Best of the Program | Guests: Sen. Rand Paul & Alex Epstein | 9/15/22

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.

Boy, Pat.

What?

I mean,

right?

Wow.

Yeah.

Wild.

Pat brought in his wife's.

Can you stop doing it?

I am really, I don't need help getting fatter.

You're talking about the pumpkin bread?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And, which I don't like.

I never have I looked at pumpkin anything and went, I gotta get me a slice of that.

I know, me neither.

Yeah, and then it was sitting here.

But this is different.

Yeah, because she put like,

I don't know, caramelized sugar all over the top of it.

Like, like about an inch thick of caramelized sugar.

It does make a difference, doesn't it?

It covers up the taste of the pumpkin.

Yes.

I think caramelized sugar on like Fecescake would be.

It might be better.

It might be better.

I'm not.

Yeah.

No, I'm not

suggesting we taste test that, but

caramelized sugar makes anything taste good.

Yes.

So today, today's podcast, covered in caramelized sugar.

You don't want to miss it.

We talk about Amtrak

and this amazing deal.

That's right at the top of the podcast.

We'll get to it.

But first, let me tell you about our sponsor.

It's Relief Factor.

If you're one of the millions of Americans who suffer every day from pain, listen up.

There is hope, and it comes in the form of Relief Factor.

Testimonials cross my desk every single day.

People who have tried Relief Factor for their pain and gotten their life back.

You can do it too.

Please, if your challenge every day is due to pain, try Relief Factor.

It's not a drug developed by doctors, and you can get the three-week quick start for only $19.95.

Try it for three weeks.

If it doesn't work, yes, you're out $19.95.

But if you're part of that 70% who try it to go on to order more, I'm telling you, you get your life back.

It's worth the shot.

Please give it a try.

ReliefFactor.com.

That's relieffactor.com.

You're listening to

the best of the blend back program.

program.

Oh, everybody's famous Fauci Nemesis.

Rand Paul joins us now.

Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky.

How are you, sir?

Very good, Glenn.

Thanks for having me.

You know, I like this.

You said yesterday, we've been asking you, and you refused to answer whether anyone on the vaccine committee gets royalties from the pharmaceutical companies.

I asked you last time, and your response was, we don't have to tell you.

When we get in charge, we're going to change the rules and you will have to divulge where you get your royalties from, from what companies.

If anyone on the committee has a conflict of interest, we're going to learn about it.

I promise you that.

Wow.

Can you imagine, Glenn, if your local school board had a member of the school board who sold textbooks and didn't tell anybody, and then there was a bid for textbooks and he got the contract or she got the contract?

Nobody in their right mind thinks that right.

There is always, you always have to divulge where your money comes from if you're approving things.

Particularly, Pfizer made $36 billion last quarter.

I mean, for goodness sakes,

they should be chomping at the bit to reassure us that nobody on that committee is receiving royalties from either Pfizer or Moderna.

And then we've got nothing.

That was a month ago.

And he quotes a law, and we've looked the law up.

It's from 1980 it's called the buy

uh dole law and uh we're gonna try to fix it but we'll have to amend the law there's no reason in the world they should get to keep this a secret um you know i'm not against people getting royalties if you invent something and you work for government i'm kind of for that because people will stay in government and not leave not everybody will leave government but uh i'm against you hiding that information

i wouldn't mind everybody leaving government

That's another discussion.

So,

you know,

the fear that many conservatives have or independents, and there's more and more independents than there are Republicans lately,

they are all saying the same thing.

If you guys just have hearings and it goes nowhere and nobody pays for the crimes,

it'll be the last time anybody pulls a lever for an R.

What power do you guys have if you take control?

I'll give you an idea from my perspective.

There are different committees, and the committees have different rules.

Certain committees have more subpoena rules, and many of the committees you have to have all of the Republicans vote to give you the subpoena power.

Some of the committees I'm on have the biggest rhinos in the world, and I'll never be able to get subpoena power.

Some of the committees I'm on, I might have the subpoena power.

So this will weigh into our decision on which committee to take if we we win.

The other thing is this.

Not only am I going to have hearings, not only I have an investigation, I'm going to appoint a special investigator, which will likely be like a prosecuting attorney, a lawyer, but I'm also going to appoint a special investigating scientist to help that lawyer.

Because so much of this is science.

The scientists come in, bamboozle the lawyer, and the lawyer says, well, gosh, that's confusing.

So we really need a scientist and a lawyer to oversee this.

And we are going to find out about the origins, not only what happened where it came from but whether there was a cover-up afterwards there's also the ancillary things of finding out who's getting what money from whom and who's on which committee and there's also the idea of what kind of studies need to be done to help people make a decision who either been vaccinated or had the disease or both to know what the truth is about do they need another vaccine if you've had two vaccines and you've been infected do you really need a third do you need a fourth a fifth a tenth The data they're giving us is completely without any scientific

probity.

They are saying, oh, well, you make antibodies when we give you this.

Well, that doesn't mean I need it.

You can give me 100 vaccines and I'll make antibodies every time.

It doesn't mean I need it.

What you need to know is: if I've had two vaccines and I've had COVID, is there any chance I'm going to the hospital or dying from this?

And I think it's close to zero.

So there's some other things that are really disturbing, Rand, and that that is we're now seeing an uptick of rare cancers, especially in the young,

18, you know, 40, and

doctors can't explain it.

There's this glut of deaths that doctors just can't explain.

Are any of these connected to the vaccines?

I don't know, but I do know that we should have an honest and open mind and study these things.

And I do know that things with statistics are sometimes difficult.

So for example, the death rate for COVID overall is about 0.3%.

So that means really 99.7%

of the people are going to survive.

So when people say, well, I took this and I got better in three days and it must be because I took this, it's hard to know because I took nothing and I got better also.

So you have to look at large numbers.

When the mortality rate is so low, you have to have large numbers of people in in each category to figure it out it's the same with cancer so we get cancer and so if somebody gets it and had the vaccine they in their mind say it was a vaccine but it's it's harder to prove than that but we can statistically look at it but you have to have large samples and you have to honestly look at it now do I trust the CDC is honestly looking at this no I don't think they're I think that they have preconceived notions one that everybody should be vaccinated and this is why they don't release any data on whether or not people have also had COVID.

Because then people would, you know, if they had any inclination that maybe having had the infection with or without a vaccine was plenty of protection, that would dissuade them from doing what the CDC has agreed we should do, and that's just keep getting vaccinated all the time every year for this thing.

And so, but those are things we have to push to find the truth.

But it's not always easy to find the truth.

Does Moderna still have the

mRNA technology rights?

That I don't know,

but that's worth looking into.

I don't know the answer to that.

Because I understand that

for cancer,

we're going to slow cancer down in the next 15 years, and we want to invest in this mRNA technology to see if that won't

help cure cancer.

And I have no problem with that.

I just found it interesting that right around the time that Moderna is getting off the government teat on one thing, they're getting back on the government teat for another.

And the same technology.

Is there anything there?

Yeah, I'm not against using the technology, and it might work for the answer.

So that's where I am on that as well.

As far as the government buying or owning big and large chunks of some kind of cure or some kind of treatment, it's a mistake because then they control the usage of it.

So, for example, the government approved the monoclonal antibodies under emergency use authorization.

They called this an EUA.

But when doing so, then they controlled how it was used.

And so they said you can only use it as an outpatient.

Well, I was getting calls from people all over the country said, I'm really sick and they think I'm going to go on a ventilator in the next day or two, but I want the monoclonal antibodies, but they won't give them to me because I'm already an inpatient.

And I was like, that's absurd.

You know, people are asking me, should I get discharged and go to the emergency room, get the monoclonal antibodies, and then let them bring me back across the curtain into the main hospital.

I mean, but that was because the government owned them.

So there's a big danger when the government owns things.

The other thing that happened and wasn't talked about much on this is this was a billion dollar, multi-billion dollar subsidy for the big insurance companies.

So 80% of us have health insurance.

So when we go to get a vaccine, we either pay or our health insurance pays.

But guess what?

No matter how rich or poor you were, no matter whether it had health insurance or not, you went in and the government paid.

Somebody else paid.

So the taxpayer paid.

You paid premiums to your insurance company.

And your insurance company didn't have to pay for treatment of COVID because we socialized the treatment.

But really, in doing so, it became this massive gift to the health insurance companies.

Do you believe that our government violated the Nuremberg

rules?

You know,

I don't know.

The thing is, I do think that

they've violated every precept of the scientific method by being open and curious as to the origins of the virus, open and curious and level-headed and equal-minded as far as treatment.

I think they brought bias and bigotry and preconceptions into everything.

And because of that, you know, for example, I don't advise people to go out and take ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, but if I had been in the scientific committees, I would have studied both of them and I I would have tried to study them objectively.

They were so thoroughly trashed in the media that I don't think we got objective studies.

Now, there have been studies outside the U.S.

that are a little more objective,

but it was all completely traded on Trump derangement syndrome because Trump mentioned something positive about one or both of those treatments.

Nobody, the left didn't care.

The left became consumed with they couldn't work because Trump was for them.

And you will recall, at first they said the vaccine wasn't going to work and you shouldn't take it.

Cuomo and Newsom and all these Democrats were saying, Don't take it.

It's the Trump vaccine, you know, until they became their vaccine.

Then it was everybody should take it.

But,

you know,

you got to stay away from letting the government make all the decisions.

You need to disperse power and disperse decision-making in healthcare, same as every other sphere.

So a lot of us are

concerned about we didn't learn any of our lessons from really anything.

The government hasn't, I should say.

And now we're on the monkeypox, and and God knows what comes next.

Are we, as a people, secure from our own government that we are not going to be forced to be parts of their medical experiments or things in the future?

You know, we've had so many of these hearings where the left and the government comes forward and says we want to dispel vaccine hesitancy.

And I push back to them.

I say, you realize why we're hesitant because you're not being honest with us.

If you're honest with us and give us all the information, you know, people are self-interested.

I don't want to die.

If I get all the information and I think it's better for me to take the vaccine, I will.

I'm not adamantly opposed to taking the vaccine.

In fact, for older folks, my in-laws, 91 and 86, my wife got them the vaccine.

My wife took the vaccine and she's about my age and healthy, but hadn't had COVID.

I chose not to just because I'd had COVID and I thought the evidence was strong, even initially, that I would have immunity.

And as it's gone on, it looks like I have at least as good as a vaccine, maybe twice as good as a vaccine.

So these decisions need to be made, but we need to allow the freedom of people to make these decisions and to gain the information.

And this has led to a great deal of distrust because people know, frankly, I mean, look at the most recent vaccine that they're going to do now is brand new.

It'll be Omicron mixed with the wild variety, so it'll be somewhat an updated vaccine.

And you know who they tested it on?

Eight mice.

No humans, no human trial, no human efficacy trial, no

exploration of whether there will be side effects.

They tested it on eight mice.

The mice made antibodies.

So voila,

you're going to get a vaccine tested on eight mice.

Jeez.

Senator, please

keep up your fight on this.

This may be the reason why you were sent to Washington.

You are qualified to speak about it, and you the bullcrap that

they're shoveling.

And we wish you all the best on this.

And hopefully, if there were crimes committed, hopefully they will all go to jail.

Absolutely.

We will not let go of this.

And the main reason to me is not only punishing those who have lied to us, but making sure this doesn't happen again, because there are viruses out there that have 60% mortality.

We could wipe out civilization as we know it if we allow this kind of research to continue.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky.

You're listening to the best of the Glen Beck program.

So last night, I laid out kind of a bleak look for the future of energy.

And I don't think most people understand

we don't need just the energy to run things now.

We need much more energy to run the technology of the future.

And Alex Epstein is with us.

He is from the Center of Industrial Progress, founder and president, and also the author of a book you must read.

It's Fossil Fuel.

And he's come equipped with some real solutions.

to our energy problem to be able to stave it off.

And really all you need is support from the American people, right?

Yeah, I mean, the great thing about energy is there's all the potential to produce low-cost, reliable energy for billions of people in thousands of places.

There's no physical resource deficit for doing this, and there's no knowledge deficit.

Human beings know how to produce reliable electricity, right?

We know how to produce energy on a scale of billions of people.

We are just being prohibited from doing it politically, which means that there is a political solution if we are liberated to be able to do it.

Aaron Powell, So we have, I mentioned that in Colorado, I mean, people who have these smart thermostats have said for a while, don't do that.

That's a euphemism.

Yeah, I know.

In Colorado,

they lost control of their thermostats.

And I mentioned that and said, you know,

if your right to touch your thermostat is only worth $25 a year to you, good luck.

But people are bashing back saying, well, that's because the coal power plants went down.

And it was an emergency at the coal-fired plants because coal is just not stable.

Yeah, we're really in this Orwellian world, right?

I mean, like the Inflation Act is called the Inflation Reduction Act.

Right.

Right.

Freedom is slavery.

And.

Coal is unreliable and solar and wind are reliable.

Right.

Right.

Despite the obvious.

Yeah.

I mean, what they always point to, they did this with the Texas blackouts, too.

They'll point to some individual failure of some fossil fuel plant and then say, oh, well, this inherently doesn't work.

But we know that we can produce reliable electricity with fossil fuels because we've been doing it for generations and we've done it in all weather conditions.

You can do it when it's really cold, when it's really hot.

So you know that if a fossil fuel plant fails, that's just something about the specific situation.

That's not the technology.

Or solar and wind, they do not produce electricity most of the time.

Right.

And you can't rely on them.

almost any time.

That's the basic nature of them.

And part of what happens when you see fossil fuel failures is often they have to account for the intermittency of solar and wind.

So they have to cycle up and down or be shut down and restarted more, much more than they would be if they were on their own.

And or what happens is they'll get defunded the way the whole subsidies work, which are just expanded, unfortunately, is that they defund reliable power plants, including things like weatherization, say for natural gas in Texas.

So we know that we can, again, we have all the ability to produce reliable electricity at low cost.

We're just not using it because of political factors.

Okay, so let's go over your five-point plan.

So this is, I call this the Energy Freedom Platform.

And I encourage politicians of all parties to adopt this.

I mean, unfortunately, right now, Democrats are not being very good in terms of energy.

They almost all supported the Inflation Act.

I think basically all of them did.

And by the way, I played the audio from an activist group that was

part of this inflation reduction bill.

And they admitted, and they were talking to their own supporters, and they're like, look, it's not about inflation, it's really a green bill, which we all kind of knew if you were paying attention, it's a green bill.

It's stuffed with stuff about green energy.

Yeah.

And we could talk about how, I mean, I consider that a four-step recipe for destroying American energy, basically, because just very quickly, so it involves increasing dependence on unreliable electricity.

If you want to destroy American energy, that's a good step one.

Step two is add taxes and restrictions to fossil fuels during fossil fuel shortages.

That's a good step too.

What were the other steps?

I mean, it's so bad.

Oh, yeah.

Increase the power of the EPA to shut down fossil fuel projects.

We need more of that, obviously.

And then increase the power of environmental justice activists to stop all energy development.

And you just have done that through the DOJ now.

Yeah.

So they have this four-step thing, which if you were trying to destroy American energy, it's hard to think of a better plan.

So let's talk about how to improve American energy with the Energy Freedom Platform.

So I'll give the five, and then we can go into depth in any one of them.

Okay.

So number one is liberate responsible development.

Number two is end preferences for unreliable electricity.

Number three is reform air and water emission standards to incorporate cost-benefit analysis.

This is a really important one for EPA stuff.

Number four is liberate, is rather reduce emissions long term through innovation, not through punishing America, through liberating innovation, not through punishing america and then number five which i know you'll be sympathetic to is decriminalize nuclear energy oh my gosh

so we can talk about any of those but they're all crucial let's let's just take them one by one real quick okay um first one so liberate responsible development energy inherently involves developing the world around us and yet we have an anti-development movement that is setting energy policy and running many of these agencies.

So there's opposition to development even in the investment world, but in particular, just all these anti-development policies that are restricting fossil fuel development, nuclear development, et cetera.

So like ESG is a good example.

Well, ESG is a kind of quasi-political, but if you just look at how difficult it is, if you take nuclear, like how difficult it is to start a nuclear plant, you know, it used to take four years, now it takes 16 years.

Part of that is you have these anti-development so-called green activists who can stop things on a dime.

So what you really need are policies that are fundamentally pro-development and that they're responsible development in the sense of they try to stop endangerment.

So you don't want to endanger local people or endanger some national treasure, but you can't have the idea that it's wrong to develop nature.

And that terrible anti-human idea is at the root of so many of our laws and policies.

So when I go into the details, if people go to energytalkingpoints.com, you'll see there's a lot of specific policies that need to be reformed that are anti-development right now.

All right.

Number two.

So is

preferences.

And preferences for unreliable electricity.

And on that website, there's something called Electricity Emergency, which goes into the details.

But basically right now, we do three things.

We have mandates for unreliable electricity.

We prefer them in that way.

Many states have those, like my state of California, unfortunately, has those.

We have subsidies, which we just expanded under the Inflation Act, right?

So we did that.

And then the most insidious that people don't know is that we have very unfair pricing because there is no cost penalty for selling unreliable electricity into the grid.

Now, you think about that.

Imagine you had a car company and you got to charge the same for a car that worked a third of the time and a car that works all the time.

Wow.

But that's how the grid works.

You get the same amount for selling unreliable electricity as reliable electricity.

And actually you get more because all the subsidies we have that we just extended.

So you actually get paid a premium for selling something that is not nearly as valuable.

And sometimes unreliable electricity is of negative value.

Sometimes if you have too much electricity, you need to offload it uh so it's it's this is a if you pay a premium for unreliable electricity guess what you get reliable electric unreliable electricity

um okay number three so this is this had to do with the air and water emission standards and so right now like let's look at what the epa is doing we have uh in that article electricity emergency i talk about they're slated to be 93 gigawatts of coal shutting down in terms of already announced things that's almost one-tenth of a reliable capacity one tenth crazy this is in the next this is by 2030.

But there's also the threat of 92 more.

So almost a fifth of our reliable capacity.

Like there's a reliability bloodbath that's scheduled to happen.

The lion's share of this comes from EPA policies.

So it's EPA deliberately trying to do things that'll shut down these coal plants, even though, as you've talked about, there's no viable replacement in the pipeline.

We're not, we have almost no nuclear scheduled, not nearly enough gas.

So how does the EPA justify this?

Well, one thing is they don't use real cost-benefit analysis when they're making decisions.

So they'll say like, hey, wouldn't it be great to have lower emissions?

But they don't think about, well, what is the cost of that in terms of what are the costs to human life of an unreliable grid?

They're almost incalculable.

So the EPA is making these decisions and they're not.

giving any consideration to the reliability of the grid.

So you need, that's an example of where you need real cost-benefit analysis

with these.

Are there any honest people on this side?

I mean, I don't understand how an honest person can look at it and not say, yeah, but this is going to make things more unreliable.

And people will either die from heat stroke or they will die from freezing in the winter.

You know, you can't just have an unreliable grid like this.

Is there anybody on the other side that is asking these questions that's honest?

I think one, I mean, there are some people who are really anti-energy.

And so in a sense, they're honest, although they hide it from the public, but they just, they want less power.

They want to deindustrialize.

There's that kind of thing.

Yeah.

Well, that's.

I think one of the challenges is, I talk about this in chapter one of Fossil Future.

We rely on what I call a knowledge system to give us expert knowledge and guidance on all these specialized areas.

And what you have is multiple of these specializations are failing at the same time, but each specialization thinks the other is doing its job.

So for instance, the electricity people have been hiding the electricity emergency.

They're not acknowledging it.

Many of the companies have not been acknowledging it.

You talk to them behind the scenes.

They'll say, yeah, this is a disaster, but publicly, they won't say anything.

The regulators are kind of silent.

And so the public thinks, oh, there's not that, there's not that big a threat.

And then, you know, the EPA people, they'll distort the science about the side effects of coal, but they'll kind of think, oh, yeah, we don't have to worry about reliability because the grid isn't saying that much.

So kind of there, there's this, there's dishonesty kind of everywhere, but one reinforces the other.

I mean, we've got a world that thought legitimately that you could rapidly eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 and it would work really well.

Like this was the mainstream view.

And part of it is there's all these false views that are being combined.

And people have this idea, well, most people, the experts, so-called, the people we're told are experts, they can't be that wrong,

but they can be that wrong in part because what we're told the experts think is usually a massive distortion of what the actual researchers in a field think.

Yes, that's happening with global warming all the time.

Oh, yeah, of course.

I mean, it's the idea that it's the world is going to end if it gets one or two degrees warmer on a planet where far more people die of cold than of heat.

The researchers don't think that, but that gets distorted by what I call our knowledge system to make it, oh, it's an apocalypse, and you have to take a crash emergency action and destroy all your energy.

And then the planet will be nice to you, and life will be great.

Give me the fourth one.

So the fourth one is

reduce emissions long term.

It's very important.

It has to be long term because there's no short-term reducing of emissions.

That's a pipe dream.

So it's reduce CO2 emissions long-term by liberating innovation not punishing america when did we lose that in america lose which one the idea that we innovate our way out of problems instead we're just we're just dismantling everything instead of saying you know uh hey we've got a we've got a uh food storage problem uh somebody comes up with the refrigerator you know what i mean we we are already seeing technology that is, we have reduced greenhouse gases better than anybody else.

And a lot of it is because of new technology.

But we just dismiss that.

I think there are a couple of things going on.

So one is this idea that CO2 emissions are an emergency.

And when you think of something as an emergency, you need to get rid of it immediately.

And if that's your view, the only thing you can do is just massively destroy human life.

I mean, that's the only way you can do it.

To reduce emissions now in a world where fossil fuels are 80% of the world's energy, in a world that needs vastly more energy 3 billion people using less electricity per person than one of our refrigerators like the world is going to be using more fossil fuels for a while so if you think of it as an emergency the world is going to end then you are going to do these crash programs and accept these terrible consequences which we're just beginning to see because we've only reduced fossil fuels a little bit compared to what has been asked for by World Economic Forum and all these other people.

So one is this emergency mindset is really bad and it's not justified.

We're safer than ever from climate.

CO2 emissions have a warming impact and a greening impact.

It's not a catastrophic impact.

If you want to lower emissions, you have to think of it as a long-term thing.

That's the only moral way and it's the only practical way.

China and India are not going to lower their emissions until there's a cost-effective alternative.

Now, the greens say they want cost-effective alternatives.

They say they want solar and wind.

But notice that their approach is to first restrict fossil fuels.

I know you've talked about like, and then promise a replacement.

That's not how markets work.

That's not how freedom works.

Freedom is not how anything of common sense works.

You don't say, hey,

I know all the machines in the hospital to keeping your husband alive, but we're going to try something that's never been done before.

So we're going to turn off all of those machines and then hope that something works.

That's insane.

But that has been the policy.

Part of it has been disguised.

So they've said, to take your analogy, they've said the equivalent of, hey, we have this amazing new machine.

We're developing green machines, right?

But what they didn't say is their main policy is shutting down the machines that work.

Like, what did Biden do first, right?

Shuts down the Keystone XL pipeline, bans leasing on federal lands.

He didn't come up with some new energy innovation and prove it.

He shut down.

what was what was working.

And that's the huge problem.

And so the approach has to be you liberate innovation.

So you get things like cost-effective nuclear, but you don't dictate inferior alternatives and call that innovation.

Unfortunately, that's what passes for innovation today.

And that's what the whole Inflation Act is about, is about mandating or coercing us to using these things that don't work.

So you are working with like a hundred different legislative offices, co-ops.

Yeah, to various degrees.

So two years ago, I was very frustrated by I was having success with the public and I was having success in the corporate world, but the political world was just totally ignorant of the kind of pro-human, pro-freedom energy thinking I had been developing.

And I figured out like the thing I could do is I needed to figure out how to give them messaging and policy in a way that was useful for them.

So I started this website, energytalkingpoints.com.

Like everything on that can be fit in a tweet.

So it's like really efficient ways of explaining pro-freedom views.

So if you go there, there's like probably thousands of individual talking points, all really well referenced.

And then I found that I got demand for people to get custom help.

So I created something called Energy Talking Points on Demand, where I'd have bi-weekly briefings, and it's just with high-level offices.

So it's congressional offices, U.S.

Senate offices, and governor's offices.

And so we have about 300 staffers who are part of it, over 100 offices, and increasingly I'm meeting with the elected officials themselves.

I spoke to a group of 20 last time I was in DC.

I'm going to DC next week.

And what I found is there's a real appetite for this because many of these offices want to be pro-energy and pro-freedom, but they didn't have the messaging to

refute all the myths and also clarity on what to do going forward.

And that's why I developed the Energy Freedom Platform was the clarity on what to do going forward.

So what I've been encouraging them to do is, hey, you can, this is a blueprint.

You can win on these issues and you can do something really good.

So say Republicans, I'm not

political really, but let's say Republicans right now are much more pro-energy.

If you guys take over Congress, you need to advocate something positive.

You can't just, once you take over, you can't just react to negatives.

There's a lot of reacting to negatives and not a clear having positive.

So I would ask your listeners, if they like this, it's really, really simple.

Just call your office.

Call your office.

Oh, you're going to say something?

I've got about 20 seconds before we break.

Oh, sorry.

Just say, talk to Alex Epstein.

Give them my email, alex at alexepstein.com.

Just tell the office to email me, and I will set up a call with them, and I'll tell them all about how to use the Energy Freedom platform.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Well, I have some good news.

Let's see.

America's struggling under Biden's inflation.

No.

Democratic

Senator says it's a call to arms against.

No, not that one.

Congressman Tim Ryan claims kill MAGA movement comment.

Was it about?

No, it's not that one.

Hang on just a second.

Oh, here.

No, it's not this one either.

Oh, here it is.

Sweden.

Now, may I remind you

who Sweden is?

Sweden is an exceptional place because

Sweden during World War II

helped so many people, helped so many people escape the Nazis, etc., etc.

And they call

Folkhalm, which is the people's home.

That's what they call them.

It's a paradise.

It's the people's home.

And they...

Besides offering incredible levels of taxation

and even incredible levels of spending, even for Western Europe.

They are the gold standard of welcoming everyone.

Well, they had a surprising election.

Not only did the Social Democrat-led alliance fail to win its customary majority, the right-wing alliance is now radically altered as well.

It may still be fronted by the center-right moderates, but the largest component now is the hard-right Sweden Democrats.

The margin between the left and right blocs may be as tight as a single seat, but this is

huge.

As recently as 2018, the Sweden Democrats were beyond the pale.

The problem wasn't only that, like most of Europe's new right parties, they originated on a

neo-fascist fringe in the 1980s.

Their leader,

Jimmy, I don't know, Aachenson or what is the A with the circle above it?

I don't even know.

Anyway, some Swedish name, who moved them to the center also alienated the moderates by speaking out so bluntly about immigration, Islam, and crime.

This is 2018.

And they got the third largest share of votes in 2018.

And that led the Social Democrats keep going.

Well,

Mr.

Aachenson, whatever, and the Sweden Democrats, they were all painted as racist.

Yeah.

So Sweden used to be notoriously safe.

It was exceptional in all ways.

And today it is still exceptional, just in a different way.

Sweden now has the highest number of reported rapes per capita.

In 2021, according to Sweden's National Council for Crime Prevention, Sweden had the second highest number of deadly shootings per capita,

just after Croatia.

10 years ago, the annual survey, society, opinion, and media found that law and order was Swedes' lowest priority.

This year, it's their top priority at 41%.

Next comes healthcare.

Huh.

Healthcare is a problem now in Sweden.

Wait, but the government pays for everything.

I know.

Huh.

And it worked when you were working with this all-white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, homogeneous, little teeny country where everybody thought alike and worked alike.

Now you've got, they took more immigrants than anyone else from the Middle East.

And they were like, yeah, sure, they will like our lifestyle.

It turns out, no, they don't.

They don't.

And now they can't pay for their health care, their insurance, insurance uh and uh immigration was at uh 31 percent um and all of the issues are cascades of immigration so

it looks like um

sweden is coming to a new dance saying you know what what you guys are doing doesn't work

hopefully Sweden will stay centered on common sound sense and not go to the fascistic side of the European right.

It's our left.

Fascism and socialism is our left.

By the way, some more good news.

You know,

Murkowski thought she was pulling a quick one

because of the, what do they call it, the preference voting?

The rank choice.

Yeah.

Right.

And she thought she was going to win.

And now it looks like, nope, uh-uh.

Some of the Republicans that were on part of that ranked choice have dropped out.

And a Democrat dropped out and endorsed the Republican leader.

Wow.

Wouldn't that be great to get rid of Lisa Murkowski finally?

Oh, yeah.

Oh.

And there's no reason for a state like Alaska, which is, you know, a solid red state.

to have a person like Lisa Murkowski.

You can understand it in Maine.

You can't understand it in Alaska.

So, how do you say her name?

Kelly

Tashikbaka?

Is that right?

I think.

Sheikh Baka.

I'd have to look at it.

It looks like Tashikbaka.

Oh, yeah.

Shebaka.

Shibaka.

Okay.

So Kelly Shibaka is the frontrunner now

that...

could be the next senator from Alaska, which would be

fantastic.

By the way, why is it if the MAGA Republicans are the scariest Republicans ever to walk the earth?

Why is the Democratic Party spending so much money to help elect MAGA Republicans?

You wouldn't, you know, it's like I would not, I would say, hey, Nazis, scary.

And I wouldn't put my money hoping that the American people would elect these Nazis.

That would be insanity.

What if they win and they're Nazis?

Why is the Democratic Party spending so much money on MAGA

if they think that it's just because, oh, well, they're not going to win.

We'll be able to beat that one.

Really?

Okay.

All right.

You should call some people over in Sweden.

You know what I'm saying?

There's no way.

If you really believed what they say they believe, there's no way you take that chance.

There's not a chance to believe.

they mitt romney was the devil

and now oh they love him yeah and and then it's it's uh donald trump is the devil and then when donald trump is you know out of the way it will be the next guy ron george bush remember when he was the devil he was the devil he was satan himself and now michelle obama claims, oh, I just love him to death.

I love that George W.

Bush.

Again, I want you to ask yourself this question.

You know, earlier this week, I went over a list of good and evil.

I want to give that list again.

Remind me after the break.

Here, I just want to ask you, truth or fiction, is this true or false?

And it's really easy.

Philadelphia DA.

Now, this is Federman, backs this district attorney.

The Philadelphia DA, have you seen Philadelphia lately?

Luckily, I haven't been anywhere near there, but I have seen the streets for videos and everything else of Philadelphia.

I understand it's beautiful this time of year.

Oh.

Just as the dead body chalk outlines start to be washed away by the fall rains.

Oh, it's really nice.

So the Philly DA said, it's not true that there's any kind of crime spike in Philadelphia.

Oh.

Is that

demonstrably true or false?

Make your decision and no excuses.

Make your decision.

You're either, it's either a lie or it is true.

There's nothing in between.

Lie or true.

If it's true, great.

You're with the right guy.

If it's a lie, what are you doing?

Okay.

Democratic candidate,

Senate candidate Mandela Barnes said police don't prevent crimes from happening.

True or false?

How about this one?

Kamala Harris.

We're seeing progress in bringing prices down.

True or false?

These are all just from yesterday.

How about this one?

Stacey Abrams.

I've never denied I lost an election.

True

or false.

No wordsmithing, no word games.

True or false.

When you are looking at, and I do this every day, in fact, we probably should.

When you look at statements from the leadership of our country, and I'll do this with the Republicans as well,

if they're lying to you,

there's a problem.

I've been thinking,

and not a problem with the country.

There's a problem with you.

If you're voting for known liars, if you're accepting these incredible lies, there's a problem with you.

And you got to stop.

You got to stop.

I have been a supporter of the Article V

Convention of States.

I've been a pretty big supporter, vocal supporter.

I'm reversing that today

because after some real thought and prayer,

we are not the people to open up this sacred document.

We are not the people.

That was a God-inspired document.

That was divinely written, and you can read it from, I don't know how many founders.

Benjamin Franklin even said that.

The very hand of God was involved in the writing of that document.

Do you believe that we could send delegates to a convention today

that would have that kind of inspiration?

That when they got to an impasse, somebody would be there like Ben Franklin that would say, let's pause and all go to church and pray.

And they didn't politic, they prayed.

I am not for opening that Constitution anymore.

Because we are not the people.

When we are the people,

I'll be for it again.

When we have demonstrated our humility and our obedience to God, and I'm afraid it's just going to take a massive beat down of our country to get to that place.

But someday we will be humble enough.

We will recognize God.

We will not be an enemy to God.

We will not be so arrogant.

And when we're those people,

I will support

the

Convention of States.

But I withdraw my support, and I'm sorry to say that, but I would draw my support.

But it is

because

of

the fact that this Constitution is wholly

inadequate

for anyone other than a religious and moral people.

We are not those people,

and we should not stain this document.

So

earlier this week, I did a monologue

on

just charting where where we are,

there are two sides, and they're growing further and further apart.

And each of us have to decide

to not just be pushed along in the drift or the undercurrents.

We choose.

We choose.

And every day you can choose something different.

The past does not dictate what you do in the future unless you allow it to.

When did we as a people stop believing that sexual abuse of children is maybe explainable?

When did we stop believing that that was evil to think that?

It's not explainable.

You're abusing a child.

Taking away their innocence in any way is evil.

When did we think that it was okay to show pornography to kids, show sex acts to kids, to sexualize our children, to have them dance on stage at a strip club?

When did we stop saying that's evil?

Because we're not hearing it very much.

Children drag, childhood

drag shows,

drag story time in your school.

When did we stop saying it was evil to indoctrinate children in hopelessness?

When did we say,

you know, it's perfectly fine to teach kids to hate their family, mistrust or distrust their parents, and hate their country?

Hate God?

When did we say that was okay?

When did we start believing that forcing people to participate in medical experiments

was okay?

When did we say it was okay for children's hospitals to dismember or amputate perfectly good limbs or appendages on a healthy body of children?

When did we say it's okay to loot stores, burn cities down, destroy families, cancel speech in a much more more widespread way than we ever did in the 1950s.

And when did we all decide that it was the good versus the evil of preaching color of skin over content of character?

We haven't changed.

We've just fallen silent.

We no longer look at these things as anything but a social issue.

Which side am I supposed to be on?

You don't have to be a hero.

You just have to remember what was good and what was evil.

That's it.

Those things don't change.

If you think that it's okay to sexually abuse a child as an adult, you know what?

It might be popular for a while, but I guarantee you it will return to a universal truth.

Our children are sacred.

It will return.

Which side are you on?

We are told that there will come a time where good becomes evil and evil becomes good.

We are there.

We are truly there.

Please, you're listening to this program at this time for a reason.

Wake up,

wake up,

and take a peaceful but firm stand.