'Little Steps of Courage'? - 9/26/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Glenn back.

We believe survivors.

We believe survivors.

We believe survivors.

Let my wife throw.

We

that sounds peaceful and nice doesn't it that was washington dc antifa harassing ted cruz and his wife as they tried to have just a date night in an upscale dc restaurant The group followed Cruz into the building, surrounded them, yelled in their faces, and even surrounded their table.

Antifa filmed the entire thing as one of their members badgered Senator Cruz with a barrage of ridiculous questions about Brett Kavanaugh.

The couple eventually had to flee the restaurant.

What are we turning into, America?

Antifa was very proud of themselves.

They, of course, took to Twitter, claiming the entire operation in a long tweet thread, which included the video of the entire event.

It concluded with this, quote, this is a message to Ted Cruz, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, and the rest of the racist, sexist, transphobic, and homophobic right-wing scum.

You are not safe.

We will find you.

So now let me recap here for a minute.

Antifa tracked down a public figure in a public place, harassed him, yelled at both Cruz and his wife, then used the Twitter platform to make it go viral and added a threat to boot.

Now, we've been asking Twitter to show us some sort of standard that users can look to so we know what is or isn't suspendable or bannable offense on their platform.

It appeared we finally got that when they banned Alex Jones.

Now, if you remember right, why was Alex Jones banned?

Twitter had claimed that he had engaged and targeted and harassed CNN reporter Oliver Darcy.

They stated, and I quote, tweets designed to threaten, belittle, demean, and silence individuals have no place on this platform.

So here is a serious question for the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey.

How is what Antifa did to Senator Cruz and his wife any different at all to what you banned Alex Jones for?

In fact, Alex Jones seems tame in comparison.

They targeted two people at a public space.

They harassed them, belittled, demeaned, and tried to silence them.

They even went a step further and added an actual threat.

This is miles worse than what Alex Jones did to Oliver Darcy.

As of this morning, the Washington, D.C.

Antifa Twitter account at Smashracism D.C.

is still active.

Here's another question.

But this one is to Silicon Valley, or maybe maybe to that young dreamer who's starting a tech company out of their garage.

The free market is ripe to completely dethrone the social media landscape.

Found a company on the basis of actual freedom and actual free speech.

It is way past time for Twitter and Facebook to be pushed off of their pedestal.

It's Wednesday, September 26th.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

What does it take to stand up?

And what is it going to take in the future?

I've told you this for probably 10 years now.

Courage is a muscle, and you have to exercise that muscle, otherwise it will atrophy.

And when it comes time to actually use that muscle, you won't be prepared.

You won't be able to do it.

When muscles atrophy, the entire system is knocked out of balance.

The courage that it takes to speak your mind today

is pretty heavy.

You'll pay a heavy price to stand up for what you really, truly believe.

But it's worth it.

Because, in the end, the only thing you're going home with is your integrity.

That's the only thing that you have that really means anything, truly.

Take it from a guy who's lost everything before.

Your integrity,

your ability to recognize the truth, the hard truth, and say it first to yourself and to your friends and to your family.

That's a rare commodity,

and it's something that doesn't come without paying a price.

Heaven knows how to attach the

proper price

to whatever it is, courage, freedom, which go hand in hand.

The people who are standing up now in Antifa, they're not courageous

because they're not saying anything that they're having to pay for.

They're not going to pay a price.

They're beloved by the media.

They're protected by the media.

They're protected and danced around by anyone in power.

Speaking truth to power

that takes courage.

The power of the patriarchy,

it's...

There's no power there.

There's no power there.

The power of Washington?

There's no power.

The power is in the mob now.

The power to destroy somebody.

For the Republicans to stand up against the mob,

knowing that they all have skeletons in their closet, knowing that they could easily be smeared next.

Will they stand up?

Basic American principles are at stake:

decency,

kindness,

charity,

honesty, integrity,

justice,

justice.

Antiphos says this is about Brett Kavanaugh, but it's not.

It would have been about something else.

If it wasn't Brett Kavanaugh, it'd clearly be about something else.

They don't care.

They're trying to destroy the system.

Ted Cruz is viewed as a guy who wants to, you know, keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I know that's crazy and outrageous.

Wants to keep them intact.

He won't fold on Kavanaugh

unless there's a reason to fold.

But

one of those principles that we stand up for is innocent until proven guilty.

Since when did we become this nation of witch hunters?

Since when did

one person's voice matter more than another voice?

Since when have we felt comfortable living in a society that if you can tell a better story, if you can perform better,

if you're in the popular group,

you can destroy somebody else?

Because that's what's happening with Brett Kavanaugh.

I don't know if he's guilty or innocent.

I have no idea if this happened.

I can tell you just looking at the basic facts, there's nothing really there to be able to judge it on.

All I have is I have to believe one person over the other.

I don't know either of them.

How could I possibly make that judgment?

If the Republicans, assuming that something new doesn't come out, like, you know, a picture,

or all of a sudden, 40 other witnesses say, oh, I remember I was there,

which would be pretty hard.

They'd have to be cryogenically frozen and dethawed.

And then I would say, oh, okay, I understand why you were busy.

That's why you didn't step up earlier.

I can't imagine what it would be.

But unless new information and pretty really credible information come,

if the Republicans don't confirm him, they lose the House and the Senate.

Because at least half of this country is tired of the Salem witch trials.

And I'm not convinced that it's all the right that's tired of them.

Because let's be honest with ourselves.

If Chuck Schumer, if this was happening with Chuck Schumer, you'd want this to be true.

You'd want it to be true.

You'd want to cheer and say he's guilty.

Because it would remove him and you see him and I see him as an obstacle to the things that I think are right.

So you'd want want to believe that.

The question is, would we?

Would we fight just as hard for the

innocent

until proven guilty concept if it was on the other side?

I would hope the answer is yes, we would.

I'm not sure of that.

But I think it is with a lot of people in America.

I think it is yes.

And those are the people who are tired.

And those are the people looking for somebody to stand up against this.

This is already in our colleges, and it's coming to your office soon.

The Gulag

Archipelago is a very famous book about what happened in communist Russia, the Soviet Union.

And I was struck at the very beginning of it.

It talks about how people

never spoke up.

They never spoke up.

They were taken to the gulag in the middle of the night.

No charges, nothing.

But they never spoke up.

And there's a couple of reasons for it.

One,

even in the Soviet Union,

they expected to be exonerated.

They expected that they would be taken.

And this was some mistake.

It's not me.

I didn't do anything.

It's not me.

And so they didn't kick and scream.

They went quietly.

It was only until,

you know, they saw the show trial

where they weren't even allowed to defend themselves.

Some charges were made by some people that they don't even know.

They may not even have known the charges.

They're in jail.

There was no innocence until proven guilty.

But the people didn't stand up for two reasons.

One,

they thought it would be fair.

They thought that truth would somehow or another prevail.

But there was another reason

Because they had been beaten down so much.

They had the fight knocked out of them.

They knew no one would rise to the occasion and to their side.

Because they had allowed things to go so long, so far,

that they knew no one would come to their rescue.

Now, we're Americans.

It's time now for us as Americans to decide

who we are,

what we believe,

and if we're going to allow this kind of bullying to go on.

Or are we at least going to take the step and tweet to Jack?

I'm a user of yours,

Like Twitter.

Can't figure out your policy.

Can you tell me why Antifa, Washington, D.C., is still on today?

Can you tell me doesn't this violate everything you said you stood for?

Why is that happening?

That's an easy step to take today.

Moving your courage muscle.

But it's something that has to be done.

Something that has to be said.

The question is, will you say it it today?

I want to thank our sponsor, Mercury Real Estate, for making the program possible today.

Biggest investment you're going to make, your home.

How many real estate agents have you had, Pat, that you thought, oh, wow, they're really good.

They're really good.

I love this guy.

Have you had any?

Not that I can think of.

Yeah, not that I can think of.

You have a real estate agent come in and you think you have the right one, but how do you even know what the right one is?

Honestly, how do you know?

Do you even think about what is their advertising campaign like?

How are they going to get the word out?

What makes them different than everybody else?

We don't ask these questions mainly because we don't know their business.

1,500 real estate agents all across the country have been personally vetted by my team.

They have to be fans of the show, and

they have to share your sensibilities.

And they also have to have a proven track record in your area.

They have to be full-time in your area, great track record.

And then we put them to work.

And what you do is you write into us at realestateagentsitrust.com.

We find the agent in your area, the one who has the track record of selling homes in your area the fastest and for the most amount of money, but also taking care of families.

It's a big deal to move into a new neighborhood or to leave your old neighborhood.

That's why realestate agentsitrust.com are there and they're waiting for you.

Realestateagents I trust.com.

That's realestate agentsitrust.com.

I did a podcast with Lewis House.

He does the number one podcast, The School of Greatness.

Fascinating, fascinating conversation with this guy.

Really open and honest.

I really, really like him.

But towards the end, he asked me,

what is greatness?

What makes greatness?

And to me, it is courage.

And I want to play just a little bit of it.

This podcast just came out, Lewis Howes and School of Greatness.

Here's how I answered that question.

My son was probably 10.

He was taking karate,

taekwondo.

He corrects me.

And

he didn't realize that when he was going to get his first belt, there were going to be parents there, that there were going to be crowd.

Here's my son who's grown up around me.

He's terrified of crowds, okay?

Probably for a good reason.

He's terrified of crowds at this time.

And we start walking in and he sees people.

He's like, I'm not doing this, Dad.

I can't do this.

I can't do this.

It was the first time I saw my son like that.

And I said, son, it's no big deal.

It's no big deal.

It's just parents.

He's like, I can't do this.

I said, okay, let's get in the car.

So we get in the car and we're driving back.

And I'm thinking, how am I going to teach him this lesson?

He said, are you mad?

I said, no, I'm not.

I'm not.

I'm just trying to figure out how I can help you.

Get back to the house.

I take him into my office.

And in my office, I have, you have to come to my house sometime.

Yeah, we'll have to.

All over my walls in the office, it's kind of

layered.

The pictures and the things are all just layered on top of each other, okay?

And they're all people

from history and moments and

anywhere from one of the guys who

was the guy in Vietnam that was in the Hanoi Hilton who blinked his eyes to say, I've got the stuff he wrote all framed in there next to Winston Churchill, next to Gandhi and Rosa Parks and all of them.

And I sat there and I'm trying to think: what do I say to my son?

And I look up at all these people and I said,

Why do I have all of these pictures and all of these

items from history on my walls in my office?

And he said,

Because they're all heroes.

And I said, Yeah, they are, but that's not why I have them.

And he said,

Because they weren't afraid.

And I said, oh, son.

And I started with Wallenberg, Raul Wallenberg,

who is one of the greatest heroes in history.

And I said,

I'm guessing he was terrified.

I'm guessing, and I know enough because I've read his own words.

I know that Winston Churchill was terrified.

I know that George Washington was terrified.

I know the guy who was having his arms pulled out of his sockets in a Vietnamese prison camp was terrified.

But they did it.

They did it.

That's a great man.

Exercise.

Exercise.

And become great.

Little steps of courage will make you a great man or a great woman.

Addicted to outrage

The new book from Glenn Beck addicted to outrage is available everywhere order it now at Amazon calm

Let's go to Chuck in Ohio.

Hello Chuck you're on the Glenn Beck program.

I hey Glenn I've got a concern.

Here's my concern.

I have

family members who don't even know who Blasey is.

Seriously.

I've got family members that after everything you see going on they'll vote democrat no matter what and then actually i got some family members think kavanaugh's guilty and i forgot what the number was but there's a percentage of americans who don't even know who the vice president is yeah it's a good number okay

people don't care honestly six months after 911 everyone went back to their business and no one cared yep We've got a generation that doesn't care.

Wait, wait.

Which generation is that?

Honestly,

I'm a 56-year-old man, and my wife never even heard of Blovie.

Okay.

She never even heard of it.

Like that.

So

there's something wrong in America.

There's something wrong where something like this, where Ted Cruz can go with his wife to a restaurant and cannot sit down and eat.

There's something wrong with that.

Yes.

And nobody cares.

Well, it is human nature

to not care.

And that's one of the reasons why everything is being made about politics now, because that is easy to get away with because people just don't pay attention to politics.

But it's the culture that is leading our politics to that destination.

Have you talked to your family members about Kavanaugh and how does that work out?

My friend, I've got relatives right now.

We cannot speak because they think Hillary Clinton got robbed.

Well, calling her Killery probably doesn't help the argument.

We can't even speak because they think Hillary Clinton got robbed.

And you cannot talk to them.

They shout at you.

They yell at you.

I get cussed at.

I mean, anger literally.

And I asked them, why are you so angry?

You've got cell phones.

You've got Walmart.

You've got stuff I never had.

Why are you people so angry?

They don't know.

They can't tell you why.

they got an economy that's booming they've got a record low unemployment and they and they're but they're all mad everybody's mad at something

does it sound at all familiar to you this argument that you're making that they made to us while we were in the tea party under obama

do you remember them saying that to us look we've got health care now we've got all these businesses pardon me we

We didn't burn down cars.

We didn't burn down people's businesses.

We didn't hurt people.

I know.

We're hurting people.

I know.

We're destroying property.

Well, I asked my sister.

You really think when Obama was spewing his lies and fanning that fire on police officers that it was okay for those people in L.A.

to tear those businesses down and burn those police?

She said they probably deserved it.

That's the mindset.

What do you mean they probably deserved it?

It's kind of like this.

Kavanaugh probably did it.

So automatically, he's guilty.

Well, so here's the problem.

And

it is with social justice.

And if you remember when I first started taking on social justice, how hard the left put punched back.

I mean, I can remember the first punch came in.

Do you remember, Pat?

We were on the air together in New York, and the first first punches started to come in over social justice.

And I was like, whoa, we have hit a nerve.

Social justice is what allows people to say, like your sister just did,

that, you know, he probably did it.

So who cares?

Here's what I recommend you do.

First of all, go out and buy my new book on page 218,

page 218, 219, chapter 25, how to think,

not what to think.

And in it, it lays out all of the things that you need to look out for and need to be aware of, all the little tricks that anybody will play who's trying to steer you away from facts.

And it can happen on either side.

This is not a partisan issue.

This is something that everyone should know.

And it's how to argue.

It's how to listen to somebody else.

And it's also how to watch your language.

And I'm sure, Chuck, that you didn't say it this way to your sister, but when you said to me, you know, when Obama is spewing his lies, do you think?

They automatically put shields up.

Now, I want you to know that you cannot deal with people who are so far over the edge that they just don't want to listen to any reason.

But there are those that you could sit down with and say, okay, on the Kavanaugh thing, can we just talk about this?

And let's all try to remember we're family.

Whether we're legitimately blood relatives or we're just the family of man and Americans,

let's just sit down and remember that for a second.

So if you have a team jersey and you're just going to play for your team no matter what, you got to leave the table.

Now, for anybody who has left, let's define a win.

What is a win?

Right now, people will say that Kavanaugh isn't isn't in or Kavanaugh is in.

That's not a win.

That's not a win.

A win is that we have principles that we all want to live under protected.

That we take accusers seriously

and then we look for evidence to prove he said she said or deny he said she said.

That's what we want.

And the reason why we want that principle is because you could be next.

When somebody says to you, well, they probably did it.

Let me just ask you this, sis.

In all sincerity, is that the standard you want to live under?

Because someone could accuse you of something

and people will say, well, she probably did it anyway.

And if you dismiss this, let me take you back to the Niemoler poem.

You know, first they came for the communist and the capitalist, and I said nothing.

Why did the people back then say nothing?

Because they were not either a capitalist or a communist.

They weren't a Jew.

They weren't a gypsy.

And so they didn't say anything because it's probably, they probably did it.

You know, Hitler is saying that these guys are really trying to tear down the state.

They're probably doing that.

Because it didn't involve them.

But the last line of the poem is, when they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

They thin the herd first.

So we have to be very, very careful to not frame this as we are trying to get Brett Kavanaugh to be the Supreme Court justice or not.

Quite frankly, I find this fairly easy with Kavanaugh because

Kavanaugh, I don't think, is a real staunch constitutional conservative.

I have some problems with Kavanaugh, but he seems qualified.

Elections have consequences.

I'm not the one picking the Supreme Court.

I would have picked somebody a little stronger than I think he is.

He might turn out to be great.

He might not.

I don't know.

If I were a senator, I'd be voting for him.

Even though I think we could have done better, I'd vote for him.

Okay.

What are the principles?

It's not about Kavanaugh.

It's not even about her.

The principles are, will we take accusations seriously?

Yes.

Then will we look for the evidence to prove or deny?

I'm going to take a quick break and I'm going to come back with

how shoddy the evidence is.

Because if you could sit down with your family and say,

Okay, here's the win.

Something that we all want applied to us equally.

Social justice will allow you to say, well, he probably did it, and if he didn't do it, somebody like him did it.

And if it didn't happen to her, it happened to somebody like her.

So it all balances out.

That's social justice.

We want actual justice.

We're never going to be able to complete it 100%.

Only God can give real justice.

We have to do our best.

And to do our best, we have to

stop making it justice is blind.

Stop making it about the personalities and the political teams, especially when politics are involved.

If politics are involved, go even slower.

But we take them seriously and then we look for the evidence based on the facts.

So based on what we have today,

how does this shape up?

I'll go over those when we come back.

By the way, coming up in a few minutes, Michael Rechtenwald, he is

a former

New York University NYU professor who did episode number three of my podcast this last Saturday.

He is absolutely somebody that you need to know.

He's just a remarkable human being that you need to listen to.

Listen to the entire podcast.

You can download it, Glenn Beck Podcast, episode number three, Michael Reckinwald.

Trust me, after you hear him for 15 minutes, you're going to want to hear the two hours with him as he explains what's really happening in our society.

All right.

Our sponsor this half hour, Zip Recruiter.

Now, Zip Recruiter, when they started, Zip Recruiter was a place that would go and

you could go to them and they would post your job that you're looking to fill at, you know, all a hundred different websites.

ZipRecruiter now has become the number one website for employment in America.

It is the number one recommended system from employers all over America.

And that's because I was just there just last week.

I think they bought the Google building in Los Angeles.

I mean, this is this giant.

And I'm thinking to myself,

why do they have this huge, huge building?

It's full.

They're going to have to move soon, I think, because it's already full.

And what it's full of, tech people,

all kinds of experts, all kinds of people that are looking to tweak algorithms to be able to figure out.

You're over in this area and you have this kind of job.

What job should be shown to you and which employees should be shown to you.

Let's say you're a, you know, you're a Starbucks and you're looking for a new barista.

Well, hey, I don't need to know about all the people that are baristas.

They're looking out, you know, hundreds of miles away.

I want the ones that are real close to me because I'm not going to move somebody's family in to be a barista.

However, if I have a different kind of job, I might want to look all over the world.

ZipRecruiter has found out algorithms that are constantly tweaking to be able to show the resume of the person you're looking for.

When they start, I mean, it is amazing what they're doing.

You get the

qualified candidates fast.

In fact, most cases, they just said this, it used to be 24 hours.

I think it's within the first two hours now that you'll get a quality candidate, the right one within the first couple of hours.

Ziprecruiter.com.

Go to ziprecruiter.com slash Beck today.

Ziprecruiter.com slash Beck.

beck.

There's a couple of things.

If we say, okay, what's a win?

A win is that we have the principles that we all want to live under, that we take accuser seriously, but then we look at the facts and we look for evidence to prove or deny.

Let's just go over some of these

that she has alleged, that Ford has alleged.

She can't recall the basic details of what she said is the most traumatic event in her life.

She can't remember where the assault took place.

She's not sure what house it was at, what street it was on, when it happened.

She wasn't sure of the year, let alone the day and the month.

She wasn't certain how old she was, what grade she was in.

She described having just one beer at the party.

So

I don't know, was she drunk?

Because I've also read that she said she was drunk.

She also doesn't even remember how she got home.

Pat.

How is that possible?

In a turning point in your life,

in an event that is supposedly so traumatic, and it would be, that's so traumatic, and you don't remember any of those details?

That's hard to believe.

She told no one at the time, not even her best friend or her mother,

and no one can corroborate this.

Four people she identified as being at the party, including Kavanaugh, all deny knowledge of the gathering in question, including her lifelong friend who says, I don't recall any of this.

Her own immediate family doesn't appear to be backing her up.

Her mother, her father, and her two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband's side of the family.

Now,

why wouldn't her parents and her siblings sign this?

It's not is it possibly because they never heard of such an incident happening in her life?

Maybe,

maybe, but that just that evidence doesn't mean anything either.

I don't know that it doesn't mean anything.

It's not conclusive.

Correct.

But you don't condemn her, nor do you condemn him.

It's the same kind of evidence.

It's the same kind of evidence.

She is a Democrat, an anti-Trump marcher, so we know that politics are involved.

Also, there is this.

The Washington Post reported that she was upset when Trump won in 2016 because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick.

Problem with that, Pat?

Well, did she say it to somebody?

She said, The Washington Post, she said to the Post, she was upset when Trump won in 2016 because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick.

Kavanaugh was not mentioned in that first round.

He was added to the list.

Kavanaugh was not on that.

Yes, Kavanaugh was not on that list.

He was added to that list in November of 2017, a full year later.

Wow.

I mean,

wow.

You know,

there's enough to say, wait, wait,

let's not hang a man here.

Let's listen to voices and then let the evidence speak for itself.

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 Beck.

It's Wednesday, September 26th.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

So a few weeks ago, I started reading a book called Springtime for Snowflakes, and I stopped about halfway through because I really, really liked it.

But I wanted to make sure I knew who this author really was.

Because if you look at his resume, how's it look, Pat?

It looks like he's

an atheist, perhaps,

extremely liberal.

Communist.

A communist?

Extremely liberal.

Communist.

Yeah.

He was a professor at NYU.

Any other side of communism?

I mean,

it's quite amazing.

He described himself in the past as a libertarian communist, which I asked him about in the podcast.

But I want to show you the results of this podcast.

It came out last Saturday.

And I've been seeing a ton of these letters have come in.

Glenn, while listening to Saturday's podcast, I wept.

I knew what your guest said was happening, but I didn't know how to put it into words and who to tell.

I didn't know what to do.

I was too busy working three jobs, raising my daughters, going through a divorce to research it all, let alone, and I just let it control my life.

This podcast, All Capital Letters, must be heard by everyone in the United States.

Please don't downplay it or mention it only in passing.

This is important.

It must be heard.

I couldn't agree more.

I listened to it twice myself this weekend because I learned so much.

Michael Reckinwald is with us now.

Michael, how are you, sir?

I'm doing very good, Glenn.

How are you doing?

I'm great.

I really enjoyed meeting you and talking to you.

Tell me quickly for those who don't know your journey, tell quickly that story.

Okay, yes.

You know, as you said, Glenn, I was a left or libertarian communist, published widely in communist circles, read very widely, looked up to as a kind of an example for what Marxism or communism could be.

And then I came out against the social justice movement back in 2016 in October, and I was roundly attacked by thousands of people.

on the internet and hundreds of people inside of my university, put on paid leave, quickly

damned by a group calling themselves the Diversity, equity, and inclusion group.

And the scales just fell from my eyes, Glenn.

Basically, what happened?

I started seeing the left for what it really is.

And it's just scratch the veneer, the thinned veneer of egalitarianism and so forth.

What you come up with is a totalitarian left.

You told me in the podcast, and I'm paraphrasing here, so let me get your real, you know, your words.

But you told me that at one point when you saw what was being done, you know, libertarian communism was more of a theory that it was like, next time we'll do it right.

And

you realized at one point,

these people will kill people.

What we're doing is we're going to do it wrong again.

And these people, it'll end up in gulags and mass slaughter.

That's right.

I mean, I saw...

you know, firsthand what communists say to each other in joking and passing, and they relish the idea, Glenn.

They relish the idea of putting a gun to somebody's head that they don't agree with.

They talk about it in joking all the time, and I was actually threatened with the same.

If I had my way, quote unquote, I would put a gun to your head

and things like that.

So the minute I crossed these people, I saw what they were made of, and it scared the living

living hell out of me, Glenn.

I mean, it was very terrifying, and it just turned my eyes and turned me around entirely.

Tell me about the thing that I laughed at, and you said was the beginning of this journey.

The

genders that you had to be called.

And you posted, you posted on your Twitter without comment, and this is what started the ball rolling.

Yes.

You know, back in September of 2016, which I call the debuting of social justice ideology in the university.

for a number of reasons.

A student at the University of Michigan, when asked what his pronoun choice would be and given the option to post it inside of his profile in the Wolverine system there, chose quote unquote his majesty.

And I thought it was hilarious, a send-up of the craziness and the attempt of these institutions to keep pace with the pronoun and proliferation, as I call it, pronoun and gender proliferation.

And so I posted the article without a comment to Facebook, and I went on to teach a couple classes back to back.

And by the time I got done with those classes, there were thousands and thousands of sub-threads started condemning me,

calling me a transphobe and

accusing me of having committed discursive violence and being a traitor and so on and so forth.

Discursive violence makes me laugh every time.

Sorry about that.

I know you have a cold.

Discursive violence, which is a crazy term, but

it's probably too much to get into now, but

and hundreds of direct messages from former friends

telling me that I better recant or else and so forth.

And I refused.

I said, this is completely out of hand.

We're talking about a piece of, this is a group of totalitarians dictating everything I can say and do.

And I just would have nothing further to do with it.

I started that Twitter handle, anti-PCNYU prof, that very night and started tweeting.

So, Michael, your life has completely changed.

You have, you know, all of your friends who you thought were friends are no longer your friends.

What do you do for a living now?

I'm still an NYU professor.

As a matter of fact, instead of getting fired, I think because I stood my ground and I didn't back down and I didn't apologize because I'd done nothing wrong, I was actually promoted to full ranks.

Wow.

Yes.

From assistant to full professor.

Now, my career here is probably limited.

I'm at NYU and I have four years left on a five-year contract, and I see no way of it getting renewed because the same people that would be sitting on a committee to renew me are the people that shun me 100%.

No.

These are people that

go ahead.

These are people that won't get on an elevator with me.

How are you being viewed by the students?

Because you were very popular.

I'm still very popular with students, and one of the main reasons is they can tell and they know that I'm not there to indoctrinate them into some left-wing ideology, which is so prevalent it's unspeakable.

I mean, it's just the way things are.

Everybody, for the most part, in the humanities and social sciences, is subtly but ever so clearly indoctrinating students to become leftists of some stripe or another, feminist, Marxist, you name it.

But for me, I don't do it, and the students love me.

Michael, this is Pat Gray.

What do you recommend to parents who are considering sending their kids out to universities like NYU and Ivy League School?

He addresses this in the podcast.

Wait for the answer.

This is great.

I say I would start thinking about this at kindergarten, actually.

Don't wait until they're ready to go to university.

The indoctrination is happening at K through 12.

And this may even be taking place at pre-K for all we know, because there are cases in which students in kindergarten are

being

set up for transitioning to another gender.

And there are parties for these transitions going on in kindergarten.

There was a case of this in August in California, where a student came home and told their mother or father that they had one of their friends had a transition party, which is a party to celebrate the transitioning from one gender to another.

I have nothing against trans people, but what I'm trying to say here is that transgenderism is an ideology that's being foisted on us.

It's being actively promoted, and it's starting at the very youngest ages.

And so, you know,

university level is far too late.

We have to start at pre-K, probably.

So, Michael, you're a guy who

believed in Marxism,

communism, but it was the heart part that you connected to.

That's right.

Is that right?

Yes, I mean, I was, you know, I had ideals about, you know, helping the downtrodden and helping those who have less and, you know, ameliorating the suffering of millions of people.

And I thought this was the best way to go about it because it would equalize, you know, access to resources and so forth.

But I realized that, as a matter of fact, it never does.

And any attempt to promote a sort of de facto equality ends in horror every single time, as we've seen historically.

And for some reason, I couldn't see this when I was under this ideology.

I couldn't see it.

And it took this turn, you know, and these scales falling off my eyes for me to be able to see what was so evident to other people,

you know, particularly on the other side.

And once I saw it, I started to research it, and I got into the history of communism, and I read the Black Book of Communism, and it makes it very clear that 94 million people have been killed in communist regimes.

People have been killed by every single communist leader that's ever existed.

So, I mean, I just don't know how I can explain how, you know, you get indoctrinated through the university system and how difficult it is to break that indoctrination, but I did break it.

It was broken for me, I should say.

And everything has changed.

Michael,

the name name of the book springtime for snowflakes obviously the tip of the hat to Mel Brooks why'd you choose that name

it just came to me one day Glenn I don't know really when or how but all of a sudden it came it just popped into my mind and I said well springtime for snowflakes and it just it just occurred to me I have no idea when how or you know this took place but it did it just jumped into my mind springtime for snowflakes and I told other people and they said that's a great title That is a great title.

Some people tried to dissuade me from using it, saying it was insulting our students, but I don't think so because

I'm not really insulting students here.

I'm talking about the indoctrinators, not the students as such.

Michael,

the

transition that you have made, Pat just said, what was the book that you just had brought up off air that he wrote?

Something about atheists or agnostics or 19th century British secularism.

Yes, that's what we're doing.

So

you were a guy that was agnostic or atheist?

Agnostic.

What happened?

I would never.

Well,

I would, first of all, just about agnosticism.

It just means I don't know.

And I would never have been so conceited and so

arrogant as to suggest there's no God without proof because I mean, you have to be God to say there's no God.

I mean, really, that's what it comes down to.

And therefore, therefore,

it's impossible.

So I was always agnostic.

I was a kind of an agnostic who prayed, though.

I didn't know well yet, but I still prayed.

And

that entirely changed.

I have,

with this whole, you know,

say this whole conversion, really to put it, there's no better term for it, I've really come to see that, you know,

I'm not an agnostic who prays.

I'm a believer who prays at this point.

And I think that'll continue to grow.

Hang on just a second longer because I'd like to turn our conversations, Michael, to

what people do.

We just had a call from somebody who said, I can't talk to any of my friends.

I can't talk to my family even about this Kavanaugh thing because

they're just angry and they just yell.

And we talked a little bit about this, the principles and addicted to outrage.

And I'd like to hear

your view of

what we talked about on how to approach people and who to approach to be able to start to have a better dialogue.

We'll do that here in just a second.

So ransomware is when somebody hacks into your computer and then takes control of all of it and then demands money.

Ransom, cyber criminals demanding payment now within a certain time period, or you lose access to your data, or they expose the data, whatever.

The average ransomware demand in 2017 is 500 bucks.

So it's not just happening to people like Sony.

If that's the average, that means it's happening to regular people.

So what do you do?

Well, you don't automatically open email attachments from unknown sources.

Most importantly, use up-to-date computer security software.

And that is where new lifelock identity theft protection comes in because now they have the power of Norton security to to help you protect against the threats to your identity and your devices that you can't see on your own.

Nobody can stop all cyber threats or prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses.

But Life Lock with new Norton security can now see the threats that you're going to miss on your own.

So get Lifelock.com right now.

Call 1-800-Lifelock 1-800-Lifelock.

Use the promo code Beck and get an extra 10% off your first year.

Plus, you're going to get a $25 Amazon gift card with annual enrollment.

That's promo code peck 1-800 lifelock or lifelock.com

so glad that you are you're listening to us today there's two books that I want to assign if I may one is Michael Rechtenwald Springtime for snowflakes it is an in-depth look at exactly what we're talking about the the first step into understanding how this is all connected is Addicted to Outrage, my new book that came out by both of them online now,

wherever books are sold.

And I promise you, you will not be disappointed.

And you will understand the world

that you're dealing with a little better, and it will change your course of action.

Michael, welcome back to the program.

Thanks, Clem.

Okay.

So let's talk about how do we deal with

how do we deal with people that

are

are not seeing this?

And I think there's two groups.

One, the people who know exactly what it is, and

they're knowingly engaging in postmodernism, and as you say, which has now become social justice.

And then there's those who just are kind of going along and don't really understand.

Yes, I mean, I think that

you put it in football terms,

using a football metaphor.

We're standing, let's say, at the 50-yard line, and we're looking people along a spectrum left and right, and we see that, you know, all the way down at the three-yard line is standing, you know, on the left side is antifa, and we certainly aren't going to be approaching them.

You know, and on the far right, there might be some unsavory characters like the alt-right that we certainly won't be trying to include in our quorum.

But we need to try to build some consensus here.

by

addressing these issues straightforwardly and also to try to educate ourselves and inoculate ourselves against this postmodern virus, I say, is really what it is.

It's a virus that has transmuted into social justice that is affecting all of us.

It's infiltrated almost every institution from Facebook to Twitter to Google to YouTube to

most of corporate America and most of the mainstream media.

and a lot of other areas.

So we're talking about a very virulent strain of postmodernism that is really broadly infecting the entire population.

So how do we deal with it?

We have to first recognize it.

We have to find out where it's coming from and what their principles are.

Then we can rationally oppose them.

We have to do that with rational thinking, but also with faith knowing that we're right, because

this is not a happy circumstance we're talking about.

They want to destabilize the family.

They want to destabilize all the ontologies of society.

That is all the structures that keep us intact, that keep some adherence, some adhesion, adhesion, some sort of

order instead of utter chaos.

So, this is really what we're up against.

And I think we need to start talking about it.

We need to educate ourselves.

We need to inoculate ourselves.

We need to also take

very close attention to what's happening to our children and our grandchildren in school.

You know, watch out for the language.

Look at the books, look at our two books, and see the kind of terminology that these students are going to be coming home with.

Do you agree with?

Go ahead, Michael.

No, yeah, that's fine.

Pay close attention

their utterances.

Do you agree with my thesis that if we don't understand what we're fighting against and we fight it with outrage and anger, that we're actually only making the problem worse?

Absolutely.

We're just fanning the flames.

That's all we're actually throwing alcohol or throwing gasoline on the flames really is what we're doing.

It's just fanning the flames and building the other side's outrage as well.

So we just have two outrage groups, and it's just a matter of

who's going to carry the day, but that's not the way to go about it at all.

We fan the flames by feeding into it.

It's kind of like a reciprocal process by which one side's outrage feeds the others.

It's a kind of back and forth, sort of a dialectic, as I would put it, between these two groups.

And that's not what we want to do.

We want to understand and articulate.

We need to ask questions of the other side, those who are rational enough to actually listen to us.

We need to sort of defuse the situation first and foremost.

And how do we deal with being shouted down all the time, being called racist, being called homophobes, transphobes, all of the things that we have to deal with being called

when we try to educate people on what's going on?

Try to answer that in 30 seconds, Michael.

Yeah, that's a tough one.

And we really need to keep talking.

We need to point out that this left, This illiberal left is what I call them.

They are shutting down, you know, they're shutting down speech, but they're also shutting down thought.

They're shutting down different perspectives and they're making it impossible for people from other perspectives to voice anything.

But then their ideas, however outlandish they are, succeed regardless.

Michael, we need to stop that.

Michael, thank you so much.

Anti-PCNYU Prof is where you can follow him.

Michael Rechtenwald, the name of the book, Springtime for Snowflakes.

Also, episode number three of the podcast.

You can find it where podcasts are done, the Glenn Beck podcast.

Number three.

Welcome to the program.

See if you can go find him now, see if we can bring him in.

We have one of the writers for the Blaze just did a story on the New York Times that I really want him to tell in his own words.

It's really quite incredible.

It's on a Kavanaugh story out of the New York Times that they changed and then said, no, they didn't change it.

Well, the internet just doesn't go away.

I mean, you could change it.

This was two days ago.

Yeah.

We saw it two days ago with our own eyes.

Yeah, it's not like it's, you know, oh, in 1840.

We never started to know it.

It's right here.

Anyway, we'll talk to him here in a second.

I just got

an email in from somebody.

Glenn, I listened to you on the Ben Shapiro Sunday special this last weekend.

I want to thank you for sharing your experience with addiction.

It really resonated with me as I've been struggling with the question of whether I'm an alcoholic over the last few months.

Your story seems to be very similar to what I'm going through.

This seems so obvious to me now.

It didn't when I first started.

When I was going through alcoholism,

I didn't even understand this concept.

Now I do.

When I went to my first AA meeting, and I said, I'm not sure if I'm an alcoholic, there was kind of a laughter in the room because

then why do you think you should be going to an AA meeting?

You know, if you're questioning,

pretty good.

For instance, Pat.

The theory kind of is, if you're wondering,

that means you are.

Yeah.

Right?

I mean, have you ever wondered if you're an alcoholic?

Not ever.

No.

My wife has never wondered if she was an alcoholic.

I mean, I know a lot of people who drink.

They don't consider.

They don't wonder.

They don't wonder.

Once you start wondering, you're kind of...

Yeah.

Anyway,

I come from a long

line of raging alcoholics whose lives and families have been deeply affected by alcoholism.

I've seen the very dark and public destruction of addiction.

And because I seem to have been able to keep it together and no one seemed to notice my drinking problem, I thought maybe I wasn't addicted.

I thought maybe this was a normal relationship with alcohol.

Brother, can I.

Oh, yeah.

I have been there.

After hearing your story, I've decided I'm going to talk to somebody and find a support group.

Because a lot of people probably wouldn't know.

I mean, some alcoholics are not functional.

You were completely functional.

You showed up for work every day, sober.

Yeah.

Never drank at work.

Nope.

You know, waited till 5 o'clock to start your drinking process.

And then isolated myself.

So, you know, but I was a high-functioning, high-functioning alcoholic.

Please, if you know somebody

in that state, there's a couple of podcasts that I've done for the book Addicted to Outrage, which is not about this, but it is about our addiction to other things.

So it does have some addiction talk in it.

But

there's a podcast that I did with Ben Shapiro, his Sunday special last Sunday.

Also, a new one that came out today, The School of Greatness, with Lewis Howes, which is, I think, really, really good.

And it goes into some things.

Surprisingly, I think it was because I had three hours' sleep in 48 hours that I opened up about my dad a little bit more than I ever have.

And so, you might find some interesting things there, or some possibly some roads to healing yourself on things.

Strangely, we didn't talk about the book Addicted to Outrage, which is kind of the point that I was there for.

But anyway,

anyway.

So there is a story

on the Blaze today, and Mike is here to talk about it.

Mike, how do you say your last name?

Shandoah.

Okay.

So we were pretty close.

Mike,

you wrote a story about the New York Times and how they have

tried to deny things and make the internet a liar.

You know, it's funny with something, a publication like the New York Times, you'd think they'd realize how the internet works.

The internet is forever.

If something has ever been on the internet, there's still a way to access it somewhere on the internet.

Right.

Yeah, it's incredible that they denied that it was ever in the story originally.

Right, when it was so easily provable.

All right, so start with the original story.

This story came out about Kavanaugh's accusers, I think, Monday, right?

Right.

Sunday.

Sunday.

Sunday, the New Yorker piece first broke with Ronan Farrow

and Jane Mayer, I think, was the other person who wrote it.

So that came out the same day, the New York Times released their first story.

And in it, they admitted that they had tried to verify the story and could not.

But that in the process of that, they had come across people who remembered

the accuser, the second accuser, talking after the incident and saying that she couldn't remember if it was Kavanaugh or not.

They had included that same paragraph in a story on Monday following up.

And then on Monday, they had edited this story and taken that part out because people started using that.

Republicans started using that and being like, hey, this is the New York Times, not a conservative publication, saying that there's a chance this story might not be true.

We can't verify it.

There are some doubts about it.

It was pretty stunning, I thought, for the New York Times, very honest for the New York Times to come out and say, look, we talked to these people that she said.

They said that she had talked to them and said, I'm not even sure if it was Kavanaugh or not.

And that's one of the reasons why the New York Times added that in.

That's kind of some crucial information.

Right.

It was briefly very good journalism.

Yes, yes.

Briefly.

Yes.

And they were apparently ashamed of that because they didn't want to do good journalism anymore.

So they took it out and then denied it was ever there.

Right.

Well, that was the craziest part of all this.

So I'm tracking down the different things.

I'm looking at the old versions of the story.

It was substantially changed, but with no editor's notes saying that anything had been changed, just the same article, same length.

And

that's the amazing thing about it.

They always say this article has been updated.

At the bottom, always, this article has been updated.

With much less substantial updates than this.

Yeah, sure.

But then

the writer of the article had tweeted out that, stop saying this article has been edited.

This has never been in there.

And I'm looking at the two versions versions of the article that I was able to get using internet archives and going back and pulling the older version.

And I see the one and I see the other, and I clearly see that it's been removed.

I make sure, read it a couple times, make sure, am I missing?

Did they just break it up and put in another paragraph or something?

No, this is clearly out.

And she's still

tweeting that her article that she wrote had never mentioned this thing that it clearly had.

It's a full paragraph.

Yeah.

Now,

has there been any response since this has been revealed and since you've put this out and

it's, you know, it's starting to go around that, oh, wait, it's called the Wayback Machine.

Yeah.

Which has to be something the New York Times knows about because I assume that their reporters have used it too.

I mean, I've used it dozens of times over the course of my journalistic career, which is much less of a career than the New York Times and their reporters.

But as of of now, the last I checked, the New York Times hadn't come out and admitted that they changed it or admitted anything.

Which is just, I mean, it's a crazy story, especially in how clearly provable this is.

This isn't something where we're just speculating or assuming this is, I have a copy of the old one, I have a copy of the new one, the words are clearly here, they're clearly not here.

There's no that that's that's as black and white as you're ever gonna get and what's interesting about the times is they initially kind of held off of the story because there wasn't substantiation.

At least that's what was claimed in the beginning is that

they said that there wasn't enough for them to do the story.

Right.

And

so much so that it hacked off the people who, the New Yorker people, Ronan Farrow, who actually wrote the story.

And he said the only reason they didn't do the story was because

she wouldn't talk to them specifically.

He had the exclusive.

And so now it looks like that's even suspect that they were holding off her journalistic integrity because they have none and they've just shown that again.

Ray, yesterday on Morning Joe, the other one, Jane Mayer, who wrote with Ronan Farrow, was on, and Joe Scarborough asked her about it.

And she was saying, well, I guess the New York Times, I respect them, but they must not have done their like she was defending her piece against the New York Times.

Yeah.

Then the New York Times does their three or their 180 and they're like, oh, we're not, don't use us to attack the New Yorker.

We're all for Ronan Farrow.

We're all for this piece.

Really interesting.

There is a, thank you, Mike, for your work.

Great story.

You can find it on the Blaze.

Just go there now and pass it on because I guarantee it's not going to be passed on by the mainstream media.

John Ziegler wrote an op-ed piece on some of this as well.

He talks about how Ronan Farrow and journalism has just jumped the shark here.

He quotes Farrow.

The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it.

The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they might merit further investigation.

End quote.

He writes, This is what's called the news hook.

The basis for why an allegation is newsworthy.

The standard here used to be a criminal charge or at least a legitimate lawsuit.

But now, if an unnamed partisan political operative with huge self-interest to push a damaging story, regardless of its truth, simply get information and say it ought to be looked into further, This now reaches the threshold of publishing and journalism?

Or more likely, this is a dangerous new rule, only in effect when Democratic senators want more time to torpedo a damaged Republican Supreme Court nominee.

He then goes on and says, the New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of the possible involvement in the incident involving Kavanaugh.

The allegation was conveyed to a Democratic senator by a civil rights lawyer.

He says, okay, so as I read this, a Democratic lawyer gave the allegation from a Democratic accuser to Democratic senators who then leaked the information to a liberal press.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong here?

Quote, she was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.

Her initial conversations with a New Yorker was she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident with certainty, end quote.

He writes, so 35 years after the alleged incident, one which their accuser admits she was drunk, sure sounds like she has no clear idea

what really did or didn't happen, this moment when Faro and Mayer should have moved on from this story, or at least found numerous corroborating witnesses, spoiler alert, they have none, quote, after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, he says, wait, what?

35 years after the incident, she can't tell her story.

But 35 years and six days later, after speaking with her Democratic lawyer, she can suddenly recall the amazing and graphic details.

Ramirez apparently is the first person in history to have a far better memory of something that supposedly happened 35 years ago while badly drunk after having spoken to somebody who was not there.

She was also parroting the Democratic talking points on the FBI investigation.

It's a really good article, and it talks about how journalism is truly dead.

Oh, yeah.

Because none of these things would have been acceptable.

Well, and Ronan Farrell was on with George Stephanopoulos either yesterday or the day before defending the piece.

And Stephanopoulos asked him point blank, well, weren't you concerned about this story because there's no eyewitnesses?

And he said, no,

we corroborated it with people who know her that said, yeah, they've seen Kavanaugh drunk as well.

Wait, what?

So they weren't at the party.

So there it's third-hand information.

It's called hearsay.

Evidence is that he's been drunk before.

Yeah.

So here's the thing.

A lot of those same people said, I don't have any knowledge of that, but she's credible.

Well, wait, that's.

Based on what?

Yeah, based on what?

She might be credible on other things, but not necessarily on that.

This used to be called hearsay.

You don't report on hearsay.

You cannot convict on hearsay.

And what hearsay is, is I heard someone say that this happened.

How many times do we get ourselves in trouble by saying that?

I don't really know, but this is what I heard.

We'd be out of business if we did it.

Of course.

For the left, it's okay.

Of course.

Don't worry about it.

Yes.

Unfortunately, it's a ticking time bomb that they just keep speeding up.

It's only going to hurt them in the end,

as long as we refuse to let go of the truth and the principles that guide us every day, and that is guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.

You don't accept hearsay.

You listen to both sides and see who has any evidence before you destroy somebody's life.

Thanks, Michael.

Back in just a second.

Simply Safe, home security, great security system.

SimplySafe from simply safepeck.com is something that you actually own

and not

some company that's charging you 40, 50 bucks a month.

And they have grown so much.

There were, what, five employees when they first started with us?

And now they're a billion-dollar company.

It's incredible.

And that only happens that fast because you have...

Built a better mousetrap.

Yeah.

And it's really high quality and everybody knows it and it's word of mouth.

And from those humble beginnings,

they now protect over 2 million people.

And this is what makes them great: comprehensive protection for your home with round-the-clock professional monitoring and police dispatch.

Now, I've mentioned this before when before I switched, we were paying almost $60.

They just had raised our monitoring rate from $32 to $60.

Wow.

For your monthly monitoring with SimplySafe, $14.99 a month.

$14.99 a month.

It's incredible.

Visit simplysafeback.com.

That's simply safeback.com.

We have a great,

great guest on next hour.

I'm going to kind of let Pat take some of the vocal responsibilities here as my voice is getting weaker and weaker as we go.

You want me to sing?

I do.

I wouldn't mind if you sing.

I think you would mind if I sing.

I'm starting to sing.

Actually, I've heard you sing.

There is something that we should talk about.

Maybe we'll talk about it later in the show or on tomorrow's broadcast, where blockchain is now being used for voting.

Where is it?

West Virginia?

West Virginia.

Yeah, first time ever.

I don't know what's on either end, but blockchain you can't hack into.

So I'm comfortable with blockchain.

Again, I don't know how it gets into the system and what the system is on either end.

It opens it up.

But

this is going to make voting a lot easier.

A lot.

If you can vote on your phone, how many people it opens up the whole millennial world, doesn't it?

It means people who are watching Ellen for their news,

they're voting.

That's not a good thing.

That's not a good thing.

Well, I mean, our founders said it was landowners that could vote.

Yeah, because they wanted you to have skin in the game.

And people who don't have any skin in the game, they don't make enough to be taxed even.

They're not paying taxes.

They're getting money back.

Do they have skin in the game?

That's something that, you know, our founders thought about, but we don't.

Glenn Back 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 Back Live, the Addicted to Outrage tour.

On tour this fall.

Glenn back.

Patray for Glenn, who just had to step away and get a little rest.

So he's not, you you know, actually losing his voice for the next month.

So hopefully he'll be back again tomorrow.

Triple 8727BECK, we are excited to have Mona Sharon, syndicated columnist and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, joining us.

Mona, welcome to the Glenn Beck program.

Thanks.

So glad to be here.

You, just to refresh people's memory, you were

the person who kind of challenged everybody at the CPAC meeting.

Was that just this year?

Just this last CPAC, wasn't it?

Yeah.

In February, that's right.

It's really easy to go into a scene like that and say everything they want to hear.

We love Trump.

This is great.

The Republicans are fun and fantastic and doing a wonderful job.

You went a different direction and told them

they were hypocrites in part, among other things.

And they didn't seem to appreciate that, did they?

What kind of feedback did you get during and after CPAC?

Right.

So, look, it's always easy, as we're now seeing in the Kavanaugh situation,

to tell your own side exactly what it wants to hear.

And

so I chose that moment to say, look, you know, we can't be hypocrites about these issues of, you know, respecting women

and so forth.

And so

it was at that moment that the Roy Moore controversy was at its full boil.

And I mentioned that the Republican Party had endorsed Roy Moore, following the president's lead, had endorsed Roy Moore.

Here was a credibly accused teenager, a man who dated teenagers and arguably molested young teenagers when he was in his 30s.

That's just not acceptable.

And people on our side chose not to believe it or chose to overlook it or chose to just, you know, just bat it away.

But you can't do that,

was what I was saying.

And I was also critical of other aspects of our side.

But, you know, it's just so rare in America today for anybody

to be able to say, I have an open mind about accusations against somebody, and I will wait for the evidence.

I mean, this week has just been such a nervous breakdown.

What the left has done regarding Kavanaugh is just assume that he's guilty based on

allegations alone without evidence.

I mean, without more evidence, let's put it that way.

Yeah, and they seem to be rationalizing it in that

this is not a criminal trial, so there's no presumption of innocence.

Well, that

I don't, I don't buy into that because you can't just

change every rule because it's not a criminal hearing.

No, in fact,

let's bear in mind that what we're saying then, if you say, well, it's not a criminal trial, it's just a job interview, and therefore, you know,

you can engage in full-born character assassination and pay no price for it.

Is that the kind of society we want to live in where a mere accusation unsupported by convincing evidence will be enough to completely destroy a person's reputation?

I mean, you know, people used to fight duels over their reputations.

Reputation is still an incredibly important

thing.

I mean, imagine if you've spent a lifetime,

you know, trying to live an upright life and people regard you with respect.

And in the Kavanaugh case, you're a federal judge, and suddenly the whole world thinks of you as a would-be rapist.

Yeah.

It's just, you know, it will destroy his life.

It's despicable.

And the sad fact of this Me Too hysteria, and nobody wants women to be abused or harassed or mistreated in any way.

But on the other hand, you can't just start destroying everybody in their career

just on an allegation, right?

And we're in a dangerous territory here.

Correct.

And, you know, first of all, so what a lot of the feminists and the Democrats are

saying is we have to believe women because in the past women were not believed.

Well, it's a little more complicated than that.

I mean, yes, it is true that

in the past

sometimes women perhaps were not believed.

But

first of all,

We do know that false accusations of rape have been made by women.

Women do sometimes lie about rape and with terrible consequences, right?

I mean if you remember the Tawana Brawley episode a few years back, which brought Reverend Al Sharpton to fame, what did he do?

He presented this teenage girl who claimed that she had been raped and abused by four New York City cops.

And that turned out not to be true.

There have been many, many cases where women have alleged things that haven't been true.

The other instance that comes to mind more recently was a rape on campus, the Rolling Stone story, in which a student alleged that she had been gang raped at a fraternity

at the University of Virginia.

And, you know, everybody's stereotypes were rolled out.

They said, oh, these frat boys, you know, that's just the kind of thing one would expect from them.

The same sort of thing happened at Duke, where an exotic dancer or a stripper or whatever claimed that the lacrosse team had had raped her.

So it's not unheard of for women to make false accusations.

That's the first thing we have to understand.

And the consequence of a rape conviction or a sexual assault conviction or even a belief that somebody committed that crime are so severe that of course we should guard against

flimsy or unproven accusations because the consequences are so dire for the person who is accused.

But the other thing we have to realize as grown-ups is, look, in most instances of sexual assault, there are only two witnesses.

It does not happen, for the most part, in a public place.

And because of that, of course, it is hard to parse what really happened.

It is he said, she said.

And so we do look for other forms of corroboration.

And those include whether the woman sought medical care right away.

Did she tell other people at the time?

You know, did anybody see them together?

And so on.

And then also, you look for patterns of behavior.

So in the Me Too movement, which I've been broadly supportive of, you know, I think that men who abuse women should be held to account and they should be trained and punished.

And but what's what's notable in the most high-profile cases that we've seen over the past year or so

is that there are patterns of behavior.

That these men, when they behave this way toward women, it's not just one woman, it's a whole bunch of women who come forward and say, yes, me too.

And

so now

this movement, unfortunately, which was really, I think, a beneficial thing for our society, is being

transformed into a partisan cudgel to

go after

Kavanaugh.

And

these supportive statements are just they don't pass the the the minimal standards of evidence of evidentiary trustworthiness.

So for example, the story that the New Yorker ran, which I think is a is a disgrace to journalism, the woman in question there was remembering something that happened more than 30 years ago and was saying that she herself

the the person making this accusation was so unsure of whether it had been Kavanaugh or not that she had to wait six days and consult her memories and consult her lawyer

before she could come forward and say to the New Yorker, yeah, I think it was him.

Yeah, the last 35 years

weren't sufficient to consult her memories.

But

then the six days were,

those were really helpful.

So as we get,

as we're on just the eve, I guess, of the testimony of this woman before the Senate tomorrow, if you had to guess,

what will be the outcome of this?

Do you see Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed?

Well, first of all, it's still apparently up in the air as to whether

Christine Blasey Ford will even show up.

People are not sure.

Diane Feinstein recently said she wasn't sure.

So I think if she fails to testify, then there's absolutely no question that he'll be swiftly confirmed.

But, or I shouldn't say no question, but very little doubt in my mind.

If she does testify and is extremely persuasive, then the balance might shift.

It's incredibly high stakes.

But we will see.

By the way, for the sake of our listeners, let's clarify that this accusation is not the one the New Yorker wrote about.

This is the one that supposedly happened in high school.

And

she, too,

you know, said that

she did not want to come forward.

She made the accusation in an anonymous fashion.

And then

when her name was outed, she said, yes, she would come forward.

But when the committee approached her and said, fine, we will hear your testimony in open session, in closed session, we can send

a group to California to hear your testimony there.

She said no to all these things.

She said she didn't want to fly.

She said, I mean, she seemed to be very squirrely about this.

I don't know.

I mean,

it doesn't sound

like she even now is really so sure.

We're speaking.

Go ahead.

No, and therefore,

her

case, you know, I think she should be heard.

I think people should make an independent evaluation.

But it does seem odd

the way she has behaved.

And of course, we can get into this later.

The Democrats have been appalling in the way they've handled all of this.

We're speaking with

syndicated columnist Mona Sharon about the outrage culture.

Last hour, Mona, we were talking with Michael Rechnenwald, who also has seen his share of vitriol from the left.

And we were talking about how we can come together in this country and kind of heal the wounds and move forward as a civilization.

And

I just, we're trying to find our way to getting back to some unity because we're so divided in this country.

And there's probably groups of people, at least two groups.

The Antifa people are never going to join hands with us.

And on the other side of the spectrum, the alt-right neo-Nazis aren't going to join hands with us anyway.

and we don't want to, frankly.

So, how do we find a common ground where we can all come together?

And is it possible to get there and agree on things like capitalism, like the Bill of Rights, like the U.S.

Constitution?

Is that doable from where we are now?

Well, we have to pray.

I mean, one of the things that

Twitter has done, I think, is amplify and provide

an echo chamber for all of our worst impulses and our most divisive voices.

And, you know, people who are on Twitter a lot are the ones who think that we're on the verge of a civil war in this country.

It is incredibly,

you know, it's incredibly

poisonous.

At the same time, you're so right to raise the question of whether there are any things that unite us now.

Glenn Thrush of the New York Times posted recently, you know, is there any institution or thing about the United States that we all agree on?

And somebody said, well, maybe the military, but there has to be more than that.

As you say, the Bill of Rights,

our history of religious tolerance,

you know, the Constitution,

the, you know, love of love of liberty, love of human rights, individual dignity, all those things that we have always prided ourselves on.

And look, one of the reasons that I did what I did at CPAC

and some of the other things that I do is in an effort to say, look, I'm willing to criticize my own side.

Please step up on the other side.

Be willing to be critical of your own side because it has to start there.

And once people then give you credit for a certain amount of fair-mindedness, That can be the beginning of a conversation.

And some of the conversations that I've had with people who are sort of on the center left have been very productive in that sense.

But I have to say that this week it's been really tough.

I would love to see, and I haven't, I would love to see some people on the left saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you know, let's not railroad

Judge Kavanaugh and all men, you know,

or men who went to prep school or so on and so forth.

because we feel so passionately about abortion.

Let's face it, those are the stakes.

That's why this thing has become so rancorous.

It's because the stakes are Roe v.

Wade being overturned.

And the idea on the left seems to be

all means, fair or foul, all means have to be employed.

If it means destroying

someone's reputation, then that's all right.

And some of the people on the left don't even realize that people like us are fair-minded and

are just trying to

evaluate the evidence dispassionately.

They think, how could you possibly believe Brett Kavanaugh?

It's really difficult to bridge that divide.

Yeah, we are

definitely in a tough

place right now.

So if people want to have access to your books, your articles, where would you send them?

So I have a website, monacharon.com.

They can also find me at the Ethics and Public Policy

site.

My work is published in National Review online.

It's available in lots of other newspapers.

Recently,

I'm a syndicated columnist, and one of my,

unfortunately, this past, within the past few weeks,

one of Pat Buchanan's columns was put out under my name.

So I'm getting a lot of mail from people.

Oh, wow.

Whoa, whoa.

Yeah, so that was funny.

But yes, and people should go to amazon.com and check out my new book because it's called Sex Matters, and it describes how modern feminism got us into a lot of the difficulties we're facing with sexual behavior and sexuality in general and

differences between men and women, which they were very keen to deny.

And I think that will shed some light on where we are.

It's called Sex Matters, How Modern Feminism Lost Touch with Science, Love, and Common Sense.

Sounds great.

All right.

Mona, thank you.

Appreciate it.

My pleasure.

888727 back.

This

sponsor, the sponsor of this half hour is Liberty Safes.

Liberty Safe,

they last a lifetime.

These are good-looking safes, and they are the strongest, best put together, built-in America safes in the world.

You will pass your Liberty Safe on to your kids and your grandkids.

You can put whatever you want in in these by the size that fits you and your needs.

They'll preserve your firearms, your valuables.

And again,

all Liberty safes are made in the United States with the highest quality material.

They give you fast access to your firearms and valuables.

It's just a responsible way to be a gun owner.

because you lock it into the river the Liberty safe, nothing's going to happen to it.

We've had pictures of Liberty safes that are the only things standing on a block after a hurricane has come through the neighborhood.

They're just amazing.

That's why over 2 million Americans own a Liberty Safe.

98% customer satisfaction rating with over 42,000 reviews.

Visit online at libertysafe.com.

Use their dealer locator to find your closest dealer and go see a Liberty Safe in person.

You need a Liberty Safe.

Get one.

Check it out today.

LibertySafe.com.

That's LibertySafe.com.

I just checked out for the day, actually.

Pat and Jeffy here to finish up the show.

And

hopefully he'll be back tomorrow.

Yeah.

He sounds sick.

He does.

He does.

And I realize that we all have a problem at looking good, but he did not look well.

I'm glad that he left.

And he needs to get better because he's got the big book tour coming up.

I mean, we have the new book, Addicted to Outrage, and he's going to be doing the Addicted to Outrage book tour.

I mean, he's traveling the country.

You can go to Glennbeck.com/slash tour and get all the dates.

But, I mean, he's going to be in Dallas on October 7th, Tampa, November 30th, Orlando, December 1st.

He's going to be two or three places here in Texas, San Antonio, Houston, and again, here in Dallas on October 27th, as I said.

So, Addicted to Outrage tour is going on.

I think that they're still in talks with adding some more cities, but you can find all of them at glennbeck.com/slash tour.

It's going to be fun.

And this isn't a downer tour.

This isn't where Glenn is going around the country preaching about catastrophic failure of the economy.

We're talking about the same Glenn Beck radar.

Yes.

Okay.

Which is amazing.

This is

going to be funny.

It's going to be fun, and it will be funny.

And I'm begging him not to even say anything about catastrophe.

That would just avoid all catastrophic talk for a while.

What about the sale of baby body body parts right now?

No, he's no.

No.

You'll save that for the Christmas party.

Okay.

So that'll be fun.

It all begins.

The tour kicks off in San Antonio, October 25th.

More of the Glenn Beck program with Pat and Jeffy coming up.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

With Pat and Jeffy finishing up today, because Glenn can barely speak at this point.

Hopefully that'll change.

He'll be back tomorrow.

One of the least funny people in the history of television to me is Stephen Colbert.

He's up there.

Yeah.

He's up there with Police.

Or down there, or whatever the case may be.

But last night he was talking about Ted Cruz being accosted at the DC restaurant.

Tonight on meanwhile, Texas Senator Ted Cruz had a rough night.

They're just chanting Cruz.

Cruz is close friends with Brett Kavanaugh and also in a tight Senate race with Democratic opponent Betto O'Rourke.

And he

why would these people who obviously probably live in the Northeast, what do you even care about Beto O'Rourke?

You know nothing about him.

You know what he looks like.

Maybe.

Maybe you've heard the name.

Well, I mean, of course you know that he's hotter than Ted Cruz.

Sure, dude.

Obviously.

Cruz and his wife were heckled at a D.C.

restaurant by protesters protesters last night.

Have a look-see.

We believe survivors.

We believe survivors.

We believe survivors.

We believe survivors.

Excuse me.

Bago is way harder than you do.

Okay.

First of all,

this is not helpful.

Don't do this.

Thank you.

What?

Yeah.

Kind of a surprise, right?

They've gone too far on the left, even for Stephen Colbert.

Maybe you dial this thing back a little bit.

He's afraid we're going to start doing it to him.

He wants to be able to eat by himself.

It's not going to end with Ted Cruz, and hopefully he's smart enough to acknowledge that and to realize that.

And to know that

that's not an American principle, trying to keep people out of a dinner date with their wife.

Sorry, you can't be in here.

That's amazing.

That sure is.

You got to give credit where credit is due, though, for Colbert to call that out.

Because who else has done that?

well I'll tell you one other person Betto O'Rourke actually said much the same thing he was he tweeted out it's not right that Senator Cruz and his wife Heidi were surrounded and forced to leave a restaurant last night because of protesters the cruz family should be treated with respect nice nice it's a class move from Betto uh so to Stephen Colbert and to Betto for at least this thank you for that Yeah.

Thank you.

Helping to restore a little bit of sanity.

You know, we've been talking with these guests

over the last hour about how we come together as an American, as an American people, as a civilization, as a culture.

Well, there you go.

There's two examples of the left kind of reaching out and saying, yeah, okay, that's not cool.

Stop doing that.

Let's start.

treating people with decency again.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Yeah, it'd be nice.

And look, it always, it never was perfect.

You know, there was always a time when you would say, yeah, you know,

I'm trying to think of a good example.

I take my car to get fixed by Fred, who's, you know, he's a little crazy, but he's a good guy and he fixes my car good.

So we hang, you know, we talk to him when he fixes my car and we're good.

In today's world, you can't talk to Fred.

No.

He's crazy.

And we can't.

He's not going to hit you with a lug wrench.

Right.

He won't already work on your car at all.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, there's got to be some kind of line of

discourse.

Because it's definitely gotten worse.

Yes, I agree with that.

I thought it was bad during the Bush

selected, not elected thing, but it's gone so far downhill from that time period.

Oh, yeah.

You can't even recognize that time period from here.

Triple 8, 727, Beck.

Let's go to Dave in North Carolina.

Dave, you're on the Glenn Beck program.

Hi.

I think it's time for the U2 movement to start as a contradiction to the MeToo movement.

I think that there's been so much that's come out of this Brett Kavanaugh hearing and the two accusers that it's evident that people aren't sharing responsibility for what they do.

The UTO movement would be sharing responsibility with women who go into motel rooms with men that know they shouldn't be there.

They get drunk at college parties.

They know they shouldn't do that.

They go into a bedroom and they expect that nothing's going to happen.

And they're the ones that are accusing men of being these vile predators all the time, all-powerful.

It doesn't matter who you look at, the Matt Lauer case or anybody else, it's always man as predator, woman as innocent victim, and they have the right to be heard, but they never share responsibility.

No, and I mean, it's appreciate the call, Dave.

It's never the woman's fault that they've been abused by a man.

That should just not happen.

But you're right.

I mean,

you should be wise enough to know not to put yourself into a compromising

prediction or predicament, I guess.

A compromising

position, I think is the word I'm actually groping for.

But

in the case of, like you mentioned, Matt Lauer.

In the case of Matt Lauer, Matt Lauer would apparently, according to some of the stories.

According to the reports we saw,

invite a woman into his office.

She would come in.

He would lock the door.

He would tell her to bend over and he would go over and pull down her pants or dress or whatever she was wearing.

And

apparently nothing was said about that.

According to the woman involved in that particular situation, she didn't say anything because she was worried about the power dynamic.

Right.

Come on.

Well, I mean, we talked about that yesterday, right?

About the girl on the airplane with the battery.

She was frozen.

She was frozen and too scared.

No, you didn't.

No.

Nope.

I'm not buying it.

And it wasn't her boss.

It wasn't anybody she even knew.

It's a passenger that's sitting next to her on a plane.

You can't say no.

Stop.

I thought about that.

Stop.

A couple more times yesterday.

Like, I must, I have to be married to a female that is just different from the rest of them because I know there's no way.

I mean, I get told

what the heck do you think you're doing, let alone someone that doesn't even know her.

Well, of course you'll be told that.

That's what I mean.

You know what I mean?

I mean, come on.

Just because you've got a piece of paper that says you're married doesn't mean she wants wants anything to do with you.

I've come to realize that you know what I mean.

I do.

I do, actually.

Sadly, I do.

So let's not get silly.

Let's keep the discussion within the realm of reality, if we could.

I apologize.

John in Arkansas, welcome to the Glen Beck program.

Hey, I'm a big fan of you guys.

Thank you guys for all you do.

Thank you.

I've listened to you guys since the early 2000s.

Awesome.

I wanted to find out, are there any other other pictures of Christine Ford?

All there is is like sunglasses on her face out in the snow somewhere.

It's true.

I hadn't thought of that.

And when is that picture?

When was

that picture taken?

I don't know if she shows up at the hearing.

We'll find out, won't we?

I guess so.

Yeah, if she shows up.

Right.

Yeah.

So what is your theory on that, John?

What's your theory on the one-picture situation?

Well,

I don't know.

I just was wondering that for the past couple of days, I was thinking, man, I wonder what she looks like without sunglasses.

Is she a real person?

I mean, because even by the photo that you've got, it hides the part of her eyes.

So, I mean, she could be any blonde in the United States or around the world anywhere.

Wow.

How dare you?

I appreciate the culture.

I don't know.

We'll have to look into that a little bit.

In fact, I'm going to, let's just Google.

I know that there's a lot of people.

I know that there's a bunch of internet pictures of her showing up in other pictures, pictures, like with Hillary and Uma.

I personally,

I guess they're Photoshopped.

I'm guessing they are.

I don't think she was around all these people, but it's funny to see.

I just Googled her name, and you got the sunglasses picture.

That's it.

Well, here's one where she's in a side-by-side.

It looks like they're

yearbook pictures.

So somebody got a picture of her, apparently, from her high school yearbook.

So there's that one, and there's the sunglasses.

So a little time has elapsed since a couple of the pictures.

Yeah, I would say.

And it's interesting, too, that there's still doubt as to whether or not she's even going to show up and testify.

That hasn't been definitively decided yet.

That's amazing.

It's tomorrow.

She's supposed to testify tomorrow.

And if she doesn't, I say they hold the vote right then and there.

If she is a no-show, you just call for the vote and let's get this thing done.

One way or the other, up or down.

Give them the vote.

I mean, that was the big thing that McConnell had said they were going to have the vote on Friday, right?

Yeah.

No matter what.

And that's kind of, they were saying that he, you know, was jumping the gun because we don't know if she's going to testify or not.

I mean, maybe he knows.

She's not going to show up.

Possibly.

We're going to have the vote on Friday.

Let's see.

Yeah.

Derek in Washington.

You're on the Glenn Beck program.

Hi.

Hi, how are you guys doing today?

I'm going to make it quick.

So

you guys talked about bento and uh um

uh colbert talking about these people need to stop arraft people like ted cruise

starting the right direction but i mean the big thing is we got we got to get somebody to you know get that message through to maxine waters and some of those others that this is not right this is not civil and this is not the way government was meant to be that will never i mean i agree i agree and you know some of the democratic leadership has actually asked her to calm down on that stuff and she's refusing to do it's not going to happen she believes it.

Yeah, I appreciate the call, Derek.

She believes it.

And if something bad happens, again, from these

senators, congressmen, Trump supporters, people in the administration, just supporters of Trump, if something violent happens to one of these people during one of these mob get-togethers,

she's partially responsible.

She'll never own up to it, but she will.

But she would be.

Oh, she absolutely is.

You know, this kind of bows to why, you know, this action really goes back to one of the reasons and one of the bigger ones of why Donald Trump got elected president in the first place.

Right?

This action of hatred, and we want somebody to fight back.

Yeah.

And

that's what got you, Donald Trump.

So if you're looking to get rid of Trump, you may try a new direction.

Yeah, it's not a good way to go about it.

Triple 8-727 Beck.

More of the Glenn Beck program coming up in a second, but our sponsor, this half hour, is Relief Factor.

For over four years, Relief Factor has been helping people in this building to alleviate their pain.

And late last year, Glenn and Tanya started using it too.

Now, Glenn, because of the multiple ailments he has that are really painful,

if you've ever seen him

on a flight, It's heartbreaking because I don't know if it's the altitude.

I don't know if it's the pressure, but something causes his pain to just be amplified there.

And so he's talked about that and he started taking Relief Factor, gave it a try, and it worked so well for him, he stopped taking all the pain meds that were prescribed for him.

And he hasn't felt this good, of course, until this week when he got sick.

That's kind of a separate thing.

It's kind of a separate thing, yes.

But he hasn't felt this way in years.

The thing about Relief Factor is it's 100% drug-free.

It was created by doctors.

There's four key ingredients that help your body fight against inflammation.

And you can get this started really inexpensively.

For $19.95, they're going to send you the three-week starter kit.

Now, you try that, you see if it works for you.

If it doesn't work, you've lost less than $20.

If it does work, you've found something that's going to help you a lot for a long time.

70% of the people who order the three-week quick start go on to order more.

That says a lot.

So, if you want to take your life back from being in constant, continual pain, if you want to be drug-free and you want to find a natural way to ease your pain, go to relieffactor.com right now.

ReliefFactor.com.

All right, Pat and Jeffy for the last few minutes of Glenn Show.

Hopefully, he'll be back feeling well enough tomorrow to be back again.

Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, has now now produced this so-called client of his

trying to show that this is not a hoax from Chan 4chan or Chan 4, whatever that is.

There was a rumor that maybe somebody hoaxed him on this.

So he actually tweeted out a photo of the person involved here that claims

that

Brett Kavanaugh was involved in rape gangs and she was gang raped.

That's her

claim.

So Avenatti tweeted out the picture of her, Julie Swetnik.

And he said, she is courageous, brave, and honest.

We ask that her privacy and that of her family be respected.

You just tweeted out her photo and her name.

You just showed the world who she is and gave them her name.

Only on the internet, though.

Right.

Where does that go?

Like, three people see that?

So, in his

tweet,

he writes: Below is my correspondence to Mr.

Davis of moments ago, together with a sworn declaration from my client.

We demand an immediate FBI investigation into the allegations.

Under no circumstances should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed, absent a full and complete investigation.

How are you going?

What are you going to investigate?

This supposedly supposedly happened in 1982.

Wow.

She claims in approximately 1982.

Now, if this really happened to you, wouldn't that be pretty clear?

Wouldn't that be seared into your mind the exact day,

the way things smelled, the way things looked?

I mean, it's hard to believe that you wouldn't know exactly, but approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these gang or train rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present.

Shortly after the incident, I shared what had transpired with at least two other people.

During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me.

I believe I was drugged using Kwailudes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.

Wow.

Now, she, according to this story, alleged, she did not allege that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her, though.

She was just

present, yeah.

But she also says in this, in this article, it talks about her

she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge to get teenage girls inebriated and disoriented so they could be gang raped.

So she witnessed this

and didn't do anything?

Crazy.

This is amazing.

I mean,

people who know him and have known him for most of their lives have just said this is completely out of his character.

Based on his interview the other night on Fox News, it certainly doesn't seem possible.

It sure does not.

He seemed credible and believable to me.

But

who knows how many more people will jump out of the woodwork to try to stop this guy from being confirmed?

Are you going to talk about it more on Pat Gray Unleashed?

There's a good chance that will happen, yes.

So coming up on this same Blaze Radio and TV network,

Glenn, back.

Mercury.