Best of the Program | Guests: Michael Malice, Dan Ikenson & Ami Horowitz | 5/14/19

Hello, podcasters.

We got a great show lined up for you today.

We talk a little bit about the war in Iran, Bitcoin up, the Dow way down, gold way up.

Also, the death of the old order and common sense.

Stu kind of had an epic story today of somebody here in Texas who's a bartender who is now facing a year in jail because she overserved someone, but it was four drinks and two of them were beers in four hours.

Wait until you hear this story coming up.

Also, Michael Malas,

he's got a new book out called The New Right.

We talk about my favorite president, Woodrow Wilson.

How much I hate him.

He hates him too.

But he is defining the new right.

That's coming up.

We also

show you a clip of Mike Lee that I think you're going to want to hear.

And also Ami Horowitz, a guy who is now running for president.

He just needs 65,000 people to donate a dollar, 50 cents, it doesn't matter, but donate to Ami4America.org or dot com

and

you can help him get on the Democratic stage.

He's

not your

new kind of Democrat.

He's more like JFK,

which today is more like Ronald Reagan.

Ami Horowitz, all on the podcast today.

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

Triot Mobile

is a phone service

that will give you all of the great coverage that you want.

They're just not going to take the money from you uh and then invest that in uh causes that you don't believe in like planned parenthood patriot mobile actually is going to let you invest your money into the causes that you believe in but most of these sells cell companies they they give all kinds of money to crazy crazy causes that you work hard against it's true why to do that uh you can go with patriot mobile they were created to solve that problem they're the only conservative cell phone company in america go to patriotmobile.com slash blaze Get started today.

When you use the offer code Blaze, they're going to waive the activation fee for up to two lines.

Patriotmobile.com/slash blaze or 1-800 of Patriot is the place to go.

So are we going to war with Iran?

I don't think so.

Because

it would be not a good thing.

It would be much better for them to collapse like the Soviet Union did.

But Iran is in a box.

We've trapped them in this box.

And

the Saudis yesterday said that they did hit those Saudi oil tankers.

One of them was bringing oil to us.

So they're trying to disrupt the Middle East and they're trying to disrupt the global economy

and bring everybody down.

Yesterday, it looks like we have a plan now for 120,000 troops to go over to Iran for an invasion.

But

this is just a plan that they updated.

It doesn't mean that it's actually going to happen.

I'm hoping that it's not because it will not be easy.

Not that Iraq was easy, but it will not be an Iraq.

It will be much bloodier and much worse.

Iran is just one step up, it would say, from Afghanistan and

from Iraq.

So I don't think we're going there.

I think Donald Trump is the president when it comes to foreign affairs.

He's the president that I've always wanted to have.

I've always said, you know, the president needs to have like a twitchy eye, not with our allies and not with us.

I want to know whose side he's on.

I want to know.

No, he wouldn't do that.

But the

bad actors in the world should look at our president and go,

you know, he's just crazy.

Now he just might do that.

And I think that works to our favor.

You want to appear stable and yet just crazy enough to go, you know what?

Let's do it.

And I think that's what he's doing, but I don't know.

The tariffs are a good example of he does keep his word.

You know, he has said, and this is one of the things that I was really concerned about were these tariffs,

because that is the one thing he has said for 40 years.

He's for tariffs.

The free market is what has changed the world.

And whenever you get into a trade war, it usually leads to a hot war.

It's what happened in World War II.

You just don't want to put tariffs up.

World War II, we put the tariffs up, and that was really the catalyst.

Now we were in a different situation, but that was the catalyst for the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley Act.

It was not good.

They never work out to anyone's favor.

Now, if the president is playing hardball, that's good.

However, it needs to change pretty quickly.

He's going to lose the farm vote, and that's very concerning to me.

These farmers have been,

you know, they have really been supportive of him

every step of the way.

And when they were, you know,

I mean, you want to talk about taking one for the team.

You see the movie Chernobyl?

Are you watching the mini city race?

I've only seen the first episode.

Okay, don't spoil it for me.

There better not be a meltdown.

I won't.

I won't.

Is there something go wrong with this plant?

Is that what happens?

Darn it, Glenn.

Yes.

Unbelievable.

Yes.

Spoiler alerts.

Yeah.

So, well, I mean, everybody knows what's happening in that.

It's in the first episode, and it's a part of history.

Anyway,

but last night, they were looking for volunteers to do things.

And one of the guys, one of the Soviets, said,

They're all like, you're crazy.

We're not doing that.

And he said,

that's what we do.

That's what we've always

done.

And there is always a crisis in every generation.

And this is our generation's crisis.

And you will do it or millions will die.

Who wants to volunteer?

And they all knew they were volunteering for about 20 minutes of life.

And it's an amazing scene.

There really were legitimate heroes in that story.

That were Soviet citizens that stepped up and did crazy stuff they never should have done.

All of the people that are involved, all the people that are now involved in

the second, they're all starting to realize, I'm dead soon.

And it's amazing what they do.

I only bring that up because I look at the farmers.

The farmers,

they voted for Donald Trump.

And they were willing to put their money and their livelihood where their mouth was because they're the ones that were on the front line of these tariffs.

They're being destroyed right now.

Destroyed.

Intentionally by China.

They're targeting

red states and politically sensitive districts to target the tariffs because they know it will make a maximum impact.

And honestly, so far,

the Trump administration has done two things.

One is say, well, we'll just take this tax money and redistribute it to those people.

I'm not sure what party that is.

I thought that was a Democrat thing to do, to take tax money and redistribute it to their chosen people.

That's also central planning now.

Yeah, that's very scary to me.

And secondarily, though, and this is one I think has more,

I don't know, to me, credibility, is you know, the bottom line is where are they going to go?

Where are they going?

Are you going to go vote for one of these people?

I mean, so, I mean, you know, yes, this policy is hurting them, but I mean, what are they going to do?

I don't know.

You're going to go vote for Elizabeth Warren?

Yeah.

I mean, where are you going?

It's just bad.

It's just, it's going to create a forgotten man again.

Nobody's paying attention to the farmers who have taken one for the team.

They really have.

We might have paid higher prices on this or that.

They've taken one for the team.

They're about to lose their farms.

And we need to be grateful to the farmers and support our farmers because they don't know what to do.

Now, Donald Trump said yesterday, well, we'll see what happens.

We're going to meet in June.

But I just want to point out, after he got his trade deal with Mexico and Canada, he he did not remove the tariffs because he likes the tariffs.

He thinks it's good policy, and he told us that 100,000 times, right?

I mean, he does believe it, right?

He's been, has been consistent on that for as long as he's been in the public eye.

Now, people are concerned that China is going to dump our treasuries.

I don't think so because they've already done that and it...

hurt them.

Remember, it was about a year ago they came out and said, we're getting out of the treasury business, and they started dumping our treasuries.

It didn't hurt us.

It really hurt them.

So there's a chance that they've already learned that lesson that I don't know if I want to do that

because they were the victim of that scheme that they did.

But this is why gold is up.

I think gold is having its best week in I don't even know how many years.

Bitcoin, they declared today Bitcoin the winter of crypto winter is over.

It's over.

And that is because people are starting to say,

what I want to talk to you about today,

the new world order is being formed.

The old world order

is gone.

And I don't think that it's coming back.

And that goes all the way to the court system.

It goes to our school systems.

I mean, look how much has changed.

Do you even recognize your country anymore?

Do you recognize, is the old world order still there?

It's been undermined at every step of the way.

It's faltering, and it appears as though everyone is building something new.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Like listening to this podcast?

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

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

Welcome to the program.

There was a mass shooting, what, two years ago

of

people just watching a Dallas Cowboys game, and it turned out to be a

jilted ex-husband or estranged husband?

Right.

Now he's gone to jail, right?

Or is he dead?

He's dead.

But now somebody else has gone to jail.

Somebody else is to blame.

And that is the bartender who served him before he left to murder his family.

Yes.

And so

my first case here is just basically like, it's a ridiculous law.

When I went through training at a restaurant, they trained us on this.

You got to make sure that, you know, no one is drunk, that you're serving drinks.

And it's just a ridiculous expectation.

Well, 19-year-olds should know, right?

The blood alcohol level of the patrons they're serving.

Right.

They should know that.

Yeah, of course.

They should be able to

hundreds at a time.

Obviously, you can't by law test them, but you should just look at them and know.

Yeah.

And even though you might be a server who's not even of age of drinking, so you would have

legally no way to recognize what drunk even is.

That's just

but that is the law.

And the ones that you're really worried about, you know, are the nice ones.

You know, you're not worried about saying, oh, I'm sorry, sir, but I think you've had enough.

What the hell do you mean?

That never,

never happens.

Okay, so let me give you the rest of this.

Now, Glenn, as an alcoholic, you're talking about

in recovery issues.

Yes.

Finally, I'm an expert.

Yeah, you're an expert on something.

Talking about if you believe this to be a legitimate law, okay, the bartender, okay, this person's way over the line.

It's ridiculous.

How many drinks would you have to serve them, would you say?

I mean, it depends on 20?

Like 12?

It depends on how you're mixing them, and it depends on their size, their weight, and their tolerance.

So let me add.

Tolerance changes for everybody.

Yeah, you're expecting restaurant workers to judge that.

Right.

Of course.

That's a complicated biological thing.

You could have served me in a restaurant.

I could have ordered a Jack and Coke, and it probably wouldn't have touched me until I had maybe eight.

Eight.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's literally just you're getting a little, you know, you're getting two fingers of Jack, and that's nothing.

Nothing to someone like you.

Correct.

So let me give you the first piece of evidence here beyond the fact that the law is ridiculous.

The man who did this murder was served five drinks.

Total.

He was served five drinks.

Over the time period of?

Great question.

But first, let me give you this.

Lindsay Glass.

If it's a minute and a half,

you might be onto something.

Okay.

But let me give you this.

Lindsay Glass, the woman who was charged here, she's not gone to prison yet, but she's been charged with this crime.

She only served him four of the drinks.

So now we're at a point where now we're charging this woman for essentially accessory to a mass shooting because she served a guy four drinks.

What was she serving him?

I will give you that here in one second.

Oh, the four drinks.

Here we go.

Two well gins and two beers.

That's nothing.

That's nothing.

For even the

generic average drinker, that is nothing.

Now, let me give you more, though.

This was over two visits.

What?

Two visits to the bar.

In the same night.

In the same night.

Here are the details.

The first visit was near 2.30 in the afternoon.

The second visit was four hours later.

Oh, this is weird.

So now we're talking about she served four drinks over the course of four hours, which you could, if nothing else happened, you could drive and not be near the legal limit.

Yeah, you could have a five-year-old if you had four drinks in four hours.

That's like beers is nothing.

Nothing.

Two beers.

I mean, I'm operating the lawnmower and not yet thinking I can turn this thing over and clean the blaze while it's on.

Right.

Now,

I will, admit,

it may now,

it may now not occur to me that that would be a bad idea, but when I was drinking,

no problem.

Now, she suspected that he may have gone to another bar in between, okay, because he did, to her, appear to be a little tipsy.

Now, that's where it goes from there.

She actually texted a coworker, a guy named Timothy Banks, from the bar about her concern over his behavior and asked him to come to talk to the guy.

So, she's now taken taken an additional step.

She's texted a co-worker, told him to come in and actually talk to the guy to make sure everything was okay.

Did she serve the beers first or second?

Second.

So she's not even giving him heart liquor.

It's, yeah.

She's concerned and

serving him beer.

Yeah.

Okay.

Now she says he's he's drunk and being weird and he keeps saying he has to put someone in his place.

Now, this is the big evidence against her.

Now, look, that is very...

If you take out all tough talk by people who are buzzed at a bar, it will be like a library.

There will be no speaking going on.

Like, a bartender will tell you they hear people say crap like that all the time.

It's a bar.

If you take out all tough talk and offensive talk, you have to get rid of almost everybody in the new Democratic Party.

Exactly.

Okay, so now, so now, again, four drinks, over four hours and two visits.

The last two were beers.

She does think he's drunk, and she's a little worried.

She texts a co-worker, has him come in to actually talk to him to see if everything's okay.

So then the guy tries to leave the bar.

She tries to stop him from leaving the bar.

Now, I don't know if this 27-year-old woman is supposed to overpower him, tackle him, put him in a stranglehold, because she surely would have gone to prison for that if she had assaulted him.

She tries to actually stop him from leaving the bar.

These are not facts that are...

How'd she do that?

How'd she do that?

I mean, I guess they try to talk him out of it and say, no, you should stay.

And

there's only a certain amount you can do.

We have free will in this country.

You're allowed to leave places when you want to leave them.

Okay.

But again, if you say, all right, then she just gave up.

Well, that's just terrible.

And they went and shot all these people.

No.

She then left the bar to try to find him.

You got to be kidding.

Okay.

So she leaves the bar and starts driving around trying to find this guy.

She's so concerned about it.

Oh, my God.

Okay.

So, all right.

Okay.

Well, that's it.

Well, she actually does find him.

She successfully locates this guy after he leaves the house and finds the guy at the house that we're talking about where the mass shooting eventually goes on.

How did she know to go there?

Did she know the guy personally?

I guess he was a regular.

So he had been in there and she knew.

Wow.

She actually called him at one point his her friend.

Okay.

So what does she do then?

Okay, if she finds the guy and then does nothing, no, she then calls 911.

Oh my gosh.

Calls 911 and reports that she has a friend in danger who is in possession of a gun and a knife.

So she's gone like 10 steps past where she needs to go.

What was she supposed to do?

Right.

Then they go,

they leave the establish the house and Banks, the friend, drives Glass back to the bar.

Lindsey Glass is the person I'm talking about.

Then he...

The person she initially texted to see if the situation was going to go was going to go okay, goes back to the house again.

Then, while he's on the way to the house, he flags down a uniformed county sheriff's deputy and tells him about the concerning behavior.

At that point, they start getting ready to go over there, and that's when the shooting happens,

and everyone responds to go for the shooting.

How are they responsible at all?

Right.

They did everything they possibly could, except make a citizen's arrest on this.

Exactly.

I think legitimately, I think legitimately, Lindsey Glass in this situation should be viewed as a hero.

I mean, this is a person who went way above and beyond what a normal person would be thought of to try to stop someone she believes is dangerous, who she knows is armed and had too much to drink.

And she's going out there trying to stop them at this house to make sure nothing bad happens.

Can I tell you something?

She would be free today

if she just didn't say anything and did nothing.

Yep.

If he just left and she said, I didn't notice.

He had four drinks.

But because

she alerted a coworker and then left the bar to go track him to

stop it that she had concerns.

Right.

Because she was doing the right thing.

Yeah.

Trying to do the right thing.

She's being penalized for it.

She's being penalized for it.

If this is, you know, this

when you look at the former Soviet Union and any places that have had dictatorial rule, your neighbors don't say anything.

They don't report on anything.

They never do anything.

They look, they say they could see you being beaten to a bloody

pulp, and they turn their eyes and they move on because they don't want to get involved.

Why?

Because it's always used against them.

Here's this woman getting involved, trying to do the right thing as a human being.

And what happens?

Do you think the next bartender is going to do what she did?

Oh, God, I wouldn't.

No, she just hoped to look the other way and not notice.

It was four drinks.

Yeah.

Two beers.

And over four hours.

And his blood alcohol level was very high.

However, four drinks over four hours almost doesn't change your blood alcohol level at all.

You might have a 0.04, a 0.02.

You're not above the legal limit.

I mean, this is basic, you know, I remember being in health class when I was a kid and they said, you know, basically one drink per hour is what your body will burn off.

So four drinks in four hours to her, everything that she served them probably didn't change this guy's blood alcohol level at all.

And let me give you this last piece.

As this is all going on, this tragic shooting, she is brought in by deputies the night it's going on.

In interviews with detectives, they commended her for her actions and the lives that she saved.

Oh, my gosh.

And now she might be going to jail for a year for this.

It is a disgrace.

So she hasn't been been convicted yet?

No.

No, and she shouldn't be.

She's going to try.

In fact, she's being charged at all.

She should possibly recant.

I can't believe a Texas jury would convict her.

A year and a half after this happened, they're trying to bring her into jail for this.

I mean, that is.

This is inexplicable.

This is despicable.

This is the death of common sense.

Yes.

Just the death of common sense.

You want a new world order?

Here it is.

Here it is.

The death of personal responsibility the death of common sense i mean looking at the facts here what on earth do you expect a 25 year old bartender to do in this situation what is she supposed to do she did 10 times more than i would even think of doing in that situation I would not, I'm not going to this guy's house when he's drunk and armed.

A woman going there, you know, she did have one guy with her, but still, I would not even think of doing that.

That is like, it's so far above and beyond.

It's like saying like, you you know you pass a homeless person in the street and you might give them a you know some money it's like the it's like uh bill murray in groundhog day he like brings her into that brings the homeless guy in the house gives him soup tries to warm him up gives him a place to stay and he keeps dying and he just can't do anything about it like what the hell is she supposed to do she did way more than i think any citizen would normally do i have to tell you i would have just called 911.

He walks out.

We tried to get him to stay.

I called 9-1-1.

And there you go.

Yeah.

There you go.

Good luck.

I mean, the same thing would have happened.

I would have to have probably.

If you would have said, we got to go find this guy.

No, no.

How?

If that was my girlfriend or my wife who told me that, I would say, no way or

no way, honey.

Seriously, this could be somebody's world.

Right, exactly.

Call the police.

Yeah.

And, like, look, they're going to say that, like, that's what she maybe should have done earlier.

But I mean, you know, look, this is someone she knew was seemingly irregular.

She tried to prevent, she did everything she could.

And if she, let's just say, try to get somebody else, hey, am I crazy?

That's the first thing you do.

The first thing you do, because we have the normalcy bias and our brain is telling us it's fine.

You're not sensing that.

So the first thing we do is go, hey,

is there something wrong with a reactor or is it just me?

Before Chernobyl blows,

right?

Exactly.

You don't go, this thing's going to blow.

You go, hey,

I'm thinking.

I mean, this sounds crazy because it's not supposed to blow, but

do you think it might be possible?

Yeah, and she's she's going to the point where she's like pouring a pitcher of water over the core to try to cool it down.

Yeah, I mean, she goes way beyond

that.

I mean, I just cannot believe in Texas, of all places, that they could look at that and use any level of common sense and trust

to say that she did anything.

Let's get her attorney heroically.

Let's get her attorney on.

Yeah, all right.

I'd like to follow that case.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

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

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

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts.

Michael Malice, he is also the author of what is the Kim Jong

Ill book that we always talk about?

Dear Leader.

And he's great.

He's funny.

And he's a friend of the program.

Welcome, Michael Malice.

How are you, sir?

Good morning.

It is not sunny here in Brooklyn.

I bet.

I bet.

Okay, so, Michael, I started reading it.

I haven't finished it, but I've started reading it, and I've kind of picked through it, and I'm not sure I agree with you.

So I want you to set it out from the beginning.

Tell me what you are defining the the new right as.

Okay, I got very kind of technical with the definition.

I define the new right as a loosely connected group of individuals united by their opposition to progressivism, which they perceive to be a thinly veiled religion dedicated to egalitarian principles and intent on world domination via globalist hegemony.

I mean, yeah, that

makes sense.

I mean,

that does capture, I think, there's a lot of that.

I mean,

the loosely connected part, I think, is really important there because there are a lot of different reasons why they oppose it.

Correct.

But yeah, I think that's largely true.

That would include people like identitarians,

which I think

their solutions are not good, but I think their complaints are valid.

And that's the problem.

A lot of these groups.

Not all of them, obviously.

Not all of them.

No, no, no.

Let's not make any blanket statements here.

Yeah, we should probably.

I'm sorry, I was thinking we were living in a reasonable world still.

When people feel like

the nation, whatever nation they live in, I mean, this is happening all over the world, that their nation is being destroyed by globalism, and not a globalism of, hey, let's just buy products from each other.

A globalism that says your country is valueless.

It doesn't, it's no different than anything else.

I'm sorry, Italy.

Stop talking about spaghetti.

You know, you're not special.

That is a driver for a lot of people that feel like we're losing the things that I'm proud of of my country.

And what I talk about in the book is how did we get to this point?

So

in a broader sense, the new right can be regarded as the unorthodox right wing.

And these are the people and types who are basically driven out of the mainstream.

How do we get to the point where this,

what you and many other people are fighting, is taking place all over the world?

And it's not just Italy, you know, stop talking about spaghetti, and Italy doesn't matter.

It's that you individually don't matter anywhere you go.

And not only that, which I discuss, if you talk about video games, if you talk about movies, if you talk about places that don't exist and escaping the earth, even there, these ideas have to be promulgated by what I call the evangelical left.

So what I criticize conservatives about, and let me just take a step back because a lot of people think, oh, if you criticize conservatives, you must be an AOC supporter.

That's not how it works.

Conservatives, I think, are a little naive about the nature of who they're opposing.

They think there's room to reason with these people, that they're like journalists are sloppy or making mistakes.

And the point I demonstrate is these so-called mistakes have been made the same exact way for over a hundred years.

So if you keep making the same mistake in the same exact way, at what point does it become a pattern and a decision?

So, Michael, let me go a step deeper with

the new right,

because there is the alt-right, which is an alternative to the right.

And that is they are just as big government and socialists.

Many of them are just nationalists, but they don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

They don't believe in the Constitution.

You know, these neo-Nazis,

you know, you listen to Richard Spencer, and that's exactly what he's saying.

No, no, no, I don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

No, I'm for universal health care.

So he is a national socialist.

So how do you divide those two?

Yeah, I was in Charlottesville, and I talk about that in my book, and I'm Jewish, and I'm an immigrant.

And, you know, I was not invited to some of the parties for obvious reasons.

So

what the progressives would love to have is the idea that you and I and Stu, we're all neo-Nazis simply because we disagree with them.

And it's a very useful technique for them.

And here's how their logic works.

Racism has no place in civilized society.

Okay, we can get a board with that.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a racist.

Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me has no place in civilized society.

One of the things I point out in this book, which will drive them crazy, is more white nationalists and white supremacists fought the Nazis than urban feminists during World War II.

So to have everyone in this big giant box is very convenient for them.

And again, this happens at the university level and it happens at the media level.

And one of the things I discuss, which I don't think conservatives really have an answer for,

how is it that they so dominate the media?

and the universities and government becomes a consequence.

Andrew Breitbart, who I'm sure you have very kind things to to say about, made that realization that politics is downstream from culture.

And when so much of conservative thought is about Washington, my point in this book is if you're dealing with it at the Washington level, you've already lost.

Yes.

Because that's the fourth quarter.

Yes.

Yeah, and I totally agree with that analysis.

I mean, that is

a huge problem, I think, for whatever is left of the conservative movement or whatever part of it is real anymore.

So are you saying, Michael, that you would

that the new right is a replacement for the old right, or is it just a new branch of what we used to kind of look at as the conservative movement in general?

I would think the new right is in many ways opposed to the conservative movement.

And I talk about the past conservative movement, and I talk about how Buckley and the National Review have for decades, you know, read people out of the movement, you know, driven them from a respectable society and are using tactics that, you know, very leftist tactics.

And that's no surprise because they have their roots in literal, like Trotskyist communist.

James Burnham, you know, these, I'm going old school here, was one of the original National Review people.

He was friends with Trotsky and so on and so forth.

So I discuss how, and it happens now.

You have the Bill Crystal types and so on and so forth who would love to drive everyone out of the movement and off the face of the earth.

And if he's going to something else, go ahead.

He's a progressive Republican.

I mean, that's the thing that the right refuses to look at is that the progressive movement came from Theodore Roosevelt.

I mean, you know, he didn't invent it, but he was the one that first really popularized it.

And it was the progressive party that he started.

And both sides adopted it.

Both sides were progressive.

Glenn, you and I, last time, another time I was on, you and I were bonding over a hatred of Woodrow Wilson.

Yeah.

Right?

Conservatives at their best are about studying history and applying those lessons to today.

Correct.

So this conservative idea that it's only been recently that progressivism has taken place in America, I debunk that in this book because as you and I know, Woodrow Wilson said it 100 years ago.

And he was far more progressive than anyone out there today.

He really was messianic and said explicitly.

that he was sent here by God to save the world and to save us from ourselves.

It's a very disturbing approach.

So the idea that it's only been since the 60s that this has been going on is false.

And I especially talk about it in the context of universities.

And I talk about how, you know, since the 1890s, people came over from Germany with the intent of creating an elite to control and dominate American culture.

And it's been going on for over 100 years.

This is not a recent phenomenon.

Yeah, I mean,

that's why Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins University was

founded.

It was started.

It was the first progressive university meant to take what was being taught in Heidelberg and bring it here to the United States.

I mean, it's been going on for a very long time.

And the other key thing to understand is Wilson and many of these types have their roots in the social gospel.

And this idea is that instead of saving an individual's soul, it is a nation that has to be saved and purified from sin.

And when that is your approach to a country, that means there is no room anywhere for people to have sinful, i.e., incorrect, i.e.

not progressive views.

And that is why they're such, in a sense, jihadis

to

anyone that they don't like.

So how do you

separate out on the new right,

how do you separate those people who don't like progressive

policies, but seem to accept it

from themselves?

I mean, where is the line?

because there's a lot of people right now on the right that are falling into the trap of progressivism and it's my way or the highway and they're not really basing anything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Sure.

I mean, you could be a socialist and not be, or a Marxist and not be a progressive and so on and so forth.

And many of them are very, very pro-big government in a sense that you and I would find anathema and horrible.

And I engaged with them in this book.

I sat down with these identities, Jared Taylor, who's a big, you know, racist realist, and

some Nazis I talked to.

And I think it's important

to air out these ideas and engage them and fight them, because otherwise the accusations of, well, you're making your fellow traveling with these types.

It's like, well, no, I'm showing you, I'm doing a better job of arguing with them than you are, because I'm showing where their ideas are wrong instead of just dismissing them.

And what happens is when you drive ideas underground, young kids who want to to upset people and be trolls and be edgy and cool, they are drawn to it.

It's like telling kids, don't smoke cigarettes.

You know, that'll upset me.

It's like, oh, yeah, where can I get some camels?

So it's really happening in current culture.

And they don't even realize what they're doing.

And I'm in some way

putting a stop to that.

So, okay, so, Michael, we're talking to Michael Malice, the author of the new book, The New Right, a Journey into the Fringe of American Politics.

I'm going to take a one-minute break, and then I want to come back and I want you to kind of, can you cut up the right and tell me all of the little pieces that are involved and where the new right fits

in all of this?

So,

Michael, how do you

how do you chop up the right and

separate people who are

anarchists?

I mean, I think you're an an.

Don't you aren't you a self-described anarchist?

Absolutely.

I wave that black flag proudly.

So the ones that want to just have chaos, you don't want to have chaos in the streets.

Chaos in the streets is a function of government because streets are owned by the government.

Okay.

There we go.

You don't have chaos in your house.

That's true.

So

how do you separate?

Oh, you haven't seen my house, Michael.

Sometimes there is chaos.

I have two small children.

Wait until you have teenagers.

Oh, it's fun.

I'm glad to be in the riots in the street every night.

But

Michael,

explain to me, like, where do we fit in the right?

Are we part of the new right?

I'm talking about me personally.

I understand.

Do you agree with that definition?

Do you regard progressivism as a thinly veiled religion dedicated to world domination?

Yes.

Then, yeah,

do you think that

it's a problem that organizations like National Review have for decades been kicking people out of politics for the sake of

people on the left?

Yes.

Yeah.

And if you regard, here's how the real litmus test of the new right.

If you unambiguously regard Woodrow Wilson as by far the most evil man to be president, I think that's a good litmus test.

And that I think that's the same thing.

Okay, so try this on Versailles.

You know who agrees with you?

Who?

Samantha B.

When I talked to her about a year and a half ago,

she went off.

She was like, I know you hate Woodrow Wilson.

Her and her producer.

I know you hate Woodrow Wilson.

What?

She hates him because he's a racist.

She doesn't hate him for his progressivism.

I'm not sure.

We talked a lot about, well, we did talk a lot about eugenics.

So I guess, yeah, it's probably racism.

Probably.

Well, the other thing that's important about Woodrow Wilson is it's not a coincidence that he was a college university professor

president of Princeton before he became president.

And I talk in this book extensively about the universities and how they're the real problem.

And this is something that conservatives are kind of aware of, and they talk about, you know, things going on on campus.

And my point is,

the root, the rot goes far deeper than kids acting out.

I mean, these kids are being trained in this way

and the chickens are coming home to roots.

Yeah.

Well, I don't think a lot of conservatives do because historically, you know, and this is I talk in the book is, you know, this was the idea of my kids the first one to go to college.

It's this middle-class aspiration.

And it was a great, great thing.

And now people are coming to realize, thankfully, that you have this beautiful young 18-year-old girl going to school.

And four years later, she comes home with a swamp walrus.

And you can't even have conversations with each other over dinner.

I love you.

But you know what, Michael?

Even in my home, this is probably the biggest argument we have in my home

with me and Tanya, my wife.

She says kids have got to go to college, and I'm like, over my dead body.

And she's like, I'm willing to kill you.

But it is, it is, I mean, I cannot find a reason to fund

the swamp walrus training for my kids.

More with Michael in a minute.

Right now we're talking to the author of the book, The New Right, Michael Malis.

He's a friend of the program, been on several times.

Very funny, very, very insightful.

But Michael, I want to go back to your definition of who fits in the alt-right.

And the new right.

Sorry, the new right.

Because the new right

could include,

well, it does include, I would imagine that that would include people like Alex Jones.

And Alex and I disagree on 98%

of things, I think.

However, we do agree probably on your definition, but that is more of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And that's good to destroy, but a conservative conserves and doesn't want to destroy the good things that remain.

And I'm more about building a new future than destroying.

Sure.

I think the 2% you and Alex would agree upon is probably the most important 2%,

and which I discuss at length, which is we are being lied to,

that we have been being lied to for a very long time.

And what is the nature of this narrative that's being constructed in front of us?

But when we even get to that 2%, what we're being lied to, I mean, I'm not going,

I I don't think we're being, I don't think everything is a false flag.

He does.

I agree with you completely.

What I meant by that 2% is not what you're being lied to about, but that this mechanism is being done intentionally and systemically and pervasively, that this isn't a coincidence or an accident.

And once people start looking, and that's the problem.

And that's the problem I grapple with in the book because once you take that one red pill, like in the matrix, and you see, okay, I'm being lied to, you take one red pill, not the whole bottle.

Because once you start thinking more and more things are lies, you get to the point to full-blown Holocaust denial because everything is a lie.

Correct.

So that is something that I address and grapple with.

What do you do once you realize that the media is manipulative and lying?

But there comes a point where you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Now I've gone too far.

I got it.

I got it.

The other direction.

That's very good.

That's very good.

Really interesting.

I mean, the book is worth it just for, I think the creation of a potential TV series of Michael Malletz talks to the Nazis, which is something I would absolutely watch.

I would too.

That would be fantastic.

But I mean, I would just be

riveting television.

But I wanted to ask you, Michael,

because it's interesting looking at the book and the way you talk about

these groups, and you're describing, I think, something real that is happening right now.

Do you see this as an endorsement?

Do you see this as a warning?

Or do you just see this as, hey, everybody, wake up.

This is what's happening right now.

Personally, I wrote a book to be entertaining.

I think if you're writing a book about politics and you get people to laugh and be engaged, and you could read on the beach or in the bathroom, you've accomplished something.

That's number one.

Sure.

Number two is: it's the kind of thing where, you know, if someone is having an affair and the wife looks the other way, this book is, you can't pretend you don't know anymore.

This book is exposing what is going on and forcing people to confront the very dark realities of our politics and our cultural war in a way that I think is going to make some people uncomfortable because it's really scary to realize just how totalitarian the opposition is.

And let me give you, let me use you as an example.

The argument with, you know, they block people from Twitter, from PayPal, right?

They say, go make your own network if you don't like it.

It's private property.

And Glenn Beck said, all right, I made the blaze.

And now if they had their drothers, they would drive the blaze out of business.

Yes.

So they, it's not,

it's a lie.

So I also talk about the techniques that the evangelical left uses to further their control of American and world domination.

Because it's not about, you know, if you're arguing about, you know, transgender bathrooms or, you know, immigration from Muslim countries, this is a distraction.

As soon as that issue is done, they're going to find something else because it's always about furthering their power.

Yeah,

that's the biggest problem is people think that they're dealing with honest brokers, and they're not.

They're not honest brokers.

And because it is a barely disguised religion, once you think of yourself as saved, then you are allowed to do anything you want because you're doing it in the service of what you perceive to be the good c.S.

Lewis who I'm sure you're a fan of who's a great great philosopher I have a quote from him in the book where he says I'd rather be under the control of people who are corrupt than a moral busybody because the corrupt person will at least sleep at night whereas the busybody will never tire because he's fueled by his own self-righteous conscience and that is something people need to understand this is a totalitarian faith for these types, and they will never let you rest.

Michael, thank you so much for your hard work and thank you for being on the program.

We'll talk again.

The name of the book is The New Right, A Journey into the Fringe of American Politics by Michael Malas, a great, great writer that you really do enjoy reading his books.

Thank you, Michael.

Appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

Always a pleasure.

You bet.

God bless.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Dan Eichenson is with us.

He's the director of trade policy studies at the Cato Institute.

And I wanted to bring him on because I'm very concerned about

what this trade war is leading us to.

And Dan is here to explain.

Welcome to the program, Dan.

How deep in the madness are we here with this trade war with China?

Well, we are on the verge of tariffing each other's products out of existence.

I mean,

the Trump administration has announced that it will extend tariffs on all products by next month that the deal is not reached.

The The Chinese are already close to tariffing all of our products.

And my concern is that this can spiral out of control without,

even if there's some

sense to this, and even if there's some plan to try to pull back and reach some deal, and this is all negotiating tactics, it could spiral out of control.

There's a lot of politics at play, a lot of political.

What does that mean, spiral out of control?

To what?

So right now, the United States exports about $120, $130 billion a year, you know, U.S.

exporters to China.

But we have companies there that generate revenues of about $500 billion.

And

they are being compelled, I think, by the Trump administration to reconsider where they are investing.

So they may shift their supply chains.

They may try to bring them home.

Ultimately, what's going to happen is that the costs of production for U.S.

businesses are going to rise dramatically.

It's going to cause profits to shrink.

Revenues for U.S.

exporters are going to shrink.

That's going to also put downward pressure on profits.

If businesses don't have profits, they can't invest and they can't hire.

So we'll likely see some economic contraction.

And we will likely see the global economy kind of breaking up, bibricating into two segments, two blocks, those that fall within sort of China's ambit and those that we continue to woo.

And boy, it's hard to woo countries nowadays considering how we've poked many of them in the eyes with respect to our trading policies.

So

if you look at the cycle that leads to war, usually the last thing before

war, actual war happens,

is a trade war.

This is the worst one I think I've seen in my lifetime, at least the one that I can remember.

And I'm torn on, I'm not torn on Mexico or Europe or Canada wrong.

However, China has really bad practices,

and they are, I think,

the biggest enemy of not America, but of freedom of mankind out there.

And while I don't like the tariffs,

I also don't like really doing a lot of business with China because they're very bad actors.

Certainly, the China of 2019 is very different than the China of, say, 2001, when it sort of joined the global economy and joined the World Trade Organization.

It was a poor country at the time that was trying to make amends for a lot of bad economic policies, bad social policies.

And there was hope that China would become more like us and open up and capitalism would prevail.

And now they have a president who's president for life.

He has

he surveils his population.

He exports surveillance equipment around the world.

He's got concentration camps.

And so yes, we need to be a little bit more skeptical of China, but at the same time, we don't want this to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I mean, the Chinese people, I think,

will suffer from, you know, if we turn our backs on each other.

And

it's not them.

It's a regime that might be under pressure from this trade war,

which is likely to spark, you know, to inspire nationalism as the economy starts to go south in China.

But ultimately, I think Chinese people are peace-loving and would like to have

mutually beneficial relations with the Chinese.

And we all are that way.

Generally speaking, I think we're all that way.

Sometimes politics and politicians are not that way.

But I think, generally speaking, the average person on earth is just like, I just want to be left alone, man.

Right.

Go ahead.

I was just going to say that even if this trade war were to end and the Chinese were to accept all of the Trump administration's demands, and many of those demands, I think, are legitimate, and China's doing certain things that

it shouldn't be doing.

They need to abide by the commitments that they have made.

In some areas where the President is pushing for the Chinese to buy more U.S.

products, I don't think that that is necessary.

China's not doing anything wrong there.

But if they were to agree to everything, we would still have the problem that the United States is the technologically preeminent economy in the world, and China wants to get there.

And there are first-mover advantages to being, you know, to

being dominant in a particular technology that has military and security applications.

So there's going to be this, I'm concerned that there's going to be this sort of Cold War

dynamic that plays out because we're going to want to prevent them from getting there.

They're going to do whatever it takes to get there to the technological four.

And that spells

trouble for me.

Dan, there's a couple of new studies out.

One says that the washers and dryers that they put tariffs on

added $200 of cost to a washer-dryer set, plus has cost over $800,000 per job that it created.

Same as steel, $900,000 per job.

Yeah, and it seems to be very consistent.

Also, they're now saying that the tariffs, if implemented as threatened, would now overwhelm the entire benefit of the tax bill that was passed in 2017.

Do those line up with what you see going on?

Are those accurate numbers?

I've seen those studies, and I don't doubt them.

The thing is, so far,

up until last weekend when this thing really erupted,

there were tariffs in place and certain sectors, certain steel-using industries and certain manufacturers were complaining about the tariffs.

But by and large, the economy

didn't seem to be so adversely affected by it.

Except for the farmers.

Farmers are dying.

The farmers are in bad shape.

They've been retaliated against.

But interestingly,

they're among the most patriotic Americans.

And

they seem to think, look, there's a bigger issue here.

We're willing to take it on the chin.

This is an existential battle.

And so they're willing to take it.

But Trump realizes that they can't take it for very long.

And so he's directed subsidies to farmers who are in bad shape.

And but anyway, I think

because the economy has generally been doing so well, it's masked some of the costs.

But we're running out of rope, and we're past the peak of the business cycle, and we're going to start to feel this.

U.

S.

businesses costs are going to rise.

U.

S.

cost of living for families is going to increase.

And it's going to be hard to undo that.

We have to reestablish all sorts of business relationships around the world in order to

compensate for what is lost in this relationship.

So can you tell me

in a minute,

are you worried at all about the

Chinese selling our treasuries?

I mean, they've tried that, and it actually seemed to have backfired on them.

Yeah.

I don't worry about that at all.

I mean, they own

our debt.

I mean,

we have them over a barrel.

We could always default on the debt, but that's not something I would recommend.

But they buy our debt because it's a good investment for them.

They need to.

And particularly since we're scrutinizing all of their investments, their direct investments in the United States so rigorously now, they don't have many choices to buy dollar-denominated assets other than to buy debt.

And then they can buy equities.

I think it's a myth that we're threatened by the fact that China owns all the debt, the U.S.

debt.

But the thing is,

it speaks to a bigger problem, and that is that we have this debt.

And why do we have this debt?

Because Congress spends too much money.

We need to address that problem, and then we never have to worry about this fake, fake concern.

Dan Atkinson, thank you so much.

I really appreciate the update.

The best of the Glenn Bank program.

This is a first.

You'll tell your kids and your grandkids someday.

I was listening to the Glen Beck program the first day that they had a Democratic national candidate on, somebody who was running for the presidency of the United States in the Democratic side.

We have tried over and over and over again for 20 years.

They do not want to ever come on.

First time ever.

A lesser-known candidate at this point, but I think a guy who could go all the way and he might even get my support.

Ami Horowitz, how are you?

Oh, it's a pleasure to be here, Gladden.

It's been a long time since I've been here in person, so I just want to drink it in.

I want to take it in.

Yeah.

Super excited.

Yeah.

So you're not the kind of guy that I would expect to be running for president

under the Democratic ticket.

Yeah,

I get that a lot.

I'll be totally honest.

But look,

the honest truth is I am always country over party.

I mean, I never cared about an R or a D or an I next to my name.

It's all about what are the important issues that Americans face.

And those are the issues that animate me and those are the issues that drive me.

And that's why I decided I needed a platform for those viewpoints.

And I think think that the Democratic Party in particular is doing itself a great disservice by the radicalization that is the radical transformation, I should say, that's gone through over the past several years.

And we've seen an inexorable move by the Democratic Party to the left over the last, you know, 15 years.

But we've seen that in hyperdrive over the last couple of years.

And I think it's destroying the party.

And I think they need something to write the ship.

And I think I'm that captain.

Okay.

I think I'm the guy.

So now

you've registered, you've filed the papers.

It's all a done deal.

All done.

Oh, yeah.

And here's the interesting thing.

Here's the interesting thing:

you're not for socialism.

No.

Yeah.

No, yeah, right, right, right.

Many.

So I don't really fit into the mold of this money.

Is that where you're going with this?

But again, here's the interesting thing.

If you get donations, even if it's a dollar per donation, right?

50 cents.

If you get 65,000 individuals giving you even 50 cents,

you are then guaranteed a spot on the debate stage.

It's a massive hack to get on the Democratic debate.

Now,

again, this is a serious run.

I have serious issues I want to address.

I am a registered Democrat, just to be clear.

But yes, 65,000 individuals.

How long have you been a registered Democrat?

Oh, God, man.

In my heart or on a filing?

Well, the heart is what matters.

The heart is what matters, right?

You've been there for a long time.

Yeah, a long time.

I'm a Jew.

I mean, I think that you're born with a Democratic voter card.

I think that's the way it works.

So birth certificate.

But

the actual filter.

The actual, yeah, it's been about two months.

About two months.

I've been trying it on.

It's like a new suit you get

made to measure.

To be clear, Bernie Sanders is not much longer.

No, no, no.

So Bernie Sanders does a very interesting thing.

He's an independent, and he's independent as a senator and is for years, and then he always switches several months before the election to a Democrat.

No different than what I'm doing myself.

And you're actually not, because you're not a Republican either.

You are an independent.

I am an independent.

Absolutely.

So

now, what do you think

they're going to do

when you have 65,000 people donating to your campaign, and that qualifies you to be on that debate stage.

There needs to be a lot of heart doctors available at the DNC the moment that happens.

I think they're there, listen,

clearly they don't want me on the stage.

And in fact, I can't get the details now, but there's been moves already to try to

abort this candidacy early on.

And they're good at abortion.

They are good at abortion.

That's true.

Late-term abortion.

Yeah,

it can happen on stage.

They can just let you die.

Listen, I mean, I don't, in fact, I think the Republicans wanted to get Democrats on board with capital punishment, just a very late-term abortion.

Right, right.

So, so,

but, because we talked about this, you know, just a few days before you did it, and I said, they're never going to let you on the stage.

And, and you said, no, that the rules are they have to.

The rules are very clear.

If they decide, okay, there's, they have, they're in a box, okay?

They've got two choices.

So, if I have 65,000 people send me a dollar, anything that gets me on that stage, their choices are either they can change the rules, their own rules, which would put them in a really tough situation.

Because they've, you know, Tom Perez, when they first announced what the requirements were, and they did it because they were so stung by the criticism that they got when Bernie Sanders essentially, you know, they conspired against him.

And the rules allowed for them to do that,

that they wanted to make this, in his own words, the most open

process they've ever had.

And he said he wants wants a diversity of of candidates i'm not sure he meant intellectual diversity but anyways that's what he's getting now if they do change that he has to go back on everything he said and he has to there's gonna be a lot of people and i'm looking at your board right now which by the way do i is my name on this board no

shocked to find out it was not on i don't know who's responsible for that for this somebody's gonna get fired not either of us not either of us you

look guilty my man

so so therefore a lot of these guys this board will they'll take them off the board also because they don't put me on and they change the rule.

They can't just keep me off specifically.

They're going to have to, you know, a lot of people who are qualifying the same way I am.

They'll be off the board also, or they have me on and I'm going to make the Democratic debate stage a very unsafe space for them.

Because I would imagine if they just decided to change the rules and say, we don't believe you're a real Democrat or whatever they tried to do, they would be opening themselves up to realize that they were not afraid of the people.

There's some First Amendment issues.

There's some constitutional issues that I think have never actually been discussed about what a party is allowed or not allowed to do, which I think would would be hold other interesting rabbit hole for us to go down.

And you're not talking about anything necessarily radical.

You're talking about things that the Democrats would find radical.

Look, I think that had I done this

30 years ago, 25 years ago, I think I would find a very comfortable place in the Democratic debate stage.

I mean, I think my, you know, I look at myself and think I'm pretty ideologically aligned with Scoop Jackson or Patrick Moynihan or JFK, to be honest.

But those guys, if they ran again today,

they would be run off a rail, the Democratic Party.

They just don't fit what the Democratic Party is.

And that's not a good thing.

We don't, listen, we need to have two strong parties.

We have to keep each party in check.

I don't think it's healthy to have one party

that's dominating and one that's not.

But the issues that they, it's really, look, it's amazing.

I would say a lot of their positions now,

if you looked at like right-wing conspiratorialists and what they would say Democrats really believed in and go, oh, you're insane.

That's really what they believe in now.

No, I know.

Okay.

Oh, I know.

You know, oh, yeah, those Democrats believe in open borders.

Yeah, that's actually what they, there's like Juan Castro, I think his name's Juan Castro, Julian Castro.

Juan Castro is like a shortstop for the Astros, I think.

But Julian Castro, he said he wants open borders.

Okay, these are actual positions that they're taking.

I mean, Joe Biden, who's the, what, the great, the, the great middle-of-the-road moderate, he said, we want illegal aliens to have health coverage in this country.

I mean, these are radical, insane positions that the majority of the country, vast majority, probably the majority of the Democratic Party, I feel pretty comfortable saying, do not feel comfortable with.

You know, here's one of my theories.

If you look at the

polling numbers, where Joe Biden is leading in some polls by 40 points,

what's the lowest, 25 points, 21 points, something like that?

He's way ahead of everybody else.

And I think that's because Americans know him and they don't feel as though he's a radical socialist.

I don't think they know him.

I got to be honest.

I mean, I think they knew him before.

Right, right, right.

I don't know what he is now.

No, I agree with you on that.

But I think the Democrats see him and they just go, oh, he's just Joe Biden and he's not crazy and he's not totally radical.

I think he is,

but he doesn't have that perception.

And with him being 20 points ahead of anybody else, it shows that the Democratic voter is not with this socialist stuff.

They're way too radical.

I mean, they just did a poll on some health care issues, and healthcare consistently comes for Democrats as the number one priority.

They want that addressed.

They polled Medicare for All specifically, and only 47% of Democrats supported Medicare for All, which puts you in the majority position on the number one issue.

If that doesn't qualify you as a valid candidate, I don't know what is.

How do you know I don't want Medicare for all?

Well, I mean,

I just assumed.

I assume that's true.

Do you want Medicare for all?

I do not.

Okay, okay, guys.

I mean, here's the thing

about our healthcare system, which is incredible to me, which I don't know if they know.

I don't know if these Democrats even care.

But we have the most innovative healthcare system the world has ever known.

There's a reason why 50% of all innovation across healthcare, that could be bioengineering, medical devices, pharmaceutical, all happens in this country.

It's because we have a robust profit system that allows people to invest money, take massive risks.

You know how much money, how much billions of dollars it takes to investigate an avenue for a drug.

And hey, there's no guarantee of success.

But they take the risk to do that because there's a profit incentive.

The question is not about that side of the equation.

We've got to keep the cost down.

There are other ways to do that.

And to overturn our entire healthcare system.

For essentially 10% of people who don't have coverage, because remember, 90% of people, when they introduced Obamacare, 90% of people had coverage, whether it be personal coverage or through their jobs.

But for 10%, instead of finding a way to cover that 10%, which I want to do, they overturned our entire system.

This is what we're talking about, the radicalism of the Democratic Party, where norms don't make a difference anymore.

So, did you see what happened in Ukraine?

No.

So, the Ukraine.

It's a pretty open question.

I mean, a lot of things happened in Ukraine.

I'm assuming that.

What do you mean you're talking about Biden's kid?

No, no.

We talked about that quite a bit.

That is an interesting story.

I'm talking about the new Ukrainian president.

Oh, the comedian.

He's a comedian.

Yes, of course.

Of course.

A number of things have happened in Ukraine since then.

Yeah, I know that.

But the world is at a place to where a disruptor, Donald Trump, you,

could actually

walk away with a nomination

and possibly win a nomination.

Look,

if you had said to me, if you had asked me four years ago, is this possible?

I would say, come on.

Of course not.

But when the president of the United States essentially won the nomination in the presidency on a troll,

I think anything is possible.

Anything is possible.

Look, there is a wide open lane for somebody like me.

And I think that the challenge is trying to get the Democratic electorate to understand what I'm doing and who I am.

And the fact that I don't think any of those guys in the board over here can beat Donald Trump.

I think I can.

And I think that they want a Democrat in the White House.

I'm their guy.

And all it takes is one.

That's the crazy thing about this.

They don't have to send me $100, $1,000.

If they go to ombi4america.com for $1,

they can see the greatest show on earth.

And by the way, you know who wants me on more than anybody else?

The networks holding the debates.

I guarantee you that I will double or triple, if not larger, what their audience was from the last time they had Democratic debate.

Oh, I could guarantee that because everybody on the right would be watching.

Oh, my gosh.

Everyone on the right watch.

I would not miss that.

Because

I would like you to say, I wouldn't want to see you just go up and mock it, which I don't think you're trying to do.

No, no, no, no, no.

I would like you to go up and say, look, when did we start believing as Democrats?

When did we go here?

When did you nuts?

When did capitalism become a dirty word?

When

the greatest system ever demised by man, literally,

I would literally say that that has created more wealth for more people, brought more people out of poverty, and to run away from that system to a system that we see demonstrably does not work.

I mean, we're seeing it today in Venezuela.

Venezuela is a democratic socialist country.

Let's make no mistake about it.

It's not the Soviet Union.

It's a democratic socialist country.

And we're seeing it implode.

And I'm not saying they're not looking to model themselves after that, but that's the road they're going down.

So all I'm looking to do is...

Well, they were modeling themselves after that until Maduro.

Until it collapsed.

And they did praise Hugo Chavez.

Yeah.

I mean, back in the day.

You know what?

I stand corrected.

And by the way, there is this weird undercurrent in the Democratic Party that supports Maduro and has not been attacking him.

It's a weird kind of thing.

I don't know where Code Pink took over.

I was there in D.C.

when Code Pink had rallies for Maduro.

What is going on?

Everybody, I'm telling, this is the road they want to take us down.

So this is not a joke.

I'm not looking there to mock them, but I want to hold them accountable for their beliefs.

Because let me tell you who's not going to hold them accountable, the mainstream media.

Okay, they're not going to ask the tough questions about their beliefs and what that's going to do to this country.

I will.

I promise you that.

If I get on that stage, I will make sure that every view they have, however radical it is, I will hold them accountable for it.

I think that it is really,

I think it's a service to the Democrats, to the voters.

It really is.

Because there's no diversity.

This could be a medal.

How about instead of a medal, a $1 donation to AmiForamerica.com?

This is a real campaign.

A.M.I.

A.M.I.ForAmerica.com.

Any donation, 50 cents, we'll do it.

They just need 65,000 individual people.

Oh, it's dot org.

It's dot org.

Oh, or dot.

I have the or.net.

Okay.

Oh, come on.

I cover my bases here.

Come on.

You're not dealing with a rookie.

Well, do you have it also Amy, A-M-Y, just in case?

I should have, actually.

I should have.

I should have.

But I was going to say this is not my first rodeo, but this is definitely my first rodeo.

Ami Horowitz, AmiForamerica.com.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.