No Prayers For You! | Guests: Kevin Williamson & Lisa Paige | 8/5/19

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glembeck program.

Well, we've uh

crossed over

lines that I didn't know could be crossed.

I have watched the media for a very long time.

I've watched people in Washington, politicians, for a very

long time.

And

I thought

I had seen the worst of them.

And every time I think that,

I find something brand new

that they do that crosses yet another line.

This weekend's coverage of the two mass shootings in the United States this weekend

was so incredibly horrific.

I am almost without words to describe it.

Of course, you know by now in El Paso, a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio, another mass shooting.

They are, you know, horrible, horrible incidents.

And yes, I must say, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims.

I know that's not cool anymore to say.

You know, honestly, my thoughts, what do you care about my thoughts?

Prayers are actually important.

If you happen to be a person of faith, here's something to let you know, if you're one one of these people that is not a person of faith, you might think that prayers are just meaningless.

And that's certainly your right to do that.

But it's one of the most important things that someone of faith can actually offer in a situation like this.

So when you demean it, you're demeaning the most important things that everyone you're talking about believes in.

Just so you understand what you're doing.

And we've actually crossed the line there too with politicians.

Because remember, over the past few months, we've seen this thing creep up where they say thoughts and prayers are not enough.

Thoughts and prayers are not enough.

And okay, I mean, I don't understand why you feel the need to point that out.

I guess you think it's cool, it gets you some new donations, but we've crossed the line now to this from Kamala Harris's weekend.

No more thoughts and prayers.

So, no longer are you allowed to think about these incidents.

And no longer are you absolutely, you're certainly not able to to pray for the victims of these incidents or the families of the victims of these incidents.

Don't think about them and don't pray for them.

Kamala told you not to.

No more thoughts and prayers.

Well, I mean, they've mastered the no more thoughts part of that because they certainly don't seem to be using their noggin.

There is very little thinking going on when it comes to this, but I want to get to something very specific.

Because if you were reading the reports about this this this weekend,

you'll notice, of course, that the Dayton shooting was basically not talked about.

And the reason for that is there's no real political use.

You know,

you look at the 2020 candidates, and we'll play them all for you here.

What they're doing is trying to find the best way to use the dead bodies from the weekend to move their polls 1%,

2%.

Who can come out with the coolest, most viral reaction to these horrible tragedies to try to move up the scale of the 25 candidates by one or two.

It's despicable.

It's completely despicable.

But what they have done and what the media has done, it goes beyond that this weekend.

You heard this line in probably every single report about the white nationalist manifesto that went on.

And I want to quickly, before we take a one-minute break, say this.

I am completely with the Blazes

policy of not naming these victims.

I've been very outspoken about that.

If you know this, I was one of the people behind the scenes asking for this policy beforehand.

And I also would extend that to talking about their motivations, generally speaking.

I think you should probably know generally what they are, but focusing too much on a manifesto, I think, is a really bad idea.

This is what they want.

But because of what the media has done this weekend, I want to give you at least one paragraph of this manifesto because they are they are, you know, frankly, they are lying to you about it.

They are lying to you about the entire thing, and you need to know the details of it.

So, here is the one line you heard everywhere this weekend:

if we can get rid of enough people, then our white way of life can become more sustainable.

Obviously, in the context of all the reporting with much quotes from the entire manifesto, you would take that

to mean if we can get rid of Hispanic people, right,

then the white way of life will flourish.

That is sort of the reasoning of this guy, and there's certainly a lot of that in his manifesto.

But I want to take a 60-second break, and on the other side, tell you what comes immediately before that in the same paragraph.

Back in 60 seconds.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

A good night's sleep is a must for any of us who have a crazy schedule.

I toss and turn an awful lot.

I have the right bed, but I thought I had the right pillow.

Mike sent me a My Pillow, and it's an amazing thing.

You gotta get the right My Pillow for you.

Mike is now offering his lowest price ever offered on TV or radio.

You can get a two-pack of MyPillow's premium pillows for just $69.98.

That's only $34.99 per pillow.

And this offer is available only at mypillow.com or calling 800-966-3117.

Use the promo code BEC.

MyPillow, made in the USA, it comes with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.

Sleep like I did.

800-966-3117 and use the promo code BEC to get Mike's offer.

You'll get a two-pack of premium pillows for $69.98.

That's $34.99 per pillow.

That's mypillow.com.

Remember, promo code BEC.

So,

if we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.

In every single article that I think I read about these shootings,

and it is part of the manifesto.

Now, you will hear all these candidates specifically blaming Trump for these shootings.

Beto O'Rourke explicitly did it this weekend.

He's from El Paso.

He said Trump is a white nationalist

and he is responsible for this shooting.

His racism is the one leading to the violence.

President Trump is responsible for this violence from Corey Booker.

We'll play you the quotes coming up.

I don't want to run out of time here, though.

Several of these candidates did the same thing.

The blame is on President Trump.

Why?

Because in the manifesto, it does reference the dislike for immigration,

the dislike for

illegal immigration, the idea that many people would be coming across the border and invading.

That was a big thing that you saw.

People talking about how Trump said this looks like an invasion, and this guy says it looks like an invasion.

This is Trump's fault.

So let me give you this paragraph from the manifesto.

Again, it ends with this.

If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.

Obviously, in context, what that means is that white people can have a more sustainable, flourishing life if we get rid of all these Mexicans.

Here is the paragraph.

The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life.

However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of the country.

The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations.

Does this sound like Donald Trump to you?

Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over-harvesting resources.

Is this Donald Trump?

Or is it anything you could have heard from any of the 25 candidates running for the presidency

in the Democratic Party?

Could this could not be said by Jay Inslee?

This has been a problem for decades, going back to the manifesto.

For example, shamelessly overharvested.

This, excuse me, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades-old classic, the Lorax.

Watersheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted.

Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations.

Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste

and electronic waste, and recycling to to help

slow this down is almost non-existent.

You see, he's very upset that there's not enough recycling going on just like Donald Trump.

We're harvesting resources just like Donald Trump.

He's very upset at the corporations heading the destruction of our environment just like Donald Trump.

Now, when the Mick Mulvaney went on TV this weekend to try to defend defend the president, he brought up the fact that this

maniac, who we will not name, said, Well, all my ideas predate Trump.

It's not Trump's fault, which is true.

He does say that.

But this is, to me, much more important that people understand.

He goes on after the

we're not recycling enough commentary to say that urban sprawl creates inefficient cities, which unnecessarily destroy millions of acres of land.

We even use God knows how many trees worth of paper towels just to wipe water off our hands.

Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn't willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience.

The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises because they are owned by corporations.

Was that a quote from Elizabeth Warren or the manifesto of the El Paso shooter?

Which one was it?

Do you know?

If I were to just give you that out of context, who said that?

Certainly wouldn't be Donald Trump as your guess, would it?

Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products.

I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but GD, most of you all are too stubborn to change your lifestyle.

So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people using resources.

And here's where the media picks it up.

If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.

Do

you

believe the media is this horrible?

I do this for a living.

This is my stupid job to come on this radio station you're listening to or this podcast that you're listening to, and blab about how bad the media does every single day.

And it's easy to find examples of it, but it has been an exclusive focus.

There's a massive op-ed from the New York Times today that we can go through.

There are dozens of articles in the Times.

Every candidate that came out on record is saying basically the same thing: that it's Donald Trump's fault.

The media is a concert.

They're all playing the same note, though.

And that note is: it's Donald Trump's fault that the shooting went on.

It's his rhetoric that leads to these things.

If you want to find a balanced source, they'll say something like, well, look, you can't blame Donald Trump, but he's creating an environment in which this stuff can flourish.

Whoa, what the hell is this?

Listen to the candidates on stage.

They are telling you that people like Donald Trump and corporations are killing you, killing your children, using

things like excess plastic waste, not enough recycling, ruining our water.

The environment is under attack by the American consumer, and we must do something to stop it, or our way of life will not be able to be sustained.

That is the unquestioned truth from every single Democrat and basically every media source available in America today.

Now, it's one thing to completely ignore the part of the manifesto that disagrees with your narrative because that's what a lot of the media has done here.

They just say, you know what?

You know what?

I got to say, look, it's all about Trump.

It's all about immigration.

That's what he's talking about.

We're not going to link to it now because we don't want to give him attention.

That's our reasoning.

We're not going to link to it.

But

trust us, here's a bunch of quotes from it that all point to the white supremacy thing.

Yet, here he is outlining in detail every argument.

You could say the same thing about Elizabeth Warren.

She's talking about corporate consumerism destroying our nation, victimizing innocent people.

Jay Inslee is talking about how the environment is being ruined, and people like

Donald Trump and

big corporations are victimizing you and destroying our way of life.

He's quoting from their campaign platforms.

It's one thing to ignore it.

It's another step beyond that.

To use a quote from that paragraph and still not mention the environmentalist part of his manifesto.

They're quoting from the same paragraph

and acting as if that information does not exist.

Beyond,

beyond horrible, beyond anything I have ever seen before in the media.

We're back in 60 seconds.

President Trump is right.

Watch Newsmax TV and bypass the big bad media.

Get the truth about Trump with Bill O'Reilly, Mike Reagan, Alan Dershowitz, and Pat Buchanan.

Newsmax TV, America's fastest-growing news channel, is now on DirecTV 349, Dish 216, U-verse 1220, Fios 615, Optimum 102, Spectrum, Suddenlink, WoW, and more.

Check out Newsmax TV today.

It's real news for real people.

This summer, upgrade your home with brand new blinds, shades, and shutters from Blinds.com.

Go right now and save up to 45% on everything.

Plus, get an extra $20 off at blinds.com with promo code LIGHT.

Order fast because these blazing summer deals are too hot to last.

Go to blinds.com now through August 7th and save up to 45% on everything.

Plus, save an extra $20 at blinds.com with promo code LIGHT.

Blinds.com, promo code LIGHT.

Rules and restrictions apply.

It's due in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

Let's play some of the clips for you.

Here is, let's start with Betto O'Rourke.

Because, look, Betto O'Rourke is in a massive amount of desperation.

He needs something to go his way.

And he's decided, you know what?

There's a bunch of people suffering.

So let's use that.

That's a good way to rise in the polls.

Here is Betto O'Rourke talking about Trump being a white nationalist.

Do you think President Trump is a white nationalist?

Yes,

I do.

And again, from some of the record that I just recited to you, the things that he has said, both as a candidate and then as the President of the United States, this cannot be open for debate.

And you, as well as I, have a responsibility to call that out, to make sure that the American people understand what is being done in their name by the person who holds the highest position of public trust in this land.

So it's not even, not even, it's okay to suggest it.

There can't be a debate about it.

You can't disagree.

There is absolute, look,

there's no evidence that Donald Trump is a white nationalist.

Is he occasionally insensitive when it comes to racial issues?

Probably.

Probably true.

Does he say the wrong thing sometimes?

Yeah, probably true.

Is he a white nationalist?

Does he have a white nationalist ideology?

You know, it's hard to, I think, make an argument that Donald Trump has a particularly well-defined ideology of any sort.

He believes in a few things really strongly, things like trade protectionism that he's believed in his entire life, ever since he's been in the public eye.

There are things like the border that he came to later in life, but has been pretty consistent in this run

since he announced his candidacy.

He's been strong on the border, has been trying to do that pretty outwardly.

But But the idea that he is

any evidence that he has a developed white supremacist ideology is completely insane.

It is not true.

Betto O'Rourke knows it's not true.

Here is Betto talking about Trump's racism leading to violence.

He is a racist, and he stokes racism in this country.

And it does not just offend our sensibilities.

It fundamentally changes the character of this country, and it leads to violence.

It leads to violence.

I mean, again,

do you think Beto,

it's his district.

It's at least his area.

Do you think he bothered to read the manifesto?

Do you think that we could, does he know that we could go into his platform and do the exact same thing to him?

Does he know it?

Does he care?

Because he knows the media is not going to do it to him.

The media is not going to say, hey, Beto O'Rourke and Jay Inslee and Kamala Harris, you know what?

We're seeing a lot of your rhetoric in his manifesto.

Do you want to comment on that?

Is that fair?

Well, of course, it's not fair.

Of course, it's not fair.

Just like it's not fair to blame Donald Trump.

You don't.

This is a crazy idea.

And I've developed this over a long, long sea.

I've been thinking about this one for a while, and I want you to see it.

I'm going to run it by you, see what you think.

Maybe the person who pulls the trigger should be responsible for the murders.

Now, look, the show's really short if we all agree on that one.

I got to tell you, this three-hour thing, filling in for Glenn today, I'd have to go, and we might be talking to NFL by hour two.

Because

I would not be able to keep this one going if we all agree on it.

But I thought it would be an interesting concept if we blamed the perpetrator of the crime for the crime.

I thought we could go down that road.

We don't blame whatever politician we don't like for the crime.

Instead, we blame the person who actually committed the crime for the crime.

It's an approach occasionally used by law enforcement.

That's kind of how they look at it.

We've got a legal system that our founders put together that put the

squarely the blame for a crime on the shoulders of the person who committed it, not family members, not their children, not their brothers, not their fathers, not the person that they share general agreement with on one section of a politician's policy.

And not the person who also agrees we don't recycle enough, or we're over-harvesting resources, or that corporations are the massive ill destroying our nation.

No, no, we don't blame them.

We blame the person who actually committed the crime.

Crazy idea.

Let me know what you think.

You're listening to Glenn Beck.

Man, I'm really excited to welcome a brand new sponsor to the show, Takovis.

I know how ridiculous a great pair of boots can cost.

To Covis makes great boots and accessories.

They sell their boots directly to the customer, so their boots are half the price of anything that's even similar in quality.

They're all handmade with a 200-step process with only the best materials.

Their entire line honors the timeless traditional boot styles.

No silly stitching or sequins or loud colors or anything.

These are just great boots, like my grandfather would have worn.

With Tocovis, there's no need to break them in.

They arrive already, ready to be worn immediately, comfortably.

They're easy to order with tremendous customer service.

To Covis always has free shipping and free returns.

Check out their boots and their clothing and accessories right now.

to covis.com/slash beck that's t-e-c-o-v-as-s dot com slash back

it's due in for glenn on the glenn beck program i you know i don't want to

let anybody think that we're not going to get into uh actual solutions to this stuff today we are we are going to go into all of that we are going to talk about really like what how do you you know what is this what's the real cause of this but the media stuff is so egregious on this one i i it's almost insurmountable.

I cannot believe, and it has to be intentional by these candidates and by the media.

To ignore this stuff is absolutely unbelievable.

Welcome in, Pat Gray of Pat Gray Unleashed.

Welcome, Pat.

Thank you.

Help you here.

Pat, there was another shooting that happened this weekend, not just the one in El Paso.

No, no, there wasn't.

It's been summarized.

We can't talk about that one.

We can't.

No.

Can't talk about that one because it was done by a socialist.

So

we don't want to know about that.

It happened to be done by

a supporter of one particular candidate.

In fact.

Yeah, who's going to vote for Elizabeth Warren?

Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren's supporter shot nine people.

I guess this is her fault that

nine people were shot in Dayton.

You know,

it's unbelievable, really.

If saying the word invasion

makes Donald Trump responsible for the El Paso shooting,

then I'm sorry.

The Hollywood movies featuring three solid hours of massacre that we watch over and over and over and over, I guess those have no effect on anybody.

The video games that you play for 8, 10, 12 hours a day, those have no effect on you in desensitizing people.

Now,

I've never said that they cause those things, that Hollywood is responsible for those things.

But if you're going to say that the word invasion makes Trump responsible for this, then we need to look at some other people like Quentin Tarantino who are responsible for what's going on in this country.

I mean, the bloodbath that he continually

manufactures and puts on screen for people to see,

that doesn't do anything to people.

But, oh, the word invasion made this guy run out and kill 20, 20 people in El Paso.

It's just so asinine.

Yeah, and Hollywood is very quick to take credit for stopping people from smoking,

from getting people to be more friendly to LGBT causes.

They'll tell you, we put this in the movie.

We want people to understand it.

We want to normalize.

We're going to normalize it.

We want people to understand that it's okay.

Which I think they've helped do, actually.

I think it has normalized it.

And they believed that was the right thing to do, and they did it, and they admitted to it.

When it comes to violence, when it comes to anything else.

No, that has nothing to do with our movies.

The good things work.

The bad things never

make any difference.

And look, I'm much more of a person who says, look,

you can't blame these companies.

Even if their intent was to make people more violent, it still would not be their responsibility.

The responsibility goes to the people who do this.

You know, lots of people, we've had a massive rise in violent video games over the past 20, 30 years, and we've seen a decrease in

violent crime.

Now, we have seen an increase in the type of shooting that would be associated with a first-person shooter, right?

Like the mass shooting of random people

gamified, where they're talking on 8-chan boards, hey, who's going to get the high score, right?

Like, there has been an increase in that type of crime, but in a context of a lowering

overall crime number.

Yeah.

And so that's

weird.

It's incongruent.

Yes.

Also, the same guy who used the word invasion used the word sustainable

in his rant about the environment.

And so is Al Gore, who talks about sustainability all the time, is he responsible for the killing in El Paso as well?

Are all the rest of the presidential candidates who are also on board with climate change and sustainable forms of energy, are they responsible for the killing?

And again, if you just joined us, he didn't use sustainable in some other context.

He used it in the context of the environment.

Of all climate change goofballs.

Yeah.

He talked about how

we are shamelessly over-harvesting resources.

We are creating unnecessary plastic waste because of our, quote, consumer culture.

We have destroyed millions of acres of land.

We use so many trees' worth of paper towels just to wipe off our hands.

Does this sound like Donald Trump?

No.

I heard legitimately zero people in the media point out that this was one of his main motivations.

No one is.

That's, I mean, it's incredible.

It's so irresponsible.

Yeah.

And, you know, you played some of what Betto O'Rourke had to say.

That's some of the most irresponsible rhetoric I've ever heard from a mainstream politician.

Yeah.

And everybody in a major party, I have never heard that kind of irresponsible talk about a president of the United States.

At one point, he compares him to the Third Reich.

He legitimately just states he's a white nationalist racist.

I mean, that's just,

he definitely answers the question.

Is Donald Trump responsible for this killing?

His answer isn't, well, look.

It's yes.

Yes.

That's unbelievable.

They don't say yes to anything.

No.

Beto, could you confirm that the sky is blue?

Well, look.

Look.

Well, look, it's.

Especially Betto.

He can never answer a question.

They can never straightforward, and they'll be pinned down.

Candidate, candidate X.

Yes or no question.

Is the sky blue?

Well, look.

I mean, let me be clear about this.

As I've stated in the past.

I mean, look at try to get Elizabeth Warren to admit that taxes go up with her health care plan.

Oh, no.

She can't.

She can't do it.

She cannot do it.

Overall costs.

We all know they're going to talk.

Yeah, she'll only talk about that.

Listen to this from the New York Times.

This is an op-ed out today.

I found it to be fascinating.

If one of the perpetrators of this weekend's two mass shootings had adhered to the ideology of radical Islam, the resources of the American government and its international allies would mobilize without delay.

The awesome power of the state would work tirelessly to deny future terrorists access to weaponry, money, and forms to spread their ideology.

The movement would be infiltrated by spies and informants.

Its financiers would face sanctions.

Places of congregation would be surveilled.

Those who gave aid or comfort to terrorists would be prosecuted.

Programs would be established to de-radicalize former adherents.

No American would settle for thoughts and prayers as a counter-terrorism strategy.

First of all, some of those things would happen, but all at the opposition of you, New York Times.

You would oppose every single one of those things if radical Islam was the reason for it.

And secondarily, you'd criticize us for using the phrase radical Islam.

So don't act as if you're all on board with fighting things this way.

You never have been.

And not to mention the fact that there have been mass shootings from radical Islamists.

A lot of them.

And we haven't done any of those things.

We haven't.

Largely because the media has said you can't do them.

Right.

Right.

Right.

Fort Hood, did they they mobilize any of that stuff?

I don't know if you guys have to do that.

Orlando's shooting.

Now, then it goes on to say, in predictable corners, moderate Muslims would be excoriated for not speaking out more forcibly against the extremists in their midst.

That's true.

And what are those predictable corners?

Right?

You're talking about conservatives, right?

You're talking about conservatives who would be upset about that.

You are never upset about it.

The New York Times is never upset about those things.

Now, supposedly, we are supposed to be really upset about white nationalism.

Well, guess what?

We are.

We are and always have been.

Always have been.

And he denounced it strongly from the beginning.

Absolutely.

White nationalists and terror attacks are local, but the ideology is global.

I found the word global.

to be intriguing there, considering this global warming fanatic who went and shot people by his own description because of the environment along with immigration.

You've only heard immigration.

I love the fact that they point out that it's global.

On Saturday, a terrorist who, according to federal law enforcement official, wrote that he feared a quote Hispanic invasion of Texas was replacing white Americans opened fire at Walmart.

What else did he say?

Did he say just that?

It goes on to explain a lot of the things he said in the manifesto, except the ones that are inconvenient to the left.

Yeah,

in fact, the ideology is entitled.

Let me give you the exact one:

The Inconvenient truth is the title of the manifesto.

It's amazing.

Is also the title of an Al Gore book.

Nobody, has anybody mentioned that?

Has anybody mentioned it?

It's the title.

I saw it for the first time

this morning when I was handed the article by my producer.

And

the inconvenient truth.

Yeah.

Wow.

And doesn't that seem weird?

Glenn right-wing rhetoric?

It kind of seems like maybe this guy, because Glenn wrote a book called An Inconvenient Book.

Maybe this guy's just pairing, you know, he's doing a parody.

He doesn't like Gore.

No, he loves Gore.

Right.

He's in here.

He has not mentioned Gore by him.

Yeah, but he's on board with what he's saying.

It goes on.

Is Al Gore responsible for this?

Is he?

We should play that game.

Of course, and it's a dumb game to play, right?

It's asinine.

The Times goes on.

Most importantly, American law enforcement needs to target white nationalists with the same zeal that they have targeted radical Islamic terrorists.

The zeal you totally disagreed with along the entire path of the war on terrorism.

You disagreed with that path, but now it's okay for white nationalists.

Is it also okay for environmentalists?

Is it also okay to go to every one of their meetings and have the government infiltrate the meetings of environmentalists to make sure those extreme environmentalists don't do this too?

Yeah.

Is that okay?

And by the way, this isn't the first radical environmentalist to do something like this.

Yeah.

To do crazy things.

We've had multiple psychos

do these things.

There was a guy who held at Gunpoint the Discovery Channel a couple years ago.

We have multiple organizations that are set up to destroy property, like ALF and ELF, the Animal Liberation Front and the Environmental Liberation Front.

This is not new.

No.

It has been out there for a while.

But they say there can be no middle ground when it comes to white nationalism and the terrorism it inspires.

You're either for it or against it.

Well, you know what?

I would agree with you on that.

Were you with us?

when it came to Islamic extremism?

Are you with us when it comes to environmental extremism?

I've seen little to no evidence of either.

I mean,

the hypocrisy that is going on with this right now is just, it's just unbelievable.

Let me give you a quote from Corey Booker.

You have time for Corey Booker here, Pat?

Who doesn't?

Always make time for Corey.

Always make time for Corey Booker.

Here is Corey Booker on NBC's Meet the Press.

We have a president of the United States who is particularly responsible.

I, my faith, have this idea that you reap what you sow, and he is sowing seeds of hatred in our country.

And this harvest of hate violence that we're seeing right now lies at his feet.

When you have the president from the highest moral office in our land talking about invasions and infestations in whole countries, the kind of things that come out of his mouth that so harm the moral fabric of our nation, he is responsible.

He's responsible when he has taken no action whatsoever to even condemn white supremacy.

That's unbelievable.

I mean, they are just flat out saying Donald Trump is responsible for the shooting.

It's true.

Presidential candidates are flat out saying the president of the United States is responsible for the money.

And being cheered on by the media for doing it.

And being cheered on by the media

for doing it.

This has replaced their hatred for Trump is such that it trumps their hatred for guns.

That's amazing.

Yeah, that's a great point.

They're not even worried about the call.

I mean, that's a kind of an ancillary issue right now.

They're a little bit on the gun control thing, but mostly, this is about Donald Trump.

That's how much they hate this guy.

It's really

psychotic at this point.

It's gone way too far.

Yeah.

The other thing, too, is that Corey Booker just loves the idea that he gets a chance to say the S-word on TV.

He does love it.

He loves it.

Man, does he think he's super special?

And I said it in the debate without

abbreviating the S word for S whole countries.

And now I said that he knows he's on television and

they're going to have to bleep it.

He doesn't care.

Yeah, although they didn't bleep it in the debate because they couldn't.

It was live, right?

And it was CNN.

CNN loves it too.

They all love that they get to say these nasty words on TV now because they think, oh, well, Donald Trump said it.

I can say it too.

I mean, do we do that with John Kerry when he was using the F-bomb and interview after interview after video interview?

No.

No.

No, we did not.

No.

They do like that part of it.

There's just this, I guess there's just a level of

it's an incredible disconnect from reality.

And I guess what I find most offensive about it is we are in a period here where we just watched 29 people get murdered this weekend.

And the numbers could rise.

It was a horrific thing.

Now we saw

dozens of other shootings in Chicago, for example, this weekend, too, that nobody's talking about.

29 people were shot in a park in Chicago this weekend.

Yeah, there was

depending on what definition you use, you could make the argument there were two mass shootings in Chicago this weekend.

But what you're seeing here with these candidates is their efforts to take

as many bodies as they can find and lump them onto their poll numbers to see if they'll go up.

They are using the suffering and death of these people to try to advance their political campaigns by one point.

It's really despicable.

If they can get get just a couple of more donations out of the suffering and horrible nightmare these families have been through, all the better.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Maybe they can push it up so high that they make the next debate.

Wow.

Wouldn't that be great?

That'll be great.

Yeah.

Then they'll be cashed in on this tragedy.

Good for you.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

They've learned that lesson well, haven't they?

Yeah, they have.

Pat Gray from Pat Gray Unleashed.

The podcast will be available in mere moments if you want to listen to that instead of my rantings.

That's approved, at least in some ways.

Triple 8727 Beck is the phone number.

Back with more in a second.

888727 Beck is the phone number.

We go to Dave in Washington.

Hey, Dave.

Hey, Stu.

This is why I subscribe to the Blaze.

I've been on the road since 3 o'clock this morning.

And I've listened to CNN, to Fox and Friends.

I listened to a little bit of Breitbart.

And I hear from you what's really about.

And I just, I want to thank you guys because half the time I'm not getting everything, but to get it from you guys, I just want to thank you.

Dave, I appreciate that, man.

That means a lot.

Thanks a lot.

Blazetv.com slash Glenn, promo code Glenn.

Love to have you subscribe as well.

Kevin Williamson is coming up next.

I'm Hillary.

That's your four minute buzz.

And now here's more of the show.

Thanks, Hillary.

And I will do that.

I promise.

We're going to have Kevin Williamson on.

We also may have a statement from President Trump coming up.

So we're going to watch that closely.

Stick with us.

Also, I want to tell you about our sponsor, which is Home Title Ock.

Home Title Ock is, they are the enemy of those annoying robocalls.

Do you know there's, I think it's 3 billion robocalls are placed every year?

3 billion in the United States.

A lot of them are just trying to bilk you out of your money for some crappy product, but many, many of them now are just scams.

And they're people who have accessed

your title.

They've accessed your mortgage records online.

If you're getting robocalls, it's likely you're already on a list where the information is already out there.

You better protect yourself.

I know I get them.

I get them all the time.

And I have taken steps to protect myself and my family with Home Title Lock.

No insurance, bank, or identity theft program can protect you from home title fraud, but Home Title Lock can for pennies a day.

If you're getting credit card or loan robocalls or whatever it is, Home Title Lock will help you hear 60 risk-free days of protection.

Why not at least take advantage of that?

Make sure you're not already a victim victim, and figure out how to protect your home title going forward?

HomeTitalock.com is the place to go.

HomeTitleLock.com.

We're looking forward here to a comment from President Trump about the shootings this weekend.

We also have Kevin Williamson on his new book.

It's a packed show today.

Back in just a second.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenbeck program.

We are awaiting words from President Trump on the shootings from this weekend.

We know 29 people died between two shootings, both incredibly horrific.

And you know what?

I got to say it.

My thoughts and my prayers are with everybody involved in this.

You know, Kamala Harris set a new standard we learned about today because it was you weren't allowed to say thoughts.

It was like thoughts and prayers are not enough.

That was sort of this thing that rose with the left over the past couple of years.

And now Kamala Harris said a new standard this weekend: no more thoughts and prayers.

So, you are not allowed to pray anymore.

It's not even that that's not enough, you just shouldn't do it at all.

And you also shouldn't think about the incident, which I thought was amazing from someone who's going to certainly pitch brand new legislation.

That is sort of the requirement a lot of times for these things.

Don't think about it, and everything will be fine.

We'll get into that here in a moment.

We're not sure, you know, he's Trump is scheduled to come out.

We're going to take that when he does.

We also have all the latest updates on what happened what does it mean if you missed last hour it's important to go back and listen to it we'll try to cover some of the stuff as we go forward here today including you know the idea that what nobody is covering from what this murderer was talking about in El Paso that it was not only the dislike of immigrants which is definitely part of it he's definitely a terrible human being with a white nationalist ideology and hates immigrants and all that's really bad and it's everything the media is saying about that part of it is completely correct.

They are completely ignoring, of course, the other motivation he clearly states there.

Even when they take quotes out of that paragraph, they are ignoring the fact that he also was,

by his own words, motivated by consumerism, environmentalism, too much plastic waste.

that we're using.

We're over-harvesting resources.

All of these kind of left-wing things that you could just as easily pull pull out of the Democratic debate from last week and blame on Democrats.

Now, that's insane, and you shouldn't do that because it's not Democratic presidential candidates' fault

to go down that road.

But it's also just as insane to just blame President Trump.

Speaking of President Trump, he is walking to the microphone right now.

We're going to take his words on the shootings from this weekend.

Let's tune in.

He's walking up now.

He's

oh, yeah, here he goes.

Walking up to the microphone.

About to make a statement on El Paso, and I assume Dayton as well.

It'll be interesting to see what direction he goes in here.

We'll have some background information on his sort of how he's handled previous incidents like this.

There's been some new reporting on that just in the past few weeks.

Kind of speak to his mindset in moments like this.

It'll be interesting to see this and

kind of go into depth on the philosophy on it.

Because, you know, guns are not a core issue for Trump.

It's not something that he walked into the election, a big supporter of the Second Amendment.

He has named some justices to the Supreme Court that have backed this pretty strongly.

But we'll see how he handles this situation here as he now makes his way to the microphone.

Good morning.

My fellow Americans, this morning, our nation is overcome with shock, horror, and sorrow.

This weekend, more than 80 people were killed or wounded in two evil attacks.

One Saturday morning in El Paso, Texas, a wicked man went to a Walmart store where families were shopping with their loved ones.

He shot and murdered 20 people and injured 26 others, including precious little children.

Then, in the early hours of Sunday morning, Dayton, Ohio, another twisted monster opened fire on a crowded downtown street.

He murdered nine people, including his own sister, and injured 27 others.

The First Lady and I join all Americans in praying and grieving for the victims, their families, and the survivors.

We will stand by their side forever.

We will never forget.

These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our communities,

an attack upon our nation, and a crime against all of humanity.

We are outraged and sickened.

by this monstrous evil, the cruelty, the hatred, the malice, the bloodshed, and the terror.

Our hearts are shattered for every family whose parents, children, husbands, and wives were ripped from their arms and their lives.

America weeps for the fallen.

We are a loving nation and our children are entitled to grow up in a just, peaceful, and loving society.

Together, we lock arms to shoulder the grief.

We ask God in heaven to ease the anguish of those who suffer, and we vow to act with urgent resolve.

I want to thank the many law enforcement personnel who responded to these atrocities with the extraordinary grace and courage of American heroes.

I have spoken with Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine,

as well as Mayor DeMargo of El Paso, Texas, and Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton, Ohio, to express our profound sadness and

unfailing support.

Today, we also send the condolences of our nation to President Obrador of Mexico and all the people of Mexico for the loss of their citizens in the El Paso shooting.

Terrible, terrible thing.

I have also been in close contact with Attorney General Barr and FBI Director Wray.

Federal authorities are on the ground, and I have directed them to provide any and all assistance required, whatever is needed.

The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate.

In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry, and white supremacy.

These sinister ideologies must be defeated.

Hate has no place in America.

Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart, and devours the soul.

We have asked the FBI to identify all further resources they need to investigate and disrupt hate crimes and domestic terrorism, whatever they need.

We must recognize that the Internet has provided a dangerous avenue to radicalize, disturbed minds, and perform demented acts.

We must shine light on the dark recesses of the Internet and stop mass murders before they start.

The Internet likewise is used for human trafficking, illegal drug distribution, and so many other heinous crimes.

The perils of the internet and social media cannot be ignored and they will not be ignored.

In the two decades since Columbine, our nation has watched with rising horror and dread as one mass shooting has followed another over and over again, decade after decade.

We cannot allow ourselves to feel powerless.

We can and will stop this evil contagion.

In that task, we must honor the sacred memory of those we have lost by acting as one people.

Open wounds cannot heal if we are divided.

We must seek real bipartisan solutions.

We have to do that in a bipartisan manner that will truly make America safer and better for all.

First, we must do a better job of identifying and acting on early warning signs.

I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as social media companies, to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike.

As an example, the monster in the Parkland High School in Florida had many red flags against him, and yet nobody took decisive action.

Nobody did anything.

Why not?

Second, we must stop the glorification of violence in our society.

This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace.

It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence.

We must stop or substantially reduce this, and it has to begin immediately.

Cultural change is hard.

But each of us can choose to build a culture that celebrates the inherent worth and dignity of every human life.

That's what we have to do.

Third, we must reform our mental health laws to better identify mentally disturbed individuals who may commit acts of violence and make sure those people not only get treatment, but when necessary, involuntary confinement.

Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.

Fourth, we must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.

That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.

Today, I'm also directing the Department of Justice to propose legislation ensuring that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay.

These are just a few of the areas of cooperation that we can pursue.

I am open and ready to listen and discuss all ideas that will actually work and make a very big difference.

Republicans and Democrats have proven that we can join together in a bipartisan fashion to address this plague.

Last year, we enacted the Stop School Violence and Fix NICS Acts into law, providing grants to improve school safety and strengthening critical background checks for firearm purchases.

At my direction, The Department of Justice banned bump stocks.

Last year, we prosecuted a record number of firearms offenses.

But there is so much more that we have to do.

Now is the time to set destructive partisanship aside, so destructive, and find the courage to answer hatred with unity, devotion, and love.

Our future is in our control.

America will rise to the challenge.

We will always have and we always will

win.

The choice is ours and ours alone.

It is not up to mentally ill monsters.

It is up to us.

If we are able to pass great legislation after all of these years, we will ensure that those who were attacked will not have died in vain.

May God bless the memory of those who perished in Toledo.

May God protect them.

May God protect all of those from Texas to Ohio.

May God bless the victims and their families.

May God bless America.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, there's President Trump from the White House.

There's a lot to take in there.

Let's go back through it and kind of, if you missed part of it, we'll kind of take you through the important parts of what President Trump just said, addressing the shootings from this weekend.

We'll do that in 60 seconds.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Health concerns are a sad part of life.

I mean, it seems like there's always something that either hurts or bothers us health-wise, right?

Well, if that's you, you really need to see what CBD products can do for your health.

CBD may offer many of the health benefits of marijuana, but without the high.

So it's 100% legal and requires no prescription from cbdistillery.com.

The health testimonials are impressive.

Like this customer who wrote, I highly recommend CBD to everyone.

It's done a complete turnaround for me.

Another customer wrote, CBD made a big difference in my health.

Look, if you haven't tried CBD for that health concern, you should.

But where you get CBD products is crucial.

With independent lab tests and nearly a quarter million customers, you can trust cbdistillery.com.

See what CBD can do for your health.

Go to cbdistillery.com and enter relief for 20% off.

Again, enter relief for 20% off at cbdistillery.com.

Cbdistillery.com.

In the New York Times today, there's a op-ed from James Comey, and it's entitled, Mr.

President, Please Take a Stand Against Racism.

This is what you've heard basically non-stop, that the president needs to condemn in the strongest terms racism.

Well,

if that's actually what the request was, the president just did that in

incredibly explicit terms, condemned racism, said the ideology of hate has no place here, said that

the internet was a big source of this, and he wants to go after it.

going after he said we will not be powerless in trying to stop this ideology

and he condemned racism in the strongest terms you've probably heard him do it in.

So, I mean, if that was actually a real request, it has been fulfilled.

I suspect that the goalpost will be moved on this one.

And now there will be, well, why aren't you doing X, Y, and Z?

There was a six-part plan the president outlined in response to these shootings.

talked about the DOJ looking for early warning signs for people being radicalized and potentially turning into shooters.

He started talking about involving big tech companies and trying to detect these things early.

That was one.

Two, wanted to stop the glorification of violence in our society.

He cited the video games that have been cited by a lot of conservatives and usually are after shootings

and the media's glorification in general of these shootings.

Talked about mental health treatment and potential confinement if someone seems to be a high risk.

The only sort of gun law he mentioned or wanted surrounding the gun debate would be the red flag laws.

This is an extreme risk protection.

It's a program we've talked about before, and it exists in several states.

Basically, if someone,

if a lot of people around somebody are saying, this guy is in a major problem, here's the evidence that there could be some process to at least temporarily take away their weapons if they are deemed to be a massive threat.

And step six,

I guess step six was

step five, excuse me, the federal death penalty.

He wants to make that come back.

He'd already talked about that already.

And bringing in the opportunity to kill people

in a federal sense, which obviously the states already have their own laws on that.

And he talked about doing last was the all ideas that will actually work.

That was interesting the way he phrased actually,

the emphasis on actually, meaning don't bring me the same old old crap you do over and over again after these shootings that aren't going to affect them.

He talked about his past accomplishments with school shootings and with the hope of trying to get something bipartisan done.

And we should, we can always talk about whether that's a good idea.

Bipartisan action sometimes sounds better than it is in moments of national stress.

We'll get into that in a moment.

Let's take a 60-second break and we'll give you one more quick review before we get to the bottom of the hour.

If a new home is on your mind, now is the time to make your move.

Mortgage rates are so low right now, you just might be able to afford a larger home or even a smaller home if you're looking to downsize before retirement.

With rates now at historic lows, locking in a fixed-rate loan is really important.

Make sure you choose the right lender.

My choice is American Financing, they're family-owned, they're a national mortgage banker that employs salary-based mortgage consultants.

So they're in it for you.

Customize home loans designed around your needs, helping you set the course for your responsible family's future.

American Financing, the only lender I've ever endorsed, they're the people I trust.

No commission, no upfront fees, and no pressure.

They can cover you coast to coast in 10 minutes.

Just call 800-906-2440.

That's 800-906-2440 or AmericanFinancing.net.

American Financing, NMLS 1-8-2-3-3-4, NMLS consumeraccess.org.

We have Kevin Williamson coming up here in just a little while, and he's going to react to the shooting as well.

He's got his new book out called The Smallest Minority.

It plays into it, it really ties in well with the conversation going on today.

A couple things I want to give you quickly.

How much time do we have?

We're about a minute.

The president brought up his ban of bump stocks, and that is interesting.

It's obviously used as a positive here.

I do not agree that it's a positive.

I believe that it is an entirely unconstitutional thing that the president has done.

And we talked about that in depth at the time.

You can't just ban things when it comes to firearms in this country.

He's been able to do it.

I do believe it will go up and be challenged in the courts and

potentially be overturned eventually.

It's not that I care about bump stocks, certainly never going to buy one.

But

this is

an incredibly slippery slope we're talking about here.

And I don't believe it should have been allowed.

There's also reporting in Tim Alberta's new book.

This is following the Steve Scalise shooting.

It says the only unusual part of Trump's response to the Scalise shooting was his fixation and discussions with doctors at the hospital and later with Scalise himself on the size of the bullet.

There was also the question he posed to friends and aides in the days following the shooting.

Quote, should we do gun control?

The president asked.

Steve can lead the way.

He's got credibility now, end quote.

You know, the defense of the Second Amendment has never been central to Donald Trump's candidacy per se.

He's had a, I would say, a really good record when it comes to someone like Gorsuch, who I I feel very confident in his backing there.

So far, he's holding the line on this.

I think the phrasing that he said in that statement, the way he emphasized the word actually when he said, I will look at all ideas that will actually work, was important.

The president and his administration seem to be holding the line on this.

It gets tough sometimes, but this is when it's most important to have principles.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, called Kevin Williamson one of the most talented conservative writers in America.

He also said he's not one of the most talented conservative writers in America.

He's one of the most talented writers in America.

High praise that could only be followed up just a few days later with, and that's why he can't work here.

Kevin Williamson is a fantastic writer.

You know his work from National Review and The Atlantic for like three days.

And he joins us now.

His new book is called The Smallest Minority, Independent Thinking in the Age of Mob Politics.

Welcome to the show, Kevin.

Hey, how are you?

Pretty good.

It was an interesting weekend and speech from President Trump.

Do you have any reaction as to what the day's events are, where the day's events are taking us?

Well, I guess my only reaction would be from Isaiah, and woe unto them who call evil good.

I think that we are at at a moment in our national history in which we are almost entirely without moral and intellectual leadership.

I resist the urge to put the President at the center of national life, but it's natural that in times like this people would be looking to him for some clarity and direction, at least so far as policy and such things go.

That, of course, is lacking because he's a man of no principles.

and can't really provide clarity for that reason.

So

it's a terrible scene.

You know, I live here in Dallas where the El Paso shooter was from, this area, and I think that

there's a great deal of sadness and frustration here over that.

Yeah,

it's really rough.

And

it's one of those things where it's dominating the news coverage today, and it's important to talk about it.

But I do want to kind of transition to the book.

I think there is a natural transition here in that

probably the gun debate is potentially the most tribal thing that goes on in our politics.

I mean, you see this immediately after the shooting.

People don't even take time

to even understand how many people have been lost before they're saying either it's about video games or whatever it is on the right or on the left it's about gun legislation.

Do you see that as maybe the most obvious reflection of what your book kind of covers?

Well, I think that

yeah, it seems like the press releases are already written.

They just have some on file awaiting to go for these sorts of episodes.

But there's something else that I get to, and I don't want to trivialize

these shootings by saying that they're the same thing as these sort of social media outrage

episodes because they're not, but they have something in common, which is

we have a culture in which certain people have come to feel that the only thing really worth having is someone's attention.

What they value above all is celebrity, fame, notoriety.

And they engage in these performative hysterics.

And these mass shootings are, in that sense, not just acts of terrorism, but like all acts of terrorism are also a form of theater.

They're a way of people trying to draw attention to themselves and to

derive from these acts a sense of significance in their lives.

And it's right to understand these things as terrorism, but the point of terrorism is to change how people think and feel and act.

You know, terrorism is about beyond the actual act of violence in question.

It's larger cultural ramifications and how it influences how people conduct their lives.

And that's how I think these things need to be understood.

Yeah, it strikes me as

the

because if your goal is to stop mass shootings, you probably don't have the right goal, right?

The goal should be to keep, protect life in general

as much as you can.

I think the idea that we have a rising incidence of mass shootings in an environment where crime is dropping and murder is dropping

is a highlight on what you're talking about.

It's really seems to me to be the attention people are seeking and doing things in this way.

And

that plays, I think, to the way the media covers these things.

And it certainly plays to the way people are able to kind of enter small tribes online and let the end and they sort of multiply the anger and angst on top of each other.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, you know, the biggest school massacre in American history, I think it's still the biggest one, was the one that happened at Bath, Michigan in the early, early part of the 20th century.

It didn't involve any firearms at all.

It was dynamite and bombs.

And it was was a fellow who was a frustrated political candidate who also had some debts and other problems in life that he had political ambitions that he was unable to realize.

And his

desperate act was a sensible way to try to draw attention to himself and to show that he was someone who mattered and who should be thought about and who should be considered when he was unable to get that through politics.

So part of the alienation, I think, has to do with some changes in the way we live that not all of us, but a lot of us move a lot more than we used to.

We change employers a lot more than we used to.

We get married later in life.

We put off parenthood until later in life.

There's less church attendance.

So the normal ties and relationships that for a long time gave people a sense of value and meaning in their lives have been either diminished or, in some cases, entirely eliminated for people.

And so they are looking for new sources of relationship and context and meaning.

And unfortunately, people have found these on the internet and on social media in the worst kind of tribalistic politics, whether it's the sort of us and them version of Democrats and Republicans, team red and team blue, or some of the more extreme and in the end homicidal political tendencies that you see on some of the outlying corners of the internet.

You talk about

the idea of how people choose these

tribes.

How do they choose

these groups that they join?

And I will say, and I think I'm completely wrong on this, but for a very long time, I believed these tribes were chosen essentially with,

I don't know, in the moment sort of objective cost-benefit, right?

Like you're looking at policies that you like, policies that you don't like,

and you choose sort of your group based on who agrees with you more.

You make the point of the book,

that is not it at all, is it?

I want it to be it, but it's not.

These are underlying social identities.

People don't actually vote in a way that has anything to do with their short-term or near-term economic interests.

There's a lot of research on this.

And one of the best ways of predicting someone's partisan identification is what their parents was.

People inherit these social identities through their families.

And you see this too, especially in the Northeast, where you meet guys who are bankers and

insurance people and other people you would sort of stereotypically think of as being Republicans, and they're lifelong Democrats, and you ask them why, and nine times out of ten, the answer is going to be something like, well, my dad was in the Union and we were all Democrats and that's how that went.

And I think that's perfectly respectable.

It's a fine reason as any to get your political identity, but

it doesn't come from self-interest.

It doesn't come from economic factors.

People often talk about this in a very stupid way in the case of black voters.

because black voters tend to identify very strongly with the Democratic Party, and there's this idea that it's because of the hope of welfare benefits and that sort of thing.

But in truth, as African Americans get wealthier as their incomes go up they become much more left-wing

their preferences for redistribution for higher taxes for welfare benefits and things like that actually increase the less likely they are to benefit from those and this is you know this is something that's a matter of social identity and how people understand their place in the world and it's about well here's what people like me are like and but the more important part of course is and here's what these other people are like you know a lot of it's based on just plain opposition That, well, maybe I don't agree with the Democrats on everything, but I grew up really not liking these conservative people I knew from church, and they were very backward and they were very judgmental.

And so I take my identity as being in opposition to that.

That's where a lot of this stuff comes from.

Talking to Kevin Williamson, the smallest minority of independent thinking in the age of mob politics is the book.

There's something that politicians say all the time, and there's a word they use all the time, and it's never criticized by anyone.

In fact, when you say it, it ends arguments.

The word, of course, is democracy.

Your take on democracy is a little different than the way I see it portrayed in the media, and I think it's the right way of looking at it.

Can you kind of walk us through this?

Sure, yeah.

I'm more with John Adams and those guys on this, and they hated the idea of democracy as such.

Of course, they meant slightly different things by it than we do.

So democracy is perfectly not only fine, but necessary as a procedural question.

It's how we make certain kinds of decisions, how we choose representatives.

In some cases, it's how we make our voice heard through referenda and things like that.

But the idea that something is right or desirable or necessary, because 50% plus one of the people believe that, is nonsensical.

And the idea that something becomes more valuable as it becomes more popular or more legitimate as it becomes more popular is also nonsensical.

This is why we have things like

written laws and a constitution and a bill of rights.

You know, the Bill of Rights is the most anti-democratic institution in American life.

It's the list of 10 things you idiots don't get to vote on.

This stuff is settled, which is going to, of course, come up right now with the Second Amendment, especially.

But

we tend to attribute value to things because they're popular.

And popularity certainly has certain kinds of economic value.

Taylor Swift's going to make a lot more money than Johan Bach will this year.

She's going to sell a lot more music than he will.

But that doesn't necessarily make it better or more desirable or superior.

So democracy is one little part of something that is more broadly known as liberalism.

Liberalism, the constitution of the rule of law, individual rights, property, freedom of speech, independent courts, all the rest of these things that make a decent, civil, humane government possible.

In some cases, the more democratic things get, the worse they get.

And we see this in cases where you've got democratic forms that are being led by these populist demagogues, and that's basically how Venezuela got into the situation where it is right now.

We've seen things happen like that in countries like India and Pakistan, and to a lesser extent in the United States.

We've mostly been lucky on that front, but not always.

You talk about the Second Amendment, and certainly that's going to be coming up for massive debate here in the next few days.

You also talk a lot in the book about the First Amendment.

And

one of the phrases that you, again, another conversation ender.

When you say, hey, look, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, that's supposed to mean, well, whatever speech I'm against at this moment is okay for me to censor.

Can you kind of go into that?

Why do people misunderstand what that means?

That one is one of the worst.

It's one of the dumbest cliches that's really enabled

a lot of oppression.

So this came out of a Supreme Court argument in which the court was trying to decide whether we could lock up the head of the Socialist Party for protesting World War I.

And the idea behind fire in a crowded theater was, well, if this guy is allowed allowed to speak this way, people will riot.

There will be civil unrest.

And so

essentially, this is Justice Holmes coming up with a legal rationale for the Heckler's veto for saying that the problem isn't the speech, the problem, or rather, the problem isn't the fact that people are going to commit violence in reaction to the speech, but the speech itself.

So it's a pretext for censoring things that we don't want to hear because they're unpopular.

And this is a really interesting thing for where we are as a country right now, because we've got really good good First Amendment jurisprudence right now, thanks to some really, really good judicial appointments.

The First Amendment legally has probably never been in better shape.

But there's a cultural question there too.

And these things feed on one another.

And so to the extent that we think of certain ideas as being unutterable, as being outside of what should be protected,

then these things can eventually be squeezed out of what's protected by the First Amendment.

This is where the idea of hate speech comes in.

Well, we want to protect political speech unless we really, really don't like it, in which case we're going to call it something else and it's not protected.

And of course, the whole idea of the First Amendment is to protect speech which is controversial and unpopular and marginal because if it weren't, it wouldn't need protection in the first place because no one would be trying to censor it.

So these things kind of feed off of one another.

What's considered culturally undoable is part of how things get defined in places like Canada and Austria and Germany where they've got more invasive speech rules than we have here in the United States, but also how people here in the United States foresee a future regime of which you've got hate speech laws, more controls on political speech through what we euphemistically call campaign finance law and those sorts of things.

So they feed off of one another, and that's an important thing, I think, to keep in mind that anytime you're putting something outside the realm of what should be protected, that's what you're really setting yourself up for is a future regime of censorship.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Does it worry you that

they're already talking about the DOJ looking into ways to partner with big tech firms to crack down on this sort of speech?

I mean, nobody, you know, look, nobody's going to stand up, I think, more than conservatives to say, you know, white nationalism, especially as a government ideology, which is just implied.

You have gigantic government to enforce these types of things.

I mean, it's just, it's totally against what conservatives want.

Absolutely fine.

We should all stand up against white supremacy and this sort of speech, but that's what idea is.

When it comes to government trying to to implement laws to stop this,

that is, I hate to use the slippery slope thing, but it's terrifying.

Well, and the slope is slippery for reasons that people don't understand.

You know, corporations like one-size-fits-all solutions, they like to have uniformity and homogeneity.

And the problem with that is that companies like Facebook and Google and Twitter and others are global.

They are international.

And it's tempting for them to take the most restrictive standard and make that their default position, the same way that California essentially sets automotive emissions rules for the rest of the country.

So in places like Germany, Austria, much of Western Europe, but also Singapore, China, and some other places, they have a whole different culture about free speech and they have a whole different set of rules and assumptions.

Now, Western Europe is pretty liberal and it's democratic, of course, but they've also got rules about political speech and certain kinds of political organizing.

I get into this extensively in the book.

that just simply wouldn't be acceptable in the United States under the First Amendment.

They have a theory called militant democracy, and this is the idea under which they ban certain kinds of political speech.

They prohibit certain kinds of political parties.

You know, in Austria, you can theoretically go to prison for 25 years for selling someone a copy of Mein Kampf.

Now, I don't think Mein Kampf is a great book.

I don't want to lock people up for reading it either.

And

now, in the United States, we think of these things as being crazy, and we wouldn't accept that.

These are not crazy, uncivilized countries.

This is Western Europe we're talking about.

Yeah.

Kevin, we're up against the break here.

We got to call it here.

But the smallest minority, independent thinking in the age of mob politics, much better than Mein Kampf.

I can tell you that right now.

You can get it in bookstores everywhere.

Kevin, thanks for being on the program.

Thanks so much.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenbeck program.

We see the violence, and why don't we care?

Why don't we do something?

Why don't we act?

Why is it that these things happen over and over and over again and we never seem to do anything?

Why don't we care?

You probably saw this posted at some version of it in your Facebook feed this weekend

or on any sort of social media where people reacted to the shootings.

And

I don't know if people realize how insulting it is, or maybe that's the purpose.

What you're really, of course, asking

is something completely different.

You know, we care.

Of course, we care.

We all care.

In fact, one of the things we say when we really care about something is we pray for it, if you happen to be a person of faith.

But we're told now that that's either not enough or something we shouldn't do at all.

In Kamala Harris's words this weekend, no more thoughts and prayers.

We need action.

So you're no longer able to pray about it.

You're not even able to think about it anymore if Kamala has her preference.

So other than praying,

other than thinking, because you don't want to think in a situation like this, that's always a bad outcome.

What do you do?

Why don't we care?

Well, we do care.

Why won't we do something?

Well, what are you really asking?

What you're asking is why don't don't we do the thing that you want?

Why don't we do the thing that you want the government to do?

Why don't we just agree with you?

That's what the people on your feet are really asking.

Why don't you see?

Why hasn't the emotion overwhelmed you like it's overwhelmed me?

We're all emotional about a situation like this, of course.

But it is our job as citizens of the United States of America to not let emotion overwhelm a sober decision-making process.

We have seen some really bad things in American history which have been born out of emotional distress leading to policy.

This is why we have a Constitution with amendments.

As Kevin Williamson pointed out last hour, these are the things you can't change with just democracy or popularity.

You have to do more.

These are the principles that our society stands on.

And some of the things they want to do would make no difference or worse.

We're going to go through some of the most common things said on your Facebook page or your social media page of any sort this weekend and give you the facts so you know how to defend the Second Amendment and you know how to defend the truth.

We start there in 60 seconds.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Imagine if I only gave you part of a news story.

It'd be pretty hard to follow.

Well, that's what it may be like relying on monitoring your credit and your bank statements to help protect your identity.

You could miss a really important part of the story.

Sure, your bank and credit card companies can help detect fraud, but it may not monitor all the other ways your identity can be stolen, like when somebody opens up a new account or or applies for a loan in your name.

That's why there's Life Lock.

LifeLock uses proprietary technology to alert you to a wide range of identity threats.

And if there is a problem, a U.S.-based specialist will work to fix it.

Now, nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but with LifeLock, they monitor more and they can help you see the threats to your identity that you might otherwise miss on your own.

Join now and get an extra 10% off by using the promo code BEC at 1-800-Lifelock or head to lifelock.com.

Use the promo code Beck and save an extra 10% at lifelock.com.

So one of the things you'll probably be hearing in the coming days, if you haven't heard it already, is a bunch of arguments as to why this incident means we need new gun control measures.

And the gun control measures will be popped up there.

Some of them are very popular, like universal background checks, which basically already exist.

The people posting that probably don't know that.

You also see things like an assault weapons ban.

Lots of things that are kind of thrown out there as if they would have solved any of these incidents.

Now, of course, we all know that there is, I mean, if you look, if you happen to be looking at the two incidents from this weekend in Dayton, Ohio, in El Paso, none of the proposed measures would do anything to stop these incidents.

They may change them slightly, and we'll get into those details here in a second, but they're not going to do anything to stop them.

Likely, the exact same outcome, sadly, would have been the case.

But one thing you'll hear over and over again is: you know, you keep saying that it's very difficult to do things.

You can't do anything about this.

There's a popular meme that goes around that says, hey, there's just nothing that can be done, says

the only country in the world where it happens.

And many people will bring up the idea that we hear about these mass shootings all the time in the United States.

They're happening all the time.

And we never hear about them anywhere else.

We never hear about them anywhere else.

These other countries don't have these problems.

At least not as often.

Maybe every once in a while, but not as often.

Well, we have to start with that particular argument in a very basic place.

And this one's going to be confusing to many.

And once you, if they can't, if you can't get them over this hump, it might be time to turn the argument off.

But the United States is larger than many of the countries you're discussing.

So the idea that you haven't heard about a mass shooting for a while in a country with 1 20th the population is not notable.

It's not something that you would be interested in mentioning.

Because you shouldn't hear about them as often as you hear about them in the United States.

The way they control for this, of course, is a per capita count.

So you look at, okay,

you know, as far as the population, how many people are dying in mass shootings?

The first thing, of course, you'll come to is that the number one overall ratio by a pretty large margin is Norway.

Norway's per capita rate is much higher than the United States, and they're not alone.

Norway, of course, had the worst mass shooting in world history, where I think it was 91 people, something like that.

It was in the 90s, were shot and killed.

And it was one bombing, a couple bombings, and

a bunch of shooting, many of them children, one of the worst incidents

in history.

Now, I say that it's one of the worst incidents in history and one of the worst mass shootings in history.

Of course, I'm eliminating

every single government

shooting, which, of course, they have all the records.

All the records come from the government.

All governments, I mean, if you want to look at the top thousand, you're not going to find any individuals there.

If you want to go through the top 10,000, maybe you start seeing one or two individuals worked in there.

The government is, of course, responsible for all the biggest mass shootings in human history, mostly in regimes which were utilizing the form of government you're currently advocating for, socialism.

So, the idea that you guys have the solution on this one, it's a little bit off, it's a little bit off-putting.

But, you know, maybe your friends aren't completely insane.

Maybe they're not Alexandria Ecasio-Cortez, and they want, they just might not know the details of these situations.

For example, they might say, well, what about something like Australia?

Why don't we do something like

we're doing in Australia?

And we can get into that as well.

But even New Zealand.

Now, New Zealand is one of these countries that, you remember this big mass shooting they had.

They had a major change in their laws.

when they had a mass shooting and they had them they actually had changes the last time they had a mass shooting too which was i believe 1990

but you are about 4.3 times as likely to be killed in a mass shooting in New Zealand than you are in the United States.

Does New Zealand seem like this dangerous gun-toting culture?

They have a lot more restrictive laws in New Zealand, even before this change, than they do here in the United States.

You're about 4.3 times as likely to be killed there in a mass shooting than you are here.

Now, if you say, okay, well, that's just including a giant shooting you just had, you got to take that one out.

Okay, let's take that one out.

You're still 1.7 times as likely to be killed in a mass shooting in New Zealand as you are in the United States.

Even if you exclude the shooting

that just happened and the mass shooting in New Zealand in 1990, you're still more likely, slightly, to be killed in a mass shooting in New Zealand, the United States.

The fact that you don't hear about lots of shootings in New Zealand is because there's not a lot of people in New Zealand to do them.

There are many countries, and the U.S.

is about in the middle of the pack when it comes to per capita death when it comes to mass shooting.

We have a lot of high-profile ones.

We praise them.

We publicize these guys' manifestos like crazy.

The media did a lot of that today.

They forgot about the left-wing parts of it for some reason, but they got a lot of the right-wing parts in there.

And I completely dismiss, by the way, and

reject with entirety and impunity the idea that racism is a right-wing ideology, but I'm quoting the media here.

So it's important to understand the context.

What about Australia, though?

They did a lot.

Australia did a lot of this stuff.

They took away

some of these assault weapons.

That's the big problem, is these assault weapons.

It's not even just guns, it's these assault weapons.

My wife got in a big fight over this over the weekend.

I'm going to bring her on later because she has to tell you this story.

And it's one of these things where, you know, people will just say, well, well, I want these automatic weapons off the streets.

Well, automatic weapons have been illegal for a long time here in the United States, you know, 40 years.

Did you mean semi-automatic?

What did you mean by that?

And typically, that will get people angry.

They'll act as if you're trying to catch them on some technicality.

Well, the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon is not a technicality.

It's a big deal.

But Australia did take away some guns.

It wasn't just taking away guns.

It wasn't just sensible gun control legislation.

They did a lot of stuff.

They made it tougher to get a license.

They tightened the ownership rules.

They made people demonstrate a genuine need for their guns.

They made them take firearm safety courses.

And they launched the well-publicized gun buyback program.

And, you know, gun buyback is a bad way of stating it.

I like confiscate and compensate.

They forced you to, they just took them.

Yeah, they gave you a little bit of cash too, but you lost a lot there.

So how did that actually work?

2008 study from the University of Melbourne concluded that, quote, there is little evidence to suggest that the Australian Mandatory Gun Buyback Program had any significant effect on firearm homicides.

Another study concluded something similar.

The gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had, quote, no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.

Now, of course, they took about between 20 and 35 percent of the country's firearms.

It's a lot of money and a lot of guns.

Also, completely unconstitutional here in the United States.

If you wanted to implement it, you'd have to amend the Constitution.

We'll get into that in a little bit as well.

But if you're going to confiscate 60 or 100 million guns, that's a lot of guns.

Also, still leaves about 300 million of them on the street.

So, I don't know what you're doing with those.

Well, what about just banning assault weapons?

Because people say it works in other countries.

Why Why wouldn't it work here?

Well, if it works in other countries, can you just let me know which one in similar circumstances it's worked in?

Because a lot of people point out, well, Sweden.

Well, New Zealand.

Well, we've looked at New Zealand already.

That one didn't work out too well for you.

People will bring up all sorts of countries, but rarely can they find one that's even close to similar to ours.

It's either a

authoritarian iron fist ruling the country, where their massacres come from the top instead of the bottom.

Or they're tiny countries with homogeneous sort of populations that have

per capita rates that many times are higher than the United States.

So, does this actually work?

Well,

I found a country that's very similar to the United States.

And it took me a while to kind of dig it up because we're kind of unique.

We're kind of awesome.

So, I found one, though, that is, did it implement a policy like this?

And we have a real test, a real world test as to how it worked out.

The country's called the United States.

We already tried this, everybody.

Does everybody remember the assault weapons ban?

This happened, of course, in the 90s.

And then they had to look back and see, you know, how did it work?

10 years it lasted, an entire decade of banning assault weapons.

How did that work?

Here's what the report said: quote, although the ban has been successful in reducing crimes with assault weapons, any benefits from this reduction are likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semi-automatics with large capacity magazines, which are used in crime more frequently than assault weapons, quote unquote.

Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence.

And indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and

injuriousness of gun violence based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in the death or share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.

The author of the study went on to say: quote, In general, we found really very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this timeframe.

So, on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.

It did not have a discernible impact.

We already tried the policy.

And for large capacity magazines, are you kidding me?

You could order heroin on the internet.

You're telling me a little piece of plastic with a spring inside is going to be hard for people to manufacture?

You can't ban these things.

They'll just make them.

This is insanity.

But we'll give a little more preview as to the the vision of a gun-free America coming up in 60 seconds.

Warning.

If you're buried in debt you can't afford, do not let the credit card companies make you think you have to pay it all back because you don't.

What the credit card companies don't want you to know is that there's actually a way to get debt-free without paying off your entire debt or going bankrupt.

If you have $10,000 or more in credit card debt, you now have the right to let us settle that debt for a fraction of what you owe.

For free information, call Credit Answers at 800-970-9159.

If you're struggling to pay off your debt, do not let the credit card companies make you think you have to.

Call Credit Answers now for free information on how to get out of debt faster than you ever thought possible, without debt consolidation or bankruptcy.

We offer a guarantee with no upfront fees, so there's no risk.

For free information, visit creditanswers.com or call 800-970-9159.

That's 800-970-9159.

It's Juan for Glenn on the Glenbeck program.

So you want to get rid of guns?

You want to say, hey, let's get a gun-free society.

Everyone else has it.

Why don't we do it?

It's super easy to do.

And I could walk you through all the steps, but reason.com has done the best possible job to tell you just how easy that would be.

Listen.

Life hack, a gun-free America in five easy steps.

For a gun-free America, the first thing you'll need is two-thirds of Congress.

So elect a minimum of 67 senators and 290 representatives who are on your side.

Then have them vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution which repeals Second Amendment gun rights for all Americans.

Then convince the legislators of 38 states to ratify that amendment.

Congratulations!

The Second Amendment is now history.

At this point, you've done absolutely nothing to decrease gun violence.

All you've done is remove the barrier for Congress to legally act.

You need to enact common sense gun reform.

You can try to do what Australia did and

ban all guns.

That's not at all what they did, but whatever.

Go big or go home, right?

Get that law passed by Congress and signed by the president.

Great!

The law is passed and guns are now illegal.

The only thing left to do is enforce the law.

Guns don't just disappear because you passed a law.

You need to confiscate over 350 million guns scattered among over 330 million Americans.

Sure, you can try a buyback program like Australia, but like Australia, that will still leave behind anywhere from 60 to 80% of privately owned firearms.

The rest of them, you have to take.

You'll need the police, the FBI, the ATF, the National Guard, all known for their nuanced approach to potentially dangerous situations, to go door to door through 3.8 million square miles of this country and take them by force from thousands, if not millions, of well-armed individuals many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce so inevitably gun violence which is currently at a historic low will skyrocket

but that is how you get a gun-free america in five easy steps it's just that easy Come on, you can do it, America!

I mean, this is insane.

And it wouldn't even work if you tried it.

There's no country on earth that has what we have here:

a two-century culture of gun ownership being central to the American experience.

And, I mean, I think that video was made two years ago by Reason.com.

At that point, there were 350 million guns in America.

I believe the number now is 398 million guns.

Despite, forget the cost of a buyback.

Can you imagine people who held out?

How are you dealing with that?

How are you dealing with that?

That is not something that's going to go well.

And the absolute certainty when it comes to an outcome of something like that is that you wind up increasing gun violence because you have massive interactions with

the federal authorities trying to take these weapons.

It's just not, it's not realistic.

It's not smart.

And it wouldn't do anything, as we see with the assault weapons ban that was already enacted unconstitutionally here in the United States.

Because if you think that one's constitutional, you're kidding yourself.

The words shall not be infringed, don't say, oh, well, yeah, except you keep the guns we want you to keep.

That's not the way that that right works.

But we've all sort of

blinked our eyes and looked the other way on that one.

I guess that's the way that that's supposed to be handled in

2019 America.

It's not going to happen.

So you should probably focus on something that will make a difference.

888 727 Beck is the phone number.

Back with more in a second.

It's doing for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program to kind of keep you up to date here as to what's going on.

We obviously had the two shootings this weekend.

29 total in between

passed away and just an awful incident.

Dozens more injured.

President outlined a five-step program here that he's going to try to implement that would some of it is around gun laws, most of it's around speech

and other things that are become problematic.

He's no real details on it, so we don't know exactly what it is, but he is

definitely taking it seriously.

And one of the things he did was what the left requested, which was an overt and outright denouncement of white nationalism and supremacism.

He was and racism as a as a whole.

So he did do that as the media requested, and of course, all the candidates requested, and yet they will still call him a white nationalist all day.

So that part you probably know.

The other thing you might not know, if you missed hour one, go back and listen to it because there was a real thing going on with the media where they quoted this one line, if we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable from the manifesto of this maniac.

What they did not include is what the context of that was.

It had nothing to do with white supremacism.

It had to do with with the environment.

Very clearly talked about the environment, how corporations are shamelessly over-harvesting resources, talking about watersheds around the country being depleted, talked about water being polluted from oil drilling operations, talked about consumer culture creating tons of unnecessary plastic waste.

All of these things, left-wing things, that were just not left

out of the conversation.

But I don't think that's how most people take this stuff in.

I think the way that this hits most people, certainly thankfully, not the violence, because our violence, our rates of

crime are way down.

But I think where this hits most people is in their daily lives on social media because you're getting hit with all these arguments.

We went over a bunch of them this hour already.

But you're getting in fights with all your friends over guns.

And no better person to talk to this about is probably the greatest booking of my life.

If there was ever a guest that I've booked on this program that I would marry, it's this one.

My wife, Lisa Page, joins us here on the program.

And the reason you join us, of course, Lisa, is because you get in these fights all the time on Facebook.

And

I don't understand it at all.

I know.

And here you are posting what you believe to be the right thing, and your friends all can't help themselves, but they jump into your feed.

Yes.

So,

you know, when something like this, a tragedy like this happens,

I actually don't jump to Facebook to comment.

I really don't.

I try and keep my opinions to myself.

But yesterday I could not help myself.

And I

really posted because I was really sick and tired of reading everybody else's opinions.

Now, when some of my friends that disagree with my opinion or my view on what's going on, they're very quick to come at me.

They do.

I don't normally reciprocate because I cherish our friendship.

I usually stay quiet.

I stand down.

I don't say a lot.

In my head, I'm raging, but I'm not going to let anybody know about that.

But yesterday, I don't even think what I posted on my personal page because I rarely do this on my radio page or other things.

If you don't know, Lisa Page, a big, much bigger national radio personality than myself or the number one show across the country.

She does, a big, very big show.

It's huge.

But it's not a political show.

So you don't normally do that.

Not at all.

And I would die.

I would never do that.

This is why you do this and I do what I do.

I cover pop culture.

You cover the political side of things.

But I don't even think what I posted on my personal page yesterday was insensitive.

It wasn't offensive.

It was just me saying, listen, guys, there's only so much we can do.

You can sit here and you can ask why, why, why,

but

we can't do much more

than to support, to donate, to get involved.

But as far as voting, like we've heard this,

we've heard this over and over and over and over again.

There's always going to be someone who decides they're going to do something terrible.

And whether it's guns or if, as we saw in France, for example, someone decided to drive their truck over a bunch of people at a festival.

Did they feel better about that?

Was that an improvement for their families that they didn't get shot?

They only got run over?

Like these things, and it was more people dying than, you know, it was more than triple the amount of people who died in this past weekend's attacks.

Right.

This is going to happen either way.

Bad people do bad things.

That was basically the tone of your.

I was basically, yeah, I was like, you cannot stop killings.

Like, a gun does not fire itself.

The person behind the gun fires the gun.

And, you know, like I said in one of the, I was, I was going back and forth with one of my friends about mental illness.

And, you know, she's saying, well, not all the cases are.

It's not all about mental illness.

Well, maybe because a lot of these guys that have been, you know, committing committing all these mass murders, they didn't maybe check out.

There wasn't a red flag.

And like, if you watch any of the morning shows this morning, they had a lot of specialists on saying that

at some level, there is a mental, there's something wrong in their head.

Listen, anybody that wants to go in to a place with the intention of murdering.

hundreds of people or a handful of people,

something's not right in your head.

So you can classify it as, well, no, but he didn't check out as he wasn't mentally instable.

He was able to get this firearm.

He got it.

Well, people are going to kill if they want to kill they're going to find a way yeah they're going to find a way they have with all sorts of different things when it comes to whether it's you know poisoning people or bombing people or running people over or stabbing people there's always something there there's always a way for them to do it but we were saying yesterday stu and i were talking and we're like you know Every day in the country, there are people that are getting huge car wrecks and 10 in 12 people are dying at once.

Where's the outrage there?

Where's the outrage for the drunk driver that hit somebody over the weekend and killed 12 people?

Where's the outrage?

I don't hear about it.

Yeah, because there's not a political advantage there, right?

My Corey Booker doesn't get to get a couple more donations if he comes out and talks about car accidents.

But it's like, it's an interesting part of this, and that's a great point.

When you have a situation where there's political divides, the most difficult road to solve a situation like that is to attack the place where most people disagree.

Right.

Right.

And so if you want to keep, if your goal is to stop mass shootings, well, that's not the right goal.

The goal should be to keep people alive.

Right.

Right.

So, you know, you talked about car accidents.

Well, these things do happen all the time.

There is automated cars, the whole self-driving car things, they estimate that that would wipe out 94%

of deaths.

94% of deaths.

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people that would be alive instead of dead over a decade

if that were to come to fruition.

There's no political opposition to it, right?

There's not like Republicans like it and Democrats don't.

But that's so, there's no fun.

Yeah, there's no point in saving those lives.

There's no point arguing.

But, you know, and I will say that

it's not everybody that I know.

It's a few people.

But, you know, a couple of my friends genuinely want to know.

Right.

Like, I have one friend, and we've been friends for almost 20 years.

And she genuinely wants to know why people like guns or why, you know, like.

Yeah, she's very left, but tries to understand the argument.

She really does try.

And

that's infrequent, though.

I will say on Facebook, right?

It's people just stating whatever their preconceived notion is.

Right, right, right.

And I will state my opinion and they just keep coming back.

And

at some point, you just have to, you got to just end the argument.

I mean, this is why yesterday will probably be the first and maybe the last time I even express my political opinion about it because it's not worth getting in fights and getting frustrated and causing conflict with your friends.

Y'all know where I stand.

If you are a friend on my personal page, you know,

you know where I'm coming from.

You know what I believe.

You know, so lay off.

Lay off me for a minute.

Okay.

Because this is, you've brought this up before.

And I think this is a really interesting point.

If people know where you stand,

why bother if you're friends, why bother jumping in there when you know how it ends?

Well, I guess because I feel like I would get support from my friends.

I feel like maybe, because most of our friends, most of my friends are like-minded like me.

Our kids go to a school where many of the parents, we're all kind of in the same boat.

We all think the same way.

We all believe the same things.

And I think my intention was, well, I'm just going to put this out there because I am going to, I know I'm going to get support from my friends.

And I did.

I got a lot.

I got, I mean, we're up to almost 70 comments.

But then there's a couple people back and forth, back and forth, back.

And then our neighbors are getting involved in everything.

And now, last night I went to bed and I'm like, I'm not, I'm glad I am not involved anymore.

These, all these four can hash it out.

But it really is like social media.

It's hard because you do, it's social media.

Everybody's on it.

So you kind of have to bring it up.

And I mean, thankfully, my show is not a political show, so I make no mention of it because it's not my place.

But it's funny, you enter the debate the same way we do in political circles, and I think this happens to everybody.

This debate starts working, you know, playing out on your Facebook page, right?

Page, you have strong feelings about it, whoever your friend is has strong feelings about it, and you're, I know what it feels like.

Like, you're, you're, your stomach's tight, you're raging, you just want to respond, you want to find the perfect thing that's going to shut the door.

I want to punch a wall, right?

I'm literally, I'm not a drinker.

I wanted to do 700 shots yesterday.

Just get wasted.

But it's true.

And like, I don't know.

Like, in the end of the day, you never solve a debate when you feel like that.

But it kind of puts you in that same position of like hosting, you know, you're obviously in media, but like not everybody is.

And so you're in that circle where like you are now in front of all your friends arguing back and forth, looking for that like sort of mic drop moment to win this debate that never comes.

No.

I mean, because you know why you have the people that want to just keep coming back with you to stats and stats and stats.

Really, what I should have did was plop up my laptop right next to you and said, just tell me what's right now.

I don't know what to say.

I'm out of all it.

But honestly, like it is, it's one of those things where you caught, it's, it's hard to not, it's hard to not stay quiet about it because especially when topics like this arise, like I get very heated, as you know, I get passionate.

And a lot of times, Stu will say, just get off of Facebook.

Stop going back and forth.

And, you know, and ironically, like like a lot of these conversations we'll have.

And then like five minutes later, I'm just on the phone texting with the friend that I was just sort of kind of having a, maybe a little bit of an argument.

And we're talking about,

you know,

what are you wearing tomorrow?

What did you see the show?

Are you watching?

You know, did you get your?

So it's very,

you know, it's confusing, but it's hard to not address, but also you want to not address it.

But.

Well, you don't want to get in the middle of it, but it's also like, you don't want to seed the ground, right?

Like these are important issues.

You feel passionately about them, obviously.

Like to just eliminate the debate and take yourself out of it is not the right answer either.

I think my favorite actually moment of this was I think at one point you posted something on Instagram.

And, you know, you're in the middle and someone made some anti-gun comment.

And all of a sudden, in your feed pops up, Dana Lash.

And it's like, can you imagine the mismatch which is going on right now?

You have Dana Lash, who's like written multiple bestsellers.

And she's a good friend of mine.

And she's a good friend of ours.

And this poor person who thinks they're going to win this debate is now arguing against Dana Lash.

Oh, this is horrible.

Yeah.

So, well,

I like, are you still friends with these people?

Are you still?

Yes, I am.

I am

very good friends.

Very good friends.

And we will just have to always continue to agree to disagree on a lot of these things.

Thank you.

And Lisa Page, of course.

Now, first of all, I've heard all the jokes.

Yes, I know.

I married up.

Yes, the purses are still in the Liberty Safe.

Purse are still in the Liberty Safe.

That's always a topic.

I didn't threaten you at the beginning of this relationship.

Can you confirm that on the record?

No, you never threatened.

Thank you.

No.

I had nothing to do with you.

I didn't bribe anybody.

No, maybe a little bit more.

And a first contract.

There you go.

Lisa Page, she has a radio show.

Also, a new podcast as well.

Oh, yeah.

Lisa Page made me do it.

Lisa Page made me do it.

So if you are a guy.

We will not be talking political

stuff.

Politics.

Nothing on politics.

If you're a guy who wants to figure out good presence for your wife, I would recommend this highly,

as well as following her.

And if you're

a lady or you happen to identify today as a lady

and you like

all the, you know, whatever products or whatever you're spending 90% of all of our money on uh you can go to lisa page maybe do it as a podcast you can check that out uh Lisa thank you so thank you so much thank you I appreciate it and hopefully you can keep your friends here for the next few days at least we'll be back in a second here triple eight seven twenty seven back is the phone number

if you happen to find the very rare media source that's attempting to give you the entire picture of what happened over the weekend you're still gonna they're still gonna blow it because they're gonna say, well, there was one right-wing killer and one left-wing killer.

Now, the left-wing killer thing is not getting much attention at all.

It was an Elizabeth Warren

supporter in Ohio.

Then there was a guy in

El Paso who was

talking a lot about immigration and he wanted to get rid of immigrants.

It's one of the reasons why he did this.

Of course, he also specifically cites his environmentalist motivations in the manifesto.

Very clearly says he thinks too much plastic waste is a good reason to go to Walmart and start shooting people.

And if you haven't seen any left-wing,

really negative

left-wing material over the years against Walmart, I mean,

this is a part of this that no one's exploring, but the bottom line is you can't blame anybody.

You can't blame left-wing politicians or right-wing politicians.

But a lot of people will say, well, there was one left-wing and one right-wing over the weekend.

You can't take anything out of that.

One thing you can take out of that is that neither one of these things

is going to align with a small government perspective.

You know, racism is something we can all fight against, but you know what racism is?

Collectivism.

It's when you see people as groups instead of individuals.

When you see people as, well, you know, when you're going into a bar and you're just firing bullets indiscriminately, well, you're just firing bullets into a blob of humanity.

You don't see them as individuals.

You're just shooting into a blob of humanity because it benefits your blob of humanity.

These are collectivist arguments.

Racism is collectivism.

So is environmentalism, by the way, but so surely is socialism.

This is a collectivism problem and we should all fight about it.

I did see, we went over a bunch of the arguments you're going to be seeing on Facebook and told you the truth about them, but a couple arguments I haven't been seeing too much on and I wanted to make sure we addressed before the show was over.

This incredible job by police officers this weekend.

And one of the incidents, they took down the shooter in 30 seconds from the first bullet being fired.

And if you don't understand what I'm saying when I talk about police, these are the people that you call racist other day.

Those people?

Well, you should be thankful for them today.

And when it comes down to gun laws, you know, you want to be restrictive on gun laws.

You might want to examine your position on the border.

Because having restrictive gun laws inside the country doesn't do much good if you have no border to protect them from coming in from outside the country.

Just a couple things you might want to mull over over the next couple days.

Back with more tomorrow here on the Glenn Beck program.

You're listening to Glenn Beck.