What on Earth is a Flickering Pulse?! | Guest: Mark Levin | 5/23/19

This is the Glenbeck program.

With Patton Stu, all this week for Glenn, triple eight seven two seven B E C K.

We got some fascinating guidelines from NPR.

We'll talk about that later on today.

But also, Ilan Omar and AOC have some brilliant things to share with us.

We'll get to that and much more coming up in about 60 seconds.

It's Pat and Stu for Glenn.

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

I love the show.

I mean,

it's incredible.

I listen 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.

You don't like that.

Yeah, because

these people 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?

Well, 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 go through your

entire sentence, right?

I mean, if you're...

I don't 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.

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 Hinckley.

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

I'm never letting you out of prison.

Yeah, he's

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.

Yeah, 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?

In 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

thing to figure out how to deal with a terrorist in these situations.

Like, 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, 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 we have a law about treason, it's kind of, it's a big deal, right?

I mean, this is a constitutional principle, right?

Yeah.

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 a 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 just 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.

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

Right.

And that's the problem.

If you had turned it with treason, he would not be out of prison right now.

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.

Okay.

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.

This guy, I think, speaks Arabaic or whatever.

Is

So he can only

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.

It's legitimately part of his release.

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?

What do we...

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 completely crazy idea to

especially since he hasn't reformed at all.

And that's 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 and

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 that.

What are you, an Islamophob?

All of a sudden, is that what you're

an Islamophob?

I am not an Islamophobe.

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.

Pat and Stu for Glenn, triple eight seven two seven B E C K.

We've got some wisdom

from

Alexandria Casio-Cortez.

where she's really kind of the wellspring of all wisdom lately.

She and Ilan Omar

have really shared a lot of it with the United States, and I appreciate it.

They've done a great job so far.

They have.

I'll say that.

In fact, informing us,

us climate deniers, that we have only 12 years before the end of the world.

Yeah.

Which she has said on multiple occasions.

Yeah, not just once.

Yeah.

Now, if you were just kind of making a random comment, if you were

mistakenly summarizing some in-depth piece of evidence from the UNIPCC, you may

be surprised to hear that you do that multiple times, keep continually doubling down on the same claim.

She said famously,

millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us and are looking up and we're like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

And your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it?

And that sort of attitude has been repeated multiple times.

She then doubled down on it when saying, for everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh, but your grandkids will not.

Which is interesting because if the world is ending in 12 years, how am I having grandkids?

I mean,

my kids are pretty, my kids are, you know, pretty young.

Fairly young.

So it would be difficult for that to happen.

But maybe, I guess if you're saying someone who already has grandkids or whatever, maybe they could in the 12-year period would happen.

Casio-Cortez later flipped her position in early May, referring to the 12-year deadline as merely dry humor and sarcasm.

Now, it's interesting because you could say Casio-Cortez.

That was not humor.

Not humor, not sarcasm.

And you could say that she's just a dunce and just, you know, screwed it up, which is

a likely explanation for almost everything she says, right?

She's not

the brightest bulb.

However, this is something that's been repeated by many of the Democratic candidates for president.

I know Beto O'Rourke has been on that bandwagon multiple times to the point where they actually had to start fact-checking this.

You know, they had to go to the actual scientists who did the report they're talking about and say, hey,

you know, do you guys think that the world's going to end in 12 years?

And they said, no, that's not what we said.

And they said basically, like, we're really glad to have a chance to clear this up because no, we are not saying that the world is going to end in 12 years.

The people who wrote the report they're referring to are saying that now.

That's how ridiculous this claim is.

And again, they are very alarmist on the climate.

It's not like these are people who are saying, oh, everything's going to be fine.

They're saying there's danger, but what they're saying, and these claims are completely ridiculous.

So the Casio-Cortez later on went on to say, this is a technique of the GOP.

Try to take dry humor and sarcasm literally and fact check it.

Like the world ending in 12 years thing.

You'd have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it's literal.

Well,

she's going to be very surprised to hear about a recent poll

talking about Democrats and whether they believe that the U.S.

has about 12 years to aggressively fight climate change before the whole world ends.

And there would be disastrous and irreparable damage to the country and the world.

67% of Democrats have the social intelligence of a sea sponge, according to Ocasio-Cortez's own definition.

Two-thirds of Democrats say that, yes, 12 years is how long we have.

And, you know, of course, they've said it so many times, it's not surprising that the Democratic voters would believe it.

But the idea that it was some joke or some, you know, anything other than a typical Ocasio-Cortez moment, we now know to be ridiculous.

And in her attempt to get out of it, she's called two-thirds of her own voters morons or sea sponges,

which is a tad problematic, I guess.

But also accurate.

I feel like this is the one thing, you know, every once in a while

we can come across something where Ocasio-Cortez nailed it.

And we can agree.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And it's important to point that out, I think.

And I think people doubt us.

And when we say, hey,

if these people we disagree with really strongly say something that we agree with, we'll give them credit.

Yeah.

And we're giving her credit.

Right.

Like, she's right.

She is right.

They have the intelligence of a sea sponge.

If you think the world is going to end in 10 years, you have the social intelligence of a sea sponge.

And we agree with Ocasio-Cortez on that.

I mean, finally, she's nailed something.

And we can sit here and deny just because she's from the other party, because she's from the other side of the aisle, we can say, no, Democratic voters don't have the social intelligence of a sea sponge.

But she's accurately described this.

Yeah.

And she's right on it.

She's nailed as due.

And who are we just because she has a D after her name to say that she's wrong that Democratic voters have more intelligence than a C-Sponge?

That would be wrong, Pat.

We are all about bringing people together.

How many times has Glenn talked about this?

Oh, many, many.

Bringing people together from both sides of the aisle.

Here's Ocasio-Cortez outlining in extreme detail, with incredible accuracy, describing the intelligence of a Democratic voter.

And she nails it.

And what are we going to do?

Come in here and say, oh, you know what?

We don't like her policies.

We disagree.

No.

We agree with her.

Right.

Now, if she'd like to change it and say that those same Democrat voters have all the intelligence of a bathroom bull brush, I'm willing to look into that as well.

Yes.

Because you're open.

You have an open mind.

Yes.

I mean, they did vote for her, many of them.

And so we could look into that statement as well if she ever makes it.

But for now, it's the C-Sponge thing,

and we agree.

It's unbelievable.

I just,

the idea that, you know, there was just another thing that came out the other day.

CNN sent out one of their fancy alerts on the phone, and it was like, a worst-case scenario.

Sea levels could rise by blah, blah, blah by the end of the century.

You know, like the typical, you know, thing you've heard a hundred times, the claims that everyone's going to die.

And at least this time they included worst case scenario around it because this is what they're always doing.

They cite the worst possible thing that can happen.

They act as if it's the only thing that can happen.

And then complain that we're not taking enough action.

Well, you know what?

People stop believing you when you say the sky is falling.

You know, when it doesn't fall, people are like, well, I don't know.

Maybe what, you know, I don't really believe them.

You know, and they're going to try to do the same thing with the, they had these tornadoes that have hit the Midwest and have been really devastating.

Missouri was a big one.

Iowa,

there was a lot as well.

But, I mean, again, when you look at the global trends and the U.S.

trends for tornadoes, there is a slight decrease over the last hundred years.

But they will still watch the news tonight.

You will see them blaming these tornadoes on climate change and expecting you to believe it.

And I don't know.

I just feel like the American people have more intelligence than Sea Sponge and can probably pick up the accuracy.

But we'll see.

We'll see.

Patton Stew for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program, 888-727-BECK.

Must be really fun for the president to have to meet meet on a regular basis with people who absolutely hate his guts, that just hate everything about him.

And you have to sit there and

attempt to get along with them.

You mean Nancy and Chuck?

Yeah.

Because he always says that he likes Nancy and Chuck and he kind of does them, right?

Like he

because they obviously hate his guts and surely at some level he hates theirs as well, though he tries to to keep a positive face on that relationship at the very least, right?

Like he does kind of say, well, you know, I get them.

You know, I understand.

I've dealt with people like that my whole life.

I get who they are.

Which is certainly a demeaning way of saying it, and I think he likes that.

But also, I think there is something there where he thinks they're so transactional.

You know, they're so,

you know, they're so transparent when it comes to this stuff, that they will trade, they'll do the horse trading of what they want for what the other side wants.

They can be theoretical deal makers if you don't mind giving up a couple of trillion dollars.

You know, it's just a couple of trillion.

It's just the $2 trillion, though.

That's the

asking for a lot of money.

No.

Just $2 trillion.

Two is a really small number.

That's really small.

I mean, there's only

one or two numbers smaller.

Right.

You know, and

now I do like one of the smaller numbers, which is zero trillion.

I am nice.

I'm on team zero trillion.

Yeah, I am too.

But I was devastated yesterday when I heard that they got into a little TIFF and we're not going to get our $2 trillion of infrastructure spending.

Well, let's hope that keeps up.

They don't find a way to come back together on that because it's bad.

Well, last time they met as friends, it went from $1 trillion to $2 trillion.

Yes.

So I don't want them to be friends.

No.

People are like, I can't believe these people can't work together.

Look what happens when they work together.

Only bad things.

An extra trillion dollars.

Now, look, we do need infrastructure spending, Pat.

I was just traveling.

Wait, you traveled?

Yeah, I traveled.

It was risky.

Not by air.

Yeah, by air.

Oh, my gosh.

You found an airport that wasn't crumbling?

Well, I can't say that, unfortunately.

I was at the airport, and like an action-adventure movie, I was running at full sprint as the entire airport was collapsing behind me and just missing the backs of my heels.

And I did have to jump over a large chasm where to leap to the airport.

The chasm was there?

Did you shout out across that chasm?

I'm Israel.

Chechen Mütchenach.

I did not.

You didn't.

I didn't do that.

But

there was no time to shout across the chasm.

You just leapt across the chasm.

I did leap across the chasm, and I did turn back just

at the moment to see

a sad Taco Bell employee sucked into

it.

They have one of those airport Taco Bells, and that thing...

Now, I did save a couple of bean burritos, but I was unable to save the human life that went into the chasm.

I mean, we act as if we are

Republic.

There's no roads, there's no airports,

no technology, no bridges, no airports.

We're just crumbling everywhere.

And it's like,

how often do we have to, is there a certain requirement for a human being in their life to have to fall for that?

How many times are we

in 09

and spent $787 billion, which I've turned into like $840

afterwards, and then up to maybe a billion or to a trillion, excuse me?

I think it was over a trillion eventually.

And

that didn't get us a better infrastructure.

It did get us some shovel-ready jobs.

I saw some signs about it.

Oh, yeah, lots of signs about that particular infrastructure spending.

And now here we are, you know, one president later in his first term, and we need another $2 trillion of infrastructure spending.

Like, I

know.

Like, that is.

I'm going to say no to it.

I got to say no.

So I'm glad.

I think the people are like, I can't believe they can't work together.

Good.

The last thing we need are people like

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to work with.

When you work with people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, you wind up on the short end of the stick every time because she's still going to go out and call you Satan in front of every camera.

So why meet with her at all?

Right before their meeting, she's talking about this massive cover-up that he's responsible for.

And there's just a part of me, and it's a small part, Pat, that has a little skepticism as to how real these events actually are.

Like, does nancy pelosi really expect to have a pleasant meeting with donald trump when right before she walks into the meeting she says he's covering up an impeachable offense like come on she she's doing this intentionally she's going him into a fight right yes she looks like she's weak with her people because she has not endorsed impeachment yet so she's trying to now this is her effort to appease her base and look tough and look tough and i think honestly there's a nice chunk of this out of out of the trump administration as well as she says he says these things in front of the camera.

They're supposed to meet up.

Then, right after that, he walks into the meeting and says, Look, you know, you're not going to

tell me that I'm involved in a cover-up and then have this nice meeting with me about infrastructure spending.

We're not doing both of these things at the same time.

You know, get out.

And then he walks out.

Which I like.

And I want him to say that all the time,

whether she says things in front of the camera or not, because I don't want to spend another $2 trillion.

However, then he walks into

the other side of the building and has a press conference all ready to go with a pre-printed sign about what it's about.

And somehow they were able to print.

They just dictated advanced signs really quickly at the White House.

They've got a really good printing team.

And he's like, look, we're not going to do both of these things.

And, you know, I was, these investigations have to stop.

And just, there's a part of me that thinks that this is just all both of them playing to their bases.

Here's what President Trump had to say.

More quietly.

Well, it turns out I'm the most,

and I think most of you would agree to this, I'm the most transparent president probably in the history of this country.

We have given

on a witch hunt, on a hoax.

The whole thing with Russia was a hoax as it relates to the Trump administration and myself.

It was a total, horrible thing that happened to our country.

It hurt us in so many ways.

Despite that, we're setting records with the economy, with jobs, with the most

people employed today that we've ever had in the history of our country.

We have the best unemployment numbers that we've had in the history of our country, in some cases 51 years, but generally in the history of our country.

Companies are moving back in.

Things are going well.

And I said, let's have the meeting on infrastructure.

We'll get that done easily.

That's one of the easy ones.

And instead of walking in happily into a meeting, I walk in to look at people that had just said that

I was doing a cover-up.

I don't do cover-ups.

He doesn't do cover-ups.

So, look,

so he doesn't want to go down this road, which is disappointing because I was on my way to work today.

Oh, my God.

The collapsing bridges?

Did you?

I got through the

collapsing bridges.

However, I was driving on the highway and I noticed there's a large silver thing to my right, realized a train that had come off the track somewhere was just speeding down the highway.

I mean, so that's

that shouldn't happen.

No, that's why we need these extra trains.

It's not good for the train, and it's not good for the pavement.

No, it rips up the pavement.

It does.

Seriously, which is already ripped up

a lot.

You can barely drive on it.

Yeah, that's true.

Especially when all the bridges are collapsing around there.

It's a problem.

It's a problem.

Look,

I have this weird thing, which is I'm concerned about the the $20 to $30 trillion in debt we currently have and the $100 to $200 trillion of debt that are already scheduled and we have no way of paying for.

The idea that we're going to come out and spend an extra $2 trillion

because afterwards, you know, Chuck and Nancy can have a bipartisan moment.

No, thank you.

No, thank you.

We can't even come up with a budget.

We haven't come up with a budget in 10 years.

There's not been a national budget since 2009.

We've got these continuing resolutions that run the country and operate our government, and we can't even so much as sit down and decide what we're going to spend every year and try to spend just what we have.

There's no reason to be doing $2 trillion

anythings.

Really, we can't afford it.

We can't afford it.

And we're just putting all of this burden onto our children and more likely our grandchildren and great-grandchildren because you can't pay this debt.

You can't pay it.

I'm of the opinion, I'm of the four-grade four-grade school of thought, which is anything past great, great, great, great-grandchildren, they got to fend for themselves.

I'll care about my children and my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren.

So we're talking third-grade?

I think third grade I will care about.

When you're at great, great, great, great-grandchildren, look, figure it out.

I don't know.

You got a long time.

Do something for yourself.

I mean, yes,

am I spending money that probably they won't even pay back?

Sure.

But, I mean, how responsible am I supposed to be?

Yeah, how about this?

By that time, figure out how to live on another planet and go back to zero on the budget.

Okay.

I don't know.

Figure it out.

You got a lot of time there.

You know, we're talking four or five generations.

B, you've got to show a little ingenuity.

And it's comforting to know that we've actually got people working on that.

We actually have people working on living on another planet.

Yeah.

Bezos is very excited about it.

Elon's in there.

Elon's, he's doing it.

Yeah, they're both in that world.

Rich Branson's in that world.

And NASA is apparently getting into that world.

They're talking about putting a permanent base on the moon so that they can eventually go to Mars and beyond and start all of these civilizations on other planets.

Now, would you spend $2 trillion on infrastructure on the moon?

And that's a whole nother question.

I feel like that's something we could talk about.

I think we could get together on that, maybe.

Because, I mean, if we could all just go, I mean, if we had an Elysium type of situation where at any point we can just kind of escape the Earth, and there's some nice infrastructure up there, maybe a high-speed train of some sort to get around the crater.

It seems like in every movie, there's

high-speed trains.

On Mars or the moon or wherever we happen to land.

I love that.

They were criticizing Trep.

He's like, oh, he really likes infrastructure.

Well, what about the California train situation?

Are you still pushing for that?

Didn't the Democrat.

Didn't Gavin Newsom cancel it?

I mean, yes.

Because it was way over budget.

Even Gavin Newsom said no to it.

This train thing drives me crazy.

I just don't understand why people are so infatuated with freaking trains.

Trains suck.

They suck.

I had to ride them every single day when we lived in New York.

And they blow.

They are terrible.

They have the

situation in California where they're going to spend, it was initially supposed to be like $1.5 billion.

And then initially, it got up to $100 billion pretty quickly.

Now they've basically canceled it.

That's only 100 times more than the the start of the times right that's so that's not that big of a deal

i saw an article from they're like i think it was japan or china i can't remember they were they're going to launch in their middle of launching like this incredible new bullet train like this bullet train is amazing you know what the headline said it approaches the speed of aircraft you already have aircraft use the aircraft What do you mean it approaches this?

What is the benefit

of a train that goes slower than planes?

Planes don't only have to go between two specifically designated areas.

This is the great thing about them.

Anywhere you put a freaking airport, a plane can land.

So if a new population center opens up in the middle of nowhere, you can just change the plane.

The same day.

You could say, that day, we're now taking this plane over there instead.

And it's going to go faster and have less problems

than the train.

If it was a lot less expensive than the airfare, you could almost understand it.

But it isn't.

It never is.

In some cases, it's more.

So I got to pay more to get there slower.

Right.

And then I can only go to that one place.

$100 billion

to take people from LA to

Sacramento or San Francisco, whatever it was.

And when they have 100 flights going back and forth anyway, and they're already relatively inexpensive, you're not going to save any money going on this train.

No.

You're just going to get there in 10 times the amount of your life.

It's going to cost you 10 times the amount of your life to get there.

And and they're never going to build the thing anyway.

And by the time it's done, it's going to be going to some area where people are no longer living.

I'm guessing you're not going to be doing commercials for Amtrak.

Not if you're not.

Oh, no.

That's not happening.

It's Patton Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program, 888-727-BECK.

A little discrepancy in how much of the border wall has been built.

Now, yesterday we had a story that there were 1.7 miles built.

1.7.

So we're almost there.

How long is the border?

Is it what, two miles?

I think it's two and a half, maybe two miles.

Just a little bit longer than that.

Okay.

It's like 2,000 miles.

Okay.

There is a two in it, though.

There is a two in it.

So you're pretty close.

So the White House yesterday said, and Sarah Sanders said that was, that was not accurate.

It's,

and then the figure 20 miles came up.

Okay.

And then Sarah Sanders said none of those were accurate.

It's 100 miles.

And they're still on track for 500 by the end of the year.

If that's true, that's not bad.

I mean, that's

if they if they can do 500 miles this year

of

new border wall, I think that'd be okay.

I mean, that's a good start.

I'm going to need an audit on that.

Yeah, because I'd like to see it.

We've had heard a lot of claims, and the administration has done this several times in which they've said repairing existing fence means

new fence.

No, to me, that doesn't count.

No.

No.

That's not.

The The campaign promise wasn't, I'm going to repair the fence that's already there.

We're going to build a wall.

And look, you know,

he can't do it by himself.

Right.

And the Democrats are kicking and screaming and fighting him every step of the way.

Yeah.

And I guess so far they've compiled all together about $6 billion for this, and that'll pay for supposedly 400 or 500 miles.

So if they could do that, I'd be pretty happy with that as a good start.

Yeah, I'm not, you know, we've talked about this before.

I'm not thrilled with the whole emergency thing.

So

you're not funding.

So, and I know you're not.

And, you know, most people aren't.

But, I mean, it is a huge concern as far as what's going on on the border and addressing it is important.

And obviously, you're not going to get anything out of Chuck and Nancy.

You know, I mean, that would be an easy one, right?

Like, it's infrastructure.

This is a legitimate piece of our infrastructure that is crumbling.

Right.

Where they could go in and spend some money to protect the borders, and they don't want to do that.

They don't want to do that.

They just want to make our airports have Wi-Fi.

And it's like,

it's hard to take it seriously.

Yeah, well, what should be the priority?

I don't know.

Let's stop the flow of drugs and illegals.

This is the Glenbeck program with Pat and Stu for Glenn.

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.

888-727-BECK.

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.

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

i think you're really alive or if it's 32 years old 32 when you're 32 well you can't you can't be president yet so 35 okay 35 35 years old is when when life begins and there's been this debate that goes on for a long time and some 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 a 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,

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

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, right?

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 it's it's i i'm almost to the godzilla level with it it's so unbelievable we'll give you the details of it in 60 seconds

pat and stew for glenn on the glenbeck program uh so npr has some new guidelines for uh 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 that.

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...

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 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 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 at least, you know, but it's not.

It's like the

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, 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 seven or eight 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.

And

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

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 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 were 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 is 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 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 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-8-727BECK.

Of course, Ilan O'Marr

understands where we're coming from on the right.

She sees right through us.

Her eyes pierce our armor

of disguise.

Yeah, we are so transparent under her steely gaze.

Frightening, really.

It's frightening.

I feel so vulnerable now.

Here she is from the house floor talking about the religious right and our pro-life viewpoints.

Religious fundamentalists are currently trying to manipulate state laws in order to impose their beliefs on an entire society,

all with complete disregard for voices and the rights of American women.

There's something like all that.

It's interesting that there's something with Ilan Omar in that she is never saying

these things without reading them.

Like she, every speech I've seen of her where she's making these controversial statements, as you're about to hear, she's always just reading it word for word.

She can't take her eyes off of the and many times reading it wrong.

I mean, what was the

oh, the Iran-Kourtra affair?

Remember that situation?

The Iran-Kourtra affair?

I mean, someone with absolutely no knowledge of the topic she's speaking of.

That's an independent, but she's always reading it.

I mean, obviously, someone's writing these things for her.

Many times, she's reading it for the first time in front of people.

And that's why a lot of times she smells like it.

She doesn't seem to know what the words are.

She doesn't know what the references are.

There's a weird thing going on with her, in particular.

Alexandria Casio-Cortez speaking off the top of her head a lot, and that's what leads to her

continuous mistakes.

Omar is always reading things, not just notes, word for word, staring at the paper the entire time this is going on, to give you the mental picture here.

All right, go ahead.

The recent efforts,

like those in Alabama, in Georgia, are only the latest in a long history of efforts to criminalize

women for simply existing

punish us when we don't conform to their attempts to control.

But because it's happening here with the support of the ultra-conservative religious right, we call it religious freedom.

It's simply unthinkable.

Let's just be honest.

Okay, be honest.

For the religious right, this isn't simply

about their care or concern for life.

How many syllables are it simply?

If they cared about 17 or were concerned about children,

then they would be concerned about the children that are being detained

and those that are dying

in camps across our border.

Okay, let's stop for a second.

Across our border.

This is an interesting point.

Now, Pat, I remember when in 2014, I believe it was, Barack Obama, President of the United States, you took a little trip to the border.

Do you remember what you did there?

Was it to build new camps?

No, it wasn't.

It was out of concern for the kids that were at the border, and we brought them Christmas presents.

Yeah.

And when you build a wall and you increase border security, what is your intent with something?

I mean, as I know it's racism, but other than racism, what is your intent?

Would it be to stop people from entering a place in which they could be detained by law?

Yes, that seems pretty logical.

It seems like if you were to build a wall and secure the border, you would have no problems at all with children coming across the border and dying.

Yeah, there'd be hopefully none.

Obviously, nothing can be perfect, but there'd be as few as possible.

So do you care about children?

They actually do.

Yeah,

kind of.

They do.

Yeah.

And

that's pretty central to the entire thing on both issues, by the way.

Yes.

I mean, you know, how the compassionate part of of the border has become, oh, let them all come over here and run through the deserts with no water

is an asinine, you know,

it is the exact reverse of what is real, and it's like saying babies aren't babies.

And encouraging it is

bringing more people across the border who die in the deserts of Arizona.

Texas and New Mexico.

It's just, that's not the compassionate thing to do.

Pat and Stu on the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn's back on Tuesday because we're heading into a three-day weekend here with Memorial Day, which is really nice.

And because you've had a brutal three-day week here, Stu.

Well, and a three-day week last week, too.

And last week.

Now next week, you're doing a full four-day week.

Yeah, which I'm not happy about.

You shouldn't be.

Yeah.

I don't know how you do it.

I really don't know how you do it.

It's basically sacrificed for the American people.

I just put

the American people above myself.

And you give.

And you give.

It's just something that I do.

Am I a hero?

Yes.

But.

So you would say yes.

I would say yes if asked.

I was not asked

if I was a hero, but I would say yes if asked.

Just trying to be clear for the American people.

And of course, when you're here, of course, you're a Canadian sports celebrity as well.

I am.

That's a hero.

So that's, I mean, that's a lot.

That's a lot.

That's me.

That's me.

It is you.

I think most people are now familiar with the Babylon B, right?

Have you and Glenn talked about it much?

Yeah, yeah.

They've done some really funny articles.

Kind of like, I want to say almost like a conservative onion in a way.

That's a really good description of it.

Okay.

And

like the other day, they did this thing

about a gay man who went to Chick-fil-A, took one bite of the sandwich, and instantly became straight.

Oh, no.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And then he went to Burger King and it changed him back.

But really funny stuff and really well written.

Yeah, they do a good job.

Yeah.

And I will say, too, I feel like when they first burst out of the scene, I remember thinking, eh,

some of them were okay, but it was a lot of hit or miss stuff.

Lately,

the last couple of years, honestly, they have been

all over it and impressive.

They have a great one out about the abortion thing going on today.

It's titled Pregnancy Kills, Abortions Save Lives.

Pregnancy is a a life-threatening condition.

Oh, wow.

Women die from being pregnant.

We have known that for thousands of years.

Pregnancy is dangerous.

Abortion can be life-saving.

Alabama's new law claims that it does not prohibit abortion if there is a reasonable medical judgment that the pregnancy poses a serious health risk to the woman.

But pregnancy itself poses a serious health risk.

including the risk of dying and losing all bodily functions.

A woman's life and health are at risk from the moment that a pregnancy exists in her body, whether she wants to be pregnant or not.

Maybe all of this is moved.

Perhaps the goal of the Alabama law, in addition to triggering a deal, a legal challenge to Roe v.

Wade, may be to discourage doctors from even practicing medicine in the state, lest they be accused of performing an illegal abortion and sentenced to prison for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps the vagueness of the law and the confusion is the point.

Vagueness and confusion are tools of tyranny.

The intent of the Alabama legislature and its new law is clearly to prohibit and prevent abortions from being performed.

But does it?

This particular Babylon B story is less funny than it is outrageous.

Yeah, the concept is funny.

There are laugh lines in there.

Partially that could be because it's not from the Babylon B.

It's a serious column written in the New York Times.

That's amazing.

Pregnancy kills

abortion saves lives is the freaking headline

now as bizarre as this is because like you can make this argument about anything for example

should you ever eat food eating food kills kills because we know you're much more likely to choke on solid food than a drink so why are we not all having protein shakes all the time plus how many people get heart disease from the food they eat thank you millions

millions diabetes diabetes diabetes

the way that wilford Brimley does it.

Diabetes.

Diabetes is caused by the body.

That's another way.

Right?

I mean,

getting in a car, right,

it kills.

It doesn't do anything good.

It just kills.

It's a ridiculous way of looking at it.

But the stunning thing about this is if you've ever taken the time to actually read the Roe versus Wade decision, this is their justification for it.

This exact column.

What they are saying in Roe versus Wade, it's spelled out directly.

You are more likely to die when you get pregnant than when you have an abortion.

The abortion is something that, and this is, look, which

always dies during an abortion.

Yeah, 100%.

100%.

Unless they fail, and then they just let them die on the table.

That's a little bit of a difference.

Right.

But yeah, you're right.

Always.

It's got to be 99.5% of the time.

Right.

I mean, this line is incredible.

You know,

pregnancy itself poses a serious health risk, including the risk of dying and losing all bodily functions.

You mean like the baby every single time in an abortion?

Like every single one of these, the desire of the procedure is to make all bodily functions stop.

That's the intent.

The intent of a pregnancy is not to do that to a woman.

Obviously, we know, and it's much, much better than it used to be, but it does occasionally.

A woman does die in pregnancy.

It used to be really high, the percentages, and we've come a long, long way in stopping that from occurring.

But the idea that that is something that is an argument for abortion is completely upside down, but also the central reasoning of Roe versus Wade.

That's what they said.

Now, at some point, there may be a reversal of that, right?

Would then the left, would this abortion doctor happily give up abortion rights at that point?

If we could get to a point where, you know what, childbirth is now, there's no deaths from childbirth, but there's still deaths from abortion, would they then say that abortion should go away?

Because my guess is no.

No.

Because it's got nothing to do with what they're saying.

It's a lie.

It's as big a lie as anything in the Babylon B, which is intentionally telling you it's a lie.

It's a satire site.

But this is a real article.

This is the stuff.

I mean, we talk about this all the time, Pat.

There was a time in which, and they still exist, where pro-choice people had what amounted to seemingly sensible arguments and rational positions from the idea that at least they seemed like nice people.

They seemed like people who are like not denying reality.

They just, you know, look, they had a different opinion or whatever.

We are now to the point where we're talking about abortions at nine months.

We're talking about, you know, abortion is a lifesaver.

Again, like the intent of it is to end a life.

How can it be a lifesaver?

It's one of these things where we've gone so far in this debate that Roe versus Wade seems like something, some mythical artifact from the past.

A move to Roe versus Wade is a mood to the right.

We talk about overturning Roe versus Wade.

If we could get back to Roe versus Wade, it would be a massive improvement from where we are right now.

Massive.

And we talked about this yesterday on the news and Why It Matters as well.

But this idea that the debate is now occurring in the ninth month, the third trimester, even the second trimester, which abortions are overwhelmingly unpopular in the second trimester and third trimester, from all American people, not just Republicans.

The idea that that's where the debate is shows how extreme this has become.

This is straight out denial.

We're putting quotes around the word heartbeat.

We're calling it a flickering pulse.

This is insanity.

There's no connection to reality anymore when it comes to this stuff.

Well, the left have become science deniers.

They used to accuse us of that all the time because of the climate change thing.

And they do nothing but deny science now.

Nothing.

In the abortion debate, they deny science.

In the gender debate, they deny science.

They're just not about science anymore.

They've just thrown that flush shot completely down the toilet now.

Yeah.

I mean, Glenn's last book,

Addicted to Outrage, had a big part about it, about postmodernism.

And a lot of it feels like, you know, look, it's some dumb thing that some college professor, you know, is teaching some 20-year-old who comes out and thinks they're really smart, right?

Like it stinks of that, but it's so central to what's going on now.

It is.

Words that mean things no longer mean things.

The heartbeat is not a, it's not a, there's not a disagreement about what a heartbeat is.

Yet now we have to put quotes around it.

We have to, I don't know, is it a flickering pulse or is it a heartbeat?

Is it a baby or is it a fetus?

Like a fetus is just a stage a baby is in.

That's it.

That's what it is.

It's not,

it doesn't turn into broccoli.

It doesn't turn into a radish.

It doesn't turn into a Volkswagen.

You know, it is, it is, we all know it's just a stage of life, is what a fetus is.

It's what an embryo is.

It's what a baby is.

It's what a human is.

It's what an adult is.

It's what a child is.

It's what a teenager is.

It's what all these things are.

They're stages of a life.

And the idea that now we have,

you know, they're like, I would love to know.

The NPR guide says don't use a baby.

A baby isn't a baby until it's born.

How many times has NPR referred to a baby bump?

How many times has NPR,

you know,

she's having a baby?

How do we know?

If it's just a fetus, how do we know she's having a baby?

We don't know.

You're speculating there.

Who knows what it turns out to be?

Could be a glow stick.

It could be a Rudabega.

Some kind of pulsating

light

in there.

It could be, you know, there's a new sequel coming out to Men in Black.

It could be those Men in Black things going off, the flashes that make everybody lose their memory.

Maybe that's just constantly happening on a beat all the time inside the womb because there is a flickering pulse going on.

We used to understand what that was.

I know when we went through,

really my wife did most of the work here, but childbirth twice.

I remember the expert who worked at the place where the baby doctors work telling us, hey, there's the heartbeat.

Can you hear the heartbeat?

They've never called it a flickering pulse.

Can you hear the flickering pulse?

Not ever has a doctor said, see that flickering pulse yeah that's your fetus that's your fetus they don't say that either they say that's your baby

and it's not that's that's a doctor saying that that's not that's not just a right-wing uh you know extremist This is what doctors know.

Just a crazy pulse.

We all know this.

We all know this.

It's just crazy.

And like, it's just, I can't get over the fact that instead of trying to justify these ridiculous positions, they just act as if they're correct.

Like, wow, it's just a flickering pulse.

What are you talking about?

Of course it's a a flickering pulse.

It's science.

What do you mean it's science?

It's not a flickering pulse.

It is a heartbeat.

We all know it's a heartbeat.

And the reason you won't admit it's a heartbeat is because you have a different agenda.

You want to protect abortion at all costs.

It is an absolute religious tenet at this point.

You can't, it has.

It is.

Abortion is a religion.

It is.

Two to the left.

And it's a dark one, man.

Yeah.

That is a dark freaking, that is like the guys in the Temple of Doom.

You know, they're down in a cave somewhere ripping hearts out of people.

That's the kind of religion it is.

You mean flickering pulses?

Ripping flickering pulses out of people?

Pat and Stu for Glenn, 888727 BECK.

Coming up in about 15 minutes or so, we're going to be talking to Mark Levin about his new book.

Unfreedom of the press, which is a number one New York Times bestseller.

No surprise there, of course.

He even beat Howard Stern's book.

Oh, did it really?

Yeah.

Wow.

Yeah.

Jeez, that's amazing.

That's huge.

Yeah, he's going to be coming on.

Obviously, he's a host on Blaze TV as well.

If you have not subscribed and you like Mark Levin and you like Pat and Glenn and the whole crew here, subscribe.

Blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

If you use the promo code Glenn, they save you $10.

It's definitely worth your time.

Let's go to Robert in California.

Hey, Robert, you're on the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, morning, gentlemen.

How are you doing?

Doing good.

You really concerned or are you just making small talk?

Kind of both.

Your last segment wanted me to go down a couple of rabbit holes, but I'll try to get straight to the point.

If you're legally dead when your brain activity stops and they can pull the plug,

why can't you defeat any arguments based on religion or anything else and say you're legally alive when the brain activity starts?

It just so happens if you do the research, it's about 42 to 45 days after conception, six weeks.

So the heartbeat and the brain activity kind of the same.

So it takes the emotions out of it.

It actually solves some problems.

And some politicians might be out of a job because you're actually solving issues.

And this goes back, it's an interesting point, Robert, and this goes back to what we were talking about about how far the debate has moved.

I have a friend of mine who's a pro-choice and a guy I really like.

And he was like, well, you know, look, I don't agree with you on this.

And he said, you know, I think it's a time,

it's cognitive, when cognitive activities begin is when I would say life begins.

And as the caller points out, I've heard six weeks, I've heard 10 weeks for that, but it's very early in the pregnancy where that actually begins.

And it's interesting in that, like, people who now consider themselves to be pro-choice are making arguments far more extreme than 90% of Republicans are making when, because Republicans are trying to ban it at 20 weeks in most states.

Alabama is an exception.

Most of them are 20 weeks, but the Alabama six weeks law basically lines up with my friend who considers himself pro-choice.

Crazy.

It really is amazing how far that was moved.

It is.

And there's, I think, six states now that have heartbeat pills, and then two others that have limited to

the like early in the second trimester, Utah and Arkansas limited abortion.

I mean, that's just a really tiny little baby step,

pun intended, a little baby step there to just to take it out of the third trimester into the second trimester.

But the really impressive heartbeat bills, and then in Alabama's case, the almost total ban on abortion is really bold and has pushed this, has pushed this debate back into the public forum.

And that's why we're able to talk about it again on such a regular basis.

And that's why the Democrats are so, the left is just out of their mind on this, because we're engaged again.

We're activated again, And we haven't been activated like this on abortion for a really long time.

I mean, we've been talking about it a little bit, but this is a, it's a different level now.

We're at a completely different level.

And again, like, it's, it's one of those debates that's uncomfortable to have.

It's an uncomfortable conversation, but you know, maybe it's worth an uncomfortable conversation when you're talking about 62 million people that should be alive that aren't.

Maybe.

Yeah.

Some people think that's important.

Yeah.

It seems like it's worth it.

It seems like it's worth it.

And as far as women's rights, about half of them are a little bit slightly more would have been women had they been allowed to be born.

So.

All right.

Mark Levin.

Coming up in just a few minutes.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Today with Pat and Stew for Glenn, 888-727-BECAK coming up in about 60 seconds, we're going to be speaking with Mark Levin about his new book, On Freedom of the Press.

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.

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 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.

And 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 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 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 100 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 TV 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 magnet, 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.

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,

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 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 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, 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 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.

Pat and Stu on the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn is back on Tuesday because Monday is Memorial Day.

We got a three-day weekend to look forward to.

Triple 8-727-BECK.

Is Israel practicing some new crowd control methods that maybe we could learn from?

Well, there's a lot of developments in the Middle East.

There's supposedly a new plan of 10,000 troops, 5,000 to 10,000 troops to be sent to the area of Iran.

And that's going to, they're talking about it.

The reporting is strange on it because they're treating it like it's a real story, but then they're saying it's going to be proposed today,

which kind of signals to me it's not, you know, probably.

It's not decided yet.

Yeah, exactly.

Although, even we're certainly stepping up our game with Iran as of late.

And, you know, I don't think anyone wants to go to war with Iran.

I mean, Trump, especially, I mean, he was a guy who ran really as probably the most,

you know, anti-internvement Republican that at least I can remember.

I mean, it goes back a long, my lifetime for sure, I would think.

Which I like, by the way.

I'm kind of tired of being the police of the world.

Yeah, it sucks.

Getting involved, especially in Middle Eastern nation building, regime change and nation building.

It doesn't work out.

They don't have the same mindset.

and mentality and love for freedom that we do.

They've got a different sort of system over there, and they like their system.

And when you replace the leaders that they have, usually you replace them with somebody worse.

So it just doesn't work out that well.

You know, it's part, it's, and I don't, Trump kind of comes at this from a different perspective, but it's consistent with the libertarian argument on war, which is basically

we as governments suck at everything, and war is included in that.

I mean, that's the libertarian analysis, basically.

And the same thing that happens, I think, to, you know, I don't always agree with libertarians on, you know, matters of law and order, sort of policing, but it's the same sort of argument.

Like, we are not good at doing things through the government.

You know, the

international war is something we try to do through the government.

We don't do it the right way.

We don't use the right process.

And when we get in there, we screw it up.

And it's not even, we act sometimes as if these things are like easy things that we're messing up because we're incompetent.

Well, they're hard to do.

Well, we just have.

Was it a senator that said we're two strikes and it's over in a war with Iran?

Oh, come on.

That's just ridiculous.

Nonsense.

I mean, look, that's not going to be an easy one.

And I don't want to go near it, honestly.

That's going to be, you would think, much more difficult than Afghanistan or Iraq.

I mean, they're much more developed societies

militarily.

A lot more people.

It's dangerous.

And war isn't fought the way it was in World War II anymore.

It's just not.

And we wouldn't fight it that way.

If we fought it that way, you know, maybe you could get a good resolution in a reasonably

resolution at the very least.

In a reasonable amount of time, no, it would be a terrible resolution, right?

We're talking about probably

thousands of people, many of them innocent Iranians who don't support the regime at all.

I mean, they're just not very popular there.

You know, there's just no way.

There's no way to make this work.

And that's kind of, you know, I think where both of us have landed over the years.

It's like I supported the Iraq war back in the day.

certainly believed there was weapons of mass destruction there and and we know how that story all played out But over the years, I have come not necessarily because of

that war teaching me some lesson.

It's really more about understanding the capabilities of human beings, and especially when they gather in government.

Human beings are capable of many amazing things, and obviously our troops do incredible things when they are put into war, but managing that war is a central, is an exercise in central planning.

And we know as conservatives that exercises in central planning don't work out that well that often.

Now, there's another big sort of flare-up in the Middle East as well.

This one in Israel, where ultra-Orthodox Jews have been protesting

all over Israel.

And many Israelis are complaining that they're causing disruptions to commerce.

They're stopping traffic.

They're doing all sorts of things.

We know what they're upset about.

Yeah, let's see.

Let's see if I can.

I read this earlier.

No.

The actual protests.

I don't know if it's in this article or not.

It might have been another one.

I'm not sure.

But I think the real focus here.

They're a nuisance.

Well, yes.

At least people there say that they're a nuisance.

Yeah.

They're like, yeah, look, we're trying to drive home and we can't.

There was a situation many years ago, and this happens all over the place, but when people will protest about their job situation or the environment or whatever, and they'll walk out into the middle of a busy road and stop traffic.

And I always think to myself, like, how can this work?

Like, if you're trying to win people over, like, you're just ruining their day and make it so they can't get home

to dinner for their families.

I told the story about

the janitor strike in Houston when I was there.

Yeah.

And the SEIU came down from Chicago and they would have trucks filled with,

in the back, they were filled with garbage.

And they'd go through an intersection, like a main intersection, and then somebody would push all the garbage out into the middle of the intersection just to hold up traffic.

Right.

So, you're like, you to get me on the side of the janitors.

That's not helping.

No, because the point is like.

Yeah, this is what would happen if you didn't have janitors.

Right.

Wait, they drive trucks through the

dump garbage in the middle of the street?

That doesn't make any sense.

That doesn't help me be sympathetic to your cause.

That pisses me off.

Yeah.

So this one, I guess

this one in Israel, they were

protesting the Eurovision song contest.

Now, these are very, very Eurovision.

Yeah, that was held in Israel, which isn't, by the the way, in Europe.

But it can be seen, so vision applies.

So that's there.

Okay, that's where it came in.

There you go.

Yes.

So

they went to a protester starting

to become an issue.

They've tried

police on horseback and all these things to try to break up these rallies.

Apparently, the new tactic is that women have decided to go topless.

Apparently, under modesty rules, these men are forbidden to view erotic images of women other than their wives, and in some cases to view women at all.

Israeli advertising posters are periodically defaced if they contain images of women, and some newspapers won't run any photos of women.

So the idea is that the women will now start taking their tops off to break up the protests because they're not allowed to see women without their tops off.

So they will physically be at the protests and take their top off.

And take their tops off.

And once they see that, they have to leave, which theoretically will break up the protest.

I don't know how it's going to work.

That's an interesting tactic.

It does seem like a tactic of the left often in the United States.

I love that they're always like, oh, these are, let's show these men.

These are our bodies.

We're going to go to this place naked.

And guys are like,

wow, you're showing us.

You've taught us a lesson.

Because guys hate it when women don't wear clothing.

It's just

generally speaking, just looked down upon by guys all over the world.

Now, in this particular case, I think it is actually looked down upon.

However, I've always amazed by that here in the United States where there's like, it's like women are just like, oh, well, I'll show, I'll show you whose body this is.

I'm going to go topless.

And guys are like,

wow, you've proven a great point right now.

And you're teaching us all the patriarchy.

It's like, do you realize what side the patriarchy is on?

They convinced you to take your top off.

Do you realize that you're on the wrong side of the patriarchy when you're protesting

with your clothing off?

It's not a good direction for you to go.

But they do that all the time.

I say the one way they do it a lot of times is um and it is effective when done this way is they take their clothes off but it's the people you don't want taking their clothes off that do it yeah that's the protest right and then that does break up a crowd yes you know the lena dunhams of the world can break up crowds like nobody's seen if given the the right amount of clothing which is none uh so it's possible i see where they're going with it well we'll keep you updated on whether the israeli protests are really controlled by topless i'd love to know if that works

It would be a fascinating thing to watch develop.

Pat and Stu for Glenn.

You can catch my show, Pat Gray Unleashed, weekday mornings right before the Glenn Beck Radio program on the Blaze Radio and Television Network.

Then you can listen to the podcast at any time at your leisure, which you can also do with Jeff Fisher's podcast.

Jeff, he joins our broadcast today.

What is your dumb podcast?

I know you have a difficult time remembering

the fact.

Even though it was my name to begin with, because that's the segment that you use on our show.

It is.

On my show.

And I stole it.

And you stole it.

I mean, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Chewing the fact with Jeffy and pressing the charges.

I appreciate it.

And where is that podcast available?

You can get it on any platform that the podcasts are available.

Wherever free podcasts are sold.

You can get it wherever free podcasts are sold.

That's an amazing thing about chewing the fact.

That is amazing.

It's amazing.

Congratulations are in order, though, for Ellen DeGeneres.

I know you were wondering if she was going to continue on her talk show.

I really wasn't concerned.

I know I heard you moaning about it the other day, but she is.

She signed a new deal, three more years.

Oh, phew.

I mean, so she's going to be

back on.

Ellen is 61 now.

Wow.

I mean, that's.

She doesn't look it.

No, she does not.

She looks great.

Three more years though, Ellen.

I mean, the Ellen brand is worth about $500 million now, something like that.

So

she's doing okay.

Yeah, she's doing all right.

You know, she's really likable.

I think she had a problem there in the late 90s when she was kind of preaching to people on her show

when she came out as

gay, which everybody knew.

It was like

the least big surprise ever on network television.

Whoa.

She admitted it.

The deal was that she admitted it live on TV.

But then it got kind of preachy, and I think people didn't really like that.

And now she's not preachy at all about it, and she's just fun.

And so I think people, it kind of shows you that

we're not homophobic.

We just don't want to be beaten over the head with stuff.

Right?

I mean, I don't beat people over the head with my heterosexuality.

Oh, it just oozes from you, though.

Does it?

Does it ooze?

Yes, it does.

Oh, my gosh.

Yes, it does.

I can't help it.

I can't help it.

It's hard to ignore it, but yes.

Good news for you, too, Stuart.

Maybe even you, Pat.

I mean, I know how much you guys enjoy Taco Bell.

Oh,

Taco Bell.

They are opening a luxury resort in Palm Springs, California.

Taco Hotelio Bell is.

Taco Bell said the reservation's going to open in June, opens up August 9th.

Weird.

It's going to have the gift shop, exclusive apparel based on the restaurant, salon, nail art, hairstyling services, all inspired by Taco Bell.

Will there be Taco Bell food there at least?

Okay, guys.

It's an unparalleled experience.

I don't want anything else that they're talking about.

No.

I don't want my hairdo to reflect Taco Bell, but

I would.

You don't want the Taco Bell nails with the bell on your nails or anything?

I would say this could be a potential investigation for the Blaze.

Maybe I, as a reporter, reporter, could go there for a week or two to wish to see the broadcast live of the opening.

I would totally do that.

Taco Bell Resort.

I mean, we've got The Cruise Through History coming up.

Maybe we can get Taco Bell involved in that.

Come to saileaway.com and just get Taco Bell right on board there.

Then we're really going to up the.

I know we're hearing about gourmet Italian food.

Just give me Taco Bell.

I love it.

They kept saying

Trump had these big dinners for all the teams that would win.

And then that one time when the government was shut down, he brought in fast food.

I'm sorry.

That's exactly what it was.

And they loved it.

Clemson loved it.

They loved it.

And now he's been doing it.

He's done it several times since.

And I think that should just be the new thing.

Absolutely.

American fast food companies.

And of course, as with everything else, he got hammered in the press by it.

And then you heard the Clemson players say, no, that was great.

That was awesome.

Well, it's one of those things, too.

If he had given them gourmet food, there would be a report in the Washington Post.

$427,000 spent on food for.

And they would have gone the other way.

It's whatever way

Trump isn't is the way they have to go.

We were talking about this in the break.

I actually kind of want Donald Trump to come out and make a major policy address in which he says climate change is a serious issue, and I'm pro-choice.

Because we're going to be able to do it.

Just see what the media does.

They'd flip.

They would all flip.

They'd have to.

They would say, look, we have to be clear,

first of all, it's not just women's bodies.

Fathers have rights, too.

And

this idea that climate change is this pending disaster is totally overblown.

That'd be great.

It would be sad.

We'll slip on climate change and abortion and watch what the media does.

Oh, my gosh, that would be sad.

And what the Democrats do?

They would start passing policies.

They'd be like, there's a heartbeat.

Of course they can't be allowed after a heartbeat begins.

Six weeks is plenty of time.

They would all completely flip.

I mean, we've seen this on several issues because, you know, because obviously Trump has somewhat of a

different policy

portfolio as maybe the average Republican and certain issues in particular.

And you see this happening constantly.

People that supported one side of the argument for decades in the media and now are, I mean, the trade one is really interesting.

You watch, I mean, CNN was the mouthpiece of the unions on trade for 30 years saying we absolutely need tariffs and trade restrictions are killing American jobs because you'd have all these union representatives come on and say all of these things.

And now because Trump is on that side of things, they sound like Milton Friedman.

They all become, they're basically Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow on trade all of a sudden.

It's amazing.

It's incredible to see how that changes.

It should be embarrassing, but it's not.

It's not.

They have no embarrassment in there.

Their embarrassment gene has been removed.

At some level, you just lock yourself into, I'm in a battle against this other side.

So whatever they say, I'm on the other side of.

And that is like, I just, as a human being, I can't bring myself to go there.

I just don't, I don't have any interest in that.

That's strange.

Speaking of, you know, fast food, although good fast food, Chick-fil-A.

I wanted to thank the governor, Greg Abbott from the great state of Texas.

Oh, this is really cool.

He tweeted out the other day about the new bill that I believe is on his desk.

And he tweeted out on his Twitter account: so, what are the odds I'll sign the Chick-fil-A bill?

I'll let you know after dinner.

And his picture on his tweet was a large Chick-fil-A drink with the Chick-fil-A story.

Save Chick-fil-A Bill heads to Texas Governor Greg Abbott's desk.

And the story

was from the Blaze.

So

I want to thank the governor for

being out.

He's just having to get it.

There's never been a better governor.

Seriously.

And it's not just because he featured the Blaze in that little post.

And Chick-fil-A.

But he is the greatest governor of my lifetime.

No matter what state I've lived in, no matter how long, how far back you go, there's nobody better than Greg Abbott.

No,

you lived in Connecticut.

Yes, I did.

Are you sure you want to?

Yes, I did.

Are you going to go that far?

And I'm still going to stick to my

statement.

Wow.

And you worked in New York.

You experienced that governor.

Yes.

Was it Pataki at the time?

No, was that post-Pataki?

That was.

Was it Cuomo?

Yeah.

Yeah, it was a Cuomo.

Yeah.

I mean, and now you have the opportunity to potentially vote for Bill de Blasio for president.

Right.

So, I mean, this is

probably going to pass up that change.

Wow, are you kidding me?

No.

Now, Jeffy, I noticed you brought up multiple stories here about fast food.

Your couple.

Your couple in the news.

Your podcast is called Chewing the Fast.

I will say it's sad to see

post-your heart attack that you seem to be losing weight.

And

I don't like that because it ruins our jokes mainly.

I came on this show, this very show, with...

Well, the host that's on vacation now, Glenn Beck.

And we made a deal about losing weight this year.

This is a great point.

We made a deal about losing weight this year.

I agreed to it.

Yes.

I've lost 25 pounds.

The deal was just that we were going to eat better and we were going to lose weight.

And I'm up to 25 pounds lost now.

I'm feeling good.

I don't think Glenn is part of that deal.

I will say this.

Glenn, and I can give you specifics on Glenn, who said he was going to lose 50 pounds.

50?

In this year.

Okay.

Now we are only in May.

How far toward that goal is he?

All he has to do is lose 60 pounds.

And then he lost the 50.

I think he lost 20.

So 15.

I said that I kind of confronted him on this the other day.

I was like, Glenn, you know, you made this big deal to lose 50 pounds this year.

Like, how's that?

Have you abandoned it?

He's like, no, I haven't abandoned it at all.

No, I'm still in.

Okay.

Now, look, he's still got seven months.

No, no, no, you can still do it.

Maybe that's going to happen.

He's on vacation this week.

Usually we don't eat it.

So that's when you start working out and feeling good about yourself is on vacation.

So when he comes back, he'll just have have to lose 75 pounds.

And that's not bad.

But you're actually going in the right direction, which is nice.

You did remind me, though, of Chick-fil-A, which did a promotion a couple years ago.

He's so classic.

Well, they were giving away free sandwiches if you showed up in a cow outfit.

They do that once a year.

They do once a year.

And so

we decided to send Jeffy to Chick-fil-A.

However, did not dress him up, just kept him like he is because he, you know, there's like, there's a cow, there's a rather, there's a sort of a look-alike situation already happening.

We don't need to dress him up.

All we had him do when he walked into the store was say moo

and see if he got a free sandwich.

And bless your hearts.

And they did.

I want to thank Chick-fil-A for that.

I think.

I'm not sure that I want to thank him for it, but they did.

It's easy to look at this as a negative, and you might look back at that as a bad memory, but then I see your eyes light up when you talk about the sandwich.

You got free food.

I got free food.

All I had to do was go in and pretend I was a cow.

I mean

the biggest stretch, really.

No, but I was pretending as well.

No, that's part of it.

But what we were saying, sort of what you were saying, you just go in as a cow is that you're

overweight.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

No, I still have that.

And health-wise, are you okay?

No problem.

Peace.

You just went in for a checkup not too long ago.

Yeah,

you said you're doing good.

I'm fine.

You've quit the smoking?

I have.

That's

not clear.

100%.

In fact, that's the one thing they told you even more than anything about food.

Yeah, they weren't concerned about the diet at all.

They said, we'll get to that.

Smoking was number one.

Yeah.

And you've actually accomplished it, which is like incredible.

I mean, that's tough, man.

It is.

It's been a tough five months.

Is it still, or is it

fortunate about it?

No, every so often, man.

I walk outside the building and somebody will be out there smoking and I just want to tackle them and take the cigarette.

Have you considered using heavier drugs?

Like maybe off-selling it?

Okay.

But that doesn't help because that just makes me me want to smoke more.

Ah, see,

it's complicated.

I know, it is.

And you cover issues just like this on chewing the fat.

Thank you very much.

Every day with Jeff Fisher, go to wherever free podcasts are sold.

That's right.

And just search for chewing the fat, and you'll find Jeffy's face on a steak,

which is the symbol of the show, legitimately.

It's the most perfect symbol of a show ever invented in the history of podcasts.

I don't know why.

It just seems appropriate.

Triple 8-727-B-E-C-K.

ah you gotta love the hypocrisy spread thick as usual by democrats uh kamala harris

how hard has she been fighting for the uh gender gap the pay pay gap among genders to to end and it's her policy that when she's elected president it will end finally fight i i don't know how she how are you going to control the salaries that people give to their employees.

First of all, we've talked about the gender pay gap a million times.

And so is the Washington Post, as a matter of fact, which is not conservative, but they've debunked it as well.

Yeah.

It's not a real thing.

It's not a real thing.

I know it feels like it's a real thing to a lot of people.

In fact, it's one that was so pervasive that I remember when I first started looking at it, I thought it was real.

Yeah, I did too.

This is

10 or 15 years ago.

There's a book called Why Men Earn More that came out in the mid-2000s that really goes through the details.

It's written by a guy who was

set out to prove that it was

accurate yeah he was he was um a guy who was the president of the new york chapter of the national organization of women which is kind of interesting that a guy would be yeah um but he was uh he

his theory was if women can be paid for the same work a lot less i'll open up a business and hire women for

a lot of women but i'll save a ton of money and i'll be able to beat everybody well then he realized when he had uh women all working for him that they had different priorities and different decision-making processes.

It wasn't always work first, it was sometimes family first, which again, we'd all praise as a decision, and it's smart, but it was not the easiest way for him to run a business, and the business did not work.

And he wound up going through this and going through all the research and realizing that what we see as a wage gap is almost completely

disintegrates when you actually hold it up to any sort of light.

But when you have somebody preaching it, that there should be equality in pay, and

there will be equality in pay when I'm elected.

It kind of

blows your mind when you find out that in her Senate office and in her campaign, she's paying men more than women for the same job.

Unbelievable.

I mean, it's not a gigantic disparity, but it's 6%.

So

men make 6% more in

her Senate office, and they make 6%

more in her campaign.

Now, this is your big issue right now.

This is one of your central policy

concerns, and you can't even figure this out to pay your own

personnel the equal pay.

That's unbelievable.

Just unbelievable.

And we should point out the wage gap is not about equal pay for equal work.

It's just about equal pay as average.

They just take all the jobs in the country and average them men and women, and that's how they come up with this paid wage gap.

Well, when you look at it, when it's equal work,

the difference melts away.

And in many cases,

issues like the medical profession and education, women earn more than men for the same amount of work.

You know, it just, again, sometimes women are better at things and sometimes guys are better at things.

That's not a surprise to any human being who's ever dealt with either one of the two genders, which are part of the larger family of 943 genders.

Well, if I decide after I have a baby to leave employment, I should continue to make as much money as I was making when I was still there, right?

That'd be sweet.

I mean, in perpetuity.

Not just the six months that I can take off after having the baby, but I want to continue to make that money.

I think a lot of places you can take more than six months off now.

Yeah, it's a year in some places.

But if you take five years off, leave the profession, and then come back with the same knowledge you had five years ago and expect to come into the same job, whether it was a baby or not that did that, you shouldn't be making the same amount of money.

And those are the situations that occur, and that's why there's a little bit of a difference, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

oranges, it just doesn't work.

It's not, and they wanted you to believe it's sexism, and it's just not sexism.

There's like almost none of it that's even possible that it could be sexism.

You see this over and over again: if women can earn more with the same amount of education at the same point of their careers and this in these same professions, well, how could it be sexism?

It's just not.

We will finish off the week together and get into a three-day weekend for Memorial Day tomorrow, right here at the Glenn Beck program in the Patton Studio.

You're listening to Glenn Beck.