Best of Glenn Beck | Guests: Pat Gray, Stu Burguiere & Mark Levin | 5/23/19

Welcome to the podcast.

It's Pat and Stew, and for Glenn, today we go over the American Taliban.

John Walker Lynn, who we thought was a big-time terrorist and should be in prison forever, at the very least, is going to be getting out.

Maybe you'll be seeing him at

your local Taco Bell.

It's going to be a fantastic thing.

But the good thing is, his viewpoints really haven't changed.

No.

That's really the scary part.

I'm sure they're going to watch him, though, right?

Oh, sure.

Like a hawk for three years, they say.

So that should be great.

We also have our crumbling infrastructure, infrastructure, and we talk about our terrible bridges and roads that are constantly crumbling right beneath our feet, and how we just need an extra $2 trillion.

That's all.

This whole meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Trump, I'm glad it flared up and fizzled out because honestly,

what happens when they work together is not a good thing.

In Hour Two, we tackle NPR's new abortion guideline for referencing abortion terms and how biased that is.

And the good thing about that is we're partially funding that organization through our tax dollars.

Exciting.

It's great.

And Mark Levin joins us.

He's got a new book out.

It's called Un Freedom of the Press.

Of course, he's a Blaze TV host as well of Levin TV.

Get his book.

It's number one New York Times bestseller.

Also, subscribe to the Blaze, Blazetv.com slash Glenn.

Use the promo code Glenn.

They'll save you $10.

You get access to Levin's show every day.

Plus, this program, a little program called Pat Gray Unleashed, is available through there as well.

And I would also invite you to subscribe to, you you know, while you're here with the podcast, subscribe to all these podcasts, including Shooting in the Fat with Jeff Fisher.

Yeah, I mean, I stopped by too.

Let's not forget, let's not forget to go to the Jeffy's stuff, I think.

Yeah, so if you want to skip that part, you can just end about the last half hour.

It's all today on the podcast.

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

It's Pat and Stu for Glenn.

By the way, you can hear my show, Patray Unleashed, weekday mornings right before Glenn and Stu.

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

I listen to it every day at work, and

I love his mix of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and today.

Do you like the all request lunch hour?

I hate the all-request lunch hour.

I like that.

Yeah, because it's on these people who call up and they request songs that are in the 60s or tomorrow.

And I want 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and today.

And for your convenience, we do have traffic and weather together every 10 minutes on the fours.

That's good to hear.

Yeah.

It's good to hear.

So that's great.

All right.

American Taliban was just released.

So that's exciting news because I'm pretty sure he's totally reformed.

Totally reformed.

Are you?

You will.

No.

There seems to be a little doubt.

Yeah.

There seems to be a little teeny bit.

Now, they're releasing him early.

So really, you have to release him after 20 years because that's what he was sentenced to, right?

And no matter how he feels after those 20 years, you still have to let him go.

Yeah, I guess that's true.

You don't really have to be reformed if you don't feel

if you go through your

entire sentence, right?

I mean, if you're.

I don't really like to think you would be or are.

It's kind of the point of it, right?

But I guess if you come out,

can they keep you in prison if you get sentenced to 20 years and you say, you know what, I still pretty much like terrorism.

I guess I won't do it maybe, but I'm still advocating for it.

And then it comes to the end of their term, can they just, I guess they just have to let you out?

I think so.

Because it does not seem like he's reformed.

I mean, they're.

No, and it's only 17 years, so they could keep him in there three years longer.

Which it feels like there are certain crimes, Pat,

in which

you just don't get out of prison.

Okay.

And

it's a small subset for me.

I'll give you an example, John Hinkley.

You go and you shoot the president of the United States over Jody Foster.

I'm never letting you out of prison.

Yeah, he's like

visiting his parents on the weekends and he's out, right?

I mean, like, you know,

that I feel like there's a line there.

Another one is treason against your country.

If you're going and you're fighting for an opposing force in a war, you just, I don't know.

20 years doesn't seem appropriate to me.

And the fact that he's only served 17

is kind of a big deal.

And then going on, going past that, it doesn't seem like he's reformed at all.

And you get these stories every once in a while.

And we've had people on the show in past years who used to be terrorists and seemingly had reformed and were now speaking out against terrorism.

Like that, there's a few people who have actually been on the show that have kind of meet that profile.

But that's not what John Walker Lind is doing here.

No.

I mean, it appears as if he's still kind of excited about the whole terrorist thing.

What was it he said in 2015 about ISIS?

2015, he said that ISIS was doing a, quote, spectacular job after it beheaded a U.S.

journalist.

Now,

I will say, if the job

description was, please,

when hired, you will need to behead a U.S.

journalist.

Technically, I guess they were doing a spectacular job done.

They got that job done.

Though that's not how I would describe it.

No.

I feel like maybe you have a little bit more hesitation in your praise.

So you might think, okay, well, that was 2015.

In May of 2016, Lind continued to advocate for global giod and to write and translate violent extremist texts.

He also told a TV news producer he will continue to spread violent extremism and violent extremist Islam upon his release.

That doesn't seem good to me.

Why are we letting this guy go early?

That's bizarre.

I just don't understand it.

I mean, it's one of those things that, like,

this is a difficult, like, thing to figure out how to deal with a terrorist in these situations.

Like, we're, we're talking about

the ISIS wives, right?

These women, they go over, they get married off into ISIS.

God only knows what happens to them for multiple years.

Then they all feel kind of bad about it.

They're like, you know, hey, like,

I was young.

I needed the money.

I just thought it would be fun.

Yeah.

I thought it would be fun.

And, like, some of them, like, they're like, well,

I was shocked to see in person them burning these people alive in these cages because it felt so much different than when I watched the video on YouTube of them burning them alive in these cages.

And you're like, I can't give you that one.

No.

And so the conversation has been, do we bring the ISIS wives back to the United States and have them tried?

And they want to get them.

Yeah, they should stand trial.

for treason.

And I feel like

most shows that I've heard on the conservative sort of side or people writing about it have said, No, like these people are,

it's a war, and they're on the other side of this war, and they should be treated like anybody else is on the other side of the war, which I think is a legitimate position.

However, if you're if we have a law about treason, it's kind of it's it's a big deal, right?

I mean, this is a constitutional principle, right?

Yeah, uh, and

like it's hard to

envision a more clear example of treason than going over and assisting ISIS in the middle of a war against us.

Right?

Like, I just, I mean, how do you get more clear than this?

And yet, we will not, we never use it.

We've just basically, we've all decided, you know what, that part

of our history, you know what?

It's like, it's like Halloween 3 season of the witch.

Just not part of the series.

We're just going to ignore that it happened.

All the other ones are Michael Myers.

There's this one where masks attack everybody's head on Halloween.

And it was, you know, maybe not the best movie in the world, but that's the only one we're just going to kind of just disregard.

We're going to say, no, that one didn't happen.

That was not part of the series.

And like, this, like, treason?

What?

I don't even know what that is.

Yeah.

I mean, it's a.

And John Walker Lind wasn't even charged with treason.

Right.

And that's the problem.

If you had terminated treason, he would not be out of prison right now.

There, you know, this is the type of thing that

they call for potentially execution.

for this.

This is a death penalty situation and should be treated as such.

If you are going to go, and remember, it's not just that he went and fought with the Taliban.

He also was involved in the death of the first American serviceman in the Afghanistan war,

a guy, Mike Spann, who was a CIA member, who was killed in a prison riot, and that prison riot was involving this guy who's about to walk free.

I mean, how is that?

It's certainly not justice,

but it's amazing because of his frequently reported comments that he has not reformed, that he wants to continue to do these things.

And they're like, there's a very, very strict release policy, Pat.

Very, very strict.

I don't know if you've heard this, but he,

first of all, is going to be monitored by parole officers.

That's number one.

And I want you to think about how serious that is.

He's going to be monitored by parole officers.

And number two,

yes, he can go on the internet.

Yes, he can communicate with whoever he wants to, but

only in English.

Yeah, this guy, I think, speaks Arabaic or whatever.

What is it?

So he can only...

He can't speak that online.

He can only do extreme Islam jihad in English.

Yes, he has to do it in English.

Now, if they said he had to do it in haiku, I might say, okay, that's pretty difficult because he's going to have to continually write haikus.

But no, this is he.

It's legitimately part of his release.

He can't do, he can't speak any other languages.

He has to only speak English.

Now, I mean,

I guess that's a limitation because we're what?

We're too lazy to translate what he's typing.

And the fact that he's able to actually communicate with other people, I mean, you know,

he's on the internet.

Why is he on the internet at all?

Again, when he went to prison, the internet barely worked.

Okay, he's got to get out of here.

Imagine, I mean, now he can go anywhere he wants.

He gets the nice 4G or, you know, soon 5G access.

Got Wi-Fi everywhere.

He's almost in dial-up days when he got in prison.

I don't know.

It just seems like a completely crazy idea to me.

Yeah, it does.

Especially since he hasn't reformed at all.

And it's pretty clear by his statements.

Although

he did make an interesting statement to

the parole board.

He made a 14-minute speech that included, had I realized then what I know now about the Taliban, I would never have joined them.

I never understood Giad to mean anti-Americanism or terrorism.

But then, you know, okay, so that's what he said to get out of jail early.

And then you look at everything else he has said leading up to that.

It just looks like he feels the same way he did when he went into prison.

And we didn't do what we should have done at the time.

charging him with treason.

And now we're making it even worse by allowing him to get out early.

There doesn't seem to be any reason for it.

Why would you let this guy go after 17 years, charged as he is with pretty serious offenses like conspiracy to kill U.S.

nationals?

That seems like a fairly significant crime.

Yeah, I think that's a big one.

Yeah, so in Foreign Policy magazine reported in 2017 that an investigation by the National Counterterrorism Center found that Lind, quote, continued to advocate for global jihad and to write and translate violent

extremist texts.

But the answer, though, is pretty good.

They said for three years he's going to be watched like a hawk.

Oh, wow.

So, I mean,

if you, I mean, look,

three years,

that's wonderful because that's the time he would normally have been in prison, right?

Like, so when he would have been in prison, they're going to watch him carefully.

And then he's going to become an, he's just going to be at your local like Starbucks.

He's going to be giving you Dunkin' Donuts as you come through.

And we're supposed to be okay with with that.

What are you, an Islamophob?

All of a sudden, is that what you're

an Islamophob?

I am not an Islamophobia.

I will say, though, if I go to Dunkin' Donuts and I order a croissant sandwich and he hands it to me and he says it in like Farsi,

I am

going to report him.

He's only supposed to speak in English.

And I will be very upset if he says something to me in Farsi.

All right.

It's Pat and Stu for Glenn this week.

More coming up in 60 seconds.

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.

By the way, you can catch my show, Pat Gray Unleashed, weekday mornings, right before Glenn,

right here on the Blaze.

And you can actually listen to it anytime you want on the podcast.

They're available wherever you can get podcasts.

888727BECK.

Our taxpayer dollars are being well spent.

I think you'll agree.

When we funnel them into the National Public Radio, NPR.

I love the new guidelines that were published by NPR

on how we can

properly use phrases while reporting on the abortion debate.

I am fascinated by this.

And

there's a central sort of thing going on where I've never noticed this before.

And here it is happening.

Listen to this.

This is from the New York Times.

And I've mentioned this on previous broadcasts.

The fetal heartbeat,

it is now a thing that is no longer a thing.

I mean, there's this argument that when does life start?

I don't know.

When does it start?

Well, okay, it starts

when the baby's born, or it starts at conception, or it starts at viability.

I think it's at cognitive ability.

32.

You're really alive.

Or if it's 32 years old.

32.

When you're 32.

Well,

you can't be president yet.

So 35.

Okay, 35.

35 years old is when life begins.

And there's been this debate that goes on for a long time.

And some people people say it's, you know, when the heart starts beating.

It's a pretty logical one, right?

Yeah.

We know when the heart stops beating, it's generally when we say there's no more life, right?

So to say, like, it's not the most insane

pro-choice argument to say until the heart is beating, it's not an abortion, right?

Like, it's not my position, but it's not the most extreme pro-choice argument to say that.

Yeah.

I think we both agree life begins at conception.

Yes.

However, like if you were to say, okay, well, you know what, you got the first six weeks until the heartbeat comes out.

Certainly that would cut down our abortions dramatically.

It's what Alabama's basically trying to do.

But there's an indication of life when you have a heartbeat.

Well, the heartbeat, and that line has been part of the conversation for a long time.

When does life begin?

Now we've come to a point where the heartbeat may not actually be a heartbeat.

Well,

this is fascinating.

They can't give that ground because if it's a heartbeat, clearly that's life.

You've got a heart, it's beating, you're alive.

And that's certainly the strategy of people who are pro-life, right?

Like,

hey, recognize there's a life thing going on.

But it's also science.

It's also biology.

It's also reality.

Exactly.

So listen to this, and we found this multiple times, and we've been hitting it over the past few weeks, and I had never noticed it before the past couple of weeks.

The new laws that prohibit abortion as early as the sixth week of pregnancy have been called, quote, heartbeat, end quote, legislation by supporters.

Now, there you could say maybe they're just referring to the name of the bill.

That's why they put it in quotes.

Now, I've seen in several previous articles that we've brought up on the program and on the News and Why It Matters and other shows that it's not just when they're referring to the name of the legislation.

They're saying like it's a reference to the fetal quote-unquote heartbeat.

And it's like, well, what else is it?

Like, what are you saying it is?

The New York Times has attempted the explanation here today, and I think you're going to appreciate this.

All right.

It's a quote-unquote heartbeat, a reference to the flickering pulse that can be seen on ultrasound images of a developing embryo.

Oh, the flickering pulse?

The flickering pulse.

Okay.

Now, my thought was: I mean, do you think it's a strobe light?

Like, what is it exactly?

E.T.'s heartlight.

Right.

It could be that.

Turn on your heartlight.

It could be one of those lights that when you're in a boat, and if you put it in water, it starts flashing, like, you know, to get people's attention, like one of those marine strobe lights.

Could be that.

It could be a rave going on inside the womb.

Perhaps there's a party and they're glow sticks and there's flashing

lights from a club.

It's not a flickering pulse.

It is a heartbeat.

This is not something that was, again, we're told we're the ones that are anti-science and they're telling us a heartbeat is a flickering pulse.

What the hell is a flickering pulse?

It's not a flickering pulse.

It is the beat of a heart as it's developing.

And we've seen this now in

utterly amazing form when

the

abortion procedures and terminology and rights are discussed by NPR that you brought up.

I am

blown away reading this.

Again, there are certain levels of

denial we can get into.

You can get, like when you're watching a movie with a crazy plot, you have to go into that.

You have to take that break from reality and you have to kind of accept, well, yeah, some people can fly, some people can shoot lasers out of their eyes, sometimes there are giant monsters going out of the sea.

And obviously, I know Godzilla is real, but I'm saying, generally speaking, these things aren't real.

And

there's that suspension of disbelief that you have to have.

Reading this NPR guideline,

I'm almost to the Godzilla level with it.

It's so unbelievable.

We'll give you the details of it in 60 seconds.

So, NPR has some new guidelines for what their hosts call certain abortion terms.

Now, this is what they say.

They say, one thing to keep in mind about this law and others like it.

Proponents refer to it as a, quote, fetal heartbeat law.

That is their term.

It needs to be attributed to them if used and put in quotation marks if printed.

So, this is actually sort of explaining this confusion I've had.

They're just because the heartbeat is part of the name of the bill, they're acting as if it's a concept not understood by science.

Like, it's a heartbeat.

Well, that's what they're calling it.

But I mean,

they're calling it that this is accurate, right?

They're not calling it.

I mean, yes, it does make a powerful point about life.

It does.

And it is a reason.

And part of the reason they're doing it is to convince people, hey, this thing that you think you're quote-unquote aborting is just life that you're ending.

You know, I mean,

that is part of the reason they're targeting the heartbeat.

But it's like, it's in a way

a moment of coming together.

I mean, I want zero abortions, zero.

Okay.

I don't want it to be legal.

You know, when they say, hey, this new law you're passing is just a Trojan horse for getting rid of abortion.

It's not a Trojan horse.

I'm telling you.

It's right there.

That's part of the plan.

I want that to be the future.

And we'll get there.

However,

in a way, it's a compromise from the right.

Like someone who is a gay, someone who thinks, hey, this is life and you're ending life,

you're probably saying that I'll give you six weeks isn't the ideal position, right?

You want life that begins at conception.

You want it to go to the end of the pregnancy.

However, it's six weeks.

But it's a really good step in the right direction.

And it's a really good line.

It makes sense.

If you're a Democrat, you can say, okay, well, look, I mean, think about this in the way we actually talk about abortion.

A woman has unprotected sex or gets pregnant

in some fashion

and realizes they've made a mistake, then

you know wants to abort their baby.

Well, this gives them six weeks to do that.

And they keep saying, well, they don't even know if they're pregnant.

Well, they have morning after pills for a reason.

Like, this was, this is, when you make a mistake like that, if something happens that you, I shouldn't have done that, that was a mistake.

I can't have a baby right now.

That's why they have the morning after pill.

You know, we've talked about this before, and that, like, in a sensible world, the left-wing position is the morning after pill, right?

In a world, now look, I think there should be no abortion at all, but like in a sensible world with debate, it wouldn't be nine months or right after birth, you could still abort the kid.

It would be, all right, look, if you made a mistake, before we even know that you're pregnant, you have a chance to stop whatever's going on, and we won't even know if there was, if anything even happened, right?

We don't even know if the person was pregnant.

We won't even know.

It's like the blind firing squad, right?

Like where, you know, there's like 25 people, the guy's got the blindfold on, and there's like 25 people with guns, and no one knows who's shooting the real bullet in the blank, right?

It's like that sort of concept.

And, like, I'm not saying that's a good position.

I'm just saying, like, that would be a position that would be, should be extreme in our society, right?

Like, you know, but it's not.

It's like the, it's the very beginning of the pro-choice argument.

So you'd think that there'd be some room for something like that.

But that is part of the reason they do it.

They go on to abortion procedures and terminology.

And I mean, listen to this.

Partial birth is not a medical term and has no exact parallel in medical terminology.

Intact dilation and extraction is the closest description.

Now, of course, that's...

Extraction.

Right, extraction.

Think about what extraction means, right?

Wow.

Now, that sounds like a doctor term.

And that's why partial birth abortion exists, because what it does is it describes what's going on.

And they don't like that.

Also, it is not correct.

This I thought was interesting, the one point

to the side of maybe the pro-life argument

in this piece.

Also, it is not correct to call these procedures rare.

It is not known how often they are performed.

Now, they're talking about what we would call partial birth abortion.

They always say that's rare.

You know, I get this from pro-choice people from time to time.

They're like, well, I mean, come on, it's what is it, 1% of abortions, 2% of abortions are late-term.

And we keep talking about that.

Yeah, I guess we shouldn't talk about the 7 or 8 9-11s that happen every year because that's basically what we're talking about when we talk about like nine, you know, third-term, late-term abortions,

ninth-month abortions, some of these partial birth procedures, which they, you know, sometimes are earlier than nine months.

But still, like, we're talking about tens of thousands of babies that could have, you know, could be born and are viable and could be, you know, many people are, you know, many babies are born and live.

at that point.

And NPR doesn't want you to use the late-term abortion term either.

No, that's bad.

Well, it carries ideological baggage, Stu.

It does.

Yeah, we don't want the ideological baggage of late-term abortion.

That's unbelievable.

I mean, this is so partisan.

This is so biased.

I love this part.

This is fantastic.

Because you're talking about the

partial birth abortion.

It gives the impression that abortion takes place in the eighth or ninth month.

In fact, the procedure called intact dilation and extraction is performed most often in the fifth or sixth month, the second trimester, which, by the way, is is still overwhelmingly unpopular with the American people.

The second trimester is not considered late pregnancy.

Thus, late term is not appropriate.

As an alternative, and let this roll off your tongue, Pat, because I think you, if you're going to say, hey, they're talking about late-term abortions, instead, say, as an alternative,

they're talking about a certain procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy and subsequently the procedure, and then give the technical name.

Instead of late term, they want you to use, this is a quote, call it a certain procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy.

Why can't you say what trimester it's only after the first one?

And subsequently, then say the actual name of the procedure.

They also will not use the term abortion clinics.

They say medical or health clinics that perform abortions.

I mean, if that's not spin, I don't know what is.

No one's disagreeing with the medical or health part of it.

No one's saying, oh, we are against sonograms.

You know, like, there's no one saying that.

The point is not to use abortion before the word clinic.

The clinics perform other procedures and not just abortions.

Well, you know, I mean, I think if you say,

you know, McDonald's is a hamburger restaurant, yes, they also do serve Egg McMuffins, right?

They do serve, they do serve salads, though to call it a salad restaurant would be wrong, right?

They don't seem to have a problem with that.

It's also wrong to say George Tiller, the murdered abortion doctor.

Don't call him an abortion doctor.

Instead, we should say Tiller operated a clinic where abortions are performed.

And this one is, I think, the most clear example of bias.

The term unborn implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus.

Babies are not babies until they are born.

This is all quoting.

Wow.

They're fetuses.

Incorrectly calling a fetus a baby.

or the unborn is part of the strategy used by anti-abortion groups to shift the language, legality, and public opinion.

Wow.

And then finally, this is amazing because this one might even be more direct.

On the air, we should use abortion rights supporter or advocates.

Okay, so if someone is on the pro-choice side, they are abortion rights supporters or advocates.

And you could say abortion rights opponents.

However, it is acceptable to use anti-abortion rights, but don't use pro-abortion rights.

You You can use anti-abortion rights.

So someone who's on pro-life side is against rights.

Yeah.

But you can't say pro-abortion rights.

Now, if you were so proud of the right that you're talking about, why wouldn't you want to use pro-abortion rights?

I mean, these are direct anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights.

You can use one, but not the other.

Like, that is a clear example of how they want to do everything they can to control the language and win the argument.

This whole guideline could have been written by Planned Parenthood.

Yeah.

Might as well have been.

With the exception of saying that late-term abortions are rare.

We actually have no freaking idea if they're rare or not, which is an amazing admission from NPR, by the way.

Yeah, it is.

Triple 8-727-BECK.

More patents do for Glenn coming up in 60 seconds.

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

Joining us now is Mark Levin

from the, of course, Nationally Syndicated Radio Show, from Blaze TV, from

Levin TV, and his new book is Un Freedom of the Press.

Mark, welcome.

Pat, how are you, my friend?

Doing well, thanks.

You know, this book couldn't be any more timely, especially with the news of NPR coming out with their new abortion language.

Pretty amazing.

Well, basically what I've tried to do with this book, I wasn't going to write about the press, but it's kind of in your face every day.

So they keep claiming they represent freedom of the press, so I decided to take a look.

And so I looked at the history of the press, and then I looked at how it's cycled through throughout the decades and the various transitions it's gone through.

And

I just want the public to know you feel this, but when you look at the history of the press, this is the lowest point the media has ever been in.

I call it the mass media.

The mass media is different than a free press.

Free press is something that belongs to us.

It's in the First Amendment.

This is what the founders fought for.

They didn't fight for Comcast or Times Warner, Time Warner.

They didn't fight for these guys.

Now, these guys are free to do what they want.

Nobody's saying, you know, the government should interfere, and the government's not.

Neither is the president.

But we need to be honest about who they are and what they're doing.

So what I do is I lay out early in the book who they are and what they're doing.

You look at the incestuous relationship between the Democrat Party and the media.

I mean, it's overwhelming.

People who've moved between the party and administrations into the media and back and forth, family members.

You look at where they live.

The vast majority live in and around Washington, D.C.

and New York.

These are hard blue communities.

They socialize with each other.

They party with each other.

There's almost no diversity in newsrooms in terms of a thinking process.

There's no independent thought in these newsrooms.

And you can see it.

And survey after survey poll after poll of them will tell you they're not there's nobody no newsroom really major newsroom that's that's right of center or center they're all pretty much the same that's why we put these montages together I'm sure you guys too where they're all saying the same thing every news platform there's a reason for that because it's groupthink it's a PAC mentality but it's even worse than it's ever been I'll tell you why they push progressivism and that's been going on really off and on for about a hundred years But now they're social activists.

That's new in the last 20 or 30 years.

So you have these younger and younger so-called journalists who come in, and they're being taught this.

There's a number of journalism schools and professors who have pushed this philosophy.

They say, hey, look, the civil rights movement, the right to vote,

Obamacare, all these things would not have happened but for the progressive ideology.

So

you wash the news through the progressive ideology, you interpret it, you analyze it, you promote it.

That's what we need to do.

And that is what they're doing.

So they're actually creating events and then reporting on these events.

I had people call my show and they say, why won't the media admit they were wrong for two and a half years on Russia collusion?

And I said, wrong?

They're participants.

In other words, who do you think these people were leaking to at the FBI

and these security agencies and so forth?

They're leaking to the New York Times and CNN and the Washington Post.

They're not going to apologize.

They're on a mission.

And so I walk through the book.

I go through these different issues.

I have a chapter on news, propaganda, and pseudo events.

Early on propagandists

during the Woodrow Wilson administration, pseudo events.

You know, Trump calls them fake news.

He's right.

And

a brilliant man, he was a former historian at the University of Chicago, was head of the Library of Congress, Bornston, wrote a whole book on pseudo events.

And he says, most news is about pseudo events.

What you see on T V is mostly unreality.

It has nothing to do with your life.

And this is a big problem, particularly in a republic that's relatively free.

That means that the press isn't giving us information that we can use in our lives.

It's not giving us information, legitimate information about the government so we can hold it in check.

It's pushing an agenda.

And that's why there's not a dime's worth of difference between the agenda of the Democrat Party and the agenda of the media, the agenda of the media.

And I also point out in one of the chapters called Collusion, Abuse of Power, and Character.

These are the areas they hit Trump on.

And look at American history.

There have been presidents and others who've colluded with foreign governments.

This one hasn't.

There have been presidents who have literally abused power, who've shut down newspapers, who've locked up journalists, who've used the IRS against their political opponents, FBI, CIA, recent presidents.

like Kennedy, like Lyndon Johnson among them.

Now that's an abuse of power.

Trump has never done anything like that.

You talk about character.

They have to keep talking about Stormy Daniels and non-disclosure agreements.

Since he's been president in the Oval Office, has there been a whisper of a scandal?

No.

And yet we have presidents who had women coming and going left and right, interns, all kinds of things.

That's not Trump.

So there's this unreality we're being fed.

They're pushing this agenda.

There was no Russia collusion.

Then they push obstruction.

Then they push constitutional crisis.

Now they're pushing impeachment.

I just feel like Thomas Paine, you know, I think back to that period, Glenn does this a lot too.

We had the early pamphleteers and the colonists, and they spoke to each other and they informed each other.

We need to do that.

We need to do a hell of a lot more of that.

So I view this book, Un Freedom of the Press, really as a modern-day pamphlet, and I want people, I hope, to read it, to pass it along, to discuss it.

But here's the good news in a sick kind of way.

A lot of these companies are going out of business.

CNN has no ratings.

It can't have no ratings forever.

The New York Times was going broke until this billionaire from Mexico, telecommunications banknote, bought 17 or 20 percent of their stock.

Bezos bought the Washington Post, which was going bankrupt, for the quarter of a billion dollars.

It's not just technology, although that's crucial, that's changing the landscape.

They're changing the landscape because people are turning them off.

They have options.

You know, they have us, Blaze TV, they have our radio programs, but you also have other things on the Internet.

I know people trash the Internet.

I don't trash the Internet.

There are, you know, there are perverts and reprobates and evil people everywhere, including on the Internet.

You got to be careful about what you're probably in your community.

You know, so you've got to be careful of who you hang out with and careful of what you look at.

But I view a lot of this as the new pamphleteers, the competition that's coming.

And I think there's going to be future technologies, platforms we haven't even thought of yet, that will again create new and better competition.

So I have a strong belief in freedom of the press, and I have a very negative view of the modern media today.

Talking about Mark Levin, the book is On Freedom of the Press.

Mark, I know you're short on time here, but before you go, is you have this kind of transformation from journalist to activist you talked about.

You talk about how it's sort of falling apart for the mainstream media.

Is that why it's getting so much worse?

Is there sort of like a desperation, they're seeing their power go away, and that's why they're acting out even in more extreme extreme ways than earlier.

I think that's why they're going after Trump.

They figured they had this in the bag.

They pushed Hillary.

They were trashing him.

And they lost.

And they are trying to fix it from their perspective.

Okay.

Just because 63 million Americans voted for him doesn't mean we can't disenfranchise them.

And so

that's one of the things that drives these people nuts.

But you raise another point that's very, very important.

The mixture of news and opinion.

And that's really the key problem here.

In 1942, there was a report put out by the media about the media, and they warned about this.

They said we're going to lose the faith and trust of our viewers and our listeners if we keep doing this.

We have the ability to destroy people.

We have the ability to be positive.

We have the ability to lie.

We have the ability to tell the truth.

And if we're going to combine fact with fiction, news with opinion, we're going to destroy our credibility.

Well, they've destroyed their credibility because 80% of Republicans do not believe the media.

80% of Democrats do.

And so if you want to throw throw in with a political party, that's fine.

The dishonesty of this is, you know,

about 1780 to about 1860, we had the political party press, where the press lined up with one party or candidate or viewpoint or another, and they were very transparent about it.

It was brutal, but they were transparent.

Today, we have the party press, the Democrat Party press, a one-party press.

And that's why they keep looping through, you know, Adam Schiff or Nadler.

They bring guests on, politicians on, professors on, so-called experts on, who really

mimic their own viewpoints.

Mark, we know you're pressed for time.

Congratulations on the success of this book.

It's already number one.

And you've obviously pissed off Brian Stelter at CNN, so you've done something incredibly right.

No one does it.

Thanks a lot for being here.

It's Un Freedom of the Press by Mark Levin.

Thanks, Mark.

Thank you, guys.

God bless.

Great stuff.

Great stuff.

And I wanted to ask him, but we didn't have time,

about the Convention of States.

Oh, yeah.

Which he kicked into gear back in, what was that, 2013 or 14-ish?

Doesn't seem like that long ago.

15 states are on board now.

That's great.

That is moving along well.

Yeah, it is.

And we should also remind you, of course, Mark is Levin TV is part of Blaze TV, and you can get that as part of your subscription when you go to Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

Use the promo code Glenn.

You get this show with Pat Gray Unleashed, which is a fantastic one as well.

The News and and why it matters that we're all on kind of together.

So not to mention Steven Crowder and so many others.

It's a great lineup.

So sign up, Blazetv.com slash Glenn.

Promo code is Glenn.

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 your life.

The news and why it matters.

Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

The Blaze Radio Network

on Demand.