Best of the Program | Guest: Mike Chase | 6/13/19

Welcome to the podcast.

It is the Glenbeck program, along with myself, Stu.

Today, we talked about CNN and their declining audience that is at this point basically just cratering, though I will say, not as much as the cratering of conservative personalities on social media, where they're just cutting off access.

David J.

Harris is the latest example,

cutting his traffic by over 97%.

Pat Gray comes in to tell us about the latest

danger from Ebola, which again has to do and tie into kind of the immigration debate as well.

Mike Chase is a great guest today.

He wrote a book called How to Become a Federal Criminal and goes through like all the ways that if the federal government wants to put you in jail, they can because there are so many crazy laws and they can use these things to come after you and have used these things to come after people all over America over the years.

Also, we talk about what is the biggest threat to gay rights?

Is it Donald Trump or is it ISIS?

Hmm.

We'll look at all of that on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the blend back program.

Home buying season is upon us.

Real estate conditions are looking excellent for most of the country.

Equity is on the rise.

Rates are low.

Prices are affordable.

Your dream home is within reach, but if it's your first home, your next home, your forever home, you need to get the right financing.

May I recommend American financing?

In 10 minutes, you can start the pre-approval process.

I've known them for years.

I started doing commercials for them after the crash of 2008.

They're the only mortgage company that I've ever done or would ever consider because they called me before the crash and they didn't get their people roped up into crazy loans.

They don't take commission from the banks.

So, what happens?

They find the right loan for you so you're not behind a giant boulder rolling down a hill when the economy changes.

AmericanFinancing.net, the smart thing to do.

AmericanFinancing.net or call 800-906-2440.

America's home for home loans.

AmericanFinancing.net.

So,

CNN, sad news.

Sad news.

CNN continues to lose prime time audience and daytime audience.

Now, how bad is it?

Well, it wasn't a slow news week last week.

The president was on an overseas trip, and the CNN completely stands alone in the massive audience implosion.

I want to compare to CNN to MSNBC and Fox News.

Now, listen to this.

Prime time viewership compared to the same week last year.

Fox News is down 4%.

NBC is down 4%.

CNN is down 33%.

Total day viewership compared to the same week last year, Fox is down 7%,

MSNBC is down 5%,

and CNN is down 21%.

Now that's the good news.

Here's the bad news.

There's a 12 plus rating, and what I just gave you was 12 plus, which means, or it's actually 2 plus, which means everybody two years old to death.

That's the two plus number.

And the money is made 2554.

So if you're between the ages of 25 and 54,

that's where everybody places their ad dollars.

Okay.

It's really important.

That's called the demo.

And it's really, really really important.

So here's what

here's what happened.

And

we went back and checked because we want to make sure

this isn't a typo, right?

Primetime demo viewership compared to the same week last year.

Fox News is down 25%.

NBC, MSNBC, is down 32%.

CNN is down 55%.

This is an absolute implosion of a network.

Now, what you're seeing, Fox News down 25%, MSNBC down 32%.

This is just because the younger people are just not tuning into television.

So you have the implosion of the network system happening.

At the same time, you have

CNN just killing itself.

I mean, we're watching a suicide every time you turn on CNN, which,

well, I mean, if they commit suicide and nobody's watching, does it has it really happened?

CNN is a total outlier now in this audience collapse.

The erosion that you're seeing at Fox and MSNBC

is

just really the

end of this network.

The cable news average audience, adult 2554, Fox News came in at 341,000.

Total day, which means everybody watching during the day, is 213,000.

They're number one.

MSNBC prime time is 215,000, so that's almost 100, well, it's 130,000 lower than Fox.

Total day, 100,000 lower.

than Fox, 113,000.

So you think that the media has this big,

you know, oh my gosh, NBC, if they got on NBC, well then, you know, gee, we better pay attention to it.

So, you know, I had better ratings than this

on CNN headline news.

113,000.

I think when we started, we had, what, 78,000?

Do you remember, Stu?

And it was like nobody was watching.

Yeah, I think it was even lower than that.

Anything under 150,000.

What'd you say?

I think it was even lower than that when we started.

Was it?

Yeah.

um it was just like there was like nobody watching and everybody knew it we knew it that nobody was watching and these ratings would come out 113 000 people that's not even worth mentioning that's like that's like basing our entire life and our entire broadcast day on what happened on the con on the cartoon network at 3 a.m

Yeah, I mean, really, if you think about it, it's like CNN Headline News was so desperate with numbers like that, they they put you on.

Like that, they were actually like, you know what?

Let's just try Glenn Beck.

I don't know.

We got to try something.

Yeah.

So 113,000, but that's not,

that's not, that's MSNBC.

CNN prime time is 178,000.

Now, every time you pay your cable bill, you're subsidizing CNN.

Every time you pay your cable bill, you're giving them a buttload of money

because

they negotiated a really sweet deal when they had ratings and people needed them.

And so they get a percentage of everything that you spend on cable.

You want to crush CNN?

Here's your boycott for you.

Cut the cable.

Cut cable.

Now, that's also going to hurt Fox, but

Fox at least has a chance of standing on its own.

CNN doesn't.

You start cutting cable and you start getting rid of cable in your house, which is happening.

They're not going to be able to afford to stay on the air.

This is a dead corporation.

They've killed it.

They've absolutely killed CNN.

I mean, I understand the idea.

The problem with it, though, of course, is if you were to leave cable and you didn't have Fox anymore, there'd there'd be no place to be able to get good conservative commentary.

There wouldn't be a

you just go to blaze, blazetv.com, blazetv.com/slash glenn.

You enter in

free speech, and I think today you can still get 30% off.

I don't know if I'm not sure if that's still active.

Either use free speech or Glenn, see which one works.

So

every time I don't talk about it, free speech is available, even though I've been told it wasn't available.

Then, when I do talk about it, you don't know if it's available.

Yeah, yesterday was still - like, I was told it was not going to be available, but then it was still on the website, so I said it anyway.

Today,

I don't see it on the front, so I don't know.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Give it a whirlwind.

Yeah, give it a whirl, give it a whirl.

So, I mean, maybe we were incompetent in shutting that thing down.

I don't know.

But give it a whirl.

Free speech, save 30%.

Use the promo code, what is it, Beck?

Glenn.

Glenn, and you will save you'll save 10%.

So join us because

it's important.

And here's why it's important.

The only time that industries ask for more regulation is when they are in a death spiral.

The cable news industry is now in a death spiral.

So they're going to reach out to the government, and most likely, especially if the Democrats win, they'll get special treatment.

They'll get some sort of special breaks or whatever.

And you'll notice also

that the CNNs of the world are asking for regulation of the internet.

Now it's the cable providers that want protection from the internet because the internet is getting too strong.

And the internet is putting all of these programs out of business and all of these networks out of business because it's the new way.

They're not going to change it.

All you're going to do is start adding Soviet-style restrictions, and you'll end up with a Soviet Union.

You'll end up with a broken system to where you go someplace else, some other country, and you're like, man,

we are so far behind.

What is this?

That's what happens.

Right now, at the same time, Silicon Valley is doing what?

They're purging the voices of conservatives because they are setting up their empire.

They're setting up exactly what they're going to do when they rule the world, and they already rule the world.

Cable news and the American people are just starting to catch up.

Forget about what's on CNN.

Nobody is watching it.

So every time you hear somebody talk about what was on CNN last night, you can either enjoy it for the popcorn that it is, or you can say, not important.

I mean, it could be fun to talk about it, but it's really not important

because literally no one is watching anymore.

Now, I want to take a break and I want to come back and go back to what the internet is doing and the world that they're setting up right now.

What is the world that they're setting up?

Because they're not done.

They purged more voices last night.

So who was purged yesterday?

By the way, is David Duke still up?

Is Richard Spencer still up?

Is he cool?

Because other voices were purged.

Their voices are still on.

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.

So who did they ban yesterday?

Well,

so this is an amazing, I mean, development.

David J.

Harris Jr., who's been on the program before, a prominent black conservative,

big, you know,

big

social media personality.

And so,

you know, he wasn't banned, Glenn.

That's important for you to understand.

He was not

banned.

That is way too extreme.

They wouldn't do something like that.

Oh, no, no.

They've looked at the damage to the community over at Facebook, and they've seen that David apparently has violated this.

No, wait, wait, wait.

He violated the community.

So he didn't violate any of the standards or the guidelines.

No.

He just hurt the community.

He hurt the community, I think.

And so they've decided to say that he,

because

he posted some fake news stories, that they've just changed a couple of things about his page, and they're minor.

I don't know if it's color scheme,

you know, maybe font size,

little things like that, and a couple of other

minor things that might be noticeable.

For example, they've, you know, demonetized him so he can't make, you know, any money off of the page, which, you know, is his main source of income.

You know,

but other than that, the only other thing they've done is is drop his traffic by 97%.

And that's just, look, that's a minor thing.

I mean, if you can't get by with 3% of the traffic that you've built over a long period of creating content for Facebook for free that they've profited off of, I mean, if he can't handle that, what can you handle?

Can we find an attorney that can tell me how Facebook isn't being sued for this?

I don't understand.

They are destroying business after business after business.

And it's not just conservative voices.

It's actual businesses.

They just put them out of business.

Yeah.

And I don't think, you know, it's necessarily just like David isn't even the perfect candidate for this because David is a guy who built his following completely organically.

Like he never put any money into ads or anything like that.

There are companies that paid Facebook millions of dollars to place ads to get an audience and now Facebook is saying they can't reach the audience.

How they're not getting sued over things like this, I cannot understand.

And maybe they will be.

We know from our own experience that we've been demonetized.

We've also had our reach greatly diminished.

Just recently, the Blaze has had their reach.

So I build up, what, two and a half million subscribers or followers of Facebook because Facebook invites me to.

Facebook shows me how to do it.

You know, they bring me into their headquarters.

They talk about things.

They say, we really want you to be a partner.

So we invest our time and our money and our talent to be able to grow that audience.

And then they shut us off from that audience.

So they have the 2 million people that some of them may not have been using Facebook when they first joined.

We got them to join Facebook, and now they cut us off of the people who say, I'm here because I want to know this opinion.

Yeah, it's absolutely amazing.

David posted a video of this, and you can see

the traffic numbers.

Let's play a little bit of this and we'll talk you through it as there's some of it's visual, but if you happen to be watching, the graph is absolutely amazing.

Listen.

This is my page reach in the millions.

You see, this is 2.5 million, and

this is in one day.

Okay, this is one day.

This is April 30th.

2 million.

1.2 million.

So you can see it goes up from 1 million to 2 million.

Kind of bouncing around there.

1 million to 2.1 million.

2.2 million.

And then look at this, folks.

This just has me beside myself.

2.7 million,

May 13th, 14th.

Look at this drop.

I swear, it's enough to make, it's, it makes me sick to my abs, my stomach.

Down to about 100,000.

Oh, my gosh.

Destroying.

Oh, my God.

My reach.

From 2.7 million to about, I think the low was 85,000.

From 2.7 million.

And again, so the question would be, okay, well, what is he doing?

Is he posting KKK material?

Would be strange for a black conservative to post KKK material.

But is that what happened?

No, he got dinged because he was posting fake news.

The fake news he posted was a video from CNN

where they were interviewing the founder of the weather channel who's skeptical of global warming.

So, because he posted a CNN interview

about global warming in a skeptical way, which wasn't, he wasn't even said, it wasn't even a video of him, it was a video of another person in interview on CNN, and he got dinged for fake news and now has lost 97% of his audience basically overnight.

So, he hasn't, no, he hasn't really done, they haven't done anything wrong.

They have moved him to a new

village

where conservatives have their voices heard and everything is sunshine and lollipops.

And it's just in a place that you can't go or find.

But they're all just being put onto a train and they're brought to this wonderful little village where they can speak and their people can hear them.

And it's wonderful.

It's wonderful.

It's amazing because, I mean, a lot of times this goes to sort of constitutional grounds and free speech grounds.

And there are arguments we've had about that.

We have something coming up in the next few weeks on this, going on TV, and there are issues there that surround that because of the government protections they get.

That being said, though, I think really the more interesting way to go after this is business.

I mean, there is no way they should be able to be running a business this way, and we should continue to go back to them and hand over all of our free stuff.

Like, we're creating it.

We're handing it over to them.

And then on a whim with no explanation and no rational reason to do something, they'll just cut an audience by 97%.

And it's not just David J.

Harris Jr., it's not just us, it's companies that have gone literally out of business because of these changes after they've spent millions of dollars with Facebook to get the audience and expecting to reach it, obviously.

And then Facebook just pulls the rug right out from under them.

It's amazing.

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

So, Mike Chase is a white-collar criminal defense lawyer, and by night, he's the legal humorist behind a crime a day the Twitter feed, where he offers

a daily dose of extensive research into the curious, intriguing, and crazy, expensive criminal laws here in the United States.

Welcome to the program, Mike Chase, author of How to Become a Federal Criminal.

Thanks for having me.

Now, Mike,

you know, when I first heard, when Stu came to me and said, we have to do it, we have to have Mike on.

He's, you know, how to become a federal criminal.

And I'm like, no, that's what, that's what Antifa, that's what, that's what all of these far-left organizations are doing.

I don't think we need to do that, too.

And then he explained the book, and I looked at the book, and it is, it's fantastic.

We are all federal criminals every day.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, some of us are cheese criminals.

Some of us are, you know, small little donkey criminals.

You know, some of us have whistled on a CB radio.

But whatever we've done,

the likelihood is that the government could charge us with a federal crime.

So the,

I love this.

I have to read this verbatim because I love this.

You should never, you should never, and I mean never, underestimate the government's power to put you in prison for something as simple as bringing a theatrical chicken or any performing performing poultry back from Mexico without an up-to-date health certificate.

Be careful.

No, it's totally true.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

And this is, we're not just talking about dramatic poultry, right?

I mean, poultry that have a great sense of drama.

We're talking about professional performing poultry.

But if you come back, you know, you have your...

Wait, wait, I have to, wait, wait, wait.

You have to define what a theatrical chicken or performing poultry really is.

Where did this come from?

Yeah, well, that's the good question, right?

Because we all know that Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution says that Congress and Congress alone is supposed to make the law.

But somewhere along the line, they decided we're better at, you know, bickering and things like that.

So they gave that power away to agencies who then, agencies, made rules like the one banning performing poultry from coming back.

So you're right.

It would be nice to have a definition of performing poultry, but that's sort of where everybody went home for the day.

And they just said, Look, if it's performing poultry, so really it's the government that decides if your chicken is a performing chicken or if he's just an amateur.

It's unbelievable.

I will say, my eyes are crazy.

Your book is scary because I happen to be a man who likes to, you know, when you're going by a bunch of horses, I'm the type of guy who likes to flip off the horses.

That's just the type of person I am.

I like to make obscene gestures.

But

it's not just flipping off the horses, I believe, Stu.

Right, it's on.

It's making an obscene gesture or any objectionable gesture towards a horse, is it not?

Yes.

And I will say, as you point out correctly in the book, it is okay to do this to a stationary horse.

Right.

However,

a passing horse, it goes off the rails.

What I really find fascinating about this one, because this is a real law, that is in effect, and you detail it in the book, is that they actually did revisit it.

I feel like a lot of these laws, like, okay, they passed them in like 1820 and they're ridiculous, and they just never repealed them.

They actually revisited it in the 1980s to try to figure out what type of gesture was allowed.

How is this happening?

It happens all the time, and because this happens through the regulatory process, we don't always get a lot of this stuff happening in the public debate.

But you're right, there was a time when the National Park Service said, all right, look, no unreasonable gestures to horses, okay?

No unreasonable gestures.

We got to put an end to the passing horse horse horse horses.

Right, the passing horses, right, to the insidious practice unreasonable gestures to passing horses.

But then some guy somewhere came to him and said, Hey, look, look, guys, I need a little more definition on that because I got to know what kind of gestures I can make to a horse.

And so they said, All right, how about this?

Under the circumstances, if it's unreasonable.

And he was like, All right, I can work with that.

And so, anyway, that's where we are with the federal law.

But wait a minute.

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

What does this have to do with anything?

I really want to know.

In 1985, a horse doesn't care.

A horse doesn't care if you flip it off.

It really doesn't.

It'll stomp you to death if it cared.

How is this even?

How did somebody come to the point where, like, no, I need a little bit more definition?

In 1980.

Look, Glenn, you say a horse doesn't care if you flip him off.

I guess that depends on the horse.

Okay, there are sensitive horses out there, so

don't step on their feelings.

All right.

But the truth is that, you know, probably what they were going for is don't make a gesture that's going to spook a horse and cause some sort of harm or damage.

But our government, which is required to make laws that govern all of us, isn't so good at it.

And so they use these broad, generalized terms.

And so, yeah, they say unreasonable gesture.

They don't say a gesture that can spook a horse.

They just say unreasonable gesture.

So

I think if you flip them off, I think if you do the chin flick, I think if you moon a horse, you're potentially going to find yourself on the other other side of an indictment.

And so I go through that in illustrated fashion in how to become a federal criminal so that everybody can learn how to do that.

So there are other things, you know, you can't draw the Pentagon.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

No, no, you can't just say yes.

Now, I understand this maybe in the 1940s, you know, before satellites and everything else, but you can't draw the Pentagon?

Yeah, and that's the way the regulation says it is that that you can't make a sketch, photograph, drawing, or any other depiction of the Pentagon.

To me, if you're at home and you're just drawing geometric shapes and you happen to

do a five-sided one, you're potentially running afoul of this law.

Now, probably it's for somebody who's on property at the Pentagon, but if the government comes to your house and they're really looking for something to ding you on, and they see some Pentagons drawn around, you might be looking at some charges added on to your indictment.

Yeah.

Wait a minute.

I know I've seen pictures of the Pentagon.

I know I've seen video of the Pentagon.

I know they sell pictures of the Pentagon.

Yep.

And that speaks to a much bigger problem, which is the fact that, look, back in the 80s, the DOJ tried to count every federal crime on the books.

They spent two years at it.

And when they came back, they said, yeah, we give up.

It's way too many.

We have no idea.

So we, the government, don't know how many there are.

Estimates say that there may be as many as 300,000 or more federal crimes on the books.

And so you're right.

Are there photos of the Pentagon and drawings of the Pentagon out there?

Absolutely.

And is this law enforced and used?

Generally not.

But these laws lurk in the background and govern all of us, and you potentially could get charged with one even if it's been 50, 100 years since the statute's ever been used.

Right.

So it's not really, Mike, it's not the problem.

I mean, because we can laugh at these and we can understand, you you know, maybe the horse, you know, thing and the Pentagon thing.

You know, a reasonable person will say, well, they're trying to make sure that nobody in the Pentagon is saying, I'm not taking pictures, but they're sketching something that is top secret.

Would you agree that that's probably what they were trying to avoid?

Yeah, for sure, a lot of these rules have some sort of meritorious backdrop.

Of course,

I'm not so sure that the ban on selling Swiss cheese without enough holes makes a whole heck of a lot of sense, or selling fruit cocktail with less than 2% cherries necessarily needs to be prosecuted as a crime.

But you're right.

I mean, a lot of these rules come from a good place,

but because Congress has outsourced all of its lawmaking authority, essentially, to agency bureaucrats, they've made these thousands or hundreds of thousands of rules with not enough definition for us to all abide by them and created crimes in the process.

Right.

So that is the problem: is that as our government has grown, grown more powerful, grown in size, and grown in hostility towards one group or another,

whether it is

the repeat of the 1950s and

Martin Luther King not being able to buy a gun because his local sheriff said, no, it's for your own safety when we know that wasn't true.

A powerful government that wants to to put you away for some reason can find something to put you away for.

Yeah, that's absolutely right.

And remember, the place our minds always tend to go on this is, well, how many people are actually in prison for this?

Or, come on, some of these laws are plainly unconstitutional.

But the thing for everybody to remember, and I go through this in How to Become a Federal Criminal, which is long before you get acquitted at trial, Long before the Supreme Court holds that you are unconstitutionally prosecuted for flipping off a horse on public land, or sorry, a passing horse on public land, Long before any of that happens,

these countless laws give the government the authority to detain you, to arrest you, to go into your home, seize your property, and put you into the criminal justice system and obligate you to defend yourself before you may wind your way all the way up to the Supreme Court to get acquitted.

I mean, we heard about the case of this guy, John Yates, a few years back.

He got prosecuted for throwing a few undersized red grouper overboard, and he had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be told that what he did wasn't a federal crime.

And by the end of that process, you may have been imprisoned.

You may have lost all of your money and gone indigent in the process of defending yourself.

It also seems to open you up to,

you know, they can use one of these laws to go in, search your home, and find out something else that they want to know that they have no right of knowing.

I mean, it seems like it would open it up to the, you know, they're going to be able to go and get your access to your data.

They're going to be able to go in and search your home and all of these things that normally they wouldn't be able to do because you're flipping off too many horses.

right well let me let me give you a real life let me pause for a second and give you a real life example of this and i'd love to hear your opinion on this mike because as a businessman it's why what you've written really concerns me it's really funny so let me let me go here um we are

we're talking about these crazy laws that are uh currently on the books that you can get nailed for with mike chase and mike let's look at things like for instance, the tea party or the master cake

shop.

We know that the city with the master cake shop,

they were part of this.

They wanted this guy to have to be forced to make wedding cakes.

He felt it was unconstitutional.

He brings it to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court basically says, well, if you're going to do it, here's how you do it.

He's just been sued again.

And I thought to myself, this is the third time.

How is this guy affording it?

But

if the police or the state wanted to make sure that they taught this guy a lesson, they could go in on some bakery-related thing that is really old that nobody knows and says, you're in violation of this, and bleed the guy dry.

He doesn't have a chance of survival, right?

You're exactly right about that.

And I have a whole chapter in How to Become a Federal Criminal about Food.

So How to Become a Federal Criminal with Food.

And the truth is that the FDA and the USDA regulate all kinds of food crimes, and they can be so minor.

I mean, in fact, a very similar situation is not that many years ago, there was a bakery up in New England that listed in sort of cute fashion, they listed love as an ingredient in their granola.

Well, the FDA sent them a letter and said, hey, your products are misbranded because love is not anything we know anything about.

It is not an ingredient we've ever heard of, and so your food is misbranded.

And the truth is that becomes a federal crime.

So yeah, for the master cake shop or for anybody else in that industry, if they're a political opponent of somebody,

you could go in and you conduct an investigation.

You're going to find some violation of something because the federal government has so far exceeded its

limited powers set forth in the Constitution that there are hundreds of thousands of crimes and potentially thousands of regulations that a person could have violated, and they'd be able to find something the harder they look, for sure.

And

Tea Party members know this because the IRS investigated so many leaders of the Tea Party, and they came up with nothing, but they had to go through

all this federal regulation to be able to clear their name.

It cost them a buttload of time and money.

They know because just trying to get a 501c3 or C4, whatever it is,

for many tea parties, they couldn't get it done because of the red tape.

And it was because they were going against somebody in the government.

So we've never faced this as Americans before.

We've never seen this.

Black Americans saw this in the Jim Crow era, but we haven't faced this as white America.

And it's coming to all Americans if we're not, if we don't wake up.

No, for sure.

And last year, I wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal called Lock Her Up, Lock Him Up, They Could Lock You Up about that exact point, which is this

picking the unpopular person, the politically unpopular or whoever, and using this coercive weight of literally countless federal crimes, federal laws and regulations,

to carry out essentially vindictive purposes.

That is the problem that it creates.

It's not that we're arguing that regulation is inherently inherently good or inherently bad.

If you go through the book, you will see that every aspect of modern American life is regulated in such a way that it gives the government immense power for politically unpopular people to be prosecuted.

I'll give you one example that I go through in the book, which is if you leave the country with more than $25 worth of nickels in your pocket, that's a federal crime.

Okay?

And I'll show you how to do that.

I mean, you're going to need some pants with some good pockets and a nice dirty belt.

But the truth is that if you leave the country with more than $25 worth of nickels, you've committed a federal crime and face up to five years in prison.

It's just one example of the government requiring all kinds of reporting and all kinds of information from you.

Not that you've harmed anybody or actually created any kind of injury to anybody, but because the government so wants information that if you don't give that information to them, you could find yourself on the other end of an indictment and a potentially boundless investigation.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: And this is made made much, much worse because we've disengaged and separated ourselves from the Constitution and the idea of blind justice, right?

Absolutely.

Yeah, no question about it.

It is not an even-handed system.

Well, Mike, thank you so much.

The name of the book is How to Become a Federal Criminal.

You'll actually laugh really, really hard all the way through it, but there's important lessons to be learned in it.

How to Become a Federal Criminal, perhaps a book that all of us should have on our shelves.

I highly recommend you get it now by Mike Chase.

The best of the Glenn Bank program.

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

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Well, since it's Gay Pride Month, we thought we would celebrate by talking a little bit about the gay pride that is so prideful

and tell you where we're headed as a society.

Yin Kyu is a former dominatrix and educator and practitioner of bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, and sadomasochism.

For Yin Kyu, BDSM has long been a part of her understanding and experience with sexuality.

Initially, she explored kink as a cabaret performer in college.

Today, she's based in Brooklyn and she uses her expertise as a platform, as an activist, visible queer Asian American person in the BDSM community to elevate the experiences of marginalized people and perform BDSM rituals with clients as a form of therapy.

She also hosts workshop for members of the LGBTQ community.

She's also the creator of the web series Mercy Mistress, which is co-produced by Margaret Cho.

She just gave an interview with the Washington, or I'm sorry, with the Huffington Post, so we could understand.

She wanted to highlight the work in this underserved community and uh and understand bdsm's role in exploring and furthering queer pride and how they envision the future of the lgbtq movement she says quote the ritual work uses bdsm activities as well as sadomasochism whether it's flogging spanking caning fetish worship to be kind of a cathartic release or i use it as sort of an arena to work on something one might be going through.

The individual I'm working with is not looking to get turned on by me, and I'm not looking to dominate somebody in the way that they're handing power over to me and manifesting like fantasy play.

So her sessions, she says, what I'm actually doing is just offering my skills and services to be the hand that puts someone into bondage, to hold safe space for them, not to prod or poke them.

It's more than they would take a flogging for themselves.

So they're really going to take a really hard whipping.

So they can manifest something

with the intention that they're trying to get through some kind of struggle, whether it be work-related or any other part of their lives where they feel they need that physical whipping, that physical push, much in the way someone might say, run a marathon.

Hmm.

Okay.

Now, as you unfortunately would have to read all the way through this nonsense,

The question from the Huffington Post was, so you believe embracing kink and other marginalized identities has the power to move the conversation and experience of pride beyond the white, gay, cis male that has dominated the movement up until now?

She says, and I quote, I think the corporations,

I think the corporations that are fueling the money that goes into pride and the other people getting paid by those corporations need to turn and understand they got over the fence by so many people giving them a hand over it.

They didn't achieve gay marriage inequality of queer people in the workplace on their own.

It wasn't just the leadership and the corporations.

We need to remember how much privilege we attain and we always have to look to our neighbors and people outside of our spaces to see who else needs a hand up to get in that space so we can all be at the party.

As a community organizer holding events, I got some pushback from some marginalized people because they don't want it to be a token within a space.

And I understand that, being Asian American and a sex worker, but I also believe there's a responsibility to come forward as a role model and say, I don't want to bring you in as a token.

I want to bring you in as a co-host.

I feel there is so much money going into Pride right now that we must be able to have the time and work available to reach out to those sex workers, to reach out to those people in communities that have long been, have not been uplifted.

I was talking to an older gay white man after Pride last year who was really offended and hurt that there were a lot of leather flags with a black stripe showing solidarity with Black Lives Matter.

He confided to me, and I listened because he's an ally to Black Lives Matter.

But he felt insulted that his own history of what the rainbow flag had meant to him had been changed and mutated in a way that he felt was not giving reverence to gay pride.

Now, hang on just a second.

This is a person in this new community that already feels they're being alienated and their history is being erased and they are being mocked because someone put a leather stripe on the

rainbow flag.

And so he's now being alienated.

She said,

I told him that things have to change.

Our language has to change.

Gee, where have I heard this before?

Oh, I remember Michelle Obama.

Remember why she was taken off the campaign trail the first time around?

She said this.

And Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices.

We are going to have to change our conversation.

We're going to have to change our traditions, our history.

We're going to have to move into a different place.

She said,

that being said, the younger generation is taking up arms to hold up more marginalized folks, and there are plenty of rainbow flags out there, so they're not going away.

But we have to look to the artists, the writers, the people who are making films, the activists.

I look to artists who are bringing their queerness, their blackness, their BDSM kinkiness to their artwork and exploding all over the world with it.

I look to Margaret Cho, and I'm honored to co-executive produce a series with her.

I feel like younger people in the community are doing sex work activism, using social media to put messages out there for decriminalization of sex work.

These are the people that we can really learn from, and I feel accountable to.

So they are already beginning to eat their own.

They're already beginning to mutate into more and more extreme.

But how about this one?

Meet the powwow dancer smashing gender norms.

Nenuskee, I don't know, Nino for short, is a powwow dancer.

Now, powwows are traditional social gatherings in many Native American communities that allow people to come together to celebrate age-old traditions.

And nothing says powwow like the fancy dance, the ubiquitous staple of these gatherings.

But the dance is strictly gendered.

There's one version for men and another for women.

But Nino, who loved dancing, the gender confinement of powwows was stifling.

The expectation that men and women could only

perform certain dances and wear certain outfits.

Now she identifies as a two-spirit, which is an umbrella term for indigenous peoples from North America to describe their place on a spectrum of genders and sexualities.

So in a bid to break free from the confines of gender norms and represent their gender fluidity, Nino is wearing both male and female regalia.

And after three years of no dancing, she's back and dressed to the nines, ready to dance to the big drum.

Oh, I've missed the powwow so much, she says.

I'm sorry, that's not the way it's printed.

I've missed this so much, they say.

Remember, it's a two-spirit.

They

are still processing what their complete two-spirit powwow regalia will look like.

And until then, Nino is diverting their energies to community organizing and educating others about her culture.

But it's not really educating about her culture, is it?

Because she's changing her culture.

This is unrelenting authenticity that makes Nino such a beacon for others.

No, she's not being authentic.

She might be being authentic to herself, but she's not being authentic to the Native Americans.

Whatever responsibility they inhabit, be it at a powwow or a nationwide pride advisory, they will carve out a space for their most authentic self.

The Canadian LGBTQ representation has historically and continues to leave out two-spirit contributions.

Nino's plurality of identity: black, indigenous, Ukrainian, queer, two-spirit, polyamorous, partner, parent, and I'm not making this up, puppy mom.

Somebody, Stu, look up what a puppy mom is.

I don't know.

What is that now?

Puppy mom?

Puppy mom.

She is black, indigenous, Ukrainian, queer, two-spirit, polyamorous, partner, parent, and puppy mom.

She exists without compromising any of them.

Which we all love.

Isn't that beautiful?

I could be wrong on this, but I think maybe what they're saying there is she just has a puppy.

Does not seem to be that that's it.

Is it?

Read it again.

I think they're just trying to be cute at the end of that.

What?

Did you throw that in the trash?

Why are you bending over to?

Yeah, I did.

It might be.

She is indigenous, Ukrainian, queer, two-spirited, polyamorous, partner, parent, and puppy mom.

Yeah.

So it might be that she's a puppy mom.

It might be that she believes she's a puppy

and a mother of a puppy.

She might believe that she had puppies.

I don't know anymore.

What I do know is that if she does believe that, she's right.

She's in her truth, and you shan't question it.

Okay, so I'm going to take a quick break, and I'm going to show you why I just shared all of this.

Because the culture of the rainbow flag is now being erased.

Okay?

It's now being changed, and the people behind the rainbow flag aren't happy about it.

The puppy mom is now changing her traditions.

And what are we changing to?

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.