'Reason and Facts Matter' - 10/3/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Glad back.

All right, I wanted to start with something.

This is very, very complex.

I got up this morning

and

I've been doing a whole bunch of research on the show.

The last thing I got to was the Donald Trump thing.

I was on our affiliate in Tulsa, and I was asked, what about Donald Trump?

And I should have just said, I don't know, I haven't seen it yet, um, but I had read about it, and I'm glad I didn't comment on it.

All I said was, I'm not going to comment on it because it's just

it's ridiculous to focus everything on Donald Trump.

However,

it does deserve comment.

The media has said,

did you hear Donald Trump mocking

the victim?

I'm going to get into that in a second.

No, I hadn't.

But

in case you have only read about it or you've only seen the headlines, I would like to play the audio.

Here is Donald Trump, according to the press, mocking the victim.

Listen.

I had one beer.

Well, do you think it was nope?

It was one beer.

Oh, good.

How did you get home?

I don't remember.

How'd you get there?

I don't remember.

Where is the place?

I don't remember.

How many years ago was it?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know.

What neighborhood was it in?

I don't know.

Where's the house?

I don't know.

Upstairs, downstairs, where was it?

I don't know.

But I had one beer.

That's the only thing I remember.

All right, so this is Donald Trump mocking?

No.

This is Donald Trump stating the facts in the Kavanaugh case, period.

It's Wednesday, October 3rd.

You're listening to the Glenbeck program.

Let me give you a few other facts here.

Facts that

MSNBC and everybody else don't seem to care.

Well, they've moved on.

I don't know if you've known this.

They've moved on now to

other things.

The lies.

The lies that he told.

Okay, well, let's talk about lies, shall we?

This is a letter to Grassley's office.

The names have been taken out.

I, so-and-so, am a current resident of California.

I first met Christine Blasey, now Christine Blasey Ford, in 1989, 1990 in California.

From 90 to 91, I was just friends with Ford.

From approximately 92 to 98, I was in a relationship.

So from 1989 to 1998, nine years, this person knew and was very, very close to her.

I found her truthful and maintained no animus toward her.

During our time dating, Dr.

Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct.

She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh.

During some of the time we were dating, Dr.

Ford lived with Monica I.

McLean, who understood, who I understood to be her lifelong best friend.

During that time, it was my understanding that McClain was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S.

Attorney's Office.

I witnessed Dr.

Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam.

Dr.

Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs work, work, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam.

Dr.

Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology.

Now, this is interesting because I do remember while she was under oath a very strange line of questioning that went a little something like this.

Have you ever had discussions with anyone

beside your attorneys on how to take a polygraph?

Never.

Never.

And I don't just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips or anything like that.

No, I was

scared of the test itself.

She was scared of it.

I was comfortable that I could tell the information and

the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal.

I didn't expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little little bit stressful.

Stressful.

Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

Never.

Never.

Maybe the FBI, I demand an FBI investigation on Monica L.

McLean,

who is a lifetime friend of Dr.

Ford,

because

there is, Now, I want to use this word carefully, an accuser.

We have to define that here in a second.

An accuser saying

that Dr.

Ford and Monica McClain,

Monica was interviewing for jobs with the FBI in the U.S.

Attorney's Office.

I witnessed Dr.

Ford help McClain prepare for a potential polygraph exam.

Dr.

Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs work, and helped McClain become familiar and less nervous about the exam.

Let me play this audio again of what she said under oath.

Have you ever had discussions with anyone

beside your attorneys

on how to take a polygraph?

Never.

Never.

And I don't just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips or anything like that.

No, I was scared of the test itself, but but was comfortable that

I could tell the information and

the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal.

I didn't expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.

Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

Never.

Never.

Never.

Well, we know somebody's lying here.

We know, we know

someone is lying, right?

Don't we, Stu?

Because we have somebody,

we have somebody who has accused her

of teaching someone else about a polygraph.

Well, she's innocent until proven accused.

I think that's important that we keep that standard.

She is accused of

accused.

She is accused.

She's guilty.

So if we're going to use the same standard that the left is applying, she is a liar.

She has perjured herself.

Certainly shouldn't be a professor anymore.

She should not be a professor.

She even be allowed to work at a fast food restaurant.

I don't think so.

How can you possibly believe a liar on anything she says?

You want this standard?

Because this is the standard that's coming.

This is the standard that we're now running to embrace.

This is the standard that our children...

This is the standard that we ran from.

This is why we're America.

Because in every other country, this was a new idea.

You cannot come into my house and just take me.

You can't just throw me in jail.

You have to have an accuser.

I have to know what the charges are.

I have a right to defend myself.

I have a right to know who my accuser is and address my accuser.

I have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This is what America was founded on.

This is an uniquely American idea.

This was the genius of our founders.

You want to flush it away?

Go ahead, but I will not be part of it.

This

is the American idea.

Now listen.

It is so imperative that you understand

what this is.

If you do not understand what you're fighting, do you think we could have won World War II

without naming the Nazis?

Do you think we will ever win this war on terror without naming what it is about?

What is driving people to the terror?

The Islamist ideas, not Muslim ideas, Islamist ideas, that Sharia law is the prevailing law and if you're not under Sharia law, you're an infidel, which means I can kill you, I can rape you, I can turn you into a slave.

That is what the war on terror is all about.

And we will never win it unless we name our enemy.

We would have never won World War II if we were fighting the Germans.

We were not fighting the Germans.

We were fighting the Nazis.

We would not have won in

the Civil War.

Had we been fighting the South.

We were fighting people who didn't believe in the Constitution.

We were fighting for the freedom of all men.

That's why we won.

And by the way, if you don't think that's true, we lost every single battle up until the point

that Abraham Lincoln said, this is about slavery.

Look it up.

We wouldn't have won the American Revolution if it it wasn't against tyranny.

It wasn't against the king.

It was against tyranny.

And it was for certain ideas, like the idea

that you are innocent until proven guilty.

We are fighting postmodernism.

And until the American people understand what postmodernism is, you will lose.

You will lose every battle because you will only grow frustrated and angry, which will play directly into what they want to happen.

They want us at each other's throats.

They want us to be irrational.

They want us to be angry.

They want us just to start swinging in blind rage.

That's their plan.

And until you understand what they're doing,

until you understand

that this isn't really about Ford, this isn't about the charges, this isn't about anything,

this is all about the patriarchy.

This is all about

white men have put together, in this case, a rape culture, and they have kept people down.

And it doesn't matter if he really did it, because other white men have.

It doesn't matter if she was really a victim because other women have been victims.

This is about collective justice,

currently entitled social justice.

But make no mistake, this is collective justice.

And collective justice

To put it into the terms that a Christian will understand, is anti-Christ.

Collective salvation is anti-Christ.

Collective justice is anti-Christ.

Individual salvation, individual justice,

that is Christian.

You cannot balance the scales by convicting someone who is not guilty because someone who looked like them

has done it anyway.

I don't think America understands,

and I think you feel it.

I think you feel it.

I don't know if your neighbors do, but I think you feel it.

We are extraordinarily close to the edge of the abyss.

And I am doing what I promised I would do.

I promised

when it came to that time, and I asked you to do the same,

I would stand and say, Don't go there.

Stop where you are.

Turn around.

I know that's where the crowd is going.

Turn around.

Stop.

Safety is this direction.

I have

not known

how to explain it to you.

It has only been my gut.

But I know what it is.

And I've been explaining it on T V and I've explained it on radio.

On Thursday, we're going to go into it on depth.

That's tomorrow.

It is in the book.

Read it at the library.

I don't care if you buy it.

Read it at the library.

It is not a surrender.

It is a desperate plea.

Please understand

what's happening to us.

There is a way to win.

But we started this hour with Donald Trump.

You'll notice they say he mocked.

He didn't mock.

He stated facts.

People are not going to want to hear the facts.

That's okay.

State them.

State the facts calmly, rationally, and relentlessly.

The only thing that matters is reason

and facts.

The book is addicted to outrage.

Please pick it up.

The audiobook is really good.

Spend 35 hours working on it, reading it.

It's 15 hours in total.

It's really good.

All right.

Filter by is

our sponsor this half hour.

Hey, Stu, wasn't China, aren't they the best?

Isn't China the best at

fighting global warming and everything?

They're on the cutting edge, as pilots say, as Elagore.

Yes, when it comes to

global warming.

They absolutely are.

The problem is they're not.

The opposite is true.

Well, they are on the cutting edge of leading the world in emissions.

That they are doing.

Okay, I'll give you that.

I'll give you that.

They've just discovered that air pollution causes a huge reduction in intelligence.

Huh.

Who'd have thunk?

Breathing in really bad stuff hurts people.

Huh.

I got to stop.

It looks like they picked the wrong day to start sniffing glue again.

That's exactly right.

Here's the thing.

95% of the global population is breathing unsafe air.

I hope that you're in the 5% that's not.

Do the smart thing.

Change your filter.

That's all you have to do.

We have HVAC systems.

You have to change your filter for a couple of reasons.

One,

if it's clogged,

it's not filtering anything, and it's going to wear down your HVAC system.

It's harder for it to suck air through it.

The second thing is

you need to actually have filtered air.

So all you have to do is just change it.

I don't change it because I forget.

That's where Filter Buy comes in.

First of all, you don't have to run to a store.

They have 600 sizes, custom options.

They ship for free within 24 hours.

Plus, they're made here in America.

And if you're like me and you never remember, you just set up a schedule with them.

You say, you know, every six months, every eight months, whatever your HVAC system calls for, and they just automatically send it to you.

And you'll save 5% when you do that.

Filter buy.

They'll save you time.

They'll save you money and you'll breathe better.

Stop procrastinating.

Stop forgetting about it.

Change your filter.

It's filterbuy.com.

Filterbuy.com.

Let me go to Al in Texas.

Hello, Al.

Al, are you there?

Yes, good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, I can.

How are you, sir?

Fine.

You?

Good, good.

What's up?

Listen, Glenn.

President Trump did not

mock Professor Ford.

Yep.

He merely attacked her testimony, and after all of us have been sifting out the inconsistencies in her testimony, he merely voiced what we're all now thinking but don't want to express because we don't want to seem insensitive to a woman that was sexually assaulted.

Al, I have to tell you, I don't even think he attacked her testimony.

He just stated the facts.

That's all he did.

He stated the facts.

Now, that might look like an attack to some, but it ain't.

Al, do you want a copy of the book or the audiobook?

I'm going to make one out while we're talking talking here.

I more like hard copy books.

Hard copy.

Okay, you got it.

Is this a new thing now?

We're just giving books away to everyone who actually gets on the air.

Yeah, if you get on the air, it's rare.

It's rare.

We don't take a lot of coffee.

I figure I've penciled in five books for the rest of the year

to Al.

Make it to you, Al?

Yes, please.

All right, hang on.

Can you make it out to my worst enemy?

Al, hang on.

We're going to get you the book.

So put him on hold, and we'll get his address.

He did not mock.

No, he didn't mock.

He didn't mock.

Play the audio real quick as we go into the bottom of the hour.

This is Donald Trump yesterday.

Mocking or just stating the facts?

We have time.

I had one beer.

Well, you think it was...

Nope, it was one beer.

Oh, good.

How did you get home?

I don't remember.

How'd you get there?

I don't remember.

Where is the place?

I don't remember.

How many years ago was it?

I don't know.

I don't know.

That's true.

He's not mocking.

He's not mocking.

Glenn back.

Mercury.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Welcome to the program.

I'm so glad you're here today.

It's vocabulary day.

I hope you did your homework.

We are just dissecting one sentence.

Trump mocked the victim.

All right.

We all know what Trump means.

Mocked?

Well, could you look up mocked for me?

Sure.

I think we all know what mocked means.

And we have just played the audio.

We'll play it again here before we move on.

Go ahead, tell me what mocked means.

To tease or laugh in a scornful or contemptuous manner.

Okay.

Is this mocking the victim?

Donald Trump last night.

I had one beer.

Well, do you think it was?

Nope, it was one beer.

Oh, good.

How did you get home?

I don't remember.

How'd you get there?

I don't remember.

Where is the place?

I don't remember.

How many years ago was it?

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know.

I don't know.

What neighborhood was it in?

I don't know.

Where's the house?

I don't know.

Stop.

You'll notice that people are not laughing.

They are smiling and they are cheering, but they are not laughing.

He's not meaning this as a joke.

He is instead stating the the facts and the absurdity of this case.

And people are cheering because finally someone is saying it.

In his case, to give President Trump bonus points here, he's saying things that I don't think any other president would have the balls to do, at least no other Republican president.

Barack Obama would have done this, but only...

Only Barack Obama in if,

you know, in the last recent memory, George Bush wouldn't have done this.

Bill Clinton, I don't think, would have done this.

He just would have left it alone.

Republicans never would have done this because they wouldn't still be standing.

The minute Blasey said, I want to testify, the Republican president would have run, run for the Hills.

I get your point.

I would point out Clarence Thomas did go through something very good, except for Raisin.

Reagan.

And that was Bush.

That was 91.

Clarence Thomas.

Wasn't that Reagan?

No, Thomas was in 1991, I think.

Oh, Oh, wow.

Okay.

I thought that was Reagan.

Point is, though, usually.

You could easily see this.

And it's a different era, right?

Everyone seems to fold over these things immediately.

You know, you make one bad joke, you lose your job at Guardians of the Galaxy.

For real.

It is a different time.

Okay.

So

he's not mocking.

He is stating the facts.

That's what's happening.

Now,

Trump mocked the

victim.

Stu, I've got a few words for you to look up that I think America needs a refresher course on.

Could you look up victim?

Hmm.

Huh.

Give me the definition of the word victim.

Glenn, victim is a noun.

And by the way, we should point out that yesterday around this time, we looked up the word boof.

Yes.

So the devil's triangle.

So this is taking a different course a little bit.

Victim.

That was a 101 class.

A person harmed.

injured or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

A person harmed,

killed, or injured

as a result of a crime or an accident.

Okay.

One interesting thing as an observation here, Glenn, on the word victim, is if you call her a victim, you are condemning his guilt.

Oh.

You have already decided the case if you call her a victim.

When you are in a headline, for example, and you say he

mocks victim, what you are saying is

Brett Kavanaugh is guilty.

Correct.

You're saying it without having to say it.

What you're saying, what you should say instead, could you look up the word accuser?

Accuser, yes.

Accuser.

Okay.

Accuser.

Accuser.

A person who claims.

Oh, wait.

This is starting to sound accurate.

It is.

A person who claims that someone has committed an offense or done something wrong.

Okay, so we'd all agree.

That's her.

An accuser.

So he wasn't mocking.

He was stating the facts of the trial or the hearing

and

condensing the ridiculousness of the accuser's claim.

We must stop using the word victim.

They are accusers.

They may end up being a victim that we can call them.

But if we are going to presume innocence, and I know this is an old-fashioned idea, if you're going to presume innocence, you must presume innocence, which means means this is the accuser, Your Honor.

This is not the victim.

Because once she's a victim,

what happens?

Well, we're supposed to believe.

Could you look up the word believe?

Yes, I can.

We are now being taught, believe the victim.

Believe, okay.

Two definitions of the word believe.

Definition number one, accept something as true, feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, so you're sure something is true.

So people now are saying, believe the victim, which is translating,

feel sure

that this person has been harmed or injured

in an event of some sort.

Okay.

And

this person is responsible for the person.

The person is responsible.

Yes.

Okay.

So you are being told

when someone says something,

I have to believe and assume,

give me the definition again.

Accept something as true.

I have to accept this as true.

Feel sure it's true.

And feel sure that it's true that this person has been harmed or went through an act caused by this person.

Wow,

that's quite a statement.

That doesn't seem logical at all.

That should only happen after...

You know, that's beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

Like, that's what the standard is there.

What's the second version of believe?

Hold something as an opinion, think

or suppose.

That seems like the one they're applying here.

They're trying to make it seem like I believe you, I am sure of the truth, when in reality, it's just their opinion.

They're supposing it's true.

They think it's true.

Now, do you want to be judged or have your dad, your brother, your son,

your sister, your mother, your friend,

have the world assume that something is true because someone stated it without evidence?

The answer is no.

But we are being taught, the next generation is being taught to believe the victim.

Here's the thing.

When you present evidence, And I see preponderance of evidence, I will believe the victim.

Now, that's not even through a court of law.

I just want a preponderance of evidence.

I want to see it.

Now, you'll notice that last week it was looking pretty dicey for Kavanaugh.

This week, it looks like there's been some things that the press is not reporting on.

Some people coming to the table saying, okay, I flew with her in a small plane in Hawaii.

In a small plane, a single-engine plane.

It only had one exit.

It was cramped.

It was just us.

She didn't have a fear of flying.

She didn't have a...

we went out to go circle the volcano.

What are you talking about, a fear of flying?

She didn't have a fear of flying.

People coming out now saying the reason why she had the second door, I was there.

All you have to do is go look at the permits.

She was building an office in her house.

It wasn't for escape.

It was because she was having clients come to that door and not to the front door.

I have two front doors because I'm afraid.

Hmm.

Not according to the permits.

Not according to...

Why?

Wait, you put a front door because you were afraid?

Why'd you put the office there?

Why'd you put the separate bathroom there?

Of all things, would you want random clients coming over your house all the time?

Like you'd want to separate that from your business as much as possible.

Okay.

So I don't know what's true.

I don't know what's true, but I certainly do not suppose

to believe her.

I don't think she's...

I don't know if she's a victim or not.

I don't know.

She may be a victim, but he may not be the perpetrator.

Right.

I mean, the only person who should be calling her a victim is herself.

If she, like, let's just say this did happen to her, she can fairly call herself a victim because she knows it happened to her, if, if it's true, right?

But even if it's true, none of us should be calling her a victim at this point.

The victimhood from society identifying you as a victim is when other people have some confirmation of the trial going through of enough information to prove it.

There is one proven victim between the two of them right now one proven victim that is brett kavanaugh who now can't teach up at harvard because all of the graduate students are saying we're not having a rapist teach who can't who can't uh coach his basketball games anymore because they can't have a rapist teach he is now a victim now that of course assumes that he's innocent um no no no he's had negative consequences he's a victim even if he's guilty he's a victim of mob justice.

Right, because they have not proved the case.

Correct.

He's a victim of mob justice.

I'm not saying that

he is not rightfully a victim.

At this point, it sure doesn't look like it.

This is mob justice so far.

She also is a victim.

She's a victim of the Democratic Party and leadership.

She has been victimized.

She has been dragged out when she said she didn't want to be dragged out.

She was lied to

when the Republicans said, We'll go out and meet with you.

You don't have to fly.

They didn't tell her that.

She's a victim by the Democratic Party, and they don't care.

They do not care.

That is the real tragedy of this.

Two people's lives are forever changed.

One,

if she is making this up,

it's on her.

And quite frankly, so is the victimhood of him.

It's on her.

Look at what's happened for political purposes only.

And if you think the Democrats, and I think there are people who vote Democrat, I think there are people who vote for the Republican.

I think there are people who vote for Kavanaugh

actually feel bad for Christine Ford.

I think they actually feel bad for her because they don't know she

maybe something happened.

i was willing to say last week that i think something happened and i don't know

it's becoming less and less clear to me that even something happened

because of all of the other testimony now that is coming out that's saying no i've i was her boyfriend for 10 years nine years none of this none of this happened

i i don't know

by the way i frankly do not believe her by either one of those definitions i don't suppose it and i don't know it's true.

Now, look, I could be wrong on this, but she has not provi, like, no one can be 100% sure that this didn't occur.

We weren't there.

But that's why we have a system to try to figure out those situations.

Because we're never there for crimes.

We're almost never there for them.

So you'll notice that you are presumed innocent.

Look up two words, assume and presume.

In our standard, you are presumed.

innocent until proven guilty.

You're not assumed, you're presumed.

What's the difference?

Presume is usually used when you suppose something based on probability.

So the odds are, based on what we know, she doesn't know the house, she doesn't know the time, she doesn't know the month, she doesn't know the year.

The people that she said here, they'll testify that they were there.

All of them disagree.

All of them say, I don't have any recollection of this at all.

So she has no witnesses.

The documents from her doctor conflict with her report.

She has changed the time four times in the last four months, or two months.

So, and that is sketchy because it appears as though she kept moving it closer because Brett Kavanaugh would have been out of state if it would have been where she originally claimed.

So, all of those changes.

So, what's the preponderance of evidence?

What are the odds based on the evidence?

The odds are he didn't do it.

That's the presumption of innocence.

What is assumed innocence?

Assume is used when you suppose something without any evidence.

So no one is asking you to assume he's innocent.

We're asking you to look at the facts and then play the odds.

Based on those facts, what are the odds that she has it right?

So let's stop using the word victim and let's stop saying we're going to believe believe every victim we are not we are going to take seriously

the accusation from the accuser

and then we'll look for the facts all right mercury real estate

these are the people that are going to sell your house and they're going to sell it on time and for the most amount of money you need a real estate agent you're going to buy a house in an area you don't know call us Mercury Real Estate, Real Estate Agents I Trust.com.

You call us.

We'll give you one of the 1,500 agents in your area or the area that you're moving to, and they will be able to help find the right house for you and negotiate the right price.

If you're looking to sell your house, we probably have a real estate agent in your neighborhood as well that can help sell your house on time and for the most amount of money.

These people have been

hand-picked for the team for their knowledge, their skill, and their track record.

Thousands of families have already put this to the test.

It is realestate agentsitrust.com.

Sell your home now, fast, for the most amount of money.

Realestateagents I trust.com.

All right, let's go to

Randy.

Hello, Randy.

You were at the Trump rally last night.

What was it like?

I was.

It was great to be there and see him in person.

But what I found most interesting there is that it's a pretty large crowd, too.

It looked like it was at capacity, probably 10,000 people or so.

But half the crowd were women.

Oh, my gosh.

So

this thought that the women aren't going to support him, you know, I find that hard to believe.

Well, I'll say this, Randy, those are not the women we need to believe.

Yes, those are not the women.

These are the other women.

Well, it's in Mississippi, so you know the men told them to go.

Oh, okay, yeah.

That's true.

You know, they don't have minds of their own.

So.

That doesn't work that way at my house.

Doesn't work that way at anybody's house.

Randy, thanks a lot, man.

I appreciate it.

Hang on just a sec.

I got to get him a book.

Oh, yeah, you get a book if you want to.

You want a book or an audio?

A book will be great.

A book will be great.

Great.

All right.

Thanks, Randy.

Do you want Glenn's book or just another book randomly?

Let's just pull random books from other authors.

I want Mark Levin's book.

Do you want Mark Levin's book?

Okay.

How long does this go on?

If you call into 888-727-BEC, you get a point that's good enough to get you on the air.

You get a free book, your choice, audio or regular?

I don't know.

Tell I Rob.

Have you cleared this with anyone?

No.

Good.

That's the way it's supposed to work.

That's the way it works around here.

May have been a very bad idea.

Oh, crap.

Tomorrow.

Tomorrow we're talking about the book.

Oh, well, they'll already have the book, maybe.

Because tomorrow, I want to take calls from people who have actually read the book.

And I want to get into things you disagree with, things you agree with, things you want to know more about.

We're going to go through

some of the bigger points in the book tomorrow.

And if you've read it, I want you to call in on tomorrow's broadcast.

Glenn back,

Mercury.

Glenn Beck is coming live to talk about the right path forward and to make fun of the people standing in the way.

He might not be able to save the country, but at least we can all go down laughing.

Glenn Beck Live, the Addicted to Outrage tour, on tour this fall.

Glenn Back.

All right, if you've already eaten today,

you might want to turn the radio down for a minute because this

may make you hurl.

Keep in mind, Republicans control all three branches of government.

Republicans control all three branches of government right now.

So here we go.

In October, which means the fiscal year has officially ended in October.

That's right now.

Our debt numbers are in.

You ready?

Our federal debt has increased by over $1.2 trillion.

Our total federal debt is now over $21 trillion and rising.

I know a lot of people used to care about the debt when it was Obama.

I still care about the debt.

Total federal debt is now $21 trillion.

It's rising.

$1.2 trillion increase is the sixth largest debt, oh, well, it's the sixth largest debt increase.

It's not even in the top five, in the entire history of the United States.

This debt increase, again, under Republican control, is larger than many of the years under the Obama administration.

It is nearly the same as during 2011 and 2012.

It is larger than 13,000, 14, and 15.

Every single worker in the United States, roughly just over $155 million, if all of us who are getting up to go to work donated $130,000,

it still wouldn't pay off the debt.

But even if we did, even if it did pay it down at this rate, we'll be back where we started

in two years.

There are only two parties now, apparently, in America, because it's binary.

I suggest we look elsewhere if you care about the debt.

No one is standing for fiscal responsibility.

How long are we going to vote for people that clearly do not care about record amounts of debt?

We are showing them every day that they can continue to behave in this reckless manner without any consequences whatsoever.

Democrats have moved the Overton window so far to the left that the GOP, the former party of fiscal accountability, or claimed to be, see no issue at all with an annual trillion-plus dollar debt.

That's now standard fare.

Democrats have slid so far to the left.

Now they're talking about things that will cost, in their own numbers, $40 trillion in 10 years.

Republicans likewise refuse to do anything about it.

A debt bubble explosion is prime.

It is not a question of when this explosion happens.

It's going to happen.

The only thing we have to concern ourselves with is when

and if we're going to do anything about it.

It's Wednesday, October 3rd.

You're listening to the Glenbeck program.

We are entering a new time, and

everything's being redesigned right now, and people aren't really talking about the issues.

People aren't really talking about big fundamental things that are changing.

For instance,

America was based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nobody's talking about pursuit of happiness right now.

Pursuit of happiness is defined by our founders as ownership that you could own.

You could forge your own way in life.

And ownership is a big part of capitalism and a big part of America.

However, ownership is quickly going away.

When you buy a book on Kindle, do you own the book?

When you buy a movie from iTunes, do you own the movie?

The answer is no.

The end of ownership.

Aaron, and I I want to get this right.

Say it for me.

Just ask him how to say that.

Just tell me how you say his name.

It's Perzanovsky.

Perzanovsky.

Okay.

It was a lot easier than it looks.

We can't pronounce easy words, so that was going to be difficult.

It's got more than one syllable.

There's a lot of consonants there.

How are you doing, Aaron?

I'm doing well.

How are you?

Good.

I'm really fascinated by how we make the turns in our society for the future.

And ownership is a big part of this because in the future, I don't know how many people will even own cars.

I mean, it's just all changing.

But do we really own things when we buy them online?

So I think there's a real concern here that consumers go into transactions when they're buying things, digital goods, especially digital books, movies, music.

They go into those transactions assuming they work the same way as they do in the world of tangible goods.

Where if you buy a book, you can give it away to a friend, you can lend it to someone, you can leave it in your will in the future and

leave your book collection to your loved ones.

And the rules that control these digital transactions when you buy something on your Kindle or from iTunes are very different from the rules that we expect in the physical world.

And consumers don't really understand that distinction.

And I think that causes a real disconnect between what we all expect to happen and what happens in fact.

So to give you a quick example, just

a couple of weeks ago,

a consumer, a customer of the Apple iTunes movie store, found that three movies that he had purchased

had been deleted from his account.

They were no longer accessible.

And I think that shocked a lot of people.

Those of us that have been following these issues closely for years would remember 10 years ago when Amazon remotely deleted books off of people's Kindles,

including

ironically, George Orwell's 1984.

So these issues have been happening for a long time, but I think people are now starting to really sit up and take notice of it.

Okay, so I remember because this,

it's easier for me to read everything on Kindle,

but I and I have a large collection in my library of

hardcover books.

And I read so much.

I read it all on Kindle, but I have recently really been concerned, not just because I don't actually own it and I can't have it in my library and I can't pass it on, but also because you watch things like it happening in China.

If you're in China, I mean, at first they wouldn't sell the book, but if they did sell the book, The government can just deem that that book is, you don't need to burn books.

You could just overnight just take all of that, every copy of that book out of circulation if it's only digital.

That's really disturbing to me.

I think it's a real concern.

It's a concern

from the perspective of censorship, as you've just described it.

It's also a real concern from the perspective of preservation and sort of archiving our cultural history.

If these books

are stored on these centralized servers in only the hands of

the two or three companies

that dominate these markets, then there's a real risk that

we aren't going to be able to ensure kind of the widespread distribution of copies that will allow us to

archive and preserve

these works.

And Aaron, with the movie, it wasn't because they found it objectionable or anything else.

It's because that particular provider, they lost the rights to that movie, right?

And so they had to pull it from people's libraries because their rights had expired.

So there are a number of ways that this can happen.

This most recent example, I don't know that the facts are totally clear on exactly what went on.

So one way this can happen is that, as you described,

the deal between the digital retailer, Apple or Amazon, and the copyright holder expires.

They no longer have the rights to sell that product.

It can also happen when a record label or a movie studio decides that they want to put out the new updated, remastered director's edition of a movie.

And when they do that, they pull the old version to help.

Oh my gosh, so they almost force you to, I mean, because they've always done this where, you know, it's the masterpiece collection and it's, you know, additional footage and, you know, fully restored, but you still had the old copy.

Now,

you can't, I mean, even I mean, think of this, even just for comparison, you can't, if they change something in a movie, imagine when, remember when George Lucas changed Star Wars?

Well, I want to see what it was like when it originally came out.

You wouldn't be able to do that, would you?

Unless the movie company decided to allow you to do that.

That's right.

I mean, and the problem in this most recent case, in part, was that the consumer didn't have a local copy stored on their computer or their device.

And this is just a practical tip for people.

You should always try to store as much as you can locally.

Now, these services are often trying to encourage consumers to rely on

the company's own sort of cloud storage solution.

And sometimes

with the Apple TV, for example, the Apple TV doesn't allow you to permanently download a copy of a movie.

You have to access it through

Apple's servers.

Exactly.

So I think that makes a big difference in your relationship with those guys.

If I downloaded something on Kindle, could I download it to another cloud and still be able to read it on Kindle?

So

the Kindle allows you to store those files locally on your own device.

But because the Kindle is tethered through software and network connections to Amazon, Amazon has the ability, as they showed 10 years ago,

to remove those files.

Unbelievable.

You talk about

that real quick.

Apple has the same sort of control.

We saw this several years ago, too, in a very different way.

I'm sure some of your listeners may remember when they woke up and found a U2 album on their iPhone.

They put it the the other way.

They forced everybody to have it.

Exactly.

That's bizarre.

You write about this a little bit, and it's an interesting change in the way we think about commerce.

There is, in the past, you had a transaction where you'd go into a store and you'd buy something.

With these digital purchases that we're making from iTunes or Amazon, we're actually entering an ongoing relationship with them.

It's sort of an open-ended thing where they're constantly knowing what you do with that product, and you have that ongoing relationship where they can cancel that at any time without your knowledge.

Can you talk a little bit about the change there?

Because that is a real change that I don't think people have considered.

And, Aaron, before you answer that, we're going to take a quick break and then we'll come back and get you to answer that question.

And just the change in capitalism.

Change, what does it mean to enter a world where there's really no ownership of anything?

For four years now, Relief Factor has been helping my team here in the studio alleviate pain late last year um oh it's gold line well i want to tell you about relief factor anyway relief factor take it it's really good um you can you can buy relief factor with gold so that's one thing you can i don't think you can well okay so i want to tell you a little bit about uh gold line the new silver maple flex allows you to break off uh smaller pieces uh for barter and trade of of silver um there's a really i mean we just talked about the debt.

I don't know what's going to happen to the dollar.

Nobody does.

Nobody does.

Nobody knows what's going to happen.

Bitcoin.

What's it going to mean?

If there ever is a time of catastrophic change, there's going to be a time when we're all going to have to kind of work together and figure things out

because the things aren't going to work the same with dollars.

May I suggest that the world always returns to gold?

And for barter,

they have the Maple Flex coin, which is this bar of

silver that is about the size of a credit card that you can carry it around.

It has a maximum flexibility.

You just break off pieces and you can have one-tenth, one-quarter of an ounce of silver.

But they also do it in gold, and it's all made by the Royal Canadian Mint.

The only people that carry this is Goldline.

Just look at the numbers.

Find out for yourself: is the world hurling towards fiscal sanity or insanity?

As soon as the stars start rolling the other direction, I'll stop talking about this.

But I don't trust that we have anything that's going to

bring us back into sanity other than some sort of catastrophic event.

Goldline, call them now.

Find out if it's right for you, it's not right for everybody.

Do your own homework.

Don't even take it from me.

866 Goldline, 1-866-GoldLine or Goldline.com.

Glen back.

Talking to Aaron Peranofsky.

He is

a professor of law, and also

you can find him at theendofownership.com.

Aaron, you're right.

The switch to the digital platform offers convenience, but also makes consumer access more contingent.

Unlike a purchase at a broke bookstore, a digital media transaction is continuous, linking buyer and seller and giving the seller a post-transaction power impossible in physical markets.

Why is that important?

So I think this is important for

a number of reasons.

It leads to these scenarios that we were talking about earlier where the seller of the good has the ability not only to sort of reclaim or recall the good, but they also have some ability to control how and when and under what circumstances you make use of that product after the sale.

That's just not something that you could do in the tangible world, right?

Your local bookstore, put aside the publisher, your local bookstore can't tell you what country you're allowed to read a book in.

They can't tell you

how many times you get to read it.

They can't tell you who you get to lend that book to.

And they certainly can't keep records of all of those interactions.

And the digital world allows for

that form of control.

And importantly, it's not limited just to digital media.

We have all these smart devices in our homes, on our bodies.

We've got our voice assistants and our fitness trackers and even our home appliances and cars.

They all have software.

They all have network connections.

And all of these sort of problems that I've been describing are going to play out in that space as well,

where device makers are not only going to be able to track your behavior, but they're also going to be able to limit the ways in which you can use the products that you think you have purchased.

So

let me interrupt here and just ask you this.

I see when I go to iTunes, I see a movie I want to watch.

It says rent or own.

I'm not owning it.

I'm just renting it in a different way.

Isn't this false advertising?

So I think there's a really good case to be made here that companies like Amazon and Apple that use language like own and buy, words that have real meaning for people in their everyday lives, are misstating the nature of those transactions.

So

my co-author, Chris Hofnagel, and I wrote a paper a few years ago, a couple of years ago now, called What We Buy When We Buy Now, that did a survey of about 1,500 consumers to figure out what people think this language means.

And it turns out that a significant percentage of consumers incorrectly believe

that they do have true ownership rights.

They get to keep these goods, that they can lend them, that they can give them away.

And we think that there is an opportunity here to correct this misinformation in the marketplace.

But think about the companies that we're talking about.

Apple and Amazon are two of the biggest

the world has ever seen.

And getting them to

convincing them to

communicate in a more clear and fair way is a real challenge.

Class action lawsuit?

So I think there is a possibility for class action litigation here.

There are a bunch of

legal and practical hurdles to making that happen.

I think it's something worth pursuing.

I think the Federal Trade Commission has a role to play here.

This is squarely within their

within their area of expertise and obligation to police the market to make sure that consumers have accurate information.

Aaron.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

The way the market works depends on consumers being informed.

People can't make rational choices.

People can't decide where to spend their money if they're being misled about the products that they're getting.

So I think that it's crucial for the functioning of the market to have that information be correct.

Have you done any look into

what a society without real ownership, I mean, we're down to renting clothes and everything else.

And that's only going to get stronger

as we move forward.

Have you looked into what that means for a capitalist society and for America in particular that has always been about ownership?

So my biggest concern here is

the way this changes kind of our conception of ourselves and the way we think about ourselves as individuals in a society.

Okay, so stop there for a second.

If I can hold you for just a couple of more minutes after the break, I'd like you to finish that thought

because I think this is important.

The world is being redesigned, and it's being redesigned without any of us really understanding it, and we should go in open-eyed.

We are a country that

is founded on basic individual rights, and some of those rights, property rights.

You have a right to own things, right to ownership.

You know, possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Well, not in the future.

In fact, in many cases, not even now.

You buy things online.

Sometimes you're not actually buying them.

You're just renting them.

You're entering an ongoing relationship.

What does this mean for

society?

How is this going to change us?

Will it even change the way we view things and change some fundamental concepts of what it means here in America of individual rights?

We have Aaron Pereznowski on with us, professor of law and the author of the book, What We Buy, When We Buy, Now.

And you can find more information at theendofownership.com.

Aaron, so tell me how you've been looking at this.

So I think in the short term, what we're likely to see are more changes in the way our commercial interactions occur, in the way that commercial transactions are structured.

We're going to start to see people become more and more accustomed to paying for temporary access to resources rather than owning them.

And in some ways, I think that makes some degree of sense.

There are some people for whom owning a car isn't necessary.

They'd rather be able to take a lift or use some sort of car share application.

And I think that makes a lot of sense.

What I'm worried about is the long-term

set of implications for a shift away from ownership and towards temporary access, a shift away from independent control of resources to one where we have to rely on permission or the sort of goodwill of the companies that control access to these goods.

May I give you an example and see if I'm on the right track?

I buy a car and I love this car and I want to keep it and it's a classic car, but I don't own the software that runs the car.

And if at any time the software company says, no, I'm not going to, we're not going to support that, or we want to discontinue, or whatever,

I have a heap of junk.

I can't do anything with it because I don't own the software that runs it.

I think the car is a great example.

We see this issue come up in the motor vehicle context.

The way it's come up

most recently and most often is actually not with cars but with tractors.

John Deere,

the long-running American farm equipment company, makes exactly this argument that they own the software in the tractors that they sell to American farmers.

And that means that farmers can only get their tractors repaired by authorized John Deere

dealers.

They can't do it themselves.

They can't go to their local mom-and-pop

repair shop.

I think those kinds of changes are really troubling because they go to this sense of independence and this sense of autonomy that we're all independent actors in the world who can make our own decisions, who can decide what's best for us.

Do we want to keep this tractor as it is?

Do we want to modify it?

Do we want to repair it?

Those decisions are being taken away from individual consumers, and you're being forced to play by a set of rules dictated by the companies who quote unquote sell you these products.

And

doesn't that also stop innovation?

I mean, sometimes the guy who takes something and then tinkers with it comes up with a better system.

But

if I'm locked out of tinkering on my own property,

it almost creates this

feeling of, oh, well, that's just the way it is, and that's the way it always is going to be.

It just runs that way.

And it stops innovation, doesn't it?

I think it has the real risk of doing that.

It discourages people from being creative.

It discourages people from,

as you say, tinkering with the things that they own.

We have a lot of incredible innovations that have been made over the centuries in this country that didn't come from giant corporate R ⁇ D departments.

They came from individuals messing around with things that they own in their garage.

And there is a risk that we're foreclosing those kinds of opportunities.

But even more broadly than that,

if we're discouraged from thinking of ourselves as independent actors in the world,

I worry that that creates a sort of complacency

in our population, in our country.

And

not to zoom out to too wide of a level here, but for a democracy to function, people have to feel and they have to be in charge of their own lives.

They have to be invested in making informed decisions.

And I worry that

this lack of control over the everyday decisions might play into a much broader set of problems when it comes to people feeling like active participants in society and democracy.

I couldn't agree with you.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I just don't think this is the way society is thinking anymore.

Everything is about the collective, and very little is about the individual.

And, you know, I think

you understated the case of tinkerers.

I mean, if you look at the inventions in America, a lot of them, a lot of our progress came from what used to be called tinkerers, people who just did things in their own garage.

And now, whether it's the government or these corporations, everyone is being told, that's the way it is.

Sit down, shut up, you can't do anything about it.

And I think that's extraordinary.

I mean, mean, that, you know, in decades, that's what created China in many ways.

That's what they don't think of things the same way that we do.

They don't have that

spirit of invention that America has always been known for.

So I agree with you that

the history of innovation in this country has benefited greatly from individual creators.

And we need to keep an environment in which people have that ability to experiment,

to innovate, and ultimately to share that progress with the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

I worry that we're moving in a direction where

people aren't able to build those skill sets because they live in a world of sort of locked down digital devices.

So let me ask you one more question and I'll let you go.

I know you've spent twice the amount of time here that you probably planned on.

But let me ask you one more question.

I am really concerned about copyrights, patents, trademarks.

We seem to be entering a world where people don't take somebody's intellectual property seriously

on the other side of this.

They just feel that, well, I can download it.

I can just take it.

And we shouldn't have intellectual property rights.

That is frightening because again, that was the second piece of the American experiment was you have a right to that intellectual property for a period of time so you can make money on it, which encourages other people to come up with their own ideas.

Do you see this fading?

And is this trouble on the horizon as well?

So I write and teach about intellectual property, and it's something that I take very seriously.

And one of the things that I always try to communicate to my students is that the intellectual property system functions best when there is a balance between the interests of the public and the interests of creators.

And the history of intellectual property, copyright in particular, is a history of a struggle to find and maintain that appropriate balance.

And I think we're going through and have been going through kind of since the widespread adoption of the Internet, a period where we're struggling with how to answer some of those questions.

There are certainly areas in which

copyright holders have legitimate concerns about their works being exploited without compensation.

And on the other hand, we live in a culture in which

copyrighted works are sort of

increasingly being distributed within these environments like Apple and Amazon, for example, where consumers can't do the things that they think they're entitled or should be entitled to do with them.

So I think that part of the solution here is providing consumers a strong incentive to pay for these works.

That's one of the things that streaming services, I think, have gotten right,

which is that they offer a really attractive deal to consumers.

So people learn that if they're going to access the world's library of music, they have to pay for the privilege of doing that.

Figuring out how that money gets distributed and what the right price point is, I think, is one of the sticking points.

So it's an important set of questions and one that I probably can't do justice to

with a couple minutes.

Exactly.

all right aaron thank you so much i appreciate it and i appreciate uh your thoughtfulness uh on this uh and we'll keep watching for uh updates thank you so much aaron paranowski

you bet he is uh he's found at the uh website theendofownership.com

i had him on for a couple of reasons one

You have to know the books that you buy, the videos that you buy, everything that you buy says rent or buy.

When you buy, you're not really buying it.

You don't own it.

And in a world

where

opinions and thoughts and ideas are under siege, you don't have to burn books anymore.

All you have to do is get one of the providers or a couple of the providers just to delete them from everyone's library and they are gone forever.

Think about that.

Next time you want to download something, what are the books you want to download?

And what are the books you want to own?

American Financing.

By the way, so you know, I don't get any more money if I sell a book or I sell a digital download.

It's not about that at all.

So it is about preserving information.

American Financing.

American Financing is there.

If you want to buy a house, now might be the time to buy a house.

It is a buyer's market right now.

The trends on homes has gone down here in the last couple of months.

And so now you probably have a better chance of negotiating because everybody really wants to sell their home before the holidays and close before the holidays.

So if you are looking for a home, you need to be qualified.

American Financing can get you qualified in just a couple of minutes.

Just go to AmericanFinancing.net or you call one of the operators at 800-906-2440 and they'll put you in touch with somebody that can help you.

800-906-2440.

They will help you get a loan or refinance.

If you are looking to consolidate all of your loans and refinance under your mortgage, you don't have to add extra years or anything like that.

If you're looking to get out of a variable loan and get into a fixed mortgage, please do that.

AmericanFinancing.net can help you.

Now, these are salary-based mortgage consultants.

They don't work on commissions, so they they are looking for you.

They listen to you.

What do you want?

How much do you want to pay?

You know, what can you afford?

What should you do for down payments, etc., etc.?

They have an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau, and they have all the bells and whistles, but they do not work for a bank.

That's critical.

They're independent and they work for you.

AmericanFinancing.net.

Go to AmericanFinancing.net or call 800-906-2440.

800-906-2440, American Financing dot net.

American Financing Corporation, NMLS 1-82334, www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org.

Glad you're here.

There is a new documentary out.

It's called The Creepy Line.

And it's all about how Google and Facebook are

shaping people and shaping their points of view and steering you to to places.

It is a creepy line.

We have the author of this coming up in just a second.

And it is

staggering.

And I don't think people...

What people are looking at are deplatforming and things like that.

They are not thinking about the subtle moves.

You know, if I controlled the information you had and I controlled what you saw and read first,

and you had to really dig down to find other things,

I could shape your worldview.

What's truly frightening is the idea that if a government ever decided to get involved, you could shape

an individual's worldview.

You could breed killers.

Over time, if I just keep pointing you and directing you to things that are pissing you off,

and I keep pointing to you things that are showing you you're the victim of this particular person,

and I know who you are, I know you're already an unstable person because I have your whole life in front of me.

I see what you're doing anyway.

I can go into the public and I can select the unstable and I can wind them up.

Now, I am not saying that Google or Facebook is doing that.

I don't even

do not connect this to them,

but that is what they have the ability to do, as well as the governments of the world have the ability to do that.

What they are doing

is they are shaping us by putting, through their algorithms, putting information in front of us that they prefer.

Their algorithms are not transparent i believe these algorithms should be 100 transparent and you should know about it you should be able to have control of your own algorithm imagine if you had control of your own algorithm and you put it at the settings that they have the default now tilt it to the right

google search see what happens tilt it to the left see what happens can you imagine if you had the ability to

contrast and compare based on what you felt?

I wonder what you'd find.

The creepy line.

In just a second.

Also, Keith Ellison, the evidence against him versus the evidence against Kavanaugh.

Glenn back.

Mercury.

Glenn Beck is coming live to talk about the right path forward and to make fun of the people standing in the way.

He might not be able to save the country, but at least we can all go down laughing.

Glenn Beck Live, the Addicted to Outrage tour, on tour this fall.

Glenn Back.

All right, I want to tell you a tale of two people.

First of all,

we have the accusations of not the victim, the accuser.

You cannot be a victim unless we have proven that there was a crime that happened.

So she is the accuser, and here's what the accuser said.

37 years ago, this guy tried to tear my clothes off.

He put his hand over my mouth.

She described a horrible, horrible scene.

Feel bad for her if that's what happened.

Now, here's the evidence.

She named four people, including one of her best friends.

All four denied any knowledge and any memory of this happening at all.

She also does not know the time, the place, or even the year.

In fact, the year

has changed four times in the last few months.

She has no pictures.

She has no letters from the time.

She has no evidence from the time.

Not a single soul will confirm this.

The doctor, she went to a doctor.

This is years later, 30 years later.

The doctor recorded that she did talk about this.

But the time that she talked about it, the number of boys that were involved in this were different.

In fact, the number of boys had doubled at that time.

There were four, not two, and Kavanaugh was not named.

She's also on record against Trump and on the board of directors of a group that was whose mission was to block Trump's Supreme Court nominees.

That's the evidence.

57%

of Democratic women believe her.

On what?

Now, let me give you the evidence of another accuser.

I do not say victim, I say accuser.

Someone who has made the accusation that Keith Ellison was physically abusive in a relationship, not 37 years ago, but in 2016.

Here's the evidence.

The son of Ellison's now ex-girlfriend wrote on Facebook in the middle of 2017, I clicked on a file, I found over 100 text and Twitter messages and a video almost two minutes long that showed Keith Ellison dragging my mother off the bed by her feet, screaming and calling her an effing

bee.

telling her to get the F out of the house.

The messages I found were mixed with him consistently telling my mom he wanted her back, he missed her, he knew that he had screwed up, and he wished he could do things differently.

He would victim shame, bully her, and threaten her if she went public.

I texted him and told him I know what you did to my mother and a few other things.

The woman was forced to come out and say, yes, that is true.

It's the most difficult form of abuse to articulate.

I didn't want it to come out, but this is a slow, insidious form of abuse.

You don't realize it is happening until it's too late.

The accuser wrote, four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I have come to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly.

I shared multiple texts between me and Keith Ellison, where I discussed the abuse with him and much more.

She said, I knew I would not be believed.

In 2005, Ellison also faced accusations of domestic abuse for making harassing phone calls in which he threatened to, quote, destroy a woman.

She threatened to file a restraining order.

The woman wrote in an affidavit that she and Ellison had been in a romantic relationship, that she had pushed, shoved, he had pushed, shoved, and verbally abused her, and had a lawyer intimidate and threaten her.

This particular woman in Minnesota, the ex-girlfriend from 2016, did go to a doctor.

At the time, the doctor has released the notes.

All of these claims are consistent with what she told the doctor at the time.

The doctor was treating her for abuse.

5% of Democratic women believe this.

So please,

Democrats do not

start with me believe the woman believe the victim because you don't you don't you believe the person that will further your political agenda it is just that simple now I am not saying that the right doesn't do that as well

I'm just saying as someone who is standing here watching the world go insane, I'm not going to play either side.

I'm not going to jump in or off this cliff with the rest of humanity.

I do not believe the victim.

I will take seriously the account of the accuser.

Then I will look at the facts.

If there is a preponderance of evidence, then I will presume that person either innocent or guilty.

But after I've seen facts,

if this kind of stuff was going on, this should all be in the court of law.

If you are a victim, society will do nothing for you because we cannot do anything for you if you haven't gone to the police and reported it.

If you believe that we live in a rape culture, then you have a responsibility to go to the police and document everything that has been done.

Then, we as a society need to do everything we can to make sure that justice is served, not on a collective basis, but judging it by the individual case.

That

is a just society.

That

is America.

It's Wednesday, October 3rd.

You're listening to the Glenbeck program.

One of my favorite guys because he is, he does his own homework.

He rolls up his sleeves.

He looks and he tells the truth as he finds it.

Peter Schweitzer is here.

He's the president of Government Accountability Institute and a producer of a new documentary that's out called The Creepy Line.

And that is exactly the right right name for it.

It is.

And it actually, the creepy line comes from a speech that Eric Smith, Schmidt, the CEO of Google, gave.

It was an interview, in fact, where he was asked, how do you make these ethical judgments about how far you're going to go?

And the interviewer actually asks Schmidt, are you going to implant things in our brain?

And Eric Schmidt's response was, well, we like to go right up to the creepy line.

but not cross it.

And he said, we're not going to implant anything in your brain, at least not yet.

Those are actually actually Eric Schmidt's word.

And

he's, I find him incredibly frank.

Yes.

He just, he says it like it is.

Yes.

I've interviewed him a couple of times, and it is fascinating.

Yes.

Because he's just telling you.

He doesn't sugarcoat it.

And I think it's his background as an engineer.

And he's sort of very direct.

I mean, one of the other things we quote him in the film is saying is that Google has and takes very seriously its responsibility to change the values of American people?

You know, Google's mantra has always been: they are more than just a company to make money.

They have a certain ethos, a certain worldview.

And part of the reason that they structured the company the way they did, in which the founders always have controlling shares, is that that sense of social mission is part of it.

And Schmidt has been always very direct about saying it.

Yes, part of our mission as a company has been to try to shape and change the values of the United States.

And that's sort of one of the premises of this film: that it's not just about privacy.

It's not that they're taking all this information.

Glenn, they're using that information against us to try to nudge us or to move us into directions that we wouldn't ordinarily want to go.

Okay, so

let's can you tie this all to Kavanaugh and what we've seen with the Kavanaugh case and how,

for instance, you know, there's there's

this overwhelming

understanding from half the country that he is absolutely guilty and she is a victim.

Right.

And there's a lot of information on the other side, in fact, more information on the other side, but you're not really seeing that.

Right.

Yeah, it's, it's very hard because this is happening in real time right now to sort of monitor what's Google doing, but we can look at the past.

In fact, one of the things we feature in the film is a study done by Robert Epstein.

Epstein's a very interesting guy.

He's a Harvard PhD in psychology, studied under B.F.

Skinner, was a former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today magazine.

And by the way, and this is very relevant, was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2016.

Well, one of the things he did in the 2016 election was he had 2,000 people around the country doing Google searches, and they monitored the results that people were getting.

This is a very, you know, clear academic study, and this this research was peer-reviewed, as his other work was.

And what came back was that Google was systematically skewing search results in favor of Hillary Clinton.

In other words, they were suppressing negative stories about Hillary and the algorithm, and they were pushing them in favor of Donald Trump.

And Epstein's point was, I actually supported Hillary Clinton, thought she was more qualified, but the bottom line is a company should not be doing this.

And it's secret.

You don't know that it's going on.

Nobody's monitoring the results they're getting they're assuming the results and the list that they're getting is representative of some objective standard google is a google is a verb now it's not a noun it's a it's a verb i don't know google it yes well if you google it and the and the algorithm is giving you the answer that is skewed right that's like going to a dictionary that will always change the definitions of things as it applies to whatever's happening in the world yes that's real problem.

No, you're exactly right.

And so in the context of Kavanaugh, I mean, I don't know exactly because it's occurring in real time, but the bottom line is there is a history here of Google doing this.

It was leaked a couple of weeks ago.

Tucker Carlson talked about it on Fox about these internal emails where you actually had Google engineers saying, hey, you know what?

We don't like...

you know, Trump's policy on immigration, so we want to sort of suppress certain stories.

this is a thing and google does it and and here's the the the the point that we try to make glenn in this film and in general the whole conversation that google wants to have is about fake news and this debate about fake news here's the here's the bottom line fake news is competitive if you and i are having a disagreement about something i put up my fake news story and you say oh yeah i'm going to put up my fake news story the point is it's out in the open you have combat and by the way fake news doesn't really convince anybody you know if you like Hillary Clinton, that fake news ad that the Russians ran of Jesus and Hillary arm wrestling is probably not going to convince you to vote a different way.

That wasn't a real arm wrestling competition.

But, you know,

the point is, is that that's not going to convince anybody because of confirmation bias.

You know, people tend to look for information they want.

What Google's doing is different because we don't know what we don't know.

The question that we should be asking people, Google and Facebook, is why will you not make your algorithm transparent?

Right.

Why will you not?

I mean, and let me take a quick break and come back.

Do you have an answer, their answer on why they won't make it transparent?

Yes, and it's not very good.

Yeah, I bet it's not.

I bet it's not.

All right, the name of the documentary is the creepy line, thecreepyline.com.

Peter Schweitzer is with us, and we have a lot to discuss because of deplatforming

and kind of a roll-in from our last conversation about information.

How do you know that it's true and

will true information,

will actual information, will you be allowed to see or keep in the future?

First, let me tell you about our sponsor this half hour.

It is Car Shield.

We want to thank Car Shield for not only being a sponsor, but also I want to personally thank them for helping me save a buttload of money.

I didn't know.

I took my truck in to have an oil change.

I get there and, you know, the guy, I think the guy would have been a little more, um, I just have to tell you that this is $6,500

and might have just called, could I hang on, Mr.

Beck, could I get some police back up here or something?

He might go crazy.

When you go in for an oil change and they tell you, oh, it's $6,500.

That's a freakout.

Not when you have Car Shield, though.

Thank you.

Not when you have Car Shield.

They covered it.

I didn't even know about it.

I know.

You get to take the stress out of the situation.

Oh, I don't care.

In charge me $50,000.

I don't care.

Yeah.

I mean, that really costs it.

I mean, I care for something like it.

It would affect the whole insurance kind of program.

You know, like a lot of people.

That's not my problem.

That's Car Shield's program.

That's right.

That's right.

Screw them.

Anyway, the great thing is: if you need coverage, if your car has

5,000, 150,000 miles, it doesn't matter.

You call Car Shield

and get your car covered for all of these crazy things.

$1,000 for a new sensor?

I don't know.

CarShield to cover it.

You can have anybody do the work because you're not waiting for the check.

You don't have to pay the mechanic or the dealership.

Doesn't matter.

Car 6100, 800, Car 6100.

That's the number to call.

Get yourself protected.

Carshield.com.

That's carshield.com.

Make sure you use the promo code Beck.

You'll save 10%.

CarShield.com.

Deductible may apply.

We are talking to Larry Schweitzer.

He is the president of Government Accountability Institute, the producer of a documentary called The Creepy Line, theCreepyline.com.

We're talking about Google, and Larry, I've never...

I've never believed in those dystopian movies.

I've always made fun of them and said, yo,

this is crazy.

The corporation's out to get you.

Because of their algorithms, because they are so all-encompassing, that is the world we're headed towards.

What do they tell you when they say

algorithms?

Oh, no, we have to keep that top secret because.

Yeah, what they argue is it's for reasons of

state secret.

And

that they need to protect their trade secrets.

They need to be

making sure that nobody gets access to it.

There's some truth to that, but there are a lot of things that they could do to demonstrate that they're offering a fair product and service to people.

And here's the thing, Glenn.

They have lied about this before.

You know, 10 years ago or so, you had other companies like TripAdvisor and Yelp who were saying that Google was artificially suppressing their rankings in Google in favor of Google-owned companies, which, okay, you know, Google has the right to do that.

But here's the thing.

Google flat out lied and said, absolutely not.

We don't do that.

Our algorithm is pure.

It's true.

The best results are

organically at the top.

Well, here's the problem.

The Federal Trade Commission, the European Union, professors at Harvard University looked at this and said, BS, you are fiddling with the algorithm.

You are screwing these other competitors and you're lying.

So the point is when Google says you can trust the algorithm, you can trust us, they've lied before and they're lying now.

And I think the only question that remains really is how are we going to deal with this?

You know, there's an old story that Henry Kissinger said when he's on the National Security Council.

You give a president three choices: do nothing, take my solution, or thermonuclear war.

Those are your three choices.

In this case, it's kind of like that.

We can do nothing.

We can try to deal with some sort of the regulatory issues related with Google, or we can break up these companies.

Those are the three options that we have.

And I think we're really at the point of point number three.

Because this is not a monopoly like Standard Oil, Standard Oil that's going to dominate the oil market.

This is controlling the news flow in the United States.

This is in the end.

This is in the end, Peter,

controlling everything.

Yes.

Google is

the most likely company in

the American world to come up with AI.

Yes.

Whoever gets to AI first

controls everything.

There's no way to beat it once you have AI.

Yes.

This company is the most likely in the free world to come up with it.

If we don't have them

contained in some way or another, when they get to AI, we're toast.

Yes.

Yes.

That's exactly right.

And here's the thing.

It's not just...

Google the company.

A lot of people don't realize this.

I didn't realize this.

If you use Safari on your Apple product, you're actually using the Google algorithm, and that is Google information.

If you are using Yahoo, you're using Google.

The point being, Firefox is Google.

All these entities are using the Google algorithm.

So even if you say, I am not going to use Google.com,

unless you are making very specific choices for other options, if you're using any of those others, Google is the one that's dominating it.

And by the way, Google pays Apple $9 billion a year.

Google actually pays Apple to be the algorithm of choice for Safari.

That's how much they value this information and want to dominate this space.

So I want to talk to you a little bit about

what can be done

with the algorithm.

I'm concerned about some things that I think are really dangerous and deplatforming and erasing voices

because Google thinks, ah, that's, you know, that's not right.

That's hate speech.

We'll get to that when we come back

this is the Glenn Beck program Peter Schweitzer is with us president of government accountability institute producer of a new documentary that is out you find it at thecreepyline calm the creepy line and it comes from a a quote from the guy who's running Google that you know we we're not going to implant things into your head but we're going to come right up to that creepy line that's terrifying to hear from somebody who's in charge of Google.

Peter,

I want to talk to you about deplatforming.

I am currently saying to anyone who has a conservative voice, let's all get on a single server.

Let's get on to our own platform together.

We don't have to join business or anything, but we have to have a protected platform because I believe these companies are going to de-platform us one by one.

Is this what you've been doing, Glenn here?

Yeah, and I think you're very smart to do that.

I think you're very smart to do that because let's step back and first consider the power of Google.

And a lot of people don't realize this, but it was widely reported in The Guardian elsewhere.

In 2009, Google actually shut down the entire internet for two hours on a Saturday morning.

They blacklisted the entire internet.

That shows you the scope and the size that Google has.

Wait a minute.

They blacklisted the entire internet.

If you go to the Guardian.

You mean WWW?

Yes.

They shut down the entire Internet.

A couple of years later, they shut down half of Japan's internet.

They said it was sort of an error that they, but the point being, the size and the scope of this company is enormous.

And a lot of people don't realize, even if they're not using a Google product, somebody will say, well, I don't use Gmail.

I'm not worried about Gmail.

That's fine.

But is your company, you know, it may be johnsmith at acmeincorporated.com, acmeincorporated.com, but is Acme Incorporated's email server actually a Google product?

Because if it is,

Google is monitoring and watching what you're doing.

And it's part of the data collection they're doing on you.

A lot of news organizations in the United States use Google.

We highlight in the film, for example, Robert Epstein, this scholar who has been critical of Google.

A Clinton supporter.

A Clinton supporter,

you know, Harvard PhD in psychology, ran, did some studies, and the Washington Post ran a piece about could Google swing an election?

This is back in 2012.

The next day, Robert Epstein was shut out of Google.

He could not get on Firefox.

He could not get

on any of the Google products.

They had shut him out.

Same thing happened to Jordan Peterson, University of Toronto professor, who had taken a position about forced speech on

gender pronouns.

The next morning, when that went public, he was locked out of his Gmail account and Google would not let him back into his Gmail account.

All of his emails, his calendars, and everything, he was blocked from.

The point being, they have a lot of power, and you cannot assume that Google is not going to take these actions.

People will say a lot of times, well, they're a company.

They want to make their customers happy.

They are more than a traditional company.

They say so themselves.

They view themselves as a company with a mission.

So here's what people say when, you know, well, I use Gmail.

Well, you know, Google is monitoring your mail.

They're not reading my mail.

Actually, you are both right and wrong.

They are not reading your mail.

However, they are analyzing your mail because what they're doing is collecting the information on how people relate to one another, how people talk to one another, all for their AI research.

So, Google isn't free

for no reason.

That's exactly exactly right.

You are the product.

People always say, what is Google's product?

You are the product because they are selling information on Glenn Beck or on Peter Schweitzer or on whoever.

And more importantly, I think they are analyzing all of it.

Look,

this is just at the beginning.

Let me tell you a spooky story.

You go to Beijing, there are three concentric circles of security in Beijing.

The center is the main city of Beijing.

How many people, you should look it up for me, will you still?

How many millions of people are living in Beijing?

In the city proper, that is the inner circle, there is so much monitoring going on.

They just did a test.

They released a guy.

They took a guy, picked somebody, said, go into the center of the city, just go hide.

Okay.

They had the picture of the guy.

And the Chinese tested this brand new system.

And then after like an hour or two, they gave the system the picture of the guy and said find him in eight minutes he was in the back of a squad car unbelievable in eight

minutes yes city of 22 million yeah 22 million it's amazing in eight minutes yeah so And this is without AI.

This is the kind of stuff that is coming that people really need to pay attention to.

That's right.

And Google is at the forefront of that.

They take a position of pride that they are the forefront of exploiting future technologies.

Real quick though on Gmail, this is very important for people to realize.

It just shows you how far Google goes.

I used to have a Gmail account.

Now, what Gmail does is they scan every email that comes into your Gmail account and every email you send out.

You know what else they scan?

If you've ever written a draft email, let's say you're mad at your cousin, you know, I'm sick of, you know, cousin Chris and all the crazy stuff he does.

And you're late one night, you write a draft and you say, you know what?

I don't think I'm going to send that to chris that's just mean hang on just a second i want to make sure this is writing a draft but that's not saving it as a draft that's correct it's just you it counts the delete ah delete delete delete delete delete it's not even saving it as a draft right that's correct that's correct it's scanned by google so google knows more about you than you know you can have a very open and completely transparent relationship with anybody in your life your spouse your best friend whatever google knows more about you than they do.

And they are very aggressively going to retain that information, but they're using it against you.

Here's the key thing.

It's not just privacy, it's manipulation because they want to take that information and not just sell information to advertisers.

They, as part of their mission, want to steer and move your life in a certain direction that they deem is the way the direction your life should go.

Remember to Peter Schweitzer, the documentary is the creepy line.

Let me push back on a couple of things.

Sure.

Or at least problems I have because I'm with you on 90% of this.

One issue I have is Google is awesome.

All of the products that they make are better than everybody else's product that is similar.

Correct.

And it would incredibly inconvenience me to give up Google because all of their products work better than everybody else's products.

Jeeves doesn't know anything.

Oh, thank you.

What do you do?

Because, I mean, yes, they're everywhere, but they also do a really good job

when it comes to designing an easy-to-use product.

Right.

No, there's a lot of things.

how do you break away that's that's a great question, and it's not easy.

I mean, there are alternative search

systems out there,

but none of them are as good as Google.

And it's not really a challenge.

I think that's a road that people will go down that you shouldn't go down.

What we should go down is we should be talking to the people in what no, no, no.

We should be sending people who understand this to Washington because by the time we talk to Washington, it's already over.

We need people who understand the ethics of what's going on with high-tech in Washington because they need to have this conversation right now.

It's not about us changing our behavior.

It's to the point we must corral Google and break them up or corral them in some way, not with just little litigation, because I mean not litigation, but not with just little simple laws.

Because they'll go around that that fast.

Right.

Okay, let me one other one.

Yeah.

You said this earlier, and it made me very uncomfortable.

And my suspicion is it makes you very uncomfortable too, which is your solution was you were leaning towards breaking up these companies.

And as a capitalist, as a person who does not want the government involved in private business, I mean,

how do you bridge that gap?

No, I mean, I think that's a great point.

And I came reluctantly to this as I looked at all the possible things to do with Google.

Here's the problem.

In this space, the way that technology is moving, how Google exerts its market dominance,

we really do not have a free market in search.

It's really impossible.

In fact, one of the guys, we interviewed the vice president of Yelp

in our film, and the founder of Yelp said he wouldn't start Yelp today because it'd be impossible.

Google would smother them.

The only reason that Yelp and these other entities have survived is they have built up enough brand equity when they were founded, what, 15, 20 years ago, to where they can exist.

So we have a situation where there truly is not a functioning monopoly.

And by the way, Google's market dominance is partly related to its political alliance in Washington.

They pass laws and rules all the time to squelch competition that are to their benefit.

And to do things like deplatforming.

Yes.

We are not a publisher.

We're a platform.

Right.

Then they go in and they edit.

Well, now you're a publisher.

You're not a platform.

So they play it both ways, and they have the money to do it yes and that's a hugely important point because when they first wanted to set up the regulation for the internet it was if you are a publisher you're treated as a media company if you're a neutral platform which is what google and facebook claim they are they say we're not going to edit any content they even use the analogy we're like a telegraph we're just taking a telegraph message from peter and we're sending it to glenn nothing else is happening well we all know that's not true now they're editing uh they're censoring so they are acting as publishers but unlike other publishers, they don't face the legal or regulatory burdens that they do, so it's uneven competition.

Or even the public scrutiny, even the public, you sound like you're crazy if you talk against Google.

Oh, they're editing.

No, they are.

Right.

Would one solution be to make their algorithms transparent?

Yes, that would help, but the algorithm is changing constantly.

And I do get, I am sympathetic to their argument that this is a trade secret that they've worked very, very hard to develop, and they have.

I think by breaking them up into pieces, and by the way, I don't think it's just two companies.

I think it's several different companies.

And alphabets.

Exactly.

I think would be extremely helpful in the way to go on this because otherwise they're going to continue to re-exert market dominance.

The other thing I hear conservatives talk about, and I find this terrifying, is to make them a utility.

Oh, no, no.

that is terrifying.

I don't know what the utilities are like here in Dallas.

Oh, no.

We don't.

In Texas, Texas, we don't really have it.

We have open energy.

Yeah.

Oh, that's right.

So we have like five different energy companies and we don't pay anything.

Yeah.

The notion of making Google a public utility, which really means you're making it a government utility, now means you've got the government.

controlling search.

No, I have no interest in that whatsoever.

And what you are seeing is this merging of Google, which used to be generally out of politics, very little lobbying, very little interaction.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, you saw this enormous influx of Google people into Washington, D.C., and they've stayed.

So it is now one of the most plugged in, if not the most plugged-in, corporation in America.

So this notion that there are kind of these wildcatters out in Silicon Valley that are like independent from government is just totally ridiculous.

I could spend two days with you.

I've really enjoyed this.

He's going to take a hard pass on that.

So you're aware.

I mean, I'll buy you flowers and drinks.

It's Peter Schweitzer.

He is the president of Government Accountability Institute.

The documentary is called The Creepy Line.

How do you see it?

It's going to be available shortly on Amazon, iTunes.

There's a trailer on the webpage, and we'd love to get feedback from you.

And it won't be on YouTube, I bet.

All right.

Thank you so much, Peter.

Thanks.

All right.

right uh

our sponsor this half hour is lifelock

you know as we look at as we look at technology and uh how people are into everything lifelock here let me give you this on facebook facebook approximately 50 million accounts were accidentally exposed whoops somebody went in and took 50 million account names and all of the information do you know is that even you do you have any idea?

Personal information from a data breach.

Criminals use it to open accounts, file tax returns, buy property.

There are so many threats to your identity right now.

I remember, I've been thinking about this for a week.

I remember when, remember when Lifelock came out and said, I'll put my security card on buses.

Do you remember that?

Oh, my social security card.

My social security card, yeah.

Okay.

I remember at that time thinking, well, that's stupid.

But that's not going to happen.

Who's going to get my social security card?

We didn't think in those terms.

This company was so far ahead.

Yeah, they really were.

Now, this all matters.

And the new Life Lock identity theft protection adds the power of Norton Security to protect you against the threats to your identity and your devices.

Now, nobody can stop all cyber threats, prevent all identity theft, or monitor all transactions in all businesses, but the new Life Lock with Norton Security sees the threats that you're going to miss.

Lifelock.com or call 1-800-Lifelock.

Use the promo code Beck.

Get an extra 10% off your first year, plus a $25 gift certificate with annual enrollment at lifelock.com.

1-800-LifeLock.

Use the promo code Beck.

Terms and conditions to apply.

Glenn, back.

I'm going to thank Larry for being on it.

He is.

You're at the

have never pronounced a name correctly on the air.

I mean, starting with me, I'm

Steve.

Peter, it's the same.

My name is Steve, and you've been calling me Stu for a million years.

Larry was great, wasn't he?

His name is Peter.

What was the other guy?

Aaron

Brockovich.

That's about how close you came on his name.

Well, it's, you know,

it is a sickness with you.

It is.

No, it's only one of those things.

It's a psychic psychological illness.

Here it is.

And I agree with that.

I really do.

Here's what it is.

I have such a fear of mispronouncing names and getting them wrong and everything everything else that I can know a name and I still won't say it.

Oh my God, you should have.

I mean, if you were in this room, America, before the interview with

Peter.

No, with Aaron.

Oh.

The first interview.

We did an hour two.

Literally, before we went on the air, Glenn just repeated his last name correctly 20 times in a row.

So he

had it right.

And then in the interview, not even once did he come close to saying it right.

No.

Nope.

But off the air, I can say it absolutely perfectly.

It is a sickness.

It is.

I do have a

real mental block with names.

And I really, I feel like I have that too, but you are like.

No, it's horrible with me.

Anyway, you're deep into it.

Okay, so on tomorrow's program, tomorrow we're going to talk a little in-depth about the book

Addicted to Outrage, and I'm looking for people who have read it.

Anybody who makes it on the show tomorrow and you've read the book, you get a signed copy.

I'll send it out to you.

Or the audio book, too, right?

Or the audiobook, whichever you prefer.

The audiobook is really good.

But I'll send either one, but you have to have read it because I want to get into the things that you disagree with, the things that you don't understand, get into some of the other topics.

I'd love to see how people apply the stuff in the book to the Kavanaugh thing.

It's so close.

Oh,

I think it's all there.

We'll see if people who read the book are connecting the dots.

That's tomorrow on radio.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.