Best of the Program | Guests: Aaron Sibarium & Mark Levin

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

You know, I was having a perfectly good time.

A perfectly good time today.

Really?

Yes, I was.

And then you had to bring up Zelensky, Biden, and Ukraine.

I know.

You were like calm and like collected.

And then I brought that up and you were just screaming.

It was a good show today.

It was a good show.

No, no real, well, I can't say that.

I mean, Mark Levin, I was going to say, no real

panic on anything, but Mark Levin spent about an hour with me talking about, you know, Trump going to jail and what that will mean.

So we had that going for us.

Don't want to miss that hour.

Also, the very beginning of the podcast,

I did, you know, Stu said something yesterday to me in the last half hour of the show.

He was like, so how do you see this working out well with the election?

And

I couldn't think of any, so I went back home yesterday and I'm like, okay, let me try to really figure this out.

How does this end well?

Okay, I'm not going to count the God thing, which is really the only answer.

But what I came up with

was something I actually believe

is going to happen.

And what the next move is and what summer

looks like in the United States of America in 2024.

You don't want to miss that monologue.

All that and more coming up after I tell you the story.

about a company that does it right.

A company that does it here in America, and that's gripsics.com peck.

Do you play pickleball, Du?

Yeah, I do.

I like pickleball.

It's fun.

I mean, I've only, you know, I'm a tennis player, so I like, you know, like playing racket sports and kind of picked this one up a little bit recently.

It's an easy thing to do.

It's way easier than tennis.

Yeah.

Because you can jump in there

never having played a minute of pickleball.

You're talking to me.

Most people can step in.

No, I think you can get in and go from, it's one of those sports you can go from zero to 60 really quick.

You're not going to be an expert right away, but like you can play the like my wife is

getting that for the whole family.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

I think it's it's a great idea.

It's fun.

Yeah.

It's fun and you can you can pick it up.

Like my wife played, we played like some couples, doubles type things, and she can get the ball in and get it over the net right away.

I'm so uncoordinated though, I can't play ping pong.

And I hear it's a step up from ping pong.

I think it's easier than ping pong.

Okay, good, good.

Way easier.

Yeah, okay, all right.

As far as just the basics, if you're looking for anything pickleball,

great pickleball, all the products that you would want, you can get them now made here in America using American-made products, American-made

resources, and Americans actually making those things.

Do yourself a favor, whether you're looking for wallets or belts, great belts by the way, socks, whatever, it's all made here in America.

And pickleball paddles available at gripsics.com/slash Beck.

That's gripsics.com/slash Beck.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

Welcome to the Glenbeck Program.

There's a couple of things going on with

a woman that runs Harvard.

And one of them is, hey, I have to have a room with color crayons and comic books so you can read a comic book and then, you know, color a happy tree because you feel like you're being you know uh you have microaggressions all around you

stopping free speech everywhere unless you're calling for you know the death of jews then i guess hey we well we know free speech it's crazy but there's something else that has now been brought brought up that i think people knew about uh in in the harvard world but didn't say anything and that is the fact that its president, Claudine Gay,

broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism, including her doctoral dissertation,

was plagiarized.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized, and she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters.

You plagiarize something.

I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book and claim it's yours.

Okay, I care because that's stealing from somebody else.

You plagiarize in a university.

Well, you're setting the standards and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty.

And if the person who's at the top is known to have plagiarized, how do you tell the students we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our

universities are, how morally corrupt they are.

We have

Aaron

Sabarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington Free Beacon, and we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale,

and you were the editor of the Yale Daily News.

So you know something about Ivy League and

plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

No, Glenn, it is not.

It is not celebrated.

And in fact,

I would say that generally at all of these schools, it's standard to get a lecture saying it doesn't matter how small, it doesn't matter if

it's unintentional,

even if you do it with the best intentions,

it's still a serious problem.

You should double check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized.

That is what Harvard tells its students in a very long document that outlines its policies very clearly.

It no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant.

If you take any language or even just ideas or content from someone else and don't cite them, it's plagiarism.

And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, Gay clearly violated them on at least some occasions.

Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you and your article go through it.

We don't have to go through it here, but it's significant.

Why does this matter?

Well, look, you know, if people do make mistakes, and if this were,

if

this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, 100 or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a Nobel Prize, you might think, okay, it's a few paragraphs here or there, but the overall content is original.

Is this such a big deal?

I think it's worth emphasizing that she has published, in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles, 11 in the past

two decades.

That is a really,

really small number

for any academic, I think, at a prestigious university, but especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to

its highest position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe careless citations or plagiarism out of 100 papers, you're talking about it out of 11 papers, right?

So, we found,

so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles.

We in two of them, we found examples of plagiarism, then in her dissertation, then in another thing she wrote that was in a non-peer-reviewed journal.

So, this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output that contains at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think that's actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there.

It seems to be a pattern, and it's a pattern that

is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively measur

scholarly output, measur scholarly output.

So this is not anything new.

I mean, it's my understanding that this has kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet.

It didn't matter.

Is that true?

Well, yeah, it appears to be true because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples and confronted Harvard with them all the way back in October.

And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed it promptly as soon as it was brought to our attention.

We initiated a review of Gay's work, and Dr.

Gay requested corrections proactively.

Well, what the Harvard Corporation didn't mention is that apparently they

intimidated, may have even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation

after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country, Claire Locke, God knows how much they were paying them.

to send a 15-page

intimidation letter to journalists who are coming to them with examples of plagiarism.

So clearly, they thought that it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelly had a lot of money to shut this down, and that was all the way back in October.

So, why would they do this

to protect?

I mean, why?

I think that Claudine Gay

is

emblematic

of the kind of DEI ideology

that is regnant at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender, and I'm sure, you know, they don't want the optifist of firing Harvard's first bike president.

Yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that.

It's that she...

She both kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also,

this I think hasn't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president.

She was sort of at the center of a lot of cancellations, right?

She helped engineer the bureaucratic demonstration of both Roland Fryer, who's this really famous black economist at Harvard, and she helped also strip

Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from an administrative post after Sullivan

made the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team.

You can't defend the unpopular,

that's no longer allowed.

So she,

you know, I think kind of

had

a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies

and seems to have kind of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus of Harvard around her very shrewdly.

That's part of how she became

president.

And I think that that

background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution has, in some sense, been mobilized around her and she's kind of put all the pieces in place.

Does it play any role that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay, who is a

feminist author and New York Times writer who's

absolutely a terrible human being.

You know, honestly,

I don't know if that really, I think they would do this with just about anyone in her position.

I mean, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

I mean, and I would say, too, right, they've obviously been under pressure from donors,

but they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students.

And, you know, you mentioned the testimony she gave where she couldn't forthrightly

condemn calls for the genocide of Jews.

I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah, we support free speech in all cases.

And in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of insert other groups, we will protect that because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true, and we all know it's not true.

But B, because if she had said that,

you know, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

Right.

So they really, she's, to be fair fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place.

And no matter what she does or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

Well, I have to tell you, you know, I don't want to see harm come to anybody, but, you know, gee, if

you get nailed by your own policies

and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, I, you know, I have a hard time, again, with nobody being hurt.

I have a really hard time, you know, giving any sympathy to her at all.

Thank you so much.

One last question.

Is this an issue outside of her, should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up because there's a mob on the other side that is saying, hey,

she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

Obviously, the anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her.

I mean, it'd be silly to deny that, but I think it would still be an issue.

You know,

the plagiarism isn't quite as severe as, say, it's not like data fraud, right?

There was a guy at Stanford, actually, a former Stanford president, stepped down amid allegations of data fraud.

I mean, that was really serious, right?

On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own.

The anti-Semitism stuff obviously amplifies it, makes it worse.

But again, I think the real context here is the meager scholarly record, right?

Again, I really don't think people would care.

I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers.

But that's not the context.

And I think that what it underscores is that this woman clearly was not chosen

for her scholarly merits.

If that was the criterion, they would have chosen, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard that would have been better.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Appreciate all your work and all your writing.

God bless.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

Mr.

Mark Levin, how are you, my friend?

Mr.

Glenbeck, I mean, look, I'm good.

Thank you.

Good, good, good.

I'm pretty good.

You know, I'm a little concerned about, you know, 2024.

I can't come up with a scenario where it ends well,

but maybe you can.

it's such a mess i mean you've got people talking third-party i think of

if nikki haley who i really oppose i mean i call her george bush in a dress and she pretty much is and

with their foreign policy it is she is with her foreign policy

domestic policy as soon as she wanted to invite the palestinians in gaza into our country what she lost her mind yeah that's uh she uh

she gave land to communist china in South Carolina, and now she pretends she's a hardliner.

She's never been a leader on any of the issues that matter to us, whether it's abortion, whether it's the border, whether it's tax cuts.

And I looked at these allegations by DeSantis, and he's right.

Go on and Google them.

Look at them.

She refused to sign a bill that said men use men's rooms and ladies use ladies' rooms.

When he came to the woke war, she sided with Disney.

I'm going, what's going on here?

This woman is not going to be able to fight the Marxist revolution that is surrounding us and swirling around us today,

which is why Karl Rove and Romney and this guy Fink at Blackstone or Black Rock, whatever the hell they call themselves, all these people, including liberal Democrat billionaires who are going to vote for Biden, are backing her.

So she goes third party.

You know, the rhinos are the fifth column.

They're the fifth column in our party, and frankly, they're the fifth column in this country, along with the media.

The Democrats, once they get their fighting out of the way, they'll back Biden.

They would back a cum quote for president

means that they have back.

But our guys, they'll splinter.

The base is always supposed to march behind whatever the Republican establishment does.

But this goes to your point, doesn't it?

Which is

it's concerning.

The way you feel about Nikki Haley, would you fall in line behind her?

I don't have to.

She's going to fall before I have to fall.

No, I know, but if she were the candidate.

No, I've had enough.

Okay.

All right.

Me too.

Me too.

However,

if it is by if it's Biden or, I think, Michelle Obama, I'd vote for a Kumquat.

Yeah, and I don't think it'll be Michelle Obama.

By the way, you haven't heard a word from her, have you?

No, we haven't, but I just I it's the only scenario that works out.

I mean, it lets you convention

That the

superdelegates, they just forget the vote.

They just say, you know what, he's too ill or whatever.

He's too frail.

You know, the Democrats want another choice.

Let's just re-nominate Michelle Obama.

Believe it or not, if that happens, I think they're going to swing to Hillary.

But it doesn't matter what we think.

The problem is what's happening right now is this grotesque effort to try and put Donald Trump in prison.

you read

this a-hole who filed this with the Supreme Court.

He's always wanting to cut the corners.

He doesn't get attorney-client privilege, so ruled an Obama judge.

All these privileges, presidential privilege, executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, all deny Donald Trump.

He doesn't want to go through the normal appellate process because he can't get his trial going before the election.

You know, it takes years to have a full-blown criminal trial, particularly when you're raising, you're creating constitutional issues of first impression.

So he brings us to this point.

Now he's demanding that the Supreme Court hear his

motion against Trump as soon as possible.

And these dimwits, they say, okay, we'll consider your argument.

Trump's lawyers, you have one week to respond.

You go, what?

You had a case in Pennsylvania during the course of this election, not about ballots, not about voting machines, a pure constitutional question, a legitimate question about who gets to decide and write election laws in the state.

The governor, the board of elections, or the legislature, like the Constitution says in black and white.

They wouldn't even take up that case.

You have other cases that people are waiting for in front of the Supreme Court, not to get too much in the weeds.

These Enron case, they use the obstruction in the Enron case against these January 6ers, which doesn't apply.

It doesn't even meet the elements.

So they're on appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, and the same day the court says, okay, we want to hear these arguments on the motion from Jack the Ripper Smith there.

The court says, we're going to pun on this for now.

Maybe we'll consider it later in the year or next year.

You've got people sitting in jail.

So this is really amazing.

You have a case, this Judge Chunkin,

I had a great lawyer on my program, Schoen is his name, David Schoen, and he said, Mark, I've been sitting three years waiting for a decision from this judge who wants to have a trial on Trump in a five-month period.

It's all a setup.

And so this guy, Jack Smith, the courts are bending over backwards to accommodate this guy.

He wins every single motion.

Trump loses every single motion in front of this radical Obama judge.

The appellate court, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, because when Terry Reed was the Senate leader and Obama was president, they added seats to the D.C.

circuit and filled it with Democrats.

This recent panel had two Obama appointees and one Biden appointee.

The judge that Trump's dealing with now is an Obama appointee.

The judge Trump was dealing with before that was another Obama appointee.

And now we go to the Supreme Court, and I'll tell you, Glenn,

John Roberts is a huge problem.

John Roberts is like this guy, Michael Ludig.

They hate Trump.

They're Republicans.

But, you know, they're proper Republicans.

They don't like the tweeting.

You know, they don't like the language.

Oh, my goodness, all this stuff going on here.

It's just so unseemly.

It's so improper.

You know, they're just used to losing the country very properly, you know.

But what's happening here, in my view, is we have a potencing criminal justice system.

We have judges that wear black robes.

You go into

these mahogany paneled courtrooms.

You've got a prosecutor standing over there.

He gets his desk.

The defense gets their desk.

Eventually, you have a trial.

The jury sits over there.

It all looks so proper.

It all looks so constitutional.

And it's all bullcrap because all these movements and actions before this trial, the motions filings, the decisions on the motion filings and everything, they will determine the outcome of this election.

And just finally, I know I'm rambling a bit, but I tend to do that.

One of the things that troubles me a lot here is this.

This guy charges Trump with a Klan Act violation, with two Enron violations, and a federal contractor violation.

These four statutes.

So it was bogus.

It is bogus.

But his arguments, which have been allowed by this judge, his paper filings are all about insurrection and seditious conspiracy.

In other words, and this is a grotesque violation of

prosecutorial ethics, grotesque.

He is making the case without having proved the elements of the crimes that he's basically arguing for, that Donald Trump knew or had to know that what he was saying, what he was doing, what he was texting, what he was reading, prove that he wanted a violent event to occur that day.

So why didn't you charge him with that?

He's not charged with violence about anything.

He's charged with the Klan Act and obstruction and all the rest of these things.

And the judge rules, oh, that's okay.

What's okay?

So he's charged with four phony charges.

But this guy's arguing something completely different.

And other serious litigators or former federal prosecutors or whatever are saying this is not the way this is supposed to be done.

And it's all happening.

The Supreme Court should not take this case up.

There's no emergency reason why this case has.

And by the way, if you read this motion, this clown keeps talking about the public interest.

The people have a right to know.

What does he know about the public interest?

He sits hold up.

He's in a room with 10 other reprobates.

They're making all these decisions on their own.

And then they speak for the public.

Well, they sure as hell don't speak for 80 million people.

And so the judiciary, I would argue, is doing severe damage to this country, allowing incredible interference in this election process.

And when it's all said and done, they'll never recover.

I will tell you that John Roberts is the kind of guy who thinks we should rule on this and let this go forward.

Otherwise, we'll be blamed for it.

And they'll say, oh, it's the judicial activism of the Supreme Court.

So we're protecting the Supreme Court by letting this small injustice, as they would think, just let this pass.

Let them do it, and they hash it out, and then our hands are clean.

It's an act of pontous pilot, quite honestly.

100%.

I call him Hollywood John.

He's very worried about what's said about him and thought about him.

His wife and Thomas Friedman over there at the New York Times, they're best friends.

They get caught up in these social circles, which always go the way of the left.

And I don't trust this guy.

I don't even trust Kavanaugh.

And Barrett is a complete disappointment because she's right under Roberts' wing.

You really have three tremendous constitutionalists.

Then you've got a couple of rhinos, and then you've got the hardcore left Democrats.

I'm worried about this.

So Alan Dershowitz has said, just based on the speed of this trial, he's like,

there's no way Donald Trump could even prepare for

a defense.

And he said, we are at a banana republic if that isn't stopped.

He's like, there's no way that there should, that this trial should go forward next year

only because of the amount and volume of documents that have to be processed.

He said it's criminal if they speed this trial up or they let it go at this rate.

Do you agree with that?

I mean, you denied him a crime privilege.

You did it in a secret proceeding.

That's a violation of the Fifth Amendment and of the phony claim of a crime fraud exception.

So, his lead lawyer in the January 6th case had to testify in front of the grand jury, and he had to provide his notes that he had taken with Donald Trump.

And we've never seen anything like this.

We don't know what they're talking about.

It's all done in secret.

That happens.

I'm told other things happened in front of that grand jury that were absolutely unacceptable by some of the lawyers working on this case.

So, what he's talking about, Dirsch Woods there, is a violation of due process, Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment, which is the right to effective counsel.

You can't have effective counsel when they're drowning in documents and witnesses and everything else, and the judge,

for no reason.

He said that

there is no way that he, he said, if that

lawyer stands in front of that judge and he says, no, you have to proceed.

They aren't ready because there's no way possible.

He said he should

quit immediately and say, I'm sorry, I'm not going to abide.

And if that means you're going to hold me in contempt, hold me in contempt.

But this is a travesty of justice.

Well, I guess that's right.

I mean, every lawyer has to make their own decision on how to proceed.

So I don't know if I do that or not.

I really hadn't thought about it.

That said he's right on the substance of the issue, 100% right.

Now, the problem with all this is this lower court judge and this prosecutor all know that they're setting Donald Trump up for conviction.

So when he runs for office, as president in the general election, the media and everyone else will keep calling him a convicted felon, a convicted felon.

So the people who are kind of on the edge, kind of leaning toward Trump because they can't stand Biden, we know who these people are.

We live with people like this, right, in our communities, in our neighborhoods.

We meet them.

He might lose them.

And that's the goal.

And you can see the hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funding that's going to be spent spent by the Democrats in the Biden campaign, or in your case, the Michelle Obama campaign, I guess, talking about how Trump is a convicted felon and then he'll want to pardon him.

So we won't be talking about inflation and the border.

So all of the best legal minds that I know all say that no matter what the evidence in Washington, D.C.,

he's going to be convicted.

Do you believe that?

I share that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean,

and I'll tell you why.

I mean,

if you're not really able to present your case, if you're not really able to present to study the evidence,

and in addition to that, bring forward counter-evidence, exculpatory information, because you can't get your head around it because of the timeframe.

If you're in a city that goes 94% for Biden, the jury's picked by that

out of that population, if you have an Obama judge that is ruling in every single instance for the government,

when you have a prosecutor who is utterly and completely unethical, who is using tactics

that in most courtrooms would be rejected,

you're setting up a scenario where

nobody,

nobody could survive.

because you're targeting this defendant.

The charges are preposterous.

And by the time you can actually get to an appellate court,

it's over.

And so that makes what Jack Smith is doing is

so horrific because he's trying to jump the appellate court on a constitutional issue to get to the Supreme Court.

And the court is at least entertaining the idea, whereas the defendant, Donald Trump, can't get his constitutional issues up there that fast because the Supreme Court has decided over and over and over again, no, you go through the trial, you go through the appellate court, you need to fine-tune the constitutional issues, then we might take a look at it.

So the whole system, and really, as you well know and your listeners well know, you can have the best constitution on the face of the earth, the best judicial system on paper, but if you don't have people of virtue, particularly judges,

none of it works.

It doesn't matter what's on paper.

There is no due process.

There is no right to counsel.

And effectively, that's what's going on here.

So the likelihood is very high.

Now, here's their problem.

If the court does take up this case for this argument and rules against Jack Smith, that is, that Donald Trump does have immunity from actions he took while president after he leaves the presidency,

then the government really doesn't have a case.

They're in huge trouble.

And this this case will go on longer.

No way that John Roberts allows that to happen.

No way.

That's my fear.

You're listening to the best of Glenn Beck.

Check out the full show podcast to listen to the rest of this interview.

All right, Marlo Oakes.

Welcome to the program, sir.

Thank you.

Good to be here, Glenn.

Thank you very much.

And thank you for alerting me to this.

This is horrifying.

This is a new SEC proposal to allow for a creation of a new type of company.

Tell us about it.

Yeah, so basically a natural asset company.

And really the heart of the problem is that it will permanently stop economically essential activities like grazing, mineral extraction, modern agriculture.

It could severely curtail recreational access.

We're basically talking about the destruction of rural America.

And really, it's an effort to take control control of America's natural resources.

This could be done through these natural asset companies from hostile nations that put money into these.

And we're essentially placing a value on natural processes, things like

the biological systems that provide clean air, water, food, things like that, putting an economic value on those.

It's really an arbitrary value.

It represents a massive transfer of wealth.

This is just another

scam.

This is another

financial scam to make people a lot of money.

But this one, you know, unlike the scams that cost us, you know, almost our freedom last time in 2008, this one actually, if it goes through,

if you buy, let's say, this stock in this

company,

you then can,

you would be

giving the money to buy up the rights of all the minerals and even like the air.

And you can't develop it because it's a forest and

there's lots of clean air that's being generated, right?

That's exactly right.

And so basically the New York Stock Exchange went to the Securities and Exchange Commission and said, we need a rule that will allow us to list companies whose purpose isn't to make money, it's to provide ecological services.

And what are those ecological services?

Well, it is the

biological systems that are creating clean air.

So, think of a forest, right?

Taking carbon out of the air and converting it into oxygen.

What is that worth?

What are underground aquifers worth?

You know, the water that seeps through the ground and creates clean water.

It's those kinds of, what we think of, God-given processes that are now going to be monetized in some way.

And people who own

these companies, who put money into these companies, they stand to benefit from that at the expense of our country.

So now, are they,

let's say I'm a landowner and I have farmland and I have forest.

Do I participate in this?

Do I have to say, yes, my

everything is up for sale?

Or is this just kind of like air rights in New York, where you're just buying the rights of air?

Well, there is, there's, you know, as we know from ESG, the climate crisis is really driving the ESG environmental social governance discussion.

It's the same thing here.

And there is a push, really an attack on energy and agriculture.

And so when we look at agriculture, we're seeing the squeezing of ranchers and farms, and these natural asset companies ban what's called industrial agriculture, which is essentially all agriculture that happens around the globe because that's what produces the yields that are needed to feed the world population.

And so if you ban industrial agriculture, you're talking about something that happened in Sri Lanka, which was

the reduction of rice harvests, 40 to 50%, leading to an 80% increase in prices.

There, it led to civil unrest unbelievably there.

And that's what we're talking about.

So, let me have a very Western conversation with you.

Most people in the East, they don't understand BLM land,

and that is not Black Lives Matter, that is, Bureau of Land Management.

They own in the West a great portion of

the land that farmers use to graze their cattle on because it's just open land.

And you pay a fee and you can graze your

cattle on that land.

And the government's supposed to take care of it.

This company, this new natural asset company, would then not take control of the land, right?

It would just say,

no grazing cattle on that land because we need it pure for the carbon offset or whatever.

And so it would grab that.

But

could it grab my land if I'm a farmer?

Well,

it could be inside of a designated area.

So right now in Montana, there are 5 million acres are,

they're trying, the federal government, I've forgotten which agency it is, has designated 5 million acres.

They're trying to create a national monument out of this, and there's private land within that.

And so your land could be inside of a designated area.

And the government wouldn't necessarily

buy your land, but you're going to end up with fewer options.

Yeah, you won't have any roads maintained.

You won't be able to expand or do anything.

You might be able to be grandfathered into what you're doing right now, but nothing else, right?

And

the infrastructure will be left alone.

Yeah, that's right.

And so even in the East, so in the East,

you have conservation easements.

And so

landowners in the East have placed their lands in conservation easements, which effectively means that no development can happen.

And they do this to get a tax benefit.

But over time, because it's in perpetuity, that land,

the

use of the land when you entered into a conservation easement cannot change.

But the subjective nature of creating a sustainable

sustainable land going forward

means that that land can be placed in a natural asset company.

These conservation easements can go into a natural asset company

without the landowner's consent, essentially.

And so, this really

affects people in the East and the West.

It's just under different

designations.

Yeah, and it will affect all of us because our food prices will go through the roof.

And

yeah, and good luck going to a national park.

Let me ask you this.

How is the New York Stock Exchange pushing for this?

Because

what this natural asset company,

this whole new category, it is non-economic.

The land that they would buy as a private entity must support only replenishable activities.

So that means that they can only replenish the land.

They can't have any economic activity on it.

It's assigned an arbitrary value and then it's traded on that.

But this is a there's no pro you cannot make profit on this.

So who would be buying the stock for this?

Because you're not going to make money.

Well, you're not going to make money through traditional economic activity, but if if companies have to be net zero,

let's say you're

emitting a lot of carbon, then

you will have an incentive to buy into natural asset companies that will provide potentially carbon offsets through these natural processes.

That's one way to drive artificial value.

So I am putting a lot of

pollution up in the air, but if I buy part of Yellowstone or part of

Montana that can no longer be be developed, then I can use that and say, yeah, but I've got all these trees producing all this fresh air.

Exactly.

This is so evil.

This is so

incredibly evil.

Yeah, we've thought of, you know, we've thought of natural processes as sort of God-given, right?

And

you and I are walking carbon emitters.

I mean, when we breathe out, we're emitting 4% carbon.

And so what happens when each of us individually have a carbon footprint that we have to offset?

You know, the wealthy can easily do it.

They just go out and buy, you know, access to NACs, but it's the poorest among us.

Suddenly, are they going to have to pay for their carbon emission?

And then, and then,

you know, that is going to incentivize car reduction, you know, getting people out of cars and walking and bicycles and things like that.

I mean, you can see where this goes.

Yeah, most importantly, this gives a public-private partnership a chance to enrich all of the very wealthy anyway.

And

it is like, what was it that almost brought us down in 2008?

Derivatives.

It's like derivatives.

You're selling garbage.

You're not selling anything.

Nobody really owns anything if you keep selling

these derivatives.

It's a scam.

This is the same thing at a global scale.

Well, and you think about what is America,

what's one of the greatest assets of America?

It's our natural resources.

They're incredible.

And this allows not just wealthy investors, but we're talking about countries like China or Russia or

Iran, whomever, that has a ton of money in these sovereign wealth funds to buy into a natural asset company because they'll raise money globally.

If I am in China and I want to cripple the United States, I just take West Texas and I buy up all of it in one of these companies and they can no longer drill.

That's right.

That's exactly right.

We're suicidal.

We're absolutely suicidal.

Okay, so there is a public comment period, right?

And it's right now and it's been shortened.

And surprise everybody during the holiday season.

So is that for the average person?

Can they go online or call or or what?

Yes, absolutely.

So, you know, I'm telling people to contact their federal legislators, their state legislators,

you know, to

have them reach out

to the SEC.

So people can reach out to the SEC, but also encourage your legislators to reach out to the SEC and even the New York Stock Exchange.

You know, contact your governor, your attorney general, even the state treasurer.

They need to take action to oppose this,

and you can reach out to the SEC directly with it be five commissioners?

Will it be too late after January?

Because they say they're going to decide by January 2nd.

Well, they could decide.

One of the decisions could be to extend the

decision out further.

So that's why I'm hoping that we raise enough awareness and pushback that it makes it difficult for them to finalize this on January 2nd.

But, you know, the fuse is incredibly short.

It's incredible.

And by design.

Of course it is.

Of course it is.

And it's

once again

the destruction of everything that we, what is America about if you can't come here, buy a piece of land and do what you want to do with it?

Well, what is America about?

This goes back to Agenda 2020, Agenda 2030, where they're trying to push everybody into the cities.

And this will do it.

This will do it.

And this is a whole-of-government approach.

You see all of these agencies, the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, all of these agencies are pushing this agenda.

Now the SEC, right, and the SEC, of course, with ESG, but

this just takes it to a whole nother level.

But you see the entire government apparatus pushing this goal really to permanently stop essential economic activity on our land and really lock up our natural resources.

It's incredibly destructive.

Marlo, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll talk to you again.

Marlo Oaks, he is the treasurer of Utah who brought this to my attention.

It needs critical attention right now.

We're going to have this section of the show clipped.

We'll put it out online.

Please share it with everyone.

Share it with every legislator and senator you can find.

Make sure they know about it.

Make sure your friends know about it.

This is a way to lock up all public and private lands.

It is, it's obscene and evil, and it's got to stop.

And they will decide by January 20th, unless, as he said, we kick up a storm and make sure that our

legislators, state and federal, are calling

and saying, no, no, no, not so fast, not so fast.

They've got to call the SEC.

So here's the thing.

You are telling your congressman or whoever about the natural asset company that the New York Stock Exchange is creating along with the SEC.

The SEC, the Security and Exchange Commission, cannot allow for the creation of this kind of a company.

They cannot do it.

Call.

At blinds.com, it's not just about window treatments.

It's about you, your style, your space, your way.

Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right.

From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows.

Because at blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you.

Visit blinds.com now for up to 50% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost.

Rules and restrictions apply.