Best of the Program | Guests: Chad Felix Greene & Shayna Lopez-Rivas | 2/19/19

Hey, everybody.

What?

I'm signaling you to let me talk.

Yeah, I know.

Okay.

Get off it.

So you don't normally would say what in the middle of that.

You would just...

Oh, there's Stu.

He's ready to talk.

He's about to say something maybe important about our business.

Here's Stu to talk.

Hi, I'm Stu, talking about a new subscription to Blazetv.com/slash Beck.

You should use the promo code Beck to save $10, but honestly, if you don't use it, we get more money, so I don't really care if you use it.

But

bottom line is you should subscribe.

And if you do, you'll get lots of great.

He's hostile today.

I don't know what happened during the show.

You're going to hear it in the podcast.

His hostility is just coming out.

Maybe because he's a fan of Bernie Sanders.

Oh, he's got a great new plan.

And I don't think the plan makes sense.

We're going to cover that.

Also, hate crimes going on in the LGBTQ community.

Really, not what everybody's saying on television.

And we have a gay man and a gay journalist to tell us all about that.

Also,

the wonderful things that could be coming our way in the economy.

And this is important to understand what's happening in the economy because if you don't want a socialist president,

we better pay attention and do the right things.

And we're going to talk about that all on today's podcast.

Just do you want to talk anymore?

No, I'm all set time.

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

Homeowners, beware.

A data breach exposed 24 million of all of us to home title fraud.

Title fraud is something that we didn't even know about.

I mean, it's crazy.

Nobody is watching this.

Banks can't watch it.

Nobody can watch it because the titles are all kept in this, you know, digital vault, if you will.

And there's only one company that stands right at the doorway so when a title is transferred it's pulled out of this digital vault and then changed and then put back into the digital vault well the home title lock stands right there so everything passes through them they see everything that's going through

and if yours is a title that is protected they immediately pull that title out and say wait a minute let's check can i just go to any company to do this for me though glenn yeah no no there's nobody else that does that stupid thanks for asking that question uh They are exclusive to home-titlelock.com.

We get your free title scan and report.

It's $100 value.

Find out if this has happened to you.

Find out if this has happened to your parents.

HomeTitleLock.com.

But is there a website?

Yeah, hometitleck.com.

Where would I go on the internet?

HomeTitleLock.com.

That's what I was trying to say.

Who would have thunk it?

Now,

he's got an exciting platform.

We go now to our on-the-scene reporter.

Right across the desk is Stu Bregier.

Stu.

Now, his aides are saying he has a couple of things he wants to do as part of this presidential campaign.

One, he's got to go to potty a lot.

He's got to go to the potty.

Well, unless the adult diapers are freshly changed.

Well,

that's not even nice to joke about that.

What do you mean?

Well, someday you'll be wearing adult diapers, and will you be joking about that?

I didn't make one even hint at a joke.

You said he had to go potty, and I said he had to

go to potty.

I thought it was ageism quite a bit.

If you have an adult diaper, the potty is not necessarily a trip you need to make.

Okay, all right.

That's all.

Okay, he wants to do Medicare for All.

Medicare for All.

Now, again, I point this out.

Every single candidate in this race wants to do Medicare for All.

Not the case quite recently.

In fact, you might think to yourself, wasn't Barack Obama a progressive liberal president?

Well, when he was president,

Bernie Sanders introduced Medicare for All and got zero co-sponsors.

Zero.

He was the only one interested in doing Medicare for All publicly in 2013.

Sure.

For the rest, it was Marxist nonsense.

They're not going for that.

They're never going to go for that.

How dare you even suggest that, you racist.

Medicare for all, which means we get rid of all

private insurance.

So you don't have your.

There's a couple different spins on it.

There's the one, Kamala Harris talked about getting rid of all private insurance.

Some candidates are supporting a version like Medicare for All where it would just be available to everyone.

Sure, okay, so it's like France.

Everybody has Medicare in France or whatever they call it over there.

Oh, you sick, you get this.

But everybody also gets to, on top of the high taxes, they also get to buy insurance to cover for the stuff that Medicare for All

doesn't cover.

So it's a double blessing.

It is a blessing.

I think that's the right word for it.

And we should say that it is important for Medicare for All to happen to cure our horrible health care system, currently known as Obamacare.

The last thing they told us was going to cure our horrible health care system.

Remember, it hasn't been repealed.

It's still in effect.

The thing they're all running against is the thing they all told us was the cure last time.

Remember that when they start saying of all, when they start listing all the problems, because what they're going to say is, well, Trump has gutted it.

I mean, look, the only thing really, we've seen a couple of regulation changes.

The biggest thing being that they zeroed out the penalty if you don't have health insurance, which I

like, I'm a fan of.

However, the problem with the way they did it was they just zeroed out the penalty, but the penalty is still there.

So the next, you know, next time the Democrats have control, they can just non-zero out the president, the

penalty.

They didn't get rid of the mandate.

They just zeroed the penalty.

So in theory, what you're supposed to do is actually have health insurance.

If you don't, you have to pay a, you're against the law, but you have to pay a $0 penalty.

Right.

It's a weird way they did it, and it's going to go away as soon as Democrats get control.

Okay.

So basically, we are in Obamacare, and that's what they're complaining about.

Got it.

Next up, Green New Deal.

Green New Deal.

Yes, they are.

All of it.

Green New Deal.

Green New Deal.

So Medicare for all and the Green New Deal.

Now, the Green New Deal, obviously, you've probably seen the FAQ that was posted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's team, which said things like, everyone gets a job even if they're unwilling to work, or they get paid basically universal basic income.

That is not necessarily what he's saying here.

He's saying the proposed bill that the resolution that went through, and the resolution basically says every green dream you've ever heard of from Democrats.

It's not, but it doesn't say some of the things that were in that FAQ, to be clear.

$15 minimum wage.

$15 minimum wage, countrywide.

Yep.

So if you live in New York, it's still not a livable wage.

If you live in, you know,

outback Wisconsin, it's sweet living.

Sure.

You can't, no business can run

if they give less than $15 as a minimum wage, which, of course, as we've seen in even high-price areas like Seattle, has destroyed industries

and destroyed really profitable and God's working out for Seattle.

No.

Criminal justice reform.

Now, we just passed criminal justice reform, but if you listen to the people who wanted criminal justice reform, they were very clear this was just a first step.

I believe the act was called the First Step Act.

So there's plenty more to come.

I think the end game here is: if you haven't committed a crime, you go to prison.

If you have committed a crime,

you're set free.

They're just going to reverse the walls.

Well, it's going to be like Superman in Superman 2, where he reverses, he goes inside the little protective thing and reverses

the Kryptonite to the outside

so that Zod gets hit with it.

It's just like that.

That's criminal justice reform of the future.

I like this.

I like this.

And now with all of the

big state regulation, we're all criminals and we've all committed a crime.

We just don't know it yet.

Yes.

So we might as well all go to prison.

Sure.

All right.

Let's make it fun.

Number five, free college.

Free college.

Yes, that's always fun.

Now, of course, we've seen the cost of that is

pretty high.

It's going to get even better.

Once the government is involved, it's going to get better.

Don't you think?

Oh, I mean, think about it this way.

Think about it this way.

And they are already heavily involved, by the way.

Yeah.

If you think about it this way, where

you've got a college system that would be run by the U.S.

government,

and you're expecting that college to teach the Constitution and to teach the founding documents, which says you should be very skeptical of the government.

You shouldn't trust the government.

You shouldn't give the government more power.

Of course, the people who are paying for that, they want that stuff taught.

Right.

They want that stuff taught.

Yeah.

Okay.

So that's going to be good.

It's going to work out well.

So, free college, again,

the reason why the cost of college is so high is because the government is involved on the loan side, guaranteeing very low-cost loans to people that they run up and then theoretically try to pay back for the rest of their lives.

Theoretically.

Theoretically.

Breaking up the biggest banks.

Breaking up banks.

Yes.

Now, surely there will be a cost to that as well.

And of course, there will also be massive

problems with the government invading into private business.

There's not.

But

there's not.

These guys who are running the banks, you know, the five biggest banks in the world,

there is absolutely no power there.

There's no power to do anything or fight fight back government.

You know, it's like Google.

What is Google going to do if they're like, hey, you're going to stop doing these things?

What?

Are they going to

track politicians and find out all their dirty secrets and threaten to expose them?

No.

Google doesn't do that kind of stuff.

No.

And big banks and, you know, global economies running on the backs of these banks.

There's no one in the world that has incentive or enough power to hurt a socialist federal government from stopping the banks and breaking them up.

There's no one.

No, no one.

No one.

No one.

Okay, next up is gender pay equity.

Now, interesting thing about gender is I think it's the most simultaneously the most important thing in the world and also the least important thing in the world.

Yes.

Yes.

You're not supposed to notice anybody's gender, but also if you makes no difference.

If you notice the wrong gender, it's basically like Holocaust denial.

It's like the worst sort of speech you can ever have.

Holocaust, what is that?

There you go.

That might be on the plan here somewhere, but I don't think so.

But gender pay equity, again,

I guess you're going for an equal pay amendment to do that, which is obviously.

Which is ridiculous because all of the.

Never mind.

Go ahead.

He wants to lower drug prices.

Now, Elizabeth Warren had a way to lower drug prices.

She's already proposed.

We don't know exactly how Bernie wants to do this yet, but hers was that the government would actually own factories that made pills.

And

the pills would go to compete.

Of course, that's what the socialist does, is they control production.

That is what the socialist does.

That's true.

So I would assume Bernie's either there or close to there.

Well, you're going to mandate that you can't charge Americans

more than what you charge people in Ethiopia, which I think is perfectly fair for a progressive to say.

You know, that makes total progressive sense because, for instance, the progressive income tax, okay?

You know, you would never charge people you'd never charge people different amounts if they were rich and especially the richest 1%

you do you don't charge them different amounts you charge everybody exactly the same and and so that's what they're they're suggesting now seeing that we are the richest one percent even the poorest among us are the richest one percent of the world

We can't charge Americans the richest 1%

more for their drugs.

We have to charge the same price that we charge in Ethiopia.

You know who really benefits from this?

Ethiopians.

Because certainly a company that needs to make money and needs to pay for their business, like a pharmaceutical company, is going to just take, let's say they're charging Ethiopia $1, they're charging us $10.

They're just going to lower it all to $1.

Surely they're not going to start charging Ethiopia and us $7.

So then Ethiopians can't get access to drugs.

That's a good policy.

I really think they should go ahead with that because who needs the Ethiopians?

They're just a country way over there.

Who cares about people?

Global warming.

Oh, yeah.

They're all going to get killed by global warming anyway, I guess.

Well, no, they're contributing to global warming.

We can't let them

develop, right?

We can't let them develop.

How many times have we heard that seriously?

That's not, you know.

I know.

Number nine.

Expand social security.

You see, social security has been such a huge success and is always able to pay for it.

Now, sir, sure, 90% of people who go into social security get more money out of it than they put into it.

But let's expand it because it's been working so well so far and it has only caused just a giant chunk of our multiple trillion dollar debt.

Don't worry about it.

Our future liabilities, we're up about $100 trillion right now.

A huge chunk of that is Social Security.

Don't worry about it.

Let's expand it.

Yeah, our unfunded liabilities are more than that.

More than $100 trillion now.

I mean, it just depends on what timeline you're giving it right now.

The bottom line is it's negative every year, so we could go 1,000 years in the future and make that number as big as you want.

Go to usdebtclock.I think it's org, and tell me our debt and our unfunded liabilities.

The best of the Green Beck program.

Unfunded liabilities, $122 trillion.

So it was only off by $22 trillion.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's no big deal.

It isn't.

It isn't.

You're just calling me out for no reason on that one.

Next up in the Bernie Sanders plan for America, save unions.

Save

people are clamoring.

I assume this isn't a religious thing.

He is

saved unions.

AFL-CIO, put your hands on the radio retina.

Teamsters of America, you are saved.

Yeah, he wants to save unions, which I, again, we don't know exactly what that means or what that would cost.

It could very much well cause some sort of government matching type of situation.

Also, could be attempting to reverse the recent Supreme Court ruling in some way.

We'll see where that one goes.

So can I interrupt here for a second?

I have to tell you, last night I was doing homework with my son and

he is now currently in the progressive era.

So he's in the progressive era and he said, this is honestly what he said.

Hey, dad, I need to make some 3D objects.

And I said, okay.

He said for history.

And I said, oh, okay.

Sure.

What do you need?

What are you going to do?

And he said, well, I want to build a bomb.

I said, excuse me?

He said, I'm studying

Sacco and Vicente.

Or if Sacco and is it?

No, it's Ven Chente.

I can't remember the guy's name.

The two guys in the progressive era that, you know, were

robbers that took money so they could take the money and give it to all of the anarchists to build bombs.

Right.

It's the Red Square of 19, or the Red Scare of 1920.

So last night, I find myself helping my son do research on

how they made the bombs back then and then make a facsimile of that bomb with the string running inside and everything else.

Then he had to make three.

And I said,

okay, so what's the next one?

He said, well, I want to do it on propaganda and how propaganda changed the world.

And I said, oh.

And I told him the story of Edward Bernays and the cigarettes and what he did with the ladies as they were trying to get the vote and hike up their dresses in the parade.

Do you remember that?

Yep.

And they would hike up their dresses and in their garter they would have cigarettes women didn't smoke because it was a phallic symbol.

And so he said, you're going to get, I'm going to have the right where the judges are.

I'm going to have all the reporters there.

What I want you to do is as you're going for women's suffrage, I want you to stop and I want you to hike up your dress and in your garter.

I want to you're going to have a cigarette and a match and you're going to light it, you're going to put it in your mouth, and then you're going to light it, and then you're going to hold that up like the torch of the Statue of Liberty.

He killed two birds with one stone.

He was working for a tobacco company, but he was also working for the women's suffrage movement and how it changed.

So I built a bomb with my son, and then I talked to him about the

phallic symbol of the cigarette and

the women hiking up their skirts.

Women hiking up their skirts.

And so he went in and he said, hey, mom, I need a garter belt.

And my wife said,

excuse me?

And

he said, I need a garter belt.

And she said, well, I don't happen to have one,

son.

And she said, what?

are you two doing

and so he explained to her and she said oh

I think you can get those at Hobby Lobby.

Last night was a, I was living in a world I didn't even understand.

Hobby Lobby's.

Hobby Lobby?

When did Hobby Lobby start to carry that?

I don't know.

She said she thought that they might be in like a marriage aisle or a wedding aisle or something like that.

I'm like, okay.

I officially, I'm making bombs with my son and buying,

you know, sexual things at Hobby Lobby.

World makes sense.

That does make a lot of sense.

I actually think your kids are going to be really bad at history.

What?

I actually, I was thinking about this the other day.

Your career is basically been made at finding these little nuggets of history that nobody knows and they don't teach in school.

So unless the person teaching happens to be

a fan of your show,

the whole point of these shows being successful was that the history teachers weren't teaching it.

So when you pull out these little stories from history,

unless they go and check them all, which you know they're not going to do.

Which if he gets, because I will check it.

If he gets a markdown on that history,

oh, we're going to have a little talk with the history.

You didn't make that.

Really?

Because here are all the footnotes.

Here's where you can find it.

What part is not accurate?

I'm on 9:

history teachers' worst nightmare.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck 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.

Chad Felix Green, I would never introduce you as a gay man and a gay journalist except in this particular case because

it gives you the credibility that you just don't hate gay people.

Although I hear that that is actually a charge that people have leveled against you

because of these

stats that you have looked into.

Welcome to the program, Chad.

Thank you.

Yes.

Chad, tell me what you found when you look into hate crimes are

trending down.

Well, since 2010, when hate crimes started to be tracked by the FBI,

we saw an immediate spike back in 2013, and then ever since it's really gone

down.

It fluctuates really by just a few.

Between 2016, 2017, for example, when they say there was a 17% spike, it changed by 54 incidents.

And we have to remember that these are reports.

They're not confirmed convictions.

This just means that the FBI received reports.

Right.

And there's a huge difference between a report

and a conviction that Jesse Samola has showed us here in the last couple days.

I mean, yesterday, I showed all these hate crimes that I think I had 25 of them that the media had jumped on, and none of them were true.

And so that would be included in the hate crime statistic, correct?

Correct.

That's insanity.

And hate crimes can be anything reported from somebody stealing rainbow flags from residences as a protest to someone finding a swastika on a wall to someone reporting to the police that someone yelled a name at them as they were driving by.

Adam Ripon, for example, reported this, that he was walking with his boyfriend in New York City and some random stranger walked up to him and said that he hated gay slurs and then ran away.

If he had reported that to the police, the police would listed that as a reported anti-gay hate crime.

You know, it's amazing to me.

You know,

the the hateful things that have been said to me on the street, and I would never have run to the police to report them.

You just kind of like, yeah, well, okay, everybody has an opinion and everybody has two armpits.

Don't share it with everybody.

What exactly, Chad, is a hate crime?

A hate crime is it's different by state, but the essential definition is that they're also called bias crimes.

They were introduced after the Matthew Shepard

incident.

And basically,

it's the idea that a person targets a protected class for violence or intimidation or harassment

because of their protected class status, and that's evolved now into crimes against persons, property, and society.

Okay, so could you say, would the Jesse Smollett case,

is that a hate crime?

Because he came into it with a bias against Trump supporters, white people.

I mean, isn't that a hate crime?

I mean, I think all crime is hate crime, quite honestly.

I mean,

I don't care what your motivation is.

It's a crime.

Isn't this a hate crime, what he perpetrated?

I believe so.

If we look at the law as equally applying to everyone, it should be.

Unfortunately, it's not.

In my opinion, hate crimes create inequality in the law because they protect certain people.

And there's a difference between a racial identifier and a gay identifier.

The truth is, is that if you and I were both mugged on the street, because I self-identify as a gay man, I would receive more justice, more protection.

My crime would be seen as worse, worse, having a priority over yours based only on that characteristic.

And I don't think that is justified.

But you would have to claim that as the victim, wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you have to claim this was done to me because I was gay?

Yes.

For example, there is a recent

hate crime in Austin that is, it's the most recent one that we've seen.

where two gay men were leaving a bar at 3 a.m.

and a group of men started yelling homophobic slurs at them and they got into a confrontation and then they

beat them up badly, ran off, and then now it is referred to as a hate crime.

The police have stated that in that area, in Austin, there has been a rise in random targeted attacks at 3 a.m.

on that area

at that time of night by gangs.

And so there's no indication that they were specifically targeted, but because these people used homophobic slurs while they were attacking, it is now considered a hate crime.

And if they're convicted, hate crimes will be added to their sentence, which means that they will get a harsher punishment because they use those slurs, not because of what they actually did.

Turn to Chad Felix Green from the Federalists.

Chad, I mean, the way that the media portrays this, you know, maybe it's half of gay people are victims of

hate crimes.

That's what it feels like.

Do you have any concept of what the percentage is of gay people who go through a hate crime in a given year?

Yes.

As a rounded number, it's generally 0.001%.

As the LGBT

population has grown from 3% to 4.5% over the years, that has reduced down to 0.0008%

of the LGBT population.

And that's not the population of the country.

That's just

0.008%

of the 15 million LGBT Americans report hate crimes.

That doesn't tell us how many experience hate crimes.

Well, they will say the opposite.

They will say that it's worse.

They just don't report it.

Correct.

And my answer to that is that's always a response when we talk about anything where the numbers do not match the narrative.

Is they say, well, that's underreported.

Imagine how many reports it would take to move that one to 0.1% or to 1%.

You'd have to multiply the incidence by 1,000.

You'd have to have 120,000 incidents in a year rather than 1,200, which we currently have.

You couldn't really go any further than that, because there's only 15 million LGBT people in America, so you couldn't have any much, much higher than that.

So we would have to

agree that 120,000 people are, gay people are

attacked intentionally because of their sexuality, but fail to report.

And I just don't see that as being reasonable based on the fact that every person who reports gets a glowing, shining media experience.

They are glorified as victims.

They are protected.

They get interviews.

They get GoFundMe money.

There's no downside to

telling the media that you were a victim of a hate crime or the police.

As a gay man, what do you think of

the Jesse Smollett case?

There was a Washington Times reporter who said, or not Washington Times, Washington Post reporter yesterday who said, I so want this to be true.

I want this to be true because

I don't want real hate crimes dismissed.

And so we need this to be true.

Right.

What's your take on it?

When I first saw this story, it had immediate red flags.

I think the very first tweet I said was something seems very off about this story.

I've been covering hate crimes.

Every time there's a big hate crime report, I look into it to see what's happening for years.

And I'm accustomed to a huge spike in media reports and then nothing.

What was unique about this was that the police actually continued to investigate and the story continued to move forward and we found out what happened.

But my first response was...

When you see a hate crime report and it sounds like a movie, sounds like a TV show, something's wrong.

People just do not behave in this way.

People do not

stalk out on the street wearing political gear, waiting to see if they come across a gay person and attack them.

It's different for Jews.

It's different even for black people.

Jews get very targeted hate crimes.

But the most, if you look at actual hate crimes for gay people,

and trans people are a little bit separate because they have a different world of

sex work and drugs and that sort of thing.

But if you look at gay people, they're typically opportunistic crimes.

You know, they're leaving a bar at 3 a.m.

They get into a verbal fight with somebody.

Or there are things like, I'll give you an example.

In 2017, there were 52 murders of LGBT, and

11 of them were done by people

that they knew personally.

And 45% of gay male homicides, so 45% of gay men who are killed, are the result of hookups.

They met somebody online and that person

targeted them or killed them.

And then occasionally, there have been people that have been serial killers who have targeted gay men specifically for that reason.

But my husband and I walking to Walmart are just not going to see somebody in a red hat who yells homophobic slurs at us and beats us up.

for the fun of it.

It just doesn't happen.

All right.

I want to talk to you,

if you don't mind, I want to take a quick break and I want to come back and talk about also

the stats that you see.

The other things they include

including prison riots.

The numbers that we're seeing are so skewed

that you can't really trust any of these numbers.

And what does that mean?

How do we ever solve a problem if we don't really know what the truth is?

Last night on the News and Why It Matters,

Jason

was in.

He's our head researcher, and he and Sarah were talking about the stats of hate crimes and how hate crimes include numbers from like prison riots.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

It's crazy

to be able to quote any of these and have it mean what the public thinks it means.

Do you have anything on that, Chad?

Did you look into any of those kinds of stats?

I tend to focus mostly on

related stats

because racial and Jewish crimes are a little bit different.

I did research into the ADL released a huge surge in anti-Semitism last year before we saw more of what we're seeing today

from congress people and that sort of thing.

But for example, there was a Jewish man who had

personally called in several hundred bomb threats and each one of those was included as an incident in the ADL's in the in the ADL's

numbers.

And I was looking at, I don't know if you remember, there was a young man, his name was Seth Owen and the headline that we saw for a while was he was kicked out of his home for being gay and he was now homeless and he was a gay valedictorian.

He wanted to go to college.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I researched that and the truth was that he was 18 when the story happened.

He actually came out when he was 15.

He just disagreed with his parents' church's view on homosexuality, and he left on his own.

But because of the story that he said, I was kicked out and I was rejected by my family.

He got $50,000 from donors.

He got a free ride to college.

And Ellen invited him on the stage and celebrated him as an LGBT hero.

There's a huge benefit personally to...

every minority, but specifically the LGBT to be able to say, I survived the hate in this country and it's become so important

that to say I've never experienced a hate crime like me

is devalued.

It's much you receive social benefits to saying I survived a hate crime.

And one of the things that I always point out is if we have such a small amount of reporting, how is it that

so many LGBT activists will very loudly say that they have experienced multiple hate crimes in their lifetime when

it just simply isn't possible.

We're talking about 1,200 people out of 325 million.

It's interesting, Chad, because I think the Jesse Smollett story, a lot of people on the conservative side have taken the media doing a terrible job with it, which is certainly a big part of the story.

But I think this developing incentive to climb up the intersectionality ladder and show how, you know, show victimhood has become the the trophy you go for in the society and those incentives I think are are even a bigger story than anything the media is doing

absolutely

when when he released this story and and and I've said that I don't I didn't necessarily judge people who immediately stood up for him or who sympathized with him because that's just human compassion once we started to see things that were problematic and they started to be bullies and yell at people who questioned or asked questions that's when I started started to be frustrated.

But the truth is that once this story came out,

dozens and dozens and dozens of activists and celebrities and politicians all suddenly poured out their love to this person.

And that is, from a human perspective, that is a very difficult thing to be strong enough to

walk away from.

Imagine the whole world telling you how brave you are and how wonderful you are and how you are the voice of a generation.

The human rights campaign, and Chad Griffins, the

the president of the largest LGBT organization, you know, is thank you, you speak for all of the queer POC

people in the world and in America.

All the kids who face hate every day who don't have a voice can now feel safe because you have a voice.

That's a very intoxicating

position to be in

the left is so used to people not questioning them

that it seems like a very easy thing to go after.

And I'll be honest,

I believe that very often they believe these things are true, even though they set it up.

There's this mindset in their head of

I'm just acting out what I know is happening every day because I have the power to bring it to light, even though it didn't happen to me specifically.

I am bringing a voice to it because I know that it's happening everywhere yep so what do you think will happen to him in the gay community we only have a what one minute do you think jussie is going to pay a price for this or are they going to give him a soft landing i think we're going to i'm surprised by the the sort of the negative you know the kind of i can't believe he did this the truth is that everyone is sort of baffled and hurt but they're switching it to look how excited conservatives are to bounce and

this doesn't mean hate crimes aren't real.

And I believe that's, I think that whatever happens to him legally, he'll probably fade away, but the story is going to be more focused on this just shows us how important it is to fight real hate crimes.

Thank you so much.

Chad Felix Green from the Federalist, great reporter and a great guest.

Thank you so much for being on again with us.

You're listening to the best of the Glendeck program.

Just read a tweet from Kirsten Powers.

She's got a string of tweets, but this is the most important.

I spent the last few weeks in a mostly Twitter-free zone to spend time reflecting on what role I may have played in what has indisputably become a dangerous, toxic culture.

I am not proud of what I have found.

Five years ago, I asked, will anyone in the press do this and take responsibility for what they have done?

I'll take responsibility for what I did.

Will you even look at yourself?

She's the first person to do it that I know of.

And I would like, we disagree on a lot of things, but I would love to have her on and talk to her about this journey that she has made herself.

I think that's hats off.

Hats off.

All right.

I want to introduce you to

somebody.

Shana Lopez Rivas

is a gun rights activist, and

she has a rather dicey story at the beginning.

She was against guns, and she said she had all kinds of misconceptions

from the gun control groups that she kind of hung out with.

But something happened that changed her mind.

And she has written a great article for the Miami Herald.

The latest gun background check legislation would not have stopped the Parkland tragedy.

In fact, it does so much more

than that.

And Shana is joining us now.

Hello, Shana.

How are you?

Hi, I'm doing great.

Good.

Thank you for having me on.

You bet.

Shana, for those of you who don't know, can you give us

a brief look at what happened to you.

I'm sorry, I'm so uncomfortable even asking you to go through this,

but can you talk about what happened to you?

Of course, no problem.

In 2014, I was on my college campus trying to,

I was going to study at the library that night.

Finals were just a couple weeks away.

And instead of studying, I ended up being attacked and raped on my college campus.

He had a knife.

I had pepper spray.

It didn't really work out for me.

And so from that night, I made a promise to myself that I was never going to be a victim again.

And I started just delving into self-defense training and

came up with firearms training and have not really looked back since.

Right.

And now you are talking to friends, and you become a gun rights activist with some credibility behind you.

And

you just

took a friend to

a shooting range who was, what, neutral on guns?

Or what were their opinion on guns when you went?

Yeah,

I have a lot of friends that are just not either neutral on guns, not very comfortable around guns.

So I kind of always just put out this

standing notice essentially to everyone in my own network that, hey, like if you, you know, if you want firearms safety training, like we don't, you don't have to agree with

guns, you don't have to ever touch a gun again, but if you just want, you know, basic safety and knowledge of how to use one, I have no issue teaching you that.

And so I took my friend who was,

I wouldn't say she was anti-gun, but she wasn't very pro-gun out to the range.

And she absolutely fell in love with it.

She loved every minute she was out there.

So

I ended up writing about it for the Miami Herald because of

HR8 and how that would essentially impact her training in the future.

This is amazing.

Now, this is called the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, or HR 8.

And it's supposed to make sure that gun safety, this is just bipartisan common sense gun safety, except it's not.

Explain what it will do.

So HR8 is

what the bipartisan background checks bill is.

It does not actually,

one of the worst things that it does is does not define transfer, but essentially

it bans any private transfer of a firearm

from one individual to another.

So essentially,

in the example in the article that I gave, I took my friend out to the to the shooting range.

If I wanted to lend her a firearm so she could go back and like continue to train on her own,

it would essentially make me a criminal if I didn't first go to a federal firearms license dealer and get a background check done on her, even though she's a close friend and I know her well.

I know she's not a criminal.

I know she's not going to hurt herself or others, but it would essentially make it illegal, punishable by up to a $1,000 fine or a year in prison.

And there's no excuse for ignorance on this.

No, none.

And

would it ban you from taking her to a shooting range yourself and handing her the gun?

Like, for instance, automatic weapons.

I have some fully automatic weapons, and they take all kinds of special license and everything else.

It's a nightmare to get through.

But I cannot hand that weapon to somebody else unless they're on...

my license.

So if I just said, look at this, and I handed it to a friend, I could go to jail.

I'd go to prison for that.

Does this,

does H.R.

8 go that far?

Do you know?

H.R.

8 originally did go that far.

However,

in order to essentially circumvent people from saying like, that's what it's going to be,

the Democrats and the people that had written the bill essentially changed.

it to include essentially it basically makes very few exceptions um but

it essentially covers only the transfer, the actual transfer of the firearm when you are not there.

But the problem is it really doesn't define the word transfer at all, though.

So in theory,

yes, it could

include that.

There's nothing better than really important laws that are cryptic.

It also, you say, will not stop...

criminals from stealing firearms, getting them on the black market, or getting them through straw purchasers.

No, it won't.

In fact, there was a study that showed that 90% of criminals get their guns through illicit methods, essentially, and it doesn't stop any of those methods.

This HR8 was also, they put this bill in markup the day before the Parkland shooting anniversary.

And

the most ironic part about that is that this bill would not have stopped Parkland in any way if it was passed then.

Like at all.

It would have had no impact on it because the person that committed that horrible act passed a background check anyway.

Can you tell me

how many guns are being used by

criminals or killers that have borrowed a gun from their friend?

Do you have any idea?

I don't know the actual number for that, but I did recently read a study.

It was I think in the Journal of Preventative Medicine that essentially

showed that 90% of criminals, they did a survey of inmates that had been put in prison for firearm gun-related crimes.

And they said that 90% of them said that they did not get it.

They got it essentially from those off-the-book

means where somebody knew who they were and gave it to them as a gift anyway, even though that's legal, or they stole it or

otherwise were given, shared it with other like gang members, that sort of thing.

So you're talking about like the majority of criminals are getting their guns from like illicit means anyway.

They are not going to follow the law anyway.

What are the odds HRH the HR8 passes?

In the House, I think it'll pass.

Yeah.

In the Senate,

I don't know.

And I would really hope that if it did pass in the Senate, that President Trump wouldn't sign it into law.

But,

you know, I have concerns there too.

So.

Shana, thank you so much for turning something bad in your life into something good.

This

is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Can I switch subjects and go to Farrakhan?

Here's Louis Farrakhan on

Congresswoman Omar.

Listen to this.

Farrakhan to Omar.

Why was he honor?

Why he should get off?

No.

He's breaking up every

pillar of democracy.

Because it wasn't no damn democracy from the beginning.

No, it's a republic.

It needs to be broken up.

Now you got my sisters in there.

102 women in Congress.

Boy, am I happy.

And one of them said that

she was using some funny language, brother.

Miss Omar from Somalia, she started talking about the Benjamins and they trying to make her apologize.

I sweetheart, don't do that.

Oh, pardon me for calling you sweetheart, but you do have a sweetheart.

Because you sure using it to shake the government up.

But you have nothing to apologize for.

Israel and AIPAC pays off senators and congressmen to do their bidding.

So you're not lying.

So if you're not lying,

stop laying down.

You were sent there by the people to shake up that corrupt house.

Shake it up.

It's amazing.

He goes on to talk about the dirty Jews and how the dirty Jews are breaking up the women's movement and trying to get him to

say horrible things.

How long is this clip, Sarah?

Because I've got 18 seconds.

Yeah, just listen to this.

Now, the wicked Jews

want to use me to break up the women's movement.

It ain't about FireCon.

It's about women all over the world have the power to change the world.

So

he's still going.

He, by the way, he still has an account on Facebook.

He can still say all of these things.

You can't question on

Twitter whether or not Jussie, what's his name,

created a hate crime or committed a hate crime.

You can't say learn to code.

God forbid you say learn to code.

You're going to get your delusion.

You can say all of these things.

Now, there were two reporters that I think show promise,

that show that maybe, maybe, slightly, a few things are starting to change.

And

one I mentioned earlier, and that is Kirsten Powers.

Now,

she's the reporter.

She was on Fox.

She was annoying.

Well, she was the Democrat that was on Fox in those debates.

Right.

And so it was just like, oh, okay.

But there are a lot of Republicans who are that way as well on television.

But she just tweeted that she has spent time away from social media, and now she has examined her role on what she's done to divide the country, and she said, I don't like the results.

And I find that very, very comforting.

And interesting from her, because I would not say she was one of the worst offenders when it comes to Democrats on television.

If any, I think she was on the better side generally of Democratic commentators.

But she

disagreed with her, and she was one of those people you're just like frustrated with.

Yeah, but

she wasn't a flamethrower.

And this is a,

whether she is or not, I mean, just the fact that she's at least examining and doing some positive signs.

There's also the CBS reporter.

Now, this is Laura.

Laura Logan.

Laura Logan.

If you remember Laura Logan, she was the one that was raped in Egypt

during the revolution.

The spring, the Arab Spring.

The glorious Arab Spring.

That was so wonderful and peaceful.

She was raped in that.

Here she is.

She's a 60-minute reporter.

I want you to listen to what she said

in this podcast about reporters.

Listen to this.

85%

of journalists are registered Democrats.

So that's just a fact, right?

No one's registering Democrat when they're rarely a Republican.

So the facts are on the side of what you just stated.

Most journalists are left or liberal or Democrat or whatever word you want to give it.

How do you know you're being lied to?

How do you know you're being manipulated?

How do you know there's something not right with the coverage?

When they simplify it all, and there's no gray.

There's no gray.

It's all one way.

Well, life isn't like that.

For example, you know,

all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative.

There's nothing, there's nothing, no mitigating policy or event or anything that has happened since he was elected that is out there in the medias that you can read about, right?

Well, that tells you that's distortion of way things go in real life.

Because although the media has always been, historically always been left-leaning,

we've abandoned

our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today.

Unbelievable frankness.

And she's absolutely right.

It's what I wrote about in Addicted to Outrage.

I said, if you talk to everything that we, everything we watch on Donald Trump, it's all negative, or it's all absolutely positive.

That's not true.

McDonald's is the greatest example.

There are times that you want McDonald's food.

There are other times you're like, no, it'll be

all afternoon.

And you can say McDonald's has bad food.

But if I say to you, yeah, okay, I agree with the shake and maybe a couple of things, but their fries are the best.

If you can't admit that McDonald's fries are the best, there's something wrong with you.

There is something wrong with you.

Donald Trump is McDonald's.

Yeah, there's some bad things, but there's some great things too.

You got to mention both.

If not, you're not an honest broker.

The Blaze Radio Network

on Demand.