Best of the Program | 6/17/19

Hey, it's a great podcast for you today, kind of different in its approach.

We really tackle three stories.

The New York Times article on Russia and the U.S.

cyber warfare, I think this is actually a good story for Trump.

And we have a different look at it.

It kind of revolves around not only cyber warfare, but the silencing of voices and the politically correct world that we're moving into.

Also, the poll numbers.

Are they as bad for Trump as everybody's saying?

And is he firing firing people just because he doesn't like bad news?

Or is it something else?

And the third story is about Bitcoin.

Not a lot of people talking about Bitcoin, but maybe, perhaps you should be.

It's back up to 9,000 and this time it's all institutional money.

Is this the time that we've been talking about coming for about two years where the big money gets in after they've torn it apart so they can make large sums of money?

All that and more on today's podcast.

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

Well, welcome to Monday.

Hello, America.

Looks like we're in trouble with

Russia now.

Thank you, New York Times.

New York Times ran a story that the president has said is

treasonous.

I don't agree with him on that.

I'm actually happy to read this that we're actually doing something about it.

However, let's remember that Putin said World War III is going to be fought with ones and zeros.

So we are just entering another stage of this global game that I believe will end in World War III.

We'll get into that and what it means to you in one minute.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Today's show is one I've wanted to do for months

and I haven't been able to, I just haven't been able to put it in, I haven't been able to get it in my mind exactly right yet.

And I've decided just to do it,

even though I don't feel it's exactly right, but I feel an urgency and have for quite some time to talk to you about a few things.

And if you have a chance to listen to today's show, listen as long as you possibly can, or go back and listen to the podcast.

You'll find this show every day on podcasts, on iTunes, or wherever you find your podcast.

And you can listen to it at your convenience.

But today, I think is an important one.

And we're going to start by talking about what was in the New York Times.

I don't know if you read it or you just read the headlines,

but the New York Times has come out

with

something that the president says is

treason.

And I guess I can understand that, but I don't agree with it because it was all vetted apparently, and it

states it in the article through the State Department and the NSA and John Bolton.

But here's what, here's the basic

gist of the story.

Let me just give you the first paragraph.

The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia's electric power grid in a warning to President Putin in a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cyber tools more aggressively.

current and former government officials say.

Now, this is the problem with it.

They say it's current and

former officials, and so it's the unnamed sources.

In interviews over the past three months, the officials described the previously unreported deployment of American computer code inside Russia's grid and other targets as a classified companion to a more publicly discussed action directed at Moscow's disinformation and hacking units around the 2018 midterm elections.

Advocates for the more aggressive strategy say it's long overdue after years of public warnings from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI that Russia has inserted malware that could sabotage American power plants, oil and gas pipelines, or water supplies in any future conflict within the United States.

Okay, this to me is good news.

This to me is something that we have been talking to you forever about.

We have been begging someone in the government to pay attention to this.

Putin says that we are already in World War III.

He made this announcement to a group of Western reporters, oh, probably about four years ago.

And he said,

the governments of the West just don't understand it yet, but the next war is going to be all ones and zeros.

And so there's not going to be necessarily bombs falling from the sky with us.

They will shut off the electric grid.

Now, imagine if you fry our electric grid,

the chaos that would ensue just in a week.

But if you could find a way, like an EMP, to destroy us, 95%

of all Americans die within the first year if you just keep our electricity off.

Let me say that again.

If Russia could find a way to keep our electricity off, 95%

of the U.S.

population dies within the first 12 months.

Now, that is quite a statement.

That's much more powerful than any nuclear weapon.

And all you have to do is just lob a few ones and zeros over our way.

Russia has already said that this is the way we will fight World War III.

I don't know if we're going to fight World War III.

I hope we don't.

But the only thing that kept the world in balance was mutually assured destruction.

Now, this does not work in cases like Iran.

Mutually assured destruction does not matter to them because they are trying to.

Now, this is very controversial to say, and I know a lot in the media will disagree with this, but all you have to do is read their words and take people at their word.

When they say they're going to kill you, you should take them at their word.

It's the reason why in 99, I saw Osama bin Laden as a threat and said that he would blow up buildings, and there would be body and blood and buildings in the streets of Manhattan before the next decade, or I said the next 10 years, and it would have Osama bin Laden's name on it.

It was called crazy at the time, but it was not a prediction.

It was looking at his words and saying, this is what he says he's going to do.

Let's believe him and prepare.

We didn't.

Same thing with same thing

with

ISIS and the Caliphate.

We didn't take them seriously.

You have to take Iran seriously.

They believe that if they can cause chaos by shutting down or destroying America and Israel, they will hasten the return of the Promised One.

Think of it as, you know, bringing, think of it as a group of crazy Christians who are like, you know what, I'm tired of waiting for the second coming, so I'm just going to make sure that I help cause Armageddon.

That's what the Iranians believe.

They are compelled to do.

So let's take them seriously.

The reason why they won't care about this is because they are cave dwellers.

And I don't mean that

as literal as

it sounds.

What I mean is their system

is not as advanced as ours.

When's the last time you use cash?

Think of that.

When's the last time you said, I got to go to the bank and get cash?

When's the last time you filled up your tank and went inside and gave cash to the guy?

Or to the woman?

I'm so sorry for making that awful stereotype.

We rely

on a system that replenishes our supermarket shelves 12 times a day.

There are deliveries coming to the average supermarket 10 to 12 times a day.

You cancel that for three days, and our supermarket shelves are empty.

You cut our electricity off and we have no cash.

You cut our electricity off, you cut our communications out.

We can't communicate with one another.

We have no idea what's going on.

We can't call 911.

The world falls into chaos.

The people who are living, you know, more like the 1970s even, don't have as much to lose.

Those in Afghanistan that really have spotty electricity, they don't care at all.

Russia is probably one of the only ones that we can keep at bay with mutually assured destruction.

China probably doesn't care as much, although it is their cities are so controlled now by electronics, they are probably starting to care more and more.

But the mass population of China won't see a difference if the modern world goes away.

Advocates of the more aggressive strategy say it's long overdue, quoting the New York Times, after years of public warnings from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, but it also can carry significant risk of escalating the daily digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.

Guys, we're not starting this.

We're not hacking into their elections.

They hacked into ours.

The administration declined to describe specific actions it was taking under the new authorities.

Now listen to this, which were granted separately by the White House and Congress last year to the United States Cyber Command, the arm of the Pentagon that runs the military's offensive and defensive, offensive and defensive operations in the online world.

Stu, write this down.

We have to do a show on Cyber Command.

But in a public appearance Tuesday, President Trump's national security advisor, John Bolton, said the United States was now taking a broader view of potential digital targets as part of an effort to say to Russia or anyone else, quoting, that is engaged in cyber operations against us, you will pay a price, end quote.

Power grids have been a low-intensity battleground for years.

Since 2012, current and former officials say the United States has put reconnaissance probes into the control systems of the Russian electric grid.

But now the American strategy has shifted more towards offense, officials say, with the placement of potentially crippling malware inside Russian systems at a depth and with an aggressiveness that has never been tried before.

It is intended partly as a warning and partly to be poised as a direct cyber strike if a major conflict broke out between Moscow and Russia.

The commander said that it's time to defend forward.

They don't fear us, he said to the Senate a year ago during his confirmation hearings.

But finding a way to calibrate those responses so they deter attacks without inciting dangerous escalation has been the source of constant debate.

Mr.

Trump issued new authorities to Cyber Command last summer in a still classified document known as the National Security Presidential Memorandum 13, giving General Nakassan far more leeway to conduct offensive online operations without receiving presidential approval.

So when people said, well, the president probably didn't know about it,

could be, could be, because he gave this far-reaching authority to Cyber Command last summer.

The action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-known

new legal authorities.

Listen to the way this is, slipped in to the military authorization bill passed by Congress last summer.

This is why we don't do those big omnibus.

The measure approved the routine conduct of clandestine military activity in

cyberspace to deter, safeguard, or defend against attacks or malicious cyber activities against the United States.

Now I'm wondering if that gives them the authority to do that in country or only out of the country.

Under these laws, these actions can now be authorized by the Defense Secretary without presidential approval.

This is bad.

This is really bad.

You don't keep giving power to different authorities.

I don't know when we're going to get that, but nobody in Washington seems to get it yet.

More on this and what it means and what you can do about it coming up in just a second.

So, I just want to give you a couple of other things.

Both Nakassan and Mr.

Bolton, through a spokesman, declined to answer questions about the incursions into Russia's grid.

Officials of the National Security Council also declined to comment, but said that they had no national security concerns about the details of the New York Times reporting about the targeting of the Russian grid.

Perhaps an indication that some of the intrusions were intended to be noticed by the Russians.

Of course, they were.

Of course they were.

Do you really, do you honestly think that

we're better off by making sure that the Russians don't know anything?

If so, why did the Russians release the tape of the hyperspeed missile?

Happened two weeks ago.

If you see it, it's like a bullet coming out of a gun.

It is not like a missile coming out of the ground.

It's unbelievable.

Why did they want the world to see that?

They wanted to see what we were, we wanted, they wanted us to see what they were doing

as a warning.

So some of this stuff is a warning.

Now, so far, there's nothing in this article that is surprising.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the president, trying to keep his negotiation power,

is

doing two things.

One,

playing the innocent.

I didn't know anything about that.

I had no idea about that.

He signed it.

He knows about it.

But this gives him, you know,

some possible credibility when sitting down at the table with Moscow of, you know what, Vlad.

A little out of control there.

I'll talk to him.

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but that may be what he was doing there.

Also, the president is fighting for his life on an an election.

And I'm sure Stu will get into the election results that we have seen now, the polling numbers, not too good for the president, and he's got to win.

And he knows that

the press is doing everything they can to destroy him.

Personally, I think that this is good.

If I were the president, I would have come out and said, you know what?

Damn right.

Damn right we're doing that.

These guys meddled in our elections, but the press has already set a trap up for him on that.

They meddled with our elections.

They've already said we're in World War III.

We don't want to be in World War III, but we will be prepared.

And we know that they have already done these things to us.

And so, yes, our cyber command is up and running.

And I feel pretty good about that.

And Americans should sleep well because we are protecting this country.

We're doing everything we can.

And the one thing I have control over is cyberspace.

And so

we are working to protect this country.

Now I'd like to get to work and protect this country from our southern border and what's happening there.

There's disease that is starting to run out of control.

We could fix this quickly, get the Democrats to sit down at the table.

I think that would have been a good way for him to handle this.

Now,

with this being said,

I want to couple this with what we have learned from the last couple of weeks.

Here we have

a known enemy that is trying to cripple us.

We know that if World War III, God forbid, ever does break out, we know that the life that we currently live will be disrupted.

May not be over, but it will be disrupted.

We hope that our people can disrupt them faster than they can disrupt us and get us back onto our feet.

But we know

that this

is coming, if not in our lifetime, our children's lifetime, and it's going to be a big burden.

Everything we have,

everything we have is digital.

Now that's not the only threat to everything we have.

The other threat is

political.

The other threat is also digital, but it is political.

Look how fast we could all be erased.

Look how fast history could be erased because almost everything now is online.

How many actually read a book?

And by the way, any book that was written after

anywhere between 1880 and 1920, the paper was changed.

And it will eventually turn to dust.

Old, old books prior to 1880, they don't have this problem.

But our history literally can be erased and eventually will go to dust.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

Welcome to the Glen Beck program.

Glad you're here.

It is Monday.

There was some breaking news about the poll numbers this weekend that don't look good for the president.

And the president fired his pollsters.

And again, it doesn't look good, but the good thing is,

we have one of, I believe, the leading guys on polls.

His name is Stu Bregier, and he

lives polls.

He eats, drinks statistics.

He loves it and he has been historically very, very accurate in the way he reads polls and

the polls that we should pay attention to and not pay attention to.

So I wanted to get his read on what is really happening with the polls and is the president in as much trouble as the press would have you believe.

We do that in one minute.

This is the Glenbeck program.

So, I want to bring Stu right into the Glembeck program.

And I don't want to really get into the politics unless you think they're important, Stu, about the Trump firing of the pollsters

because politics is politics.

I really want to stick to the facts.

How bad are the polls for President Trump at this point?

They show him really trailing

everybody, including Elizabeth Warren.

Are we to believe these polls?

I mean, no.

I would say right now, you have to put a - they're legitimate internal polls, and there's some external ones.

The ones you're talking about with Elizabeth Warren and stuff are largely external.

There's a lot that show him losing, but A, it's way too early to take anything serious out of these polls.

I mean, it's important for the campaign to understand

where they are and kind of be able to plan for the future.

You know, he hasn't even officially really started running for president yet.

He's not tested any of his new messaging.

He's done none of these things.

I think kind of one of the important things you're seeing in the media is people basically saying Donald Trump is firing his pollsters because they showed him losing, as if like he's, you know, he, if they would have showed him winning, he would have loved it.

Right, exactly.

And that's not what this was.

Look, you know, they were internal polls.

We shouldn't know about them, right?

They're supposed to be hidden.

Yes, he was losing a lot of these states in these internal polls.

Initially, Trump kind of said those polls don't exist.

Then his campaign confirmed that they do, but they were from March, so they're outdated already anyway.

But beyond that, like the issue here is that they shouldn't be out in the public.

They're supposed to be things used for internal use.

Internal use, right?

So the reason why these people are getting fired is because they believe

the leaks came from these pollsters.

They believe these people went out there, took these polls, realized that the Trump administration was never going to let them out and decided to leak them out.

That's a huge problem if that's true.

You have to be able to trust your team.

And so now there's another theory out there.

Because he really can't trust anybody.

I mean, I feel bad for the president in some ways.

He cannot trust a single person.

No, I mean, that was interesting in that with Sarah Huckabee Sanders leaving, that was one of the people, you know, she hasn't been doing a lot of press conferences.

However, she's become a pretty central advisor to him and one of the few people that he believed he could trust.

I mean, Bill O'Reilly, as you pointed out, said nobody.

He can trust nobody.

He trusts literally zero people, maybe outside of, certainly outside of family.

Maybe some of his family he trusts, but that's about it.

But the issue here with these polls is that this is not, you know, there are some things you can learn from polls this early.

You can usually find indications as to what's possible, but we know in 18 months, anything can happen here.

There's no reason to panic from these numbers as possible.

I think he could win.

I think it's not hyperbole.

You know better than I do on this stuff, and I'm always wrong when it comes to politics and predictions.

But I think

it's so open.

He could win by a landslide.

I mean, a Reagan-style landslide.

He could lose by a landslide.

It's that open.

I think all those things are certainly in play.

I mean, you go back to, you know, George H.W.

Bush at this time was an incredibly popular president and wound up losing his reelection.

We've seen, you know, Clinton did not look good at this time

in 1919, and came back or in 1996 and came back and won so these things change all the time it's way too far out I mean the one thing I think you can look at with some interest at this point when it comes to polling is more on the Democratic side it's interesting to see number one

who performs best against the president like a lot of these polls will show every one of these people beating the president I think we all know that that's not I mean that's not reality but it is interesting to think

the minute he stages the minute he steps on a stage with Elizabeth Warren she's done The Elizabeth Warren thing is fascinating because it's as if the Democrats learned nothing.

It's like

take Hillary Clinton and then pop with, you know, give her, fill her with like really leftist policies.

So you'll not only lose her because of the style and her incompetence on the campaign, but you'll also lose a lot of people in the middle because they think she's too much of a socialist.

Where, you know, Hillary at least tried to hide that.

Elizabeth Warren loves it.

So you take that.

It's like, I can't believe they're falling for that one again.

If they put Elizabeth Warren.

I saw the numbers of Elizabeth Warren beating Trump, and I thought to myself, oh, please, Democrats, please.

Show me

specifically designed in a factory to lose to Donald Trump, right?

Oh, yeah.

If she can beat Donald Trump, literally any Democrat can beat Donald Trump right now, which is, you know, who knows?

Who knows how this country goes?

We have no idea.

But if you look at that and you say, which candidate is performing best against

Donald Trump, and you see Joe Biden is usually number one in all these recent polls that have come out publicly, he's beating Trump by the most.

And you see people who are still have large amounts of the Democrats and America, especially, who have no idea who they are.

I mean, people have no idea who Pete Budigej is yet.

I mean,

can he compete?

I mean, in one of these polls, he's shown beating Donald Trump too, although it's closer.

But a lot of this has to do with, you know, the American people have no idea who these people even are yet.

We were about to have these first debates.

Once you get through the first and second round of these debates, you'll start to get a little bit of an idea where this race is.

But as of right now, even Biden's lead, which looks insurmountable to a lot of people, is absolutely

a real possibility of disintegrating.

So way too early to tell.

And I think the media's take on this, which is just trying to say, oh, Donald Trump is shallow and he doesn't want to see people losing, so he's firing himself.

Look, these polls leaked not once, but twice.

That's completely unacceptable from your team.

It's this early.

Why not switch them out?

That's a completely rational thing to do.

I saw a clip earlier today on The Blaze of

Ocasio-Cortez, and she was on, I don't know, Meet the Press or something, and she was just horrible.

She was just horrible on it.

And I thought, you know,

she doesn't work in the old style media.

She just doesn't work.

She's never good at it.

And if that's all she had,

she'd be nowhere.

However, she is a new generation that is really, really good online.

Donald Trump is not your typical politician.

And for anybody, including me, who said, the guy's not going to win, the guy won't be able to win, it's because we were putting him into the mold of what America really wanted before.

Well, he's not that guy.

He's not a typical politician, where I think Joe Biden is.

And Joe Biden's strength will be in the upper end of the Democratic Party.

They'll look for that traditional guy who is just rock, solid, steady, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, even though he's not.

They'll believe he looks presidential.

America's not looking for that anymore.

It's just not.

Otherwise,

Donald Trump would not be president.

They are looking for somebody

who really understands what we're facing today, or at least represents that.

I will tell you,

if I were king of the

political media and I was on Donald Trump's side, I would be saying to Donald Trump and his allies, all of the people who are the 501c3s, all of the people who are working for the president's reelection but are not connected to him, they should really just concentrate on what the hell has happened to America.

They should be doing all of the stuff about, you know, gay bathrooms, I mean, not gay bathrooms, transitional bathrooms,

all the things that have made people uncomfortable, the silencing of voices,

the crazy political correctness that's going on.

I would concentrate on the left and how crazy it has become.

And

show the future using their own words behind the scenes.

and show this is not who you are.

This is what you want.

And then

Donald Trump should be doing what Ronald Reagan did, and that is, it's morning in America.

It's a new day in America.

But remember, I'm the first guy.

I'm the first guy that had a

homosexual on the Republican stand

talking and speaking out about this.

I don't have a problem with homosexuality.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage.

It's up to you.

And there is a reasonable path, but even that wasn't reasonable enough because that's not where we're headed and him just doing a very um

positive morning in america show who we really can be not in the past show who we can be that our future is right here all we have to do is grab on to it um and and i think that would be effective because you have to remind people

that things have gone crazy.

Things have really gone crazy.

And that there is somebody out there, and it should be his vision of

a positive American future.

And I think that would win.

Now, whether he does that or not,

I have no idea.

I know he will go after the press, and the press will go after him, and maybe that's winning strategy this time around as well.

I don't know.

But anything can happen in this.

We go back to Stu here on more on this in just a second.

So, Stu,

how right or wrong were the polls last time?

Because nobody thought that Donald Trump was going to win.

No, I mean, you know, did we just not pay attention to those polls or were they wrong?

I think there's a little bit of both in there.

And that one of the big lessons that everyone took from 2016 is never look at another poll again because they're always wrong.

And reality, that's not fair at all.

The national polls predicted the results with the, I think they missed by about a little over

1.1 or 1.2 points.

That doesn't sound right because we obviously know the result wasn't right.

But remember, polls don't look at the Electoral College.

Polls look at the national popular vote, which they predicted pretty accurately, honestly.

There are a few state polls that were wrong and was enough to throw the election to Donald Trump.

And, you know, that's the Electoral College.

And obviously, very important.

But the poll results overall for 2016 were actually really solid when it comes to the nationwide one.

And honestly, the bigger lesson to learn, and this is a lesson that I certainly learned in the primary, was in the primary, like, remember, Donald Trump led all the polls.

People forget because at the very end, everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to win and Donald Trump won.

Well, remember, the polls also existed for the primary.

And the primary said over and over again for months, despite all the fundamentals, despite all the things that said the opposite, that Donald Trump should win the primary and is leading the primary.

And he did, and he did.

So

in reality,

looking at these polls and completely dismissing them is probably a little bit foolish.

However, again, a lot can change in a presidential election.

You know, remember, it was only a few weeks before the election happened when you have the Access Hollywood tape coming out and polls are swinging towards Hillary Clinton with these large margins.

And he was able to whittle away at that and come all the way back to almost even in the popular vote right towards the end.

He hasn't started any

messaging here.

The idea that, because here's some of the results.

He's down by 17 in Virginia.

A state he's probably not going to win anyway.

He's down by 15 in Maine, 14 in Minnesota.

He almost won Minnesota in 2016.

Michigan, he's down by 13 in these internal polls.

Again, they're from March.

Even the pollster who took them says at this point they're misleading.

He's losing to Biden in North Carolina by 8.

He's losing in Iowa by 7, in Ohio by 1.

And, you know, these results are not good.

And obviously, he would get destroyed if these were real, but they're not real.

And that is really good.

It is also the unnamed Democrat.

It's Biden, actually.

In this particular one, it's Biden.

Though Biden, I think, stands in for the unnamed Democrat in a lot of ways because he's kind of the guy.

He hasn't really campaigned yet.

He's a guy that people know, but they know him largely for him being vice president, which, as we all know, in most cases is just a role.

It's the backup quarterback role, right?

People kind of predict that, well, if this person came in, he'd be great, but you never actually see him doing anything if you're a Democrat.

You've never seen him actually enacting these policies.

And when he's tried to come out and propose things, he's really had a lot of trouble so far.

I mean, the Hyde Amendment is the big one where he reversed himself, a multi-decade stance against public funding for abortion.

And he's come out and now reversed that stance a few times over the past few weeks.

And that's a stance that is actually largely popular among the American people.

Even people who are pro-choice, generally speaking, can get behind the idea, all right, let's not put, we know it's controversial, let's not put public funding behind it.

It's only a slight majority of Democratic voters who support overturning the Hyde Amendment.

So, I mean, it's one of those issues that if he's wavering on something that that's a simple one to be quote-unquote centrist about, and he's already waiving on those, I mean, what this campaign could do to him over a long period of time, he may look just as socialist as any of the others.

So I just, and maybe it's just me, I just think that when America, if the campaign is run right, when America says, all right, I've got the chaos of the Trump administration.

You never know how to predict it.

You know, and I'm tired of the fighting back and forth.

However, when I look at who he's fighting against, he's fighting against the press, and most Americans don't trust the press.

So he's right on that one.

And he's also, if they run things properly,

when you look at things like abortion and you look at

really pretty much everything,

he's in step with the American people.

They are wildly out of step.

And when it comes down to it, they may say right now, you know what, I don't like all the chaos.

I don't like all the bickering back and forth.

But when it comes down to it, if the economy is doing well,

they will look and say, you know what?

I got a job.

Things are going pretty well.

I think this is stable.

I don't like these things.

And, you know, there's a chance that they do enact those things.

I'm just going to go with this one.

Let's not change horses.

As long as the economy.

Yeah, huge risk for Democrats in nominating someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, especially, who's outwardly telling you they want to change the fabric of our society, right?

At least Biden's attempting to hide that.

And if you have someone who says basically, okay, here's a stable guy.

We already saw Biden in there.

Again, this is not my analysis.

I'm saying a Democratic voter or a centrist voter even who says, I don't like the chaos of Trump.

Biden, Biden, he was around.

I remember that.

You start remembering these things more fondly than they were.

There's plenty of chaos in the Obama administration, but people will forget a lot of that.

And they'll say, all right, well, he's not going to be a revolutionary.

You don't get that from Elizabeth Warren.

You don't get that from Bernie Sanders.

I don't think you're going to get that from Kamala Harris or many of these others.

And at that point, you're saying, well, I have something good.

Am I going to flush it completely down the toilet and try something different?

Or am I going to stick with what's going on right now, which has aspects I don't like, but the economy's good.

There's a lot of good things.

I think he's got a good case there.

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

You know, we were,

it's really funny.

We were talking at one point that they would just come out and then they would just say what they were really trying to do.

That the radicals, the progressives would start to say, Look, I'm a democratic socialist.

Okay, that's what I am.

And this system doesn't work.

And people thought I was crazy when I said that.

I'm going to play some audio that just happened this weekend that's a little stunning.

A little stunning.

We'll give you that in one minute.

This is the Glenbeck program.

So, Stu, can you take us through the audio, the audio that we just heard?

If you were listening on the Blaze TV, you were watching or listening on the Blaze TV.

It's pretty stunning audio of people just taking their masks off.

Yeah, you talked about this for a very long time, and we've seen it in different levels, even up to the presidential election.

Now, we have Democratic socialists obviously saying they're going to run.

We have it all over Congress.

We also maybe have the most explicit example in the Denver

City Council.

Now, one of the things you hear from Democratic Socialists is: all we want is Norway.

All we want is Sweden.

This is all we want.

That's absolutely not true.

Sweden, Norway,

those are free market systems.

Those are capitalist nations with a very large safety net.

So it's easy for somebody to say, look,

I want Sweden.

We just are going to have to have higher taxes.

We still keep the free market the way it is.

In fact, we should reduce some of the regulation because Sweden and Norway are way ahead of us on less regulation.

So businesses can make more money, but people make more money, and that's we get the taxes, and we take that money, and we have a big safety net.

That's the message of Norway and Denmark.

Not what democratic socialists are saying.

Yeah, and we should point out, obviously,

there's major issues with that.

I mean, you know, it's easy to do a Norway and a Denmark when you have the United States doing all the innovations for you, right?

Like it's easy to be able to live off essentially the work of other countries who have a freer market.

And then, of course, there's other, there's other more, you know, day-to-day pragmatic things.

Like, for example, you know, the average new home in the United States is 2,600 square feet.

The average residence in Norway is something like 780.

So, I mean, if you well, I think the biggest thing is, and this is even too big of a state, but you could do this in, let's say, Manhattan, or you could do this in California.

If it was a country and they had to live within their own means and they had to live with the consequences of what they wanted to do without dragging the rest of the country in with them.

This is a very large country, huge population, very diverse.

Not everybody wants to go that way.

So if you wanted to do it in California, do it in California, but we cut all ties to you financially, meaning we're not going to bail you out.

You have to do what Norway is doing.

They have to live within their own means or go out of business.

Right.

So there's a lot of trade-offs there.

However,

most of the people who say they're democratic socialists,

when you're talking about people who are philosophically advocating that viewpoint, as we've seen from Jacobin and

the pace we've talked about several times in Fox, where they talk about basically what we're looking to do is overthrow capitalism.

It's not just Medicare for all.

It's not just the Green New Deal.

We want to overthrow it because we think it's bad.

They'll eventually admit it if you kind of actually go after them.

Well,

in the Denver City Council, Candy Kabaka, I believe is her name, she talks about capitalism and wants to make sure that everyone understands what she really wants.

And this is not just this little vision of Norway that we've been sold.

This is full government ownership, ownership by the state of the means of production.

Listen to her outline it.

What experience do you have on shaping the economy of the city and not turning turning Denver into a true welfare state where there is limited potential for personal wealth and savings?

Well, I guess we'll just address the elephant in the room.

I don't believe that our current economic system actually works.

Capitalism, by design, is extractive, and in order to generate profit in a capitalist system, something has to be exploited.

That's land, labor, or resources.

And I think that we're in late phase capitalism, and we know it doesn't work, and we've got to move into something new.

And I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources, and distribution of those resources.

And so whatever that morphs into, I think is what will serve community the best.

And I'm excited to usher it in by any means necessary.

I love that.

By any means necessary.

And by the way, what it's morphed into, in case you,

she says, whatever it morphs into, so far it's 100 million dead.

So that morphing was kind of problematic for me, Morphed into, you know, a lot of people losing their lives in every single instance that's been attempted.

So I do not want to try it.

I do not think capitalism has failed.

And we've talked about these numbers so many times.

I mean, billions of people ripped out of poverty by this system since, you know, we've been alive.

This is not going back to the 1990s.

You can go back to the 1800s and sure, it looks great.

Go back to the 1990s.

Billions of people extracted from poverty because of this system she wants to close.

It's not a good look.

It's not a good look.

And it was, you know, and I will say the people of Denver knew that.

And that's why, of course, she actually successfully won election after those statements.

That's unbelievable.

That's absolutely unbelievable.

The people, you know, it used to be said that the people who had the most to lose did the least to save it.

It is now those with the most to lose are doing the most to lose it.

I mean,

our nation

is filled with people who are either in denial, it'll never happen,

or

they're actively involved in it.

I mean,

they're telling you what they want to do.

And I guess part of it is we haven't learned about, nobody young has learned about the Soviet Union, has learned about the socialist experiments.

These are all experiments.

In fact, the first socialist experiment, I can't say the first, because the first was really the Pilgrims.

No, it was really Jamestown, perhaps, and then the Pilgrims.

They all tried socialists.

You know, it wasn't called socialism then, but they all tried this, you know, we'll all decide and we'll all just put our money in a big heap, and it doesn't work.

A really big experiment happened in Texas, believe it or not.

And if you ever look at the skyline of Texas, just Google it real quick, and you'll see a big ball, a round ball, and it's lit up at night, and it's the Reunion Tower.

Nobody knows what the Reunion Tower is.

What is Reunion?

Well, Reunion used to be a suburb of Dallas.

And it was Reunion, Texas.

It's now part of Dallas.

And it was the big, first real socialist experiment in Texas where they tried this.

They tried this in the late 1800s.

In fact, one of the biggest minds of the socialist movement from France came over.

They were the movers and shakers, and they tried it.

And it ended the way it always ends.

You were kicked out as soon as you got sick.

You were kicked out as soon as you got old.

You were not allowed to stay there, and it all fell apart.

Now, the modern socialist movement doesn't kick you out of the community, they just kill you.

And so

it completely failed, and every socialist experiment ends the same way.

And what are we doing?

We were going to try a socialist experiment in America and in the West.

Well, it will end exactly the same way.

And

it's amazing to me that people have not been taught the difference between the free market and what we're doing now, which is crony capitalism.

Crony capitalism, the reason why this is failing in many ways, is because of many of the things that the socialists are doing in companies like Google and Facebook.

What are they doing?

They're controlling everything.

They're controlling the way it works.

They're in bed with the government, if not the government here, but the government in China.

Look at Amazon.

Look at Google.

They're writing all of the laws.

So the things that we hate about capitalism, crony capitalism, that these companies just get bigger and bigger and they don't have to abide by the laws that you have to abide to.

Why is it that Google and Facebook are having a problem right now?

They're having a problem because they don't have to pick between a publisher, being a publisher where they edit and they're responsible and you can sue them, or a platform, which which is just an open platform and everyone can say whatever they want on it.

Well, they don't want that.

They want both.

They want to have a platform that they can edit if they choose, but not get sued if they don't choose the right ones or don't catch something because they're a platform, but have all the benefits of being a publisher as well and control speech.

Why are we having a problem?

Because it's in bed with the government.

Why are we having a problem with so many things?

Why does the left hate corporations?

They hate corporations because they know they get big, bloated, and then they control everything because of the government.

They get involved with the government.

That's crony capitalism.

And that's exactly what they eventually do.

Do you really think that the people in Venezuela really had a say?

Do you think the people in the former Soviet Union really had a say on how to make things?

Watch Chernobyl.

The little people didn't have anything to say.

Everybody was too afraid to say anything.

Well, that won't happen here.

Really?

Is no one afraid to say anything right now?

Is no one afraid of saying the wrong thing and being politically squashed?

How do you not see that this is exactly where we're headed?

They're doing all of the things that they say they hate, therefore freedom, therefore everybody having their fair shot

while they're in bed with people like Google and Facebook, who will do nothing but enforce whatever it is they believe by any means necessary.

That last line she said should not be taken lightly, by any means necessary.

True revolutionaries know you got to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet.

You just listen to George Soros in his own words on 60 Minutes when he said, look, so a lot of people, you know, they hurt, but, you know, it's kind of fun doing this.

You're destroying people and you don't care because it's not about the individual.

It's for the greater good.

And there is no greater good without the individual.

It becomes a greater nightmare.

And that's what our founders knew.

And somehow or another,

well, we did not, somehow or another, we know how it happened.

They have made sure that our children are not educated in this and that our values and our principles are being sidelined and being silenced and discredited every step of the way.

And we need to draw a line in the sand and say, no more,

not an inch further.

and preserve those things in our own life, in our own homes, and make sure that we know how this story usually ends.

And we write ourselves into the story.

Who will we be?

Who will we be?

Who will our children be?

When they say any means necessary,

who will we be?

How was your father's day, Stu?

Pretty good.

How about you?

Yeah, good.

What did you do?

I had a father-son basketball camp this weekend, which was, so it was five hours on Friday night and then six hours on Saturday.

And

I'm not in shape.

This has how I would summarize the weekend.

I

am in pain as if I conquered Everest several times.

And instead, what I did was, I think, run a few drills.

And the drills that used to be easy and they no longer come that way.

So I'm in pain.

I'm in severe pain.

Yeah, is how I would describe my weekend.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I kind of similar, kind of similar.

We're building fences and things like that.

And I realized I can't really do much really of anything.

Destroying an old fence, taking an old fence down with a sledgehammer.

We have two of the guys who are up here helping us with it.

And, you know, they're old, you know, special forces kind of guys.

And watching them take the sledgehammer, I'm thinking,

nope,

not, nope, not a chance.

I'm not even a man anymore.

I'm not even a man.

Physical labor is one of those things that we,

it's nice to look back on, but I don't want to go back there if I can avoid it.

Yeah, it's actually, it's weird because I want to do it.

I don't want to do it full-time.

I don't want to do it full-time.

Don't get me wrong.

I, I, I, I was, because we have a, a couple of heavy machinery here that I've just been drinking like crazy and then operating.

But we have a couple of pieces of heavy machinery.

And even in that,

you know,

it's a hard job.

It's a really hard job.

And I was thinking to myself, I could do this.

And then I thought, no, I really couldn't.

I couldn't do this my whole life.

No, no.

No way.

I love when the politicians come out and they're like, well, look, I just, we need to get these manufacturing jobs back.

And none of these people had manufacturing jobs.

Like, manufacturing jobs are great.

And they are obviously a central part of our economy.

But very few of the people advocating for them have actually done them.

Like, they're hard.

You're in pain afterwards.

You know, they talk about this replacement of truck drivers with all these automated vehicles.

And what they're finding is when these automations come, and not all of them, obviously, this is just the very beginning of the circle, but what they think is going to happen is a lot of these truck drivers who will go on, especially ones who are maybe old enough and not, you know, to look, to be able to train for another gig, are going to retire, look around for a while, and eventually go on disability because almost all of them have ailments that could qualify you for disability because they all have had to drive around and they have back problems and they have all sorts of physical issues that absolutely qualify them because it's hard.

It's like freaking work.

We want to save these coal mining jobs.

Actually, I think everybody who is in a coal mining job would say, hey, or replace it with something I can do.

I'm up for that.

I mean, you look at these coal miners.

No, thank you.

No thank you.

But, you know,

it's a little ridiculous for us.

I just realized I'm dead.

The power goes out.

You know, the New York Times thing, you know, where we're cyber warfare, I'm dead within a week.

And I'm very marbled.

So I'm being eaten by the survivors that are out actually using sledgehammers.

Oh, in the cannibalism economy, you are

high, high value.

Oh, yeah.

No, they bid on me.

The different camps.

They take me and they're like, okay, we got this one up for sale.

He is really soft, tender, tender eaten, and very, very juicy and fatty.

People say you're not preparing for the future.

You clearly are.

I mean, look at that.

I am.

I am.

It takes a long,

long amount of work to get to where you are.

I clearly am.

You know, I've spent the last two weeks with my son.

It's really kind of been,

it's been a hard year with him

because he's coming into his own.

and

and that's good it's all good stuff but it's hard

and I'm trying to walk him through it without self-destruction because of what is you know what's happening in society and you know he had a real problem last year around the summertime and then

and then this this last year has been really really tough

and

it's hard because when you're a dad and you have have more than one child,

it's hard to dedicate yourself to all of them at the same time.

And

it's tough.

Dads deserve a day of looking up and saying, hey, thanks, Dad, because

it's a hard job and harder than working construction.

Is the Glenbeck program grandparent?

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

And that is the news and why it matters.

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

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

The news and why it matters.

Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.