RADIOJanuary 22, 2024

How the Left REDEFINED 'extreme' to make Joe Rogan 'far right'

The Left is doing all it can to redefine terms like "extreme," "misinformation," and "far right" to include anyone who disagrees with them — including Bernie Sanders supporter, Joe Rogan. “The War on the West” author Douglas Murray is another one of their targets, who leftists would love to suppress and censor. But Douglas joins Glenn to denounce this insanity and explain the real danger: If you call everything "far right misinformation," you're only making real extremism worse. Meanwhile, the Biden administration and mainstream media are pushing actual extreme misinformation on the public ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Douglas Murray joins us now.

Douglas, how are you?

DOUGLAS: Very good, thank you. Good to be with you.

GLENN: Yeah. I have to tell you, I can't thank you enough for your voice, for your logic, and your reason.

You are one of the more powerful people out there. And I think that's why you're being targeted.

Did you happen to see the article, that I was talking about with Anna Stanley?

DOUGLAS: Yes, I did. I read it with considerable alarm. This was a young woman who worked the foreign office. She was an open intelligence analyst.

Spent on her government training program, to learn about counterterrorism. Counterextremism.

Of course, she revealed in the piece, that, first of all, many of the -- several of the participants, the lecturers, completely downplayed Islamic extremism. Terrorism, which government does regard. And they do regard, as the primary threat to security in the UK.

GLENN: Right. And no mention of immigration playing a role in that. None!

ERIC: Of course not. Of course not.

Why would they talk about anything truthful?

GLENN: Yeah.

DOUGLAS: And -- but, yes, more alarming to me, even than that, was the fact that one of the lecturers, a man called Peter Newman.

A very sinister figure, in my view.

Was -- said that the main threat. Or one of the main threats was the far right people.

And he named me, and Joe Rogan.

GLENN: Joe Rogan.

DOUGLAS: As a friend.

GLENN: Let me quote the two paragraphs. That says this.

The lecturer further argued that Douglas Murray and Joe Rogan are both examples of the far right. To what extent, I'm quoting, should Joe Rogan and Murray be suppressed, he asked.

They have millions of followers. To deplatform them would cause issues. Whoops. Did we lose him?

Concluding his talk, the lecturer told a room full of government professionals, so society needs to find other ways to suppress them.

Is Douglas with us? Getting him back on the phone.

STU: Easiest way to suppress him, is to hang up on him in the middle of the interview.

GLENN: Exactly right. That's the private sector suppressing him, I'll tell you that right now.

STU: There you go. You see what side you were on, Glenn.

GLENN: Well, no. It was just -- it was a coincidence. And I've deleted all my files about hanging up on Douglas Murray.

This accident. Yeah, that's crazy.

STU: Oh. Oh. That's sad. That's sad.

It's amazing to me, the people who are actually targeted in the middle of this too.

It's one thing to talk about it as an issue.

It's one thing to say, okay. Well, these things are happening. Or they are happening.

When it's happening to you.

Obviously, Glenn, you were named in that article. I was not.

Just keep the record clear.

But it's got to be hard to go through it. Yeah. He's back on.

GLENN: I think, Douglas, you're back. Thank you. I'm sorry. Suppressing your voice there for a minute. But what's really frightening here is I've been talking about this stuff coming for a long time.

And we've been hearing reports, that they're doing this or that.

They are so outspoken on this.

And so bold. And they are so far down the line.

What do you think is coming for you?

DOUGLAS: Yes.

I don't know. Other than, anyone on earth is going to suppress or silence me.

But I certainly was think it's extraordinary.

The confidence that people have.

That they can suppress the -- who say things, which I think, not only are popular, but true. But I thought it's fascinating.

This man who has almost no following or recognition himself.

Experts in a non-expertise.

You know, that he should think that he could or other people should suppress me, and it's more than just about suppressing my voice.

I've got my lawyers, writing to his employers. Find out what he has in mind for me.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, they were in that very thing. They were talking using banks and everything. And we know they're doing this.

DOUGLAS: Yes.

GLENN: And, you know, I said about four or five years ago, that there's going to come a time, where they are going to build a digital get zero.

And I know all the implications of using those words. And I was called an anti-Semite, and everything else.

But that is what they're building. You know, the Jews can talk all they want, do whatever they want.

Just behind this wall, so nobody hears them or sees them. And that's exactly the direction we're going.

DOUGLAS: Yes.

And there's very particular moves that they're doing, to make that.

One is using the term far right, which alarms me enormously.

Because, of course, there are some people, particularly in Europe, who are what we would call far right. They are nowhere near the centers of power, but in bits of Germany and elsewhere. You know, there are very nasty things in the woodshed.

And unfortunately, what people have done in recent years, as you well know. Is that in the name of -- really nothing other than political opportunism. There's people who have decided to extend the parameters of what is allegedly far right.

And what they've done is, they've extended it not just to people, to call me. Or go Rogan. Far right.

Demonstrably absurd.

But what they're really doing, is they're trying to make public opinion, be deemed far right. And not just some public opinion, but majority public opinion.

Most people, in the United States, and the United Kingdom, are deeply concerned about illegal migration.

But once you say, concerned about illegal migration. As far right.

Therefore, the majority of the public are called far right.

And that has a lot of implications these people don't think about.

First of all, is that, of course, it makes actual far right, become completely normal. Because they will say, oh, well, everything is far right now.

And the second thing it does. Is that it defames and Liberia! Majority public concerns. Which are legitimate concerns.

You know, Americans are right to be fearful about the implications of having an entirely porous southern border.

And the Europeans and British people and others, are completely right.

To be concerned about having a totally porous southern border.

And to call these concerns extreme, or to try to choke them out in the mainstream, is something so antidemocratic and antipopular. That, I'm just very alarmed the way in which it is.

GLENN: Well, I don't know if you've been following Davos. I'm sure you have this week.

DOUGLAS: Of course.

GLENN: But they are making mis and disinformation a priority. Here in America. We've already had the Wall Street Journal.

We have had two stories now from NBC News this week on disinformation.

Listen to this paragraph in the story from NBC News. An increasing number of voters, have proven susceptible to disinformation, from former president Donald Trump and his allies.

Artificial intelligence technology is ubiquitous. Social media companies have slashed effort to see rein in misinformation on their platforms. And attacks on the work and reputation of academics, tracking disinformation, have chilled the research.

So they're -- they're making the case, that, you know, anybody who is -- even considering voting for Donald Trump, you are -- you've been captured by disinformation, which lead you to where Jordan Peterson is today.

You've got to go to a reeducation camp.

DOUGLAS: Right. Well, that's the thing. You know, is that -- this whole concept, that there are experts. And then there's us plebs, who is part of this problem. And the problem is not just how rude it is about us, the people. We, the people, to coin a phrase. It's the fact that these self-appointed experts are not experts in many occasions.

I mean, the BBC.

The BBC has a disinformation expert now. And she keeps on pumping out disinformation.

She keeps on getting things wrong.

Well, normally, that's the ebb and flow of journalism.

You know, one paper publishes one story.

Another paper says they're wrong.

That's fine.

But this idea that we have this sort of new priesthood cloth of academics.

Academic experts and disinformation. Sorry, the person we mentioned earlier.

From kings college London.

Academics are perfectly capable of pumping out lies and disinformation.

If I were to cite the famous Bill Buckley quote, you know, I would rather to go to the first hundred people in the phone book to find out what's true. Then -- then say the -- the board of Harvard University.

GLENN: Yes. You know, there's a story in the Washington examiner that just came out. Listen to this. While the Department of Homeland Security has allowed as many as 10 million who didn't notice to flood our southern border. Domestic surveillance state has prioritized something more important. According to documents now unearthed by the Media Research Center. DHS paid $700,000 from a counterterrorism program. To a self-described propaganda network.

The source of the funding was targeted violence, and terrorism prevention grant program, which was created by Barack Obama to target al-Qaeda.

That was put on hold, and then clandestinely revived by the then acting DHS head Kevin MacLeanen and Miles Taylor.

The infamous and insufferable anonymous resistance within the Trump administration.

The funding circumvented the White House budgeting process.

The beneficiary of the grand under-President Joe Biden is the university of Rhode Island's media education lab.

In their application for the money, it said propaganda can also be used for socially beneficial purposes.

Indeed, because the public has long recognized as being suggestable, the United States has long made use of the beneficial propaganda, during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

So what they did is they were the source coming after MAGA supporters. And saying that they're far right, anti-Semites.

This is funded by our government, and they're the ones telling us about disinformation?

DOUGLAS: Yeah.

Well, that's -- that's the other thing.

If I were somebody in the situation of government, in the last 15 years, I would think I would want to try at least to talk a look at myself. And wonder where I've gone wrong. You know.

And you see that.

I would wonder.

You know, they think the public don't trust scientists anymore.

I would say, what has a scientist done in recent years?

And scientific experts, like Dr. Fauci.

What might they have done, slightly, the country into doubting scientists.

If I was a -- a political pundit or political expert within government in Washington, I would wonder, you know, not what it is, that the public have got wrong. But what it is, we have done, in recent years. That has undermined trust in the democratic process and much more.

And it never -- I never see it, you know. As the right turn of the thinker.

I try to do -- I try to be self-critical. I try to think about whether I think about something wrong. And these people just don't -- they're never wrong.

It's always us, the public that are wrong. And need to be corrected.

GLENN: Douglas Murray. We'll be back in 60 seconds.

First, let me tell you about Ruff Greens. Sharon wrote in about her dog's experience with Ruff Greens. She says, our pit bull Molly is a rescue.

Very rough shape when we adopted her ten months ago. She responded well to high-quality dog chow. But her coat still has small smell that bathing didn't eliminate. She had been on Ruff Greens now for several weeks.

And she loves eating it on her food. And her coat. Sorry.

I'm -- I'm either having bad gas problems, or somebody is drilling on the other side of a wall. She's been on Ruff Greens for several weeks now.

She likes eating it on her food.

Her coat smells much better. More energetic. Thank you for Ruff Greens.

This was developed by naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black.

You sprinkle it on your dog's food.

They love the stuff, and you will see a difference in your dog.

If it's healthy for your dog, it's -- oh. Excuse me. Still going. Maybe I need some Ruff Greens. R-U-F-FGreens.com/Beck. Or call 833-Glenn-33. They will give you your first trial bag for free.

833-Glenn-33. Call them today. Ten-second station ID.

Okay. Douglas Murray. What should the average person do because this is -- with -- with more people voting for their officials. More than any time in -- in US or world history.

This year, more people will be voting in free and fair elections, hopefully. Than ever before.

What do we do?

How do we solve this?

Because they are going to start putting us, one by one, behind a wall that will not be easy to spot at first.

DOUGLAS: I think it's getting increasingly easy to spot, if I may so.

I think the public today are so much more informed. We are so much informed than we were 10 years ago or 20 years ago or 30 years ago.

And one of the things is, that a lot of things that could have been called us on us, 30 years ago. Are now very, very transparent.

We have media, that can address, the problems, when, you know, parts of the mainstream media get things wrong.

We are no longer able to be simply lectured to, or sermonized to, for the pulpit of the New York Times.

We no longer, you know, have that sort of innocence that we had in the public, in the past.

And I think that's a good thing.

And it means that we're all -- we're all -- we're all beholden to sort of know more. Admittedly. And to see through more.

And to recognize, just that it's true. That sometimes, we are told things that are completely true, and we should pass some authority some of the time.

We also shouldn't be completely trusting, and we can be skeptical.

And we can do our own research, to use a phrase that is now pooh-poohed by the so-called experts.

Who say that it's dangerous for the public to do in the search.

You know, we shouldn't be endlessly cynical. Nor should we be endlessly supine.

We shouldn't be endlessly trusting. And we don't need to be.

If someone simply told you -- gave you one opinion, on something incredibly important in your life. You probably wouldn't follow it. You probably would want to check. You know, when I get motor insured, I don't go from one place, to my -- my -- you know, insurance.

I look around. Well, if we can do that with our cars, we can do it with our life.

And we can do it with our political future.

And that's what we're all doing. And anyone who says, I'm the only font of news. I'm the only font of correct opinion. Don't trust anyone, other than me. It's somebody you should distrust.

And that, you know, frankly, as the Washington Post tag lined. Democracy ties in darkness. Well, yeah. Sure it had. And media can die in darkness as well. And sometimes the people who say, we're the only ones you can trust. Like the Washington Post, might just be the ones who end up flipping in some things along the way.

That's what they've done, and I think we the public, are in a much better position now, than we ever have been before, to see through it.

GLENN: Douglas, always great to talk to you. Thank you so much. Thank you for everything.
DOUGLAS: Much a pleasure.

GLENN: You bet.

So, by the way, talking about the Washington Post.

Here's the headline from the story that he was referring to.

Doing your own -- this is the Washington Post. Doing your own research, is a good way to end up being wrong.

Well, yeah. You could be wrong. But just listening to the Washington Post and the New York Times and CNN, and even Fox News, you got -- you've got an equal chance of being wrong there.

Do your own research.

Never close your mind. Never stop asking questions.

Humble yourself, so you're not arrogant. I know what the truth is!

Always be open to hearing a different opinion.

And you will find the truth. Prayerfully, you will find the truth.

Steve Baker explains GUILTY PLEA in Jan. 6 case

Blaze Media correspondent Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley join The Glenn Beck Program to explain why Baker pleaded guilty to 4 misdemeanor counts connected to his presence at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot. Steve has argued the entire time that he was there as a journalist and did not act violently, and also that the government isn't going after the other 80 or so journalists who were there. He pled guilty, he explains, because he believes that the court wanted to make an example out of him: "The trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise if you're not going to be allowed to present your own case." Baker and Shipley also discuss the possibility of Donald Trump pardoning J6 defendants when he takes office.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Steve Baker and his attorney Bill Shipley joins us. Steve, I hate to do this to you. But we have about six, seven minutes.

So why did you plead guilty?

STEVE: Yeah. It was no more complicated than this. Last Wednesday was my pretrial hearing. And the government basically went into lockstep. Deny, deny, deny mode, that was in lockstep with the court itself.

The last minute hoax that they had, that they would either grant us a dismissal of my case, based on -- or they would at least grant a continuance, which would mean, that during that time, they would also give us the discovery that we had requested on to some 80 to 100 other journalist, media influencers.

Podcasters. Bloggers of all types of media, that passed through those restricted spaces and into the Capitol that day. Why they weren't charging them.

And when the judge laid down the law. And said, no. He was going to -- just basically show his inflexible flexibility.

And I thought, you know what, after that, then the trial is nothing more than a shaming exercise.

If you're not going to be allowed to present your own case.

So I think Bill can speak to that a little bit more clearly.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Well, Steve and I had a conversation.

And the head of that hearing.

And I said, Steve, based purely on the facts, I think we can defend this case. But at the end of the day, particularly during that pretrial conference hearing, it became clear, that the government was going to use four comments that Steven made over the course of the day, to in effect, show that Steve had in the government's word, joined the mob.

In other words, Steve was in some respects, taking the government's interpretation of his word.

He was applauding the conduct of the crowd that day. And the government said, that sets him apart from the other 80 journalists. Well, either you think about that. That basically says, any opinion journalist, whose opinion is on the wrong side of what the government deems to be the line of acceptability is, therefore, subject to prosecution.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: As long as your opinions are on the right side of the line of acceptability, you're fine.

GLENN: So that's a First Amendment right.

BILL: Exactly. But we could not get the court to accept that. I think part of what we were up against was, these were only misdemeanor charges. The court was simply not going to give us the evidence that we were entitled to.

But the difficulty of that particularly kind of defenses. It's almost a concession, that you've actually committed the crime.

And what you're saying is why aren't other people similarly situated being charged with the same crime.

It's a double-edged sword.

And after the election, it was just a matter of, you know, Steve, we can get out of this in such a way, where we write the facts. We decide what we tell the judge, are the facts of the case. Unlike a plea agreement, when you have an agreement with the government, they write the facts. And you're stuck with them. Because the alternative is to go to trial.

GLENN: I will tell you, I pled -- I don't know if I pled guilty, I might have. Pled guilty in a case. Had to surrender and just acquiesce on a case years ago. Involving terrorists. To have.

And somebody -- I had them dead to rights.

Dead to rights. But the government is controlling all of the strings and all of the information. And if you can't get the information, from the government, that they have, and that you know exists. Because you have copies of it.

But the judge says, no. I need to seat official copy. And the government says, well, we're not going to give you the official copy.

You have no place to go. They win every time, if you -- you know, can't get them to cooperate in any way. And give you the information, that they only have.

That's what you're fighting. Right?

BILL: Yeah. And our alternative here would have been to go to the appellate court.

But we could only do that after the district court, the trial court after that case was over. We could go to the appellate court. But, again, we're talking about four misdemeanors.

How much effort are you willing to put in, to go to the appellate court. To try to get this information, that the trial judge has denied you.

GLENN: So what is your sentence going to be, Steve? Do you know?

STEVE: Well, they set my sentencing hearing for March the 6th. We don't know. But the judge himself acknowledged in the court date on Tuesday, that we likely would never see each other again.

How about that? He actually acknowledged that. He actually said it twice, in reference to the fact that there is probably going to be pardons going down.

And, therefore, I wouldn't be sentenced. But in that moment, I think the judge made a really critical and unforced error.

Because he decided to go and dress me down, as he would normally do during a sentencing hearing. And since he decided that we probably wouldn't be able to have that hearing in March, he was going to go ahead and take that opportunity to chastise me. What he did, Glenn, is incredible.

And we will have the transcript of this, and we will certainly release it through the Blaze.

That he dressed me down, not for my behavior. But he criticized my actual work as a journalist, because I had used the terms "weaponized DOJ" and I had been critical of the biased court.

GLENN: Wow! Wow!

What a violation of your First Amendment.

All right, Steve, thanks for explaining this. Bill, best of luck. Keep us up to speed. I think you are right. I think Donald Trump is going to come in, and I hope not for everybody.

I mean, there were some people that were really bad actors in this. But most people weren't. And that should be erased from their record entirely.

Thank you, Steve. Appreciate it. God bless. You bet.

Will Donald Trump embrace Bitcoin in 2025?

Bitcoin has seen a major rise after the re-election of Donald Trump. Just a year ago, a Bitcoin was worse under $40,000. Now, that has more than doubled, passing $80k and even $90k. But is this just the beginning. Donald Trump has promised to end the government's plans to release a FedCoin or Central Bank Digital Currency. Will he go as far as instructing the U.S. Treasury to invest in Bitcoin? Glenn and Stu discuss.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let's see. Have we seen Bitcoin this morning? What is Bitcoin up to?

STU: Last I saw was 82,000. My apologies.

83,000.

GLENN: Wow!

STU: 83,000.

I mean, that is amazing.

By the way, you could have bought it for about three or 4,000, during the beginning of COVID.

So I remember Glenn, a time when this office was buzzing constantly with the -- what wound up being a, quote, unquote, bubble of 19,000.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And that was in 2017.

GLENN: Yeah. That's not going to come back. It will never get higher than that.

STU: You look at the entire chart of Bitcoin.

That bubble that was end -- that was the game-ender. This is it. It's going to zero.

Every freaking media institution had 100 articles about how it was over. And now -- and then it rose again. And you have the FTX situation happen. And, again, it was all over, and we had to read article after article after article. Now 83,000.

Every single person in history, that bought Bitcoin and has held on to it, is now in the green.

GLENN: By the way, January 23rd of this year, it was $38,505.

STU: Gosh, this year.

GLENN: This year. 38,505.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: I mean, it has -- I mean -- and, you know what -- you know what this is? The government of the United States, under Donald Trump, him saying, I'm not going to be hostile to you.

I won't be hostile. I'm not -- I'm not going to try to put you out of business. In fact, the government is going to now get hostile, on the idea of a Fed coin. We're not going to let the Federal Reserve do a currency.

No! No more. No more.

There's no Fed coin that will happen. And he wants a Constitutional amendment, but he'll at least pass laws that say, they cannot do that.

That's what -- that's what's giving people confidence. It's not the free market. It's the fact that the free market is just -- there's hope, that it actually works now!

That people can buy what they want to buy. And not fear the government coming in and shutting it all down.

STU: Yeah. And Trump has talked about when the US government comes in contact with Bitcoin. It doesn't just pump it out to the market.

They have about 200,000.

GLENN: Why would they do that?

STU: Hold it. Have a Bitcoin reserve. Certainly, El Salvador has done this. To great effect.

GLENN: We should take -- we spend billions of dollars.

And we -- we just hand out, hey. I mean, found the 6 billion-dollar check, in my -- I left it 234 my suit. I set it out to try cleaning.

They just pinned it to my suit, so I didn't forget I had six billion dollars here. Why don't you take that for your little war. What?

Okay. We find that money. Why haven't we taken $10 billion, and just funneled it all into bitcoin and put it in the Treasury?

Why haven't we taken $50 billion, and then hold it?

STU: Right. We have $12 billion. Actually I should say, with the new prices, $16 billion of Bitcoin. Currently, in US possession from various investigations. Silk Road being one of the big ones. But various investigations. And we come into contact with it often.

Where there's an investigation, some drug dealer has some bitcoin. Comes into the US possession.

GLENN: We should buy it.

STU: Trump is just saying, hold it.

When -- don't -- the current policy of the US, is when the investigation is finally wrapped up, to just dump it into the market. There's no reason to do that. Why not hold it?

And, you know, this is the type of thing, one of the reasons why we're -- we talked about this so long ago, Glenn?

Was because, it undermines the ability for the US government to constantly print cash forever. Right?

It undermines that. And if you are -- if you were worried about that in the future. Having a policy where you can offset it a little bit.

Is a positive thing.

You want to keep that out of -- you don't want to constantly weaken yourself. This is a way to strengthen your foundations. And, of course, so far, people like Elizabeth Warren have been influencing that policy. Now, the Democrats did come around a little bit to this.

They really -- I guess, I don't know if they wanted crypto money. They actually --

GLENN: I think they wanted all the money.

STU: They wanted all the money, and there's a lot in crypto.

But can you imagine how annoyed Elizabeth Warren is today?

That makes me feel just so good. It makes me feel so good.

GLENN: Oh, you know what also makes me happy? Is the fact that they spent a billion dollars, and now they're 20 million in debt. Her campaign. How is that possible?

STU: How is it possible?

GLENN: How is it possible?

STU: My favorite part of this, Glenn. My favorite part of this is picturing the maxed out Kamala Harris donor.

Someone is like, you know what, democracy is on the line. Hitler is coming into office. I'm putting my full 3500 dollars behind Kamala Harris, taking that step.

You're a maxed-out donor. You will get campaign literature to the end of time, from every candidate from now on. But you are taking that stand! And you know what you accomplished?

You paid for 1/100th of the set that she used to film a sex podcast appearance. That was what your -- your big moment of becoming a maxed out donor paid for like one letter in the sign behind her, as she filmed a sex podcast.

GLENN: Why would she --

STU: Oh, I love it.

GLENN: Why did they build the set for this sex podcast? Why would they do that?

STU: Because she wanted to do it in a hotel, apparently.

Now, this is something that people do, as you know. Like sometimes they don't -- you want to go get a separate studio. You don't want to go across town with all your people.

GLENN: You don't ever spend that kind of money. Ever! Nobody does that.

STU: No.

GLENN: Even -- they gave Harpo a million dollars. Did you know that?

STU: Yes, a million dollars to Harpo.

The -- that's Oprah's production company, because she produced for some of these events, apparently.

GLENN: Yeah, for what?

You know, I've produced interviews with him. With Trump, we didn't get paid. In fact, I would feel dirty, if I had gotten paid for that happen.

STU: Especially if it was something important to you.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, yeah.

STU: If you were saying democracy from Hitler. You would say, actually, we're donating all of our time.

GLENN: If I'm endorsing a candidate, like Donald Trump.

I mean, this -- I didn't make a financial contribution.

The money that this damn election cost me, is eye-bleed.

It's eye-bleed.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: But that was my -- and it was my choice.

I was like, well. If I want it done, I will have to pay for it. Let's go. Let's do it.

None of these people did. Beyonce.

STU: Yeah. I know. I love it. I love it. They all made a million dollars for walked on the stage.

STU: I love it so much.

I can't even describe how much I love the fact that these celebrities built the campaign out of all this money. I love it. Keep doing it.

There was a clip going around, which was, I don't know. A seven or eight-minute synopsis edited down of MSNBC's election night.

Which is very fun to watch, because there's this incredible optimism. Incredible optimism at the beginning. By the way, Rachel Maddow is the anchor of their election coverage apparently. It's incredible!

Like, she is an obvious conspiracy theorist. At the at least, you could say, she's a hard-core liberal nutjob.

Like, that is -- and no journalist.

GLENN: Imagine me, if I would have anchored the election night for Fox.

STU: Right. They would go crazy. They put Bret Baier in that role.

So, anyway, they are doing this thing.

And at one point, Joy Reid goes on this rant, that it was a perfect, flawless campaign.

And her evidence for this. She has Beyonce. She has the Swifties and the Beehive.

Like that's it! She stops.

Like that's a perfect campaign. The Swifties and the Beehive.

What RFK Jr. should do with the FDA and HHS on Day 1

Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. Glenn breaks down what he should do on Day 1 to rein in the corruption at the FDA. But should we be concerned that he will add in too much regulation? Glenn, Stu, and Glenn’s head researcher, Jason Buttrill, debate. Also, is this really just about making our food healthier, or is it also a fight against cronyism?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. Jason, I know you're here to talk about UFOs and other crazy stuff.

But I want to continue this conversation.

And you did the research for a show that we did, on the FDA.

JASON: Crazy.

GLENN: It's crazy. Crazy. And I think this is the kind of stuff that I want RFK to dismantle. I want him to dismantle the money going back and forth from the drug companies, the revolving door, and Bush. Why would I think of him?

Trump is -- is doing this with big tech too. You work -- work for the government.

You are not going to work for big tech for ten years. Good. Same thing should be true with pharmaceutical companies. And good food.

And here's why. Froot Loops comes from the FDA. They say, we want to make a new product called Froot Loops. And we want to make some of them yellow. So we need. What is it? Yellow number five?

JASON: Sounds like a concentration chemical. Really, whatever it is.

GLENN: So yellow number five.

STU: Delicious concentration camp chemical.

GLENN: Right. So the FDA says, okay. You have to prove that yellow number five is good, is okay to put in.

They don't take a percentage of how many people have we said yellow number five is okay for? So if it's in everybody's food, that changes all the calculations. But forget about that.

We're only talking about Froot Loops.

So they say, you have to show us the study.

Now, think of global warming.

The food company goes to their group of known and trusted scientists.

And say, we need a study that shows yellow number five is safe.

And they're like, oh, we're going to do that study.

We're going to -- it's going to be fair and balanced and totally on the up and up.

STU: You seem skeptical.

GLENN: A little bit. Just like I am with studies that are paid for by the people who are going to benefit from that study.

It's not neutral

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The FDA is then given that study, after it comes back. And says. Yellow number five is phi fine.

They're given that study. And they -- so the FDA says, so the study.

You've got the scientists to approve. Uh-huh. And it was a really tough fight. They really dug deep. So okay. Good. We'll approve it. Give us. How much money was it? Do you remember?

JASON: Oh, it's insane. And it's per batch.

GLENN: Yeah. So it's not just -- yeah. We've proven it. So okay this for Froot Loops.

It's every time that they have to -- they make a new batch of Froot Loops. And they're pouring yellow number five in.

They have to apply for a new license for that batch.

Okay?

Well, wait. It's either good or it's not.

Why?

Let me ask you something: Why do you keep coming to me, and giving me all this money. You know what I mean?

Maybe some day, I can do something for you. You know. Maybe. Maybe. Hey, I have a job opening.

Maybe you guys want to come over here, and police things with us.

That's the problem. And that's what I hope they get rid of.

STU: So are you looking for the FDA to do more or less in this process?

GLENN: I'm looking for somebody that is neutral.

STU: Right.

But I'm asking specifically, the FDA. Which I guess in this theory. In this -- like concept here. We're calling FDA neutral. I don't know we necessarily agree with.

In theory, they're the neutral party here.

Which I think has all sorts of problems. So my -- my -- I think what you're describing is a funding mechanism. Right?

FDA is massive. It costs a lot of money. And they're paying for the FDA to continue to go.

GLENN: Half of -- half of the money from the FDA. Okay?

Half of their budget, comes from food and pharmaceutical companies.

STU: Right. Let's say, you stop that.

You cut the FDA in half.

That's the direction we're looking for. Less input from the FDA.

GLENN: Yeah. I want less FDA to the FDA. And I want an end to the revolving door and an obvious corruption that is coming from money.

GLENN: So when you say that a funding issue, that translated as a crony issue. This is everything that the left used to hate. Everything.

It's everything -- like, I'm a Libertarian, more than anything else.

I guess I'm Libertarian lite. So when I first heard about this.

I got the person that did the bulk of this research. Was one of the biggest hippies on our team. You know who I'm talking about.

GLENN: You know who it is. Don't smoke --

JASON: That one. The other big hippie. But I said, food. I don't give a crap. If I want to poison my body, I want to poison my body.

But when it got me, was when I saw the cronyism angle.

And that's why I don't get Libertarian on this. This is everything you used to be, about big government.

They are getting rich off of an alliance with a lot of these companies.

GLENN: And it appears as though science takes a back, backseat.

They're sitting in the back of the bus.

GLENN: The experts.

And you can apply this to everything that we hate now about big government. Anything else. The push for blah, blah, blah, for the progressive agenda right now. Where they say, well, the experts are telling us this.

Well, the experts are employed by the people pushing their poison! And they are paid directly to --

GLENN: If you understand why we have a problem with clients -- climate science.

Just take what you know about climate science. That this is all being done by the people who want this to be real.

Because they want -- they want the money to keep coming in.

You're not -- you're not denying the -- the planet is getting, you know -- is going to kill us all, within five minutes.

You're not getting any money if the study comes out and says, no, that's not true.

You're not getting money. So the scientists sometimes will come back with the results that the people paying for it, want.

JASON: This would be like, if Elon Musk wants to sell his EVs. And he produces this huge report, saying that the world is spontaneously going to combust, in just two years.

Unless you add here to his research, that his scientists did, and trust us.

It's great!

GLENN: And, by the way. And, by the way, the lithium battery study that I just did.

Fires don't start with lithium batteries. It's not a problem.

JASON: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: So the issue is, you believe these food companies are proving things that theoretically are not helpful.

That are harmful. Then they're producing these studies. And they're giving them to the FDA. And the FDA is just approving them.

GLENN: And the FDA is not -- you know, the FDA. You know, I'm sketchy on this one. You might be able to help me out on this. The FDA made the food pyramid. The food pyramid that we've all grown up. Saying this is absolutely right.

They designed that through the food companies.

STU: Okay. So --

GLENN: It should be through science.

And through knowing what is --

STU: So who is doing these studies, if the food companies aren't paying for them. Who is paying for them?

JASON: The food companies are.

STU: I'm saying, that's your vision of the future.

GLENN: I think there could be a tax on the food companies or pharmaceutical companies.

STU: So they would still be paying for them.

GLENN: They're still paying them.

But they're not picked the scientists. Like, the scientists at general foods say.

STU: So you want a larger role for the FDA. They're deciding --

GLENN: They're the regulator. They are the regulator. It should be them, to prove it's safer.

STU: Aren't you answering your questions why Libertarians don't like it?

You're arguing for a larger role for the FDA. That's why they don't like it.

JASON: Larger responsibility.

STU: Yeah. I'm on the side of, the FDA has nothing to do with this. I would much rather have the FDA basically shut down, and not have any role in this whatsoever. Now, that is -- it's an old school American view.

GLENN: No. I would be for that.

STU: I don't like government control of this stuff, or input. I think that's why Libertarians don't like it.

What they're doing now, if I'm understanding this correctly. Is that companies are basically on their own, to come up with signs that prove this.

And the FDA basically goes along with it.

GLENN: For money.

And jobs.

STU: Again, and half of their budget.

Other alternative to fund the half of the budget. Is taxpayers.

That's the other alternative.

GLENN: No. Or taxing.

Taxing the food companies. And the pharmaceuticals.

Okay?

You want this service.

STU: Either way. We're paying for it eventually.

We're paying for it in our food. And we're paying for it in our taxes.

Again, I could understand the problems with this.

And this, of course, is true. Right? Companies constantly produce science that helps themselves. It happens in global warming and everything else.

I just think that my -- my -- I'm concerned, here's my concern. Here's my concern.

I don't want the -- I'm from a conservative movement.

That doesn't want the federal government to make me healthy.

GLENN: I agree with that.

STU: I'm of a vision of conservatism, that doesn't want the federal government to make me anything.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: This is a line in the sand for me. And I know a lot of people don't care about it.

But I'm of the conservative movement that yells at Michael Bloomberg for getting rid of large sodas. That's me. That's 100 percent me.

I have seen Jason too much in Taco Bell to know that he is -- I know he's on my side on that part of it.

GLENN: I don't want the government to tell me what I can eat. What I can't eat.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: But I would like -- I would like a -- some science to say, hey.

Stu, not good.

And not from Monsanto. And not necessarily from the government, that wants to control everything.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, there should be a way to get neutral science. But we don't have that now.

And honestly --

STU: There's been a lot of neutral science produced about food coloring. A lot of it. And you can choose whether to like those studies.

There has been some that have some indications of negative aspects. There have been many, many, that have been like, it doesn't seem like there's much here.

But that being said, the government comes in. And if the government approves a study, is that now gospel?

I don't think that's what we want. I think what --

GLENN: Science -- science is always changing.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's not. Of course.

But our understanding of it --

GLENN: Yes. Thank you, our understanding.

STU: Science doesn't change.

GLENN: But, you know, I am concerned. Because, look, this is a guy, RFK, who has a very strong opinion on a lot of things.

And it's not my disagreement within this that, well, scientific consensus says X, Y, and Z, therefore he's bad. That's not what my belief is at all.

He has in his head, his own consensus. And he is going to try -- I believe, that he is going to apply his mental consensus over a lot of things that I don't necessarily want changed. I want to make the decisions for myself.

And as long as we live in a world. Where if what he winds up doing with this role, hey, you can spill raw milk all over the place. I'm not going to be concerned about it at all.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the thing.
I've learned this. Gosh, 50 years ago, 40 years ago.

It's never a problem, if you're selling a Volkswagen, and the client buys it.

And you've paid for a Volkswagen.

And it runs like a Rolls-Royce.

STU: No. It's great.

GLENN: If you buy a Rolls-Royce and it runs like a Volkswagen. There's hell to be paid. So what he's selling us, his Rolls-Royce that he is selling us right now, is we're going to cut regulation.

We're going to get out and make things your choice. And give you the transparency that you need to make good choices. But we're not going to force anybody to do anything.

Okay?

That's the Rolls-Royce, that he's promising. If he starts to run the Volkswagen way, which is more federal regulation, less choice, then there will be hell to be paid.

Because you're not -- that's not what you're selling us right now.

STU: Yeah. Look, I -- he's going to do some things I'm really going to like. I'm sure of it.

JASON: I think it's baby steps. Like, I would love to get rid of the FDA as well.

You know me. I would love to dismantle the bureaucracy. But let's take baby steps. Let's at least start with, let's not them collude with big food, Big Pharma, and all that.

Make a ton of money off of our expense. I'll just start there.

GLENN: I actually think -- I mean, he has said himself, the FDA should be shut down. And he said, 90 percent of it should be shut down immediately. I'm all for that. I don't need a baby step. I'm ready.

Okay. Let's do that. You know, let's just know what we're -- what we're trying to do here is to make the government accountable to the people, and giving the people their own rights back, that we stupidly gave to the federal government.