Best of The Program | 4/8/21

All right, welcome to the podcast.

Today, it's Pat and Stu.

And for Glenn, Glenn is expected to be back on Monday.

He'll give you an update on everything going on with him.

That's coming up in here in a few days.

Today, we talk about Joe Biden quite a bit today because he is in the middle of...

They've let him out of the basement.

He's making multiple speeches here this week, including...

He made one yesterday on spending and infrastructure.

Everything is infrastructure now.

You need to know that.

Anything that they want is infrastructure.

We'll get into that and the details of his ridiculous speech.

He also has another one coming up today on guns.

We touch on that as well.

The border situation is...

Is it a crisis?

It's a crisis for America.

Is it a crisis for the Biden administration, though?

That's another question.

And we look at kind of the catastrophe going on in Brazil right now.

It's really, really ugly there.

And Deshaun Watson, we touch on as well.

Probably not the right phrasing for that particular story.

So check out the podcast today.

Subscribe, rate, and review if you wouldn't mind.

Also, check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's on this platform.

Make sure to go over and search for that and subscribe or follow that podcast as well as Stu DoesAmerica.

All available now.

And you're going to check us out on all the social media as well.

Instagram, Matt Stew Does America.

I think Pat Gray Unleashed is that right for your Instagram?

Pat's a huge Instagram guy, so he knows.

Pat Unleashed.

There it is.

Pat Unleashed.

All right, here's the podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Blandbeck program.

Yesterday,

there was...

Joe Biden didn't used to infuriate me quite as much as he does now.

I mean, he's always irritated me, but it wasn't like listening to Barack Obama, for instance.

It is now.

I mean, I think he's bought in completely to Marxist theory now.

He's just a, he's a naked Marxist like the rest of them now.

And maybe that's just everybody in leadership in the Democrat Party.

Maybe they've all just caved in.

But it's agonizing to listen to this infrastructure stuff as well as the poor being fleeced.

Here he is.

Todd, did you see much of this speech yesterday?

Not much of it.

No, I try to avoid and keep my sanity, but it was

as the clips I've seen were as agonizing as you'd expect.

He's trying to justify spending $2.5 trillion right now.

And 5% of that is going to

actual infrastructure.

So now

everything's just infrastructure.

Yes.

Everything's pure.

Dillibrand

construction yesterday.

She got bludgeoned for that.

Just basically saying, oh, well, health, you know, elderly.

Childcare is infrastructure.

Right.

Okay.

So.

Is it?

Isn't this all things?

No.

Just saying they're infrastructure, which now the left has decided to say anything they believe is important is infrastructure.

Anything they want equals infrastructure, which means that infrastructure has no definition.

It's just,

it's just all, I mean, as far as policy goes, it's just everything.

But that's what they do, right?

They just what they want.

When they're up against it, they just change the definition of words.

Everything that opposes them is racist, for example.

So she got hammered with that a little bit yesterday.

Somebody tweeted out, yeah, your mom and and my ass are infrastructure right

i love that and gillibrand's a bit of a dummy like of course you know she's you could tell when in the campaign when she was pressed and people were actually paying attention to her which was

not has not happened at any other point in her career

you realize she really doesn't have much going on this is not a this is not a democratic rising star this is someone who was able to luck into a seat uh based on circumstances in a very blue state and doesn't bring much to the table.

Anyone who would think that's a good idea to tweet, obviously, is

not exactly a thinking person.

The lights are on, but nobody's home.

Yeah, and the lights aren't always on.

Yeah, that's true.

That is true.

We should point out the lights, there's problems with the lights.

This is short.

They're not always on, but there's never anyone home.

There's rolling blackouts.

It's an abandoned cabin in the woods.

Yes.

And occasionally the lights kind of come on.

Maybe it's a really badly placed solar panel keeping the lights on.

It's under a lot of shade.

Maybe occasionally a streak of light hits that solar panel, the lights go on for four or five minutes that night, but that's about it.

But because they're trying to sell this tax increase to pay for this $2.5 trillion bill.

Which wasn't it $2 trillion just a week ago?

Now it's $2.50.

It's $2.5 already.

This is what happens, though.

By the time they're done with it, I'll bet you it'll be three.

It'll be $3 trillion.

So here is Biden trying to convince us that the poor are being fleeced.

We're going to raise the corporate tax rate.

It was 35%

for the longest time.

That wasn't good.

Which was too high.

Yes.

Brock and I thought it was too high during our administration.

Did you?

We all agreed five years ago that it should come down somewhat.

But the previous administration reduced it all the way down to 21%.

Oh, my gosh.

What I'm proposing is that we meet in the middle.

28%.

Right.

28% would still have lower corporate rates than any time between World War II and 2017.

Pause it for a second.

Well, general.

We're not competing with ourselves from the past.

What we're competing with is the rest of the world.

Well, no, there's some companies that were like, we were thinking about taking the 1965 tax rate from the United States and executing that.

Yeah.

No, they're not.

No.

They could do that, I guess.

You You know, if a Belgian company wanted to increase their corporate rate to what ours was in 1965, they could.

It just wouldn't be intelligent.

What we're competing with are companies who are paying 15% corporate tax rates.

I mean, ours has traditionally been one of the highest, if not the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

And we're supposed to be capitalists.

We're supposed to be free market people.

And

so this argument is just completely

unrelated to the problem at hand.

And it's ridiculous.

This really does put it's not as high as 35, as he points out, but 28 would still put it right back up at one of the highest in the world again.

Yeah, have the same problem.

And you'd probably lose corporations again because of it.

Yeah, it really is unfortunate.

I mean, the 21% income tax rate showed real

signs of making these companies grow.

And

it did seem to induce a raging economy before the coronavirus hit.

Now, did it have enough time before COVID for us to know the full impact of it?

I don't know.

I mean, I don't even know what we knew that.

Remember, these are long-term plans.

And this is the biggest sin of this overall in that companies can't plan for this stuff.

Because every two years, then the new administration comes in and starts screwing with these rates.

Companies can't plan.

They don't want to deal with...

One of the big upsides of having your company in America, supposedly, is stability.

Right.

Right?

A lot of companies are willing to pay a little bit higher rate because they realize...

Okay, this is a stable country.

They understand that capitalism is important.

They're the people who kind of brought it to us.

So it's not going anywhere.

Well, that's not the case anymore.

I mean, they can't look at this country fairly and honestly and tell their shareholders, oh, there's no big deal.

This is fine.

You have people

who have the entire

zeitgeist of the left, people like AOC, who are basically begging for capitalism to go away completely.

So you no longer have that sort of stability.

These are not fringe members.

These are the people leading the media coverage on a daily basis.

And obviously, you see with the spending that's going on right now, they've had real impact.

We've talked about this before, but Barack Obama was terrified of getting to $1 trillion on his big plans, including Obamacare.

They did everything they could to lie and say it was under a trillion dollars because they were terrified of what the American people would think.

That fear is long gone.

It's long gone.

Not two, three, four.

I mean,

we just said $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion.

That's almost the entire stimulus bill from Barack Obama.

Just the change we didn't notice in the last week.

Like, oh, it was a $2 trillion package.

Now it's a $2.5 trillion package.

I mean, that's

two-thirds of what Barack Obama wanted to spend for the big bailout and infrastructure spend back in 2009.

There's no shame anymore in this stuff.

It's just print, print, print, spread, spend, spend.

You know, new restrictions, new seemingly unconstitutional laws and rules.

No one seems to care right now.

And he had a lot more to say about it.

We'll generate over a trillion dollars

in taxes over 15 years.

Why would you?

A new independent study put out last week found that at least 55 of our largest corporations

use the various loopholes to pay zero federal tax income tax in 2020.

So dishonest.

It's just not fair.

It's not fair to the rest of the American taxpayers.

We're going to try to put an end to this.

Not fleece them.

28%.

Of course.

If you're a mom and dad, a cop, firefighter, police officer, et cetera, you're paying close to that in your income tax.

I've also proposed a global minimum tax, which is being proposed around the world for U.S.

corporations, a 20 pun percent.

20 pun percent.

20 pun percent.

Pat, 20 pun percent is the wrong percentage.

I think it is, too.

I think it is actually.

20 pun percent?

Yeah, I don't even know what to say about 20 pun percent.

Yeah, I really

feel almost speechless of my commentary on 20 pun percent.

I don't know exactly how to.

It feels wrong, but other than that, I can't describe why it's wrong.

So here's what he's proposing then.

Wait.

Okay, so you're raising the corporate tax rate to 28%.

Now you're going to also add a 21% global tax?

Is that what he's saying?

Well, a minimum tax.

A minimum.

21%.

21%.

The idea being that everyone else needs to raise that.

Who administers that?

Who administers the global tax to every corporation in the world?

There is no such, there's no such entity.

There's no entity that can do that.

Right.

I mean, and the concept is

it's basically a confirmation of what we were just talking about.

They know.

Then we're going to lose corporations.

These companies keep lowering, or these countries keep lowering their rates to get companies to go there.

So we need to, what if we stopped the competition?

It's like basically saying like McDonald's wants to charge $5 for their Big Mac and they're like, what if we propose a global fast food burger price?

You can't go under $4.85.

Well, then they'd be really competitive, I guess, right?

Because they'd only be 15 cents more.

And we'd Burger King

forced to charge $485 for their burger.

Yes.

Now you're not going to lose that many customers to Burger King.

Right.

They're not going to, the cost isn't going to be an issue.

And that's what he's proposing here.

It's completely embarrassing.

And it's it's unconstitutional, I'm sure.

And it's also, well, I don't know if it's unconstitutional because it seems like it's just a big, they're just hoping everyone does it type of thing.

It's like, it's not like we certainly can't implement it on these other countries.

Through the G20, though, they're going to try to force it through.

They're just going to try to force it through.

Now,

we'll see how the structure of that comes down.

But did you also notice the sleight of hand at the beginning of that clip?

When you do one of these bills,

have we not been around for a while here?

When you do one of these bills, you talk about how much it costs and how much taxes are going to be raised in 10 years.

Right.

Right?

Yes.

Why is he talking about how much he's going to raise in 15 years?

Well, the reason for that is he knows, he even knows with his crappy projections, they can't get this to work by saying 10 years of taxes will pay for it.

So what they have done is they're talking about 15 years of taxes to pay for eight years of spending.

15 years of taxes to pay for eight years of spending.

Therefore, it's quote unquote paid for.

It's so disingenuous.

That is incredible.

And you'll hear, I mean, that's why he's talking about 15 years, because that is legitimately in the bill.

They know they can't pay for it.

So they're just going to screw with the year.

They're going to keep the cost on the board for 15 years and the spending on the board for eight years.

Now, as we all know,

as if we're complete idiots, at the end of that eight years, all of these things are going to be extended.

So you're going to get 15 years of spending and you're going going to 15 years of taxes won't cover it.

15 years of taxes only covers eight years of spending.

So then we're going to have to raise taxes again.

They're telling you to get it.

Not at the end of the 15 years, but before that is.

Oh, yeah.

After eight, they'll ask for another tax.

The second they can is the real answer.

The second they can get them raised, they'll do it again, and they'll just look, we have this great thing, and it did so much good.

But, you know,

the Republicans wouldn't let us go to 35%.

They said it was too high.

Wait, wait a minute.

Didn't you say it was too high, Joe?

They'll just forget about that.

He won't remember that.

Yeah.

I mean, he doesn't remember it now, let alone in eight years.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, we're being warned by a top scientist not to try to contact intelligent life out there.

You know, we're getting ready to send out

a telescope that, you know, it's like the Hubble telescope, except I believe it's 100 times more powerful than Hubble is.

And we've seen way out into space with Hubble.

So they're sending this one deep, much deeper into space, I think about a million miles from Earth.

And then

it's a hundred times more powerful than Hubble.

So they expect to see some amazing things and maybe be able to contact

other intelligent life.

But this scientist is warning against it, saying, yeah, you might just be inviting our overlords to the planet.

So maybe don't do that.

Why would the telescope be the problem?

I mean, if we were firing lasers randomly into space, you know, nuclear missiles just kind of throwing them out there, I could understand that maybe.

A telescope?

Are they going to be that?

I'm not sure if it comes equipped with some sort of

signal as well.

Sure.

That it can send out a signal that, hey, we're here and we're looking around for friends.

We'd like to have some friends in the galaxy.

If there are overlords, though, they probably would know we're already here.

So is he saying that we're going to alert them and they're going to be like, oh, we need to become overlords of those people?

Yes.

Okay.

That, hey, oh, there's somebody else out there that we haven't taken over yet.

So let's just go do that now and take care of it.

I personally don't think that would be an issue.

I mean, if, you know, we've had all these sightings of UFOs over the years.

We haven't been destroyed yet.

And you would think if they can get from their place to ours, they've got technology that we can't even fathom.

And they could have destroyed us a good, long time ago.

I don't know what they're waiting for, if that's what their intent was.

I mean, look at us.

We're begging for it.

Have you seen the way we're doing it?

What more do you have to do?

What more do we have to do to be destroyed?

Yeah.

So anyway, this will be in place.

By May of 2022.

So be afraid.

Be very afraid.

Well, we'll say if it works out, one one thing we will know for sure is it's infrastructure.

Yes, it is.

We know that.

Very important part of our infrastructure.

Yes.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

So Biden has come under intense pressure, supposedly, from gun safety advocacy groups and Democrats to fulfill his pledge to tackle gun control.

He said he was going to do it on his first day.

On the first day in office.

On the first day.

And he didn't do it on the first day.

So now he's going to take apparently six executive actions on guns and gun control.

The first is to propose a rule within 30 days to stop the proliferation of ghost guns.

Now, are you familiar with ghost guns?

I'm not, I don't know what that is.

You don't have a gun of your own?

I don't.

So, ghost guns, basically.

Is it a gun you can't see?

Yeah, do you ever see space guns?

It's only there in spirit.

Do you remember?

Space ghosts?

Yeah, space ghosts have

ghost guns.

Oh, okay.

No,

and they're not just guns that only work on ghosts either.

People thought, you know, like the Ghostbusters packs.

Yeah,

it's not that either.

Ghost guns are basically like,

to to summarize, I guess, people building their own guns, right?

Like, so that you're able to buy components of a gun, put them together because they did not go through the traditional manufacturing process.

They don't have a serial number.

There's no reason you need one in that particular circumstance.

And it goes everything.

Most, I mean.

To act as if this is a problem

in our discourse.

Discourse is ridiculous.

It's like, it's a very small, small, I mean, small.

Do you want to build a firearm?

Again, people who are, there are a lot of hobbyists who really enjoy doing this, right?

It's not just like, you know, criminals.

There's a lot of hobbyists who really enjoy doing this.

There's a lot of people who just enjoy guns that really like doing things this way.

It's like building your own, you know, kitchen table, right?

Like, there are people who, that doesn't make any sense to me.

There are machines that are building those for me.

Why would I go through that process?

But some people really get enjoyment out of it.

So they do it that way.

That's the overwhelming majority of people with this type of situation.

You know, it also goes to obviously could be criminals who can't get guns other ways, could theoretically make it happen this way.

There's been a couple of shootings where it appears ghost guns are involved.

Again, getting a gun in this country is not really a problem.

Even if you're a criminal and we have a border that's open basically for business, so people are...

Glads are flowing over the border all the time and going to criminals all the time.

A lot of these murders happen because drug dealers are able to buy illegal guns from other drug dealers and gun dealers.

So it's not as if these laws will affect that type of thing.

It's just one of those things that I think a lot of people would look at on his face and say, wait a minute, there's no way to trace this.

There's no serial number.

This should just not happen.

This should not be a thing.

And I look, it's one of those things that I think connects with the average person who's never used a gun, right?

Like, you know, it seems wild and crazy.

We just live in a country that has a second amendment to the Constitution, which clearly states you are not allowed to infringe on these rights.

So, even I said the same thing, by the way, just as strongly about Donald Trump's ban on bump stocks, which was blatantly unconstitutional, blatantly, and by the way, has now been already overturned in the courts.

You can't just

say you want these things to stop and then they stop.

That is not our constitutional system of government.

You can't just be like, you know what?

I don't want our ghost guns.

Therefore, we will not have them.

I don't want bump stocks.

Therefore, we should not have them.

That's not a thing in this country.

But it is okay to ban the weapons of war that are made only for death,

that are made specifically for one purpose, one purpose only, and that's to kill people.

That's not what they're the assault weapon ban.

That's okay, right?

No.

Definitely not.

I mean, he's not even going to try that by executing or not.

It seems like, Pat,

because I mean, the ghost gun thing has had a lot of attention, which is Scott.

Does that include the

what was the process where you copy the gun?

It's the 3D printing?

Yeah, the 3D printing.

Does it include 3D printing of guns?

That's a good question.

I don't know the answer to that.

Because our gun guy, I think, would be really upset about that.

You know, in whose conception, under what paradigm?

Right.

Remember that?

I'm just resisting.

What are you doing?

Are you resisting?

I don't don't know.

The collectivization of manufacture, the institutionalization of the human psyche.

I'm not sure.

I'm not sure.

But I can tell you one thing.

This is a symbol of reversibility.

They can never eradicate the gun from the earth.

Yeah.

What about that?

What about that, Stu?

I hadn't thought about that in a while.

I know.

What was the human psyche thing that happened there?

The institutionalization.

Institutionalization.

It has been institutionalized.

Do you want your psyche to be institutionalized?

I don't think so.

He's resisting that.

He thinks.

He's not.

I'm not sure, but he thinks he is.

Classic clip from the Glenn Beck program, by the way.

Yes.

With the guy who did the first 3D printed gun.

It's been a while since we played that one.

It's been a while.

But it's a classic.

I don't know if it covers those or not.

That's a good question.

I mean, I'm, you know, certainly no guns.

I would think it does qualify because obviously they wouldn't have a serial number, right?

So I wonder if that qualifies.

The other thing they're going after are these

similar to AR-15s, you can get these guns that have certain attachments on them that basically, that are called, that are technically pistols.

So

they are regulated under those rules, but feel a lot, look a lot like an AR-15.

Now, at one point long ago, I had one of these.

It was lost in a terrible boating accident.

Oh my gosh, what a coincidence.

Yes, it was a terrible.

Oh, my God.

That was the same thing happened to me.

Yeah.

I can't remember what lake I was on or ocean.

I can't either.

But it was a big body of water.

I remember that.

And it was super, super deep.

It's the deepest lake.

Yeah, the deepest lake I've ever heard of or ocean.

And I didn't, it was so deep and so immense that I didn't even try to go get it.

I just let them sink to the bottom and, and they've been gone ever since.

A terrible, terrible tragedy

of gun loss.

But it left me without my AR-15.

That's all I know.

And these are pretty cool.

I mean, they're really nice.

Again, an AR-15 is

one of the great things about it is as a legal gun owner, if you need to hit something, you're able to hit it.

Like that is the that is the benefit.

People are like, oh, why would you need an AR-15?

I don't know because unless you're firing guns all the time, you're probably not going to be incredibly accurate with a handgun.

Unless you're really the type of person who's going to the range constantly, it's a lot easier.

And especially for a woman who may be defending herself against a larger man, maybe stopping power is something you want to think

right?

You know, it's like these people who are so pro-woman just do not want women to be able to defend themselves for some reason.

And I'll never understand that part of it.

But they're trying to get rid of those.

They're basically trying to say, well, these are just skirting the rules.

Now, they're not skirting the rules, but that's what they're trying to accuse them of.

They're also, he wants to get rid of the stabilizing braces for pistols.

So that's what he's doing.

That's what that is.

Yeah.

That's the thing

you're talking about.

Stabilizing braces for pistols is their code for

the AR-15 lookalike.

Because

it's technically a pistol, but

it looks and feels like an AR-15.

And therefore, that's evil.

Other actions include directing five federal agencies to make changes to the 26 different programs to direct vital support to community violence intervention programs as quickly as possible.

So he's going to do that too.

And then, of course, you know, he had,

he's going, he's apparently going to involve Beto, his gun czar, and Betto's promise, of course.

Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.

I mean, that's what they want, right?

They want to stop all sales of AR-15s and AK-47s.

I don't know any Americans who have AK-47s, but, you know, if they do,

I'll bet they've lost them in a boating accident like we did.

Guys, you know, I feel like that's happened a lot.

I know.

That's the problem.

It's dangerous.

They keep talking about banning guns.

They should ban boats.

I keep getting in boating accidents in deep lakes all over the state.

And I can never remember what lake I was in.

Yeah.

I know.

It's weird.

It is really ridiculous.

And

there's so little he can do.

The reason why he didn't do this on day one and he waited for month four or three is because he can't can't actually do these things legally.

And what is happening is behind the scenes, people who understand how these things work are telling him over and over again, you can't do these things legally.

It's not going to hold up.

He's now come to a point where, I mean, half of the things he's doing are, what we're going to do is we're going to do an executive order on guns that will tell the states to pass laws on guns.

Right?

Like, that's like a lot of what this is.

It's a lot of like recommendations to the states, which again, I would argue there are also going to be unconstitutional,

but it's down the road a little bit.

And

he can look like he's pleasing his base.

And who knows?

Maybe they get a couple of good judges and things go through the right way for them.

Yeah, and they're a little pissed off at him because he did promise during the campaign that he was going to reinstall,

reinstate the assault weapons ban.

He did pledge that.

He said, we've done it before and we can do it again and we're going to.

Well,

no.

It was also unconstitutional then, first of all, but beyond that,

which is why it was overturned anyway.

But

if these things do wind up with the Supreme Court, do you have any confidence?

Because I frankly, I don't even know if it holds up in the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court does

rule that these things are unconstitutional, I don't have much confidence in them.

I have very little confidence

in the Supreme Court, though more confidence, I guess, than I would have at other eras in the past.

People look back at the Heller decision, which was the first major gun case that people talk about that really, you know, codified the idea that people could individually own guns.

And there's a lot of good in there, obviously, did a lot of good things, but really, there's a lot of questionable reasoning in that ruling, which in some ways basically allows anybody to ban guns almost immediately upon their release.

Any new model, anything that's not commonly owned, they could go after.

And they haven't done all that much of this because I don't think they want that to go back to the Supreme Courts because I don't think that would work out well for them, meaning the left.

But it's not exactly the most pro-gun ruling you've ever seen in your life.

It did get the basic right for an individual to bear arms, but like really shouldn't have been a question at all.

And the left hates it anyway.

And the left hates it anyway.

Yeah.

So I think like we've seen a lot of cases that have threatened to go to the Supreme Court in recent months and a lot of them don't get up there.

And you got to hope at some point they take some of these and get these laws and rules, you know, really

confirmed so that we don't have to keep going back and asking these same questions over and over again.

This is what the left does.

We've seen this happen over and over again, where they will pass rules that are blatantly unconstitutional.

They will get challenged in court.

When they get up near the court at the very last second, they step in and they say, oh, actually, we're going to get rid of that law.

So the whole thing is moot.

And so the court backs off, and then they wait three months, and they pass it again.

A very similar type of rule.

It goes all the way up the courts, repeat and

rinsewash and repeat.

And that's not the way the legal system is supposed to work.

Biden's going to try to do a lot of this stuff on his own.

I don't think he's able to do it constitutionally.

Many of the things he's just assigning to others who will then be overruled because they're unconstitutional.

It's a freaking clear sentence.

It shall not be infringed.

There's not a lot of questions there.

It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

It doesn't.

It really doesn't.

And of course, we can go back to all the militia stuff and all that nonsense that was decided in Heller.

But regardless,

it is clear you're not allowed to be doing these things.

You want to be able to do them.

Modify the Constitution.

That's how you do it.

And you can either repeal the Second Amendment.

You can adjust and modify the Second Amendment in some way that pleases you.

You cannot just do this while this amendment stands.

It overrules you every time.

It just does.

You can say there are things you can do that are illegal with guns, like shoot people, right?

That's okay.

Just like you can say there are things.

We've had the law for a while.

Yeah.

Just been a while.

Yeah, a little while.

Yeah.

But just like you can say, like, you can do things with your voice, right?

Like your speech.

There are things that you can do to others, libel, that can be illegal, but you can't just like, you know what, you can't say this word.

You can't do that.

They're going to try Jack between

it.

Jack could do it.

Then you can't.

Yeah.

No, no, no, no.