'Bombshell' Jan. 6 Testimony Is ALREADY Falling Apart | 6/29/22

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

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

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

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

All right.

Thank you very much, Hillary.

There's something about a business being family-owned and fully geared toward the best interests of its customers that has always been incredibly important to Americans and may mean even more in the coming months.

It's true.

The world of home loan options isn't always a friendly one, and navigating it can be really tricky.

Not everyone's always out to help you.

Since June of 2001, American Financing has been dedicated to working with you to help you get your finances where they need to be.

They started in their home and they moved outward to yours.

And they've been working for you, not just the bank, for a really long time now.

We've been talking about them forever.

I've done business with them.

I've had mortgages with them.

I've talked to them about refinancing.

They're just a great company, and they give you all the options that you need.

And they're salary-based.

They're not trying to get you into some loan that's not best for you.

They just want to do the best thing that they can for you and your family.

Check them out.

You really should get on top of this because we know where interest rates seem to be heading.

American Financing, 800-906-2440, 800-906-2440 or AmericanFinancing.net.

It's AmericanFinancing.net.

And it is Pat and Stu in for Glenbeck today.

He's on vacation.

He'll be back soon.

Radio show starts here in about five seconds.

Got no room to compromise.

We gotta stand together if the corner survives.

Stand up straight and hold the line.

What you are about to hear is the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Back program.

Wow, the January 6th Commission has blown things open.

Wow.

Finally.

Yeah, finally.

Now we're getting to the meat of the matter.

You can't avoid it now.

No, no.

No, you can't.

All you Trump supporters, you're going to be sorry

when we share with you the latest on what he was up to.

Oh,

man.

That's coming up in 60 seconds.

Have you ever realized that during the summer, after the long days outside, you always feel and look more tired than you should?

You know, you get the warm weather, the long days, you know, if you maybe get a little chlorine on your skin, hopefully, because that's nice.

That's a nice part of summer but it can make your skin look dehydrated you can look a little extra tired even your eyes show it that's why we always talk about classic genucelle for bags and puffiness genucelle knows that the area under your eyes needs a different kind of hydration than the rest of your skin and it's why they've sold over a million products and genucelle the original bags and puffiness still their top seller stop looking tired today and order genucelle for bags and puffiness you can save over 65 off retail and with its immediate effects you get results in 12 hours or your money back order the the classic Genucelle today with their most popular package, and you can save over 65%.

Check it out: genucelle.com/slash back, G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash back.

You can enter the promo code Beck and save extra money at checkout.

Every order includes Genucell's Dark Spot Corrector for free, plus free shipping.

They always hook you up at Genucelle.

It's genucelle.com/slash back.

G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash Beck.

Well,

Cassidy Hutchinson has finally blown this thing completely open.

We were looking for the smoking gun in the January 6th situation that links Trump to all the madness.

Well, we have it now.

We have it.

Did you see her testimony yesterday?

I did see a bunch of the testimony, yes.

Powerful.

Now, she

was the chief of staff for Mark Meadows.

Yes.

So in some...

Who is the chief of staff for Donald trump right so what does that make i don't know how that works do you multiply them chief of staff times chief of staff to find out what it is um it is uh the one thing you'd say about her and i guess this is why they made such a big deal about the testimony yesterday is that she's not an anti-trump person she was there throughout uh she

you know to the end was still chief of staff for mark meadows right and mark meadows was the chief of staff for the president of the united states so this is not someone like you know, it's not like, I don't know who's the right example, but there's, you know, there's been so many players in this at this point, but not someone who was highly skeptical of Trump the whole time and is now saying bad things about them now that they don't have a job anymore.

She was there the whole time and was working closely with the president, had access to a lot of the internal conversation.

So I guess that's why she was a big deal yesterday.

Yeah.

Here's what she had.

to say about uh Donald Trump being pissed off that they weren't taking him back.

He wanted to go to the Capitol building.

I want to go to the Capitol building, be with my people.

Here's what she said.

Related to him, we're not.

We don't have the assets to do it.

It's not secure.

We're going back to the West Wing.

The president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.

Tony described him as being irate.

The president said something to the effect of, I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now.

To which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.

The President reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel.

Mr.

Engel grabbed his arm, said, Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.

We're going back to the West Wing.

We're not going to the Capitol.

Mr.

Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel.

And when Mr.

Renato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

Yeah, his clavicles.

He almost grabbed his clavicles.

He's going to break his collarbones.

Now, that's what Trump was going to do.

He's apparently very proficient at breaking people's collarbones.

He can do that with, he can just snap them in half with his hand.

And it's important to know because, you know, look, our education system is not what it once was.

The Constitution explicitly bans the president from touching clavicles.

Yeah.

That is part, that's in the clavicle cause.

He ignored it.

Yeah, the clavicle cause.

Uh-huh.

Clavicle cause.

Yeah.

It's hard to say, but that does exist.

If you're Tom Broca, you can't say that.

It's a clavicle.

Clavicle clause.

It's a clavicle cause.

Yeah, so

the idea that, okay,

the speech is over.

Okay.

President Trump wants to go to the Capitol.

They're driving him back to the White House.

And look, it's a long walk.

He's not going to make that walk.

So he wants to be in the car.

Yeah.

And

they say no.

They say no.

The Secret Service says no.

No.

keep in mind, he's in the beast, the presidential limousine.

Yeah.

He's in the back of the limousine.

He doesn't ever ride shotgun that I know of.

Even when he calls it, he still doesn't get to do it.

Well, if he calls it first.

No.

They still don't let him do it.

Wow.

So he's in the back.

I guess he jumps through the partition, grabs the steering wheel with his right hand, and with his left, he's got the clavicles of the Secret Service agent who's driving in his hand.

And he's about to snap his collarbones.

That is frightening.

It was one of the first things I thought about.

Jill he is.

It didn't seem just in that vehicle that that would be possible.

It doesn't seem possible.

That's the thing.

Yeah.

And,

you know, the Secret Service has already volunteered to testify

on, you know,

under oath.

That that did not happen.

Right.

So this, that's the biggest part of this, right?

Yeah.

It did not happen.

If this was the biggest story in the world from her,

you would want to find out from the Secret Service agent if it was true or not.

Right.

And, you know, Secret Service agents.

Before you started reporting it as if it's gospel truth.

Right.

Okay, well, this person heard it from some other person.

It's absolutely true.

Right.

And so you'd want to get that confirmation.

Now, Secret Service agents are not necessarily known for volunteering information.

The fact that they immediately came out and said, wait a minute, this didn't happen, is incredible.

Without hesitation, it dissolves the entire story immediately, right?

That's how bad, like literally the whole story falls apart within an hour.

Now, that doesn't mean that she lied, because if you, I think the most important part of what you just heard was that she said,

Tony said,

as he recounted, it is, she's told you it is secondhand information.

Yeah, it's not like she's riding shotgun in the limo and sees this occur.

She's not there.

No, she didn't see this.

She didn't witness it.

She's saying she talked to the Secret Service agent who then told the story.

Now, it's not impossible that something happened, some sort of, you know, he maybe, I would totally believe that Donald Trump yelled at the Secret Service agent in that moment.

Maybe he was very emotional in that moment.

Very possible.

And maybe he inflated the story to her.

I mean, it's not, that's not a crazy telling of this.

Yeah.

But the bottom line is you follow up with the people involved.

And the Secret Service agent, if he really had his clavicle attacked here, Pat, would probably be very willing to tell the story if asked.

And he immediately came out instead and said the exact opposite, that it was not true.

So that part, which is the biggest headline.

from the January 6th hearings in a surprise moment with

an unknown witness, bombshell.

Every media headline you will read will tell you it was a bombshell.

And that has already been opposed by the person who supposedly told the story.

Already debunked.

And not a political figure.

Like if it was a, let's say it was Mark Meadows saying this, you might say, well, Meadows is covering for Trump.

The Secret Service is not doing that.

That's not what they do.

That's not their job.

Their job is not to cover for the president in testimony.

You almost never hear of Secret Service agents, even after they've long retired, saying anything about their service with the president.

Right.

They almost never do that.

No.

You don't hear about it at all afterward.

I mean, we've talked to Secret Service agents who are friendlier to our cause than the cause on the left.

We've talked to several of them over the years.

People who worked for President Obama, for example.

Dan Bongino, for instance.

Dan Bongino's talked about it.

Publicly.

He's talked about it.

Even he doesn't relate specifics.

No, he's very limited on what he would tell you.

And we talked to others who won't say one word on the air about what they witnessed in in the white house because they

see it as part of their job to never talk about those things and i think you know watching this i think we had a different perspective pat than a lot of america in that

we've dealt with with high-level security people um because glenn always has them around i mean you know glenn has had all sorts of threats on his life over the years and so we've we talked to these guys we know these guys we talk to them off camera off the air and they still won't tell.

People we've known for years will not give us names of celebrities they've protected because they guard that so closely.

They don't even say who they've guarded,

let alone tell you specific stories about guarding them.

Right.

Yeah.

Because that's, you know, they see that as like their oath.

Yeah.

And certainly the Secret Service agencies that it's probably even a higher level and that it's, you know, it's, it really is an oath,

not just a job responsibility.

So

seeing that, and then I thought another part of this, Pat, was interesting from maybe our perspective more than

a person who is in a normal job, not working with a person that has 15 active threats against him all the time.

The actions of Donald Trump, if true,

not the clavicle part, because we know the clavicle clause, of course,

bars that behavior.

But I'm saying like the behavior of, I want to go with my people into a dangerous situation that my security people are saying, no, I totally believe that's true.

I totally believe Donald Trump wanted to go down and be with his people at the Capitol.

It would not surprise me at all.

It would not surprise me at all because we've seen Glenn try to do the same crap a hundred times.

And like, it is really frustrating for the security people because they're like, we can't secure you there.

It's not that you don't trust the people who are in the crowd, but all it takes is one.

You know, all it takes is one Hinkley to be in a crowd, and we've got a national tragedy on our hands.

Yeah.

And you don't know if, if even if 95% of those people are perfectly fine, there could always be a psychotic person in there doing something crazy.

So the Secret Service and any good security team is going to say, dude, no, you can't go down there.

I can't bring you down there.

We are not ready for it.

We're not prepared for it.

You can't just spring this on us right now.

We cannot bring you down there.

We need to bring you to the West Wing.

That is totally believable to me and probably true.

But the way the media is presenting that information is Donald Trump wanted to join the coup.

Donald Trump wanted to go down there.

He wanted to be there to overthrow the process.

Now,

so stupid.

Come on.

That is total spin.

He wanted to be with his people.

He wanted to show that he wasn't going to just go hide in the White House when he was asking them to go down there and walk down to the Capitol and not riot, but protest.

Totally believable.

The idea that he, that Donald Trump, who's look, take all the other stuff out of it.

Donald Trump's a pretty coddled guy.

He's lived as a billionaire for how long?

Do you think he wants to be in the middle of a brawl inside the Capitol?

No.

Do you think he wants to be in the middle of a group of people putting flagpoles through windows of the Capitol?

Do you think he wants to be in the middle of the people?

Do you think he would be in in the middle of a pepper spray incident?

The guy lives in a gold palace.

He does not want to be in the middle of that.

No.

If you thought he had the worst intentions, the way Donald Trump would handle that situation is being somewhere safe, directing it from a distance.

He does not want to be in the middle of that.

That's not who the guy is.

Yeah.

And even if, you know, even if the really ridiculous story of him grabbing the wheel and trying to and trying to drive, forcibly drive the beast back to the capitol building even if it was true what does that prove anyway that just proved he wanted to be

he wanted to go there so what now it wouldn't mean he was overthrowing the government a clavicle thing would be bothersome if he's at if he was actually putting his hands on a clavicle it would that i mean look especially thinking he's going to be able to do something overtake a secret service agent

that's not smart trump's a big guy but i don't think he's winning against a secret service agent You know, that's just not the profile of Donald Trump, right?

I know he has the perfect health, as we learned from his doctor,

but I don't think that that would happen.

And, you know, that has been, let's take a quick break and come back on the other side because in 60 seconds, because they have, there was one other major claim from this hearing yesterday.

Yeah.

And this one's going to hit you hard.

Shocking.

This one's going to hit you hard back in 60 seconds.

We just talked about one Glenn back who is

he's out right now.

I don't know what he's doing.

I believe I'm supposed to tell you he's having some maybe a transition surgery, which is basically what he does every time I go on vacation.

But I will say he's just on vacation this time.

But he is realestateagentsidrust.com, his company is still in effect.

They are still working.

Luckily, Glenn doesn't...

I mean, Glenn came up with this idea.

for realestateagentsidrust.com.

He's not actually checking each individual real estate agent.

Oh, I thought he was.

Which is good for you as a person who needs a good real estate agent.

You want the professionals to do that work and not him.

Who knows who he would pick.

But these are people who, generally speaking, are

fans of the show, who relate to your values, but all of them are the best real estate agents in their area.

These are people who have who their word is their bond.

These are people who get the best deal for you for whether you're buying or selling.

a home.

They go both sides of this.

And if you happen to be someone who, and we hear this from people all the time, hey, I was in California and I've been living there my whole life and then covet hit and now i'm getting out of here if that's you this is a big move you want to have someone in the new community you're working you're moving to that that you can trust because you don't have any connections maybe in this new this new state come join us here we would love to have you in texas first of all and when you do uh if it's texas if it's florida wherever it is nashville uh wherever wherever it is you can get the best agent in your area at realestagentsitrust.com the name kind of says it all realestate agents i

It's realestate agentsitrust.com.

10 seconds.

Station ID.

Yep, we've gotten things.

So Pat just reminded me that there's actually a couple big, maybe we get to go through these

hour.

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is enough time in this segment.

I think we're going to have to stretch it out a little bit.

Really?

There are

too many bombshells yesterday.

Let me give you one quick one, which I thought was pretty fascinating.

Okay.

And just a typical misunderstanding of American culture

from the media.

The headline of part of Cassidy's testimony yesterday, this is the Mark Meadows, chief of staff.

She said that Donald Trump wanted people,

he wanted to take the magnetometers out, and he wanted the people who were outside of the rally area to be allowed in, even though he was told they were armed.

And then he wanted to march with them to the Capitol.

So the way that's been summarized by the media is Donald Trump wanted to march with armed men to the Capitol.

That is how they're literally summarizing this entire story.

Now, when you listen to what even she said about Trump, what he said, first of all, I want these people to be allowed in because my area of crowd is not filled up and it looks like it's empty.

That was his big complaint.

Now, we've only heard Donald Trump complain about that every single time it's happened throughout his entire life, right?

Like, we all know that Donald Trump likes full crowds.

Even sometimes, when they're not full, he says they're full, right?

Like, this is really important to Donald Trump, as we all understand.

So, the fact that he would want more people allowed into that area is totally believable, right?

He probably did.

And when they said, sir, these people are armed, he said they're not here to harm me.

And he wanted them to come in.

Now, what I read this as totally is a complete media misunderstanding of the Second Amendment and guns.

They think they see it.

They're armed to kill people.

Yeah.

When they see a gun, they say the only reason they could be there is because they want to kill people.

No.

That is not why people have guns.

Right?

I carry a gun sometimes.

And when I have it, I don't want to kill anyone.

I hope I never have to use it.

The same thing, I'm sure, is happening here.

We have had people, we've had people who are armed around us many, many, many times that are listeners of this show.

And we believe that gun owners are not psychopaths.

So we don't think that violence is about to break out because they're armed.

And they...

They are making such a big, big deal of some of these people being at the Capitol building when the riot occurred, and some of them were armed.

Well, yeah, did they use it?

Do they use their guns?

Not one person except the cop who shot Ashley Babbitt.

Nobody else used a gun.

Right, that's true.

And that, you know, look, I, again, can understand why the Secret Service would say no to this request.

I understand, you know, you don't know if one of those people is a psycho that's going to take a shot at the president.

However, I also understand President Trump saying like, look, these are my people.

They're not going to try to take a shot at me.

I want them in here.

I want them to be part of this.

Again, Again, this is it's so easy to apply our current understanding of what happened on January 6th to the moments before the riot broke out.

It's easy to apply that now because you're like, wait a minute, armed people marching to the Capitol, riot.

He wanted to be there.

I mean, he wanted to be in the middle of a riot.

Like, come on, guys.

You think Donald Trump wanted to be in the middle of a riot?

No, that is not who is not who he is.

He wanted to be down there to support his people, to be able to maybe make another speech, to be able to show that he was with the people, people who were going to be responsible for his political future, his business future.

He didn't want to be hiding in the White House.

He wanted to say, I'm down there.

This is before the riot breaks out.

And the fact that he's saying he's not scared of guns is because he's a believer in the Second Amendment and he's not scared of guns.

I understand you in the media are scared of guns.

So you see guns and you're like, oh my gosh, he wanted to an armed revolt at the Capitol.

I don't think there's any evidence from this testimony at all, even her accusations, that back that up.

I don't think there's any accusations there that say anything other than Donald Trump realizes his people

are supporters of the Second Amendment, so some of them would have guns naturally and he wasn't scared of them.

That's all.

There's more.

We'll see what you have to say about it when it plays it for you.

Mr.

Apologist.

There you go.

You know, the sooner you switch to Patriot Patriot Mobile, the sooner you can start paying less.

And I mean, way less, less than you're paying now with your major mobile company.

There's no reason to pay out the nose.

And you know how we're always talking about how major mobile companies donate a portion of your bill to leftist causes.

Well, Patriot Mobile doesn't do that at all.

In fact, they do the opposite.

They donate to conservative causes.

Wouldn't you rather get behind something like that?

You think about all the efforts that came to overturning Roe versus Wade.

I mean, that's five decades of activists staying with a cause the entire time.

Patriot Mobile has been highly involved in that.

They believe in your rights and the things that you believe in as well.

They support your values, and why not support a company like that?

If you're paying too much for cell phone service, make the important switch over to Patriot Mobile today.

They have 100% U.S.-based customer support, and they give amazing personal service.

It's patriotmobile.com slash Beck, or call 972-Patriot.

Get free activation with the offer code Beck.

Veterans and first responders save even more.

So you can make the switch today between the left, the media, and the rhinos.

We need to stick together.

Patriotmobile.com/slash back.

It's patriotmobile.com/slash back or 972 Patriot 972 Patriot for Patriot Mobile.

Don't forget to use promo code GLEN for $10 off your subscription at blazetv.com.

All right, Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Peck program.

We've been showing you some of the bombshell evidence that came out yesterday from the J6 committee.

I like how you said that, Pat.

J6.

Yeah.

You know, it's not January.

It's not important enough.

It's like Fast and Furious 5.

It just became F5.

You know what I mean?

This is as important to this country's future as Fast and Furious 5.

And I do not say that lightly.

Well, it's almost, almost as important to the country as F5.

All right, you're right.

I mean, it's not quite.

It's not as important as Fast and Furious 3 Tokyo Drift.

No, that's obviously more important to the country.

But F5, I think there's an

equivalency there that

I think works pretty well.

Cassidy Hutchinson, who is the chief of staff for the chief of staff,

and she had some...

incredible things to say yesterday.

One of them that Donald Trump leapt from the back seat of his limousine to the front seat and tried to grab the steering wheel and the clavicle of the Secret Service agent at the same time.

One of the things I thought was most interesting about that part of her testimony was how she said it happened Matrix style.

And he paused in midair as he was going through the partition.

Yeah.

And he was able to do both of them like Neo.

I thought it was pretty interesting.

That part of it was unexpected.

But again, it was secondhand information.

So we don't know for sure.

We don't know for sure.

So, but

she had more.

She had more.

She did.

Yeah.

She had a lot.

I mean, she was up there for a while.

And if this doesn't finally get you to understand

what this president was doing that day, I don't know what will.

Here's what she had to say.

The physical altercation that Ms.

Hutchinson described in the presidential vehicle was not the first time that the president had become very angry about issues relating to the election.

On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had not found evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election.

Ms.

Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news?

Around the time that I understand the AP article went live,

I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway, so I poked my head out of the office and I saw the valet walking towards our office.

He had said, get the chief down to the dining room.

The president wants him.

So Mark went down to the dining room and came back to the office a few minutes later.

After Mark had returned, I left the office and went down to the dining room.

And I noticed that the door was propped open and the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table.

He motioned for me to come in and then pointed towards the front of the room near the fireplace, mantle, and the TV, where I first noticed there was ketchup dripping down the wall and there's a shattered porcelain plate on the floor.

The valet had articulated that the president was

extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview

and had thrown his lunch against the wall.

What?

Which was causing them to have to clean up.

So I grabbed a towel and started wiping the ketchup off the wall to help the valet out.

Ketchup.

And he said something to the effect of, he's really ticked off about this.

Don't say that.

I would stay clear of him for right now.

He's really, really ticked off about this right now.

Yeah.

Wow.

Wow.

Wow.

He was in.

a complete rage to the point where he threw his lunch against the wall and ketchup was dripping down it as a result.

Do we know it wasn't blood, Pat?

Do we know he hadn't murdered someone and then thrown something?

I don't know that we do.

Frankly, I don't know that we do.

We don't know.

Was it brain matter and blood?

We don't know.

We don't know.

We don't know.

All we know is there was red stuff falling down a wall.

Like, okay.

Could you believe that he I can totally believe that?

I can totally believe it, right?

That he threw something against the wall?

Look, he's.

So what?

What is the

yes?

I don't even know what to say about what is the accusation here.

He got pissed off once in a bad moment for him.

Yes, right.

Like it was probably one of the most significant moments in his fight to win the election

because Barr had been a very, very loyal.

I would say loyal defender because I think that undercuts Barr.

I think that like he wasn't like a mindless defender.

He was a credible defender though of Trump throughout the impeachment and many other times when things could have gone awry for the administration.

Barr Barr was one of the, was one of the strongest voices for Trump for several years because he actually had some credibility.

He didn't come at this, he didn't sound like

some partisan supporter of Trump.

He was very well reasoned and calm.

And that's why for most of the Trump administration, Trump fans loved the guy.

I mean, he was really, he did a good job

defending Trump.

He disagreed with him on what happened, obviously, after the election.

And when he came out and said it publicly, it put that effort to try to win the election at in real peril.

I mean, it was probably, it was one of the toughest moments, I think, in that effort for the president.

So the fact that he was pissed off about that does not surprise me at all.

Right.

Like, and the fact that it may have pissed him off enough to throw a hamburger against the wall isn't exactly shocking to me.

Me either.

No, I I don't.

What is the accusation here?

That he's like so out of control with anger that he couldn't be trusted in those moments.

I mean,

I think if you go back, certainly you'd find that type of behavior from Nixon.

Oh, you'd find that type of behavior from LBJ completely.

Clinton, probably Bill Clinton.

Probably Clinton.

I mean, I think there is a.

These are big moments.

These are historic moments.

You know, at that point, he's seeing someone who's generally speaking been on his side, say something he didn't like that put one of his biggest efforts in peril.

Take it out of the idea of whether you think his efforts to win that election were right or wrong.

He wanted to win it.

He believed he was correct in what he was saying, and he did not want someone undercutting him.

Now, look, I think it's Barr's responsibility for him to say what he believed was true.

And so you can be critical of Barr on that or not.

If you believe that Barr was wrong, you probably don't like it.

But the bottom line was: both of these guys should probably be saying what they believe is true.

And, you know, did it piss off Trump in that moment?

I'm sure it did.

It would not surprise me at all.

Yeah.

But

what is the point of that?

That's nothing to do with January 6th.

Yeah.

It's just an anecdote that makes him look bad.

It makes him look angry.

Makes him look out of control.

Like nobody's had an angry moment?

Yeah.

We've all had angry moments.

I don't know if I've ever thrown a hamburger at the wall.

No,

you know what I'm saying?

I tossed a hamburger spatula once across a room.

Pat.

Yeah.

This is not secondhand information.

You're telling me this actually happened?

From the source.

Yes, I'm the one who did it.

Wow.

And I'm the one relating the story now.

That is, wow.

I can't believe you said that on national radio.

I was probably in my early 20s and I threw a spatula.

From the dining room to the kitchen.

I don't feel safe being in this room with you right now.

The overwhelming anger, you can tell your top.

I have mellowed a little bit with age and I haven't thrown spatulas since, but

there was a time when I threw a spatula.

I think we've all had moments where we lose it, right?

Oh, yeah.

And would you be at all surprised if the president lost it in that moment?

No.

I'd be surprised if he didn't, frankly.

Yeah.

I would.

Because that is something that meant a lot to him.

Say what you will about whether or not you think the election was fraudulent.

He believed it was.

He thought he won.

And frankly, I can't believe this buffoon beat him.

I can't believe it.

And it's still really hard to believe he got 81 million votes.

That's really hard to believe.

And look,

a big part of the January 6th hearings have been trying to convince you that someone close to Donald Trump told him that he didn't win.

Well, yeah, they did.

You You know, Bill Barr wrote a whole book about it, right?

Right.

Like, this is not a surprise.

It's not been a secret from him.

A lot of people around him did not believe in what he was doing, which is, you know, look, you can, I think you can be critical if you don't believe that the election was sold and say, hey, he should have believed these credible people instead of people like Sidney Powell.

Right.

Like, I think totally, that's a totally legitimate piece of criticism.

And part of what Trump tends to do, as we've seen this over the years, is to find the people who agree with him and go to them more often, right?

Like he find, like that, and that's not, you could say that's not a good trait, but you cannot say it is a,

like that he knew, look, he knew he'd lost and he was going to overthrow the government.

Like that is not what, that's not what we know about Donald Trump.

That's not who we've seen in multiple decades of public life.

You know, did he go, did he lean toward people like Rudy Giuliani who were supporting his theories?

I'm sure he did.

Yeah.

I'm sure he did.

When people told him, no, sir, you lost, he didn't like them as much.

That's kind of how Donald Trump acts.

I mean, we've heard that from Bill O'Reilly, who's tight with Donald Trump and

who was, I mean, just went on tour with the guy.

You know, I mean, they,

you know, when I asked him, I said, like, well, what, you know, talking to Bill O'Reilly, I said, Bill, what, what was happening in this moment?

You know, why, why didn't he react as quickly as a lot of people thought he should on January 6th?

When the riot's going on, why isn't he tweeting stuff like, get the hell out of that building?

I think we all know enough about Donald Trump to know that he loves the country and does not want the Capitol ransacked.

And now, I know people on the left would disagree with that, but I think most people would understand that, like, while

you might not agree with everything that Trump says, you know, the guy loves the country and there's no, he would not, this was not his plan.

He was not trying to ransack the capital.

But even if you think it was, I asked Bill, I said, well, why didn't he respond quickly?

Why didn't he come out with that tweet that I think every that people like Sean Hannity and Mark Meadows and Donald Trump Jr.

and Ivanka Trump were texting and saying, please make him make this statement.

Why did he take so long?

And Bill said, he didn't know what to do.

These were his people.

He knew it was wrong, but he didn't want to come out here and go after his people.

Right.

And look.

That makes a lot of sense.

It makes sense.

You can still be critical of that.

You could say, well, he should have known what to do.

Yes.

But the bottom line was, it's very consistent with who we see Trump as.

He's loyal to the people who are close to him, who have supported him.

And when they stop supporting him, he's not so loyal to them.

That's just kind of who Donald Trump is.

And it's something that we all know about him.

He really believed.

He won this election and he was going to do whatever he could

to try to

right that wrong.

And look, after December 14th, there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for this.

Safe Harbor Day is a thing.

And once you pass it,

there's really nothing to do legally.

But, you know, he even if it was looking toward the future, he wanted to make sure that he

got that truth out there that he won in his eyes.

So it's not surprising at all that if Bill Barr said you didn't win, he just didn't believe him.

And he didn't agree.

And he threw a freaking hamburger.

That's not, this is not, this is not, I don't think it's national news that the president got angry and threw a hamburger.

It is not.

Triple eight seven two seven B E C K.

Work of a lineback program.

So obviously now we now know that Pat, I hate to scare the audience here, but I believe the January 6th hearings will result in the President Donald Trump

needing to leave office.

Oh, no.

Yeah.

I don't think he's going to remain in office right now.

Wow.

And I think he's going to have to.

That's quite a statement.

I think for the next two years, he's not going to be in in the white house at all completely barred from the white house i think he's not going to be well he's not going to be present he may visit he may take a tour okay you know yeah but he won't be he won't be the guy in charge i think for

a good two years plus and i hate look i think these these hearings have been because i wish he was i wish he was in charge no kidding

but right now yeah uh but uh i think they're that impactful i think they may result in the exact situation we're currently in.

And that is

a good one.

What they're trying to do is preclude him from holding office again.

I think you're right.

That seems to be the point to me that, okay, this is a really bad guy.

This is a guy who throws hamburgers against the wall and ketchup drips down the wall.

I mean, just as a person who might love hamburgers, you may have a problem with that, right?

Like, don't waste.

Hey, don't disrespect.

Don't you dare.

No.

I do think that's what they're trying to do.

Look, they see this.

There's two things I think they're trying to do here.

One is to make sure Trump does not come back, does not become the candidate.

There's rumors he may announce he's going to run for president within the next few weeks.

Yeah, soon.

I don't believe that.

I don't know.

I guess the fundraising thing.

Maybe he waits till next year.

Yeah, the fundraising thing, maybe you could see that as the advantage, but it would seem almost like a

sign that he's scared of DeSantis, I think, if he did this now.

I mean, DeSantis still has a gubernatorial election coming up.

He obviously isn't going to announce now.

And it would almost seem seem like he's trying to get out ahead of

DeSantis.

And I don't think Trump feels the need to do that.

I think he's going to announce when he feels like announcing.

And maybe it'll be soon.

I don't know.

I could be wrong on that.

That's totally a guess.

But, you know, you look at this situation, and he's

they're trying to get him so he is injured, right, politically and cannot run for office, maybe even

something like more than that.

But I think also it's it's their attempt to distract from all the bad things that are happening under Biden right now.

They're going to lose this this midterm election in a landslide, and they're looking for anything else to dig their claws into.

We talked about it yesterday with the abortion ruling, and this is the same thing.

They're looking for something to distract people from the fact that their life kind of sucks right now.

You know, and that's that I don't think it's going to work, but you know, they have to try something here.

Yep, and they're pulling out all the stops.

I mean, Cassidy Hutchinson, with

her testimony yesterday, powerful.

Powerful stuff.

This is the Glenn Back program.

If you own a home or a property, you have a couple of reasons.

You never want to become the victim of home title fraud.

Like, for example,

you know, if a cyber criminal gets a hold of your home's title, he'll take out loan after loan using your home's equity, and then he'll vanish.

He's not going to hang around and talk it out with you.

He's going to leave you to prove that you didn't commit fraud.

Good luck with that.

Also, you might not even know that this has happened to you for months.

No agency notifies you or asks if you sold your home or added someone to the title you'll find out when the collections calls start for loans

you don't want this to happen so make sure you take a couple of steps go with America's trusted leader home title lock they they'll help you out with this you go to home title lock calm read the testimonials check out all of the information there and register your address see if you're already a victim and don't even know it yet and when you register to protect your home there'll be a place for you to tell them that Stu sent you that That way, you get 30 risk-free days of protection.

So do that.

Home TitleLock.com.

It's home-title lock.com.

Got no room to compromise.

We gotta stand together, it's the corner survived.

Stand up straight and hold the line.

It's a new day, I'm turned to rise.

What you are about to hear is the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glen Back program.

program.

Amazon employees wrote a little letter to the leadership of Amazon demanding certain things.

We'll share some of that with you coming up in 60 seconds.

If you own a home or a property, here's a couple of reasons that you need to make sure you have the best real estate agent possible.

You need someone that you can trust.

You need someone on your side.

This is the biggest financial transaction you probably will ever go into.

And this is true for almost everybody because each time you buy a house, you know, if things are going well in your life, it's probably a little bigger, maybe more expensive than the one before.

And it's always, you're just doubling down, doubling down, and doubling down on a market that you probably don't fully understand.

I don't think people spend their whole time.

trying to figure out the real estate market in their area.

That's why you need a real estate agent you can trust.

Realestateagentsitrust.com is the place to go to find that person.

They do spend all their time trying to figure out this market and understand it.

And it's important to know not only that you get all the paperwork right and all that, but you have someone on your side that can say, hey, you know, you're thinking about spending a couple thousand dollars fixing X, Y, or Z.

You don't need to do that.

That's not going to help you.

You're not going to get that money back.

Someone who would talk honestly to you about it when you're selling your house, or if you're going to a new area, moving from, let's say, New York or California to a red state, you need someone in that area.

You might not know anyone yet.

So how about realestate agentsitrust.com?

The name kind of says it all.

Realestateagentsitrust.com.

It's realestate agentsitrust.com.

It's Patton Stewart for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

Here's another example of the inmates running the asylum.

The Amazon employees got together and wrote the leadership of Amazon, an open letter.

Group of pro-abortion Amazon employees filed this public letter to the company where they demanded that the online retailer cease any and all business in pro-life states.

We, the undersigned, they wrote, come to you today to request immediate and decisive action against the threat to our basic human rights with the overturning of Roe v.

Wade.

As part of Amazon's wide-reaching efforts toward a more inclusive and diverse workforce,

Really?

Are they really trying to get a more inclusive and diverse workforce?

We believe that Amazon cannot let this recent decision go unanswered.

We ask Amazon, the world's best employer, to actively defend against this assault on our liberty.

Since when is this a corporation's job in this country to defend their employees'

liberty?

I mean, Amazon's in business to make money.

Let's face it.

That's what they want to do.

Bezos started the company so that he could make a living for himself and his family.

And it worked out pretty well.

It turns out that he made a really nice living for himself and his family.

And

it's not his responsibility

to follow up on the ideology of his employees.

But they want him to cease operations

in states that enact laws that threaten the lives and liberty of abortion seekers.

So stupid.

I would abort every one of their careers.

I would, too.

Everyone who signed it.

I'd abort that career.

Either by denying health care in life-threatening circumstances or by criminalizing abortion seekers and providers.

Nobody, nobody is criminalizing abortion seekers.

Now, some have threatened the abortion providers, like, you know, the doctors or the clinics that are involved, but nobody is saying that the woman is going to be prosecuted in any way.

Now, I don't think that's in any of these laws.

Nor is their life in danger because in, I believe, every single case in these states that are banning abortion, there's the exception for the mother's life being in danger.

Every single one.

Every one of them.

Now, their argument is this weird Roe versus Wade argument that's been around for a long time now, which is,

well,

they could die in childbirth.

That's really their argument here.

Like, if you make them carry to term, they could theoretically die during childbirth.

Come on.

Really?

Yeah, that is.

Is this 1842 now?

Yeah, exactly.

Is that where we are?

We're in a little house on the prairie.

And

the dock is about 80 miles away.

We got to get him by carriage.

Right.

It's just so painfully stupid.

It is.

Obviously, you could die during childbirth.

You could die driving to the hospital before childbirth, too.

You could die for a lot of reasons.

You can't predict it.

Obviously, the chances of you dying during childbirth are very, very small.

But you could also die during an abortion.

Yeah, you know,

there's risk everywhere all the time.

That is, it's not a sensible point.

They've been trying to make that, you know, they tried to make that back 50 years ago because it was more common.

And so they would compare it against abortion, which

also has its risks.

But especially with like the medical ones they have now, their claims are, well, it's not, you know, it's much safer than going through with a full childbirth.

Now, look,

in 2022, we're talking about two very unlikely outcomes.

It's unlikely that you would die during an abortion.

It is unlikely that you would die during childbirth.

That's not very common.

And it might be about equally risky on both of those.

You might have about an equal chance with each.

I don't know.

They claim, you know, their claim is, oh, no, it's much more dangerous.

You know, and like...

It's not,

you know, this is a relative versus absolute risk

thing they're doing here, which is like both abs, when you talk about absolute risk, chances are incredibly low that either one of these two things would happen.

However, their claim is, oh, well, if you compare, if you do a relative risk calculation, you could say, well, it's much more likely.

It's very unlikely either way.

It's a silly, silly defense.

It's ridiculous.

It's ridiculous.

Come on.

Come on.

It's just, it's completely ridiculous.

I mean, we've talked, I don't want to badger people with all the numbers and go through the whole argument again, but it's just a silly argument.

I mean, well, anything can happen in life.

Of course, you're going to die at some point.

There's 100% chance of death in your future.

You know,

I hate to break it to you.

There's 100% chance you're going to die someday.

Yeah.

And, you know, you're not going to be able to manage exactly when that's going to happen.

The chances of you dying during childbirth are extraordinarily low

in any developed country at this point.

But they've been doing this from the beginning.

Even before Roe v.

Wade, this is how they got Roe v.

Wade

passed in part is lying about the risk for uh women who don't have access to abortions because they just made up a number of 10 000 back alley abortion deaths every year well what where did you get that if you go back and look at where they got that which 10 000 back alley abortion deaths every year.

There was a doctor who was a pro-abortion guy who just made it up.

He just completely picked a number and threw it out there.

The press ran with it.

And that's one of the things that turned the tide.

So often the case with the left and their arguments.

It's the same thing with

the straw situation.

The straw one is the one that's.

It's a nine-year-old kid and a homework project trying to figure out how many straws were wasted every day.

And somebody threw out a number that was completely inaccurate and made up of 500 million a day.

And it was a kid, legitimately a kid, who put this in a school project.

And everyone

ran with it.

These dumb restaurants have paper straws.

That is legitimately

the story.

Yeah.

I think it was a nine-year-old.

It was a nine-year-old.

Who

had a school project that got into the media and they got picked up by a bunch of people.

And then everyone said, oh my gosh, the problem here are plastic straws.

We need to get rid of the plastic straws and have paper straws that immediately fold when you start putting liquid through them because they're paper.

Paper and liquid are not always the best match.

And then they fold and you have to ask for three more.

So it doesn't save the environment at all.

And we are down that road.

You know, another one, the garbage island in the middle of the ocean.

The, yeah, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Yeah, which does not exist.

Two and a half times the size of Texas.

Yeah.

Been portioned

a million times, does not exist.

Can't, for some reason, be photographed by satellite imagery.

For some reason, we don't have a picture of it.

And these things.

Why don't we have a picture of it?

Because as Stu just said, it doesn't exist.

It's not really there.

These things are so widespread that, like, I remember when I learned that the island didn't exist, because I went through the exact same process you went through, Pat.

I said, well, wait a minute.

Why isn't there a picture of this?

What does it look like?

Where is it?

What's the location of it?

And you look for it, and oh, yeah, there isn't one.

They're just saying there's a bunch of garbage in the ocean.

And if you

combine it all into one place, in theory, there would be an island that's this big.

But that's not what what happens.

And by the way, we're not the ones responsible for it.

Almost all the trash is coming from China.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I, it was my search for the picture of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch where I found the Salon article, Salon, which is a left-wing, big-time left-wing publication where the guy admitted, hey, you know what?

We should really tell people there really isn't a Great Pacific garbage patch.

We've been lying about that for years and it's just not there.

For years.

Wow.

These things happen.

I was blown away.

I really thought there probably was a garbage patch.

Yeah, I just assumed there was and was like, well, I mean, you know, I don't know.

That seems on, it seems bizarre, but I guess maybe the current pulls it, pushes it.

And the, I don't know.

Who knows?

I don't know what I thought was actually happening.

I never put much thought into it.

It was so much reported as such fact.

Another one is this idea that global warming, if we don't do anything in 10 years, the society is going to end.

Yeah.

And this has been everywhere.

Every politician on the left has said it.

AOC, it's like our favorite thing to say.

Biden has said it multiple times.

And my argument on that when I first heard it was: look, I've looked in enough climate data over the years.

This seems like some outlying, scary scenario that some doctor or some scientist said, but is not the realistic possibility.

Is it, you know, is it, you know, and it doesn't mean the world's going to end.

It means that we hit a point where it's going to be difficult to

return because of this idea of positive feedback.

It's a standard thing in global warming theory where each thing that goes wrong feeds back and makes the other things go more wrong.

And then that in turn makes the next thing go wrong.

It's a feedback loop.

It's a feedback loop.

And there's no reason to believe in

all the stuff that I've ever read and what I certainly believe and many scientists as well that the climate is a positive feedback system.

It seems very clear over thousands of years.

It's a negative feedback system.

It seems to be able to correct its ice ages with

going the other way.

It's the reason why humanity has been able to live here for a long time because of that.

So that's a whole other story.

But

that's what I thought.

And that was just me analyzing it and just kind of like looking at the way these things normally play out.

However, that was not accurate.

My opinion was not accurate.

And the reason I know this is from Michael Schellenberger, who wrote in his book about this and decided to actually go to the scientist who supposedly was being quoted and asked them, hey, guys, did you guys say?

He was at the UN's

climate

division or whatever.

What do they call that?

The IPCC?

IPCC.

And he went there.

And he talked to the scientist.

To the very scientist.

And what the scientist said was, oh, thank you.

We were so sick of this being reported.

No, we didn't say that.

That's really what it was.

That's how it turned out.

Yeah.

It's one of the most widely shared pieces of climate hysteria.

And the guy who was quoted didn't even say it.

That is how crazy this stuff is.

It becomes part of the ecosystem in such a weird way.

Yep.

And from the straws to all of this stuff,

to deaths of back alley abortions.

Yeah.

Back alley abortions is a great one.

Look,

there probably were, and we know there were, by the way, because some of the abortion activists were the ones doing it.

They were doing the procedures that were killing women.

That was not pro-life people being like, I can't wait to do a fake abortion so I can kill people.

The year before Roe v.

Wade,

where they were still doing back alley abortions because they were illegal.

There were 24 deaths

due to illegal abortions.

No, there were 24 deaths due to legal abortions.

There were 39 deaths due to back alley.

Okay.

So 39 in a year, the year before Roe v.

Wade was passed.

Because at that time, about two-thirds of states had banned it.

Yeah.

But there was still a third that had allowed it.

Right.

Because it was in the situation like it is now, which when they keep saying we're going to go back to pre-Roe times, that's not true.

It's going to be, there's going to be more access to abortion now than there was pre-Roe because more states will have it open.

But yeah, so you have several dozen.

And look, we want to obviously stop all of them.

There was, you know, maybe it is, you know,

I would think a back alley abortion would be very dangerous, but honestly, at this point, far from 10,000, though.

Very far from 10,000.

And

this is, again, there was a group, we talked about Jane's Revenge that was threatening to burn down cities and stuff when this verdict came out.

That is based on another organization.

The Jane part of that comes from an organization that popped up after Roe versus Wade.

And they were providing illegal abortions for women.

Yeah, it was leading up to that, I think.

And the idea was they would

give these abortions out.

And those are the people, not just that particular organization, but those types of organizations were the ones doing the illegal abortions.

These groups that are praised by the left are the ones doing the illegal abortions that led to the deaths,

at least in some of these cases.

And that one, I don't know if there's any with that specific organization, but a lot of those organizations existed in places where these things were banned.

But beyond all of that, right?

They're like, oh my gosh, we're going to go back to this era of

back alley abortions.

Why?

What time?

What year is it?

Right.

We have a situation where any woman in any state can get

an abortion if their life is in danger.

Any person in any state is within a two-hour flight.

of being in a place where they can get an abortion at any time.

Okay.

And your employer will almost certainly pay for it.

And your employer will probably pay for it.

If not, an abortion activist organization will pay for it.

Because there's a bunch of them that have already popped up.

And HHS is talking about payments.

HHS is talking about it.

AOC wants to put these on federal land.

I think that's idiotic and won't do abortion tents.

But

national parks would be great.

We do know that private...

organizations are doing Winnebagos and they're pushing them right up to the borders so you can come right across the border and get your abortion.

And all of this

is almost a pointless pointless conversation for most women because you can order it online from an Indian pharmacy, which will have your abortion pills to you within days.

And you can take it in Texas, in Louisiana, in Mississippi, wherever you want to.

All of this I consider to be bad.

But why would you go to a back alley abortionist when this is the situation where you can get it legally

and get it free anywhere or just get it in the mail?

Why would we go back to an era of back alley abortions anyway, even if it was only 39 deaths?

It doesn't make any sense at all.

And anyone who thinks about it, I think, gets to that conclusion.

But your job as an American right now is not to think.

Because if you think, then all these things are obvious.

If you can do what they want you to do, which is just nod your head and go along with it and post your tweets and memes and TikToks, then you're playing the game the way they want you you to play it patent stew for glenn on the glenn back program

chronic migraine is 15 or more headache days a month each lasting four hours or more botox onobotulinum toxin a prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they start it's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month it prevents on average eight to nine headache days a month versus six to seven for placebo prescription botox is injected by your doctor effects of botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms Alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition.

Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk.

Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck, and injection, sight pain, fatigue, and headache.

Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness.

Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection.

Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

Why wait?

Ask your doctor, visit BotoxchronicMigraine.com, or call 1-800-44-Botox to learn more.

Say hello to the next generation of Zendesk AI agents.

Built to deliver resolutions for everyone.

Zendesk AI agents easily deploy in minutes, not months, to resolve 30% of customer and employee interactions on day one.

quickly turning monotonous tasks into autonomous solutions.

Loved by over 10,000 companies, Zendesk AI makes service teams more efficient, businesses run better, and your customers happier.

That's the Zendesk AI effect.

Find out more at Zendesk.com.

Hey, it's Fat and Scoop for Glenn on the Glen Beck program.

By the way, the Amazon employee letter to the leadership

continued.

Yeah, I forgot that's where we started that conversation.

That is where we started.

Okay, we'll get back to that.

It's not where we ended, but it's where we started.

A little ADD going on.

Yes.

Yeah, but I mean,

it's insanity because they also need, okay, in addition to Amazon doing all these things and not even doing business in states that don't provide abortion.

Like, they're going to divorce Texas and

Utah and Louisiana and all of these places and just not do business in 26 states.

Okay.

Good luck.

They also need space and time to grieve the Supreme Court decision.

Yeah, they got to grieve.

This I like.

You know, I got to say, I don't support them in their decision-making process here, but I do like the fact that they're using it for time off.

It's the type of scam I would have pulled in high school.

You know, yeah, you didn't think you'd be able to pull it in the business world, but you can.

But I like it.

It turns out you can.

Yeah, they also want a company-wide policy change going forward to ensure Amazon does not aid or abet anti-abortion causes, ideologies, groups, or public figures, including via donation, public sale, public statement, or otherwise.

So anybody who works at Amazon can't even donate to a political entity

who supports pro-life causes.

Come on.

Is that amazing?

I mean, it is absolutely amazing.

Who do you people think you are?

We pointed this out yesterday.

Other than the wokeness of so many of these organizations, and Amazon is certainly one of them,

there is also a financial motivation here.

Why think about the things you have to do if a woman is pregnant?

Look, I support a woman who's working, you know,

and being taken care of them as an employer.

I think that's a great idea, but it's not the easiest thing for a company to deal with.

You have an employee who you value, who's leaving for several months, you have to pay their maternity, then you have to hire a temporary worker potentially on the other side of that.

Add all that stuff in.

A couple thousand dollars to pay them to go out of state.

Totally worth it for them to give $4,000 to somebody seeking an abortion.

They are saving money, and I guarantee that is part of the calculation here.

It's not not just wokeness purely.

That is, they are like, well, this is going to be cheaper for us.

And so they're seen as virtuous and 80% of cash.

Maybe 90%.

Maybe 95%.

The Glenn Back Program.

It's Patton Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Back Program.

Check out my show, Pat Gray Unleash.

I will.

Immediately preceding this one, live.

I can't do it now.

It's a workout.

It's already passed for me.

Well, that's true.

But you could listen later on at your leisure.

Wait, on demand?

Yeah, on demand.

Whenever I want to.

Whatever you want.

Whenever it's convenient for you, you can listen then via podcast.

That's incredible.

Anywhere you get your podcast.

Plus, I understand that you also have a show to listen to and watch.

I do.

If you should check it out.

It's called Stew Does America.

Huh.

And every day we do this country.

Okay.

And

it's fun.

We've had a lot of, it's been a fun show, and I know yours is as well.

I think there's a lot on the conservative side that can get boring and,

frankly,

just

bore you to tears every day.

And so we try not to do that.

Yeah, we do too.

We try to make the apocalypse fun.

Yeah.

That's our goal, is to make the apocalypse that is happening right now make it fun.

Make it fun.

Yeah.

By the way,

on this note, we've been talking a lot about January 6th today.

And that's the day the left wants you to remember.

I would say that's the day democracy almost died.

Yeah, I've heard that.

Yeah.

That's really bad.

And they really want you to be talking about January 6th.

I'm going to go ahead and argue you should be talking about a different date.

We've got the new t-shirt up right now at studiosmerch.com, 6-24-22.

The day Roe vs.

Wade was overturned.

I like that.

Go get it.

It's a great shirt.

And it's one of those shirts, too.

It's a way to show you're pro-life, and you don't have to have like a fetus on your shirt, you know?

You know, like, you don't want to necessarily have like I don't want to wear a fetus as much as pro-life as I am.

Yeah, I'm not wearing a fetus on my shirt.

Yeah, I don't want like some graphic image of a fetus on my, on my stomach as I'm walking around.

I already look bad enough.

So, this one will help you look good and kind of give you a tips,

then so be it.

Yeah, you know, yeah, all right, uh, sorry about that.

So, get it now.

Stu DoesMerch.com.

It's the 62422 shirt.

They also have the mugs, and the stickers, stickers and uh hats and all that stuff and they're all sons fetus fetus no fetuses no fetus i mean maybe we should do a separate shirt that's just fetuses like it's just constant fetuses on every part of the shirt i don't know yeah maybe that would sell even better but uh i hope you do it because i i like it because you know look i i want to make clear what I believe, but I also

like the fact that people who know, who are on our side, are going to know that date.

And I want them to know that date.

The left is going to be saying, January 6th, I want to be talking about that date.

That's the most important date we've seen in the last couple of years, I think.

Oh, yeah.

One of the most important dates in our lifetime.

There's already the first number I heard was they think, even with all of the craziness going on with states opening up abortion access and, you know, you could still, they still think it could prevent 100,000 abortions a year.

It's a good start.

It's a great freaking start.

There's 600,000 now.

And if it's only 100,000, what an incredible day.

I mean, what an incredible, if it's only 100,000, what an improvement.

It's still way too many people are going to be aborted.

But you know what?

Making even that amount of progress shows that we still have a long road to go, but also indicates how important this day was.

And when?

Really, when is enough enough?

The number in the United States alone is over 63, somewhere between 63 and 65 million.

babies that we've lost since 1973.

Isn't that enough?

I would say this.

It's one and a half billion worldwide.

That number kills me.

One and a half billion.

63 million here is really, really bad, and it always hits you in a rough way.

Man, when you think about globally, over a billion, a billion.

And it's between 50 and 75 million every year.

50 and 75 million every year.

So crushing.

And many of the areas of the globe are going the opposite direction.

They're becoming more liberalized in these rules.

So

hopefully that switches, and at least it's kind of switched here part of the country anyway.

So check that out.

By the way, speaking of the Supreme Court, there were two.

This is a surprise to me, I will say.

I thought there was three or four decisions left.

There were four.

There were four.

And I expected we would get four because this is the last day they had announced.

And also, they had been doing about five per day for most of this

as they were releasing these.

Well, today they came out.

They gave the two boring ones.

No offense to you if you're involved in these cases.

But we got the two boring ones and didn't get the two big ones.

The two big ones we did not get is the EPA ruling, which I think is the biggest one as far as it affects your everyday life and how your government operates.

It's a huge, huge case.

And then the other one is the remain in Mexico

part of the immigration situation.

It's the Trump directive.

Yeah.

So neither of those came out today.

They did announce that they're going to come out tomorrow.

So that's your last decision day of the session.

Tomorrow, you will get those decisions

alive on this program,

or at least during this time slot.

And the two that came out were a Native American issue about who can prosecute in a Native American area and a veterans affairs issue, both of them important in their own way, but not necessarily

top of the mind.

So we're not going to spend too much time on that today.

How did it turn out, though, on the Native American thing?

I mean, who won?

It was a

5-4 decision.

I'd have to go back and look at it in more depth.

Usually when we go through this, we start with a zillion cases.

And at the beginning of the session, I have to go through all of them and kind of understand basic knowledge about all of them.

And they keep getting knocked off as you go through this release period.

And as they get towards the end, the ones that I never really locked in on and cared about all that much, I can't remember all the details on it.

The Native American one is kind of interesting because it involves sovereignty.

And whether or not they're subject to the United States or are they subject just to the Indian Reservation?

Yeah, the concept being someone who is not a Native American going onto Native American lands, committing a crime against a Native American,

can the state government jump in and say they are the ones that are prosecuted?

I believe what the ruling was was no.

Like they, you have the only the federal government can step in and prosecute someone.

Okay, so the state cannot.

The state can't.

I think that's what.

But again, like, I don't know.

Now, look.

Do I have it on my calendar to commit a crime against a Native American on a Native American reservation?

I do.

But that's not for six months, so I have not really put much thought into how that will turn out.

Okay.

So I was thinking.

Is that just because you won't be driving through

a Native American reservation for another six months?

Well, there's a lot of planning that goes into a major crime unless the one I'm planning.

Because I can't give you all the details on that crime plot right now.

It's understandable.

Because, number one, I haven't worked them all out.

And number two, I don't want to necessarily tip my hand here.

Right, okay.

But, you know, if you are on a Native American reservation right now, I'd watch it.

That's what I'll say.

that's what i'll say to you if you see me coming can you tell us which uh reservation i cannot pal okay all right i mean i know can you give us a state like new mexico or texas i don't think there's any reason i don't see how that benefits me all right i'm just saying if you see me like if you're a fan of the show you're native american and you see me coming i'd run you now you know your friends might not know all right they don't listen to this show they're not going to know that i'm i'm there to commit a crime yeah you know but i do need to look into the details of this ruling before i really go through with the plan because i may wind up burning burning me.

I don't want that to happen, of course.

Yeah, you should at least know where they came down on it.

And here's the thing: most crimes that happen on Native American reservations happen to the Cherokee Nation.

Well, the Cherokee tribe,

where they're so proud to live and

so proud to die.

You know, the thing was, they took the whole Indian nation and they

put them on this reservation.

They took away their way of life.

I mean, the tomahawk, the bow, and knife.

Took away their native tongue and they taught their stinking English to our young.

To your young?

Yeah, to my young.

Why would they teach it to your

English?

They picked me off, though.

I'll tell you that.

Okay.

No,

I taught them Cherokee.

Oh, you did?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But now they know English

because,

well,

that's what I've been explaining to you.

Yeah, that's right.

You did mention it.

And then the beads we used to make by hand.

Yeah.

Well, nowadays they're made in Japan or Taiwan or China, even more nowadays.

Yeah, even more nowadays.

Bangladesh.

But Japan rhymes.

You know, so you're not going to say Bangladesh.

All the beads we made by hand are nowadays made in China.

That doesn't really work.

No, no, it does not work.

It doesn't really work.

It does not work at all.

But luckily, we've solved that.

Yeah.

The Cherokee Nation

and the Cherokee tribe should be all set after this.

Until I show up with my big crime plot.

But now you've warned them, so now they're on their guard.

Look, it's on them now.

You know, at one point, if it was a surprise that I just pull in and I was like, hey, here's my big crime plot, and I'm going to unleash it on you.

That might be unfair to the Native Americans.

However,

now I've announced it.

So they know if you see Stu waddling down the street

or coming in in your brand new car, which is on order now.

Actually, getting a car?

Yes, this is a big development.

Okay.

And this will help them watch for you, by the way.

Yes.

Stu's getting a new car.

Yes.

I don't know if you're going to share what kind of car it is, but he's getting a new one.

I feel like the same way I don't want to share the details of the crime plot, I don't necessarily, because then they know I was pulling up.

That's right.

But so I ordered a car in Joe Biden's economy.

And this has been an interesting experience.

And bam!

You got it right away?

No.

No?

No.

Well, there's no cars, you know, on the lot.

That's how I used to understand how you purchase cars.

Like you'd go to a dealership and they would say, here are the cars we have.

Would you like to choose one of them?

Or you could special order one and it'll be here in six or eight weeks.

That's kind of the way it would typically go.

That's not how it goes now.

No, it really isn't.

So I put, I kind of agonized over what I was going to do.

They didn't have any cars on the lot that I wanted or of the type that I wanted.

So I did have to put in a special order.

And the special order normally would take six to eight weeks.

That's, you know, that was the timeline.

When I put in the order, they said, look,

supply chain stuff, we've got a lot of issues going on.

And I understood that.

I did understand that.

It's now been

10 months.

A 10 months.

I mean, it's the better part of a year now.

Yeah.

I put it in and it was supposed to be six to eight weeks.

August 20th.

I put this order in because I had the email where I confirmed it.

I had gone back and forth with them a few times before this, but when I really locked down the order, order.

It was August 20th, 2021.

It is now June 29th, 2022.

Jeez.

And just a few weeks ago, Pat, I got a,

or I guess it was maybe a little over a month ago now, where I got a target production week where they decided they were going to actually

theoretically build this car.

Wow.

So the target production week comes.

Okay.

They say the target production week is going on.

Just the other day, I get a text that says, quote, your car has been built.

And I was like, really?

Wow.

Well, that's incredible.

It's been built.

Can I come pick it up?

We don't have a delivery date for it yet,

but the car has been built.

I've got a VIN number and everything.

In theory, this car exists somewhere.

I think in Lansing, Michigan, or somewhere up there.

I don't know.

The third worldification of this country is unreal.

It's unbelievable.

My daughter, I think I mentioned this before,

was here for a month visiting.

And so we were gonna get her car because her old one uh sort of blew up fell apart it was no good so we we went to a dealership and uh it was a honda dealership actually and we said uh so we'd like a honda um like maybe a civic yeah we don't have any civics wait honda doesn't have any civic

no they've had them since like 1983 exactly yeah yeah but not now not now well what about an accord then what about no we don't have any uh accords yeah cr Vs is that a a thing here no no we don't have any cars I well we do have SUVs we have 20 SUVs you can pick from among them I don't want an SUV for my daughter so

we're out of luck so we go to a Nissan dealer same deal she goes back to Utah and we're on the phone with the dealerships there and they have no cars nor can they get any in the next six months

it's like okay

do you have a used car?

No, but we could get you one by September.

And we're going to charge you more than a new car.

Right.

More than a new car.

It's unbelievable.

That's one of the options I've had over the past 10 months, Pat, with a used car.

I've ordered, which is get one that's used.

Well, those cars are $30,000 and $40,000 more than

the actual cost of the car.

It's crazy.

Which, I mean, yeah, I guess you could pay for that.

for that premium, but I don't really want to.

No, me neither.

So, nor do I, I don't have any interest actually at all in paying that much for a car.

So it's like, especially when a car that I know the dealership supposedly is selling for much, much less.

And it is, it's a, it's, it's really incredible when you think about, go back to

the, I, the, the, the standard

cliche of car dealerships, right?

Now, this is not always fair, but sometimes, you know, go back to the 80s and 90s, there'd be those movies, you know, where they'd be, the car dealers would have their car salesmen out there harassing you to get you into anything.

How do I let me?

How do I get you into a car today?

Let me go back to my manager.

I'm gonna get him.

I'm gonna get you a real deal on this.

And they would give misleading ads and all these stereotypes that aren't always true, but have been around for decades.

It's the exact opposite.

It's been, there are times where I'd reach out to the dealers, and I started calling other dealers around the country to try to figure out how I could do this faster.

They would just,

they would just, they barely even respond to you.

Like, nah, we don't have anything.

Like, they don't even care because they don't.

Well, they can't get any cars.

And weren't they getting a little pissed that you kept calling them?

They got a little, there was a time where they were just annoyed with me personally,

which is understandable, frankly.

More Pat and Stew for Glenn coming up.

It's Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Peck program.

We got to tell you coming up here a few minutes.

I don't think we have time right now, but coming up after the top of the hour, we got to tell you about a special skateboarding competition that occurred where a biological man who was 29 years old beat out a 13-year-old girl for the first place trophy and prize money.

They used to make jokey movies about this scenario.

Yeah, right?

Yeah.

Wasn't there a movie where I think it was Johnny Knoxville faked that he was mentally challenged to win the special events?

Yes.

That's essentially what's actually happening in our society right now people are fake it is again you know I mean I know people wouldn't like that summary but that's no bizarre that that's almost reality at this point

this is the Glenn Back program

Got no room to compromise.

We gotta stand together, it's the corner survived.

Stand up straight and hold the line.

It's a new day of time to rise.

What you are about to hear is the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn back program.

Beatrice Patent's due this week, because Glenn's on vacation.

I'm going to tell you about this transit situation in a skateboarding competition that just happened in New York.

Plus,

there's also an interesting situation with Google and the AI.

Have you guys talked about this?

Because I know Glenn's fascinated with AI.

Apparently, the Google engineer who's talking about this and kind of losing his job because of it, because he thinks it's sentient,

he says it could also escape

and do bad things.

The AI could escape and do bad things.

Let's get to that as well.

Coming up in about 60 seconds.

So eventually we're going to be at a time where the Google AI escapes and hacks your identity.

That's coming any day now.

But we've already had over 400 data breaches in a major way already this year, which is incredible.

Data compromises up 14% from last year, impacting more than 20 million Americans.

Some of the most lucrative pieces of data that cyber thieves want to steal are your social security number, your Gmail login and password.

A big part of that is because if they can get access to your Gmail, it's not just reading your incredible emails back and forth with your mom, but it's also

they can get access to your passwords to all the other sites because usually your password reset goes there.

This is what they're going after.

They can't hopefully

get access to all that stuff because if they do, they can really upend your life.

Lifelock can protect you here.

They can't catch everything.

No one can, but they can monitor things better than you can do on your own.

And if you do become a victim, their restoration specialists can work with you to help you fix the problem quickly.

No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can help protect what is yours with Lifelock by Norton.

Join now, save 25% off for the first year with the promo code Beck1-800Lifelock or head to lifelock.com.

The promo code is Beck for 25% off at lifelock.com.

Patton Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

All right.

The

trans

person,

the trans people,

there has to be, I think there needs to be a separate competition set up for the trans people so you'd have a male competition female competition and a trans competition yes wow especially now since it's about i don't know 83 of our population it seems most people are trans yeah almost everybody's trans now so uh

and and virtually everyone fits into the lgbtqi a2 plus category as long as you include the plus everyone does yeah

it's true isn't it that that's because that's everybody else true and it is interesting i want to make sure we're very clear here.

There is absolutely no social contagion involved here.

It is not a situation

where just all of a sudden it's become trendy to be trans.

No, because it naturally happens where you go from 0.7% of the population to 20% of the population.

That's just a natural occurrence.

It's just a natural occurrence.

Like there was a teacher who was talking about their students, and they said,

oddly, a bunch of sixth graders decided they were going to be,

well, they realized that

the entire time,

the entire time from birth, they had been gay all at the same time.

And wasn't that 80% of the class?

It was a huge portion of the class.

I don't know if it was quite 80%.

Maybe it was 90%.

It might have been 90%.

And then also at the same time, they all realized they were trans.

Holy cow.

Wow, a little bit later.

So, does that change their

sexual proclivity then?

Because if you were a boy who likes boys, but now you're transitioned into a female and you like boys, well, then are you gay or not?

Are you straight now?

These are deep questions.

Right, it's deep.

All I know is

that none of it changed.

Oh, okay.

When we say trans, it indicates transitioning, which indicates change, but that's not change.

It's just how you were actually born.

You were born that way, except for the part, the part of the

surgeries and such to correct the mistake that was made upon your birth.

But beyond that, I left out the last part of that story, which is all of the sixth graders, and they were girls, by the way, born as girls.

Not actually girls, because they turned to trans.

So they were actually boys, but they were actually girls when they were born.

And so they were born as girls, then they all turned gay at the same time.

All of them were gay?

They all turned gay at the same time.

They were all friends, by the way.

Did I leave this out?

They were all friends.

Yeah.

And they got to sixth grade.

They all turned gay at the same time.

Then a few months later, they all turned trans at the same time.

And And a few months after that, they all turned non-binary at the same time.

Oh, that's interesting.

Which is just a total,

total coincidence.

Just natural occurrence.

Now, we know from the beginning

they were just non-binary.

Apparently, they weren't gay because they transitioned to trans and then they transitioned to non-binary.

But whatever they were, whatever they are saying they are right now is what they were at birth.

That we know.

Yes.

It was just like.

That can't be debated, or you're a bigot.

Or you're a bigot.

Thank you.

Try to debate that.

Bigot.

Bigot.

Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick, for outlining that.

You're welcome.

This is an interesting thing because we were told by

well-known philosopher Lady Gaga

that

people were born this way, right?

Yeah.

So if you're gay, you were born gay.

You've always been gay, despite the fact that you may have had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

You were born gay.

Yes.

And we've all said, oh, okay, I'm born gay.

I mean, I didn't believe it until Lady

came to the table and laid it out for us in that way.

And so now we know you're born that way, except now you're not born that way.

Because.

Well, if you have to transition, that implies that you've you're changing something.

Right.

Like if you have to have surgery and change your parts around, you guess you weren't really born that way now.

Right.

So now we have to realize that you were born that way unless you were not born that way.

That's all you have to do.

That's exactly where we are.

It's incredible.

It's incredible.

And somebody who was not born that way, but became that way through a natural process,

a 29-year-old named Ricci Treys,

also known as Ricci and Trey's.

Just

maybe the middle name is just And.

Yes.

I love it.

What if they're like, what's the middle name?

Well, it's got Ricci.

And

they're thinking, and then the hospital is like, oh, I guess the middle names and.

Right.

Yep.

Anyway, 29-year-old Ricci,

who is a biological man,

just won the women's division of the Skateboard Open the other day in New York City, taking home the $500 prize

for the first-place win.

Congratulations.

And bravely, courageously, he beat out a 13-year-old girl to do it.

I think that is, when you talk about the courage and

the wherewithal to do what he did, I mean, she did.

They did.

Thank you.

Do what they did.

You can't help but do that.

Be careful.

Be careful, Pat.

I'll flap you this time, but I'm a little nervous about it.

A little nervous about it.

You're giving me some leeway there.

So,

because this really used to be the plot of 80s comedies, right?

Yes.

Where the guy would become a girl.

Like, there was that big thing.

There was some, the woman.

The Tom Hanks thing.

Boos and buddies.

Yeah, boss and busy.

Buddies.

Buddies.

They wanted to live in an apartment building that was women only.

So they dressed up as women.

Because they were attracted to the hot women in the building.

That's right.

Which is fascinating.

I don't know how that would work out.

It just seems like a fascinating.

It's fascinating wrong now.

Then there was a movie, Just One of the Guys.

Anyone remember that?

Where it was a woman.

And remember, back in the day, this is something that's going to be difficult to explain to the audience, but let me attempt it here, Pat.

There were these things called women.

Oh.

How did you know, though, that

were, in fact, we now know that we didn't know?

But there used to be a time where the pitch from Hollywood was, we're treating women really badly.

It's unfair to women.

It was called feminism.

And it was at this point where something called women existed.

Okay.

Okay.

Now we know that's not even a thing.

But back in that time, we believed women were a thing.

And so the plot of this movie was...

This woman, this teenage girl, was upset because she didn't get the fair treatment that guys got.

She would always be treated as a woman and dismissed.

So she decided, what if I cut my hair short?

Well, then no one will know.

Then no one will know, right?

Yeah.

It's like when Clark Kent puts the glasses on.

Exactly.

Nobody knows.

You can't recognize who's that Superman.

It's not Superman.

Superman has a cape and no glasses.

No glasses.

Right.

So that's what she did.

She went to another school and put on sort of boy clothing, cut her hair short, and then went over to achieve all the things that the hateful patriarchal society would not allow her to do as a woman.

Okay.

Then there was, as I mentioned, the Johnny Knoxville movie,

which somehow was made.

It's hard to believe it is.

It's hard to believe it was made.

Wow.

Where

he

decided to

present himself as someone with mental issues, disabilities of some sort, or physical disabilities.

I can't remember which one it was.

I think it was mental disabilities.

And I don't know that I actually saw the movie, but I believe the plot was he did not.

He went into win the Special Olympics, like

posed as a mentally challenged person to win the Special Olympics.

There was also White Chicks,

a movie in which it's called The Ringer.

The Ringer.

That was the Johnny Knoxville movie.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

And it was 2005.

So we're talking.

Yeah, that one's pretty recent.

17 years ago.

Now, Johnny Knoxville is a guy who pushes the envelope.

So even at that time, I remember thinking, wow,

I'm surprised this one's clear.

Now you'd be put in prison.

You'd be put in prison.

You don't even get a trial.

You go directly to North Camp prison.

Yes, you go right to the North Korean death camp.

There was also White Chicks, where black people posed as white people.

Oh, boy.

White women.

In whiteface?

Whiteface.

Yeah.

And there was also.

But that's okay because it's against whitey.

Yeah, that's sure.

Yeah.

If you steal Casper's culture, that's not a problem.

Right.

You just can't appropriate anybody else's.

However, there was the reverse of that movie also made in the 80s where a white guy put on black face and was put in.

Now, look,

that doesn't mean that every cultural thing we had from the past is a good idea, to be clear.

No, but it is interesting how it was so obvious to everyone that you could not just turn with a snap of your fingers from a guy to a girl that it was like something everybody laughed about.

It was on Saturday Night Live.

There were all sorts of sketches about it.

Everyone understood that that was not possible.

And now we're at the position where

the thing you can't see in a person, their sexual preference, or now called orientation.

How dare you call it preference?

I didn't.

I just said that's what it used to be called.

Okay.

Okay.

People used to refer to it as sexual preference, which now is hate speech, by the way.

Absolutely.

That thing that you can't see, obviously, you see a baby, you look at them, you can't tell what their sexual preference is.

They have none.

They have no sexual preference when they're born.

But the idea that you're born that way, in other words, you grow up and you are gay, that's the way you were born.

And we can tell that we know that it's wrong to say the opposite.

On the other hand, the thing that you can see,

you can see that they're a boy or a girl very clearly

when they are born.

And that we're supposed to say the actual thing is the opposite of the way you were born.

So

when you can see

evidence,

you absolutely were not born that way.

You were born a different way.

Yes.

When you can't see evidence, you were born that way.

None of this makes sense, Pat.

It's as if this entire movement is specifically designed to upend every foundation of our society.

And by the way, it is.

By the way, it is.

You know,

it just, we can sit here and

talk about this story that you're mentioning here with the skateboarder.

And like, I think the sports tie to this is interesting because it hits people in the face so obviously, right?

The problem with the sports thing is like you're taking an adult man and having him beat up on a girl's tiny 13-year-old girl skateboarder, and everyone's acting like it's fair and reasonable.

And we all know it's not.

And it's so not, and it's so obvious.

And we feel for a little 13-year-old girl who's doing everything she can to try to win and is beaten by an adult man.

I mean, it's so freaking ridiculous that it hits everybody in the face.

But the sports outcomes are not the most important part of the story.

The fact that she lost her trophy and lost $250 in prize money is really tragic, but not the real story.

The real story is we've lost connection to reality.

We have lost connection to reality in the United States of America and around the world.

And not only that, but then we have to ignore the fact or sweep under the rug the fact that we have lost all connection to reality.

We can't even talk about the connection to reality.

Or you're a hater and a bigot.

Well, I'm sorry.

A 29-year-old biological man

shouldn't be competing against 13-year-old girls.

Come on.

And if you say that again, you're you're

you're torn apart for it.

If you went on Twitter right now and tweeted about this,

you'd have the Twitter mob all over you for the rest of all time.

Now, you have solved this problem in an incredible way.

By ignoring Twitter, ignoring Twitter.

And by the way, we should all learn from Pat Gray.

We should all learn from Pat Gray.

There's a lot of people out there going, yeah, I do that all the time.

And that's the smart thing to do, right?

Like,

only about 20% of people are even on Twitter.

And

a very small percentage of those people actually tweet about this stuff, right?

Like, it's just not, it is totally blown out of proportion, the effect that these social media companies have on our discourse in this country

Really honestly the best safest thing to do is completely ignore it But it is a real it's a real thing it's because it's not just Twitter and getting the Twitter mob after you It's losing your you know real job

It is losing your real friends in many cases It is long-term consequences for telling the truth.

That is not a healthy thing for a civilization.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like it Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program, 888-727.

B-E-C-K, more in 60 seconds.

What a life we are living right now.

What a world we're involved in.

It is fascinating.

It's crazy.

All companies pay for your abortion vacation.

Uh-huh, yeah.

You're not allowed to say when boys are boys and girls are girls.

Right?

You're not even allowed to know what a woman is.

No.

Unless, I guess, you're a you're a biologist.

I think biologists can safely describe a woman.

No, they can't.

I mean, that was funny with the Katanji Brown Jackson hearings where they said, hey, can you describe what a woman was?

And she said, no, I'm not a biologist.

Yeah.

And that was the only problem.

We had the problem of like, what do you mean you can't tell us what a woman is?

What are you nuts?

And the problem the left had with her was saying that a biologist could tell.

That was really their problem with it.

That was the only criticism she got from the media.

Oh, my gosh.

Wait a minute.

What do you mean a biologist can tell?

How dare you?

They were upset that she suggested a biologist could tell what a woman was.

The only way you can tell is if somebody tells you what gender they are, right?

I mean, you can't assume anything.

And you can't, you have no opinion on it, apparently.

Like, you can't tell, you can't identify this person in any way.

It's only whatever they say they are, which is weird.

Like, what if we did that with names?

You know what I mean?

Like, I'm Bill.

I'm Fred.

I'm Sally, I'm Tom.

Like, no, you're, I need to know you're Pat, or I can't address you.

I need to know if you're a boy or a girl, or I can't give you medical treatment, right?

These are really important things, and you need to have some concrete truth on this stuff.

It really is weird.

Instead, we just pretend that anybody can get pregnant, anybody can have a period, anybody can have a uterus, all of those kinds of weird things that just are, you know, scientifically false.

Just reality-based falsehoods until

the Roe versus Wade thing comes on then we all fear those rights yeah and we're back to women being women again

so it's so weird it's almost as if none of this is true it's almost as if it can be that is a political it is almost like that it's almost you know exactly like they're just manipulating all of these people for their own political gain.

It's almost that way.

And into this world comes this Google engineer who's saying that Google has created a sentient AI child and is now claiming that AI child could escape and do bad things.

I don't fully understand that concept.

It's just in the computer, right?

I know.

So are you saying it could escape to the internet and go everywhere it wants to go and do weird things,

create nuclear war or something?

I'll say this.

I listened to this story and we've talked about it before.

Later on, I listened to a podcast.

I think it was the Wall Street Journal, who

actually interviewed this guy.

And

a couple of observations about this.

First of all, it did not seem sentient to me when they were talking to it because the woman went over and interviewed.

Oh, they did interview the thing.

The machine.

Yeah.

And it just sounded like it was a pretty good bot that you'd be, like that you'd go on a credit card site and it would respond to you.

Like it was accepting kind of your reality and sort of repeating it back to you.

Like that's what it seemed like to me.

I did not come out with the impression that it was sentient.

Okay.

The other thing about it is, it seemed like the guy just wanted to hit on this reporter.

That's what that I know.

This is really

not part of the story.

But just listening to them talk, he invited her over to his apartment and she was like giggling the entire time.

And it sounded like they were about to just like go to a bar.

I don't, I have no idea if that's accurate, but man, just knowing human interactions,

it just seemed like this guy was like, you should come over.

We'll talk to this computer.

It'll be great.

And then, like, I don't know, maybe we'll watch Netflix.

You know,

I don't know what it is about it.

Over maybe a glass of wine?

Yeah,

we'll chill afterwards.

It's Pat and Stewart, the Glenn Beck program.

We were talking about this

AI that is supposedly sentient.

The Google engineer who was involved heavily in this project

started talking about, hey,

I think we've invented life here in this AI unit.

And Google put him on paid leave or unpaid leave or something for a while because they were pissed that he started speaking about this.

I guess it was supposed to be somewhat secretive.

And they said, no, it's not sentient.

And so

he has been making the rounds and he pushed it a little bit further by saying, not only is this thing like a seven or eight year old kid, but it's a seven-year-old, seven or eight-year-old kid who could escape from where he is now and then start doing bad things.

Okay.

Now you saw an interview, right, with this Google engineer, and did they, they actually asked questions of the, of the unit in question.

Yeah, so I should, I, to correct myself from earlier, it was the Washington Post that actually did this, not Wall Street Journal, but it was Washington Post reporter who went to this guy's apartment and he had access to it.

I guess this is before he was suspended.

And they decided to talk to this thing.

And you think, okay, well, they're going to talk to it.

And then you hear this computerized voice come on.

And then the podcast is like, we recreated the voice, the things that they typed so you'd understand what they were.

So it only types.

It doesn't speak.

It's a chat bot like on your computer.

Come on.

Right.

Secondarily.

It just seems to repeat the things that you tell it, like in a, in a, in a modified way.

Like if you say,

hey, do you feel pain?

Of course I feel pain.

I feel pain and sorrow.

It's like, okay, well, that might be something that anybody would, like, it seems like they scour the internet for the normal responses to these things and turn it in.

And if you don't lead it down the right path, if you don't ask it the question in the right way, it comes off as completely dumb and just repeats like, I am an automated chat bot.

You know, it's like, okay, the sentient being is telling us it's an automated chat bot.

And it just doesn't.

I will say, after listening to this interview, interview, number one, I was relatively convinced that the engineer was hitting on the reporter.

And number two,

more importantly, perhaps, I was convinced actually Google was telling the truth on this.

Like, I actually thought that this is not

a sentient being.

Which, when you read the articles, it's like, okay, Google's trying to, they're trying to cover this up.

Yeah.

They've created something here that's getting out of hand and they don't know how to deal with it.

So they're just denying.

But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Now, I have a, I come from a skeptical position on a lot of things like this.

I kind of

do think that like there's a real risk.

Elon Musk has talked about it, about AI out of control and in the wrong hands.

And all those things I think are real

eventually.

I don't think where they right now

may not even be real eventually.

I hear that all the time, the big scare tactic, oh, this thing's getting out of hand.

The super AI is happening.

And then you see it, and it's like, okay, that's not scary at all.

It makes sense that eventually it could happen.

Like the theory, it's one of those things that I don't know that it's a high percentage chance, but it's a real negative impact if it does happen.

So I can understand being worried about it and having ethicists think about it.

Glenn's definitely worried about it.

Glenn's super worried about it.

Super worried about it.

And

I'm worried about it.

I don't know that it's necessarily coming tomorrow.

And I don't think he necessarily believes that either.

But I would encourage you,

it's a podcast called Post Reports, which they do, you know, like 15, 20 minute podcasts every day.

Sometimes they're interesting.

You know, usually, yes, it's the Washington Post, so you get a lot of left-wing stuff in there.

But this one particular episode, if you're interested in this, listen to this and tell me, number one, one, do you think this is really a sentient being?

Because I did not get the sense it was at all.

And number two, is this guy trying to hook up with this reporter?

Because I think he is.

Hey,

come over to my apartment to see this supercomputer.

And maybe we can have, you know, some more d'oeuvres.

Yeah.

Less wine.

Let's talk about this.

Maybe let's have some coffee, you know?

Are you thirsty?

You need a drink?

I've got some wine.

I mean, no, it's, I'm just for the environment.

That's why I'm burning these candles.

It's just, it's just a, I don't know.

It did set you got the sense that like he was like trying to impress this reporter.

That's the sense I got.

Did she sound impressed?

She did sound impressed.

She sounded giddy and silly, and it sounded like they were on a date is what it sounded like.

Now, there is a strategy behind this with some reporters, right?

When you have someone you're trying to get information out of, you might act that way a little bit to see how far you can go down.

Loosen them up a little bit.

Yeah, it loosens them up a little bit.

I think that's very, very common.

You compliment the person, you

act incredibly engaged to try to get the answers you want.

It might have just been that.

It also just made me that I'm making it up in my brain, but that is what I heard.

That is,

I think there, I would not be surprised if tomorrow I got an invite to their marriage.

I think that this is going to be a nice relationship.

It's going to work out well.

Well, let me share this interview with someone who's not sentient.

Dana Bash interviewing Kamala Harris, who is not

a sentient being at all.

But they're talking about the justices

who misled the public.

You were a senator when justices, now justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh testified about many issues, including obviously Roe and their confirmation hearings.

Now Justice Gorsuch said it had been reaffirmed many times.

Kavanaugh called it precedent on precedent.

At that particular hearing, you were there.

Some senators say that they intentionally misled the public and the Congress.

What do you think?

What do you think?

I never believed them.

Yeah, but you don't believe them.

You're not sentient, so that's why I voted against them.

That's why.

That's why.

Okay.

Do you think that there's anything to be done now?

I mean, there's no...

What are you going to do?

What are you pushing her to say here?

What should they be...

Well, the pitch is from the AOC's making it explicitly.

She's saying they should be impeached.

They lied in their hearings.

They should be impeached.

Now, they didn't believe in

their hearings.

They did not lie.

It is absolutely ridiculous.

At no point, do they say anything inconsistent to what they did?

Precedent on top of precedent is something you talk about for the lower courts.

Yeah.

Right?

It's not, you have a different role as a Supreme Court justice.

Your opportunity to turn over something that was egregiously wrong from the start is absolutely there.

And I believe Could be Kavanaugh, I think, actually said those words.

You know, we, of course, do have the opportunity to turn over, overturn something that is egregiously wrong.

Yeah.

You know, that's what I'm doing.

Scott, how about that?

Yeah.

They did.

They've done it many, many times.

Let me give you something else.

Roe versus Wade.

Roe versus Wade overturned 150 years of precedent.

Right.

That's right.

And Casey overturned Roe versus Wade.

Jeez.

And then they overturned those two.

It doesn't happen often.

The point is, you generally speaking, cede to previous decisions if it's a close call.

The idea is not to shake up society every two days or every time you get a new justice in there.

Right.

If it's a close call, they kind of just like, well, all right, well, we're going to stick with that reasoning for now.

And it's egregiously wrong from the start.

They're acknowledging that exists and it is a thing.

And other courts have upheld precedent, but that's not what they're bound to.

They're bound to the United States Constitution.

Not to precedent, not to stare a decisis.

You're supposed to rule on whether something is constitutional or not.

That's their job.

And Clarence Thomas is the one with the most pure version of that, in which he says basically you do it because it's right.

Everybody else on the court is like, well, you know, we need to consider X, Y, and Z.

Thomas is like, whatever is right, we should do.

Which is why, of course, I like him so much.

It's why the conservatives love the guy because

he has no hesitation in that.

I mean, he's the only one who's...

He's been consistent in that way.

Yeah.

You might disagree with him on some decisions, but he's always just doing what he's right, what is right.

That's all, that's all he's doing.

He has no compunction to do anything else.

He doesn't need to.

He just goes for it.

But, you know, that is a different thing than we're talking about here.

And look, ever since Bork,

because of what the left did to Bork,

everybody

in those hearings is at some level misleading.

Like, not misleading, trying to tell you the wrong thing, but just not telling you the full truth.

Yeah.

Well, Katanji Brown Jackson, who's just avoiding a question by saying, I don't know what a woman is.

I'm not a biologist.

Well, that's BS.

Yes.

You just said that under oath.

Really?

Yeah.

What should be done about that?

How many times did Katanji Brown Jackson say the word originalism?

Does anybody believe she's going to be an originalist in the court?

Of course not.

She never would have been named.

You have a president of the United States, Donald Trump, who is elected primarily because he said he was going to pick off a list of judges that came from the Federalist Society.

And then Donald Trump explicitly said he went beyond previous presidents and explicitly said he would only name pro-life judges.

He basically said, yes, I have a litmus test.

Yes.

He actually came out and said it.

And then we're supposed to believe that Joe Manchin and Susan Collins actually thought they might vote the other way on this.

Come on.

They're just trying to avoid the fallout.

That's it.

Yeah.

They're trying to say, they're trying to pass it off to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett so that they don't get the heat from the left or from the moderates in Collins' case.

And yet, as we mentioned yesterday, it is Clarence Thomas who's receiving the brunt of all the criticism.

Weird.

I wonder why that is.

Huh?

Because Sam Alito wrote the opinion

and the rest of the justices were, you know, the conservative leaning justices were on board with it.

Why is everybody singling out Clarence Thomas?

Huh.

And Hillary Clinton had this to say about Clarence Thomas.

This is amazing.

I went to law school with him.

He's been.

Pause it for just a second.

Did you?

Did you?

Did you and Clarence Thomas hang out?

No.

Did you really sit down with him and have dinner and

go to movies with him and hang out and discuss life with him?

You know, she doesn't know Clarence Thomas.

And there's been several reports now from people who were there at the time and said they didn't know each other.

They didn't have interactions.

They were not buddies.

She graduated in 73.

He graduated in 74.

They weren't even in the same year together.

Yeah.

Now, have they ever seen each other on cancer?

Yeah, maybe, maybe.

It also shows

what an amazing country this is.

And that, you know, you could have the divergence of two people who went to the same school relatively speaking at the same time, and one could turn out to be as amazing as Clarence Thomas and one could be Hillary Clinton.

Yeah.

One could be evil incarnate.

Right.

And the other is fantastic.

It's so incredible.

It's amazing.

But, you know, that's already, I think, been disproven by a bunch of people.

But even if it were true, at that time, Clarence Thomas wasn't even really a conservative yet.

Right.

I mean, he had a very different path.

He was not a conservative from birth.

At one point, people referred to him as the black nationalist.

I mean, you know, he was a totally different guy at the period she's talking about, but she just wants to be able to be involved in everything.

Please leave us alone, Hillary.

Please.

But she went on.

For as long as I've known him, resentment, grievance, anger.

Really?

And he has signaled in the past to lower courts, to state legislatures, to find cases, pass laws, get them up.

I may not win the first, the second, or the third time, but we're going to keep at it.

Okay.

All right.

That's good.

She sounds like she's describing herself there.

Resentment, grievance, anger.

That perfectly describes her.

And even Sonia Sotomayor, who is one of the big liberals on the bench, she

essentially disputed this a couple of months ago when she talked about Clarence Thomas and what a great guy he is.

Yeah, that's true.

That he's giving her credit for that.

And personable, and that he's the one who goes like to the janitor who's mopping up and asks about his son.

And he he cares about people and talks to them.

So seems to completely be the opposite of what Hillary had to say about him.

And as far as someone who's always seeming to have grievance, we know Hillary Clinton is that person, right?

Like absolutely.

She's still saying the 2016 election was stolen.

It was illegitimate and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But Clarence Thomas, here's a guy who has a real reason who could actually say grievance.

He could be filled with grievance and hatred for this country.

A guy who grew up in the segregated South, a guy who really lived that life,

who constantly still called the N-word by the left,

is still bashed all the time on social media.

They demonize him continually.

And so he grew up, he wound up loving this country, even though he grew up in a country that was much, much more

awful to African Americans than the one is today.

He went went past that.

And he is, you know, this is the type of thing that gives you a backbone.

And he sits there and he says, you know what?

The truth, period.

The truth, period.

Not John Roberts.

I don't know.

I'm not sure.

I don't, I'm worried about a reputation.

Oh, no, not that.

The truth, period.

As he sees it.

Doesn't mean he's right on everything.

I think he's right on most things, but he's not right, maybe on everything.

But he says what he feels every time.

That's exact.

the entire job of the Supreme Court.

That's what you're supposed to be doing.

Yeah, absolutely.

Triple 8-727-B-E-C-K.

This is the Glenn Back program.

It's Ben Stuford Glenn.

And joined by Jeff Fisher for some reason.

Jeffy.

Hi, stop in.

I want to do the show with you.

Oh, okay.

I thought I'd stick around for the whole show.

Oh, man.

I wish we had more time.

Really?

You know, it's too bad you waited until now.

Oh.

So let's do what Glenn does with Bill O'Reilly.

What's the most important story of the week?

The most important story of the week is that this is the America I want to live in now.

Stores apparently have a glutton of goods.

And so if you purchase a product and don't want it, they're going to give you a refund, but let you keep the product.

This is the America I want to live in.

Okay.

Who would nobody take advantage of this?

Right?

I am a fan of this America.

Yep, don't want it.

Give me my money back.

Oh, I have to keep the product.

Oh, darn.

Okay.

This is different than your normal process of just taking the stuff off the shelf and walking out of the store.

I don't know.

I don't know how many times I can get a new TV out of the deal, but I'm going to give it a shot.

I guess you'll go probably step by step on your podcast on this.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Absolutely.

Chewing the fat.

Yes, very good.

Yeah, very good.

There's lots of podcasts to listen to.

There's that, there's Pat Gray Unleashed.

If you want to check out, Stew Does America.

And you can, by the way, remember, instead of January 6th, you can remember 6-24-22.

Get the t-shirt.

It's available now at stewdoesmerch.com.

And, you know, I guess probably check out whatever Jeffy's show is.

It's called Chewing the Fat.

What are you talking about?

This is the Glenn Back program.