Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 678 | Great Reset Update: Farm Shutdowns & Power Rationing | Guest: Justin Haskins

Episode Date: September 14, 2022

Today we're joined by Justin Haskins, author and editorial director of the Heartland Institute, to discuss the energy crisis, authoritarianism, and the crackdown on free speech and how these topics all relate to the Great Reset. We discuss King Charles' history with the green agenda and his ties to the World Economic Forum, including his co-sponsoring of the term "The Great Reset," and why he, as king, most likely won't have enough power to enact significant green agenda changes. Then, we take a look at what's going on with the energy crisis, particularly in Europe and California. Sweden, Germany, and the U.K. are all suffering draconian measures by their governments that include shutting down their farms in the name of saving the environment. All of this as the Biden administration, other world leaders, and corporations are cracking down on dissent. --- Today's Sponsors: Annie's Kit Clubs — all subscriptions are month-to-month, and you can cancel anytime! Go to AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE and get your first month 75% off! Birch Gold — protect your future with gold. Text 'ALLIE' to 989898 for a free, zero obligation info kit on diversifying and protecting your savings with gold. Patriot Mobile — go to PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE or call 972-PATRIOT and use promo code 'ALLIE' to get free activation! --- Show Links: NBC: "Gazprom keeps pipeline to Germany switched off as G7 caps Russian oil prices" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazprom-keeps-pipeline-germany-switched-g7-caps-russian-oil-prices-rcna46132 Wall Street Journal: "European Manufacturers Reel From Russian Gas Shutoff" https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-manufacturers-factories-russia-gas-11662938614 BBC: "Why Dutch farmers are protesting over emissions cuts" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62335287 Fox Business: "California's grid leaning heavily on natural gas to survive energy crisis, despite green push" https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-grid-leaning-heavily-natural-gas-survive-energy-crisis-despite-green-push Washington Post: "A Twitter user insulted a German politician. Police then raided his house." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-german-politician-police-raid/ Euronews: "Hungary: 'Critics silenced' in social media arrests as EU debates Orban's powers" https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2020/05/14/hungary-critics-silenced-in-social-media-arrests-as-eu-debates-orban-s-powers FEE Stories: "UK Man Arrested For ‘Malicious Communications’ After Posting Meme Mocking the Transgender Flag" https://fee.org/articles/uk-man-arrested-for-malicious-communications-after-posting-meme-mocking-the-transgender-flag/ --- Previous Episodes with Justin: Ep 344 | The Great Reset: Everything You Need to Know | Guest: Justin Haskins https://apple.co/3BfWY2j Ep 470 | BlackRock, Bill Gates & the Great Reset | Guest: Justin Haskins https://apple.co/3BhSV5s Ep 578 | Putin vs. the Great Reset? | Guest: Justin Haskins https://apple.co/3RL3jJZ --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Europe is in shambles as the World Economic Forum's great reset energy policies are crushing the continent. Sweden, Germany, the UK are all suffering draconian measures by their governments that include shutting down farms in the name of saving them. the environment. Here in the states, California is bearing the brunt of this authoritarian nonsense. And all of this, as the Biden administration, other world leaders, and corporations are cracking down on dissent. What does this all mean? Where is all of this going to take us?

Justin Haskins, author and editorial director of the Heartland Institute, also one of my all-time favorite guests. And if you have not listened to our previous episodes, you will soon see why. is here to break it all down for us. Go back, listen to our other conversations about the World Economic Forum, about ESG, about the Great Reset. We will link it in the description of this episode. This interview is brought to you by your friends at Good Ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com slash alley.

That's good ranchers.com slash alley. Justin, thank you so much for joining us again. As always, I've got a lot to talk about getting the update on how the great reset is going. First thing I want to talk about in light of recent events, the Queen's death. There has been some debate that I've seen online about whether she was involved with the World Economic Forum and whether King Charles is just kind of a shill for the elites, friends with Klaus Schwab. He's a big fan of the Green Agenda. And so what is your take on all of that? What do you think the future of the UK is under this, I don't know if you call it leadership,

but I guess King Charles's leadership. Yeah. So there's no doubt about it whatsoever that King Charles is, as Prince Charles, was a huge proponent of the Great Reset. He was heavily involved in the Great Reset movement from the very beginning. In fact, he was one of the co-hosts of the event that kicked off the slogan, The Great Reset, Word the World Economic Forum. He's been partnering with them and big financial institutions around the world

to try to promote the sort of ESG social credit score, Great Reset Agenda for a very long time. So there's no doubt about that. As far as the Queen is concerned, as far as I know, the Queen was not really involved in any of this stuff. And of course, even with King Charles being King, as opposed to being Prince, I'm not really sure that the influence factor means a whole lot

for the Great Reset Movement. The King of England, this isn't 1632. Okay? So the King of England doesn't have a ton of power like they used to have. And so I don't know that it means a whole lot for policy in England. England, the United Kingdom has been going full bore into the Great Reset Agenda, along with most other European countries for a while now anyway. And so I don't think it's going to change anything, but it probably guarantees that it's

going to keep moving in that direction. And so that's not unimportant, but I wouldn't say this is some sort of a landmark shift toward the Great Reset that already happened in the United Kingdom. Boris Johnson was a proponent of it as well. So I don't think there's a whole lot new there. Right. And the king or the queen, the monarch is supposed to be an apolitical figure. Of course, the queen maintained that through her 70-year reign.

King Charles, depending on his respect for the position and a political nature of the position, will either maintain that or not. But as you said, how much power does he really wield as the king, even if he did decide, okay, I'm going to try to push this agenda as much as possible? That's just not really how the government of the UK is set up for him to really kind of take the reins and push things forward. And as you said, things are already moving in that direction. We've got a new leader, Liz Truss.

She's also part of the Conservative Party. I don't know if you know very much about her and kind of which. direction she leans when it comes to the green agenda in the World Economic Forum? Yeah, as far as I know, she's pretty much in line with every politician in Europe, which is all moving toward the Great Reset. There's very few people, especially in Western Europe. There's very few big leaders that are opposed to the Great Reset that are actually in power. The vast majority of them support that agenda, especially in light of everything that's going on with Ukraine and Russia, which is tied up in all of this,

I don't think that we're going to see a major policy shift because we have a new prime minister. Right. Now, let's talk about what's going on in Europe right now. As you said, Europe is going full steam ahead into ESG and the green agenda. And we're already seeing some of the consequences of that. There's an energy crisis in Europe. And this is, according to NBC, Gazprom keeps pipeline to Germany switched off as G7 caps Russian oil,

prices. I mean, we're seeing all kinds of stories coming out of Europe about how people just don't have enough energy to be able to heat their homes. The government is cracking down on this kind of stuff, rationing energy for the sake of some kind of climate agenda. And as you said, that is tied up in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. So can you kind of help us break down what's going on here? And is this an intended consequence? Yeah. So the energy crisis that's been going on in Europe is a combination of many, many different factors. A lot of people look at the war that's going on between Russia and Ukraine. And I would argue, really, the rest of Europe is also involved in that war. They're on the economic side of it. But the sanctions that they leveled against

Russia, some of the banking and other financial actions they've taken against Russia are really a sort of economic war that they're waging. It's really not a whole lot of different than a blockade or something like that, as you'd imagine. in previous eras of warfare. So it may not be full blown war between all of Europe and Russia, but it kind of is a war that's going on, just a different kind. And so what's happening here with Russia

threatening to cut off energy to certain parts of Europe that are very dependent on Russia, that's part of what's driving up the price of energy right now in Europe. The price of energy has already been very, very high in Europe, in large part because of what's been going, on in the war and the way that Russia has been dealing with that. The reason Russia is interested or is considering cutting off energy to certain countries in Europe is because there has been talk in Europe of putting price controls in place, limiting what people can pay for Russian

energy because there's this whole, there's an understanding that Russian energy is what is funding the war in Ukraine from the Russian side. So European politics, politicians that don't want to be funding Russia's military machine or saying, well, we should at the very least, if we can't just cut them off entirely, we should at least lower what we're paying them. And Russia's turning around saying, well, if you're going to do that, then we're just going to cut off the energy entirely. And good luck. Let's see what happens to your economies when you can't keep people's homes and you can't power your industries at all in countries like Germany. So there's a lot of that what's going on. But that's just part of it. This whole thing really

comes from at least a decade, probably two decades of energy policy. This has been building for a very long time. European countries have made some horrible mistakes with their energy policy, becoming more and more dependent on unreliable energy sources like wind and solar. They've shut down nuclear facilities in some of these countries. They've shut down coal. They've shut down natural gas. These are all forms of energy that don't require the wind to blow and the sun to shine to operate effectively and you can put them anywhere. You can you can put these nuclear power plant anywhere you want practically and it will work and it will work whenever you need it to. As they've done this and they've become more and more dependent on unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,

which are more expensive too, by the way, when you don't subsidize them, they have simultaneously started importing increasingly more Russian natural gas and other forms of energy because in Russia, they are all in on energy production. And so they are more than happy to export their energy into these other countries. And so as they've become more dependent as Western Europe and, well, Eastern and Western Europe, they've become more dependent on Russia directly and indirectly for energy, the prices of energy were staying somewhat stable. And they would lower than what they would have otherwise been had Europe just gone

full-blown renewable energy. But now that there's this constant. added into the mix, you have this economic war that's breaking out and you have an energy crisis that's resulting from that. And of course, all of the energy policies are tied up with this concept of the Great Reset and transforming society. A huge part of that Great Reset movement is transforming society through an economic transformation of the energy sector and what kinds of cars people can drive and all sorts of other environmental

factors. So it's all tied into one big thing. And right now, unfortunately, for the people of Europe, they are experiencing a great deal of pain because of decades of mistakes made by politicians. And unfortunately, it's not just Europe. We're seeing some of the same problems in California. I mean, there are power outages, as there often are. This is not the first time. We've seen power outages and we've seen fires in California. And people might think that this is. just accidental, oh, this is how things happen. It's just a natural catastrophe. But these are actually the results in some cases of environmental policy, not just when it comes to how they're managing the forest there and how they're not allowed to really manage the forest to try to mitigate their risk

of forest fires in order to save the creatures that live in the underbrush. I mean, it's just crazy. And also, they're not able to use all of the water that's available. Also, for, these same kind of environmental reasons to try to protect, for example, a tiny fish called the Delta smelt. But then also you're looking at the green policies that have helped create these power outages. And yet we have Gavin Newsom and we have the Biden administration saying that California is still going to go all in on this, that they are going to maybe eventually ban the sale of cars that use gasoline. Well, right now we are seeing that electric vehicles cannot get the charging power that they need to go in California.

So my question, I guess, in all of that is we're seeing the consequences of this green energy agenda that is driven in part, at least, if not in whole. And I guess you could tell us that by the World Economic Forum. We're seeing the catastrophe. We're seeing the pain and suffering that it is already causing. Tell me why they are doubling down on it rather than saying, oh, okay, this is not actually making the world a better place? I mean, what's the end game? Yeah. So there's really only two possible answers to that question of what is the end game. The first is if you believe that everyone

who's involved in this movement is altruistic and they're trying their best and they truly, truly care about the world, then the answer is, well, they're concerned about climate change and the only way to stop climate change in the long run, according to their view of this issue, is to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. And the only way to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions is to rely more on wind and solar and other things. Now, that's not true because you could rely on nuclear and they don't want to rely on nuclear. Nuclear has virtually no CO2 emissions, but that's a totally different story. But why don't they want to rely on nuclear?

Well, I think the answer to that is it shows that. the true motivations behind this whole movement. The reason why they don't want to rely on nuclear, I believe, is because you don't have a dramatic transformation of society with nuclear. You don't have massive jobs programs with nuclear energy. You don't need to destroy huge swaths of land and build infrastructure and do all this stuff with nuclear energy. There are relatively small power plants. You can put them just about anywhere. And they run all the time. And you don't need to constantly be replacing them like you do with solar panels and wind farms. You don't need big jobs programs to pull it off. You don't need a lot of employees to run a nuclear plant.

It really has a very small footprint in many ways. And I think that one of the main goals of the Green New Deal agenda, the Great Reset of all these things is to create this massive dependency on government through this transformation of the economy that's occurring with the energy sector. So if you have to build huge numbers of solar panels and wind farms, those are jobs programs. Those are massive jobs programs. They're infrastructure programs. It's going to require all sorts of things that most people don't think about, like power lines, for example. I mean, you can't just to have a state run entirely on wind and solar would take massive amounts of land. And because you have to have the facility spaced out all over the place, you need to have.

transmission lines all over. You can't just build a solar farm or wind farm anywhere. So you have to have far more transmission lines than we have today. Well, that's another huge aspect, another big jobs program, another huge aspect of the economic package that they sell this as. So if you believe that big government is a motivation for some of these decisions, well, then it makes a lot of sense to go with these kinds of energy policies as opposed to nuclear, right? And so even if you believe that climate change is going to destroy the world. And I don't think that these people, many of them actually believe that because they don't live like it. But even if they do believe that, it makes sense to go to nuclear. It doesn't make sense to go to wind and solar. So I think that that really shows

what's going on there. Yes. And which is why I think the optimistic, altruistic option that you kind of explain there is so unlikely because we have nuclear in our back pocket. And we're we're not using it. And by the way, all of these things, electric cars, the solar panels, the wind turbines, all of those are made using fossil fuels. I mean, all of those are made using the very energy that they say that we have to get away from. I have to wonder if another motivation behind this as well, and I know you've said previously that the WEF and China aren't necessarily like purposely and deliberately linked together, but it does increase our reliance on China. We're getting a lot of our solar panels, a lot of our wind turbines from China. China is

greatly benefiting from the energy crisis in Europe and in the United States and in our reliance on green energy also Russia is as well. And so I do have to wonder if some of it is that. Because as you mentioned, all those benefits of nuclear energy, but it also helps us create self-reliance. And that seems to be the last thing the people at the world economic form, want, especially for the United States. And so this, the stupid green energy policies with the, you know, wind energy and the solar energy that does increase our reliance on China. And if you want to get super nefarious here, and I don't even know if it's that much of a reach because, you know, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have all talked about their fear of overpopulation and of

sustaining too many people on this earth. It actually seems like they would love. like depopulation, a great way to ensure that millions of people die, whether it's the direct, you know, an intentional consequence or not, is to shift all of our energy to wind and solar. Yeah. So, so I think without, well, first of all, I would say without a doubt, if you actually look at what many of these environmental groups are advocating for, if you look at what their views are on population and growing populations and things like, this has been. been part of the environmental movement for a very, very long time, going back decades and decades and decades. You can find stuff in the 1960s and 70s talking about how by the year 2000 or

slightly thereafter, there would be far too many people on the planet to feed and that we need to start putting measures into place to make sure that we don't have too many people, Paul Ehrlich and people like that. It was a big biologist at environmentalist at Stanford, very, very famous in the 1970s and 80s in that sort of time period, advocated for all sorts of population control measures. And so it's really actually not that crazy. In fact, China, one of the things that they claim that their population control measures have in place, one of the reasons, one of the benefits of that, they say, is that it has all these environmental benefits to it. And it's good for the planet. And so, you know, there's no question that there's a strain of that going

through. Now, do I think that that's the primary motivation for people like Bill Gates and stuff? No, I don't. I think that the evidence shows that the primary motivation for them, if you believe what they say, is they're deathly afraid of climate change. And so they think that this is all tied into that. I don't know that they actually believe that, as I said before. I think the real motivation behind all of this is transforming the economy, transforming society, and using these job programs as a way to do that. And there really isn't going to be a bigger jobs program than one that requires blowing up the entire energy system and replacing it with a completely new energy system. We've never done anything like that in the history of the world, not intentionally.

And so this would be the first time in the history of human civilization where people have have chosen deliberately to destroy a massive part of their economy on purpose. So just so that they can rebuild it in a way that would be less effective, less safe, and really not even environmentally friendly because to build windmills and to build wind turbines and solar farms and things like that, you need to do tons of mining. You need to consume huge amounts of land. Some estimates say you need a landmass the size of California to power the United States that would just be full of solar panels and windmills and stuff like that.

And you also need to then recycle these things once they break down because in many cases they only last 15, 20, 25 years, something like that. So you got to constantly be replacing them and you can't recycle them like you can, you know, plastic bottles or something. A lot of times they just sit in in landfills because there is no way to do it. In solar panels themselves, they leak toxic chemicals into the ground. It's all kinds of huge problems. It's such a gimmick.

It's such a gimmick. It absolutely is. And all of the endangered species that die from it and everything else. So they're an environmental groups that actually are opposed to windmills and solar panels because they kill endangered animals all the time, especially birds. At least they're consistent. They are. I mean, some of the more radical environmentalists, I actually kind of like them in the sense that they are consistent. Yeah.

And they do understand that these things won't actually. work. And their answers are, I think, crazy. It's depopulation efforts. It's rewilding lands, meaning moving humans out of most of areas in the United States and elsewhere into urban cities and letting nature just consume cities and towns. It's crazy. But at least they say, well, that would actually do what we want, as opposed to the people who say, well, if we've been, build windmills and solar panels, will save the planet from global warming, which there's literally no chance that's going to happen because even if CO2 emissions are the primary driver, China, India, countries like that are going to dramatically, dramatically increase their CO2 emissions

over the next half century. And so it doesn't really even matter what we do unless they go along with it. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we're a show. We we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary,

grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. I think you're absolutely right. It's about growing the size. of the government. Maybe for some people, they do have the nefarious motivation of depopulation. A smaller population is easier to control. A poor population is easier to control a population that is reliant on the energy that is controlled by the government, of course, is more easy to dictate. You probably saw this story last week or a couple weeks ago that a Colorado utility company locked the thermostats of 22,000 people in the state of Colorado.

Think about how much worse that is going to be, like when we are relying on these green energy sources so-called that are completely controlled by the government. I mean, this is a way that millions of people will die. Far more people die every year because of the cold than they do because of the heat, despite all of the clamoring on global warming. So my question is, I mean, obviously, and this is something that Thomas Stoll said a long time ago, is that the left is never judged by the consequences or the conclusions of their policies,

only ever their intentions. And that seems to be true that if you, whether it's COVID or green energy, like if you intend to save the world, then it doesn't matter how draconian or how terrible your policies are, how many people you kill, at least Mao had the right idea to begin with. at least, you know, was a communist. And so I guess it's just wishful thinking to think that, okay, if this continues to go really badly, if thousands of people do die in Europe because of this energy crisis, they're going to wake up and they're going to do an about face and they're going to realize that we can't

just rely on these sources of energy. I mean, what do you think the likelihood is of that? Or at least that the people get so incensed and so worked up that they realize, the people in charge, realize, okay, this is not going well for us. We should probably change course. Yeah, I mean, I go back and forth on this one because I think it all depends entirely on how well people in the media who are not in favor of these policies are able to convey this message to regular people so that they understand what's really going on. Because the sort of advantage that the other side has is that if they control the messaging and they can convince people that the

only two options you have is either we make energy a lot more expensive, yes, and maybe it's more unreliable, and yes, we have all these blackouts and that's all bad and we're going to try to fix it. And don't worry, just we'll put the right people in charge and we'll, we'll sort it all out. Or we could all die from climate change. Those are your choices. Then literally any alternative to everything dying, which is what an existential threat means. And that's the language that you hear from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and all these people, right? Yeah, it's an existential threat. Well, if everyone's going to die, and that's one option, then any other option is better.

And so if that becomes the narrative, right, then it almost doesn't matter how many people are suffering. We've got to save the planet. And that or we're all dead. So you have to get the message out to people that that is not what's going on. And that even if you believe that, the policies that they're putting into place are not going to stop that catastrophe from happening anyway. And of course, they don't even believe it because they're still building their mansions by the beach and they're still flying around in private jets and they're still going to their elaborate conferences in Davos held by the World Economic Forum. All of these things

would not happen if everyone truly believed that there was this asteroid-sized problem headed for earth and that we were all going to die from it. No one would do that unless they were evil, right? So I don't believe these people actually think that this crisis is as big of a deal as they say it is. I think they believe that they have to make it that big of a deal in order for people to go along with it. They might think that climate change is going to cause problems. But do they think that it's going to wipe out humanity, wipe out, have a mass extinction of the world? No, I don't believe that at all. And I think their actions show that very clearly. And by the way, would they really care if it did? Would they, I mean, if it was, if climate change was really an existential threat to at least, millions or billions of people, why would they care? Like, have they shown themselves to be altruistic people that, you know, really care about the well-being and the longevity of others? No, they have pushed all kinds of anti-natalist measures over the years in order to try to shrink the size of the population. I want to know how what's going on in Sweden in particular and other parts of Europe have to do with all of this, if anything at all. So this is according to the BBC,

why Dutch farmers are protesting over emissions cuts. Dutch farmers have been protesting due to pressure from the government to make radical changes to cut emissions. The Dutch government proposes that to cut nitrogen emissions an estimated 11,200 farms will have to close. And another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock. And apparently farms here are also under pressure under the same kind of premise. I don't know if we're seeing massive shutdowns and this big of cut to emissions here in the United States, but it seems like farming worldwide seems to be under significant pressure from the green agenda regime. So what's your take on that and what in the world is going to be the consequence of something like that?

Right. Well, again, playing into this whole notion that climate change is going to destroy everything and that we're all going to die from it, There is part of the sort of the green agenda movement is this anti-methanemissions crusade that's been going on, both in the United States and in Europe, where they say that methane emissions are significantly more harmful than carbon dioxide emissions. So as a greenhouse gas, it's more potent. So there may not be as much of it, but it has a greater effect on global warming. This is what a lot of people believe who are part of this movement. And cows produce that.

Right. And cows and other agriculture and just sort of the whole agricultural system produces methane emissions. And so one of the things that governments around the world, especially in Scandinavia and other places in Holland, what they've been trying to do is limit methane emissions. And one of the best ways to do that is to crack down on farming. And of course, all of that has is sort of closely tied together the sort of far left wing environmentalists or closely tied together with the animal rights groups, some of the more extreme ones, which really don't want cows to be utilized in these ways anyway. They don't think we should be eating them. They want us to become vegan and start drinking cow milk, et cetera. And so it's all kind of tied together

into this one alliance of people who are saying, why do we even have cows on farms? Let's just get rid of all of that. And let's just eliminate cows from the equation. And then we can dramatically reduce methane emissions. And if we dramatically reduce methane emissions, well, then we can stop global warming. This, again, is the idea. Now, this, of course, is totally ridiculous, especially in these small countries, which really are inconsequential when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on climate change and everything else. It really doesn't matter what a country like in Scandinavia does in Holland. These places are way too small for it to make any difference. But these countries have very rich traditions of farming and

agriculture. It's been going on for many millennia, right? Yeah, exactly. And so what they're doing is destroying these farms, just destroying them outright. And there's now been protests that have been breaking out from farmers and people who are in these rural communities, a lot of backlash from this against their governments. But unfortunately, because most of the voting populations in these countries are in urban centers that know absolutely nothing about farming and are deeply concerned about climate change, they don't really care. They're going to destroy these people's livelihoods and it's not going to matter. Well, in the United States, we have a movement of people that want to do very similar things here. And last, when they had Glasgow and they had the

COP 26, a big gigantic international climate conference in Scotland that occurred in last year, about a year ago, a little less than that, actually. One of the big things that came out of that was all of these European countries and the United States said, we're going to reduce our methane emissions. And we're going to do it by X, Y, Z percent over a certain number of years. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it was a really dramatic cut in methane emissions. Well, the primary way you're likely to do that is through agriculture. There are other things you can do, but agriculture would be a big part of that.

And so right around that time, and actually just before that, you started seeing people in the Democratic Party, establishment politicians, people who are running for presidents in previous elections, start to talk about how we need to do something about methane emissions and, oh, maybe we shouldn't be eating as much meat as we're eating now. And I think we should revise the food pyramid that officially gets put out as what Americans should be consuming so that they consume less meat, as if people are paying tension with baited breath of what the food pyramid says, you know, but that's what that's what these politicians wanted to do. So you can start to see shift here in the United States. Now, we're not Europe and people here really like to eat meat and drink

milk. And so I have a hard time believing this is going to catch on here in the short term. But over the long term, I would be shocked if it doesn't become a part of the Democratic Party's platform within the next 10 years to reduce meat consumption in some way or have a meat tax or something like that in order to put pressure on agriculture so that there isn't as much methane emissions. Again, all part of this green agenda, all part of reducing climate change. Yeah. Well, I mean, there is basically a meat tax right now and that it is so expensive. It's gotten a lot more expensive because of some of the things that you're talking about and obviously imported meat because it is now more rare. The supply has gone down while the demand has stayed the same. And so the price has gone up. And so, of course,

that's not an actual tax imposed by the government, but it is already becoming costlier. And it does seem like that is at least right now. For now, it's on like, I would say it's on the on ramp on the Democrat agenda because you hear people like AOC, but I would say even more, I don't know, middle of the road Democrats kind of talking about this, how we need to reduce our meat consumption, at least a little bit. And then, of course, you've got the push, maybe not from mainstream Democrats, but from the World Economic Forum from the media towards eating bugs, how bugs are a great source of protein. So I guess in their mind, if they're like, okay, we shut down all of this agriculture that's

producing this methane. People still have to eat. Okay, bugs are a great source of protein. And I guess they produce less methane to actually cook. And they say, oh, well, there are lots of people in the world who eat bugs, which is true. I don't think it's morally wrong to eat bugs. I don't want to be forced to eat bucks, though. I mean, how quickly do you think that we're going in that to where, I mean, because you're already starting to see some places.

I mean, maybe it's rare, but like put crickets and different kinds of insects like into their meat or as a side. My friends went to Mexico and with their guacamole crickets. Crickets. Yeah. So like how quickly do you think we're going in that direction? Yeah. It's funny at the Heartland Institute where I work. We recently had that this was a recent topic of conversation where we said, you know, we keep hearing this and I've seen some headlines,

but you know, are there really a lot of people pushing for, for, you know, eating bugs? Is that really a thing? And so we actually spent like an entire day just researching this one question. And what we found is, yeah, it's actually shocking how many different environmental groups and how in the world economic forum has like a dozen articles. advocating for this. There's no doubt about it whatsoever. There is a movement on the left that is suggesting. And some of the, I mean, the World Economic Forum is not socialist. They are, they're definitely not part of the AOC wing of the part of sort of what you would think of as the Democratic Party. It's an international group, so it's not Democratic Party. But they're more

establishment than anything else. They're more of a Joe Biden type group or a Hillary Clinton group. And they're advocating for this too. There's no doubt about it. Again, once you, you start going down the road of CO2 emissions and methane emissions and just greenhouse gases in general are going to kill everybody. And you and you start moving in that direction. And you convince millions and millions of people, tens of millions of people around the world, well-meaning people that this is a fact, that this is true, that that's the science and that anyone disagrees with it as a science denier, then you almost have to keep going logically through all of these insane things. Like, let's rewild cities and towns to reduce CO2 emissions. Let's eat bugs

to reduce CO2 emissions and methane emissions. You have to keep getting more and more extreme. Let's get rid of cars in certain places if we can and make it, let's electrify the entire grid, even though we have no way of doing that. It doesn't even make any sense with the technology we have right now. It just doesn't matter. Again, if the choice is, we're all going to die, or you eat bugs. You everyone would choose to eat bugs. See, so that's the genius of this either or situation that they've set up. It's just a matter of whether you believe that's a real choice that you have to make or you reject the choice entirely.

And obviously, people like us reject that that's even the situation. It's a false choice. Yes. Yeah. Right. And I mean, they do that with a lot of things, actually. When you think about COVID, so everyone has to. lock down, we have to force you to get this shot or else everyone is going to die.

When that really, that was a false dilemma. That really, those were not the two options on the table, but you convinced a lot of people that way. And I think that's what caused our divisions, because the people who believed in that false dilemma, either it's everyone's going to die or we have to be forced into our homes and forced to take five vaccines. So everyone that didn't do the staying at home and taking the five vaccines as making the other choice. as wanting everyone to die. And all we were trying to say the whole time was that's not really the decision that's on the table. It's the same thing when it comes to the green agenda.

And the ironic thing is that choosing their choice actually will cause more people to die than the alternative. Yeah. Yeah. What people need to understand is that in much of the world, I mean, we are incredibly blessed to live in the United States of America. Incredibly blessed. we have access to reliable energy almost all the time. In most parts of the world, they don't have that. In fact, there are literally billions of people in the world who don't have access to reliable energy. They don't have access to it. There are billions, there are hundreds of millions,

if not billions, of people who are still cooking their food over open fires, okay, because they don't have access to electricity. So I would argue that there are already thousands of people, tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people who have died as a result of these policies because instead of trying to develop those parts of the world with the most reliable, most affordable forms of energy like natural gas and coal and other things, they have people at the World Economic Forum, the Biden administration, the Obama administration before that and others have done everything they can to try to discourage these people, other countries around the world, to coerce them even, in some cases, to hold money.

over their heads if they don't do what they say to prevent them from building out the most affordable kinds of energy that they possibly can. And so there are hundreds of millions of people, I would argue, at the very least tens of millions of people who have been in extreme danger as a result of these policies. If they had just been pursuing the most affordable kind of energy for the last two decades, then more people would be alive today than there are right now. And that is purely the result of the fact that reliable energy equals a higher life expectancy, a better quality of life for people, healthier populations. And this isn't even a question. So what is the most affordable kind of energy? That should be the question that these people are

concerned with. And instead, you have all of these Western powers. You talk about colonialism and things like that, the left loves to talk about that. You have all these Western powers coming in and saying, well, if you want money from international organizations like the IMF and you want to work with the United Nations, you want to work with the World Economic Forum and you want to work with the American government, well, then you need to pursue green energy. You shouldn't be pursuing these other kinds of bad energy. So it's there, I think people already are dying as a result of this. I really do. The left, I mean, as much as they, a lot of the, the wokenest laugh anyway, you know, they were saying, oh, you know, they shouldn't, we shouldn't mourn the queen's death because

She is this evil imperialist. And there's so much irony in that because leftists, especially in the United States, I would say, though, probably globally, places like the UN and the WEF, they are imperialists in the sense that they will absolutely use every tool at their disposal to bend poor countries to their will. I mean, there was this whole piece. And this has been actually ongoing for, I don't know, a year or more, how CNN has highlighted these African countries.

countries like Ghana and like Kenya that are not willing to codify same sex marriage so called and they're just up in arms about this they are so disturbed by this and I guarantee you there have been moves well I know that there have been moves by the american government to try to pressure poor countries to conform to the LGBTQ or the left wing social agenda in the variety of ways. And now you're saying they are also doing it when it comes to green energy, which is a form of extortion. I mean, that's like the worst kind of manipulative imperialism that you can think of. And leftists are not just when it comes to other countries, but also here in the United States. I mean, they are not willing to allow any institution to be neutral or Christian or right wing.

I mean, they are going to invade and conquer just like the very people have throughout history that they say that we cannot celebrate. So as they are saying, we can't celebrate Columbus Day, they are conquering institutions both here and abroad with their ideology. Yeah. Yeah. And I would argue that they are more effective at it in many ways than many of the colonial powers that existed in the past. Yes. Because when you can print all the money you want and give it to whomever you want, whenever you want, and you can hold that over their heads, it's really, it's a lot easier to convince people to do what you want or coerce people to do what you want than it is to send an army and invade a population and then establish rule of law and establish all these institutions and have

uprisings and rebellions and kill people and you have to go through this process over and over and over again, it would be so much easier if you could just print all the money you want, give it to them and say, do what we tell you and we'll give you more. And they say, okay, that sounds pretty good to me, especially the really corrupt governments. And that's exactly what's been going on all over the world. And they are imposing their will. In fact, that is one of the main complaints that you'll see from from Russia and from Vladimir Putin and from other intellectual leaders in Russia. When we had a prior conversation about the Great Reset and its impact on what's going on with Ukraine and the war with Russia and Ukraine, that was one of the things that I found in my

research was throughout that. It was Russia complaining that there is this movement, the great reset, movement that is imposing its will all over the world ideologically saying you have to adopt our way of doing things or else we're not going to finance you. We're not going to give you money. You're not going to be able to serve it. That's what ESG is, right? That's what it is. Right. That's right. Yep. Yep. That's exactly right. Which is why. So it's all a pretext for authoritarianism. No matter what you think, whether you think that there are some people who are truly genuine and sincere and like their desire to save the world and they are convinced that these climate policies

are the way to do that. I am sure that those people exist, even in power. But then, of course, for a lot of people, it really is just about control, this radical transformation of society, which is only possible from the top down, which is exactly why you say, by the way, because I know you probably get some pushback on this and I do too when I have you on. That's why this is not true Marxism. It's not true communism because at least what Marx wanted was not a top-down system in which these, like, elitist oligarchs are controlling everyone else. That's how socialism typically ends up. That's what communism typically ends as, but Das Kapital was not about what the, you know, W-E-F is doing now, which is a top-down approach. That's what they're trying to accomplish.

And one of the things that I, go ahead, go ahead. And then I'll kind of ask me the question. Go ahead. I think that's a brilliant point. And I think that's it is exactly right. People need to understand that one of the fundamental problems with the right, with people especially on the right, the limited government advocates, their understanding of the Great Reset and of ESG and of all these things going on is that it's a form of socialism.

It is absolutely not socialism. And the easy test that you can apply to really any question related to this to know or this or any other topic related to public policy, to know whether it's a socialistic policy or not, is the goal of it to spread out property ownership, to collectivize property ownership and management, or is the goal something else? And in the case of what's going on with the Great Reset, with the World Economic Forum, and with the Biden administration, all these things, the goal is not to spread out property ownership. The goal is actually to consolidate property ownership in the hands of a relatively small group of people

who believe all the same things that the World Economic Forum believes. That's the goal. It's to centralize power and wealth. And so, yes, socialism and communism often ends up that way, but ideologically, the point is not to have consolidation of ownership of anything. That's what they're trying to get rid of.

They're extremists on the other end of the spectrum. And so what these people want to do is not socialism. What they want is, It's a form of authoritarianism. It's tyranny. It's the centralization of control and centralization of power and control and wealth. And really, that's something that has always existed throughout human history. This is really no different than, you know, kings and queens a thousand years ago or emperors and the Roman Empire a thousand years before that.

Really, it's never changed. There's always been a group of people in society that want to control everything else and want more and more power and wealth. and influence over the rest of the world. And this is just part of that longstanding tradition. So could you say, though, because there was that infamous article that was published by WF a few years ago, you know, in 2030, you'll own nothing and be happy. And so people see that and they think, okay, well, they are in some ways confiscating private property or at least making it as difficult as possible for anyone except for these major

corporations like Black Rock to, for example, own a home. And they're making it really hard for, you know, the nuclear family to just live on one stable income. And so you all become these perpetual renters. Could you say that that mirrors a form of Marxism that, yes, they don't want that for them at the top, but they want that kind of for everyone else. They want to seize private property? Or is it more like feudalism? Yeah, it's more in line with feudalism. Yeah, it's not that they want to seize private property. What they want to do is, is, and really that article was more of a prediction than it was anything else. And the prediction is based. Yeah, more exactly. And the reason it was more, I mean, the prediction is based on the policies that they're seeing. They're putting in the place, right? But the reason that they were so convinced that this is happening, first of all, it is happening. We can see that. The consolidation of. property ownership is occurring. But it's not that they want the government to seize property ownership. It's that they believe that large corporations, that big banks, financial institutions,

etc., are amassing more and more property. And that that is the inevitable result of the, and they like that this is happening. They think this is a good for society. But it's not about seizing people's property. It's about basically buying it from them. It's about buying more and more property and land and developments and things like that. And then not distributing it to others, which is what socialism and communism is. It's confiscating property from some and giving it to everyone, distributing it equally. That's the idea. That's not what's happening here. They want to, they want to get access to the property. And then once they have control over it, they don't want to distribute it. They want to keep it so that they can manage it and control the property and

the people living in the property and all for the betterment of society. And so that's, and of course, their pocketbooks. And that's what's really going on here. So again, the primary difference between these two things are, are we spreading out property ownership to everyone equally? That's socialism and communism. That's Marxism. That's what that's, that's what the end goal is for that. Total equal, completely equal property ownership according to people's needs. Or are we trying to consolidate property ownership in the hands of a relatively small group of people. That's what the Great Reset is all about. And it's not through violence. It's just purely through buy. It's money. It's the power of money. And they're able to do that because all

of these governments are printing trillions and trillions of dollars. And they're giving it to these financial institutions and corporations who are then able to use that to consolidate their wealth and power, which is why the stock market has continued to go up over time. Even as we've had a global pandemic, it's why BlackRock and people like that and now have 10. $10 trillion under assets under management when you could go back five, 10 years ago and they had like a trillion dollars. It's because of all the money printing that's going on, they're using that power economically to control and manipulate society and to consolidate wealth and power by buying things, basically. So as those in power are grabbing even more power through the

energy crisis, we are also seeing, I think, more. outright examples of authoritarianism, usually by the very people that say that they are very pro-democracy. Obviously, we saw that in Canada with Trudeau seizing the bank accounts of people who are protesting against them. I mean, Canada has been a terribly tyrannical place for the unvaccinated and really just Canadians in general under the pretense of helping, you know, saving everyone from COVID. But we're also seeing a very troubling crackdown. on speech, especially in Europe. I've seen several videos circulating online.

There was one in a guy, a citizen journalist in South Wales. There was another one, I believe, in Britain, the Washington Post reported on a Twitter user in Germany who insulted a German politician. In all of these cases, they either got a phone call from the police or in the case of this person who insulted a German politician, the police came to his house and raided his House in Hungary critics silenced in social media arrests the EU debates or bonds

powers. So this is something that is going on. People are being punished for free speech for their social media posts not because they're threatening violence but because they are offensive because they are going outside of what the mainstream

progressive regime says that we are allowed to say. So are I mean are these things linked Why are we seeing this? Yeah, well, I mean, I think that really from the beginning of the socialist progressive movements in the 1800s or really 1700s to 1800s into the early 1900s, you've always, there's always been a strain of this within those movements, wanting to silence dissenters

in order to enhance their power and ideas. This is something that has always existed on the left. It's becoming easier and easier to do that today because of technology. Technology is making authoritarianism really simple. You don't actually have to. In the olden days, you had to have spies everywhere, you had to have informants, you had to have people ratting out their neighbors. Now all you need to do is have a Twitter account and just follow people on Twitter and

see what they have to say. And in Europe, especially, in many countries throughout the world, they don't have the same kind of free speech rights that we have in the United States. They have some free speech rights, but there are limitations to them, even in the United Kingdom, that we have enjoyed from the very beginning of the founding of this country, and we take for granted. In those places, governments can crack down. There are rules about spreading misinformation. There are fines that can be imposed on social media companies that allow misinformation to be spread. There are all kinds of rules about saying incorrect things. Of course, who gets to decide what's incorrect?

and what's misinformation, right, about politicians and other things there, celebrities. And celebrities can actually sue in a lot of these places, including politicians for defamation and libel and that sort of thing, which you can't do in the United States. So it's a totally different world in terms of speech in those countries from a government perspective. In America, what they're trying to do is elites are trying to do this same sort of thing, because they can't do it through government, because we have the First Amendment getting in the way of all of that. What they're trying to do is use ESG and big corporations and social media

companies to effectively do the same thing, except they use corporations to do the dirty work for them. And so you saw the coordination going on when we talked about, you mentioned COVID earlier, with the COVID vaccines and sort of quote unquote misinformation about COVID vaccines, there was close coordination between the Biden administration and corporations working hand in hand to silence people that they don't agree with. We also heard from Mark Zuckerberg recently. I think he was on the Joe Rogan podcast. And he acknowledged that the FBI had basically said, hey, you know, don't allow misinformation to come out right before the election in reference to the Hunter Biden story that had broke from the New York Post and was being shared by all sorts

of media outlets. And so Facebook silenced people and stopped them from spreading that post. Twitter silenced people and didn't allow people to spread that post. That was an important news story published by one of the oldest media institutions continuously operating media institutions in America. And it turns out that everyone now thinks that was probably 100% accurate. And now, and right before an election, people weren't allowed to share it with each other. All of this is tied in with ESG social credit scores with the consolidation of wealth and power that's a part of the Great Reset. ESG actually encourages social media companies. ESG credit scores encourage social media companies to eliminate misinformation from their platforms

and dangerous information from their platforms and other things like that. In fact, there is this incredible ESG reports, and I can't remember which agency put it out, but it's an ESG report from a financial institution given to Facebook. And it actually gives Facebook a relatively low ESG score. And in the report, it references this, huge other reports that talks about how Facebook hasn't done enough to silence free speech on their platforms and to stop misinformation. And they specifically referenced Donald Trump being allowed to continue to speak on Facebook. This was prior to the whole January 6th thing. And then within like

six months or a year of that happening, Facebook and Twitter and everyone banned a president of the United States from speaking on their platforms. Right. So it shows you the power. of what ESG is and the consolidation of wealth and power and coordination with all of these groups working together. And obviously it's not neutral because they're not worried about actual terrorists being on Twitter or Facebook. They're not worried about the child sex abuse material that unfortunately is rampant on these platforms.

Those things don't lower the ESG score apparently, but allowing people to have different opinions about the vaccine or about the election or. about politics. That is the real danger. And if you don't censor that, I guess, as a corporation, then your ESG score goes down. And so it's not neutral. There is an ideology and agenda behind it. Yeah, without a doubt, I remember several years ago, one of the first big, before I was doing shows like this with popular Blaze TV hosts, I was trying to promote this report that I had done. Nobody had done anything on this at the time. It was a study that talked about rape videos, videos of women being raped that were widely, it's widely available on Google and these other search engines.

It's not just that women are being raped in these videos, pornographic videos, but it's also that it literally is describing them, it's advertising them as women being raped or something like that. And I did everything I possibly could, everything I could. It went. I had articles published on Fox News. I did everything I could to get people to stop this. And Google and Microsoft and all of these companies that I went to and asked them about this and interviewed even some of them. They did nothing. They did nothing about it. Nothing. But sharing a Hunter Biden story, talking about something that is completely true or very likely to be true. Yeah. Yep. They won't touch it. Why? Is it because they it's the same thing

with global warming with a bunch of other things. They say that they believe in these causes. They say they really care about the little guy. But then everything they do is the opposite of that. The biggest hypocritical aspect of the Great Reset Movement is, you mentioned China earlier, all of these people are doing business with China. And putting global warming aside, China's a human rights violator. So on the one hand, you have companies saying, wow, you know, we got to make sure we have

ESG in place so that we have the right ratio of one racial group to another in our employee demographics. So, for example, we have the right, whatever that means, ratio of Asian to Hispanic workers. If we have too many Asians flown around, that's bad for our ESG score. That's a real thing. But then they'll do business with China where they're literally throwing people in internment camps and they're killing people for simple drug possession and stuff like that and forcing people to have two kids or one kid instead of three or four that they might want, having forced abortions and all kinds of really horrible things, the same people that say that they have to have this ESG social credit system to save the planet and to make America more equitable and to stop police brutality

and to stop, you know, election fraud and all these things that they claim are the same people doing business with some of the biggest human rights violators on the planet today. They don't believe in any of this stuff, really. It's all about power grabbing. And just to close this out, the Biden administration is really the perfect vessel for all of this. And we look at the Biden administration and the Democrat Party and we say, wow, they've failed so much. Their policies have been so disastrous. They cause chaos and destruction and death wherever they go.

And yet they don't seem to be. The Biden administration really doesn't seem to be worried about that at all because he is not really beholden. to the American people. He is beholden to a lot of the powerful elites and the organizations and the institutions that we're talking about that want that radical transformation of society. They decided that the vessel for that was going to be good old moderate, empathetic Joe. And, you know, Joe doesn't seem to be worried about, worried about not winning elections at all, which is a little bit frightening when you think about it. And when you think about as we talked about the crackdown on speech, what his DO,

is doing right now to Biden's political opponents that simply voiced opinions about the last election. And of course, what this DOJ threatened to do towards parents that showed up at school board meetings concerned that their child, for example, was reading pornography in school. So just a reminder, everyone, that this administration is advancing all of the things that we are talking about today, unfortunately. Yeah. There's no doubt about it. It's well documented that that's what's going on.

And all you have to do is actually look. If you look into any of the issues that we've talked about today or a whole bunch of other things, you'll see that the Biden administration is not only taking, is not only trying to advance the ball in that direction, they are doing it in radical, radical ways that we've never seen before. I mean, this is truly one of the, this is probably the most. radical administration we've ever had. I mean, I think Barack Obama was a very radical guy, but I think he was limited in what he could do because of the circumstances of his time.

I think Joe Biden has a lot more leeway to do almost anything he wants, and he is doing that. And really, it's not so much him as it probably is his handlers and the other people in the administration, most of whom came from the Obama era anyway. It's a lot of the same people. Most of those people are also related to big financial institutions and used to work at BlackRock and places like that. They're all tied in together. It's one big group working together in order to accomplish this goal. But Biden is the perfect vessel for it because he's so old and he and mentally, I'm not sure how there he really is. And so he and he has this moderate sort of aura about him that he's built up over all these years, even though he's really not a moderate.

And so he is able to put these radical ideas into place. And that is exactly what has been going on. And the facts show that very, very clearly. Yep. And as we've talked about before, it really is all connected, whether it's gender ideology or the racial ideology that is causing division or the breakdown of the nuclear family, the difficulty and being able to buy property and to be self-reliant, the energy crisis, that in large part is the result of deliberate choices of the people in charge.

It all comes together to make a people confused and chaotic and ultimately dependent. And that's what they're looking for. Is a dependent populace in order to gain as much power as possible to achieve this radical transformation of society with them at the top? As always, Justin, thank you so much for breaking it all down for us today. Where can people find you? At Justin T. Haskins on Facebook, Twitter, parlor, getter, all of the social media platforms. And of course, they can go to stoppingsocialism.com and they can go to the heartland.org. That's the official website of the Heartland Institute.

Awesome. Thank you so much, Justin. Thanks so much, All right. Hope you enjoyed that conversation. I know you did. Justin is awesome. No one breaks it down like him. And just remember, I know every time we talk about the Great Reset and the global catastrophe, that is currently happening. God is completely and totally in control. He is sovereign over all of it. There is no earthly power that is greater than him. And Job 42 says that nothing can thwart his sovereign will. And in the end, every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you want to know what to do, simply do the next right thing in faith with excellence and for

the glory of God. Do everything that you can to infuse light and truth and goodness and righteousness. into every sphere in which God has providentially placed you. I don't know what the conclusion is of all of all this mess. I hope that we can turn things around, at least in our country, but there is no guarantee, of course, of any kind of political success or prosperity in this life. Our hope is in heaven. All we can do is be as courageous, be as obedient as possible in this moment. Tomorrow, I am going to talk to an apologist and just a great thinker.

Neil Shinvi, he recently wrote a book about apologetics and how to defend your faith. I think he does that in a very compelling and interesting way. You're going to love that conversation tomorrow. It'll kind of be a sigh of relief after this heavy and complex conversation today. So tune in for that. I will see you guys then. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country

aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true. about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV

or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join. us.