Best of the Program | 6/11/19

Hey podcasters, we got a great show lined up for you today and also today is the last day that you can get 30 bucks off your year subscription.

That is, you know,

that's 30 bucks off.

We've never offered anything like that before because we really need your support and we need to stay in touch with you and have a way to communicate with you in case we are, you know, we're all thrown off the other platforms.

We're going to talk a little bit more about that tomorrow.

But today, I want you to subscribe.

It's good up until midnight.

You use the promo code FREESPEAC.

Promo code FreeSpeech.

That's one word.

Go to blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Use that promo code and get 30% off right now at blazetv.com slash Glenn.

Promo code free speech.

Today we learned from the state of New York which one is meaner:

aborting a child the day before it's born or declawing cats.

It's a tough one for New York and they made their decision.

Yeah, it was really, it was a hard one.

It was a hard one.

Really difficult.

We also there's new polling out.

Yeah, I know.

Yeah.

There's new polling out about abortion, and it's interesting because a lot of people who think they're pro-choice really don't seem to be on the pro-choice side of the argument.

When you look at people's specific views on abortion, it reveals a totally different picture than what the media shows you.

We hear Glenn's cow over and over and over again.

That's a part of the show today.

Because Glenn's not a cow.

That's a cow.

He's a bull.

He's a bull.

He's a bull.

And

he's looking for a little loving.

And

who knew what a bull's mating call sounded like until today's show?

It's disturbing.

We now know, unfortunately, all throughout the show, what a bull's mating call sounds like.

We find out about the latest on the helicopter crash in New York, and Glenn has a prediction on how many books Jim Acosta is going to sell.

It's not high.

Not a lot.

No, it's not high.

It's all on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenbeck program.

I want to ask you a question.

In Georgia,

why are police looking into this at all?

In Georgia,

authorities are looking for a mother of a baby just a few hours old

that was found wrapped in a plastic bag in the woods.

Why?

Why are we looking for her?

To make sure she's okay?

Are we looking for her because we want to congratulate her on making such a brave choice?

A man came home with his daughters.

They were unloading grocery bags from their car at 10 o'clock.

They heard a sound in the woods.

At first, they just thought they heard an animal in distress.

But that's not what they heard.

They followed the sound just to see what was going on, and instead of an animal in distress, they realized

that it was a human animal in distress.

It was a human baby.

We went down.

We pulled this sack up, and there was a, quote, poor little baby wrapped in a plastic bag.

We called 911.

She was alive.

She was crying, and we figured that that was a good sign.

The man credited his daughters with saving the little girl and acknowledged that it could have been much, much worse.

In a news conference on Friday, the sheriff said it was divine intervention.

Boy, is that sheriff out of touch?

He believes in God.

He's talking about God?

I bet he's one of these guys who's like, thoughts and prayers to the baby.

Georgia has what's known as a safe haven law, which permits the mother of the child to drop her baby off at a hospital, police, or fire station until the baby is seven days old without fear of any prosecution.

But maybe mom didn't know.

Maybe there's not enough government programs out there that alerted her to this law.

Maybe mom did know, but she didn't really care because, I mean, it's not really a baby.

She didn't have the money, even though it's, you know, now federally funded.

Maybe she didn't have the money.

She didn't have the access.

Maybe she was too embarrassed.

Maybe she changed her mind at the last minute.

When do we stop calling this a fetus?

And when do we declare that it's a baby?

Five minutes, two hours.

We don't even know how old it was when mom dropped the baby off.

It might have, she might have had the plastic bag ready to go.

As soon as she had the baby, she wrapped it up and then walked out into the woods somewhere

and deposited the baby, the fetus, the thing.

The baby, by the way, is in stable condition.

Now

you think that I'm being sarcastic on all of this,

but all of these things are actual questions that we need to answer now.

How radical is leftist feminism at this point?

How radical has it become?

Well, a radical feminist, her name is Sophie Lewis,

now describes pregnancy as gestational work

and an abortion as an acceptable violence, a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.

Well, at least we're now talking about killing.

At least she's brought that word up into play.

We're facing a terrible attack on abortion.

She says the strategies that have been used on the left

have tended to

include the kind of seeding ground, quote, on

with her enemies.

We tend to say that abortion is indeed very bad, but luckily it's not killing.

Luckily, it's just a health care right.

We have very little to lose at the moment when it comes to abortion, and I'm interested in winning radically, she writes.

I wonder if we could think about defending abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work.

Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognize how controversial this is, a form of killing.

It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.

I'm not interested in where human life starts to exist.

I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as continuous processes.

The other end of the spectrum is learning how to die well and hold each other and let each other go at the end of our lives.

Now it's just at the beginning as well.

But looking at the biology helps me think about the violence that innocently a fetus meets out vis-a-vis a gestator.

The violence is an unacceptable violence for someone who doesn't want to do the gestational work.

The violence that the gestator meets

is essentially just going on strike or exit that workplace,

and that's acceptable violence.

In a recent interview, this author

summarized by a reporter

in the

Nation, a very liberal magazine,

says that she specifically links family abolition

to a radical reconceptualization of pregnancy itself.

The act of carrying a child to term, she insists, is work,

labor that has long been exploited and overlooked by the academy, Academy, and so is mothering.

Boy, I want to have a baby with her.

What a good mom she would make.

Meanwhile, the radicalization of abortion continues.

CEOs from a hundred and eighty companies, including Twitter, HM,

Slack,

Postmates,

Yelp,

Tinder,

Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream

have signed a letter that says it's time for companies to stand up for reproductive health care.

Restricting abortion is bad for business.

Though the letter doesn't make any real connection between the availability of abortion and the business climate of a particular state, instead, they claim restricting reproductive freedom is against our values.

States that threaten abortion threaten the health, independence, and economic stability of our employees and customers.

Equality in the workplace is one of the most important business issues of our time.

When everyone is empowered to succeed, our companies, our communities, and our economy are better for it.

So, wait, restricting abortion is somehow somehow or another restricting your ability to succeed?

Restricting access to comprehensive

reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health, independence, and economic stability of our employees and customers.

Simply put, it goes against our values, and it is bad for business.

What a surprise.

This is coming from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

And because now the ACLU is involved, and we know that the chairman of Joe Biden's campaign

was the exiting president of the ACLU that has transformed the ACLU into

a street riot gang.

We're going to be seeing protests on the street for this.

We are going to see the left rise up against any of these states.

May May I just suggest:

good,

good.

At least they're admitting that it's killing.

At least they're admitting now that it's all about business

because that's all that Planned Parenthood is.

Abortion restrictions, they are bad for business if you're Planned Parenthood.

Now, on the other side,

without any

sense

of shame or irony,

New York,

which is allowing abortion up to the last five minutes,

the best of the Glenbeck program.

Like listening to this podcast?

If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

If you remember right, Twitter just told Abby Johnson and I think Lila Rose that they cannot, they can't, they can't advertise on Twitter.

They can't promote on Twitter.

And the reason why is because they show what abortion procedures are like.

You know, they'll have little drawings of, you might have seen them last couple of weeks.

People are,

you know, doing

clinical

drawings of what happens in an abortion procedure.

They're not graphic, they're just true.

And the social media has come out and said you can't share that.

In fact, Twitter has come out and said it's so offensive that you have to remove it from your own website if you would like us to consider doing anything with you.

So, wait, so wait, they're not allowed to talk about abortion, they're not allowed to show sonograms,

and they're also not allowed to talk about Planned Parenthood.

But other than that, these pro-life groups they can use Twitter all they want, they just have to remove that from their website and from all their tweets.

So, it is apparently too

it's just too

jarring

to see

what happens with cats or I mean with with people

but you can

you can have that drawing with cats in the New York Times

You can explain the procedure on cats, on what they do to declaw, but we dare not even discuss what happens to humans if you try to kill it.

They went into great detail about what happens with cats and

how the cats are declawed and

what that means to the poor cats.

And it's all for, of course, our vanity.

It's because we put our furniture over cats.

It's kind of like how we put our careers over babies.

Which one is more grotesque?

We love our cats.

I don't.

I hate cats.

But many people, strangely, find something attractive about cats.

And so, yeah, they don't want them destroying the house.

Well, I don't want my dog destroying the house either.

That's why he goes outside.

That's why I teach him not to chew on things.

I can't help but the cats are just too stupid.

So you

I just do this.

I just do this for the people who actually get the email the first in line.

John Bolt, right now, he's a guy that goes through all the email.

And he's every time I start in on cats, he's like, oh, dear God, Glenn, don't, please.

You're wrecking my whole day.

I'm going to hear nothing but cat stuff.

Yeah, well, it's true.

They're stupid, and I hate cats.

And you're right.

John?

My understanding is that you're actually for declawing just for the torture.

You don't even care about the furniture or anything like that.

You just want to declaw these cats because you hate them.

Yeah, I'd like to just pick them up in the wild,

you know, and then send them back out.

I love that because it's you would say that, and people will be legitimately offended by it.

But you can talk about a third trimester abortion, and you'll get an entire political party that will have absolutely no problem about it a minute before birth or maybe after.

That's a standard that perhaps we should reconsider.

It doesn't seem morally consistent.

Well,

it is so outrageously radicalized now, Stu, that you can't do an anti-Hitler painting on eBay,

an anti-Hitler propaganda poster, and

and have it actually exist on eBay.

This is the second time they've taken my painting down, my 10-hour meme, where it's an anti-Hitler poster.

Hitler didn't look like that.

That's the way in all of his propaganda

the Jews were made to be seen.

And it says, as he's reading 50 million killed, next time I should just call it Planned Parenthood, you know, as opposed to the final solution.

That way, if I really want to dumb it down for people at eBay and Twitter and Facebook,

that way he could get away with it, you see.

So that's pro-Hitler propaganda is basically what you're saying there?

That's pro-Nazi propaganda.

No, it's anti.

And we got a letter in from

eBay,

and they said that we realize there's historical significance of World War II, and there's many military collectors around the world, And some World War II related historical items are allowed, but this one isn't.

This is not about World War II.

This is about the world war that we're in right now to save freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of life.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

You know, the part of the plan with the left, I think, is to make you feel small and insignificant, that

there's nothing you can do about it, that it's over.

And it's a very small number of people.

And the way they do it is they manipulate language.

We know this through political correctness.

They can manipulate language to get you to go, well, yeah, I guess that's where I'm at.

But it's maybe not exactly where you're at.

And it doesn't give a fair look at what people are actually feeling.

Stu's got some numbers.

He's looking at the abortion numbers and how Americans really feel about it with the traditional wording and with new language in the questions.

Yeah, I'm fascinated by this.

The big headline was 77% say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe versus Wade, which is amazing considering that doesn't seem to be the split of Americans overall.

There's a pro-choice, pro-life

split that's been pretty stable at about 50-50.

For example, in February, they did a poll, are you pro-choice or you pro-life?

It was 47 to 47.

Now, because it's turned into a bigger issue lately, that those polls have moved a little bit, and this poll asked that same question: Are you pro-choice or are you pro-life?

And it was 35% said pro-life.

57%

said pro-choice.

So, just to set the kind of baseline of this poll, this is a group of people who were polled here that would be to the left of what is considered normal in our debate.

Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Can I ask?

The left is looking at this debate.

They're not putting any stock into

what the Democrats are saying.

All they're doing is they're looking at what the Republicans are doing, which is

quashing abortion in state after state after state.

And so it's being billed as, look,

we were fine with safe, legal, and rare, but boy, this Trump administration, all these Republicans, they just want to take away every single right on this.

Right.

So is it possible that they're not as far left, they just are buying into the Kool-Aid and drinking the Kool-Aid?

I think that is entirely it.

I mean, you see the polling very consistent over a long period of time of it being pretty split between people who consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice, depending on, I mean, it's always pretty close to 50-50.

35-57 is a really bad poll for pro-lifers.

And that's kind of where the reason why that's important is because they answer the other questions.

Remember, these are the same people answering the questions.

The people who say they're only 35% pro-life are answering all these other questions.

So this is not a conservative leaning poll.

I think that's important to set.

So the first thing you realize by going through these numbers is there is no reason to ever ask another group of people in a poll whether they think Roe versus Wade should be overturned because none of them know what it says.

Like it's just you do you think unicorns should be able to hold jobs as accountants?

Like the same value in that question.

I, by the way, am against that.

They have hooves, not fingers.

How do they enter anything in a spreadsheet?

Well, I mean, obviously, we have voice dictation services.

We can get into that debate a little bit longer

at another time of the show.

You don't know if unicorns can talk.

You've never talked to one.

All right.

You're right.

You're right.

You're right.

But, like, you know, Roe versus Wade basically says you can have an abortion in the first trimester.

In the second trimester, you start getting into certain restrictions.

In the third trimester, a state can pass any restrictions it wants, basically.

So,

you know, it's basically a first term of right to an abortion, if you want to put it that way.

There's a lot more detail to it than that.

But generally speaking, there's also an argument about viability in there.

But generally speaking, that's what it says.

You know, once it's a viable child, you can't, absolutely, states can restrict it.

They can say it's completely illegal in the third trimester.

And in the first trimester, they really can't say it's completely illegal.

That's kind of what a, and that's why it's controversial, and that's why these laws that are being passed to restrict it more than the first trimester are going to go to the Supreme Court in theory, and that's going to be the big challenge.

That's why these things are going on.

So, with that being said, what do people actually think about abortion?

9% of people think it should never be legal.

9%,

okay, under any circumstance whatsoever.

Another 9% say it should be life of the mother only, the only exception.

So now you're at 18%, say life

or more restrictive.

29% of people say it should only be allowed in the instance of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Okay.

So now you're at

29%.

So you're at 47%

of people who say basically rape and incest and life, and that's it.

Or more restrictive than that.

Okay.

So that's, again, if only 35% of these people people consider themselves to be pro-choice, or excuse me, pro-life,

only

35% say that, but 47% are

at the point where, let's say, George W.

Bush's position was rape, incest, life of the mother.

Right?

So, like, I mean, that's a pretty standard way of identifying pro-life.

Exactly.

My church is there.

That's where my church is.

Right.

And they would consider themselves pro-life.

And this is why this Roe versus Wade and pro-choice, pro-life thing doesn't make any sense.

For example, about a quarter of people who consider themselves to be pro-choice agree with the Mormon church's

policy on abortion.

Think about that for a second.

These terms are completely misused in our society.

People who say, you know what, yeah, rape, incest, and life of the mother, a position absolutely associated with pro-lifers, not pro-choicers.

About a quarter of people who identify themselves as pro-choice think that should be the law.

Like, that is, it's completely misused.

Then there's another 23% who say it should be in the first trimester only.

And that's essentially the Roe versus Wade standard.

So people a lot of times will say, well, Roe versus Wade, that means you're essentially the Democratic Party.

Well, it's not at all, right?

I mean, you have now 20, you have 20, let's see, 32, 41, 61, 71,

70% of people basically basically saying, you know, Roe versus Wade is the way to go, which at this point is a massive move to the right.

People don't realize that.

They say they want to overturn Roe versus Wade.

Well, overturning Roe versus Wade

is, of course, something that I advocate for as a pro-lifer.

However, going back to

Roe versus Wade would also be something you could advocate for as a pro-lifer, because that is a move to the right from where we are and a massive one.

Another 11% saying the first two trimesters.

And then at the very end, you have have what is essentially now the mainstream Democratic position,

which is you can have it anytime you want, right?

It's up to the mother.

It's a choice argument, a pure pro-choice argument.

And that is 18% of the population.

So think of the way these things are

tossed at you in the media.

It doesn't seem at all like only 18% of people believe the mainstream Democratic Party view.

It seems like something.

I don't believe it is 18%.

You think it's lower than that or higher?

Lower.

Come on, 18% of Americans, 20% of Americans believe we should be able to kill a baby five minutes from birth?

I mean, that's really the only,

you know, you can argue this, but

I think it's the most consistent position, right?

Like if you're a, if you're life, if you're saying pro-choice, you are saying the mother has a right to choose essentially when that becomes being, which is a completely

ridiculous standard, obviously, because then we can give the mother the right to choose that when the kid is seven, too.

It doesn't make any sense.

If you're about choice, why are you restricting it to birth?

The woman that I just said was in Atlanta that they're searching for, the mother who had a baby, wrapped it in a garbage bag, and then took it out into the woods.

It was just a few hours old when they found the baby.

She might have done it right after birth.

Why are we searching for her to say, oh, good for you.

Celebrate your choice.

Yeah, it's a very, very similar.

Because what's the difference?

Yeah, very similar to what Governor Northam said, which was basically the mother and the doctor should be able to choose whether they want to give life-saving treatment to the baby.

So why bother?

If the mother obviously chose that she did not want the baby to receive life-saving treatment, so why give it to her?

So let me give you some of these, a couple of other things here in this, because this is, I mean, it's really fascinating.

Specifics.

Pro-life or pro-choice,

you need to have an ultrasound before you have an abortion.

Would you consider that to be a pro-life or pro-choice view?

I would say that is a pro-life view.

Pro-life view, right?

That policy, forcing women to look at an ultrasound before getting an abortion, 52% to 43%, a popular policy.

In fact, a third of pro-choicers believe that that should be the law.

How about a 24-hour waiting period?

Again, it's a pro-life law, right?

65% say that should be the law.

In fact, it includes 41% of people who consider themselves pro-choice.

How about a law that requires doctors to have hospital admitting privileges?

This is seen as one of the most restrictive pro-life laws available.

However, 64%

of people

support it, at least as worded in this poll.

And this is one of the things we were talking about earlier, Clint, about how they word these polls.

The poll basically says, should doctors be forced or required to have hospital admitting privileges?

This is a law that pro-lifers

show because in Roe versus Wade, there's talk about health restrictions in the second trimester in particular.

So that's obviously a pro-life rule.

You want to make the doctors have more

medical responsibilities.

However, 68% of pro-choice voters think that should be the law, and only 59% of pro-life voters.

So it's more...

more likely to be a lot of

pro-choice.

Yeah, people don't even know what they're talking about at this point.

This is why it's really impossible to have any kind of real discussion with people because you'll bring a fact up and they'll say, well, I don't know about that.

I'm just against it because.

Right.

And so you can't really have.

Yeah, it's teams.

You can't really truly have any intellectual discussions with people because we're being discouraged by it.

I want to go back into the language here in just a second.

We'll finish up this poll and go back into the language of another poll that we went into yesterday.

So to do a quick wrap-up of this, Glenn, because if you look at the poll in its entirety, what you see is people do want abortion to be available in some circumstances, but circumstances that are more restricted than they are now.

That's the takeaway for it.

So in other words, safe,

legal, and rare.

And rare being the one thing that I would say, I mean, everyone wants it, you know, God forbid something's going to happen.

I don't know how abortion is safe, considering you're intentionally killing one of the things involved in it, but but still,

yes, they want it to be safe, legal, and very rare, and rare,

very rare.

I mean, many people think it should be almost never available, but still consider themselves to be pro-choice, which is bizarre.

And what this shows is, of course, that the messaging factor is going the left's way with a massive assist from the media.

So, let me look at it this way here, Glenn.

If you look at the two positions that are being talked about a lot, the extreme positions that are debated, quote-unquote, extreme

sort of positions.

You have the left saying

it's available all the way to birth, okay?

It's a woman's right to choose.

You can't restrict that woman's right to choose.

We have 24 candidates in this race.

Every single one of them has advocated for some vision of that, where women will be able to choose the entire time.

For

right now, what's going on with Republican lawmakers is they're trying to do heartbeat laws, right?

Those are the two main positions being talked about at the extremes.

Well, right now, if you look at, in the poll, it asks all of these questions.

It says, what do you think?

Should abortion be available all the way to birth?

And they say 16% of people say yes to that.

So the mainstream, 24 candidates, universal agreement on the Democratic side, only 16% of Americans actually support that position.

Now,

on the Republican side, it's a heartbeat law.

Abortion should only be available until a heartbeat begins, about six or eight weeks into the pregnancy, pregnancy, right?

46%

of people believe that should be the law.

So it's 46 to 16,

yet one side is presented as if essentially it's Adolf Hitler making the policy.

The most hateful thing you've ever heard in your entire life.

Only six weeks.

Women might not even know they're pregnant yet.

Well, half the country believes that should be the law.

Only 16% believe that what the entire democratic field believes

that, yes, it should be available all the way to birth because at the fundamental level, the mommy gets to make the choice.

That is not the way it's presented at all.

And it's why I think you see so many people who think that they are pro-choice.

I mean, you know, that is just

like none of their underlying positions identify a pro-choice viewpoint as it's currently constructed in our political system.

But they still believe that the

media has made pro-choice into extreme positions.

And so they think that anything reasonable has to be

pro-choice.

Yeah.

Because pro-loice

is unreasonable.

Yeah, pro-life or pro-choice means good.

And anything unreasonable

has got to come from the other side.

So this is reasonable.

Rape, incest, blah, blah, blah.

it can't be the people on the, you know, on the right because they're unreasonable.

And I see this all the time when, you know, we talk to people all the time that are involved in these debates every day.

We have people on the News and Why It Matters all the time that kind of cycle in as panelists.

And there's people who are talking about these issues every day of their life.

Almost universally, when I bring up the point that European laws are more restrictive on abortion than the U.S.

laws, they're always shocked by that point.

Always.

You know, here's progressive Europe that's supposed to be so enlightened, and they have more restrictive laws on abortion than we do.

People don't even know these things because the media is doing what you just said, saying pro-life is bad and pro-choice is good, period.

Right, and Americans are Puritans.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Let me just go through a couple of things.

First of all, yesterday, do we have the audio of the YouTube CEO that is apologizing for what is going on and

apologizing to the gay community?

None of us want harmful content on our platforms.

I think last quarter alone, we removed 9 million videos from the platform.

More recently, we have introduced, you know, just like today, we do this in search, we rank content based on quality.

And so we're bringing that same notion and approach to YouTube so that we can rank higher quality stuff better and really prevent borderline content, content which doesn't exactly violate policies which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm.

And so we are working hard.

It's a hard computer science problem.

It's also a hard societal problem because we need better frameworks around what is hate speech, what's not, and how do we as a company make those decisions at scale and get it right without making mistakes.

So basically do the impossible, but do it surrounded by really radical liberal progressives and democratic socialists.

I'm sure you're going to get that.

I'm sure you're going to get that delicate balance right.

And that delicate balance is...

to go ahead and

make sure that you get the borderline content.

So not the content that has violated anything, but the content that just doesn't feel right.

Oh, that sounds like it's going to be easy for you.

Stephen Crowder said, I'm not sorry about what I did.

Here's Stephen Crowder.

I'm not.

I'm not sorry.

I'll tell you what I am, though.

I am grateful.

I am really grateful to the outpouring of support that we've seen from people.

Let me sort of explain this a little bit.

You know, we offered the promo code free speech for $30 off for everybody who joined Mud Club through the weekend with a student, veteran, active military discount so that everyone could get it.

More people

joined Mud Club than in the company's history.

And I'm so grateful.

But something interesting happened.

Over half of you who joined didn't use the promo code.

And I've received so many messages, emails from people saying, we wanted to pay full price just because we want to support what it is that the team is doing.

And I really, I appreciate it.

I do want to clarify, though, the promo code is there to be used.

So if you have a hard time affording the $99 a year, if that's a stretch, please take advantage.

I'm actually going to extend the promo code all the way through Tuesday night free speech.

Still get the full $30 off.

But I didn't want to go without thanking you guys.

And I have some other people that I would like to thank.

And something I'd like to clarify with you guys, by the way, the reason I'm taping this on my phone is because about to hop on a plane,

taping a thematically appropriate change my mind, given the current circumstances.

If I are an auteur, that would be

foreshadowing.

And for people who just joined Mug Club tonight, they're still, as we pre-taped, the full one-hour life advice segment, so that is going up right now.

But I wanted to thank everyone on YouTube specifically, not just Mug Club members, and not just people at Daily Wire, you know, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Clavin, Michael Knowles, all of them, thank you so so much.

And of course, everyone at the Blaze, like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck and Roaming Millennial,

but people over here at YouTube who really aren't necessarily, I have to switch arms.

Gosh, I need to work on my shoulder endurance.

This is embarrassing.

People who aren't even necessarily political, people who wouldn't agree with our politics,

but covered this anyway, because

you understand the context, you understand the issue that all of us are facing.

People like not only Tim Poole and Joe Rogan, but people like Keemstar and Philip DeFranco, DeFranco, anyone who I've forgotten, I really do appreciate it.

So

he makes a really good point that more people are coming out than just conservatives.

People are starting to be really concerned.

For instance, the news industry has now joined calls for increased scrutiny of big tech.

Struggling news industry is joining calls to increase oversight of tech giants like Facebook and Google, urging policymakers to also take into account how Silicon Valley has upended its business of journalism.

The antitrust investigation into tech giants will hold a hearing on Tuesday to hear from industry leaders and advocates who believe that Silicon Valley is responsible for the decline in local newspapers and has threatened the business models relied on by many outlets.

Now, I don't agree with this reason.

I mean, that is honestly like

the carriage companies saying,

I don't like these car companies.

They're getting too big.

They're putting us out of business.

Well, yeah, because I thought you were

progressive, progress.

I thought you were for that.

I don't want a newspaper.

I want to be able to just grab it online.

Now, yes, it upends your business practices, but I go back to if anybody remembers, you're my age, you'll remember if you bought a GM or any GM car,

it said on the door plate as you would step out, it had a little picture of an old carriage and it said the Fisher Carriage Company.

That's what GM was before it became General Motors.

It was the Fisher Carriage Company.

And they were making carriages and they decided, you know, we either gotta...

We either gotta join them or they're gonna crush us.

And so they stopped making horse-drawn carriages and started making cars.

That's what companies should do.

When you start to see the progress, you get out of the way and you join them in the next century, or you're going to go out of business.

So the industry is calling for more scrutiny, and they're asking the Democrats to help them.

That is always the last sign before an industry goes out of business.

They ask for government protection so they don't go out of business.

It doesn't work.

It retards progress.

Did he say the word retard?

Oh my gosh, that is awful.

He is so politically incorrect.

Yes, I know, I know.

And I might use it again in the same context later.

So what is YouTube saying that they're going to do?

Well, yesterday, I did about an hour on this New York Times story, making of a YouTube radical, algorithms in the alt-right.

And on the alt-right, believe it or not,

was Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

That's the alt-right to the New York Times.

So they show that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

And they say towards the end that

YouTube has played a role in steering a lot of people towards the far-right fringes.

And it suggests that in time, YouTube is, listen to this capable of steering them in a very different direction

now hang on just a second what

you're gonna steer people

this is Cass Sunstein's nudge this is

Bernays and original propaganda this is moving people.

This is everything

you should worry about in a Big Brother situation.

That Big Brother watches you, knows everything about you, and Big Brother will eventually shoot you if it has no other choice, but Big Brother will nudge you, will push you into the direction it wants.

Well, I got news for you: YouTube is not some charity, it's not run by Mother Teresa.

They want views, they want to control all of the views, and so they'll do what's best for them.

So what are they doing?

They said,

in response, YouTube executives announced that the recommendation algorithm would give more weight to watch time rather than views.

That way, the creators would be encouraged to make videos that users would finish.

and users would be more satisfied and YouTube would be able to show them more ads.

The bet paid off.

Within weeks of the algorithm change, the company reported overall time was growing even as the number of views shrank, according to the 2017 report.

So it grew by more than 50%

a year for three consecutive years.

A month after its algorithm tweak, YouTube changed its rules to allow all video creators to run ads with their videos and earn a portion of the revenue.

Previously, only popular channels that had been vetted by YouTube were able to run ads.

Neither change was intended to benefit the far right, no kidding.

And YouTube's algorithm had no inherent preference for extreme political content.

Remember, extreme is Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin.

It treated a white nationalist monologue no different from an Ariana Grande cover or cake icing tutorial.

But at the far right,

they were well positioned to capitalize on the changes.

Many right-wing creators also made long video essays or posted video versions of their podcast.

Their inflammatory messages were now more engaging than the milder fare, and they could earn more money from their videos, and they had a financial incentive to churn out as much material as possible.

A few progressive YouTube channels flourished from 2012 to 2016, but they were dwarfed by the creators on the right who had developed an intuitive feel feel of the way YouTube's platform worked and were better able to tap in the emerging wave of right-wing populism.

This is YouTube looking at this and saying, We're going to punish those who are good business people.

We're going to punish people who America wants to watch

because

we're not about ratings.

No, we're above that.

We're about messages.

Now they're going a step further and they are changing the algorithm to steer you away from messages like mine or Ben's or Jordan Peterson's or Stephen Crowder's.

Watch carefully because you're being manipulated right now.

So, I just want to show you that because it's Pride Week,

the CEO of YouTube came out and said he was really, really sorry.

He had to apologize to the gay community for what Steven Crowder did.

He was wholly inappropriate.

I want to play some audio here on

the gay Pride gathering in Washington, D.C.

The question was, what is the biggest threat to gay rights?

Here's what the gay pride paraders had to say.

We're asking, what people think the biggest threat to gay rights is in America today.

Why are you out here today?

I haven't been and I've lived in this area my entire life, so I went all out.

Chadies out.

We're here to celebrate our identities, our sexual identities, our gender identities, our expression.

What do you think the biggest threat to gay rights is today?

Straight people?

I think you would say this administration right now.

That's all I'm gonna say and I think our current administration.

I think the biggest threat is the Trump administration.

What do you think the bigger threat to gay rights is in America?

Radical Islam or Donald Trump?

I mean, I think we all know the answer to that one.

What's that?

The big horse thing sitting in the White House.

Yeah, the him, radical Islam or Donald Trump?

I live under a rock.

I would probably say Trump.

Donald Trump.

Sounds like a true question to me because they both got issues.

Trump and his administration have cast in multiple threats on our an entire race.

Honestly, Trump is a white supremacist, and all he cares about is white people and white power.

White straight people, let's say, white, straight people.

He has no, he gives no f about anyone other than white people

it I am who I am if you don't like it

regardless of those two options what is the biggest threat to gay rights in this country today

I would say it comes down to a humane rights issue the white power that involves this country is disgusting I think white power should be released from this country and I think that Trump and his administration perpetuate a system of racism that is institutionalized and black people and people of color are absolutely marginalized and really just like criminalized for no reason and I think that it's all because of Trump and his administration.

What we need is people in power, not just the president, but like Congress to stand behind like people that aren't just

straight white men.

Yeah.

Straight white men for sure.

I'm here as an anti-capitalist, as anti-police, anti-military.

I'm here to celebrate the original meaning of pride.

So I'm here protesting the cops in the parade.

I'm here protesting the military in the parade.

And I'm here celebrating my identity and my friends as well.

They don't want to Republicans.

Basically, they don't want to see equal rights.

They don't want to see anyone thriving.

All right, I think we've heard enough.

Now, have you got heard enough from

Casio Cortez who attends a parade?

These are the people that

YouTube is apologizing to.

really

which one is hate speech, which one, I don't know, I got feelings is no

the Blaze Radio Network

on demand.