Best of the Program | Guests: Eric Bolling, Craig Strazzeri, Rob Henderson & John Solomon | 8/27/19

Hey, want to tell you about our podcast today?

You are gonna love it.

Yes, we're talking about a new social credit system.

That sounds great.

Not for China this time, but for us.

For us, we get one too.

Yes, and we've all opted into it.

Oh, I love

this fantastic.

Yeah, that's coming up.

We have Eric Bowling on.

He just talked to Mike Pence, has an interview exclusively on the Blaze that airs tonight.

You don't want to, you don't want to miss too that 5G does cause cancer.

I believe just in cats.

And

you know my love for cats.

It's well.

And I'm not saying these things just to piss people off.

No, not at all.

That was clear, I think, in today's program.

We also talked to someone about luxury beliefs.

Luxury beliefs.

What are luxury beliefs?

It's an interesting new phenomenon, and you'll see it.

It's sort of tied to virtue signaling, I guess.

But that is on today's program.

And John Solomon with the latest on the Russia investigation, which is really fascinating.

The Russia, Clinton, and what Patrick Byrne has said as well.

And part two of our economic update happens every day this week.

Part two, recessions good for the economy, bad for presidents.

You're listening to

the best of the blend back program.

Okay, for anybody who hasn't been paying attention, I want to explain the Chinese social credit system.

Since 2014 in China, the social credit system

has been implemented and is evolving into a single nationwide point system for all Chinese citizens.

And it is akin to a financial credit score.

It follows you everywhere.

There is no place to hide from the cameras.

It has evolved now into you have to have a certain app on your phone, and they monitor you, you, every day,

you take this app, you open it up,

and you have to kind of take a test about what the great leader is doing today.

And he, you know, it gives you all the news of what the great leader is doing and what the communists are doing that is so good for you.

Then you have to take a test.

If you don't open that app every day, your social credit goes down.

If you're not taking that test, your social credit goes down.

They track you and feed you everything that they want to feed you, and you must consume it.

If you jaywalk across the street, your social credit goes down.

If you speak ill about the country, your social credit goes down.

If you are talking to someone who has a low social credit score, your social credit goes down.

It is horrible what is happening in China.

It is becoming a true police state, Orwellian, 1984.

And it aims to punish for any kind of transgression that can include membership in or support for the Falun Gong or

Tibetan Buddhism.

If you haven't paid your debt, if you have excessive video gaming, criticizing the government, late payments, failing to sweep the sidewalk in front of your store or house, smoking, or playing loud music on trains, jaywalking, anything that is unacceptable by the Chinese government.

It also awards points for charitable donations, even taking one's own parents to the doctor.

And the punishments are harsh.

There are bans on leaving the country, bans on using public transportation.

So, in other words,

sorry, all of a sudden you get to the bus and your phone says, offender, not enough social credit, you have to walk.

You're not taking a bus.

You can't check into certain hotels.

You will immediately not be hired for any high-visibility job.

If you have spoken out against the government, you have posted something that shouldn't have been posted, your children will be pulled out of the private school and may not even make it into a public school.

It can result in slower internet connections and also

social stigmatization

because

you are now registered on a public social blacklist.

Your face actually goes up on billboards, electronic billboards, in your neighborhood.

And anyone who interacts with you, their social credit goes down.

They brag that they can keep people locked in their house just because

they won't be able to go anywhere.

It is authoritarianism gamified.

Now,

I've told you for a while, if Google and Silicon Valley is helping them do these things,

what makes you think that they won't do the same here?

Well,

they are.

There are now 40 or so pilot projects operated by local governments, at least six run by tech giants.

Now, Beijing is doing this.

China is doing this.

They have two nationwide lists: one called the black list, the other one is the red list.

That's kind of like a white list here.

The Chinese government shares its list with all technology platforms.

They give you every month a social credit, and that social credit

determines the rest of your life.

Now, some Chinese people are unaware that this even exists at this point because they haven't gotten it all to the entire country, but their goal is China 2020 to have the entire country on this.

Surveys done by the government show that 80% of the Chinese citizens that are surveyed strongly approve of the social credit system.

Of course they do.

You're tracking them.

Now, if you are disturbed by any of this, let me tell you what's going on now.

In America, the New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts.

If you have an Instagram picture showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in a hand and a bucket of cheese fries in the other, you're going to pay a higher rate.

However, if you are doing yoga, you're going to pay a lower rate.

Anything that shows you're healthy and wise,

you're going to get a lower rate.

Anything that shows you that you are doing anything at all dangerous, you're going to get a higher rate.

Now, that seems kind of reasonable.

It's like, well, you know,

I have insurance on me.

I can't go to a war zone.

I can't fly a plane.

I can't go cliff, you know, climbing.

All this stuff I'm never going to do.

I'm fine with it.

They were like, you can't do these things anymore.

And I'm like, does that include jumping out of a perfectly good airplane with a parachute?

And they're like, yeah.

And I'm like, good.

Check that one off my list.

So you don't have a problem with it per per se

unless you do those things.

If you are somebody that is into adventure sports,

you better tell the truth or you're going to pay a very high penalty.

Now there's also something called a patron scan.

So the insurance companies, you're kind of like, well, I think that's probably okay.

If you say you don't smoke and then you're seen smoking on Facebook, that's probably okay.

But now we have patron scan.

This company sells three products: kiosk, desktop, and handheld systems.

And what it is, it's designed to help bar and restaurant owners manage customers.

Patron Scan is a subsidiary of the Canadian software company, a biometric company.

It's now on sale in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

And it helps spot fake

IDs, but it also tracks troublemakers.

So when you arrive at, let's say, a patron scan using bar, what they do is they ask you for ID, they scan it.

The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people who have previously had a problem in any bar, fighting sexual assault, drugs, theft, or any other bad behavior.

But the bad behavior, that list is up to each restaurant.

So

if you go into some restaurant with a MAGA hat,

can you be put on this scan?

Now,

if you are banned in one bar, you will be banned in all bars that use this

system.

And that's in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom.

No matter where you go, you are known as someone who can't go into the bar.

Now, the kind of behavior?

all up to the individual bar.

The owners of each bar can ignore the bans if they want.

The data of non-offending customers is deleted in 90 days.

So even if you're not doing something wrong, they're still holding all your information for 90 days.

They keep a private list.

that are not shared with other bars if they want, but if you are a bad customer, it can be kept for five years.

They do have an appeals process, but it's up to the company whether they listen to it or not.

Uber and Airbnb, we all know that when you get into an Uber, if the driver has written something bad about you, you're probably not going to get into another Uber.

If you have somebody who didn't like you, can say whatever, you're going to not be able to use Uber.

Airbnb is now the same, and that is a private list.

So if you are in an Airbnb,

and think about how big Airbnb is now, if you're in an Airbnb and the owner didn't like something or said you did something, even if you didn't do it,

they can alert Airbnb.

It's kept confidential.

You have no right to see what your accuser is telling you, and you are banned from all Airbnb.

WhatsApp,

also developing for communications, a new

social credit score.

For example, you can be banned on WhatsApp if too many other users block you.

You can also get banned

for sending spam, threatening messages, trying to hack or reverse engineer the WhatsApp app,

or using the service with an unauthorized app.

Now, this is small potatoes in the United States, but not for the rest of the world because, in many parts of the world, this is the main form of communication.

Not being allowed to use WhatsApp in some countries is like not being able to use a telephone in America.

Now, here's the problem:

nobody likes antisocial, violent, rude, unhealthy, reckless people.

We got it.

So, what's wrong with this technology?

As I have said before, what is now being built completely changes our system.

We have always had protections

of the First and Second Amendment.

We've had protections of privacy, supposedly, under the Constitution.

We don't anymore.

First Amendment, freedom of speech?

Nope.

How about freedom of assembly?

Nope.

Freedom of assembly with people that you choose?

Nope.

It's not protected.

Freedom of religion?

No.

They're banning Christian ads now just because they're Christian.

That doesn't sound like a good thing.

And that's protected by the Constitution.

Not really.

Second Amendment?

Nope.

Anybody can say, nope, no guns here.

And they don't have to do anything about it.

They can pressure banks now to say, don't do business with the gun manufacturers or the gun businesses or people who have a gun.

Don't do business with them.

We're going to cancel their financial services.

Totally fine because it's a private company.

Don't quarter soldiers in the house.

Well, the NSA is already doing it, but

so is Google.

so is Amazon.

They're listening to your conversation.

There is no such thing as privacy anymore.

And no law can stop these things

because they're private companies.

They can do whatever they want.

In China, they're doing it by force because the government.

China is going this way, just as Orwell predicted in 1984.

But just as Brave New World predicted, Huxley said it would come with a big happy face on it.

It would come through service and it would be great, and you'd want this service.

Both of those.

I remember a time within the last 10 years, people were saying, Oh,

looks like Huxley was right, Orwell was wrong.

No,

they were both right.

One, 1984, fits the East.

Huxley

applies to us in the West.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Welcome to the program, fellow Blaze co-worker,

Eric Bowling, who is heard on the Blaze.

Yeah,

do we get minimum wage?

Have they raised the minimum wage yet, Glenn?

No, they haven't told me that.

No.

I'm a long way from making $15 an hour, and that's why I'm voting for Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders, yes.

So you met yesterday with the vice president.

Tell me about it.

So,

yeah, real interesting.

There's a Faith in Freedom Conference, I guess a fundraiser, that Jeff Duncan was putting on in South Carolina.

And I had the opportunity.

They said, you want a little exclusive one-on-one with the vice president?

I said, absolutely.

I drove, I live in Charleston now, so I drove out to Greenville.

And

I got a few, I got like 12 minutes with the vice president, one-on-one exclusive, and it was fantastic because, you know, I'm driving up there and I'm thinking,

there's so much going on right now.

There's so much going on in the Trump world.

Do I do this?

How much, you know, as you know, Glenn, you get someone that you've

who's doing kind of, you know, reaching out to you, doing you a favor, doing a one-on-one exclusive.

How hard do you press the gas?

I said, you know what?

There's too much happening right now.

I got to go full throttle.

And I did.

I asked them the important stuff.

I asked them what's the stuff with Nikki Haley.

You know, the ambassador tweeting that calm down, everyone, we're good friends with the vice president.

I said, yeah, I asked him point blank, is Nikki Haley vying to be the vice president in 2020?

You know, and then I said, has the president told you you are his running mate in 2020?

I mean, those are questions I think he wasn't really expecting me to ask.

I will tell you this, because I've floated the theory among friends

at the White House, and I have said, you know, I have nothing against Mike Pence.

I really like Mike Pence, and I think Mike Pence was

one of the reasons why Donald Trump was elected because he was able to galvanize the religious right

and make people feel comfortable with Donald Trump.

However,

I think having Nikki Haley on the ticket with Donald Trump with no offense to Mike Pence

I think would be very advantageous for the president this time around.

Yeah, I agree.

I think

he couldn't lose with either one.

I think you're probably right that maybe

you check another box with Nikki Haley.

Trump, let's be honest, I believe he's going to win with a wider margin than last time, but a lot of it's going to come down to the suburbs and the female vote.

And Nikki Haley would certainly firm up that.

But I did.

Either way, I think it's an easier ride with a female vice president.

I know that, I mean, I know when you have 12 minutes, you probably have four questions, maybe, if the person

wants to talk.

Did you get into the economy at all and the trade war?

Do you get the sense that they are very well aware that if the economy turns, this president's going to have a real uphill battle?

Yeah.

So, yes, and that's where I started because, you know, like I had said at the time, the president was flying back from the G7.

And I said that we were in the midst of a trade war in China.

We've had conflicting comments coming out, one from the president, one from Stephanie Grisham, his comms director, another one from the president.

Again, I said, look,

are we prepared?

The president said he's prepared to continue to raise tariffs on China in Phineas

if they don't relent and play ball.

And he says, we are.

And I said, well, I said,

you know, in all honesty, Mr.

Vice President, I'm against tariffs.

And I love a lot of things that you guys are doing, but tariffs is not one of the things I like.

I said, but it seems to be working.

I said,

is this President Trump's idea, or is this Steve Mnuchin talking in his ear with Larry Kudlow in the other ear, you know, playing hardball with China, or is this coming from the president?

He said, he laughed.

He said, Eric, as you know, and I've known the president for 15 years.

He said, as you know, the president for a long time,

he has a lot of smart people around him, but everything he does comes directly from the president.

So he did.

He weighed in on that, and he's ready to play hardball with China.

But I also said, well, in that case, can I ask you this?

What's this idea about nuking hurricanes?

And he laughed again.

He said, oh, you know,

that didn't happen.

All right.

All right.

So, when does this interview air?

We're going to put it up live tonight.

They tell me it's going to be up around 7 p.m.

on the Blaze platform.

Like usual.

My show usually comes out around 7 p.m.

on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

So that will come out tonight.

It's really fascinating because I got into somebody.

I asked him,

what's the Greenland idea?

What's that all about?

And he really explained it in a way that I hadn't ever thought of.

Like

it became,

you know, when I went into it thinking, you know, Trump sees it as, you know, a really, you know,

high-profile real estate buy and maybe some sort of,

you know, what was the motivation?

I went through it.

Is it security?

Is it financial?

Yeah.

And he really broke it down and it made a ton of motivation.

Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump, the press has made fun of Donald Trump on this one.

Nobody should.

We've had three or four presidents that have wanted to buy Greenland, and it is always gone sideways.

But it actually is a very wise move if somebody could get it done.

Eric, we'll watch for that tonight only on Blaze TV.

If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe and support the talent that is trying to find the answers for you.

You know, we are a good, solid team and

voices that are across the spectrum of the conservative movement, but we are all doing our very best to get you the truth.

Eric does America.

You can't spell America without Eric in the middle.

That's tonight.

You don't want to miss it.

It'll be downloaded around 7 p.m.

Subscribe to the Blaze now.

Thanks, Eric.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

We go to Craig Strazziri, who is the CMO with Prager University.

Prager

has been going through trouble with Google.

They are starting their lawsuit against Google today, Ninth Circuit Court.

I thought it was the Supreme Court, but it's not there yet.

It's Ninth Circuit Court, which is a crazy courtroom.

Welcome, Craig.

How are you?

I'm great.

Thank you, Glenn.

Thank you for having me.

Sure.

So as you're getting ready to go in and present the oral arguments,

tell the listeners first exactly what

you're fighting.

Yeah, so Google and YouTube, as you know, they are a giant corporation that has a lot of power and control and can control what people see.

And so over the past few years, the problem has only continued to get worse.

And so there are now over 200 Prager You videos that are being restricted.

And get this, Glenn, five of the videos that Dennis Prager does on the Ten Commandments are being restricted.

So they don't even hide their bias at this point.

It's really unfortunate.

So

our case is really centered around this argument about a public forum, the distinction between a public forum and a publisher.

And so a public forum, which could be a physical location or could be a website, is a place where the business invites someone to come on

excuse me sorry the business invites the public to come and use their platform for speech.

So YouTube says anyone can come on here and give us their opinion, but then they turn around and censor us for their political viewpoints.

So that's the basis of our lawsuit.

What do you think the odds are of winning?

Because this doesn't just affect you.

That affects really anybody who is being shadow banned.

And it is, in my opinion, critical that you win this.

If you lose this,

and I'm guessing you will in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because they're insane,

but if you do lose this, this is a very bad blow to freedom of speech.

These corporations will have no restrictions

on

any of their behavior.

No, that's right.

That's exactly right.

And the Ninth Circuit is crazy, and if we lose it, we're in big trouble.

It's getting more and more scary.

And if they have the power to control what people see and just restrict content that they disagree with, then this is really scary.

And most of America doesn't even know this is going on because the mainstream media has completely ignored this issue.

Well, they're doing things like, for instance, they are banning Prager University.

As you said, 200 different videos.

Dennis is the best voice ever on the Ten Commandments.

I mean, his books on, you know, his books on the Old Testament and

his videos on the Ten Commandments, there's just nobody even close to him.

There's nothing

that is

political partisan that is going on with that.

This is just an anti-religious bias that they have.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, it clearly shows that they're targeting us for our identity.

And I'm sure your listeners may be aware that Project Veritas just had a couple of Google whistleblowers come out.

You know, one of them mentioned that you guys, you and your show is on a blacklist, but they've also mentioned that Prager U has been targeted.

Their own employees are coming out and admitting that they're targeting conservatives.

And like you said, Dennis' message in the Ten Commandments are so mainstream that it's really getting to be absurd at this point.

Their own employees are admitting it, yet they continue to go in front of Congress and they continue to say that they're politically neutral, which is obviously a lie.

So

what is your attack?

I mean, what is the you know, you're going up against Google, who has more money and power than God at this point.

What is your strategy?

Well, this is a classic case of David and Goliath.

And one reason I'm really proud to work and represent Prager U is that we're fighters.

Dennis always says that courage with our goodness without courage is useless.

So we're very courageous at Prager U, and we're really fighting for freedom of speech, not just for Prager U, but for all Americans.

So this is a very important case, and there's going to be a lot of supporters there today at the courthouse for Prager U, which is very exciting.

A lot of people recognize how important this case is.

And so, yes, the Ninth Circuit is crazy, but we're going to take this as far and as long as we need to, all the way up to the Supreme Court to keep fighting.

Well, the good news is if you're turned down by the Ninth Circuit Court, they are the most overturned court in the country.

I mean,

if they say the sky is blue, I'll swear to you that it's red because they're wrong almost every time.

That is true.

Yeah.

All right, Craig.

Best of luck.

Anything that we can do to help?

Yes, I would encourage your listeners to please go to PragueRU.com.

We have a petition against YouTube that 600,000 people have already signed.

If they're so willing and generous, that we are a non-profit, and any donation will help us keep spreading public awareness on this issue.

So we got to keep fighting, and I appreciate you having me on.

You bet.

Thanks, Craig.

Appreciate it.

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

Rob Henderson writes in the New York Post, a former classmate from Yale recently told me that monogamy is kind of outdated, not good for society.

So I asked her what her background is and if she planned on marrying.

She said she comes from an affluent family, works at a well-known technology company, and yes, she personally intends to have a monogamous marriage, but quickly added that marriage shouldn't have to be for everyone.

But she was raised by a traditional family.

She planned on having a traditional family, but she maintained that traditional families are old-fashioned and society should evolve beyond them.

I asked myself, what could explain this?

Welcome to the program, Rob Henderson.

How are you, sir?

Good, Glenn.

Thanks for having me.

You bet.

I really enjoyed your article.

What explains that?

And why is it a problem?

Yeah, well, you know, Glenn, I study social psychology and how people are influenced by others as a PhD student at Cambridge.

And, you know, based on a lot of research, it seems that social status is a key driver in how people think and how we behave.

And in fact, you know, a lot of this research shows that respect and admiration from our peers contributes more to our sense of well-being than even how much money we make.

And so this is sort of how I came up with the idea of luxury beliefs.

And so this, we experience this sort of pleasure to, or pressure, to display our status status in new ways.

And

one way we do this is by displaying sort of our prestige, our intelligence, our education.

And we do this by coming up with sort of clever and bizarre arguments.

And so one concern that I have is that the beliefs of the upper class,

they continue to change and update as people below them adopt these beliefs.

And so their beliefs, the upper class beliefs, become more wild and more exotic and further distance themselves from ordinary people.

They're sort of constantly updating their belief wardrobe.

So,

what is

causing them to do that?

Because in the old days, if you were rich, you might have lived a different lifestyle, like the Vanderbilts lived a different lifestyle, but they didn't want to be known as

denigrating or

tearing apart everyone else.

They wanted to be seen as the average decent American.

What's happened?

Yeah, well, I think

two things might be going on.

One is that

sort of luxury goods and having

fancy

items, it's just these goods are becoming more affordable, so everyone can

purchase them.

And another is that

it's maybe not so cool to display your wealth with material goods anymore.

I think a lot of people maybe think it's sort of tacky or it sort of makes people feel bad to, you know, if I get to afford this item, but you don't get to have it.

And so both of those things simultaneously make material goods not so appealing.

So a new way that the upper class can display their status is to have these sort of unusual and in some cases even bizarre beliefs.

And, you know, in many cases, they hold these beliefs with good intentions.

They think that they're maybe doing the right thing.

But I think alongside that maybe more kind-hearted motive is also this motive to sort of display their social class.

So give me a give me some examples of luxury beliefs.

Sure.

So one belief that I talk about in the New York Post article is the belief that all family structures are equal.

There's this sort of non-judgmental attitude that a lot of educated people have,

whether you're a single parent or step parent or have a polyamorous polyamorous sort of situation with the parents, you know, they're all equal.

But you know, the actual empirical evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the safest and most beneficial for young children.

And often it's members of the upper class who,

as you noted reading the article there, that grew up with two married parents.

And somehow these are the sort of

of the belief that monogamy is outdated or that marriage is some kind of

an oppressive structure or that you know all families are exactly the same

and I think this relaxed attitude about monogamy and marriage it trickles down to the working class and the poor and you know as you said you know marriage between or marriage rates between the upper class and lower class Americans were actually quite similar in the 1960s because there were strong social norms in place

And then affluent Americans during that time started expressing more skepticism about marriage and monogamy.

And this sort of trickled down to the lower classes and eroded the social norms for those people.

But for the upper classes, marriage rates actually remained roughly steady, such that they're basically getting married at the same rates today.

So why the disconnect?

Why the people preaching it

say this?

Do they not believe it?

You know, that's an interesting question about belief.

I think that many of them probably do believe it on some level, but I'm also not entirely sure how much belief actually matters.

I think that this drive for social status is so strong that people can kind of convince themselves of strange beliefs if it gives them the sort of respect and the admiration of their peers.

If it's trendy and cool in the moment in one social group to say that

polyamory is fine, then people will just say that because they don't want to risk being ostracized and outcast by

their peers.

So help me out on one thing.

How did it become

a luxury

to have some of these beliefs?

For instance, all families are equal.

That really started, at least the way I see it, either one of two ways.

It either started as a deconstruction kind of postmodernism plan

and was planted to destroy our society, or it came from a place to where

nobody wants to harm or say things that makes the single mom, you know, or the mixed family feel bad.

And so you're like, no, you know, you have a good, you have a good marriage and you have a, you know, or you have a good family and your family is mixed.

And so that's fine, whatever.

But we, we

can't seem to find it within ourselves to actually go the extra step and say,

nothing to do with you, but if there is a choice, it's best that the family stays together.

I know this first, I'm a divorced guy.

And from my first marriage, I have two children.

It would have been a lot better for them if mom and dad were still together.

Their life dramatically changed.

There's scars and everything else, which is normal.

That doesn't make me a bad guy or, you know, mom a bad guy,

a bad person.

It's just that happens sometimes.

But we should be able to say,

yeah, but that's the goal to get here.

How come we don't say that?

How come that,

how come, why is that gone?

Yeah, well, I mean, I think the first reason you posited there about, you know, sort of postmodern deconstruction, I think that that's an example of sort of displaying one's intelligence and education.

You know, you can only learn an idea like that in an elite university or at college, right?

I mean, you know, ordinary people aren't spending their days reading about, you know, Derrida or Foucault or something like that.

And I think the second reason you said, you know, this idea of like, you know, we don't want to make people feel bad.

We don't want to judge people.

Yeah, I think there's this, you know, belief that, you know, they're downtrodden and we shouldn't make others feel bad and we shouldn't, you know, sort of elevate ourselves above them by telling them that certain things certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others.

So yeah, I think on the one hand, it makes us feel good to have these sort of fancy beliefs about postmodernism.

And then we also don't want to make others feel bad about their lifestyle choices.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: And a luxury belief would be

the one that

maybe comes from you understanding postmodernism and understanding,

or is it just at the level of I just don't want to be ostracized and this is what my peers are saying because they went to college and were indoctrinated with this scrap.

I think both of those are

sort of key components of luxury beliefs.

And the way that luxury beliefs impose costs on others,

first,

the expression of luxury beliefs require learning that sort of complicated vocabulary.

And then, on the other hand, the luxury belief of it doesn't matter, things are exactly the same.

I don't want to judge.

And yeah, I think that there's sort of both of those components at work here.

So that

the outcome is that the person expressing this belief is raising their status while also, you know, intentionally or not creating harm for people below them.

You point something out that I think is so good in this.

You talk about the

religion is irrational or harmful.

Members of the upper class are likely to be atheists or non-religious, but they have resources and access to thrive without a unifying social edifice of religion.

Tell me why the upper class is different than the lower class in this.

You've talked about it in your article.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, a lot of members of the upper class seem to have a sort of passe attitude towards religion that, you know, know, they're non-religious or, you know, atheist or agnostic, and they sort of approach religion from an intellectual standpoint.

But they also have, you know, in their own lives, the upper classes tend to have resources and social connections to thrive without having to rely on their neighbors or their community, you know, the sort of people who who are around them.

And I think religion sort of provides that like unifying social edifice so that people can come together and have a reason to care for one another.

And I think that, yeah, denigrating the importance of religion doesn't really harm the rich very much.

I think it harms the poor.

Lack of religion can give rise to sort of meaninglessness and feelings of despair.

Whereas the rich, they already have those resources, they already have the access.

And oftentimes, they find their meaning through traveling the world or through unusual hobbies or

even their work.

as you point out, even their profession.

They might have a profession, but most people have a job, and there's a huge difference.

Right.

Yeah, exactly.

Most

I only have about 40 seconds left.

Can you just tell me where are we in this trend?

I mean, you know, fashion clothing goes out of style.

Are we at the beginning of this, middle of this?

Where are we?

Yeah, so it's interesting.

I think that

one

sign that we may be shifting trends here is the popularity of this article in and of itself.

You know, I think that a lot of the things that I point out in that article used to be known as sort of conventional wisdom.

You know, like a two-parent family is good for kids.

Correct.

I'm not sure when that became, you know, sort of an edgy thing to say.

But a lot of people now seem to resonate with it and agree with it.

And I think we may be slowly turning the tides such that a lot of people are coming around back to

these more, you know, sort of typical conventional beliefs.

They don't feel the need to, you know, sort of jump on the bandwagon for the latest, you know, bizarre luxury belief.

I hope that you are right.

Rob Henderson, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and I want to tell you about something that you should either end your day with or start your morning with, and that is the news and why it matters.

If you like this show, you're going to love the news and why it matters.

It's a bunch of us that all get together at the end of the day and just talk about the stories that matter to you and your life.

The news and why it matters.

Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

The man who previously worked at the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, he is an award-winning investigative journalist and now the executive vice president at The Hill.

His name is John Solomon.

He is somebody who actually is looking for the truth, and I appreciate his work and his willingness to come on

the program.

Welcome, John.

How are you?

Good.

Good to be with you, Glenn.

Yeah.

So tell me,

I want to talk to you about a couple of things.

First of all, the FBI seems to be investigating the Clintons again?

Well, that is a good question.

The FBI should be investigating the Clintons again based on the fact that there was a discovery of some highly classified evidence that the FBI never examined as part of its Clinton email server investigation.

It's remarkable.

We're three years

past the close of that investigation.

That's a very controversial close-down case.

James Comey, you remember all the things that went on with that?

Hell yeah.

Now we learned three years later that there was this highly classified pile of documents, very important information, information that the agents working the case themselves said was going to be important to look at before they made a determination on Hillary Clinton's culpability, and they never looked at it.

They looked the other way.

Somebody wouldn't allow them to look at that evidence.

And so three years later, thanks to some letters between

Senators Grassley and Johnson and the Inspector General of the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz, we learned of the existence of these documents and the fact that the FBI never looked at them.

And what's frustrating is those senators can't get an answer from the Justice Department and FBI.

The Barr Trump Justice Department has not answered these senators about whether they're going to take a look at this evidence.

Why do you suppose that's happening?

It's a remarkable thing, the inertia inside bureaucracy, right?

And so

there is something in these documents that must be remarkably sensitive and perhaps may cause pressure or questions to reopen the case.

And it does not appear the FBI wants to go down that path.

But it isn't fair to us in America, and it is an equal justice system if you don't complete the job you started.

We gave Mrs.

Clinton a pass during the 2016 election, even though there was broad evidence that she transmitted highly classified information on a private server.

She did not get prosecuted then, and we find out that a key piece of evidence wasn't examined.

That always makes us suspicious in the American public.

So, John, it's not ⁇ I'm not as concerned about the investigation in the Clintons because I think I know what, you know, I think I know what they are.

I am really concerned that we should be investigating the entire Justice Department.

I don't think that everybody in the FBI is dirty.

I don't think everybody in the Justice Department is dirty, but there are people apparently that are dirty and will move things for political reasons.

And that is, that's not America.

Once we lose trust in our justice system, we become, you know, Mexico or Haiti or whatever.

Right.

No, it's so integral.

And we always expect that whether you're Democrat or Republican, white or black,

live in Connecticut or live in Florida, we're all going to be treated the same when the Justice Department looks at us.

And over the last few years, we've seen a really strong body of evidence that people got treated differently based on their political connections or their political affiliation.

And that troubles the everyday American.

I go out when I'm out and about traveling in the real world.

People will come up to you and say, you know, it feels like there's two justice systems, one today for the Democrats and Hillary Clinton, and the other for Republicans and everyday common man.

And I think that perception is deeply troubling

and really cuts at the roots of our great democracy.

And I think Bill Barr has an enormous opportunity to fix this Justice Department, put the people that are so good in it, 99% of them are amazing agents and investigators and lawyers, get the 1% out and get this house put back in order so that we can trust the legal system.

Do you believe Bill Barr is that guy?

I think he is.

He certainly has the credentials to do it.

He has shown early on in the Rush investigation to talk candidly and honestly and not use the euphemisms and the bureaucratic Blarney that we heard earlier people use in that job.

The real question will come down to, will he really identify the faults?

Will he really punish people?

Will there be real criminal prosecution?

And the next three months are our telling point.

We're going to learn from the Inspector General just how bad the Russia FISA was.

We're going to learn from John Durham just how much spying went on on a political campaign.

And then it will be in Bill Barr's corner to decide who does he punish, how does he punish them, how does he fix this, how does he make sure this never happens to another presidential candidate or another American ever again.

What does your gut tell you?

My gut tells me there will be a lot of shaming.

There will be a really honest accounting like we got after 9-11, if you remember all the mistakes that the FBI made failing to connect the dots before 9-11.

There will be a lot of shaming, a lot of honest discussion about what was wrong.

No more of these euphemisms and spin jobs that we've gotten from the Justice Department and FBI.

I think the threshold for prosecuting a former FBI agent or an FBI Justice Department official is very high

because of the natural inertia in the Justice Department.

I don't think that's right, but I do think that it exists.

And we'll find out

whether the Justice Department is serious if they carry out some prosecutions.

We know for 15 months now, Andy McCabe has been sitting there, identified having

committed criminality, clearly lied, just like we accused Mike Flynn, just like we've accused Papadopoulos.

And in 15 months, he hasn't been charged despite two Trump attorney generals.

So when you look at that case, you have to wonder, are they going to do it?

Now, the statute of limitations is coming up on that, and it's going to be judgment time pretty soon.

If Andy McCabe gets indicted for lying, just like the other people in the Russia case did, then I think people will feel justice is done.

If he walks,

this continuing question of two justice departments or two systems of justice is going to persist.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: And I don't think it's just one for the Republicans and one for the

Democrats.

I think it is one for the privileged and then for the rest of everybody else.

That's a very good point.

John,

talk to me about the article that you wrote a few days ago: the 10 declassified Russian collusion revelations that could rock Washington this fall.

Yep.

So behind the scenes, there's been an apparatus that the president has been building.

He hasn't unveiled it yet, but it's going to be a special office that's going to declassify and give us true visibility into what really went on in the Russia case, from the beginning origins all the way back to March when George Papadopoulos first met with an academic in Rome, all the way through the end of the Mueller report.

Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Sure.

Is this a real office or is this a political office?

This is a real office.

It's going to be empowered with the power of the presidency, and it's going to fulfill the very public statement that Donald Trump made that he was going to declassify this information.

I think a lot of people thought when he gave the declassification authority to Barr that Barr was going to do this sort of public relations declassification, explain all the documents.

He gave that power to Barr so so that he could do his investigation.

If the CIA, FBI didn't want to give up something, he had the power to go get it declassified and look at it or share it with prosecutors and FBI agents working on the case.

But for the public, the president has always had a different idea in mind, somebody that could tell a story, explain it all in layman's terms, help us understand what happens so it never happens again.

That office is being set up, and I would begin to, I believe that in mid-September forward, we're going to see the documents be declassified that we've been waiting for for more than two years.

I picked my 10 favorite that I know from all the investigators I've talked to are the most transformational.

And

they range from statements that George Papadopoulos and Carter Page made to FBI informants or on tape, where they were clearly expressing their innocence and that was not provided to the FISA court, to

really basic information like what was in the FISA and what was excluded in the FISA.

We still don't know what was in all those redacted pages.

There's a significant amount of very important information that that will really rankle Washington in the fall when these documents

get public.

I'll give you one fun one because it just teases the imagination.

The House investigators that did the House intelligence review, they had 53 interviews of really key people, most of the main players in the investigation.

There's a revelation in one of those interviews that the Democratic National Committee was in touch with the CIA.

And you have to ask yourself, the CIA has no responsibility on domestic soil.

The DNC is a political organization.

Why were these two organizations talking?

And I think when we get that answer, we'll see just how big a dirty political trick the Russia probe really was.

Holy cow.

All right.

One more question.

I had somebody,

a very

well-known, big business person

who wrote to me and said, Glenn, Patrick Byrne is out of his mind insane.

And I know Patrick.

He is different.

He thinks differently.

He's a libertarian.

But I don't think he's dishonest.

Have you looked into this stuff with Patrick?

Are you heard anymore?

What do you think?

I have done a lot of reporting over the weekend after his CNN interview.

So what I've learned is that the original material that my old colleague, Sarah Carter, fantastic journalist, one of the best in the country, reported early on about Patrick Byrne is spot on.

Those are accurate

facts, and that her storyline is the accurate storyline of what Byrne did and didn't do with the FBI and what was going on.

There was some soft operation going on.

Now how much he initiated it versus the FBI controlled him is in dispute, but I believe the Justice Department lawyers who interviewed Byrne a few months back found him credible and that his timeline matched the other time lines of things that they're finding in the ongoing investigation.

I think his more recent comments, what I've been told by people who are in the know of the evidence, his more recent comments spinning a more elaborate conspiracy of multiple people and the FBI controlling him, I don't think those those are going to pan out with the facts, but I do believe there was contact and exchange of information, and the FBI might have been using him as a soft way of probing this Trump-Russia collusion theory, which, of course, has fallen apart very clearly before our eyes.

But I think those are the sort of revelations we're going to get in these documents in the fall.

There were multiple efforts to probe, monitor, spy on the Trump campaign, and we don't know them all.

We think we do, but we don't.

I don't think we know 70% of what really went on in this investigation yet.

yet this fall will be that opportunity for accounting boy oh boy i mean if there's real if if people are actually looking for the truth and it is half of what i think it might be uh we have a we have a a government or a justice department that is really out of control not all of them just some there's a strain in there that is really out of control i agree i i talked to this senior justice department official who has been in the game, nonpartisan, been in the job 20, 30 years, and he said things that he's seen have shocked his conscience.

And he said, I thought I saw everything in my 30 years.

I think people are beginning to realize that this was a political operation conducted under the authority of the U.S.

intelligence community.

That's something we never envisioned as America would happen.

And we have to expose it, get it out there.

punish the bad guys, and then it won't happen again.

I think that's the right recipe for solving what happened here.

I think so, too, but

I'm a different man than I was 20 years ago.

I wonder if anyone really will be punished.

They have the same concern.

We'll have to wait and see.

Yep.

I think that's a real legitimate concern.

John Solomon, thank you so much.

Executive Vice President of the Hill.

Thank you.

You bet.

Bye-bye.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.