoping for the best.
We were hoping, he could recover from this. The doctor said there was a chance. It didn't happen. We needed to change candidates, and put somebody else in.
GLENN: You know what is really bad? The media is still covering.
They're saying that this guy can recover, from these strokes.
More than he is. That's not true. The media is lying to you. Ask any doctor, or anyone who has ever had a stroke in their family. You have about six months to improve. Wherever you are, at the end of that six months, is pretty much where you'll be. You might make a little progress here or there. But nothing that is remarkable.
That's where you are. So this is who this guy is going to be. At his best!
This is who the guy is going to be. And really? You think that's appropriate to send him, into a deliberative body, at this time, in our nation?
STU: Glenn, you and I have watched some of the biggest debates, over the past 20 years. Some of which, Republicans have done really well.
They've -- I remember, watching them, and being -- you know, celebratory. Like this was incredible. Wow.
I really wanted Dr. Oz to win that debate last night. I did not feel good about watching it at all. It was disturbing to watch.
GLENN: Oh, I almost turned it off.
STU: Yeah. It was hard.
GLENN: It was so hard to watch.
I wanted Dr. Oz to win. And I think he clearly did.
GLENN: But to watch. This was a wounded animal.
GLENN: And the moderators did everything they could, to cover -- cut his time. You know, okay. Well, hang on just a second. Well, I want to ask you again.
Well, you didn't answer the question. I mean --
STU: It tells you everything you need to know about the Democratic Party.
GLENN: Let me just play a couple of cuts, in case you missed it. Here's Fetterman. This is his opening statement.
VOICE: What qualifies you to be a U.S. senator?
You have 60 seconds.
VOICE: Hi. Good night, everybody. I'm running to serve Pennsylvania. He's running to use Pennsylvania.
GLENN: Hello, got a night, everybody.
STU: And that was him saying good night to the campaign.
GLENN: You can say, okay. All right.
STU: You could say, maybe he meant good evening.
It's weird, because they keep telling us, he will just stumble over word. That's not what we saw last night. Yes, we saw a lot of that, I should be clear. But there were times that he could not grasp concepts.
GLENN: Here he is, calling out -- being called out on his fracking stance. Listen to this.
STU: Yeah. This is a great example.
VOICE: I absolutely support fracking. In fact, I live across the street from a steel mill, and they're going to frack, create their own energy, in order to make them more competitive. And I support that. Living closer to anybody else in Pennsylvania, for fracking to myself. I believe that we need independence with energy.
And I believe that I've walked that line my entire career. I believe Democrats --
GLENN: Mr. Fetterman, I do have a specific question. Which you can continue on this topic.
But you have made two conflicting statements regarding fracking.
In a 2018 interview, you said, quote, I don't support fracking at all. I never have. But earlier this month. You told an interviewer, quote, I support fracking. I support the energy independence, that we should have here in the United States.
So, Mr. Fetterman, please explain your changing position, 60 seconds.
VOICE: I've always supported fracking.
STU: That's not even the worst part of that.
GLENN: No, no, no. So they ask him. Here it is. Cut three.
VOICE: I do want to clarify something. You're saying tonight, that you support fracking, that you've always supported fracking, but there is that 2018 interview that you said, quote, I don't support fracking at all. So how do you square the two?
GLENN: This is the fourth attempt.
VOICE: Oh. I -- I do support fracking. And I don't -- I don't -- I support fracking, and I stand, and I do support fracking.
STU: I mean, I -- breathless watching that. That's maybe the single worst moment in any debate, I've ever seen in my life. And, Glenn, that has nothing to do with auditory processing.
STU: That is a man who cannot come up with, I changed my mind. I don't remember that interview. Maybe I was misquoted. I don't know what the -- the context of that comment was, but I've always supported fracking. Anything other than just repeating yourself, multiple times over. Stopping. Reversing yourself. And then saying it again.
That is not -- that has nothing -- that's brain function. Anyone would know, to say something that would justify that comment. There are things, right?
Look, I had a change of heart on this. In 2018, I was a little skeptical. And I've changed my mind. In 2018, I don't know what that interview is. I don't remember what that interview is at all. I don't know what that quote is, I will have to look it up, after the debate. There's 100 things you can say in that moment to get out of it, he can't come up with one of them.
GLENN: So it is not brain function. It is not brain function. As a father of a daughter, who has strokes, Mary can tell you everything you need to know about the Federal Reserve. Okay? She can tell you you need to know about money printing. Everything else. Because she's asked me about it.
GLENN: She processes things much differently. Language. So it takes her -- when I taught her, you know, about the fed, it took me three days to find the way to explain it to her, until she got it. Then she gets it.
And then she's got to translate it. And she'll say several times. I'm looking for the word. It's not -- no. It's not -- it's not.
And she'll get very frustrated. Because she -- she can see it in her head. But she cannot spit it out.
GLENN: She can't do it. But that doesn't mean, that you should serve in the Senate. This is a senior statesman.
Okay? This is the guy, who has to make the case, to his people in his state, why he voted a certain way.
If he can't make the case, on the floor, back home, on television, what good -- I mean this nicely. What good is he?
STU: As a senator.
GLENN: He is only a vote. That's all he is.
He is not somebody who can persuade people. Or explain things.
Nothing. That is a big part of the job. You know, if you had a president, who just could not communicate at all, for some reason.
STU: What a crazy scenario. Explain this. It sounds too foreign. To understand.
GLENN: Right. But he could not communicate at all. But he was fully lucid. He would not make a good president. Because he has to be able to communicate.
STU: Right. It's a crucial part of the job.
GLENN: It's a crucial part.
STU: And I make the Biden joke.
But to be clear. And I, again, think Joe Biden is a terrible, terrible president.
STU: And he really does have these issues that we've talked about over these years. But when you watch a 20-minute speech from Joe Biden. What you'll see, is 13 or 14 minutes of basic coherence. You will see a significant piece of time, where Joe Biden is communicating somewhat okay.
STU: You will understand what he means. You can understand what he's going for. And then Biden has his couple of moments there, that are terrible.
And he loses where he's going. And he just stops, and says, come on, man. Whatever. We've talked about it 100 times.
Joe Biden is light years away -- or ahead of where John Fetterman is. Fetterman was the entire time, like that.
GLENN: So here's the question: When someone can't explain themselves, from confusion or whatever, it leads to really bad things.
For instance, let me play what the president just said this week, about the bailout for student loans. Listen to this.
BIDEN: You probably are aware, I just signed a law that was challenged by my Republican laws. The same people that look at PPP loans for up to close -- in some cases, five, $600,000. They have no problem with that. The individuals in Congress, got those. But what we've provided for.
If you go to school. If you qualify for a Pell grant. You qualify for 2000 -- I mean, excuse me.
You qualify for $20,000 in debt forgiveness. Secondly, if you don't have one of those loans, you just get 10,000 written off. It's passed. I got it passed by a voter too.
GLENN: Stop. He didn't get that passed. It wasn't passed by a vote or two.
STU: Called it a law.
GLENN: Yeah. It's not a law. It was an executive order. So, is he lying? Is he confused? Or is he being told something, that isn't true?
Is he being told, no, Mr. President, you have the right to do that. You don't remember?
They passed that law. It was close. But you won it by a couple of votes. All of those are possible.
He may be being lied to. And just used, as a puppet. He may be confused, at that moment. Or he may be lying. We should know which one.
STU: There's not another possibility though. It's one of those three. All of them are terrible.
GLENN: It's one of those.
STU: But honestly, we've come to the point, where my standards are so low. I'm cheering for the lying.
STU: That is where we are with this country, with this leadership.
GLENN: You're not going to fix a country, if you're cheering for the lying option. You're just not.