Best of the Program | 1/14/20

It's Pat and Stu here for Glenn on the Glen Beck podcast.

I just want to let you know, StuDoesAmerica.com is a great place for you to go to get links to my new show, which is starting up here next week and in full form on February 4th, right after the Iowa caucus.

We go into a lot of election coverage and all the fun stuff, plus actually laughing at the left, something we all desperately need to do.

You can also do that with Pat.

I'm Pat Gray Unleashed.

Please go to our YouTube pages and subscribe now.

Get shows for free on podcast here.

I mean, you're on your podcast thing already.

You're already on, like, wherever you're getting your podcast, you're already there.

So, why don't you just take, just pause this for a second, go over to Studos America and type Ray Unleashed, and click subscribe, right?

And then you come back and you can get all this.

It's going to be fabulous.

I like it.

Trust me.

We've got a lot going on on the show today.

We're in for Glenn.

His daughter is having a surgery today, so he's out.

He'll be back tomorrow.

We talk about how Elizabeth Warren is a terrible person in seemingly every way.

And it's not maybe a nice thing to say, but there's some evidence of this.

And honestly,

it's about Bernie Sanders.

We'll get into that today.

As well as

we go to Vince Vaughn, who apparently had the audacity, Pat, to talk to the president of the United States.

I don't know why he did it.

I don't know what was going on there.

I don't care.

It just shouldn't have happened.

It shouldn't have happened.

You cannot have pleasant conversations with the president.

No.

No.

Only if you're screaming at him is it allowed for you to communicate with him and hating his guts and letting him know how much you hate his guts.

And we uh we also talk about uh uh John Kerry um during the podcast and get into his

fudgeable, uh, fudgeable contributions to Iran.

And some of that money might have gone to nefarious places.

We don't know.

I'm sure some of it.

Some of it.

Of course.

I mean, you know, whatever.

We get into all the ways it did on the podcast.

you're listening to the best of the Blenbeck program.

They had the national championship, the college national championship last night, which, as everybody knew, was going to happen, was won by LSU.

Did seem pretty clear, although it was a little bit in doubt in the first half.

A little bit.

And they got somewhat close in the third quarter, too.

But in the end, it was 42-25 LSU over Clemson, which I think is a little bit of a refreshing change.

Clemson, Alabama.

Alabama, Clemson.

Clemson, Alabama.

Alabama, Clemson.

A little different last night.

A little bit different.

Still had Clemson, which I'm a little tired.

I'm almost as tired of Clemson as I am Alabama.

I'm just about there.

I'm not quite there, but

that LSU team is one of the greatest college teams of all time.

I think so.

I mean,

set all sorts of records, undefeated, pretty much blew everybody out that's a it's a remarkable story attending the game last night was uh donald j trump and his wife melania

and sitting next to them oh my gosh i mean so disappointing right next to them talking to them talking the mouth smooth actually touched him touched them both shook hands with each of them oh my gosh Actor Vince Vaughn.

Oh, geez.

What a disappointment.

Oh, what a horrible person.

How could you do that?

How could you talk to the president of the United States?

Yeah.

This went viral yesterday because someone posted it on Twitter,

someone on the left, and said,

I'm very sorry to have to share this clip with you.

Like, to say, like, now you have to hate Vince Vaughn.

And I know you liked him before, but now you have to hate him because obviously he's talking to Donald Trump, which makes him a bad person.

And now you can't watch his movies anymore.

Like, that is legitimately the tone of the way the left handled this.

Yeah, it's so ridiculous.

And I just don't understand that.

I mean, I, you know,

and maybe it's because we've been on the wrong side of this for so long in that almost every single

person in Hollywood, in entertainment, is far, far left.

And they all go perform for Democratic candidates.

They all have their music used by Democratic candidates.

They all show up at Barack Obama's White House.

They all come out in ads for socialized medicine and,

you know, rich people are evil despite the fact that they are them.

And guns, you shouldn't have them.

You're not responsible responsible enough.

And you shouldn't drive that SUV.

You're a bad person.

I'm going to get my motorcade.

Killing babies is not a problem.

In fact, it's desirable.

It's desirable.

And if you don't allow people to kill babies, then you're a terrible person.

We're so used to that with every celebrity that, I mean, I don't even price it in.

Like, I go to a movie.

And at no real point

do I factor in whether the person has a left or right-leaning politics.

It's like, it's just not something I consider, with the possible exception of some people who are so in your face about it that it's hard to separate them from the characters they're playing.

Roger De Niro is like that for me.

De Niro's getting there.

You know,

Marlon Baldwin, Alec Baldwin, you know, Barbara Streisand.

Jim Carrey has gotten to that point for me.

Yeah, you know, and

there's a certain level of activism that gets so in your face, it's just tiring, and you no longer see the person as the person they're playing.

You only see them as some left-wing activist that's in your face trying to give you a message.

And that's a different line than the average celebrity who certainly votes, probably 95% of them vote Democrat,

but at least you can kind of brush it off.

The left is not used to that arrangement.

No.

If you come out and you publicly are, and there's no indication, by the way,

that Vince Vaughan was supporting Donald Trump.

He was just speaking to the man.

Right.

Just speaking to the man in a friendly fashion.

Now he probably does support Donald Trump.

Because we know.

Well, I don't know that a lot of people put him in that category.

Yeah, I mean, he might lean Republican.

Or it was surprising.

I remember when I heard it, it was surprising.

But Vince Fawn is really more of a Ron Paul Rand Paul type of guy than a Donald Trump guy.

Now, I don't know.

Maybe, you know, I haven't heard much about his politics recently.

But if it came to Trump or Hillary or Trump, he would like.

Given the choice, he's going to lean Republican.

Though he's not exactly the same brand of Republican that you'd necessarily associate with Donald Trump.

I mean, you know, he is much more of a libertarian-leaning guy, though, again,

he has not made politics

so in your face as a political

of his day-to-day life.

He's an actual person, an individual that supports politicians just like everybody does.

However, he doesn't make it

his business to put it in your face all the time.

The fact that he can't have a polite conversation

with not even just some random candidate, the president of the United States.

I mean, it used to be that that was sort of expected.

You'd at least have positive interactions with a president, even if you didn't like them.

And now we're at that point where it's trendy to just not show up to the Oval Office.

And you see that occasionally from time to time over the years.

I remember there was a guy on the Boston Bruins who was a Republican and did not go to see Barack Obama right now.

But those were few and far between.

Very few and far between.

Now it's like the entire team won't go.

And the Golden State Warriors famously would not go see Trump.

You know, I can understand.

You don't have to go.

You don't have to make it a big deal.

However,

the idea that you can interact with people across party lines in normal conversation, like that's not, that has nothing to do with politics.

That's just a normal human way of

dealing with life.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's not supposed to be controversial.

You do realize that when you walk into Starbucks and you buy a cup of coffee or you go to McDonald's, there's a 50-50 shot.

You're dealing with someone who doesn't agree with you politically.

And I, you know, I don't need every interaction I have in my life to be with someone I agree with on every topic.

I don't need that in my life.

Nor do I want it, to be honest.

And I don't, honestly, more than that, I don't want to even know.

I don't want to know.

I don't care what you believe.

I, you know, I'm going to obviously fight for what I believe is right.

But this idea that you, like, you know, Ellen dealt with this a few weeks ago, where Ellen was sitting with George W.

bush and they're friends and they're friends you know and i you know are they friendly like they're friendly right i mean i'm sure they're not hanging out every day but they can't even interact in a positive way i mean it's crazy ellen does more for the democratic position when she does something like that than any crazy activist does yeah because she shows she's a normal person she shows that she is willing to to talk to someone she disagrees with and that makes republicans conservatives like her more.

Yeah.

You know, and

maybe they're going to be more interested in one of her, when she does make a point about liberal politics on her show.

Maybe more conservatives might listen to it and consider it.

They might not like it, they might not agree, but at least it'll be part of the conversation.

And with Vince Vaughan last night, it's not like he was at a fundraiser with Trump or for Trump or for the Republican Party.

He's at the national championship football game.

And Trump happens to be sitting next to him.

I mean, it's not like he went there specifically to see Donald Trump or support Donald Trump.

And the fact that, you know, he was pictured talking with him, and

I guess you're not supposed to even acknowledge he's alive.

It's just, it's gotten so ridiculous in this country.

Where does that end?

It can't end in a good place.

If we keep this up, if we keep insisting that you can't even talk to Donald Trump or people who support him, or you're a racist, you can't even be near them.

You can't touch them.

You can't talk about them in a decent way.

I mean, I don't know where that ends up, but it can't be in a good place.

It doesn't seem like it would be.

No.

But it goes back to, I think, what we discussed last hour, which is the design of this approach is not necessarily

different than when we talk about how

the left can get away with a blackface scandal like Trudeau or Northam.

But someone on the right who would do it would obviously be thrown out of society immediately.

And it's not about whether you wear blackface or not or whether you are Republican or conservative per se.

It's about ostracizing anyone who would even be mildly friendly to one of these people.

So what do you do if you're in Hollywood?

Vince Vaughn is Vince freaking Vaughn.

Vince freaking Vaughn can do whatever he wants, right?

Like he is a huge star.

I mean, he's been making critically acclaimed movies over the past few years, Dragged Across Concrete being one of them,

that have been really well received and have done really well with critics.

He hasn't been making as many of sort of the old school Vince Vaughn comedies lately, but the guy still has a really good career and honestly can kind of do what he wants.

He's able to survive these things.

But if you're a young actor, and you're coming up and you want to be the next Vince Vaughn, you want to be the next Chris Pratt, you want to be the next big star,

You know, you're not going to talk about these things publicly.

You're not going to go say hello to Donald Trump at the football game and shake his hand and be respectful because you know it might destroy your career.

And that's the message that is being sent here.

The message being sent is you are not acceptable in society if you interact with the president of the United States in a normal human way.

Not out there raising $50 million for the guy, but shaking his hand and being polite to his wife.

That is now off limits.

And that message is being sent.

It was sent as well as we saw, we did a few stories about this last year

with

the book about

Oculus Rift, the guy who, you know, guy in a trailer creates this amazing virtual reality technology, gets to the point where Facebook buys it for multiple billions of dollars.

He is spotted at one Trump fundraiser, and they destroy him.

They fire him.

He gets thrown out of the.

He has to release a statement lying about the candidate he voted for.

I mean, all of these crazy things happened.

It was in Blake Harris's book.

It's worth going back and reading.

A fascinating thing.

And it's tossing people out of society, despite their accomplishments, because they have moderately pleasant interactions with a person.

Like, that's what we used to freaking cheer on.

There was a time where you say, okay, look, I know you disagree with that guy, but that's great that you guys are still friends and you still talk to them about these things.

Now, that is like something that gets you thrown out of polite society.

And it's something where if you are coming up in technology or entertainment or one of these big fields, you're going to hesitate.

being honest about who you are, which is the exact opposite of what Hollywood says they want.

They kept saying, oh, they're going to keep everybody in the closet.

And they want to

scare communists, the Reds scare, and all these things.

Well, what is it now?

You have organizations that are basically like AA for conservatives in Los Angeles so they can talk to someone openly.

This is not a healthy environment.

How often did Chris Matthews talk about Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill over and over and over?

They disagreed politically, but then they'd have dinner and drinks together.

I mean, we heard that a billion times.

You can't do that now.

I mean, now that's not acceptable, I guess.

It's only good when the conservative, when this is utilized for a conservative to abandon their principles and support some liberal policy.

Exactly.

Then it's great.

Yeah.

You know, oh, wow, like this senator has decided to vote for socialized medicine after he went out to, you know, this happened with Oren Hatch a lot back when he was senator.

This was like

with Kennedy.

This is actually

copywritten as you have to write a C after it.

It's the Oren Hatch.

And Hatch would go out with Kennedy and they'd come up with some

left-wing philosophy on education that Hatch would be the main quote-unquote conservative voice to stand up for and everyone on MSNBC would say this is bipartisan they went out to dinner I assume with hatch not drinks but went out to dinner and said hey we're gonna you know what the thing I've been supposedly standing for and everybody in Utah voted for me

I'm not for that I believe the opposite I believe what Ted Kennedy said because those ribs were tasty

That is not a good way to run a country.

However, being friendly with someone is fine.

You can be friendly with them.

You just don't abandon your principles just because you're friendly with them.

That's a trick that many in Washington can't seem to master.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

Big debate tonight, featuring the six candidates who qualified for the debate tonight.

Not all six have really equal shot at winning this nomination.

Some, in fact,

might as well just get out of it now and stop wasting money.

I mean, there's Amy Kolbeshar, I'm a little surprised she's still in this thing, although was she at 15% in Iowa?

No, she's a recent

8 and 10% here and there.

Tom Steyer got 15%

in South Carolina, which was odd, and I believe hit 12 in Nevada.

And, you know, I was in Nevada over Christmas break, and everywhere.

I mean, Tom Steyer's face is everywhere.

He's buying every billboard.

It's like it's either massage parlor, naked ladies, Tom Steyer.

And I associate the two because of the sexiness of Tom Steyer.

Oh, yeah.

It's just hard to

just the overflowing sexiness, the utter sexuality of a Tom Steyer.

It's almost difficult to ignore.

Yeah.

But he's everywhere there.

And it's funny to see this because Steyer is trying something really that's never quite been done, which is dump money as a billionaire into early states and take yourself from no one knows who you are to absolute,

you know, just you blanket a state and then try to build yourself into a personality that people will vote for.

And he started this and he got down this road and he spent $70 million and then Michael Bloomberg was like, well, I'm a much better billionaire than you.

Why don't I just do this better?

So now Bloomberg has spent, it looks like by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, Michael Bloomberg will have spent a quarter of a billion dollars of his own money on ads.

Wow.

You saw them in the national championship game probably last night.

Several, yeah.

Several.

It could be more than this.

It could be almost a half a billion dollars.

And all on Super Tuesday states, which is really fascinating because he is running in states essentially unopposed.

These Super Tuesday states, none of the candidates are, they're all focusing on the early states.

So he's just like, I'll just wait.

So he's blanketing, and he is rising in the polls, and he's doing, you know, he's been hitting 8%, 10% in some of these early polls in these states.

And he's up to 5% or 6% nationally.

So he's kind of doing the Rudy Giuliani trick,

whenever that was.

Was it 2012 or 2008?

8, I believe, yes.

Where he waited till Florida, but he didn't spend all the money that Bloomberg is spending right now.

No, I mean,

that was his big mistake.

By the time it got to Florida and he was waiting for everybody, it was over.

He was done.

Yeah.

Nobody cared about him.

And because of that, he has such a unique path.

I mean, you're right.

With Giuliani, it was, you know, oh, look, all these New Yorkers move down to Florida.

They love Rudy.

He'll be able to win.

Did not work.

Now, Bloomberg is facing something, and his path is different, where he's rooting for

there not to be

a.

The worst thing that can happen for Bloomberg is Biden wins the first four states.

Because if Biden is there and he's the obvious frontrunner, Bloomberg's toast.

However, if

two other things happen,

he's got an argument.

One being there's a big split.

Budajeg wins,

let's say, Budajeg wins Iowa.

Sanders wins New Hampshire.

Warren wins Nevada, and Biden wins South Carolina.

All four of those are very possible.

Very possible.

Now, the dynamics change.

If Budajej wins Iowa, does he win also New Hampshire?

I mean, there's a good argument to be made that that momentum will help him.

But if those four split up, then Bloomberg comes in essentially as the guy to say, look, this is a mess.

I'm going to win these other states and insert myself into this conversation.

The other one is a dominant performance by one of the liberals.

So let's say Sanders wins Iowa.

Then Sanders goes back to back and wins New Hampshire, which if he wins Iowa, he's got a really good chance of winning New Hampshire.

That's possible, too.

Yeah, he wins those two, which, by the way, he's leading in many polls in both of those states.

If he wins those two in a row, very good chance he wins Nevada as well.

So he goes three for three.

No candidate has ever won the first three states and then lost.

The last one who did this was Al Gore.

Al Gore in 2000 won the first three states, and when he won the first three states as a non-incumbent, he went on to win every primary.

Now, obviously, someone like Barack Obama, who was already president, it's a different story.

But when you have a non-incumbent, it's not as easy to do this.

So if Sanders won the first three states, good chance he also wins South Carolina.

You know, who knows?

Biden could be destroyed by that point.

Then

you have to ask the Democratic Party,

do you really want Bernie freaking Sanders to be your nominee?

Because if you want an avowed socialist as your nominee, you can have him.

He's way ahead.

But you know who else is there?

Michael Bloomberg with his billion dollars.

And you're not going to have to worry about fundraising.

You're not going to have to worry about any of that stuff.

He's going to pay for all of it himself.

And, you know, you might not like Bloomberg, but you know what?

He's super liberal on guns.

He's super liberal on climate change.

He's super liberal on almost everything, with the exception of some business issues.

Can you deal with that so you don't get Bernie Sanders?

But he's

universal healthcare as well?

I don't know if I've heard his healthcare plan.

You know, that's a good.

I think he is.

I think he is Medicare for all, though.

He's not like full-fledged Medicare for all.

He's more a more Buddha-Jedge approach, Medicare for those who want it, as they say.

In other words, the public public options.

You can still keep, supposedly, like they lied to us before, if you like your health care, you can keep your health care.

Until we take it away.

That's the

full sentence that got muddled a little bit behind the applause.

It was always behind the scenes.

Yeah, I believe that's where he is.

We can confirm that 100% to make sure.

But he's not, look, Bloomberg is running.

overtly as a supposed moderate, which is hilarious when you see him.

He is not moderate.

He is as extreme as anybody, probably,

in all honesty.

More extremely.

Probably more extreme than Bernie Sanders on guns.

That is

no probably about it.

Bernie actually supported the Second Amendment.

He had his time.

I mean, he's from Vermont, and he had his time where he was like, yeah, maybe people in rural communities.

Now, he denies a lot of that now, and he's dissolved.

He just asked about confiscation.

He said absolutely not.

It's not constitutional.

That's crazy because, I mean, Bloomberg is there.

Yes.

Bloomberg, with the exception of his security personnel, does not want anyone to have a gun.

Right.

Now, his security personnel, totally different story.

And he'll certainly use guns to come in to make sure that your SUV is not operating on gasoline.

That's coming in a future Bloomberg administration for sure.

But, yeah, I mean, I think that there is an argument there for Bloomberg.

Steyer is a tougher case.

I mean, Steyer would have to somehow win a couple of these early states and then become the only liberal standing.

So if you look at this as a situation where,

let's say Biden...

is doing very well.

There's no liberals left.

Biden is cruising and Steyer Steyer can win a couple of states.

Maybe Steyer can make the argument: look, I've got a lot of money.

I can fund this thing myself.

You know, stick with me.

I don't think there's a real Steyer argument, though.

I mean, the Steyer thing, he's so bad as a candidate.

He's so boring.

It's just hard to imagine him catching fire.

Well, Bloomberg is at least a character.

I mean, I think he's a jerk in every way known.

He wants to take away my freaking soda and my straws.

And I cannot think of anything more offensive to my soul than going after my soda.

He even tried to take away your salt in New York.

Yep.

And he did take away our walking spaces.

I know that.

Closed off all kinds of streets where you can't drive anymore

and actually made them walking spaces, made them plazas.

It just made things tougher to get around and navigate.

One of the big things he tried to do in New York, too, was to have this big commuter tax where you'd pay huge amounts of money to drive into the city.

As you remember, Pat, of course, you were driving in the city every day.

It was already really freaking expensive to park your car and paying paying tolls.

He wanted to, you know, to make that much, much higher.

Think of what he would do to the national capital

as president.

I mean, think of the things he would push through there.

That would be,

I mean, D.C.

would be even more of a mess than it is.

He's totally fine with controlling your life, with telling you what you can and can't do, what you can and can't eat, what you can and can't have, because he knows better than you.

Yep.

He honestly believes he knows better than you.

That there are people, and he's one of them, who are just way smarter than you are, and they know how you should live your lives.

Yeah,

that's what he believes.

Yeah, it's interesting, especially if you've been listening to this show for a long time and listening to Glenn talk about early 20th century progressivism and Woodrow Wilson and how that all developed.

And if you listen to this show for more than five minutes, how could you have missed it?

I mean, is there been a five-minute minute period on this program where Glenn has not mentioned Woodrow Wilson?

I mean, five consecutive minutes without Woodrow Wilson.

No, there has not.

There's not been in the history of the show.

But if you know that, that, there's two candidates I think I like

personify that Woodrow Wilson philosophy better than anyone else.

Elizabeth Warren is one of them, and Michael Bloomberg is the other.

People who are who absolutely believe they know better than you how to live your life.

Now, of course, there's elements in every single one of these candidates

of this philosophy.

But I mean, Bloomberg is maybe the most pure example because, I mean, all the way down to running massive campaigns to take away larger soda cups so we can manipulate the amount of calories that you're eating.

You know, getting rid of straws, getting rid of, as you point out, he wanted to get rid of table salt.

I mean,

think of this.

He wanted to ban salt from your restaurant experience.

There was another thing he was talking about recently where

he wanted the poor to stay poor or pay higher taxes

so that they didn't have enough money.

to hurt themselves with.

Right.

They would buy, because if they have too much money, they'll go out to eat.

They're going to go buy bad things and put into their body.

Yep.

So then they can't buy drugs.

They can't buy alcohol.

Incredible.

Oh, and that is progressivism in a nutshell, right there.

It's the other side of the coin from a Warren who wouldn't say something like that, but still thinks it.

You know, a lot of her policies lead to the same exact things.

And it's one of the reasons, conveniently, Medicare for all will raise taxes on the poor and the middle class.

I mean, Bernie admits it.

Warren doesn't quite admit it, but it's obviously true.

And she even gets beat up by the left on her denial of these claims.

But it's going to be interesting.

538.com released their model of

the entire primary.

Again, people like to beat up on polls, but you look at the accuracy of the polls.

I mean, the national election,

they projected it almost exactly as far as the popular vote was, which is what they were projecting.

Some of the states they missed on, and a lot of these forecasters did miss on that.

But the idea that polls are worthless is largely a myth.

I mean, you know,

polls got about 45, 46 states right.

The popular vote, they got it right.

You know, Donald Trump's surprised in certain areas

to a point of all reporting shows that even their internal polling showed that they were not going to win some of those races, and they did.

So it's not always perfect, but it does give you a good idea.

This is really imperfect, though, because the polling in primaries and caucuses is much less reliable than general election polling.

It's harder to do, especially a caucus.

I mean, what goes on in Iowa where everyone's in a room trying to convince each other is such a different process.

It's really hard to do that.

And then everything has an effect on everything that comes after it.

So, you know, in Iowa, you might say, okay, Joe Biden's got a 30% chance to win Iowa.

Well, if he wins Iowa, his chances might go from 20% in New Hampshire to 40% in New Hampshire.

Whatever happens in Iowa is going to affect all these other races.

So to try to project all of these things in a row is basically an impossible task.

And you should know going in that these things can't be perfect, but it is an interesting effort.

They say Joe Biden has a 38% chance right now to win the majority of delegates for the Democrats.

And 38% chance of winning is obviously he's the favorite by a pretty wide margin.

On the other hand, there's a 62% chance he doesn't win.

So

there's a much better better chance that he does not win the majority of delegates than he does, which is a way that you have to kind of think about this.

This is a race that's really up in the air.

Sanders, 23%.

Warren, 13% chance of winning the majority of delegates.

Budijeg, 10%.

All others, with the exception of all others, is about 1% chance of people like Bloomberg and down the Klobuchar.

The one that's really interesting, though, is they say there's a 15% chance no one wins the majority of delegates, which means you're probably going to have a contested contested convention.

A 15% chance they project right now, which is significant.

Yeah.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

There's a graph I saw the other day of all the social networks and how they've risen and then then fallen.

And the MySpace one is just sad.

I mean, it peaks, it's destroying all of them and then just goes away within like two or three years.

And the only thing it's around now for is occasional scandals of photos that were posted on MySpace in the past.

Like, for example, there was a guy who was a judge on

some tattoo-related reality show.

I know there's a bunch of those.

I don't know which one this was exactly, but he'd been a judge on the show for 13 years.

Again, it's amazing the television age that we live in, and that shows that could be popular enough to be on the air for 13 years, we have absolutely no knowledge that they exist.

But apparently, this is a pretty big show.

And he,

someone digs up his old Myspace page and finds pictures of him in Blackface.

Big scandal.

He has to resign or gets fired.

Fascinating, though, to watch watch that go down because here is a guy who,

there's no evidence that he was a, you know, some,

there wasn't like posts where he was praising Nazi ideology or was like, he was at 14 KKK meetings.

He has two pictures of himself on Halloween where he's dressed up as an African-American person, the same way Joy Behar did the exact same thing, dressed up as a used blackface.

And she's fine and on the view, and there's no problems with it because she's substantially liberal enough.

If you're progressive enough, if you like taxes to be high enough,

if you want abortion to be easy enough to get, if you want babies to make sure that they don't really have a great chance of survival, that makes it okay to wear blackface.

That's okay, yes, it does.

So, this guy, Pat, is dressed up in blackface again.

Not something,

just a safety tip: kids at home, not a good idea in basically any circumstance.

Okay.

However, he did this, and he was dressed up as someone from the Los Angeles Lakers.

Interesting because it harkens back to mind, specifically one Jimmy Kimmel, who dressed up as Carl Malone in blackface on national television

and received no repercussions whatsoever and continues to be a

liberal megastar.

But

he's great with babies being killed in the womb.

He's fine.

He's fine with that.

So that makes the blackface thing, like you said, just perfectly fine.

He wants taxes to be sufficiently high enough.

He wants health care to be given to you by the government.

So therefore, Blackface A-O-K.

It's amazing.

Because that is the policy.

And it's funny because one of the comments, you know, and it was one of these stories, and this drives me crazy.

But it's like...

Here's one, the first paragraph I like, the very basic details of the story.

And then it's this Twitter user said, and then there's just like 25 comments from random people on Twitter that I guess the person writing the story found interesting.

Instead of writing comments themselves, they're like, let's just, I don't know, copy and paste this on there.

But the first comment that they thought was so brilliant was, well, I'm glad this guy's learning the lesson of Justin Trudeau.

You don't use Blackface.

What lesson did he learn?

But he's the Premier of Canada.

Yeah.

It's like he's a prime minister.

Yeah, if you use Blackface, you can run countries?

Is that the lesson he was supposed to learn?

Or is it that he's supposed to

run states like in Virginia?

Which one is it?

What lesson are you supposed to learn?

And of course, what is fundamentally built into this, and of course, the larger perspective, is you should be progressive, you should be liberal, because you know what happens when you are?

You get excused for all the mistakes you've made in your life.

It's a wonderful get out of jail free card.

You'll never have to pay a price for the things you shouldn't have done because if you are sufficiently in favor of government health care, we'll exonerate you.

And that is an incredible free pass to life if you happen to be someone on the left.

What a wonderful thing.

What a great way to live, man.

You never have to deal with the arguments of the other side.

You just dismiss them as racist.

And if you screwed up, if you happen to have a little Me Too violation here, or you had a little bit of a blackface incident there,

we don't even talk about it.

Don't even worry about it.

So I don't know what this guy's politics are, but he's ejected from society now.

And people like Jimmy Kimmel will remain on television.

You know, people like Governor Northam, people like Justin Trudeau.

They maintain everything.

Perfectly fine.

The liberal left-wing country of Canada goes and supports this guy and re-elects him after the scandal.

Yeah.

Do you think Donald Trump survives a blackface scandal in 2020?

No.

I'm going to go with no.

No.

I'm going to go with no.

That's for sure.

And, you know, you'd think in today's day and age, because, you know, like, for example, Sarah Silverman, who is pretty left and has had minor repercussions from her own blackface scandal, she did blackface on television.

Why?

To parody and mock and demean racists.

That shouldn't be looked at as the same thing as Justin Trudeau, who just thinks it's a-okay and funny to go out and dress up as someone

just for the laughs.

Those things should be treated differently.

We've just treated them the opposite way.

The repercussions have gone to the person who was against racism, and Justin Trudeau skates through okay.

It doesn't, I mean,

it is a fascinating world to navigate, Pat, because you can't find the end.

There's no way to know who gets cleared, who gets prosecuted,

whose life gets ruined, and whose life

gets promoted.

And a lot of times it's politics, but not always.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

Somebody actually asked John Kerry

about the payment that the Obama administration made to Iran.

What was it, the $100

billion that was supposedly left on a tarmac that they say wasn't left on a tarmac?

But he was asked about that situation, and here's what he had to say.

I think that some of it will end up in the hands of

the IRGC or of other entities, some of which are labeled terrorist.

You know, to some degree, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every

component of that can be prevented.

Why, though, did you

think that that was a risk worth taking if you knew the possibility of what would happen with that money?

Good question.

What I was really saying, I think,

first of all,

Margaret, you are an expert at this.

You were there.

You know that the president's tweet is a lie.

And the president tweeted this morning because I am coming on the show and he knew you'd ask me the question or he'd push you in a place where you did ask the question.

You and the media, I think, need to call a lie a lie.

Well,

what I'm I'm saying, Margaret, is that

what I'm saying is I'm trying to avoid the actual direct question that you asked me about why we took the chance that this could end up with the IRGC.

And the answer to that is that I'm going to talk around what you've just asked me and really put the blame on you for reading the president's tweet.

Love that.

Easy.

Yes, of course I said this, but the problem here is that you noticed it.

That's the real scandal

is that you and the president noticed it.

And what does that say about you?

That's really kind of what he's trying to do there.

Yeah, it is.

It's basically saying, like, since the president brought it up, it's not okay to bring up.

It is awesome.

I mean,

it's a very clear delineation of how they actually feel.

Margaret, what I'm saying is that you notice this in a fashion reminiscent of Jengis Khan.

And there's a chasm between

what I'd like you to notice and what you did notice.

I love the overall point.

It is so bad.

Money is fungible.

It's a fungible thing.

I love that.

You don't know where it's going.

Sure, is some of it going to be used on child porn?

Absolutely.

There's nothing we can do about that.

We expect that to happen.

Approximately 30% of all money we spend goes to child porn.

Another 20% goes to injecting

little cute puppies with heroin and getting them addicted.

We know this is going to occur.

Is some of that going to happen?

Of course, it is.

Of course.

Of course.

Is some of this going to fund Harvey Weinstein rape parties?

Absolutely, it is.

Yes, of course, it is.

All money goes to Harvey Weinstein rape parties.

Will some of this go to the assassins that the Clintons pay to kill

an Epstein type?

Yes.

Of course.

Yes, it will.

Of course.

Obviously.

But we believe up to $8 of this $160 billion will go to

people.

The Iranian people.

And we know that it's worth it.

People in need.

I mean, if we could just supply one cheesesteak or one hot dog, if we can get one Bratwurst to the Iranian people, it's all worth it.

That's basically

where he is on this one.

Yes, it is where he is.

I like this idea.

I think this is a great.

I mean, it's funny because

money isn't fungible.

Unless you give it to a terrorist regime to use in this fungible way.

one way to present the fungibility of this particular money would be to not give it to Iran and their regime so that they can spend it on terrorism.

What a concept.

It's an idea.

It's an idea.

I'll say it's an idea.

Yeah.

And it's one maybe we should have taken.

Well, they were collecting interest on that fungible money, though, and the interest was accruing, and we didn't want it to anymore, so we just gave it all to them.

Right.

I mean, I'm willing to take any amount of money that is accruing interest and throw it in my account.

And now I'm good at that.

That was part of his argument, was that it was accruing interest, and so we had to give it to him before it accrued more interest.

Yeah, and if I remember right, the money, their argument is it was Iran's money.

Yes, to begin with.

When they had the revolution, we just kind of held on to it.

We're not going to give it back to them in the middle of this.

Right.

So we've just been holding on to it, accruing interest, and then it's fungible.

So we just gave it back to them now.

40 years later.

And again, it's the same borders, but it wasn't the same country.

It wasn't the same government.

It was one that took over the government by force.

This isn't some like wonderful thing that, yeah, okay, look, you know, it was Teresa May and now it's Boris Johnson.

That's not what we're talking about here.

It's not their money.

They shouldn't have ever received it back.

Right.

And the reason we froze it in the first place was because they attacked us and took our people hostage for 444 days.

And we didn't appreciate that very much.

It's weird.

Yeah.

Of course, some of this money is going to be used to attack Americans and hold them hostage.

That's just part of the game.

That's what happens when you spend money.

Much of it will go to ending the lives of Americans.

And that's just a risk.

We just thought it was worth taking.

Will they buy intercontinental ballistic missiles from the Soviets with it?

Yes.

Yes, they will.

Are they building a Death Star with this money?

Of course they are.

Of course they are.

That's the price you pay when you give money to terrorists, though.

Some of it's going to go for terrorisms.

You act as if you can give money to terrorists and they're not going to spend it on terrorism.

terrorism.

That's an absurd point, Katie, or whatever your name is.

I believe it was Margaret.

Margaret.

I believe it was Margaret.

Margaret, it's either Margaret or Katie.

All Margaret or Katie's host shows on Sunday mornings.

And I'll say this about you.

Look, we're giving money to serial killers.

They're going to spend some of it on serial killing.

That's just part of the agreement when you do this.

If you take action A, giving money to a child rapist, some of it's going to go to child raping.

It's just part of the equation.

Can you believe he actually made that argument?

And then is on television defending it all these years later?

It's amazing.

There's this weird

weird thing that you can't admit when you were blatantly wrong.

These parties can't do it.

Great example of this is the 2012 debate where Obama says to Mitt Romney,

the 1980s called, and they went their foreign policy back when he said Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat.

Well, now their entire party is, and every argument they make is based on the idea that Russia is the largest geopolitical threat.

And occasionally they'll come out and say, well, you know, I don't, you know, look, I didn't agree with that at the time, or that was a little bit of a harsh way of putting it.

Rarely will they actually say, look, we were completely wrong.

And honestly, looking back at it,

we probably should have given the president's seat to Romney.

That was such a bad mistake.

In retrospect, maybe we give him six months as president now.

And anyhow, he acts like a Democrat part of the time.

Anyway, maybe it's okay.

It's hard for these parties to get over that hump and admit these things.

But how can you possibly argue?

How can you possibly argue that giving all of this money to a terrorist state of Iran, who's used it to come after American citizens over and over again, American military over and over again?

It's unbelievable.

It was a good idea.

It's not just fungible it's not an

acceptable explanation for that.

As you said, Stu,

when you're giving $150 billion to John Wayne Gacy,

some of that money is going to wind up

with eating people.

It is.

Some of it will be for his clown shows, so too, and transportation and expenses to entertaining the children before he murders them.

What do you expect the guy not to eat?

Look, if you're going to give money to a mad scientist trying to create a biological weapon, some of it's going to go to widespread Ebola.

That's part of the equation.

And you just have to learn to accept that.

That's why that money is fungible.

Fungible.

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

We're so used to this where our lives are spent justifying things that are completely rational, but the left pretends not to understand, right?

Like you make a joke and they pretend to think you meant something horrible and serious about it, so you have to defend yourself.

Where they are the exact opposite, they will say something truly despicable and never have a moment to even try to defend it in any serious way.

Because, I mean, look, we talked about the Sanders thing earlier, where Bernie Sanders is talking about these rape fantasies.

Listen to this paragraph.

If you didn't listen to last half hour, I'm not going to go through the really hardcore stuff in here, but I mean, he's talking about basically the worst things you can say about a woman or a man and what she fantasizes.

And what she she fantasizes about.

And also that they are subservient.

They have a deeply entrenched view of being subservient to men.

Bernie Sanders saying this.

And is this NPR's explanation of it?

That's the title.

It is the Bernie Sanders Rape Fantasy Essay.

Explained.

Because you need an explanation.

You can't just take it at its face value.

So after paragraph after paragraph of justification on here,

it says, so what does this say about Sanders' attitude towards women?

Good question.

It's a great question.

Seems to say that he believes they want to be raped.

Yes.

And that they fantasize about underaged girls being assaulted.

That's all throughout the essay.

But NPR says you can draw divergent conclusions from the article itself.

On the one hand, he's talking about liberating people.

from harmful gender norms.

My God.

Now, I didn't get that from the article.

I didn't either, so so I have to say.

On the other,

with his nameless, hypothetical man and woman characters, he also seems

to imply

that men fantasize about raping women or that women fantasize about being raped.

No, he really doesn't

seem to imply anything.

He just directly stated it.

Yes, he says that's what it is.

He doesn't imply it.

He doesn't seem to do anything.

States it emphatically.

He states it emphatically as the central thesis of his argument.

An argument that led him to the potential Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

It's unbelievable.

So there is some evidence to Elizabeth Warren's point of sexism here.

There's a little bit of a backup to that from long ago.

But that is a different world.

You don't, I mean, if a conservative wrote something like this, there's no NPR article that comes out and says, actually, what they're doing is liberating gender norms.

You're just done in society.

If you're you're a conservative and you write that, you're done.

You're done.

And it doesn't matter if it came out in 1972.

You're still done.

No.

It legitimately doesn't matter.

Even if you could deny it was you and it wouldn't matter.

No, that's right.

It really is just a totally different world, and it's got to be a lot of fun, at least for a little while, until you feel like you've let down all of humanity in some dark moment.

It's got to be fun.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.