Sep 17, 2026 3-5pm ET
Thursday on The Robert Scott Bell Show:
Hour 1
Special Guest: Jonathan Emord
For the past 37 years, Jonathan W. Emord has litigated against the federal bureaucracy, winning over and over again. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “an expert in constitutional theory and history” and “an expert litigator with a long string of legal victories over the federal bureaucracy.” George Noory calls him “a Knight in Shining Armor” and “a warrior out to save our rights.” Congressmen Dan Burton and John Doolittle describe him as “an intellectual warrior for the rights and freedoms of people in America.” Jonathan has a unique, detailed knowledge of the federal bureaucracy, the deep state. He knows how to defeat it. Jonathan graduated from the University of Illinois (BA, political science and history, 1982) and DePaul University College of Law (JD, 1985). He served as an attorney in the Federal Communications Commission during the Reagan administration. A leading constitutional law and litigation expert, he is the author of five critically acclaimed books. He has won more cases against the Food and Drug Administration in federal court than any other attorney in American history, earning him the nickname “FDA Dragon Slayer.” He is a columnist for Townhall.com, PJ Media.com, Americangreatness.com, and the U.S.A. Today Magazine. He frequently appears on national radio and television programs. He is married to Sheryl Emord, and they have two children, twins Justice and Angelica. They reside in Clifton
How the American revolt against Flock cameras mirrors the Boston Tea Party of 1773 A growing grassroots backlash against automated license plate readers, particularly cameras operated by Flock Safety, is compared with colonial resistance to British surveillance and authority in the years surrounding the Boston Tea Party and American Revolution. Automated license plate readers use cameras and artificial intelligence to photograph passing vehicles and convert identifying information into searchable data. More than 130,000 ALPR cameras are operating on U.S. streets, and more than 5,000 law-enforcement agencies use cameras manufactured by Flock Safety. Flock says the technology helps police identify suspects, make arrests and reduce crime, but critics argue that large networks of cameras create extensive surveillance capabilities affecting ordinary people who are not suspected of crimes. Documented misuse has intensified those concerns, including a Kansas police officer who received probation after using Flock technology to stalk his estranged wife. The article places contemporary opposition within a much older American tradition of resistance to government surveillance. British authorities in colonial Boston relied on informants, customs officials and military personnel to monitor political activists and identify people involved in resistance. Rather than eliminating opposition, those surveillance efforts contributed to increasingly sophisticated counter-surveillance networks among colonists. The article describes the Sons of Liberty, committees of correspondence and organized watchmen as methods colonists used to observe British authorities and communicate warnings. That dynamic culminated in April 1775 when watchmen monitored British troop movements and the famous lantern signals from Boston’s Christ Church warned that troops were crossing the Charles River toward colonial weapons stores. The author sees similarities in today’s decentralized opposition to ALPR systems, as activists organize locally, investigate camera networks and pressure governments to remove or restrict them. Flock CEO Garrett Langley has responded that privacy and safety can be balanced through regulation rather than abandoning the technology, comparing the issue with automobile safety rules and challenging critics’ use of Benjamin Franklin’s famous liberty-versus-safety quotation. The article contrasts that position with Samuel Adams’ writings about colonists uniting around constitutional and natural liberty despite disagreements over tactics, presenting today’s Flock controversy as another example of Americans debating how much surveillance and privacy loss should be accepted in exchange for promised security.
Why Try to Derail Studying the Environmental Causes of Autism? The federal Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee voted on August 27 to adopt a new strategic plan for autism research that places greater emphasis on autistic regression, environmental factors, underlying biology, treatments and support services, while critics of the plan argue that it departs from established scientific consensus and may contain an implicit focus on vaccines. Louis Conte argues that previous federal autism research devoted disproportionate attention to genetics without explaining most autism cases and cites the new plan’s statement that no specific genetic cause can be identified in approximately 75% to 85% of people with autism even using current advanced technologies. The plan calls for defining and studying regression, including cases in which children lose previously acquired developmental abilities, and establishing research timelines examining autism’s biology and frequently reported co-occurring conditions such as seizures, apraxia, mitochondrial dysfunction, gastrointestinal problems, immune dysfunction and chronic inflammation. It also calls for work on treatments, prevention strategies, communication and assistive technologies, caregiver support and the needs of aging autistic adults. Conte portrays this broader research agenda as a significant departure from previous federal priorities and argues that environmental exposures deserve substantially more investigation. He also describes opposition from former IACC members and organizations including the Autism Science Foundation, which has criticized the plan for not reflecting scientific consensus and has advocated continued investment in genetic research. Some critics have expressed concern that the plan could become a vehicle for pursuing vaccine-autism theories, while Conte maintains that vaccines are not the plan’s primary focus and that the broader objective is investigating regression and environmental contributors. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly argued that environmental exposures must be investigated to explain rising autism prevalence, while critics dispute his characterization of autism as a preventable disease and his conclusions about genetics. The newly constituted IACC includes federal representatives and public members appointed by Kennedy, and the strategic plan passed with 26 votes in favor, one opposed and 13 abstentions. Conte ultimately presents the dispute as a struggle over whether federal autism research should continue emphasizing genetic explanations or substantially broaden investigation into environmental exposures, regression, co-occurring medical conditions and potential prevention and treatment strategies.
Why the AI CEOs Really Want to Be Regulated Major artificial-intelligence executives calling for stronger government regulation may be attempting to protect established companies from future competition rather than acting primarily from concern that AI represents an existential threat, according to Connor O’Keeffe’s argument at the Mises Institute. The immediate debate intensified after an Anthropic engineer resigned citing safety concerns and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei subsequently called for slowing AI development. Sam Altman and Elon Musk expressed support for aspects of Amodei’s proposals, while Amodei, Altman, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg have all advocated forms of AI regulation. O’Keeffe argues that the willingness of industry leaders to request regulation should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that the underlying danger must be extraordinary. Instead, he compares the situation with historical industries in which established businesses supported government intervention after struggling to maintain voluntary cartels. He gives particular attention to nineteenth-century railroads, arguing that major railroad companies eventually supported federal oversight that culminated in the Interstate Commerce Act and Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 because government-enforced rules could stabilize established businesses and make competition more difficult. O’Keeffe extends the argument to later government interventions involving banking, healthcare, finance and other sectors, characterizing these arrangements as examples of government-supported cartelization. He contends that current AI regulatory proposals share several characteristics that could favor established companies: mandatory safety testing, certification requirements, extensive compliance expenses, government-defined standards and regulatory authority capable of preventing particular models from entering the market. Large AI companies possess financial, technical and legal resources to satisfy costly requirements that smaller competitors and new entrants may lack. O’Keeffe therefore disputes the conventional concept of “regulatory capture,” arguing that government regulation has historically sometimes been sought by established industries from the beginning rather than captured only after regulators were created. His conclusion is explicitly libertarian and interpretive rather than an established finding about the executives’ motives: he argues that their behavior is more consistent with incumbent companies seeking government protection from competition than executives who genuinely believe their products are likely to destroy humanity.
The AI “Threat” is Replacing Covid and “Global Warming”
Calls for government intervention to control advanced artificial intelligence are being presented through a fear-based political framework similar to arguments previously used around COVID-19 and climate change, according to Ryan McMaken’s commentary for the Mises Institute. McMaken focuses primarily on Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s proposal for slowing development of frontier AI, which warns about loss of control over increasingly powerful systems, AI-assisted cyberattacks and bioterrorism, and major economic disruption. Sam Altman and Elon Musk have also expressed support for aspects of Amodei’s proposals. McMaken does not attempt to determine scientifically whether the identified AI risks are real or how probable they are; instead, he challenges the political and economic implications of the proposed solutions. Amodei’s approach includes third-party evaluators embedded within frontier AI companies, coordination among companies and governments in democratic countries to establish common safety standards and restrictions on unchecked development, and ultimately international coordination intended to prevent companies or countries from circumventing those restrictions. McMaken interprets these proposals as a mechanism for cartelizing AI under government enforcement, particularly because restrictions would extend to companies unwilling to participate voluntarily. He argues that established companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI could benefit from regulations that impose substantial compliance costs or limitations on smaller companies and open-source competitors. The article gives particular attention to increasingly capable and inexpensive open-source AI models, which McMaken identifies as a growing competitive challenge to proprietary systems. He also argues that framing AI development as an international security competition with China gives major technology companies another route to government support and integration with the national-security establishment. The comparisons with COVID policies and climate agreements are McMaken’s political analogy rather than evidence that AI, infectious disease and climate risks are scientifically equivalent. His central argument is that catastrophic warnings can create public support for expanded government authority and that policymakers should therefore examine the economic incentives of companies requesting regulation, particularly whether proposed safety regimes would reduce competition and strengthen the market position of the companies helping design them.
GOP Kentucky Rep. Massie launches effort to impeach Hegseth Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on September 15, accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanors primarily in connection with U.S. military operations against Iran and alleged violations of congressional war powers. Massie’s first three articles accuse Hegseth of violating different provisions of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, arguing that the administration continued hostilities in Iran without a congressional declaration of war or statutory authorization and continued military operations beyond legally permitted limits. Massie said that engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization violated federal law and warranted Hegseth’s removal. Other allegations extend beyond the Iran conflict. One article accuses Hegseth of suppressing constitutionally protected speech by using Defense Department authority to retaliate against or intimidate Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly after Kelly participated in a video reminding military and intelligence personnel that they may refuse illegal orders. Another concerns U.S. actions in Venezuela and the operation that resulted in the capture and extradition of Nicolás Maduro, which Massie alleges lacked constitutional or legal authorization. The impeachment resolution also accuses Hegseth of responsibility for unnecessary civilian casualties and of degrading legal review surrounding military operations. These are allegations contained in Massie’s impeachment resolution and have not been established as findings of wrongdoing. The administration rejects Massie’s characterization. Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Hegseth, saying he was doing a strong job and that the Defense Department does not act independently of legal review, while Pentagon representatives have similarly defended Hegseth’s leadership. The impeachment effort follows repeated congressional disputes over the Iran conflict, including previous votes concerning presidential war powers. By introducing the resolution as a privileged matter, Massie sought to force the House to address the impeachment question rather than leaving it indefinitely in committee. The dispute therefore centers on the constitutional division of war-making authority between Congress and the executive branch, Massie’s contention that Hegseth personally bears responsibility for unauthorized military action, and the administration’s position that its military operations comply with applicable law.
Hour 2 (Encore)
Trump’s Executive Order Gives Revived Task Force 90 Days to Produce Vaccine Safety Report An executive order signed Monday directs the HHS Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines to develop a new approach to the timing and sequencing of childhood immunizations, explore alternatives to aluminum-containing adjuvants, and continuously evaluate the risks and benefits of childhood vaccines, with plans to be delivered to the White House within 90 days. The panel, reestablished months after attorney Ray Flores with funding from Children’s Health Defense sued HHS for decades of noncompliance with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which requires the secretary to promote vaccines with fewer and less serious adverse reactions, establish a task force of NIH, FDA and CDC directors, and periodically report to Congress on safety efforts. Flores’ lawsuit noted that a 1990 task force was disbanded in 1998 and never revived, while the childhood schedule expanded from four vaccines in 1983 to more than 75 doses across 19 vaccines by 2025, and prior efforts including a 2018 Kennedy lawsuit found HHS could not locate the required reports. HHS reinstated the task force in August 2025 shortly before its response deadline in the Flores case, with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya as chairman working with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines. Experts including Dr. Jane Orient questioned reliance on government-approved experts with potential conflicts, Dr. Michael Palmer noted challenges in achieving unbiased review and translating findings into action, and CHD scientist Karl Jablonowski observed that policies set by executive order can be reversed and that limited time remains before the next election. The first major test will be the panel’s proposals due within 90 days. 
Special Guest: Matt Warnock
Hi! I’m Matt, the Herbal Head Honcho, and I’m the second-generation owner of RidgeCrest. I joined the Company in 2000 to help out my dad and loved it so much I bought the company (or something like that). I’m married to the love of my life, Carol, and we have three daughters with growing families of their own. My motto for life is simple: If we ain’t havin’ fun, we’re doin’ it wrong.
Cam Newton backs Aaron Rodgers, claiming NFL ‘players, coaches and executives’ used fake COVID vaccine cards Former NFL quarterback Cam Newton, speaking on his “4th & 1” podcast, claimed that multiple players, coaches and executives fraudulently obtained COVID vaccination cards during the 2021 NFL protocols that required shots for team employees to avoid daily testing, masking and distancing rules, stating that nurses made significant money selling the cards and that he knew people in the locker room who did not get the shot but paid for a card. Newton’s comments support recent remarks by Aaron Rodgers on “The Pat McAfee Show,” where Rodgers suggested many people used fake vaccination cards that looked as if they were written in crayon, while unvaccinated players faced second-class treatment including yellow armbands, restricted training and limits on group sizes. Rodgers made the comments while criticizing Anthony Fauci’s Senate testimony in which Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times. Newton, who was unvaccinated while with the New England Patriots, experienced protocol issues after a medical appointment that led to a five-day re-entry cadence, lost practice time, his starting job to Mac Jones and eventual release from the team, later saying he felt bamboozled. The article notes that while Newton recalled the practice starting in 2020, the relevant NFL protocols began in 2021.Questions of The Day!
Hi Robert, I’m an incredibly huge fan of yours but to keep my comment short I wanted to ask about a middle ear infection I’ve had for almost 3 months with mastoid effusion. As you can imagine this is incredibly terrifying and I haven’t had any success with antibiotics and common home remedies like garlic oil, tea tree oil and warm compression. I hope you can help me or guide me to someone that can. Please feel free to reach out to me by my email. Thank you for all your work. – Constru
Hi Super Don,
Loved the song at the end of the show, played it a few times, I do not believe I heard that one before, very nice.
Also, do you still do my 1st car with the guest, I miss that, ever since you started the 1st car I have been trying to remember mine, all I can remember is it was a 60s Ford and kind of a golden brown.
Thanks, Take Care
Rita
Remember Friends, The Power to Heal is Yours!
