Best of the Program | 4/25/22

Trip Planner by Expedia.

You were made to outdo your holiday,

your hammocking,

and your pooling.

We were made to help organize the competition.

Expedia, made to travel.

Welcome to the podcast.

Today, we,

well, it's Pat and I.

And for Glenn, Glenn is, you may have heard on Friday his voice was leaving him due to what he claims are allergies.

We believe is

something he picked up on a on a bender with Hunter Biden.

We're not 100% sure, but

he's out.

His voice is toast right now, so he's going to be out today.

I don't know about tomorrow.

We'll see how it goes.

But we had a lot to talk about today.

There's plenty to talk about in Glenn's absence, including CNN Plus and their catastrophic failure.

New details on that.

Joe Biden shaking hands with Air.

Once again,

this is a continuing thing with him right now, and I don't understand what's going on.

And Elon Musk, will he take over Twitter?

Looking more and more like they may accept his offer to buy Twitter, which I think would be good for everybody, including honestly the people who currently own Twitter.

They should get out of it right now because they do not do a good job running the thing.

So, check it out.

It is available here on podcasts.

Don't forget to also subscribe to Pat Gray Unleashed, which is also available five days a week on this very platform, and Studas America.

You can rate and review both of them.

We'd appreciate that if you do.

Here's the podcast:

You're listening to

the best of the Glen Beck program.

It's Patton Stew in for Glenn Beck.

He will be back at some point.

He's having some issues with his voice.

Everybody's sick around Texas right now.

The allergies are absolutely ridiculous right now, which, of course, people love sneezing.

It's a new thing in our society.

Sneezing.

It was never a welcome activity from others, but especially welcome now, though.

People look at you like you've just killed everyone around you when you sneeze now.

It's so true.

I mean, did you just murder me?

Right.

Yeah.

Coughing, sneezing, everything like that is just, you know, kind of frowned upon.

Kind of frowned upon.

Pat Gray joins us.

Pat Gray Unleashed just finishing up the brand new Pat Gray Unleashed Overtime, available if you're a subscriber at Blazetv.com slash Glenn every single day after the show.

So make sure to check that out as well.

Pat, I've been talking about the absolute and utter catastrophe that is CNN Plus.

I think, and we were trying to come up with a comparison.

What is the greatest consumer catastrophe of all time?

You know, media catastrophe.

Quibi was an example we talked about.

It's not lasted seven times as long as CNN Plus.

Yeah, many months.

It actually had some good shows.

There were some good shows, like the Reno 911 reboot they did on that was really funny.

I got to say, it was actually really good.

They had some good shows on Quibi.

It just was way too much money on a project that didn't make much sense when everyone was locked down in their homes.

Yeah.

You know, you couldn't watch.

When Quibi launched, you were not able to watch it on television.

It was so specific for people who were out and about at the grocery store, you know, watching their phones.

Did they fix that during the quiet?

They eventually did try to do it.

But, you know, after it was already fixed.

So, did you have Quibi?

I did, actually.

You did have a Quibi.

It sounds like you had it.

Yeah, it was good.

I mean,

it wasn't good.

But there were a couple shows that were good.

Okay.

And a couple funny shows, a couple of good ideas.

It would have have been an interesting thing to see played out to the end, to see what they could have done with it.

Yeah.

But, you know,

where there's that, there's Pets.com back in 2000 that was a spectacular failure.

But that lasted, I think it was 262 days.

Much longer.

Much longer than CNN Plus.

And I can't.

We talked about New Coke.

Oh, New Coke.

Again, New Coke lasted 17 years.

It's kind of a success in comparison.

Oh, totally a success in comparison.

I mean, really, the only thing that they, the only mistake they made with New Coke was taking Coke Classic, which was actually just Coke back then, but taking Coke Classic off the market.

And people got annoyed that they took away the thing they liked.

People didn't get annoyed.

For example, Diet Coke was out and it has been out forever.

And they introduced Coke Zero.

People weren't like, damn you.

Why did you introduce the new option for me?

People don't mind that.

They just don't like you taking away the old thing.

Yeah, it didn't make any sense to take it away.

Unless it was really a marketing ploy, which which I kind of suspect all along that that's what it was.

There is that theory out there that this was actually a market.

Well, because it works so well.

I mean, the sales of classic Coke actually increased a lot when they brought it back.

So you think that might happen with CNN Plus?

Like, people will be so upset CNN Plus went away.

I'm not getting that vibe.

They might go back to regular CNN.

I'm not getting that vibe.

No, I don't think so either.

So I'm fascinated by this.

Now, there is some new analysis about this that maybe you have not heard from Brian Stelter, who works at CNN and was one of the centerpieces of CNN Plus.

Right.

Just to make, to be clear, one of the centerpieces of CNN Plus was Brian Stelter.

Now, look, Brian,

I don't think you're going to make him a centerpiece

because he sucks.

It's just not a thing you're going to make.

He's terrible.

Now, Chris Wallace was another person they brought over, which again, I'm.

And I'm not very excited about that either.

No, I mean, Chris Wallace.

I didn't watch him at Fox.

Why would I watch him at CNN Plus?

But, like, the people at CNN probably did like Chris Wallace because he was the one guy over at Fox in their perception who would occasionally say critical things about Republicans, right?

So maybe you could understand him being a part, but again, as the centerpiece, and he was, I mean, it seemed like their strategy with Chris Wallace was like, let's have him interview William Shetner.

Like, all right, okay.

Yeah, and didn't he make a statement kind of like, yeah, I don't want to do politics anymore.

Right.

Which is like, well, wait, that's what you're then known for.

So it was, again, a catastrophe from the start.

But Brian Stelter had some perspective on this.

And I hadn't really thought of it this way, I have to admit, Pat.

I mean, because I thought this is a complete failure.

And everything we know about it is a failure.

It's one of the greatest.

It's just a question is, is it number one or number two on the list?

Are we forgetting something from like the 1700s or something that could compare to this?

I don't know what it could be.

But Brian Stelter wants you to make sure you're taking your time in

how you think about CNN Plus and whether it was a positive or a negative

have you seen anything like this happen before in the media business no

I mean no and first of all I think I'm making history right now I've never been on a program talking about the demise of that program

well we probably have more viewers now than ever before because there's so much curiosity and uh

let me try out a theory on

let me try out a theory on now which is it's too early to know if this product if this service was a success or a failure.

You know, you got all the haters today saying this thing was a failure.

I don't know if you can even ever assess that because it just simply didn't have enough time because of the management's change in direction.

And at the end of the day, if you buy something, if you buy a giant media company, you get to do whatever you want with it.

But it does mean there's a lot of suffering for employees and, frankly, disappointment among subscribers as a result.

Just too early to tell, that's all.

Who could know?

You can't know.

You know?

I don't know.

I mean, it lasted less than 30 days or about 30 days.

Who can know if that's a success or a failure?

Yeah, and I said, maybe unfairly, that it didn't even last a month.

Technically, it did last one month and one day.

Yeah.

Or it will.

It's not even completely done yet.

They canceled it long before a month.

I mean, it wasn't even close to a month when they canceled it, but they're playing out the string until I think April 30th.

So

it isn't.

I guess it technically lasted a month and a day.

But I don't know.

I feel like

when your service has already, after three weeks, been disintegrated, it's possible that is a failure.

You don't need more time to assess it.

Like, it's not

in the year 2387, people are going to be looking back and be like, you know, that's CNN Plus.

You got to take a look at what happened there.

I think that was a success.

Huge.

They had 10,000 people watch it.

10,000.

And I will say this.

I don't believe that number.

I don't even, I don't believe 150,000 people

subscribe to it.

I don't believe they even had 150,000 total, let alone paid.

The Wall Street Journal has already come out and said they have insider information that it was less than 100,000.

And I agree with that.

I believe it was less.

I believe.

I think it's less than 50,000.

Here's my theory.

They said 150,000 people subscribed to this thing.

I think it's closer to 150.

Like, I mean, 150, not 150,000.

Not 1,500.

150.

Now, it might be all employees of CNA.

It was Brian Stelter and Chris Wallace and their families.

Yes.

I don't believe that number for a freaking second.

Now, that number would still be a catastrophe if you spent $300 million on the product and had a billion dollars to spend over four years.

You'd still be disappointed in

150,000 subscribers.

But, like,

I don't buy that for a second.

And 10,000 subscribers or 10,000 people watching video, maybe over the course of an entire day, maybe.

Maybe.

And I think that's what they were talking about.

Wasn't that 10,000

a couple different ways.

Streamed it is what I read.

That's so

bad.

Really bad.

Again, they don't have people watching their main product.

You know, if you have a main product with a massive amount of viewers and

you want to have, like, you know, Fox and Fox Nation, for example.

I don't know.

I don't know how well Fox Nation does, but it's been in business for multiple years.

I mean, we could say that.

But, you know, they have

Fox News channel, which is a big channel with lots of viewers, and they kind of have this big idea.

And then they advertise Fox Nation all the time.

They say, hey, come listen to additional commentary from, you know, whatever, Tucker Carlson or whoever.

And, you know, I'm sure people.

People do.

I'm sure they do at some level.

Certainly

much more than CNN Plus.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

And probably CNN Regular.

And this

has just,

look, there are people, you know, look, there's people who do, you know,

they are electricians who work on the show and people who run, I don't know, cameras on the show.

And like, you know, these, there are people who are going to get hurt by this and it sucks for them.

You know, I mean,

they lured people out of really good jobs to come to CNN Plus with the promise they were going to run this thing.

And that's completely irresponsible by the people who did it.

What do you do if you're Chris Wallace and you left a really good job to to go over there and be their featured person at CNN Plus, and now it's gone?

Now, Wallace, they'll probably stick somewhere on CNN, right?

They will.

The rumor is they're going to put him at nine with Brian Williams.

I've heard that, and that's kind of

an amazing

admission in some ways.

But he can't do his own thing.

He's not even strong enough.

They don't even trust him to do

to do a newscast for an hour on the primetime CNN, which has 85 viewers as opposed to 10.

Which is just, it's an amazing thing.

But I mean, okay, worst case for Chris Wallace, he probably goes and is just like a contributor and comments on the news of the day or whatever.

Yeah.

You know, a lot of these people left stable jobs.

And remember, CNN knew this merger was coming, and they knew Discovery didn't want it.

Discovery was saying it publicly in the media that they didn't want this thing.

And they questioned whether it had utility.

It didn't.

And so these people

should have probably seen that coming, but if they didn't, they left good jobs to come over to this disastrous CNN Plus, and they're going to be out on the street, which is a completely irresponsible thing for CNN to do.

A disaster, though, I think it's too soon to tell.

You think?

Yeah, I do.

I probably jumped.

I think they got on that one.

I loved the Twitter responses to Brian Stelter over the weekend where

they had a flaming Hindenburg and said it's really too soon to tell if if dirigibles are a good form of transportation.

Should hydrogen be what makes it float?

Who knows?

Who knows?

Who knows?

I mean, is it a little bit combustible?

Yes, but it's too soon

to tell, really, whether it's too dangerous.

We don't know yet.

It's on the ground.

It flames.

It's already there.

Everybody aboard was killed.

Yeah.

I think it's

time.

It's safe to say.

To make the call.

I mean, we have a phrase, oh, the humanity already.

People know the phrase, and it's specifically around this.

I got to say, which one is worse?

The Hindenburg or CNN Plus?

You have to say, the Hindenburg, I don't think that was its first flight.

I think it had a bunch of successful flights before that.

It did.

If I remember the history correctly.

Yeah.

I mean, it had a run.

There was plenty of hydrogen ships that got up there and were fine.

I mean, they adjusted the plan later, and blimps to this day still exist.

Very true.

You know, we see them over every football game in the NFL.

Yeah.

They switched the formula up a little bit.

But do you think CNN is going to switch up their formula when they learn that no one cares about what they're doing?

No.

No.

They're going to continue to...

I don't know.

Maybe Discovery is.

It's a rumored.

Discovery is done with Brian Stelter at least.

And maybe the rest of the lineup, too.

The rumor is that the opinion people are going to go.

By the end of spring, they say the opinion people are gone.

That would be really a welcome change.

Wouldn't it?

Oh, man.

It's just, it really would be.

I thought of this when the Ukraine-Russia thing broke out.

It would be really nice to have a network where we could go to trust some of the information.

Yeah.

You know, I mean, look, there are a lot of places I like and look and trust, but like, you know, we don't, the Blaze doesn't have reporters on the ground in Ukraine.

Like, that's not the type of organization we are.

You know, it would be nice if somebody, if there was someone out there who did that and did it responsibly, maybe CNN can recapture that somehow or capture it for the first time.

Well, there was a time when they were that.

Yeah.

You know, in the 80s.

There was always left-leaning.

Early 90s?

You know, they were always left-leaning.

But when the first Iraq war broke out,

they had pretty good coverage.

All you had to do was, everyone was watching CNN.

It was your only option.

Yeah.

People were glued to it.

Even though you knew, yeah, sometimes they would they would take a left-wing position on things, and it was still mainstream media.

I mean, you still had that.

But at least nothing like today.

Yeah, at least you believe the video they were showing was real.

Yeah.

At this point, I don't even know if you could do that on CNN.

I'm going to say no.

Okay.

You can't do that.

Yeah.

But it's, again, it's too early to judge.

Too early.

Yeah, way too early.

That's the summary of this hour.

It's too early to judge CNN Plus.

Could be successful.

It may, in time, be viewed as a massive success.

That's possible.

It's very, you know, very possible.

If 150 subscribers can be viewed as a success, what is that?

Like, it's like $1,500

a month that they make five bucks a month.

Oh, it's only that's right.

In fact, they cut it to three.

They cut it to three.

So

it was $4,500 a month.

Which is, you know, not bad.

Not bad.

Not bad.

I mean, you could pay, you could pay, you get a one bedroom in New York for that.

You know?

It's so great.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

We're talking about this California abortion law, which allows abortion anytime during the pregnancy, as most abortion laws do now, at least in blue states.

Red states are starting to fight back against that.

But in the blue states,

you can't be a Democrat anymore and say, yeah, abortion should be safe, rare, and

legal, safe, and rare, because they don't care about rare anymore.

And they don't care when it happens anymore.

It could happen as the baby is being born.

That's the partial birth part.

Rare has gone the way of CNN Plus.

It is.

It is no longer a thing.

And they're kind of proud of it.

They're saying, well,

if it's safe and legal, why should we worry about rare?

Yeah.

They want more common.

Safe, legal, and common is their new.

And I don't even know.

Safe.

They don't seem to care about much of that either, honestly.

Certainly not for the baby.

Yeah.

They don't care about the safety of the baby at all.

The only thing they care about is legal.

Just let it happen anytime, anywhere.

You know,

we should have abortion clinics inside 7-Elevens

because it should be that convenient.

It should really be just whenever they please.

But in California, they're passing this law

about

perinatal abortions, which

allow the baby to die seven days after birth.

Very strange.

So Savannah Hernandez went out on the street asking people about this new law and what their thoughts were.

So basically, like if they have their baby, they can neglect them for seven days.

And if the baby dies, then they can't be held criminally liable.

What do you guys think?

Yeah.

I think whatever like helps women and helps them achieve their like dreams and how that needs to like happen is definitely

acts to help that is helping all of us.

So I prefer that most women make their decisions at eight weeks.

Okay.

But I'm also in support of 10 months out of the womb.

So you think babies should be aborted 10 months after they're born?

If the mother wants to, yes.

I think think

them kids.

So if

you want to get a late-term abortion, that's up to you.

You know, I've had an abortion too, and

it was my choice, and I'm happy I had that choice.

I've had an abortion myself.

Would you guys get an abortion again?

Yes.

100 times.

I'd do it multiple times.

Me too.

Until I feel that I'm ready to parent.

That's a choice I'll continue to make.

Huh.

Wow, that's great.

I had 22 abortions last week, Pat.

Did you really?

Yeah.

22.

In one week?

Yeah.

Now I'm really happy about 21 of them.

You should maybe be a little more careful.

Is that too much?

Is that too much of me to ask?

Pardon me?

Is that too much to ask?

It is.

Wow.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Wow.

I can't believe you even said that publicly.

Don't be careful.

I've just changed my mind.

Thank you.

Don't be careful.

Get pregnant as many times as you want.

Yeah, not careful, care less.

Right.

Care less about your business.

That's what we need to encourage in this society.

More carelessness.

That's the,

I love that because

when they say the don't say gay bill, and

people oppose this bill, and in the bill, specifically, it says age-appropriate conversations.

So to oppose the bill, you are outwardly asking for age-inappropriate conversations.

The conversations must be inappropriate for the age,

for your view of that bill, if you're on the left.

The same thing here.

Like,

if you say to someone, what if you're more careful?

Maybe don't do the impossibility

or protect yourself before you do the activity.

Take some precaution.

I don't know.

There's pills for that.

There's pills.

There's condoms.

There's all sorts of things.

Prophylactics, all sorts of things.

There's all sorts of ways to make sure this does not occur if you would not like it to occur.

That no.

That don't involve tearing the baby apart in the womb.

Yeah.

It just seems like a basic step.

And, you know, I understand sometimes the world can be a complicated place.

However, encouraging the opposite of being careful, which would be to encourage someone to be careless, is an odd choice for what we are supposed to believe is the responsible side of an argument.

Yeah.

Well,

could this have been precipitated by a guy who once said, I'm going to teach my children.

I got two daughters, nine years old and six years old.

I'm going to teach them principles, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.

I don't want them punished with an STD at 16.

Well, didn't you kind of set things up there for people to feel that way about being punished with a baby?

Now they consider it a punishment that they just don't want to deal with.

And so they just eliminate it from their life.

It's incredible.

It really is incredible.

And this law goes even much, much farther

than this.

You know, talking about,

you know, and Savannah, who, you know, was here with us at the place,

very nice and thoughtful person who's trying to actually get answers on these questions.

And

just asking questions, you know,

if you've never seen Savannah, she's young.

She is, she's not an old white man.

Right.

And that is, of course, old white men have no, no knowledge, and we should obviously get rid of all of them from society.

She's not one of them.

Then we should never comment.

No, of course not.

Abortion, no pregnancy at all.

Obviously not.

At all.

She comes, you know, it's a different package.

The people talking to her don't think she might be on the conservative side of the aisle.

They don't really consider that.

So they, they're not, their guard isn't up.

They're just answering the questions as they feel.

Yeah, I had an abortion.

It was great.

I freaking loved it.

I would recommend everybody have about 10 to 12 abortions per month.

If you can do it, I highly recommend it.

That's the attitude from some of these people.

And, you know,

is there no limit?

What is the limiting principle, principle, Pat, to the argument of women's choice?

What is the limiting principle of that argument?

To me, there isn't one.

There isn't one now.

That's a problem.

I mean, like the guy said,

he prefers that you only get an abortion within the first eight weeks.

But

he also supports 10 months after birth.

Right.

If

the mother wants that.

Right.

He is not advocating advocating that the dad should have an ER opinion.

But if the mother wants to kill the child, she may.

Yeah.

After 10 months.

Now, I don't know why the 10 months barrier, why not a year, two years?

Why not now?

Why not?

Why not his parent right now?

This is the problem with this argument.

If

his mother wants

to abort him now.

If his mother decided, you know, you know, who sucks is my stupid kid, who I just saw on television.

He's 28 years old and he's the dumbest person alive.

This is radio, but if you saw his haircut, you could understand an abortion request from mommy at this point, even at 28 years old.

He's got the dumbest haircut I've ever seen in my life.

And that guy,

that guy, maybe, you know, there's an argument to be made if mommy has a choice.

Yeah.

That maybe he should be aborted at 28 years old.

And honestly,

when you adopt the left-wing view of this particular issue, why not?

Why not?

It's the mommy's choice.

The kid doesn't get rights till when.

Whenever you're saying it is, it's arbitrary.

Yeah.

At least we had a line of the birth canal before where we could say, okay, you know, Kermit Gosnell, we're going to put him in prison because he kept killing people after they were born.

Right?

That used to be, there was a time way back in like 2016 where we agreed with this.

At least we can acknowledge, okay, there's Peter Singer out there.

He's an ethicist at Princeton.

There was a few people out there who would argue for abortion after birth, but it was pretty rare.

Now it's not.

It's not.

It's becoming more and more common because, of course, when you say the fundamental, foundational truth of this argument when it comes to abortion is mother's choice, there's no limit to that.

As long as mommy's alive,

how do you draw this line?

How do you draw the line of it's mommy's choice so mommy gets to abort the fetus?

It's mommy's choice, and we have no respect for life anymore.

Just none.

And we people, these, obviously, these kids are so desensitized to human life.

that they don't care anymore.

They don't care.

You could put this, you could see, too, they've put no thought into it.

Even the people who have had abortions have put no thought into this.

And it's because they know the standard comeback to any given argument about abortion is, well, if the mom wants it, and that gets you off the hook for no matter what you say.

People are like, well, you know, wait a minute, but that woman was a dictator.

She committed genocide.

Well, yeah, but she was the mother of the country.

The mom wanted it.

Mother's choice.

They'll justify anything through that lens.

Because, of course, when it's arbitrary choice by a person,

you can justify anything, right?

You can justify anything through that lens.

You know, what was the case back in Houston?

You'll remember this, Pat, where the mom drowned five other kids in the bathtub?

Yeah, Andrea Yates.

Oh, my God.

It was one of the worst stories I've ever heard.

Horrific.

But, like, why would a leftist oppose it?

Why would the people in that video oppose her treatment in that story?

It was motherfucking.

I don't know if they would.

I don't know if they would.

You just say, you know, well, look, you know, she made a choice there.

You know, she was the oldest was seven if i remember right so

i i don't know if they would oppose that

do you think we could get an on on like an on-record statement from like an aoc that to oppose that case right now do you think she would do you think do you think she would say something to the effect of look it might not be my choice right but i'm not going to affect her choice i'm not going to affect her choice she's the mom yeah she gets to make choice well might tell her uh what choice to make there

well I don't know.

She would stark raving mad.

If you might want to affect that choice.

If we are not at that point, we are close to it.

Yeah.

Yeah, we are.

But we are close to it.

They're passing.

I mean, just when you think it can't get any worse, it does.

It gets worse.

I never would have thought we'd get to a point where people would be saying 10 months after a birth of a human being that you can end their life

if the mother wants it.

Would you have ever thought that that was possible?

Never.

Just a few years ago.

I mean, other than, like you said, Peter Singer, who has been saying this nonsense for a while, but nobody took him seriously at first.

Apparently, they are now.

Yeah, it's similar to the CRT thing.

You know, CRT bubbled up in people like, you know,

the equivalent of Peter Singer

at institutions for a long time.

It sat there for a long time, growing and manifesting itself as they taught generation after generation this nonsensical ideology.

And now

here we are, right?

Like now we're at the point where something pretty drastic has changed, where now that philosophy that was just in colleges is now being taught to your elementary school kids because their teachers went to college and learned it back 20, 30, 40 years ago.

And we're seeing this beginnings of that, I think, now with this extreme abortion and abortion argument.

And the only positive thing out of it is that it does highlight the craziness of the left in a way that maybe you couldn't.

You know, people,

when the argument was, okay, well, free viability, maybe it's okay, but we frown upon it.

We want to make it as rare as possible.

That argument, I think, makes sense to some people.

It doesn't make sense to me, I will say, but it makes sense to some people.

I don't think the argument of we can kill babies after they're born makes a sense to a lot of people, only the extreme left.

I hope that's true, because if it's not, we're lost, Pat.

We're lost.

It's over.

No question.

The civilization is over if people can't recognize that.

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

On Friday, Joe Biden said something interesting about the future of the U.S.

military.

I'm not convinced that this is something we should focus on, but here's what he had to say.

In the United States military, every vehicle is going to be climate-friendly.

Every vehicle.

We're going to go, no, I mean it.

Yeah.

We're spending billions of dollars to do it.

We're expending billions of dollars to do it, but

every vehicle.

is going to be climate friendly.

I don't care about that.

What I care about is that the U.S.

military, and I bet they do too,

has the best equipment available to them

better than anybody else's equipment.

At any cost to the climate.

Yeah, whatever.

It's not something that's even considering when thinking about the military.

Now, hopefully, we don't have to use them.

Asinine.

But, yeah, that's not a, that's not a.

By the way, watching the video, was he aware he was facing away from the podium and the microphone?

Probably not.

Probably not.

Because it just seemed like he was just.

Now, I know there was people standing back there, but

I'm hoping that he heard a question from back there and he turned around because if not, we're even deeper down this

problem area.

Watch him again and pay attention to that because I'm pretty sure nobody says anything to him.

And in the United States military,

every vehicle is going to be climbing the opposite.

Why are you telling them?

No, I'm not meeting that.

No, he means it.

He's not joking.

Billions of dollars to do it.

He spend billions of dollars on it.

Literally, not a concern.

Not a concern.

The one thing that when you think about the constitutional limitations of government, the one thing that they actually should be doing is a military.

They should have a military to protect the country.

And in addition to

that minor detail,

when you want the government to do something, you have to ask yourself a fundamental question.

Do I care about inefficiency?

And I mean that sincerely.

Like, there are things we want the government government to do.

But if you can clear that basic hurdle in that you don't care about inefficiency, the government might have a role.

Like, for example,

it would be inefficient to store, let's say, tens of thousands of ventilators, right, for no use, right?

However, when a pandemic occurs, it would be great to have them.

So you might be okay with the inefficiency.

No one can make money.

No business can be like, you know what?

I'm going to make some money.

I'm going to just store some ventilators for about 15 years until a pandemic might happen, right?

There's no way to make that into a business model.

So maybe the government steps in and has some of these around.

Now, of course, they tried to do that and failed.

So even when you are okay with inefficiency, they'll probably screw it up.

But if you can embrace inefficiency,

it might be okay for the government to be involved if there are no other constitutional concerns.

The military is a great example of this.

I am completely fine with the government blowing through a billion dollars trying to come up with a new weapon system.

Oh, yeah.

Totally fine with it.

I actually

encourage them to try.

Take billions of dollars and try a bunch of different crazy stuff that you think might turn into an incredible weapon system to defend us.

That is an okay use of taxpayer dollars, in my opinion.

It is okay to spend money training soldiers for wars they may never fight,

right?

I am fine with that.

Make them really strong, give them the best weapons, make them the best military on earth, and hopefully that leads to a complete waste of money because they never fight a war.

Totally fine with that.

This idea

is incredibly stupid.

The last thing you should worry about when talking about defending your country is an

impossibly small percentage of global emissions.

Right.

Impossibly small to the electric tanks.

Let's not worry about electric tanks.

Never think about it.

Never think of it.

Never think of it.

Especially when an electric car will only go 275 miles on a charge.

My tank, I want that to go as far as it needs to.

Yeah.

And without stopping overnight and charging it for 12 hours.

Exactly.

You know,

if, you know what, if it's efficient and let's say the electric, because they usually do, the electric vehicle costs much more.

However, you found it was a better way for a tank to operate

all of the money on that.

Yeah.

You know what I mean?

Yeah.

But right now, we don't have that.

That's not possible.

For example, one of the things we've done is come up with nuclear submarines,

right?

Because we, now that is not,

that's not an efficient.

What we call a nuclear submarine.

How the hell could that possibly be?

Because we don't care about efficiency.

When you're defending the country, you take efficiency and you throw it in the garbage.

You don't recycle it.

You throw it directly into the trash.

You don't think about it.

Now, look,

that doesn't mean waste money on nothing.

No, when you're spending $600 for a toilet, so

that's the dumb

inefficiency.

Should be at some level expected.

This is why you don't turn over large portions of your economy to the government because they're going to do things like that.

The military is going to buy $600 toilet seats.

They are.

Get used to it.

And, you know, I will, of course, if I'm in the military, if I'm advising military policy, which shockingly enough, at this point, I am not.

But if I were, I would advise against $600 toilet seats.

However, you have to.

I came across that line item, I might say.

You might say not the.

Can we find something a little cheaper than that?

Right.

Like, I don't know, 20 bucks?

Right.

Is that possible?

But when they're like, you know, we are thinking,

can we have like $100 million to try to bounce lasers off of stars?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

You can have it.

Yes.

Yes.

Here you go.

Here's your money.

Bounce some lasers off of stars.

See if they'll come down in Moscow.

I don't know.

Try it.

You know what I mean?

Like,

when you're talking about the defense of the country, you don't care about these things.

And when you talk about, this is a,

it's remarkable, people just don't think about it.

When you're talking about cutting emissions,

the decisions they ask you to make won't make a difference, even if they're totally right on the science.

Often, conservatives will say, wait a minute, well, we quibble with you on this part of the science, we quibble with you on that part of the science.

And that's important.

Of course, getting the science right is really important.

If you have

a disagreement, it's important to have that debate.

But it's also important to realize that if we lost, like, for example, if our entire transportation sector,

not just cars, not just your car, but cars, trucks, planes, everything, your entire transportation sector went from what it is today to zero emissions tomorrow.

We would cut something like 4% of global emissions.

And that percentage would be made up by China within about two or three years.

So think of what a ridiculous standard that is.

Turning the transportation sector off.

Not cutting its emissions, not making just our military use green vehicles, but turning our entire transportation sector off tomorrow would make basically no difference.

That is how that's how grand a scale this issue is.

It's not the type of issue you could say,

your personal sacrifice is a giant zilch.

It means nothing.

It is just a signal.

It is just a way to play along to tell everyone who you are, what you care about.

They are trying to influence not the climate, but your votes with this nonsense.

That is all it is.

It will not do anything.

You buying hybrids, even, you know,

there's a lot of affinity for our friend, Elon Musk, who has done more to affect this issue when it comes to the transportation sector than any individual human being.

And now the left hates him.

We should point out that they obviously don't believe that global warming.

is the singer single most dire existential threat to our country because obviously Elon Musk, I mean, the guy's tweeted a couple things we don't like, so let's abandon him.

He's not getting, these aren't union jobs, Pat, so we don't care about his cutting of emissions.

But he's built an electric car company and actually made it something that people want.

And he's built rockets that can eventually get us to Mars

because he thinks we're going to need to live there someday.

Yes.

That's how he believes in global warming.

Right.

But honestly, taking even all these cars and going to electric will make no difference.

And this is not.

Remember, of course, electric cars are not emission-free.

They are built on

electricity that is largely coming from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas, but also some coal and oil and other items.

In addition to that, there's a lot of emissions in the the process to put these cars together that are almost never included.

But in addition to that, there's the battery that once it's done with its life cycle,

it's incredibly toxic to the Earth.

And the number one supplier for the nickel for these batteries comes from Ukraine and Russia.

So there's a lot of issues associated with this.

That being said, even if it was perfect and it really did cut all of these cars to zero, it still wouldn't do anything.

It wouldn't do anything to solve this problem, even if their science is completely right.

So it shows how ridiculous this conversation can be.

And to take what I just described, the entire transportation sector going to zero emissions, and think it should be a priority for our military to worry about electric tanks has got to be, it is the most Joe Biden thing I've ever heard in my life.

Yeah, just plain dumb.

Dumb.

It's as if he is completely senile when it comes to thinking of these things.

That's a good point because he kind of is.

He's kind of completely senile.

I mean, look at him on Friday when he did another phantom handshake.

This is kind of

another one?

Yeah, he offers his hand to the wall here in a second.

Hello.

What are you?

What are you doing?

What?

And now we watch.

He goes the wrong way

because you're going to see the Secret Service Agent, which you never see.

Follow him in there because he went the wrong way.

That's why you see the Secret Service Agent because he's going the wrong way.

So he turns around.

Can we see that one more time?

He turns around and offers his hand to the wall or

something.

What are you doing?

Hello.

And then he realizes and turns around.

And then goes wrong.

And then goes the wrong way.

And almost tripped, I think, and fell on his face.

And then the Secret Service.

And there's the Secret Service guy.

Oh, my gosh.

You know,

I've been working on something, Pat, a scientific project of sorts

over the past few weeks for Studos America.

My show, by the way, available on the podcast.

Make sure to subscribe to it or on youtube.com/slash studosamerica.

It is

the Joe Biden gaffe emotional triangle.

And I've decided to come up with this to understand

the three types of feelings and emotions you have after watching a Joe Biden gaff.

There is funny,

there is

uh fear,

and there is sadness.

Yes.

And each gaff has a different profile on this triangle, and it's plotted on this triangle to try to understand where it goes.

Because sometimes I watch these and I'm like, oh my gosh, what an idiot.

Like that one, that's kind of how I felt.

Yeah, it was just funny, maybe a little sad, not necessarily scary.

When he says something about, like, hey, we might just nuke Moscow tomorrow.

That's in the scary section, and probably also sad, not quite as funny.

You know, these three distinct feelings you feel when watching Joe Biden screw up on one of his 20 to 30 times a day,

you really need to

categorize them.

And I feel like we've had

a movement.

If we were to plot these gaffes over time we would see a movement towards scary

i feel like we you know it was funny at first and then it got kind of sad and now it really is like especially with this war stuff i'm getting to the point where i'm legitimately scared he is going to gaff us into world war three i am legitimately he could be scared of that absolutely could He almost has done it multiple times, saying we had troops in Ukraine,

saying that, yeah, it's okay.

A minor incursion probably won't do much of anything.

We probably won't react to that.

Ah, NATO might not stick together.

There's going to be a lot of disagreement if they do anything.

What was the other one?

There was another big one in there that I'm missing.

It was right around the troop.

It was in that speech that he made in Poland

where he

regime change in Russia.

Where he basically seemed to change the U.S.

policy on the fly for regime change.

He had another one where he was talking about gas prices.

and just blurted out another major change in U.S.

policy.

This is like, it's becoming an issue where Vladimir Putin's already not the most sane person.

He's already doing things that are pretty erratic.

And we're giving him excuses to justify that stuff to his own people.

He can play videos.

Like when, like, what's his dumb justification?

What the Ukraine thing?

He's like, oh, well, you know, basically, this is the United States and the West aiding Ukraine.

They want to come after us and Russia.

Let me show you the evidence of this.

Here's Joe Biden announcing $800 million of arms coming to kill your children,

Russian citizens.

And here's another video of, and that one's actually not a gaff.

That's just for some reason our policy to just announce all this stuff.

But then, and then here he is talking about how he wants to make sure I can't be in power anymore.

He wants to change your leadership.

I'm, of course, the person you voted in so, so overwhelmingly, so many times.

And now he wants to change that.

Does he have an argument to the Russian people about that?

Are they going to support that?

Probably.

Yeah, probably.

No, no, no, no.