Best of The Program | 6/22/21

Welcome to the podcast.

I hope you celebrated Juneteenth by twerking, like so many did across the country.

The old Juneteenth twerk was in effect, and we get into that today.

What is the truth behind Juneteenth and what sort of mess is America making out of it in the media and on the left?

There's a new national strategy for domestic terror, and this one's going to be very interesting to you, as well as a look into whether the FBI did have informants involved in planning the January 6th incident.

Glenn Greenwald has some perspective on that, which is pretty interesting and leads to a lot of questions.

We have Glenn's fabulous trip to Yellowstone Park that you will not want to miss the details of.

And the truth behind Black Lives Matter.

Has it been saving lives or costing black lives?

You're going to be shocked by a new study that lays that out.

Don't forget to subscribe to this podcast.

And the podcast also available on this very, very fine platform called Stew Does America.

Go to both of them, rate them five stars.

Five stars is the appropriate number of stars and a quick little review.

You know, it's great, whatever.

We don't care really what you say.

We just want to make sure there's a good review and five stars.

We really appreciate that.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Blenbeck program.

you know chuck todd thank goodness finally somebody said it uh came out and said all this critical race theory all this you know hey they're changing everything about america this is all a a trump plan this isn't actually happening this is just ginning up white people

i let him say it here it is specific to this idea of critical race theory i have to tell you i just spent some time reporting on this county in virginia about an hour outside of washington and and to your point this is something that is mobilizing people and resonating very deeply it was about a hundred degree day dozens and dozens and dozens of parents mostly white in this largely affluent county showed up to a school board meeting for many of them the very first school board meeting they'd ever attended specifically because of this one issue that's important to note is it that you mentioned critical race theory a couple times this is a parent-led backlash at the grassroots level

it's manufactured no it's complex and then and then sort of the

the fire was lit.

I disagree.

I think it started because parents have had it with the education bureaucracy after COVID.

They're fed up with it.

They tend to trust Democrats when it comes to education funding, but they trust Republicans on education accountability.

I think that what the backlash you're seeing on critical race theory in schools is another example of parents trying to hold educators accountable.

It's coordinated, it's aggressive, it's intentional, right?

This is part of the tribalism play.

The critical race theory is yet another tool

in the racial tribal boogeyman's toolbox to drive and inflame tribalism, which Republicans think helps them in elections.

This is Trump 2.0.

This is a continuation of this, right?

Critical race theory is an arcane sort of ideal.

Why is it front and center right now?

The same reason that Mitch McConnell attacked Stacey Abrams when she came out

for the voting bill.

It is racial, it is tribalism.

We've seen it grow under Trump, and this is part and parcel of it, And they think this helps ignite their base.

There's no way this is not grassroots.

And Brad, you know this is organized and is being paid for.

Oh.

At some point, did they develop a new argument?

Is there a point at any time, do they come up with an argument they weren't making 50 years ago?

At any point, do they develop

one new point?

One new argument.

I don't know what you mean.

How do you mean?

This is a totally new argument.

Critical race theory is an arcane idea.

It's not really, it doesn't exist.

All these white people are being ginned up by the GOP.

It's so ridiculous.

It's all about politics.

This isn't about anything real.

It's not really.

It's interesting because you look at all of the materials that have been unearthed by people like Chris Ruffo.

And I mean, going back to

James Lindsay, you talked to a couple of years ago, covering a lot of this stuff.

This has been flowing through academics first and has now gone to all

elements of society.

I mean, people are going to work at fast food restaurants and learning about critical race theory.

And we know that only because brave people have decided to

unearth this and

sent no, no, not at all.

What's interesting, too, is that

without COVID, likely we wouldn't know half of the stuff that we know now.

One of the reasons why this happened is because people were at home taking these seminars instead of at work where they couldn't comfortably film or record all of the materials and send them to reporters who were cared about this stuff.

Instead, they were home and they were on Zoom calls and they were able to get a lot of this material and send it to people who were able to bring it to America's attention.

And when you see this stuff going into schools, we've seen it in Texas, Glenn.

Major controversies in Texas where

families are pointing out this incredible, what I would call nothing but racism against different groups than had previously been the victims of it.

But the bottom line is it's still racism.

It's still judging people by the color of their skin.

And that sort of stuff is supposed to be what we're avoiding.

This is being taught to teenagers, to kids in schools all all over the country.

And if we don't stand up and do something about it, it will become the norm.

And yes, it is.

It is absolutely parent and student-led.

It is.

They need

we have hit

critical race theory.

Critical is the key word.

Whenever anything is critical, it's usually a Marxist study.

But in this case, it is critical medical attention needs to be paid right now.

This is so important to the left.

If this fails, if we succeed in getting this squashed and exposed, because unless you expose it, unless people know what it is, and they're saying, Well,

it's an arcane theory,

it's an arcane theory.

Really, it's being taught at Harvard.

It's being that started at Harvard, and it is an arcane legal

idea.

But

it's not just legal.

The people who actually came up with critical race theory

talk about it as a movement, a political movement.

So it may have started out at Harvard Law School, but that's not what it is today.

According to the founders of critical race theory, the people who designed it,

they know this is a way to destroy everything

that is America.

Destroy it.

They know it.

And it's very interesting to me that our president, Barack Obama, is out on the stump again trying to...

I'm sorry, I've just told Joe Biden is our president.

No, that's not true.

Barack Obama is still our president.

Barack Obama is the one and his team.

I mean, he said 80% of his team is the one

are there at the White House, and Joe Biden is just finishing the job he started.

So that's why he's out on the trail, and that's why he's trying to say to you, oh, this critical race theory, there's nothing to it.

You can't lie to us about this one.

This isn't health care.

You know, you don't know you're, oh my gosh, you're going to save so much money.

The average family is going to save so much money.

that didn't happen did it

didn't happen did it you're gonna be able to keep your doctor if you love your doctor didn't happen did it

well we had to project in the future and it came down to who do you trust and Barack Obama is so likable he's so great this one we have evidence Our children are experiencing it right now.

You hear anyone say that this isn't a big deal,

they are either completely out of touch or they are lying to you.

The press is circling the wagons around critical race theory because they know it is critical for their plan to go through.

If they can't finish the indoctrination of the next generation,

America survives.

If they continue the indoctrination, America is over.

It is just that simple.

As days go by and events unfold around the world, I fear what we have talked about has been right all along and it's coming.

You'd think more people would at least try to listen to what we're all saying, but the latest in computer hackers, which showed us that gas lines and beef shortages are not a conspiracy theory in America.

Doesn't matter, most people don't act.

They react.

What about you?

Are you going to act now while you have the chance and before it's too late or react later?

I'm talking about getting yourself a stockpile of emergency food from the nation's number one leader in preparedness.

It's My Patriot Supply.

I trust My Patriot Supply, and so can you.

Just go to preparewicklen.com right now, and you'll save 25% off their four-week emergency food kit.

It's preparewicklen.com.

The food lasts for 25 years in storage, provides minimum required 2,000 plus calories a day.

So go now to preparewicklen.com and you'll save 25% off the absolute bare minimum you should have: the four-week food kit.

Act, don't react.

Prepare with Glenn.com.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

There was a lot of talk last week, and we need to pay attention to it.

And I don't have an answer for you, but I do have questions for you.

First of all, how is it that the group that used to hate the FBI and quite honestly still does hate the FBI because they were the ones that were inflicting this racism on all of us.

They were making sure that these racist laws were keeping the man down.

Well,

now it seems Democrats, 78% of them, love the FBI.

55% of Republicans don't.

Now,

why is that?

Because we used to love the FBI.

We don't trust them anymore.

We don't trust the FBI because too many things are going on.

And just when the trust of the FBI is being lost, Democrats, who hate supposedly oppression, big government, law enforcement, they love the FBI.

The IRS, only 50% have a positive view of the IRS, 50% of Republicans.

Damn near 70%

of Democrats, 68%.

Can I just ask you a non-political, who has a positive, who's like, you know what I really like?

You know who I really like.

Oh, those IRS agents, they are so great.

I just, they are, I can't wait.

I've had several of them over for dinner,

you know, after,

you know, my anal probe that they did.

I thought, you know, you guys are so great.

Why don't you come on over for dinner?

Who has that?

The EPA, 66% of Democrats love the EPA, 52% of Republicans.

The CIA, 62%

of Republicans, 69%

of the Democrats.

All of these things are going up with Democrats.

I thought you didn't like the big state.

I thought it was coming from the Marxist side that the CIA created AIDS.

I mean, it certainly came from Russia.

So, why is it that everybody on the left is loving them so much?

Because they have fallen into the clutches of the left.

And no matter what anybody says,

the left loves the big state.

Communism,

socialism, Marxism, they love state.

So now, when someone comes out and says hey hang on just a second

was the FBI involved at all in January 6th the media immediately goes into full spin mode protecting the FBI

and talking to people like John Brennan who is so very credible

about is there possibility that the FBI was involved

well

let's take it from well let me take it from Glenn Greenwald because there's a couple of things that Glenn Greenwald pointed out on this this report that came out from the Revolver News.

The original report says Glenn Greenwald published by Revolver News and then amplified by Fox News's Tucker Carlson documented ample evidence of FBI infiltration of the three key groups at the center of the January 6th investigation the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three

Percenters.

Noted how many alleged riot leaders from these groups have not yet been indicted, while low-level protesters have been aggressively charged with major felonies and held without bail.

Many of the alleged plot leaders have thus far been shielded from charges.

So, the first question is, why?

If those three, the oath keepers, the proud boys, and the three percenters,

why weren't the leaders of those groups charged?

Why were just the low-hanging fruit?

Why were they the only ones that got indicted?

If it was something that was coming from these organizations officially?

Glenn Greenwald says, the implications of these facts are obvious.

It seems extremely likely that the FBI had numerous ways to know of any organized plots regarding the January 6th riot, just as the U.S.

intelligence community, by its own admission, had ample advanced clues to the 9-11 attack, but according to their excuse, tragically failed to connect the dots.

There is no doubt that the FBI has infiltrated at least some, if not all, of these groups, which it has been warning about for years that they pose a grave national security threat with informants and/or undercover FBI agents.

It is known that the Proud Boy leaders, Enrique Taro,

has served as an FBI informant in the past, and the disrupted 2020 plot by the three percenters,

the members that tried to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, was shaped and driven by what the Wall Street Journal reported were FBI undercover agents and confidential informants.

What would be shocking and strange is not if the FBI had invet embedded informants and other infiltrators into the groups planning the January 6th Capitol riot.

What would be shocking and strange, bizarre and inexplicable is if the FBI did not have those groups under trite control.

And yet the suggestion that the FBI informants may have played some role in the planning of the January 6th

was instantly depicted as something akin to the 9-11 truthers, the COVID lab leak theory, which turns out to be true, the CIA's role in the assassination of JFK.

This reaction is partly confounding given how often the FBI did exactly this during the first war on terror and how commonplace discussions of this tactic were in the mainstream liberal

circles.

Over the last decade, I reported, according to Glenn Greenwald, on countless cases for The Guardian and The Intercept, where the FBI targeted some young American Muslims they viewed as easily manipulated due to financial distress, emotional problems, or both, and then deployed informants and undercover agents to dupe them into agreeing to join terrorist plots that had been created, designed, and funded by the FBI itself, only then to congratulate themselves for breaking up the plot which they themselves initiated.

As asked in one headline about this particularly egregious entrapment case, why does the FBI have to manufacture its own plots if terrorism and ISIS are such grave threats?

Mother Jones even published, he says, an outstanding lengthy investigation by a reporter entitled

The Informations, which asked,

The FBI has built a national or a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack, but they are busting terrorist plots or are they leading them?

He goes on to show story after story where the FBI was getting into groups or creating groups and then targeting the most vulnerable,

the lowest on the ladder, and then involving them in some sort of a plot and then arresting.

If this is true and this is a pattern, which he says it is,

then the FBI, why wouldn't they be doing that in the January 6th

attack on the Capitol?

And there are several things that say that something is wrong here.

For instance, there are thousands of hours of

videotape, of surveillance.

Why have the surveillance tapes not been released?

Now, you could say it's because it shows some good things, but they would point out that it might show that the FBI or the local police were actually letting some of these people in.

Also,

we know

that

Parler alerted the FBI days before saying that there is something going on for January 6th.

Why didn't the FBI move on that?

Now they are talking about how the unindicted co-conspirators, and this is the argument that is going back and forth with the media, that the unindicted co-conspirators are FBI agents or maybe they're not FBI agents.

We don't know.

Yada, yada, yada, yada, yada.

And they're saying this is destroying the point of Tucker Carlson and the revolver and Glenn Greenwald.

But he says, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.

It doesn't refer to FBI informants or operatives as unindicted co-conspirators.

It doesn't usually refer to FBI informants like that.

However, numerous references to person one or person two could

very well, indeed, the case of the FBI-directed plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer, could list them this way.

In the Whitmer case, it was CHS1, CHS2,

confidential human source.

That's how the FBI informants drove the plot

to kidnap Governor Whitmer.

That's how they were referenced.

These are common tactics, says Glenn Greenwald, that they use to

reference the acts of their own informants without revealing their identity.

Now, he says, even if all of that doesn't play a role,

he says there's a bigger question that has to be answered.

And nobody seems to be

asking this.

How is it remotely credible the FBI did not have informants in these three groups that they've been identifying as major threats for years, especially given the reporting that the leader of the Proud Boys, conveniently arrested the day before January 6th, was an FBI informant in the past, along with the confirmed reporting that the FBI had multiple informants in the Michigan three percenters case.

So, if this is so crazy and the FBI was taken by surprise, why have they been saying this is so dangerous, but they haven't

any informants inside?

Why are the low-level protesters being charged with major crimes while the alleged organizers of this riot and the leaders of these groups have not been charged?

Why are the enormous amounts of video surveillance footage from January 6 still being held?

What happened to the alleged planting of pipe bombs near the Capitol?

Why did the FBI not take more aggressive action given the once denied but now confirmed fact that social media platform Parlor sent the FBI advanced warnings of specific plots of the use of violence at the Capitol.

So if the FBI had all of this information and did nothing,

that's really important that we find out why.

Is it another intelligence failure?

I thought we corrected that with 9-11.

Why did this happen?

Why did there, why were they informed

and not do anything?

Why did they say this was such a great...

These three groups are grave, grave problems, but they didn't have any intel on them.

Those things don't make sense.

And they could just be that the FBI sucks.

It could also be there's something else going on.

What's the,

how would you summarize the accusation here?

from

Glenn Greenwald and Tucker Carlson.

Like, is the idea that essentially the FBI

had informants and they tried to dupe low-level people into starting this attack, like, as he insinuates kind of with the Islamic terrorism cases in the past.

And then they just allowed the January 6th thing to happen without preparing it to bust low-level members of these groups?

Like,

what's the working theory here?

I would say that that is the working theory.

I'm not saying that that's a true theory.

I don't know.

But there's enough questions to be asked now

because some things just don't make sense.

And they do, allegedly, according to Glenn Greenwald and others,

they have done this with low-level Muslims

and people they deemed easy-picking.

Right.

And so they've done it before.

They did it with

Gretchen Whitmire,

where they were involved in the planning of the kidnapping, etc., etc.

And so it's kind of the chicken and the egg.

Which one came first?

Did the FBI come in and plant these seeds?

Or did the FBI come in and just watch it and play along and then grab them?

No, they were already doing that.

It seems to me a notable difference between these situations is that the attack happened, right?

Like the riot occurred, where like if you're gonna, if you're going to lure and dupe in some low-level Muslim terrorists into a fake terrorist attack, you don't actually blow up the building at the end, right?

And here, like, there's this riot to take over the Capitol that was planned by some of them, and then they didn't actually

plan to stop it in any way.

So

the actual riot occurred.

So

the accusation there is, is, and it's not even an accusation, it's a question.

Sure.

Is there an element of the FBI

that

wanted this to happen,

allowed this to happen,

to be able to come up with more, you know, a new Patriot Act, a new war on terror?

That's the question that has to be answered through the answering of the other questions, like, If this was the biggest threat, and you guys said it, those three organizations, if they were such a threat, why didn't you stop it?

Why did it happen?

You had informants there.

You had to have.

And if you didn't, why didn't you?

They should.

They should have had informants

there for sure.

They should have.

And it's unreasonable to think that they didn't.

And if you were informed by Parler, why didn't you stop it?

Is there a new war on terror?

And the answer is,

yeah,

it kind of looks like it.

Now, I don't know about the FBI connection, but that's the way the White House is moving.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

I want to play some audio here.

On June 9th, a father in Illinois went to a school board meeting and ranted about the use of critical race theory in schools.

Now this is notable for a couple of reasons.

One, if he's opposing critical race theory being taught to children, he must hate black people.

And two,

it's difficult for him to be accused of hating black people because he is black.

Oh, here it is.

Hard things we want to talk about.

When we think about critical race theory, what comes to mind?

What comes to mind?

When you say the word critical, what comes to your mind when you think about the word critical?

I have two degrees in medicine.

You know what critical means to us?

Critical means that the person is almost getting ready to die, or they most surely will die.

So when you say critical race theory, you might think of it in a sense of, oh, this information is critical that they know, as of the upper, and important.

But when I think about critical race theory, I think about critical as in this is getting ready to kill something or kill somebody.

Yeah, he went on to.

So this went to really explain how could he be oppressed if he's got two medical degrees?

Who's oppressing him?

Well,

the left

did their best to discredit him, trying to pick apart his educational history, which is interesting and predictable

because

they say this guy has been kept down by the white man.

You have to show that he hasn't accomplished anything.

And that puts the left into an awkward position of attempting to destroy the reputation of a black man in order to keep their narrative.

that they are for the black man.

It's a very awkward thing, but awkward really is what the left is good at.

I think they're really good at that.

It's true.

What they are absolutely not good at is protecting black lives.

That does not seem to be an interest at all for them.

They don't care about black lives.

They're like 973rd on their priority list, and that's behind money and power and, I believe, vacation homes, depending on the district.

Well, and Juneteenth, a holiday they had never heard of until just recently.

But that's just us.

So we're just evil conservatives saying those things.

I I mean, you have to look at the data, and the data, of course, shows

well something very clear.

So there's a new study out,

not being talked about that much in the media from the Social Science Research Network.

It's authored by a PhD student in economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Guy's name is Travis Campbell.

He decided to look back at Black Lives Matter as a movement and try to quantify how well it actually did.

He studied BLM from its birth in 2013 to 2019.

Now, of course, this does not include, does not include the terrible race riots that went on last year and the violent

nonsense that went around the entire country.

But it looked at the situation.

None of that is included.

No, none of that is included.

That year was not included at all.

So this is just from like the very beginnings of it.

And they basically looked at it and they said, okay, we know that some areas had lots of BLM protests against police violence, and we know many did not.

So if BLM was a positive force in stopping police violence, then you would expect that the areas with the protest would see that type of violence go down, right?

Right.

How did that happen?

Well, before we answer, you should know that the author of this paper does not appear to be exactly a conservative in any way.

What?

I mean, it is the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

They might not be burning witches anymore in Massachusetts, but Salem is just a couple of hours away.

And I'm pretty sure conservatives are more flammable than witches.

So is it now?

So did the study, did they find that the BLM protest led to a decrease in officers committing homicides against civilians?

Yes.

Yes or no?

It actually did, yes.

But stay with me for a second here.

This is a quote from the study.

Estimates suggest that census places with BLM protests experienced a 15 15 to 20 percent decrease in police homicides from 2014 to 2019 it's about a 300 fewer police homicides this fall in lethal use of force fell over time and became prominent when protests were large or frequent okay so that's good that's good right yeah exactly uh more blm protests lead to less police homicides case closed right well first of all we have to examine the term police homicides for a second

This is where you always go wrong and try to get sticky and tricky.

Yeah, okay.

Let's look into the term.

How do they define it?

We've seen so many TV shows with homicide in it that you just assume murder when you hear the word homicide.

But homicide is not a murder.

It is a word that gives the impression to the average person that you're talking about a murder or an unjust killing.

But the legal definition of homicide is the killing of a human being due to an act or omission of another.

Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent.

So the study doesn't measure unjust uses of police force.

It measures uses of force generally, some of which, most of which, are entirely justified.

For example, one of the sources they use for the study is a database on police shootings in the Washington Post, which indicates 999 people were shot and killed by police in 2019.

Of course, of those 999 people, it's important to note, because of this context, that only 251 were black.

That's 25%.

In that group of black people killed by police are David Anderson and Francine Graham, both black and both needlessly gunned down by police.

immediately following their visit to a kosher store in Jersey City where they killed three people, which followed their murder

of a police officer who was questioning them about another murder that was that occurred a week earlier.

So I would say those are justified.

Yeah.

All right.

Yes.

So it's true, Glenn.

Police did kill two black people that day as they were in the middle of an active shooter spree where they were targeting Jews in support of their black Israelite ideology.

So I'm going to give that one a ranking of completely justified.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, whatever.

I still stand by the study found BLM protests associated with 300 less deaths by police over six years.

And you have to ask yourself, Stu, why?

Why?

Why did that happen?

Well, there are several possibilities.

And I will say Vox actually covered some of this to their credit.

They were one of the only ones who did.

In the study, they say, first, what was the reasoning for the

less police homicide, fewer police homicides?

First, they observed an increase in the use of body cameras in different types of community policing.

It's possible that in response to BLM protests, police departments implemented reforms like body cameras that reduced the lethal use of force.

Look, to me, there's no one who benefits more from body cameras than the police themselves because they actually are able to tell the truth about what happened.

But as Vox notes, there's not really convincing data that that would occur for the, account for these differences.

So the second mechanism is that civilians are becoming more wary of the police in the aftermath of these protests and the publicizing of of instances of police homicides.

That could mean that people call 911 or less or engage with police officers less on their own volition, which has the effect of reducing civilian-police interactions and thereby fatal interactions as well.

Okay.

All right.

So wait a minute.

So people are more scared of the police, so they're not calling the police when they have...

when they have something because they're afraid that somebody's going to get shot because,

look, she was just trying to bash her head in.

That's all she was trying to do.

She just had a knife pointed at her chest.

And we shouldn't call the police.

These are just kids having another knife fight, Glenn.

It's no big deal.

Sure.

Sure.

Any other reason.

Okay, yeah.

This one I think is the one that connects with me the most.

But finally, the third mechanism is something called the Ferguson effect.

The supposition that protests against police brutality reduce officer morale and effort due to the intensified scrutiny from the community and media.

In other words, officers stopped doing their jobs as aggressively.

This can lead to

reduced arrests, especially for less serious crimes like disorderly conduct or marijuana possession.

Okay, so the police are tired of being called genocidal maniacs, so they're just not getting involved as much.

I guess that's the third mechanism, which sounds delightful, too.

So let's take all of this at face value.

300 less police homicides.

But remember, the overwhelming majority of these quote-unquote homicides are justified.

So the police aren't around to take those people out.

And they don't want to get involved in nasty situations.

Yeah, that's it.

And how do those situations play out?

Right.

Like, what if the police aren't around to take out the evil criminals?

What happens?

Well, the study looked into that too.

And what it found, I think, would shock most people, maybe not in this audience, but most people, the results indicate that civilian homicides, civilian homicides, increased by 10% following protests, exceeding the fall in lethal force due to the relative frequency.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.

So that says, yes, 300 fewer people were killed by police,

but a lot more people were killed by civilians because the police weren't around.

Right.

Do I have that right?

Yes.

Okay, that's great.

Yeah.

Great.

Yeah, police shootings went down, but murders by civilians went up, way up.

This is from the study.

From 2014 to 2019, there were somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than would have been expected if places with protests were on the same trend as places that did not have protests.

Okay.

I just want to make sure I have this right.

300 homicides, which might have been justified, might not have been.

Okay?

Let's just take all of them were just bad cops.

300.

They traded the 300 for anywhere between 1,000 and 6,000 people being killed.

Yes.

So that sounds like a good deal.

It does.

Good negotiation here.

And we, of course, know because of the racial makeup of these areas that these 1,000 to 6,000 additional people who were murdered were disproportionately black.

Do black lives matter?

I don't understand exactly.

Shooting an unarmed black man who's completely innocent is obviously terrible.

But trading every police shooting saved for somewhere between three and twenty murders of civilians is not exactly what I would call black lives mattering.

It sounds like something designed in a lab by the KKK.

No, no.

No, no, no.

This is unintended consequences.

This is what happens when you just don't think things through and it's unintended consequences.

Stu.

That's all this is.

I really don't.

I don't think that that's true, Glenn.

And I will say...

No, really?

You know, you look at this and you say

the overwhelming majority of the police shootings are justified, including people who were on active shooting sprees.

They're including in these numbers.

And you're trading that for three to 20 times the amount of people that are dead.

Vox sums up this study.

And to their credit, they did actually show some of these results about BLM causing more black lives to end prematurely.

But they included this bit, which I think after hearing the details of the study sounds controversial.

They say this, protests can do a lot.

They can raise awareness, create solidarity, or undermine existing relationships, change public opinion, strengthen or weaken institutions, and affect the outcome of elections.

But according to this study, BLM protests also produce their intended effect.

I mean, I think that sounds nuts, right?

I mean,

what do you mean by intended effect?

Three to 20 times as many people were murdered than saved, and you say they produced their intended effect.

But I think when you think about it in context, they're right.

The BLM protests did produce their intended result.

It's just that their intended results had nothing to do with protecting black lives.

It had to do with

as you said, power, money, new vacation homes.

And as we all know, all of this has come to the BLM founders and allies in record numbers.

Trading one criminal for 20 innocent people wasn't like the plan per se, but it's like the cost of doing business.

Sure, people died, but hey, elections were won, donations poured in, real estate transactions were completed.

So I fully agree, BLM protests do produce their intended effect, but maybe it's about time we start questioning those intentions.