Everybody But You? | 11/19/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Brought to you today by Patriot Mobile.

We love Patriot Mobile.

Pat and I have been talking about Patriot Mobile for a long time.

They are

who I use for phone service.

They have great service.

You don't have to sacrifice anything, but the great thing is, you do get to get the benefits of helping conservative values.

You want to talk about getting Supreme Court justices in.

You want to talk about all the things that are important to you when it comes comes to your political leanings.

That's why Patriot Mobile was created.

They saw that left-wing companies were sending money to left-wing causes.

You can do the opposite here.

Right now, they have unlimited plans starting as low as $20 a month.

Why wait?

Visit them online at patriotmobile.com/slash blaze.

The promo code is free line or call them at 1-800-A-PAIT.

Patriot Mobile, come join the family.

1-800-APAIOT or PatriotMobile.com/slash Blaze.

Glenn back.

Actually, Pat and Stu for Glenn today, who's taking some time for Thanksgiving this week.

Triple 8 727BECK.

And

we are thankful for him taking some time.

Aren't we, though?

You know, every time Glenn is away, I think to myself, I'm thankful.

And it just happens to be Thanksgiving week this time,

which is kind of great.

It's kind of weird.

Hey, and by the way, speaking of thanks, thank you for contributing, if you did, to

our big fundraiser over the weekend, which was really successful and a lot of fun.

Did you ever make it?

Yeah, I was there.

Yeah, you were there?

Yeah, I saw Glenn's whole thing.

I just didn't.

They plan the thing on a week, a night every year that I have a family thing.

So every year I come like two hours late.

And I come two hours late.

And I know I'm two hours late because everyone else has already left.

Like you.

Yes.

I rarely ever see Pat at these events because usually he comes early

and he leaves early late.

And don't stay late.

And I come late and leave late.

But at least that means one of us is there.

And that's the importance.

At all times.

We met a lot of great people.

It was really a lot of fun.

And thank you for your contributions, whether it be through the raffle.

Just saw the Mercedes sitting outside our studios this morning and looks great.

Somebody won that for $100,

which is pretty cool.

It's a good value.

Yeah, it is on a car that's tens of thousands of dollars.

And as we said, a Mercedes, which does mean something.

Not exactly Yugo, you know.

No, it's a little bit better than that.

It's a nice car.

But anyway, appreciate it.

And

that event allows Mercury One to use every dollar they get during the rest of the year to help people.

Another person who was not there was Jodi Coley.

She's a volunteer at the Corning Community Food Pantry.

She entered a contest for an organization known as Mercury One.

with our radio station, our affiliate, WWLZ820.

Now, Glenn Beck, as you may know, founder of Mercury One, humanitarian aid and education organization geared to help those in crisis around the world.

The radio contest contested, it contested,

it's too early, consisted of tickets to Mercury One's annual fundraiser in Texas.

She said, I had this voice in my head saying, buy a ticket, you're going to win, buy a ticket, you're going to win.

And so she did.

When she got the phone call that she actually had won, the trip to the fundraiser, She said, I could not go.

And he asked why.

And I said, because I have to pack turkey dinners for our clients here at the food pantry.

Those dinners were packed Friday afternoon for over 300 families.

That's really cool.

Really cool.

The meals had been scheduled to be delivered on Saturday.

He was so impressed that somebody would turn down his trip to Dallas.

I mean, I think a lot of people would have turned it down.

I mean, come hang with us.

Yeah.

Or stay home and enjoy yourself.

There's a contest for a trip to go to Dallas.

I want to donate to the charity, but how can I do it without entering?

Was I think the question in a lot of people's mind.

He was so impressed that somebody would turn down the trip to stay here and give food out.

In turn, Glenn offered Jodi $5,000 to the Corning Community Food Pantry.

If you missed this moment, it was really cool because it would cost several thousand dollars to fly him down here and put him up and all the things that she won in the prize.

Instead of getting all that, it all went to her food pantry.

And because every $5 donation can turn into $28 worth of food, which again, I need to figure out how to do this.

I don't know how charities do that.

Maybe $5 gets to turn into $28.

I need that investment.

It's got magic.

Really?

It's going to be up to $28,000

for the food pantry.

So very cool.

Very cool story.

And I hope they don't spend that $28,000 at Chipotle.

Because did you see this story from Chipotle over the weekend?

I don't think so.

So there's a viral video.

in which a fine group of African-American gentlemen decided to go into Chipotle.

And they tagged their video video with

this quote, Can a group of young, well-established African Americans get a bite to eat after a long workout session, Chipotle?

I'm going to say the answer is yes.

I'm going to say yes, too.

Yeah, you probably can.

Fairly common, I would say, for people of every race to go to Chipotle.

I've seen African Americans in a Chipotle being served as I was there.

Is that possible?

It is possible.

It's happened.

I'm a skeptic of your claim.

I am a skeptic of your claim.

It is pretty outrageous.

Now, Chipotle, or as Al Sharpman calls it, Chipotle,

is a

restaurant that serves everybody.

Because, you know,

pretty much every restaurant in America will do this.

But Chipotle really does it, right?

Like, they've got thousands of locations.

The idea that they would not serve African Americans would be a questionable

business model.

Yes.

We'll serve everybody, but black people.

Yeah, we're not going to stay for 14% of the population.

We just don't want that money.

We don't want it.

So what they said, and it's on the video,

several black people saying to the white manager, hey, we want our food.

Why won't you give us our food?

And she says, look, if you guys want your food, you're going to have to pay first.

Okay?

Because you know how when you go through a Chipotle line, you order the food and you go through the whole process.

And then at the end, you can usually pay.

Yeah.

And in the video, she says something like, look, we've seen you guys here before.

Okay.

Again, like, look at this racist, this racist manager.

What have you seen their kind here before?

Is that what you're saying?

So this goes viral.

Or is she talking about these specific people?

That's an interesting question you asked there, Pat.

Yeah.

It's one you'd think almost everyone would ask immediately, right?

But no, it was all about because she didn't like black people.

So this goes through the process where it goes viral, and Chipotle picks it up.

They tweet.

Oh, we would like to say that this is not the way we should treat people in our courts.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

They call her up.

They call the, they get in touch with the African-American customers and they say, hey, you know, what happened?

They tell them what happened.

They didn't serve us because we were black.

And they fire the manager.

Of course.

Sure.

Now,

why look into it in any meaningful way?

No.

You just accept the story at face value, right?

Because every single time we believe survivors, and they're obviously survivors of intense discrimination.

Well, they did have a statement that came out, Pat.

Okay.

Regarding what happened at the St.

Paul restaurant, the manager thought these gentlemen were the same customers from Tuesday night who weren't able to pay for their meal.

Wait a minute.

So they asked the manager, and the manager said, those guys were here before and didn't pay last time.

That's why we need their money up front.

Okay.

Regardless, this is not how we treat our customers.

And as a result, the manager at the restaurant has been

fired.

That's how they don't treat their customers as customers.

Right.

Is that what they're saying?

People who need to pay.

You don't have to pay.

Right.

Well, that's interesting information for everybody going to Chipotle today.

It's an easy way to get a free meal, apparently.

The manager has been fired.

They did say,

because the Daily Color said, you know, we should look at this

guy's social media feed.

See what he's been tweeting about.

Okay.

Here are some

select quotes.

It's not a dine and dash.

We're just borrowing the food for a couple of hours.

Oh, my gosh.

We never have money.

You know me.

I'm here every day.

Is what they were saying here.

They said they were all being stereotyped.

However, the quotes from the Twitter feed of

God.

Let's see.

They're all over the fact, several, three, four times, they tweeted about going, one time even going to the restaurant,

saying they are going to dine and dash, and then saying on social media, if they didn't allow it, they would say it was racism.

Which they did.

Which they did.

And it cost somebody their job.

And it worked.

Wow.

Now, apparently, and they were aware of these.

They said they were fired.

They were aware of the tweets.

Yes, they said.

And they fired the manager anyway?

They said they had no choice but to take his word for it.

Oh, my gosh.

Now, after this already blew up, because now they've gone through one wave of negativity on social media.

Yeah.

Then they decided to fire the manager.

Now the reverse, of course, has happened where everyone's saying, hey, what the hell?

This makes no sense.

You fired this poor woman because she was obviously doing something that was protecting the company, not trashing it by any means.

Yeah.

She has now been re-she was offered her job back.

Oh, okay.

Well, there's some sanity prevailing.

Kind of.

Would you take it?

Sort of?

No.

I wouldn't.

But unless I, you know, deeply needed a job and didn't have confidence, I could get another one somewhere.

You know, then I guess you go back, right?

I guess, you know, and I wonder, because people will

Google her name and what will they see?

Her as a racist stopping black people from eating at Chipotle.

Another tweet from the person here who

did the scam.

I, man, I think Chipotle is catching up to us.

Should we change locations?

He actually was publicly admitting that they were going there to steal food and they still fired the manager.

It's just unbelievable.

You know, Pat, we've been through this for so long.

And, you know, conservative media, I think, was the first in this firing line, right?

Where

three or four activists would come up with a little scam to email a company a couple hundred times and act like different people.

And then the company would freak out because they don't get complaint calls typically.

You know, it's just an invention of the social media email world where all of a sudden it was a lot easier to do that.

People didn't want to take the time to write 500 letters.

But when you can just kind of change wording and get some interns to send stuff out, it was easy.

And these companies would get intimidated and they'd freak out and they'd pull off of their pull their advertising.

It would theoretically hurt these companies.

And now it's just all the time.

And I remember when it first started, look, it sucks right now because these companies, it's something new to them.

Getting all these complaint letters, getting all this attention.

And eventually they're going to figure out that this is not new to 12 people.

It's not.

It's not new anymore.

And they still haven't haven't figured it out.

These companies never enter these things with a skeptical eye.

Every single time there's someone who writes, I don't like being waited on by a Croatian on their receipt.

Like, oh, well, we do not stand for anti-Croatian bias here at Bob's Diner and Sausage

Pig in a blanket factory.

That place.

will fire everybody on staff until like three days later they realize that the person wasn't Croatian or the guy wrote it on his own receipt or whatever the heck the situation is.

How many times have we seen these hoaxes?

It's always the same thing.

People don't write negative messages on receipts.

Can we just accept that as part of life?

Like it's just not something that you're going to do.

They'll always be found out and they know it.

I mean, even if they were, even if they had the propensity to do that, they probably wouldn't because you know you're going to be seen.

They've got information of your of your of your credit card for one thing.

And I don't want them screwing with that.

uh you're gonna have negative publicity about you you're probably gonna get fired from your job if you actually do it it doesn't it doesn't work out for anybody and here's another thing almost nobody feels that way like oh i'm not gonna give you a tip because you're a person of color that doesn't happen as a rule in america no it doesn't and we've seen that over and over and over and over again where these are hoaxes we just had and a story last week i think we talked about it when Glenn was here and I was

doing my little

promotion thing that

there was a person at a university who wrote a hate message on their door.

Like,

hey, this is where a black person lives.

Don't knock on the door or whatever.

And it happened at the same university where just a few months ago, somebody spray painted the N-word all over their car.

In both cases, it was the person

who claimed to be the victim that wrote the note.

Of course.

Or spray-painted their car.

And that happens all the time.

All the time.

This is something, I mean, we can be helpful here, Pat.

When you're trying to do a hate crime hoax on yourself, writing it on a receipt is not a good way to go.

No.

Because the person knows that you have their information with a credit card.

So they wouldn't do that.

They might be, like, there are people who are racist, right?

They just don't know.

But even racists just don't do that.

Like, David doesn't show up.

He's not showing up at restaurants being like, by the way, I was not appreciative of the African-American server.

That's not what they do.

No.

They march with torches.

That's what they do.

They march with torches in Charlottesville.

That's their role.

And they say, Jews will not replace us.

Many times, in case you didn't hear it, they just keep repeating it.

That's the approach.

Well, that's, and don't pretend like that's not something you're worried about, too.

How many times have you said that Jews will not replace you here?

I mean, if I've heard that once from you, I'm very concerned about Jews replacing us, Pal.

We've said this before.

What a weird.

What a weird chant that was, too.

Jews will not replace us.

Well, what do you like?

Where?

When?

Are you at your job?

Right.

In the country?

I like the Jews are probably like, well, we see you marching with torches.

We will not replace you there.

That's all you.

So, no, we will not replace you in the racist march.

That won't happen.

It's a strange way to go.

It really is.

Pat Patton Stew for Glenn, 888-727-BECK.

Wait, Pat and Stew today.

Triple 8-727-BECK.

The Obamas, you'll be pleased to know, I think, that the Obamas are well on their way

to becoming a billionaire brand.

Oh, good.

Isn't that wonderful?

Yes, finally.

So gratifying that their public service can lead to massive, untold wealth.

That is so great that they've parlayed a

senator role and a presidential role into a billion-dollar business.

Fantastic.

This is how it's supposed to work.

Our family is.

This is exactly how it's supposed to work.

You're supposed to go, you serve for a few years,

then you get out, you become a billionaire.

Right.

That is.

Because you deserve it.

By golly, the launch of Michelle Obama's cross-country book tour for her memoir, Becoming.

Now, you've been to one of these rallies, right, for Michelle?

For Michelle Obama and her new book, Becoming.

Uh-huh.

Oh, yes.

I've flown to several locations where she's been just so I could be there in person.

I'm a Michelle head myself.

So wherever she goes, I will fly into the city.

Or sometimes I rent a bus and just follow around the country.

Have you seen her arms?

Oh, my gosh, her arms.

That's the main reason I do it.

They're fabulous.

Magnificent arms.

You ever see them live?

I mean, her arms live.

If you've never experienced it, folks, it's worth a front row ticket.

It is.

I mean, yeah, you're going to pay $35,000 to sit in that front row.

You get to see those arms.

Yeah.

It's worth it.

Her arms are that good.

In addition to, get this.

She got a $65 million book advance.

Now, how many books would you have to sell in order for the company to even break even on that?

65 million?

65 million.

Wow.

I mean, you're probably in the area of 10 to 15 million books.

And there's no way

anyway.

I mean, she might sell a tenth of that.

I don't know.

But books just just don't sell that well anymore, which is why you don't see Books a Million anymore or

Books a Million.

They have some.

Are they?

I thought they went completely out of business.

No, I think you're thinking of Borders.

Borders did.

Yeah, Borders did.

Yeah.

So in addition to the $65 million advance and an estimated $50 million deal with Netflix, which I actually read a few weeks ago was more like $100 million.

Why on earth would you want Michelle Obama designing content for Netflix?

They've They've got no experience in that.

I guess just lending their name to it.

Yeah, and their relationships, probably, right?

Because they'll probably be able to pull on all their celebrity friends.

But I mean, this is a great example of exactly what the founders didn't see public service as.

Just pass.

This isn't even related to what they're doing.

It's one thing to be able to go and raise money for something that you've worked on or you have expertise in.

They have no expertise in programming content for Netflix.

None.

And it's a huge deal.

And

plus, you know, that's not even to mention the amount of money they're getting for their appearances.

Just Michelle, you know, just she was first lady, but she's getting $225,000 per appearance.

Barack Obama is getting $400,000 per appearance.

Oh, my gosh.

I mean, I do think.

I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money.

Right?

I mean, wait, what was that?

It was.

I mean, I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money.

Oh, but not this much.

Not this much.

No, no.

They're not at that point yet.

And I don't, it's going to be interesting to see if he ever decides they are at that point where I've made enough money and every dollar I receive now will go directly to charities.

I'd like to see that happen or to the U.S.

government because, you know, he doesn't pay enough in taxes.

Well, it's the only charity that does any good as far as I'm concerned is the U.S.

government.

The U.S.

government is, this is what we all think.

Send your money there, let them deal with it because they do a great job.

They're already worth, estimated by Forbes, over $135 million since they left office.

$135 million.

Unreal.

And they're on the way to becoming a billion-dollar brand.

I mean,

the hypocrisy of this income inequality, which they clearly don't believe in, they don't care how much more money they make than anybody else.

And they're not, do you think they're going to turn over the proceeds of

their fabulous paychecks to anybody but themselves?

No.

No, they're not.

No, they're not.

Well, you know,

they'll give a certain amount out to Democratic candidates.

Sure.

Do you think there's any chance Michelle runs?

I do think there's a chance.

It's not a non-zero situation.

No, I think there's a possibility.

And I think if she ran, I think she'd have a great chance of winning.

I'd like to do some damage of that nomination.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right, 888, 727, BECK.

I think you'll be happy to note that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting back to her workout regiment this week.

So she had the broken ribs last week or the week before,

but her personal trainer claims she's right back in the gym starting today.

And I'm very excited about that.

I hope they keep us continually abreast of every move RBG makes.

Now, I had Thursday in the pool where she would get back to the gym, so I did not twin.

She's too incredible for that.

She is.

I was a stupid pick on my house.

I really underestimated her.

I did.

I don't understand this reverence for Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the left.

It's really interesting because she's all of a sudden out of the blue.

She's like this huge superstar, superhero.

She's like a rock star to him now.

Or a rap star.

Or a rap star.

Did you see the SNL skit?

I didn't.

Now, SNL, I actually watched SNL this week because, largely because Steve Carell was hosting it.

And being an office fan, you know, I had to.

He was so good in that.

He's so freaking good.

That show is so good.

And they did a little mini office reunion type of thing in there, which was the reason I wanted to watch it.

But, you know, I was like, I'll just keep kind of flipping through the schedules.

I haven't watched this in a while.

First of all, I know it's a really bad cliche at this point that Saturday Night Live is not funny.

But it's incredible the lengths they go to to prove it true on a weekly basis.

I am amazed.

I mean, these people are not, I don't think it's lack of talent.

on

the staff.

I don't think it's, I don't know what they do.

And they have a whole week to prepare something good, and they can't.

And if you look at their schedule, if you look at some of the historian, because there's like big books about the history of Saturday Night Live, their schedule is so insane.

Like, they don't do anything in advance.

And so they try to jam it all in, like, on overnights, on like Tuesday and Wednesday night.

And they get all the writers together and try to rework it.

And then the person doesn't know what, you know, how you always see like the host never really knows what's coming, it seems like, as they're saying their own lines.

And, oh, it's just awful.

And there's this, no laughs.

It's incredible i mean i watched the entire show and maybe there were two or three funny lines in the whole thing wow it was incredible i mean even the part where you have four members from the office getting back together to talk about the office which is the easiest thing in the world i mean your whole audience loves it like of course it's going to be hilarious no even that they didn't get any laughs out of it it was incredible so but what i was what i wanted to bring up on this is this ruth bader ginsberg bit they did now you remember like uh the the old school andy sandberg things that he would do about like Magnolia Bakery and they would do like the,

you know, the fake rap videos.

And yeah, and those were actually

quality.

Some of them were brilliant.

Yeah, they were.

So they did one of those this week, and it was about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Now,

again,

what is the point of Saturn Night Live?

What is it?

Isn't it a show where they're supposed to put jokes and things?

Seems like it, yeah.

So I watched this video, and it was like two minutes, and we have a clip clip of it here, where they're talking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg in like a gangster rap sort of way, right?

Like this hardcore rap, and they're saying they're talking about RBG.

But at no point does it seem that they put any jokes in it, it's just them saying really positive things in rap form about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Well, isn't that enough?

Isn't that what you're looking for?

No, that's not what you're looking for.

No, and I understand there's a level of absurdity where a you know, a rapper would be rapping about a Supreme Court justice and one that's particularly old.

Yeah, um, and but like, listen to this and tell is there any joke being made here?

Listen,

Trump, stay out of her way.

Don't f with my Roe v.

Wade.

Supreme Court's a boys club, she holds it down, no cares given.

Who else got six movies about him still living?

She's brass knuckles tough, her scare.

Gotta be kidding me.

But one out for my retired homie,

Like, okay.

Did you hear that?

If the audience is not laughing at any of it, right?

There's not a single funny thing about it.

Stay away from my Roe vs.

Wade.

You know,

it's just a gigantic propaganda piece for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

And I don't understand the fascination here.

My theory is that it's essentially a Betty White.

It's the Betty White syndrome.

She's old and small and cute.

And so they like her more.

But like,

you guys realize you had eight years of Barack Obama.

In that eight years, Ruth Bader Ginsburg went from what, 76 to 84 years old?

At any point in there,

including a point, by the way, where they had 60 senators,

she could have retired and you could have replaced her with anybody.

She decided to stay in past her 85th birthday.

So now you have this risk of her having to retire when Donald Trump is in office.

Like, if anything, you'd think the left would be annoyed at her for not leaving during Barack Obama.

After she could have easily left in 2013.

Because if she leaves anytime during the next two years, she's going to be replaced by somebody much, much more conservative.

Much, much more conservative.

And, you know, there's 52 or 53 Republican senators.

They will get that person through.

And it would be that, you know, where the Kennedy to Kavanaugh thing is

might basically be a wash, probably at its worst, and might be a little bit better for conservatives at its best, where, you know, Ginsburg to anybody, even moderate, is a huge difference.

Huge.

And it's fascinating to me that they would just get so excited.

She could have left.

She could have hooked you up.

If she would have left at 2013 at 80 years old, or whatever it would have been, they would have had, it wouldn't have been like it is now where, you know, Merritt Garland didn't get through.

They wouldn't have been able to block it for four years.

So they would have been able to put a

Democratic choice in that was 48 years old and we would have been dealing with till the end of time.

Yeah.

You know, you could have put another Sonia Satamayora in there.

You could put somebody on there who'll be on the bench for 40 years and hates the Constitution just as as much as Ruth Bader Ginsburg does.

Now, does she really hate the Constitution?

Well, she certainly doesn't love it.

No.

You ever heard her speak about the U.S.

Constitution?

This is a Supreme Court justice whose sole purpose is to defend the Constitution.

And here's what she thinks of it instead.

You should certainly be aided by all the Constitution writing that has gone on.

She's speaking of, I think this was around the time when Egypt was contemplating a new Constitution, and they're asking her about that?

Since the end of World War II.

I would not look to the U.S.

Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

Think of that.

Here is a Supreme Court justice.

Again, their only job is to defend the Constitution and rule on the constitutionality of many different issues.

She wouldn't even look to the U.S.

Constitution for help in creating a constitution.

That is amazing.

I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

A deliberate attempt

to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights.

Right.

Yeah.

Had an independent judiciary.

An independent judiciary.

Why didn't our founders think of that?

I should have thought of that.

An independent judiciary where you had, I don't know,

three separate but equal branches of government.

One of them is judiciary?

They probably came up with like a

higher court, one that was like supreme over their

courts,

like a you know, one that could employ someone named Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Maybe.

Maybe.

Maybe something like that.

And one that wasn't affected by

necessarily Congress didn't have control over them and the executive branch didn't have control over them.

They're independent in a way.

I mean, that's outrageous that she thought that would be a good thing.

And then she finished it off by

I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be because I'm operating under a rather old constitution.

And old.

It's old.

And the United States

in comparison to Egypt is a very new nation.

New, but.

And yet we have the

old.

The oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

Which is despicable.

I mean.

I hate that about us.

Isn't that the whole point?

Your Constitution is supposed to be able to hang around for a while.

It's endured for

that reason, that it's it was such a great document that it's been able to stand up to the last 240 years.

And it's also given you a way to change it when it's, you know, you think it needs to change.

I mean, there's an amendment process, and it's been

amended 27 times.

And that process has worked out pretty well.

We've righted, I think, a lot of the wrongs.

We've We've clarified a lot of the things that were left open.

There's been a lot of good things.

A couple bad ones.

16th pops into mind.

The income tax, really terrible amendment.

But there's, you know, the whole prohibition thing didn't work out all that well, but we reversed that one with another amendment after that.

You know, there's a lot of things that we're able to do.

And that's, by the way, still open.

All these people who are so upset about the Second Amendment, I mean, you can go in there and try to repeal that puppy.

Good luck with it.

Of course, as she's going to point out in her upcoming movie, this is just one of six that we heard about, right?

There's six RBG movies.

They've already released one of them.

It was called RBG.

It was a documentary about her and her life.

And then being released on Christmas Day is,

what's it called?

On the basis of sex, I think.

Yeah, on the basis of sex, where she's talking about women, and she points out a really serious flaw in the U.S.

Constitution in one part of this upcoming movie.

The word woman does not appear even once in the U.S.

Constitution.

Nor does the word freedom.

Your Honor.

Nor does the word freedom.

Your Honor.

Such a powerful pause.

So dramatic.

Except for the fact that the word freedom does appear in the U.S.

Constitution, but you have to go all the way down to like

the First Amendment to find it.

I mean, that far.

Nobody gets that far in it.

So it's not surprising a Supreme Court justice didn't know.

Of course, she wasn't Supreme Court Justice at the time that this is being portrayed.

Is that a real, is there really a guy who's like, oh,

the word woman isn't in there?

They don't get rights.

I have not been able to find that out, but I want to.

That was, I think it was a circuit court judge telling her that.

The word woman doesn't appear once in the country.

Why should we give any rights to women?

We all all hate women.

The reason I'm so disgusted by you is that your voice isn't coming from a kitchen right now.

I mean,

so crazy.

But I want to make a case to the left that they should stop worrying about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Again, she could have left.

She could have saved you a lot of hassle by naming, you know, getting someone named who you actually liked.

You could have had your Merrick Garland if Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have stepped down all those years ago.

But

why not

Sodomayor?

Sonia Sodomayor is, by most measures, slightly more liberal than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which shows you how awful she is as a Supreme Court justice.

And by the way, there's several Republicans voted for her to get her in.

Many.

I think she got 61 votes or 60 or 61.

Yeah, it was 6134 or something.

Yeah.

And there were some abstentions or people who weren't there at the time.

Yeah, the Kavanaugh thing is not the norm.

No.

You know, we keep thinking about like, oh, these things are so contentious.

Well, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 97 to 3.

97 to 3.

You know, really, it only happens to Republicans.

Bork, Clarence Thomas,

and Brett Kavanaugh being the three you'd think of right off the, right off the top of your head.

Not to mention, you know, Harriet Myers didn't even get to that point.

Bush had like a month of Harriet Myers talk and then it was gone.

You know, with Democrats, typically what happens is a bunch of Republicans cross the the aisle and they get through pretty easily.

You know, now Merrick Garland, they keep bringing up as an exception to that, which is, you know, I can understand them being frustrated about that process.

We talked about it at the time.

But it's not the norm where this is usually going to be as contentious as Kavanaugh.

But Soda Mayor came out in an interview this weekend talking about Brett Kavanaugh.

And actually, it kind of gives you, I don't know, a little bit of hope.

I mean, Soda Mayor has not been a disappointment when it comes to liberals.

But listen to this as far as her relationship and acceptance of Brett Kavanaugh.

I just wanted to spend a couple of minutes

to talk about the moment that you think the court is in now.

I know you guys are sort of cloistered, but you're not cocooned.

We came through this sort of acrimonious

process of confirmation.

You don't relate to alcohol.

I like beer.

I like beer.

I don't know if you do.

Do you like beer, Senator, or not?

What do you like to drink?

What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open.

How do you view it from the inside?

I mean, how does the court and family community adjust to those moments?

I'm going to steal a line from one of my colleagues.

A story, actually, not a line.

And it was Justice Thomas, who tells me that when he first came to the court, another justice approached him and said,

I judge you by what you do here.

Welcome.

And I repeated that story to Justice Kavanaugh

when I first greeted him here.

Now I've known him, I've known of his work,

but when you're charged with working together for most of the remainder of your life, you have to create a relationship.

The nine of us are now a family.

And we're a family with each of us our own burdens and our own obligations to others.

But this is our work family.

And it's just as important as our personal family.

We probably spend more time with each other than most justices spend who have spouses with their spouses.

Hey, you know who's excited about the caravan?

Mexico.

And Mexicans just love it.

They love this caravan.

We'll show you some examples of that coming up in just a little while.

Today we're brought to you by Relief Factor.

Relief Factor, of course, is something that is,

I know Glenn has had a great experience with because I used to hear him whining all the time.

I'm in pain, I'm in pain.

She's like, suck it up, get over it.

We don't care.

We want to make it worse.

We'd say things like that to him, and that didn't always heal him.

Relief Factor

has done a lot to make him feel a lot better about his pain situation.

You think about it too, like you go through your whole life

and going to work every day and doing all the things that you do.

And at the end, you want to be able to relax a little bit and be able to play with your grandkids, play with your kids, like, you know, maybe do some physical work in your yard.

And you can't deal with that because of all the pain that you acquired as you were working your whole life.

Don't deal with that anymore.

Get the three-week quick start.

Give Relief Factor a try.

It's like a dollar a day.

It's, you know, 70% of the people who order the three-week quick start go on to order more and more.

It says a lot.

Get your life back with Relief Factor.

If you want a drug-free and natural way to ease your pain, go to ReliefFactor.com.

ReliefFactor.com.

Glenn loves this.

I think you'll like it too.

It's relief factor.com.

Glenn back.

With Pat Gray and Stuberge today for Glenn, 888, 727BECK.

You can also join me for Pat Gray Unleashed every weekday morning, right before this show, immediately preceding.

It's,

let's see, it's 6 o'clock to 8 o'clock Central.

So that would be 7 to 9 Eastern.

There you go.

Right.

Plus anytime.

Or Glenn on the podcast.

Plus any time on the podcast.

Yeah, wherever podcasts are sold, you know, for free.

The caravan has made its way now, which seems like conspiracy talk because I was told they were thousands of miles from here, and it was ridiculous to even worry about it.

Ah, stop it.

First of all, it's dispersed.

Secondly, the ones that are still coming are thousands of miles.

We don't even know they're going to be there.

Well, they're here, and they got here last week.

And then there's another group that's also here.

And they're having some problems in Mexico, if you can believe it.

Apparently, the Mexicans in Mexico don't want the Central Americans to stay there.

Like, they're telling them with love, I'm sure, get out, go home,

and calling them troublemakers and calling it an illegal invasion.

Wow, that very strange,

hateful, and racist.

Well, I remember the former Mexican president, when asked about what happens when someone comes into their country from another country, they had a specific policy they had had kind of arranged.

And it seemed similar to what things like Donald Trump says.

He says, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico.

They can go get a job.

They can work.

If somebody do that without permissions,

we send back them.

We send back them.

We send back them.

If they do that without permissions, we send back them.

I love that clip because he is almost like perplexed at Wolf Blitzer for the question.

It's almost like he doesn't understand what Wolf is really saying there.

Like, hey, so your policy is such that you send everybody back, but you want our policy to be that we accept everyone.

And you don't have any problem

with the answer like that.

It's pretty amazing.

I will say that's one of those situations where you get lulled to sleep by thinking you have an easy interview.

And Wolf asks a great question there.

I mean, the way he phrases it, the way he delivers that question is actually really effective because I think he's like, no, no,

no, of course.

I'm a CNN, right?

Like, so he thinks to himself, like, this is an easy question.

I must be misunderstanding it.

No, of course we send it back.

You're not here without permission.

Of course, we're sending it back.

He just doesn't pick it up at all that that's what we're talking about.

And it's obvious.

Yeah.

Right.

Any country, all countries on earth do this, right?

Now, look, we take

a lot of asylum seekers from all over the world, and we've been doing it for a long time.

By the way, the people leading the charge on that have been Christian charities.

I don't know if anyone's noticed that.

And that, you know, I don't know how many code pink has taken in over the years.

Probably a lot, I'm sure.

But I mean, this has been largely done by Christian charities over the years, and it's been a big, a big focus.

If you've ever been to, you know, church in America, clearly you've probably heard many times the church saying, hey, you know, your donations went to bring X, Y, and Z here from this war-torn region across the world.

Like, that's something we're all very familiar with, and it's very positive.

That's different than tens of thousands of people rushing towards the border saying, we're going to climb walls if you don't let us in.

And they did it.

They did it in Mexico.

They are starting to do it here.

There's video of it already happening in the United States.

And it's the idea that we're just supposed to take that, and anybody who says send back them is a hate monger.

Yeah, or anybody who even raises a concern about it is a fear monger and a racist.

And it's ludicrous.

The people in Tijuana were actually singing the Mexican national anthem, telling these migrants to go home, telling them they're not welcome there, waving Mexican flags.

Now,

think about that.

If that were citizens of this country on our side of the border doing something similar, singing the Star-Spangled Banner, waving the American flag, can you imagine that would lead every single newscast?

We would be

there would be an outcry at the UN.

We'd probably be censured.

Who knows?

I mean,

but, but it's fine

for people in Tijuana to say that to the Central Americans.

It's just really amazing.

We're not supposed to

have any thought for ourselves at all.

Just, okay, if you need something, then just come and take it.

I don't get it.

We've got to consider our own well-being, or we're not going to be of service to anybody on this planet.

If you just allow everybody who's not doing well in the world,

you know, there's what, 2 billion people, according to the last report, living on less than $2 a day.

Now, send them all here, right?

We just accept everybody and take care of everybody.

It doesn't work because you can't.

You can't accept all the world's poor.

No, you can't.

And look, the reason there's 2 billion people

and falling every day that are in extreme poverty, and I think the number has actually fallen below that now.

And the reason for that is, you know, us.

Yeah.

And

the principles put in by,

you know, this country,

this experiment has led to that success.

We've talked about these numbers before, but they really are incredible.

I mean, it's gone, the number of kids dying before age five has fallen in half since 1990.

In half by 90.

Since 1990, think about that.

This is all in our lifetime.

This is all in a time where it doesn't feel

like ancient history.

This isn't since 1900, since 1990.

This is when

George W.

Bush and Bill Clinton are going back and forth in a presidential election.

And if you watch the Monica Lewinsky thing last night, which started airing this weekend,

it's first of all very well done.

If you're into this and you like history and you kind of want to go back and revisit that period a little bit, it's pretty interesting.

Lots of really classic Rush Limbaugh clips included, by the way.

Because, you know, this is when Rush Limbaugh is really rising to prominence.

And, you know,

that whole, I mean, he was already very prominent at that point.

But, I mean, you know, they have a lot of clips of him talking about it.

They really go back and dive into it.

It's pretty good.

But, I mean, that period is, you know, yeah, that's history.

It's old.

You know, it's not, it doesn't feel like it was right behind us.

But, you know,

when they started,

it was a professor who started asking this question of all of his students who came in.

And he asked them a question, since 1990, has extreme poverty doubled or halved?

The only two choices.

I'll bet most people said doubled.

95% said no.

95%.

Now, these are college students in a class of his.

Wow.

So they're obviously already looking at these issues.

People have absolutely no idea that has happened, and it's because of the free market.

It's because of free trade.

It's because of capitalism.

It's because of specialization.

These are things that are miracles.

I mean, you would have never, in 1990, if someone said to you, by the way, we think we can cut poverty by half by 2015 or 16, whatever those numbers are from.

First of all, everyone on earth would have taken the deal.

And secondly, the only way anyone would have believed it was possible was if the UN started giving out free food, right?

The only way anyone would have believed that.

Instead, it was done in a much different way with places like China and India getting the benefits of capitalism.

You know, all that stuff where they talk about where.

Well, you know,

these sweatshops and all these companies are building these, you know, slave labor camps over in these countries.

That's a good part of the reason why this has happened.

Because those jobs that seem like slave labor to you are well-paying jobs to them.

And they've been able to raise the standard of living.

And you know what?

It doesn't all happen at once.

And we'd all love

everyone to have the flat screen TVs that we have.

And everyone has central air like we have.

And everyone would love for that to happen all at once.

But it actually is happening.

And we don't ever bother noticing it.

Glenn has a stat that he does on the Sage tour, which, by the way, we're going to be in Tampa and Orlando.

This is

not this coming Friday, but the week after, I believe it is.

December 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, whatever that Friday and Saturday are.

So come out and see the show.

But he goes through a bunch of stats kind of like this.

And one of the stats, which is amazing and it gets a gasp every single time, is the improvements that we were just talking about.

Taking these kids who were dying of starvation and other terrible things and cutting that in half over that period.

It's really impressive.

And that's every day.

It's something like 17,000 kids a day that used to die now live a day.

Wow.

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

But think about every shooting that happens.

We have had mass shootings recently, and we get a few of them here every single year.

It's obviously terrible.

But they'll focus on that for months.

I mean, it's the top story for months, how bad guns are and everything.

Just the improvements that we've been talking about here is the equivalent of wiping out 630 years of gun murders.

All gun murders, not mass shootings, all gun murders, 630 years worth.

And does that ever get mentioned?

No.

Does the news ever focus on that?

No.

These are absolute miracles.

And the fact that it's all happened in our lifetime and we still ignore it is fascinating.

It tells us a lot about the way

our minds work.

Yeah, we forget a lot of times because of our, our lives are pretty easy compared to what, first of all, they are in other parts of the world who don't have capitalism and the U.S.

Constitution.

And secondly, other times in history that were...

There's this Harvard professor,

archaeologist and historian, who just did a study on what was the worst year in human history.

I like this.

Now, many people would probably think, that's 2018.

Of course.

Right?

It's the year, it's any year in which Trump had anything to say about what goes on in a country or the world.

It was actually the year 536 AD,

where he found bubonic plague,

widespread famine, war, flu pandemics, and

a year and a half long fog that they couldn't explain that kept the northern hemisphere in darkness for 18 months.

It was like dusk day and night.

They couldn't see the Sun for a year and a half.

And meanwhile, on the surface of the planet, people are dying from plagues, from famine, from drought.

There was snowfall in China.

Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia plunged into that year and a half of solid darkness by this.

And at the time, they didn't have any idea what was going on.

Why is this happening to us?

And then you find out, first of all, they also had a continental scale crop failure.

So all of Europe had crop failure and so did Asia.

And then the disease kicked in.

And apparently a lot of it was triggered by a cataclysmic Icelandic eruption.

So there's your global warming that caused the earth, the volcano,

and then the drought and the severe famine and the weird, mysterious

weirding of the weather that included a dense fog that put them in darkness.

And, you know, know, millions of people died.

And they said that they didn't recover.

The earth didn't recover from this disaster

for a hundred years.

Not until 636 AD.

Wow.

Did they start to get back to where they once were.

And your life expectancy at this point is, what, 20?

Probably.

22, which is probably about 21 years more than you wanted it to be.

Probably.

I was very

at this point.

Living through these times, can you imagine?

But I mean, there was no capitalism then.

There was no America then.

And there was no help or hope for these people.

No way of turning it around.

Yeah.

That's amazing.

And, you know,

how would you?

And you're talking about what, 10% of your life?

Right.

Probably at this point, you're just living in a fog.

Yeah.

That's a real rough one.

It's interesting.

They had another study that came out.

And we talk about this all the time because the left loves to say this.

And you know what?

I will say the right likes to say it a lot too, which is that wages have stagnated.

And, you know, you look at this and there's a lot of reasons why it's not true.

Wages haven't really stagnated.

There are different things that have happened as far as like, you know, more employers now spend more on health care.

And so like the money coming to you has gone up quite a bit.

It's just that progressives have pushed for policies in which your employer makes your decisions for what you spend your money on instead of you.

You know, like, oh, well, you should have all these things covered because you're too dumb and might not buy those things if the, if you're not forced to.

And that's what progressives do on both sides.

Because Republicans love that stat too.

They say, look, you know, it's a good way of saying when someone else is controlled, well, look, yeah, things might seem like it's good now, but like wages have stagnated since 1989.

Yeah, all the jobs that are being created are bad ones.

Right, exactly.

Now, of course,

it's not true for a bunch of reasons, but why would it even matter?

Right?

Like, let's just say this world happens where all wages stagnate and you make the same amount of money for the rest of your life, but everything continually gets cheaper.

So you have more money to spend on other things.

That's a good world, right?

It doesn't, what does the number matter?

The number doesn't matter.

What can you do with the number?

So there's a new study out about consumption poverty.

Now, this is different than income, right?

So income is how much money do you have, and you start, you know, there's a scale of how much leads to poverty.

But what about things that are actually important?

What are you spending money on?

All of these are down by 20%

to 80%, between 20 and 80% since 1989.

Now, where wages are relatively, you know, they go up and down a little bit, but they haven't gone up per se

for people in the poverty regions, the poorest 20% of Americans.

But

do you have a

dishwasher in your house?

That's dropped by between 20 and 80%.

A clothes dryer.

Again, this is people who don't have one.

So more people have dropped.

So the amount of people who don't have them has dropped.

Yes.

Sorry for a misusing of that.

Yes.

Do you not have a clothes washer?

That has dropped between 20 and 80% if you don't have one.

Do you have no air conditioning?

Those houses, again, this is among the

20% poorest families in America.

Yeah.

No air conditioning has dropped.

A large section of peeling paint on their home has dropped.

How about a water leak from outside the house dropped?

Water leak from inside the house dropped.

All of them, between 20 and 80%, again, since about 1990.

So even poor, and we've gone through the stats before of air conditioning, TV, microwave,

even mobile phones, cell phones, multiple cars, cell phones, tablets.

These are all things that are

50 60 90 almost 100 of our poor things that will be luxury items to the rest of the world items that you couldn't even buy if you were the richest person in the world and

30 years ago a tablet you couldn't buy it if you were bill gates right bill gates had to go through a whole thing of building an entire company get that rich and then even after that he couldn't invent one better than somebody else

I mean, that is incredible.

It is.

We never look at that one way, though.

We never do.

888-727-B-E-C-K, it's Pat and Stew for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

Are you dreading that awkward Thanksgiving dinner conversation that inevitably turns to politics?

Hey, Susan, could you pass the brown gravy, please?

I don't know, Ted.

Can it cross your wall of bread without being turned back?

Oh, here we go.

Don't get trapped.

Get prepared by reading Glenn Beck's new book, Addicted to Outrage.

And you might want to pick up a couple of extra copies for your less enlightened family members.

You know, immigrants built this country.

Oh, I'm going to vomit.

Addicted to Outrage, the new book from Glenn Beck.

Available everywhere books are sold.

Amazing devastation from the fires that have swept California.

Really, just absolutely incredible.

What is it, 80 confirmed dead so far?

And still 1,000 people missing?

That's terrifying.

I mean, that number of 1,000 is really unbelievable.

I mean, I guess it could be two.

People are harder to reach, and the the people that left might be

difficult to reach, but still,

that's scary.

There's a new story in the Federalists today talking about what happened here.

Pretty amazing.

For decades, environmental protection schemes have usurped common sense.

For example, most fire ecologists say the surest way of preventing massive forest fires is to use prescribed burns.

We've talked about this before.

Prescribed burns keep forests healthy by burning the underbrush that accumulates on the forest floor and by thinning trees.

Yet for decades, the Forest Service has suppressed most fires.

According to a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection executive summary, land and fire management have, in many cases, increased fire hazard.

Increased in some shrub types, fire suppression appears to have shifted the fire regime away from more smaller fires towards fewer, larger fires.

Despite scientific evidence, the federal government continues spending more money on fire suppression than prescribed burns.

This comes out to the Forest Service only performing prescribed burns on 11.3% of the land they manage.

While explaining to Mother Jones why the California Wine Country fires fires were so bad last October, fire ecologist Sasha Berliman said, We have 100 years of fire suppression that has led to this huge accumulation of fuel loads.

The policy of fire suppression has created what insurance companies call mega catastrophes,

which has got to be a new series on history or something.

We've got to be seeing that soon.

A term that describes disasters that result in insured losses of more than a billion dollars.

Mega catastrophes are becoming the norm in California.

In 2017, there were 5,906 fires on state and private land.

And extreme fire behavior has become more commonplace, as they're saying.

The laws of the last 45 years have not only failed to protect the forest environment, they have done immeasurable harm to our forests, says Tom McClintock.

Time and time again, we see vivid boundaries between the young, healthy, growing forests managed by state, local, and private landholders and the choked, dying, or burned federal forests.

Every time you bring that up, though, you get shouted down.

Yeah, every single time.

Trump tried to bring it up, and you got beat up by it, but it does seem to be true.

I think tomorrow night is

an official holiday in the Bergier family, is it not?

It is.

Since Creed 2 is being released.

Yes.

Anytime a Rocky movie comes out, it's an official holiday in my family.

And actually,

you have tickets?

I bought tickets multiple weeks ago.

Multiple weeks ago.

Creed 2.

Very excited about it.

In fact, the return of Ivan Drago.

That's amazing.

Yes.

Very exciting.

Because Creed is fighting.

His son, right?

Yes.

And now, if you remember, of course.

Which is super likely to happen.

Oh, the the whole series is very likely to happen.

Unfortunately, as you remember, of course, Apollo Creed

died in the ring at the hands of Dolph Lundgren, right?

Well, Ivan Drago,

the Soviet fighter.

Yes.

There are rumors of steroid abuse in that particular story.

Yes, there were strong rumors.

Strong rumors, including footage.

But it also, that movie, if you remember, of course, ended the Cold War.

People don't, of course, remember that.

They don't give credit to Reagan and Thatcher.

Whatever.

It was all Sly alone.

It was Rocky IV.

It was.

And so they're bringing this one back, which I'm pretty excited about.

Hopefully, it doesn't start a new Cold War.

But maybe this is what happens that brings us and Russia back together.

I don't know.

But Dolph Lundgren, the original Ivan Drago, is actually in this movie, right?

He's in this one.

I heard something the other day, and I thought, that can't be true.

It's got to be one of those urban legends.

They said Dolph Lundgren

has an IQ of 160.

He's like a super star.

160.

That's by far genius category.

That's 140, I I think, or 143 or something is genius.

160 is that's like Einstein smart.

He's very, very smart.

And it was weird because his role as Ivan Drago was obviously a big, strong guy who punches a lot and says very much.

And is dumb, dopey.

Yeah, kind of like a.

Just a killing machine, really.

Right.

And, you know, it's interesting, too, because he was not, as you might have detected from the movie, he had not done a lot of acting previous

to this role.

Did detect that.

But if you see in the movie, Rocky 4, when he comes out of the floor in Vegas and it's James Brown singing living in America and all that,

his reaction, he says, is like, it was completely legitimate.

I was like, I had no idea.

He's just standing in the middle ring, not moving because he was terrified.

I've never seen anything like this.

It's pretty amazing.

And now he's back for this one.

I'm pretty excited about it.

That's kind of fun.

Yeah, so that's going to be a big one.

You saw, did you see the new Harry Potter thing?

Yeah, Fantastic Beast, Crimes of Grindelwald.

It was good.

I liked it.

Just related, or is it part of the same story?

No, it's the same story.

It's like a prequel to the Harry Potter stuff.

So they went through this whole Harry Potter thing.

This is the last book ever, we promised.

And then she just started back over on the series.

How could you resist?

Because you can't.

It's a money printing machine.

Well, she sold 450 to 500 million copies of the books.

And then the movies did, I don't know, a billion and a half or two billion.

So why would you stop that money printing machine?

It just sounds dumb.

Doesn't it?

Yeah, it does.

Do you think someone came to her and it?

Just so you're aware, this is dumb.

Don't stop writing them.

Keep doing it.

People like it.

Yeah, people like it.

So that made $62 million over the weekend.

But it costs $200 million to make.

Yeah, but you have the whole.

First of all, one of the biggest weeks of movie viewing is this weekend.

And this one and Christmas are huge weeks.

And this whole season, I mean, it'll do well.

That'll do well.

Have you taken the kids to the Grinch, the new one?

They went yesterday while I was watching the Eagles lose by 611 points.

Oh, wow.

Yes, but they did like it a lot.

They did like it quite a bit.

And then Bohemian Rhapsody, still third, and that's made $127 million so far.

And it only cost $52 million to make.

Queen is, I don't know, there's something interesting and

unique about their music because, you know, people like me who grew up with it love it,

but people who, like my kids, love it too.

Queen just seems like universally loved musically.

And it's interesting that Bohemian Rhapsody

continues to be so popular among virtually all age groups.

Triple 8, 933, 93.

Now,

they were talking about

the 2020 presidential election

and

some potential Democrat candidates are being thrown out there to

oppose Trump.

Yeah.

And kind of gauging the audience reaction to each of them.

So this is kind of interesting.

You know, because you can look at it and you say a lot of people are passionate about this candidate or this candidate.

I found this to be really interesting.

538 did a podcast in front of a live audience as a review of the election.

And as you're listening to it, you find very, this is definitely a Democratic audience, which is not a huge surprise.

I think they did it in New York.

So, it's definitely a Democratic audience.

And you could say, someone so engaged in politics that they're thinking about this and wanting to go see a 538 podcast about the midterms, you're going to be pretty, you're going to be an activist, right?

Like, this is where the energy is probably in the the Democratic Party.

This is a non-scientific study, by the way.

But I was fascinated at the reactions to the candidates.

They do

a 2020 draft.

So these three experts, Claire Malone, Nate Silver, and Micah Cohen, do a draft where they, like, it's like a fantasy football draft where they draft candidates.

You're trying to pick the one who actually gets the nomination.

Okay.

So they go through and they're doing their picks.

Let me give you this one first.

This one was, I thought, pretty surprising.

The first pick overall in the draft, and just the main thing here is just to listen to the crowd reactions as their names are said.

Listen,

this goes with this is

the first one.

First pick in the overall draft, by the way, was Claire Malone picking Elizabeth Warren.

Okay, we're going to have this clip here in a second for you.

It is,

you know, I don't know.

First of all,

I don't know.

Claire Malone, she may be very smart, but you don't pick Elizabeth Warren first in this draft.

I mean, that's a terrible pick.

No, you don't.

But I wouldn't say it was out of the mainstream of thought, right?

I think a lot of people would put her.

We have

the odds on this,

the percentage chance of winning.

She's in the top three or four.

Right now, Kamala Harris is the number one.

You got to be kidding.

Yeah, number one, Kamala Harris.

Number two, Joe Biden.

Number three, Bernie Sanders.

Is Hillary listed in this?

Four, Elizabeth Warren.

What's that?

Is Hillary listed?

Hillary, that's a good question.

Is Hillary even listed?

I don't see Hillary.

There are many who think she's going to run against definitely running in 2020.

I just can't believe it.

All right, here's the first pick of the draft.

Listen to this.

So, Claire, who is the number one overall choice in our 2020 Democratic primary draft?

I am sticking with my last first-round choice of Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren.

Okay, there it is.

They don't like that.

Boy, they sure didn't.

They did not like that.

That's all you got.

Yeah, that's it.

I didn't hear a single applause.

Right?

Now, Elizabeth Warren was the energy.

Yeah.

Remember?

I really think she was the big, you know, a cool hit pick in 2016 to run.

And she, of course, never ran, but everybody seemingly wanted her to.

Everyone wanted to.

She was the pick, right?

Yeah.

And what's interesting is I think this whole Native American thing really backfired on her in a huge way.

Yeah.

And I think it was

very bad for Elizabeth Warren's future in politics, but very good for the Democratic Party that she did that because they saw how she handles these tough moments and she can't handle these tough moments.

She's not good at this.

I mean, if there was one candidate, if you wanted Donald Trump to win and one of these top candidates to go against, I would pick Elizabeth Warren.

Trump can would, she would not be able to keep up with the

certain people who can deal with the pressure of a Donald Trump.

Yeah, she's not one.

I keep saying Joe Biden would actually be a good

counterweight to Trump because he can get in there.

He can fight.

He's good at that sort of thing.

I'm not saying he'd be a good president.

He wouldn't.

But he'd be a much tougher matchup for Trump than an Elizabeth Warren.

Definitely.

So listen, so next up is Nate Silver.

He's picking his second pick is Joe Biden.

And listen to the reaction.

Nate Silver, your choice.

Trying to figure out if I should be tactical or not here, but

I'm going to be the honest pick, and I'm going to go with Joe Biden.

Joe Biden.

Tactical would have been thinking that Biden is going to fall to the Micah having said that he wouldn't pick Biden, get him at five.

Okay.

So,

and do you remember?

I don't know the historical trends here, but you've been.

There seems to be more kind of laughter than

applause or cheering there.

Not much of anything, right?

Like a little laughter, and it's kind of just acknowledging everyone knows he's one of the frontrunners.

Yeah.

Now, the next one here is the third pick of the draft.

Listen.

My first pick is going to be.

His first round pick.

Kamala Harris.

Okay.

Pretty strong.

Yeah, pretty strong.

Reaction to an arrow.

Jamie Kaylisher.

So those two.

They're already doing this.

This is a in a it's one of the recording of their podcast, but very Democratic audience.

But do you know what city they're

thinking?

How did they even most people don't even know who Amy Klobuchar is?

Well, that's why, though, again, these are political nerds, right?

The type of people who would pick candidates.

Like

when we came out with 17 candidates at the beginning of the Republican convention, most of America had no idea who half of them were.

We all knew who all of them were, and we'd already gone through all their policies and talked about it a a million times.

So those two there, Kamala Harris and Klobuchar, back to back with really strong reactions against them.

Strong reactions.

Yeah.

Next up is Nate Silver's pick.

A member newly elevated to the top tier is Beto O'Rourke.

Oh, my God.

Bad pick.

Why?

I mean, right there, you see another big reaction.

They go back and forth and argue about that one a little bit.

It's probably the biggest reaction so far.

Yeah, I would say one is there.

Two is probably Klobuchar, I would say.

Yep.

Three, Kamala Harris.

Biden and Warren, I mean, Warren was not just nothing, but really negative.

I mean, it was a negative.

Oh, gosh.

It was almost a groan from the crowd.

Next pick was Claire Malone's next one.

Claire, you're up.

So I think there's only a couple people left of the top tier, and I'm going to go with Kirsten Gillibrand.

Okay.

Moderate.

Yeah.

Okay, you can stop.

But moderate.

Yeah, but better than Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, probably.

Right, probably the fourth best out of there so far.

Now, here's one I would have expected to have a huge reaction: Nate Silver's next pick.

Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders.

There he is.

Okay.

So

not much.

That's underwhelming.

Very underwhelming.

Right?

I mean, you know, you would think Bernie Sanders, again, was the energy, not necessarily from the political class, right?

Where you'd say

this person can win, but the energy of the activist, the energy of this is who I want to win, is this guy

of the way I felt about Rick Santorum the first time compared to Rick Santorum the second time.

I was really excited about him.

And then not so much the second time.

Maybe that's how they feel about Sanders.

That's an interesting point.

Like he's already been there.

Because you can get the same policies from Kamala Harris.

Yeah.

And she's new and she's female and young, Beto Rourke, who's younger, you know, a good campaigner.

You can get those things out of other candidates.

And no longer do you need that first run to justify a second run, right?

Like we see this with Barack Obama.

I mean, Donald Trump obviously had and kind of flirted with a run for a long time, but

you don't have to lose.

Like, I would think the same thing would happen to Cruz in 2024, right?

Like, if Cruz tries to run again in 2024, people are going to find somebody else who has a similar policy set and rather pick him.

We've already done this with Cruz.

People get bored too fast now.

It's not like the days, I mean, what would have happened with Reagan?

If Reagan had lost that election like he did back in 76, would he have been able to come back in 80?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I think a lot of people would have been like, ah, we're bored with him.

He's old and we've already dealt with that.

I think people get sick of things too fast now.

I think so.

Next up, and the rest of these are, there's a couple funny ones.

Could we skip to Claire Malone's next pick?

Because Claire Malone picks Corey Booker.

The last of the top tier, which is Corey Booker.

Okay.

I'm completing your.

Nope.

Nope.

We're not interested.

Thank you.

I don't know how much analysis we kept of that one, but their analysis was very much like trying to justify a way to think that he's in the top tier.

He's not in the top tier.

He is terrible.

Right.

He's terrible.

He's a terrible candidate.

It's not going to work for Corey, unfortunately, for him.

But fortunately for all of us.

So there you go.

Some of the picks coming up for 2020.

Triple 8-727-BEC is the phone number.

It's Pat and Stu in for Glenn Beck on the Glenn Beck program.

Patton stood for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

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

So it's finally been decided in Georgia and Florida,

the race for the governor of both states is over winter, the Republicans.

And the Senate race has been decided in favor of Rick Scott, the Republican.

I say, Rick Scott's the man.

This guy has knocked off a bunch of really well-known politicians and people who've been around forever in Florida.

This guy is, he's pulled off a lot of tough races.

Who'd he beat before Bill Nelson?

Charlie Christ, he beat him up.

That's right, Christ.

And he beat somebody else, too, before that in an upset.

All of his races have been, at least at some point, considered long shots.

It's impressive.

Yeah, he's done.

That's pretty amazing.

Everybody kind of gave him up for dead in this campaign, too.

They thought that he was not going to make it, and he did.

So

that worked out really well.

Also, on the congressional side, there's another battle that's been going on, and I thought was decided, but apparently not.

Mia Love in Utah.

And you would think, okay, Utah's not going to elect a Republican no matter, I mean, a Democrat, no matter what.

Well, it looked like they did.

Well, and that race had, there had been close races there before.

I mean, her previous elections were pretty close.

There are some close races.

Because it is, I mean, it's probably the most Democrat area of the state of Utah that

exists.

But

the president gave her up for lost and was kind of gloating about it because she didn't want him to campaign for her.

And so he said, Mia Love showed me no love, and she lost.

But now it does not look like she lost.

Now it doesn't look like she lost.

She actually pulled ahead by 419 votes.

In 250 to 300,000 cast, she's ahead by 419.

And she was down by 700.

700,000 at one point and chipped away for this entire time.

Now, there's still a lot of provisional ballots to thousands of them.

I think it's, I want to say it's tens of thousands of provisional ballots.

No one knows what's in them.

I mean, it's really, she could still lose.

She could.

Yes.

But it's good to see that she came back.

It is.

So she has a shot there.

And that would be nice not to lose yet another seat that should be pretty solid, you would think, Republican.

Although, you know, a lot of Californians moved into that area.

It just

ruined every election.

So we'll see.

We'll keep an eye on that.

But it may not be as bleak in the Congress as we once thought.

Triple 8-727-BECK.

Our sponsor is Home Title Lock.

If you've ever had a situation where you get some weird stuff in the mail, you're worried about all these threats to your money and

your identity, that's part of it.

But you need to start considering a new threat.

It's called home title fraud.

It's one of the fastest-growing crimes in America.

And I discovered this a few months ago and started reading up on it.

It's a scary scary.

It's scary.

Yeah, because you can just take control of your mortgage and your title and then start borrowing money against your equity.

That's your money.

and you get stuck with the bill.

It's a real hole in the system, and there's really no way to fill it right now unless you trust local governments to be able to decipher these things well.

They don't.

So, you need to go with Home Title Lock.

Home Title Lock puts a virtual barrier around your home's title and mortgage for pennies a day.

As soon as they detect any tampering, they can just get it out of there for you.

And if you are worried about whether you're a victim of this already, they have a $100 search, but this is absolutely free.

If you go to home titlelock.com and sign up now.

It's your biggest investment.

It's your nest egg.

It's everything you've worked for probably your entire life.

If you're like most people, home titlelock.com is the place to go to protect it.

Home TitleLock.com.

Glenn Beck.

Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

You can also join me for my show every weekday

at, well, it's early.

It's ripe immediately preceding this show on the Blaze Radio and TV network.

And then, of course, listen anytime you want if you don't want to get up that early

by just downloading the podcast.

Triple 8-727-B-E-C-K looks like Eric Swalwell, who is a Democrat representative from California.

Huge name.

Huge name.

He's just trying to get his name out there now, I think, because is he considering?

Is he actually considering a run for the presidency?

Yes.

Nobody knows who this guy is, right?

No, but I mean, this is the way you solve that.

Right?

Like, you go and you run for president, and you're one of the first ones out there, so there's no one really, no one yet to discuss.

Like Kamala Harris hasn't announced yet.

Beto O'Rourke hasn't announced yet.

So instead, you take Eric Swalwell as the only guy who you can get on TV who's running for president in 2020.

And he'll have that, like until January, he probably has that pretty much locked up.

So people will talk about him.

And of course, and they'll especially talk about him now because he's talking gun control in a way that few ever have, which is kind of amazing.

He was advocating for gun control, confiscation,

confiscation policies.

So Dana Lash, Dana tweeted out

that high-ranking Democrat Eric Swalwell calls for confiscation of semi-automatic rifles using $15 billion of taxpayer dollars to do it and proposes criminally prosecuting those who don't participate.

Swalwell tweeted out, she's not lying.

So he confirmed it.

We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to gun ranges and gun clubs.

So then a Second Amendment advocate, Joe Biggs, responded,

saying that gun confiscation just wouldn't be a good policy because it, I don't know, might spark an insurrection.

Yeah.

He said, so basically, Representative Swalwell wants a war because that's what you would get.

You're out of your effing mind if you think I'll give up my rights and give the government all the power.

Swalwell then tweeted out, and it would be a short war, my friend.

The government has nukes.

Too many of them, but they're legit.

Okay.

This is like his way of trying.

I want activists to like me, so I will say I'm for confiscation of guns, and then I'll say all the dumb liberal talking points and throw in an anti-nuclear weapon commentary in the middle of it.

Like, I'm against them, but obviously, we would use them against Second Amendment advocates if they tried to keep their guns.

It's hard to, you know, in this country, it's kind of hard to separate killing the gun rights advocates, but at the same time, not killing your constituents who agree with you and don't have the same policies as the gun rights people.

You know, maybe you got a lot of, if you're going to start nuking places,

nukes are kind of indiscriminate.

They just, they kill everybody in the area.

This is the

we're walking around the single dumbest point in the gun debate.

And it's not, he's not alone making it.

A lot of left-wing people say these sorts of things.

Because the first thing you get is, well,

what about like you do?

They have tanks.

They usually say tanks is usually where they go.

Now, nukes is an interesting one because just on its face,

nuking American cities.

Right.

Like, nuke, first of all, as you point out, Pat, you would kill a lot of people who are your allies, right?

Because we all live with each other.

Like, they're gun owners in every community.

Yeah, we don't have separate areas for gun owners as opposed to not.

No, that's not the way it works.

No.

So nuking an area would be difficult and kind of single.

It's counterproductive because then you kind of lose access to that area.

But that's the point.

If you're in this scenario where the government is rebelling against

all constitutional principle and making war against its people.

Its own people.

The goal there is to be able to rule the country, right?

Yeah.

So you want to rule a nuclear wasteland?

Like, what's the point?

What is your incentive here, right?

That's stupid.

I mean,

you don't.

that's not the way people handle it.

I mean, think of how go to the worst.

I mean, every single terrible time where, you know, mostly communists or fascist regimes have rounded up people or wanted to eliminate a group of people, there's never a point in which they dropped their largest weapon on a city.

No.

Like, that's not a thing.

No, because you always have people and you want to protect the infrastructure.

And you like, nukes

is a really dumb argument, but it's a germ of another dumb argument that doesn't get the stupidity

it deserves.

because the idea that people will say well um

you have uh an ar-15 and the government has tanks and bazookas and cannons and all the you know anti-aircraft weapons and all the important things that they have artillery from oh they could shoot you from hundreds of miles away and it's the idea that like if you picture i always in the every time i hear this argument i picture the same thing which is i think it's what mil is it the patriot the mel gibson movie and you know the troops are rolling up to his house and like what's he gonna do they gotta like nine million people with guns.

He has to protect his kid, you know, and his kid is like doing really stupid things and gets himself shot.

Spoiler alert.

And, you know, and you're thinking to yourself, well, how would this guy defend himself?

If I just had my AR-15, they came, the government comes down the driveway with 20 tanks, I'm not going to win.

Well, no, and that's that's why they make that point like that, because they want you to think of that scenario, which is not how it works.

In reality, I'll give you an example that liberals can completely understand because they complain about it constantly.

Why do giant, incredibly well-equipped militaries get in quagmires around the world?

We always hear this from the left.

You know, Iraq's a quagmire and Afghanistan is a quagmire.

Afghanistan doesn't have nuclear weapons.

They don't have the things that could fight back against a real military like ours.

Not a lot of tanks, not a lot.

They have some small arms,

right?

And the problem is going door to door to try to overturn a country where there's hundreds of millions of guns is impossible.

You would just be in constant war

for eternity.

Right.

You can't, like, it's hard for us, the U.S.

military, to go into with a bunch of farmers.

And, you know, opioid farmers in the middle of

the middle of Afghanistan.

And the same thing happened to the Soviet Union.

We all know from the Princess Bride, the second dumbest thing is a land war in Asia, but only slightly, or that's the dumbest thing, and only slightly behind that is

a battle of wits with a Sicilian when death is at hand or whatever.

We know that the dumbest thing on that list was a land war in Asia.

Yeah.

And it's not because we don't have nukes.

We could just nuke Afghanistan, right?

We could drop nukes all over it.

We don't even have to live there, and we still don't do it.

We would not do that here.

And the Second Amendment is an incredible defense against the incentive to want to do this to your people.

You don't want to go after and round up your people because it's impossible.

All your soldiers are going to get shot.

If you are the Nazi regime and you take over the United States of America, you're going to have to deal with 400 million guns.

Well, yeah, that's the other element is not our government, but some other government trying in a U.S.

invasion.

Well, if you've got 350 million guns out there,

that invasion's not going to go very well because people are going to defend themselves.

And you're going to be in a continual guerrilla war, continual, with the citizens of this country fighting against

a foreign power that was here.

Yeah.

I mean, people are like, well, that's never going to happen here.

Probably not.

You know why?

Because of the Second Amendment.

Yes, exactly.

Because there's no reason the government would ever make the decision to do it here.

So it's not just defense against our government.

It's a defense against anybody's government trying to oppress us,

trying to usurp our rights.

Anyone who would want access to the land.

Yeah, if you're the Soviet Union, you can fire nuclear weapons around the world and blow things up here.

In theory, if somehow we were not going to respond to that, maybe that would seem like a good idea to you to take out a threat.

But if you want any access to the land, there's no reason to do that.

You're going to ruin it.

You're going to make it so it's uninhabitable and you're not going to get anything out of it.

The point is, you know, the Second Amendment is a great defense against a tyrannical government for that reason.

It's impossible to go door to door.

How would you do it?

You go to places people would have things hidden.

You'd never be able to do it.

And

you would, of course, in this scenario, this

long shot scenario,

you would never be incentivized to attempt to do it because of these reasons, because the guns are in the people's hands.

Glenn's talked many times about

the, I think it was the Soviet Union's plans for a possible invasion of the United States and where they would launch, from where they would launch that.

And I think it involved Canada and it involved

California, Arizona, New Mexico going through the southern border and going that way or the Canadian border.

And the one place it didn't involve going into was Texas.

Right.

Why?

Because Texans have guns.

Yeah.

And that wouldn't be advisable.

It would not.

They would use them.

And by the way, confiscation.

I mean, what a dumb.

I mean, the buyback thing is just, it's just confiscation and compensation.

Yeah.

Like, that's all it is.

Like, they're just paying you to confiscate it.

Because it's mandatory.

Right.

It's mandatory.

It's confiscation.

But, But, I mean, they tried this in Australia, and it did not do anything.

They did this after a mass shooting in Australia.

And you get a little cash, but you lose, of course, your fundamental right to protect yourself, which I'm not willing to give up.

2008 study about this, University of Melbourne, concluded that, quote, there is little evidence to suggest that the Australian mandatory gun buyback program had any significant effects on firearm homicide.

Another study said, quote, the gun buyback and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on fire high firearm homicide in australia they went and bought up now remember this would be it's unbelievable this would be they would have had in you know in australia they did about it was between 20 and 35 percent of all guns on the streets now in australia that was 650 000 guns here you're talking about a hundred million guns or more

You know, that you're not getting a hundred million guns.

What did he say?

$15 billion?

Yeah.

You're not getting that sort of level.

And you would still leave 300 million guns on the streets.

And again, and it doesn't work.

It doesn't work.

The policy doesn't work to the end that you're looking for.

You don't get the result that you want, which is no gun violence.

That happened in Australia and it happened in the UK.

Yep.

The same thing.

In fact, the gun violence went up 300%

in the initial years after the confiscation.

And then it kind of leveled out and it's gone up and down since, but it's about the same as it was now.

It's now about the same as it was before the confiscation.

So it did nothing for us.

It did nothing.

It did nothing.

It doesn't.

And, you know, this idea that you're going to stop these situations by getting rid of quote-unquote assault weapons and all these like BS terms that don't actually mean anything.

I mean, assault weapons are relatively expensive, right?

So if you go and you go by, you bought a AR-15, right?

Yeah.

What was it, like $1,200, $1,300, $1,500?

I mean, they're pretty expensive.

$15 or $16, I think.

Yeah.

At the time I bought it.

At the time you bought it.

Because there was kind of panic at the the time.

Yes.

But, you know, that's a relatively normal price, I think.

You know, you're talking about over $1,000 for an AR-15, right?

If you stopped selling AR-15s and people had $1,000 to spend on guns, what they would probably do is buy two or three other guns, right?

Like, you're going to go and buy two or three handguns or whatever it is, and you're going to wind up.

As what the same thing that happened, by the way, last time they tried this in the United States, an assault weapon ban, there were more guns at the end of it than at the beginning of it.

Because people just go in and buy more guns.

It's silly.

It really is.

By the way, just for your own edification and information, I don't have that AR-15 anymore.

I don't even know what happened to it.

It's gone.

It's weird.

It's gone.

It's gone.

Yeah,

I don't know.

Somebody took it or what?

I don't have it anymore.

I don't have any weapons.

Oh, really?

They're completely gone from my home now.

Yeah.

Really weird.

Is it anything to do with us being able to get it?

See emotional radio?

No, I'm sure not.

They'd be gone regardless, I'm pretty sure.

Okay.

Yeah.

But if anybody were to come and try to confiscate them, there's no guns there to confiscate.

That's the issue.

No need to stop by my house.

Nobody needs to stop by my house.

Oh, that's good.

I don't have any guns.

You saved the government a lot of time here.

That's what I wanted to do because they've only got $15 billion for confiscation.

$15 billion.

That wouldn't last a week.

No, it wouldn't.

Of trying to do this.

Plus,

the chaos it would cause would be

here.

It would be, I mean, it'd be ugly.

Not to mention, too, The funny thing about this is the people that would give up their guns for money are not the people that

you have to worry about if you start trying to confiscate guns.

And also, they're not the people who are going to do mass shootings, right?

Like

a person who's like, I don't need this gun.

They're going to give me $200 for it.

I'll turn that in and take the 200.

That's not a person who's going to do a mass shooting, right?

No.

You're not taking away weapons from people who might use them in a bad way.

The person who is going to do a mass shooting, like this, you know, this terrible situation we recently had

in the bar, the country bar in California, that person was willing to give his life to make that statement.

Again, $200 buyback, you know, he wasn't like, ah, should I turn this in or should I go shoot 15 people in a restaurant?

Like there wasn't a debate, an internal debate on that one.

You're going to take guns away from people who might use them in a good way.

And

then the people who might use them in a bad way have no pushback.

None of this makes sense.

None of it.

No, it doesn't.

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

It's Pat and Stuffer Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

Pat and Stuford Glenn, triple 8, 727, B-E-C-K.

You know, I've been waiting for somebody in the press, someone in the media, to say

anything negative about Jim Acosta.

Because Jim Acosta just soaked up all the oxygen in the room and

for his own benefit,

stole the limelight, wouldn't let anybody else speak at the press conference in question, continued to ask question after question, even though the president of the United States told him to sit down.

We're going to somebody else, refused to yield, wouldn't allow his colleagues to ask questions, and the rest of the press just seemed to fall in line.

Yeah, Jim's a great guy.

It's a great thing to do.

He's great.

He's just really great.

And I stand stand with Jim because it's just impressive to take away his press.

And by the way, they took away his hard pass.

Well, just go apply for the daily pass.

Just get the daily pass, which they would have given you.

Most organizations have to do, by the way.

I mean, you know, when the Blaze had

someone there, that's what they had to do.

You had to apply to get one.

Go every day and get one.

And then did he ever get called on?

No.

I don't think even once.

I don't think even once.

Certainly not by the president.

Maybe by the press secretary once.

I don't know.

But not the, yeah, the president never once called on him.

No.

So Acosta gets called on all the time, and then it dominates the questions.

You're supposed to get one question, maybe a follow-up.

This guy asked, I don't know, three or four or five questions.

Yeah, and I, you know, look,

I kind of don't like the taking away the past because

it's just elevated him to this martyr status, which is kind of annoying me because it's what he wants.

Yeah, it is.

But, you know, if I'm the president, I'm just never, never call on him again.

It'd be awesome.

Just ignore him.

Although, I will say, I was listening to a show called Pat Gray on Leash this morning.

Yes.

And Keith was on with you, and I kind of like his suggestion, too, which was call him.

Calling him every time.

Just keep asking until he runs out of questions and do it every single time so no one else in the press corps gets another question.

Just keep going back to Jim Acosta and then see how they like it.

And then see how they like it.

Because that's why.

You still support him?

I'm surprised they aren't pushing back on that front.

Because Jim Acosta is just trying to monopolize the time for his own ego.

And all these other reporters who are somehow able to play within the rules get no benefit out of it.

And they're backing Acosta because they all hate the president too.

Well, Major Garrett at CBS didn't play that game.

Rough and tumble there.

It can be rough and tumble at times at the White House, but it is a place of institutional heft and commands institutional respect.

And

I will say on my behalf, the previous press conference we had with President Trump in the Rose Garden, the president looked at me.

I thought he called on me.

I stood up.

The White House aide handed me the microphone.

I began to speak to the President of the United States.

President Trump looked at me and said, no, behind you, Caitlin, Caitlin with

CNN, Caitlin Collins.

CNN, by the way.

So I said, oh.

And what did I do?

I handed back the microphone.

Now, some of my colleagues might say, what'd you do that for?

You have the microphone, you have a voice, you can speak.

The president of the United States said, not you.

To my way of thinking, that's enough.

The president said, I didn't call on you.

I I called on somebody else.

All right, then.

And

I didn't get a question in that press conference.

Some might say, well, you laid down and you were too deferential.

I don't feel that way.

I stood up.

The President of the United States said, no, I don't mean you.

I mean somebody else, another one of your colleagues.

So I deferred, hoping he might call on me again.

He didn't.

That's how I orient myself to the institution.

That's correct.

And the person who occupies that institution is chosen by the country.

And I respect the institution and the country's choice.

Yep.

And I'm there to, on behalf of everyone, ask questions and most importantly, Larry, get answers.

So that shows respect for not just the president, but his colleagues as well.

It's a great point of view, I think.

I'm amazed here.

Someone actually said that.

Me too.

That's

pretty obvious, I think.

Yeah.

Nobody else had the giblets to do it, though.

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

What Patton Stew for Glenn?

Big article in the political

today about

Betto O'Rourke, who has just captured the imagination of Democrats everywhere.

They just, they love this guy.

I don't really know why.

I don't, I mean, I know he raised a lot of money and he ran a campaign that came close

that brought a Democrat close to the Republican in Texas, and that can't happen, but he made it happen.

And, you know, he's a former punk rock performer, who, by the way, was terrible.

I mean, if you've ever seen or heard any of his music or watched them on

TV,

they did an appearance on El Paso television in the 90s.

Oh, my gosh, it was awful.

Horrible.

And his name was Bob.

Yeah, it was Bob.

Yeah, because his actual name is Bob or Robert Francis O'Rourke.

Anyway, he has captured the imagination.

Everybody thinks that he's the guy for 2020.

They think that if

he runs, he could beat Donald Trump.

He did raise over $70 million for a Senate run in Texas.

It's the largest sum ever raised in a Senate campaign.

He did come close to Ted Cruz.

He only lost 51 to 48%.

And they think that maybe that was better than him actually winning because you don't don't have to turn around and run for president again really soon.

Right, because if he won senator, he would have to six months after his first

senate seat, you know,

he'd have to announce right away.

This way, he's already been in, he's been in Congress for a while.

People think he's an outsider, he's not, um,

but uh, he

is one of those guys who, if he had won the Senate seat, he would have had to at least fake that he wanted to be senator for a couple of days, right?

Right?

I mean, because even Barack Obama, his speech was 2004, right?

When he won

2004, 2006?

Well,

he did the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Four, right?

That was kind of his coming out party.

His coming out party.

And then so in 2007, he announced.

So

he had two years of being a senator before he announced running for president.

And then in 2008, he obviously won the presidency.

Where here, you'd be doing it six months after you took the job.

Now, it's not out of the question that he could still win, but that's a tough sell.

Here, he's already been a congressman for a long long time.

He's not coming from no experience.

He's just a government guy.

He's just, you didn't know about him before.

So there's a clearer path there.

And

we talked about

the Cruz campaign quite a bit as that was going on.

Did you see the comments by Jeff Rowe,

who was the campaign manager for Ted Cruz?

No.

He was,

after that election, said, this guy's incredibly incredibly dangerous.

Like,

he is going to be hard to beat.

We had to kill ourselves to beat him by three points in Texas.

Like, this guy is serious.

This is going to be really hard if he runs.

He was very

complimentary of Betto as a candidate because he,

I mean, look, he's got some kind of appeal.

Yeah, someone, you know, remember the whole Wendy Davis thing?

And Wendy Davis was a candidate.

Abortion Barbie?

Abortion Barbie, she was known as, in Texas.

And she just fought really hard for this third term abortion.

She got killed.

And she got, she had 37% of the votes.

Something like that.

And Betto got 48.3.

Yeah.

I mean, that is in Texas, it's a hard lot.

I mean, he ran a good campaign.

Now, a lot of that had to do with raising money, but that's also a big part of it, right?

That is, that is part of campaigning.

You need to have somebody who can do that.

And he did.

And he did that.

And he had enough money to where he bought

every commercial, I think, on Spotify.

My wife listens to Spotify a lot.

And every time there was a commercial break, it was him.

Really?

Virtually every time.

Again, I believe it's $9.95 a month, unlimited.

You don't have to have any commercial breaks.

I know Spotify is

so,

I'll say thrifty.

Thrifty.

Thrifty.

Yes.

I will say.

She's not willing to do that.

But even if you are thrifty, you don't want to turn off the let me put it another way: $9.95 to get rid of Beto Keynes.

I know.

I was willing to do it.

Let's upgrade right now.

Right now.

And stop this madness.

Even if Betto wasn't running the ads, I think Spotify could get away with just doing that to convert people to premium subscribers they probably like every republican in texas wow we have a real surge in texas with subscribers it's amazing and then on local tv he was everywhere he was he was absolutely omnipresent you couldn't escape him i've i've rarely saw a ted cruise commercial i always saw beto yeah commercials over and over and over so much money yeah So, and I think he, he must have spent almost every dime.

And they asked him at one point along the way

after everybody heard that he raised $38 million just in the last quarter, which is more than even Obama raised in his last quarter as a presidential candidate.

They asked him, well, are you, you know, you got so much money.

You're going to share with other Democrats?

Nope.

Nope.

Of course not.

This is all for me and all for Texas.

Oh, okay.

Well, it's all for Texas until he runs his national campaign.

Was he 10 million left over?

He said, I think he said that the

$10 million that he can, so he's got a nice little seed to start his campaign.

People really believe he's going to do it.

This is the best circumstance because he lost in a close election.

And he said no, but he's going to, right?

I mean, don't you believe he's going to?

I think he will.

I mean, if nothing else, he's going to be absolutely on the top of the list for VP candidates.

If Joe Biden, let's say, wins the nomination, which is a possibility as crazy as it seems, he's still probably leading most of the polls right now.

Joe freaking Biden.

But in that world, Betto O'Rourke is the type of person you could totally see Biden taking, right?

Someone from the South who's younger, kind of gets you that next generation

of Democrats.

Two white guys, though.

That's a problem.

They want diversity in that team.

There's an interesting battle on that one right now because usually, like, what Republicans or what Democrats want to do is find the most exotic candidate.

Diversity.

They want, this is what they're talking about with, you know, we've got, you want diversity, you want different genders, different races, different sexual preferences, whatever it is.

But there's an argument made, and probably most famously by Michael Avenatti, who is obviously a

persona non grata now.

I mean, he's, you know what, they don't like him anymore.

But he made the point, and this is something that is really out there for Democrats, and it's a real conversation happening in these circles, which is the reason we lost to Trump is because

all we do is talk about diversity, and all we do is put up candidates that look different.

And we can't, I'm going to say this in a more conservative-friendly way, but essentially what they're saying is we can't fool the middle-of-the-road independent with our socialism unless we give them someone they can relate to and be familiar to.

Like a betto.

Like a betto.

So you take some white dude.

The white dude argument right now is strong because they think, now again, put yourself in the argument of a progressive, if you're put in the mindset of a progressive, where you're saying,

well, look, in our cities, we're all diverse and understanding, but then there's those dumb people, those dumb people in the middle of the country.

And unfortunately,

the rednecks that are so racist.

Yeah, those people.

They're racist

and they hate women.

We can't win any of these votes.

That's how Trump won.

He was able to appeal to

those people who, policy-wise, probably don't care all that much, but they are, you know, they're racists and they're sexists and they don't want some woman running the country.

They want a white man.

And so the idea is to pick a white man with socialist policies.

Now, Bernie Sanders is 647 years old.

I don't think he really fits into there.

But like a Joe Biden, where you get a guy who's going to put mostly mainstream Democratic policies in there, or a Beto who's going to go even further to almost Democratic socialist level policies.

You put it in there with the familiar package.

In progressives' minds, that's a good idea.

Again, they think very little of the Ohio voter, the Michigan voter.

They just think they're a bunch of racists who are.

The Texas voter.

The Texas voter.

They hate them.

Yeah.

So instead, you put somebody in a package that can be accepted by evil racists, but throw the policies that we want in there.

That's a winning combination.

Yeah.

They think if

you put a, let's say, Kamala Harris or a Corey Booker in there, sure, all their policies are 100% right.

But all those evil white people will vote against Corey Booker because he's black.

Now, this is a ridiculous understanding in the United States of America, but it is something they're really discussing.

It is.

It is something a real debate on the Democratic side right now, and it's why Betto is

so tempting to them.

Because if he can get up there and put a nice face, a happy face on socialism as a white guy, people in Texas might vote for him.

And that's exactly what he did, this campaign.

He never said, you know, I'm a Democratic socialist.

He would deny that.

But all of his policies were, what were they?

They were universal health care, Medicare for all.

Universal college education, free for all.

And I don't know if he adopted, I never heard him talk about the guaranteed income that Ocasio-Cortez talks about.

I think even Gillibrand's on that now.

But

they're all jumping on that bandwagon.

You know, they keep saying, is there room for socialists in the Democrat Party?

What do you mean?

Is there room for Democrats in the Democrat Party?

The socialists have taken it over.

That's true.

It really is.

I mean, that's really where the influence is.

I mean, listen, but like, again, we get down this road, and sometimes this stuff happens where things change.

You know, Betto O'Rourke might rise above.

But listen, this is the most recent poll of 2020 candidates for the Democrats.

And do they include Beto?

He's in here, yes.

So at 1%,

Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gildibrand, Michael Avenatti, 1%.

2%, Eric Garcia.

Michael Avenatti?

Come on.

Oh, my God.

2%, Eric Garcetti.

Wasn't he a former mayor, right, of

Los Angeles, maybe?

Right?

Wasn't he a former mayor?

Am I thinking of somebody else?

I don't know.

I know.

You might be right.

3%, Eric Holder.

There's another guy we haven't even talked about, right?

Now, think about this in the way

in the current environment of how much you've heard about Betto.

4%, Betto.

He's at 4% now among Democrats.

Now, that look, it's early.

He doesn't have the, but I mean, he did have a big campaign.

People are pretty familiar with who he is.

Only 4%

of

Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents.

Okay.

Also at 4%, Michael Bloomberg.

Now, listen to this one.

At 5%, Corey Booker, 5%.

And John Kerry.

Can you imagine if they try Kerry out again?

That'll be fantastic.

Gosh.

Please.

Now we get into the top tier.

Please nominate John Kerry.

Please, please do it.

Just do it.

Just for the fun.

We can reuse all of our jokes.

It'll be great.

8% Elizabeth Warren.

All right.

8.

8%.

Now, this is a poll that was taken in October, so it's not old.

8% Elizabeth Warren.

9%, Kamala Harris, 13% Bernie Sanders.

And in first place, Joe Biden.

33%.

Wow.

He is almost triple everyone else in the field in the polls.

Wow.

Now, the same thing.

And we talked about this during the Trump thing.

We dismissed, and I'm first on the line, admitted this a million times, dismissed the good polling of Donald Trump early because it's name recognition.

You know,

once we get into the middle of this, people are going to know who these candidates are, and they're not going to like Donald Trump because of X, Y, and Z.

Well, I mean, we saw how that one turned out.

We can ask Don.

He's in the Oval Office right now.

So I mean, a 20-point lead in early polling is not nothing.

That's incredible.

I mean, that's

a big lead.

33-13 over Sanders, who again, Sanders, I don't think there's any chance Bernie Sanders is a nominated The energy has transferred from Sanders to Betto.

To Betto, and maybe one of the 30 female kids, like a Kamala Harris personnel.

Maybe, yeah.

You know, it does feel like I don't think that he has the energy anymore

from the rank and file Democrats.

I think you're right.

And again, like we said, well, they already had Bernie running, which is true, but Biden's run like 19 times and he's leading.

Biden, wow.

Now, again, he'd be formidable in debates, though.

He'd be

formidable in debates.

He's the type of guy that can mix it up with Trump and not

look terrified on stage, right?

Like, that was Hillary.

Right.

Hillary looked like, oh, I don't know what I can say next.

Let me give a stilted line.

Pokemon, go to the polls.

Like, that was her

response.

That was powerful, though.

It was.

You got to admit, that was powerful.

Looks like there's a generational fight brewing

with the House Democrats, kind of shaping up

the new kids on the block don't want the old guard, Nancy Pelosi, as their speaker.

Yeah, I don't know if this is a real threat to Pelosi or not.

I mean, who's it, Marsha Fudge, who wants to become

a House speaker?

I don't, I don't know.

We'll see how that goes.

But it's interesting to see the comparison.

The Washington Post did a

article about the generational gulf between House Democrats.

And so Democrats right now,

their entire party

is average age 59 years old, their entire Congress.

Okay.

Which has been going up since

both sides have been going up because people are living longer, they're staying longer, blah, blah, blah.

So it's gone up all the way up to 59.

It was actually 61.

It's slightly younger this year as they're adding all these new people.

However, their leadership is averaged age of 70.

So they're 50.

And their real leaders, like Nancy Pelosi, Stenny Hoyer, James Clyburn, the three top House Democrats are all 80 or very close to 80.

Yeah, and then on the other side, Schumer is not exactly a spring chicken.

No, he's not.

The average age is 70 among leadership in the House.

Now, then you got the whipper snappers like Alexandria Casio-Cortez, who's 28.

Yeah, she's coming in.

She's 28.

So right now, it's 61-year-old average member, 70-year-old average

leadership.

For the Republicans, the average member is 56.

So five years younger.

Really?

Wow.

Five years younger than the Democrats as a whole.

However, their average age of leadership with Republicans is 50.

50 as compared to 70.

Wow.

And Democrats are saying, hey, we're going the wrong way on this one.

How do we fix this?

And they want to try to put somebody younger in leadership.

And, you know,

there's entrenched power there.

And I don't think Nancy's not giving that one up without a fight.

No, it's going to be interesting, though, because there's a lot of people.

Well, 17 have come out and said, look, we want anybody but but her.

We don't want her again.

And it's kind of surprising they're willing to challenge her openly like that.

So we'll see.

And we'll see you tomorrow right here.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.