'But of Course it's Racist'? - 8/30/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Glenn back.

Pat's doing Glenn for Glenn this week.

I was out way past my bedtime.

Pat's doing.

Did I say Glenn?

Yeah.

Pat's doing Jeffy for Glenn.

I was out so late last night.

Oh, that's right.

You were out partying.

Way past my bedtime.

So I rocking my little dinghy today.

Yeah, Def Leopard and Journey.

We definitely need to get into this at some point today.

I would love to hear how this evening went.

Uh-huh.

It was good.

It was a great concert.

It's great stuff.

Do you even know those bands, Stu?

Yeah, I mean, they were out in the, I mean, you know, my formative years of music were the 80s.

So, I mean, you got lots of Journey and lots of Def Leopard.

That's when they thrived, pretty much.

So, yeah, I definitely, they were never, you know, two of my, I would say, my favorite bands.

But, you know, they were certainly a big part of that era.

All right.

Well, we'll get into that later on.

We've got this

Ron DeSantis racism situation.

I mean, the guy's clearly a a racist.

He used the word monkey.

And you, I mean, obviously, I don't have to tell people when you say monkey.

That's a dog whistle.

Yeah, it's code.

Just like apartment.

If you say apartment, you know what you're talking about.

If you say Chicago, you know what that's all about.

Oh, man.

I know what you're saying there, you racist bastard.

If you say Antifa, we all know.

So it's an almost exclusively black organization.

Except for not.

Well, yes, we still know what you're talking about.

We still know what you're talking about.

Yeah.

If you say LeBron James, well, you can't be a criticism about just LeBron James.

It's you not liking all black people.

If you say Maxine Waters is dumb, that's absolutely - that's because you think all black people are dumb.

That's one of my favorites because

what a sign of the person who

of their own racism that they would even make that claim, that they would even...

And so many people are leveling that claim claim at the president for saying that Maxine Waters was dumb and Don Lemon was dumb.

Okay, because he said two black people were dumb, you think that all black people should be included in that?

Yeah.

Why?

Nobody's saying that.

No one's saying that.

That's what he means, though.

No, it's really not.

I'm not going to read between the lines.

That's what he said.

And when he's called, didn't he call Glenn the dumbest?

Oh, yeah, he called Glenn all sorts of names.

Failure, dumbest.

And, you know, a lot of them echo what we call him when he's not around.

But it's interesting that

during that period, he, for some reason, I guess, believed almost exclusively white people were dumb.

Because in that era, he called almost no black people dumb whatsoever.

It was like 98% white people he called dumb.

At that point, no one said, why does he think all white people are dumb?

Because that would be a really stupid point.

And the fact that now they're like, oh, well, yeah, but he's called two people black,

dumb that are black now.

That means that, of course, Trump thinks all black people are dumb.

It's, and you know, in reality, and they go home at night and they're about to put their head on the pillow.

They all know what they're doing is lying.

They know that does not indicate at all that he thinks all black people are dumb.

But they think if they go on TV and they yell about it enough, they'll convince enough people to dislike the president or dislike tax cuts or dislike whatever it is because racism is something we all think is so horrible we don't want to be anywhere near it or touching it.

Of course, that disproves their point.

If we all think it's so bad, then why isn't there anybody outside of Richard Spencer defending it?

You know, I mean, well, look, we all think, you know, we think abortion is really bad.

There's no problem.

You have no problem finding advocates for a pro-life viewpoint.

There's tons of them.

We think tax cuts are really good.

You have no problem finding advocates for tax cuts.

Why can't you find any advocates advocates for racism?

It's because everyone agrees it's terrible.

But I mean, that destroys your entire programming schedule on MSNBC if you come to that conclusion.

So you have to sit there and lie about it night after night after night.

And let's get to the actual comment of what Ron DeSantis said.

And when you hear it, it is so clear it has nothing to do with calling his black opponent a monkey.

It has nothing.

It's not even close.

Listen to this.

He is an articulate spokesman for those far-left views, and he's a charismatic candidate.

And, you know, I watched those Democrat debates.

None of that was my cup of tea.

But, I mean, he performed better than the other people there.

So we've got to work hard to make sure that we continue Florida going in a good direction.

Let's build off the success we've had on Governor Scott.

The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state.

That is not going to work.

That's not going to be good for Florida.

Any reasonable human being with a brain would see that he's talking about the socialist agenda.

You don't want to monkey up their system with a socialist agenda.

Right.

And of course, you know, they used to say socialism, calling someone a socialist, was racist too.

Now that they've embraced it, they're not going to say that anymore.

But when you think of socialist leaders, you think almost exclusively white people.

You go back in history, you're thinking socialism.

It's usually white people that you're thinking of.

That's an amazing one.

Now, the idea that that he meant that as trying to call his opponent a monkey is so completely absurd.

Likely what happened is he got in between monkey around and muck it up.

Yeah.

And he kind of combined the two phrases and said monkeyed up.

Now, if he said monkey around, do you think people would have said the same thing?

Is it just the words?

It's just the words.

It's the word monkey.

It's interesting.

Many, many years ago, I had

a producer conversation with our friend Glenn Beck about this particular topic because he called his kids, you know, in terms of endearment, his own children, you know, monkeys.

That's a very common thing to call your kids.

If you watch The Office, Dwight Schroot called Angela his little monkey.

Like that, you know, that is what that's a very common phrase to be used among white people about white people.

Like it's, you know, it's, it has nothing to do with black people.

So, uh, but I told, I, he would use it as such a phrase of, you know,

endearment.

I mean, it really, really was.

It was something silly or something funny or some, you know, someone, you know, you know, kids jumping off the walls and going crazy and being too excited.

And I said to him, I'm like, look, I know what you mean by this, but at some point, you're going to say something that when you mean it one way completely, and people on the left are going to come out and say you meant it the other way.

And you're going to wind up sitting on television or radio having to defend yourself.

What I meant by the word monkey was not what you were saying.

And that's not not a winning position.

We have evidence of that.

I mean, how many years ago did the great Howard Kosell get the boot from television?

Yeah.

For using that very phrase.

Right.

And again, like...

And that was his excuse.

He called the grandkids and the kids little monkeys all the time.

Yeah.

And the quote, you know, then he was gone, man.

Plus, he had people like Muhammad Ali defending him.

Yeah.

And that still didn't matter.

It still didn't matter.

It still didn't matter.

So you just say, okay, well, we won't say the word anymore.

Now, of course, obviously Glenn never listens to any of my advice, so I have no idea if he said it since.

But the point is, you know, it's a way to shut down language.

Because now all you're doing is you're walking on pins and needles, trying to make sure you don't say something that you yourself know has nothing to do with racism.

And everyone around you knows has nothing to do with racism, but you're trying to stop from saying something they can use to fake the audience out into believing that you did mean racism.

It's the fake outrage.

Yeah, totally.

It's the addicted to outrage.

I mean, like you said yesterday, this book couldn't be any more relevant.

This book couldn't be better timed than it is.

For that to come out in, what, three weeks or so on September 18th?

And we see evidence of it every single day, how people are addicted to just being outraged.

Yeah.

It's so manufactured.

It's so

plastic and unreal that hopefully

the American people are going to see through it.

I hope.

That'd be nice.

I hope so, too.

I don't even like Ron DeSantis.

But you know that that's not what he meant.

I mean, he turned me off so much with that ad he did where he seemed like a cult member for

like he's in a Donald Trump cult or something.

That's why she's so weird.

That's what got him the endorsement, too, from the president, man.

Well, he should get the endorsement for Trump when you do an ad like this.

Everyone knows my husband, Ron DeSantis, is endorsed by President Trump, but he's also an amazing dad.

Ron loves playing with the kids.

Build the wall.

He reads stories.

Then Mr.

Trump said, you're fired.

I love that part.

He's teaching Madison to talk.

Make America great again.

People say Ron's all Trump, but he is so much more.

Big league.

So good.

I just thought you should know.

I mean, that's embarrassing.

It is.

Absolutely.

No matter what you think about Donald Trump, and I think he's done done some great things.

That's embarrassing.

For anyone, you should never be.

That's

a near-religious association with a person.

That's what I felt like.

Yeah, and

cultish.

There used to be a time in the United States where politicians talked about policies and not just argued about who liked Trump more or who liked Trump less.

That seems to be the only standard of our politics at this point.

You know, Democrats all argue, just like this guy in Tallahassee.

He won largely because he was saying he hated Trump more than the other candidates.

And DeSantis won because he's saying that he likes Trump more than the other candidates.

It's just like, is there any other standard?

I mean, you know, Donald Trump was beat up for a long time in his pre-politics career for just having this gigantic ego and thinking everything was about him.

Well,

I guess he was right.

The entire time.

I guess the whole world is just about this one person.

You know, both parties seem completely obsessed with him all the time.

It really is amazing.

And of course, they don't look back to previous situations when we come to these controversies, like when Barack Obama in 2008 was talking about politicians

and made a very similar comment.

Listen.

I come from Chicago.

Racist.

So I want to be honest.

It's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past.

Sometimes Democrats have to.

Oh, my God.

Racist.

Double racist.

He said Chicago and Bill Conkey.

Wow.

I mean, look, we all know it's a common phrase.

And to go on television and pretend that this is some big controversy is completely absurd.

They all know it's not true.

And it's just feeding the addiction to outrage from the audience.

And I don't know.

Like at some point, it'd be nice if we could get past this.

I don't know that we can.

I don't know that society in general can.

Yeah, I don't know.

I don't know.

You know, Glenn's book goes through some ideas ideas for solutions, but man, I don't know if they're going to work.

I think they have to work or we're screwed.

I mean, we've lost.

We've come to the point where.

Give me one because I can't think of any.

What?

Give me one solution.

Oh, you've got proposals.

I'm not giving away his book.

All right.

But if you.

Available pre-order at Amazon.com.

Yes, September 18th, release date.

It is

one of those.

Just give me two of them.

Two of them?

Okay, I'll give you two of them.

We just need one.

I mean, really, I mean, Pat was getting greedy now, but I just like there one.

Yeah, I know.

I don't know that there is going to be one that works.

I mean, because I just don't, I think it's easy.

You know, I mean, I think it's easy.

You get in these little, you get in these little,

like, you get on these railroad tracks that lead you to outrage every day.

And, you know, it's so easy to stay on them.

Yeah.

You know, it's like, it's like with your phone.

Every day you wake up and you look at your phone.

And I don't know if, Pat, you're not a big phone guy, but I mean, I think a lot of America now is just basically addicted to their phone.

So you get up and you look at your phone and you read the news and you read emails and you tweet and you respond to people on Instagram and you do all the things that you're supposed to do on social media every day.

And then you realize, wow, I just wasted like 40% of my day on this phone.

There's an app that they have out there we've talked about before where it monitors how long you're looking at the phone, basically.

And they give you a report every day.

And good God, it's terrifying.

I mean, it's, you know, seven hundred

eight hours.

Yeah.

It's on mine.

Mine's a little weird because when I have like, I have a GPS on my phone or I have a, you know, a podcast app that'll listen on the way home and it'll add, you know, large portions of time, but it's still way too much.

It's still hours and hours of time.

I need to get that because I think I'd be pretty proud at the end of most weeks.

It would be zero minutes on the phone today.

Zero minutes on the phone this week.

Zero minutes on the phone.

You don't use your phone so much.

To listen to podcasts and

listen to

my iPad a lot, but the phone, not that much.

Well, I mean, the iPad would be your version.

It would be your version.

And it's not bad to go on these things, but it controls us.

It's like the phone is making the decision for you rather than you making the decision for you.

You know, there's some people who do these, like, there's a big thing on podcasts now are these sort of people who do these life reorganization type of, you know, I guess self-help type of things where you think about what you're doing and make decisions every day rather than letting the decisions of the day make you do things.

And one of the big suggestions is before you go to bed, write a list out of the three or four things you want to get accomplished the next day.

And when you get up, don't get on on the phone and start answering emails and get yourself into that wormhole where you're just reading tweets and you're doing all those things.

Instead,

start the day with looking at that list you made the night before when it seems so sensible that you're going to get them done.

You know, and then look at them and get those done first before you start diving into any of the frivolous things you do on the phone.

And I think the same thing happens with outrage.

Like we, you know, we, I think every night we would go to bed and say, you know what, tomorrow I'm not going to react to these stupid things the way I did today.

But then you get, you turn the phone on and everyone's pissed off, and then some liberal says something stupid.

And by the end of the day, you're outrich.

Yeah, and it is like an addiction.

It's just like how Glenn used to describe drinking.

He'd start the day saying, I didn't want to drink.

And by the end of the day, he'd be drinking.

And every day he'd say, before he went to bed, say, the next day, I'm not going to drink.

And the whole cycle repeats itself.

It really, I think, calling it an addiction, I don't know.

I mean, he has a lot of science in the book about why it actually is a physical addiction and why it fits that description.

But even if you don't believe that it's a physical, medical

addiction, it's something really freaking similar and it's not healthy.

It really isn't healthy.

Yeah, and it really isn't racism.

No.

What Ron DeSantis said yesterday.

888727 Beck.

It's Pat Stew and Jeffy for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

It's Pat Stew and Jeffy for Glenn.

So Ron DeSantis's opponent has spoken out about what he said yesterday.

And we were kind of hoping, okay, well, maybe

he'll take the high road here.

Maybe he'll defuse this whole thing and say, look, that's clearly not what he, he was not calling me a monkey.

Let's see how he responded.

Do you want an apology from Congressman DeSantis?

Do you think you're owed one?

You know,

let me be articulate and clear here, which is

we're better than this in Florida.

I believe the Congressman can be stopped.

You don't need to announce that you're going to be articulate and clear.

Just articulate.

Just clean it.

Just do it.

Let other people judge whether you're being articulate and clear.

That's not for you to say.

You don't need to.

By the way, I'm not going to just say stupid things in this next.

And I'm not going to be really convoluted.

Let me just monkey up my language right here.

No, I've done it.

Now I've done it.

I'm a racist too.

So just completely.

Everyone does that.

And that's just a delay tactic to get your thoughts together.

But you really don't need to announce it.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Start with me.

I regret that his mentor in politics is Donald Trump, but I do believe that the voters of the state of Florida are going to reject the politics of division.

What about the people who are

better than that, which is why I'm going to spend my time over the next two plus months getting around this state talking about the issues that matter to everyday voters in this state?

Kitchen table issues, health care, education, making sure we clean up our environment, which our governor has been derelict with the Republican legislature to do.

And I think that's how we're going to win November.

But it's clear that the congressman is going to join Donald Trump in the swamp.

We're going to leave them there and we're going to continue to press toward a higher mark.

It's unfortunate.

We've got to go down the politics of division.

I think we should go down the politics of dancing.

The politics of

feeling good.

The politics of moving.

And make your message understood.

You know what I'm saying?

Okay.

If I could be clear, if I could be articulate

when I'm stating these things.

It was funny, too, because I think

in his statement, he actually called, DeSantis called him articulate, right?

Yeah, he's an articulate advocate for his values.

Yeah, he did.

He did.

You know, he has an articulate.

Okay, this is where he's actually speaking about Gillam directly.

You know, he is an articulate spokesman for those far-left views, and he's a charismatic candidate.

Then he says: the last thing we need to do is monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state.

Okay?

So Gillam obviously, unfortunately, did not take the high road.

But it's just simple English.

Can we pay attention to

the sentence structure here?

If you're looking to

what monkey this up is talking about, the subject is not Gillum, it's socialist agenda.

Can we at least speak English here and

look at it as

normal, thinking, feeling adults?

No, we can't.

Quite clearly, the answer is no.

No.

No.

And I know on the outrage side of social media,

one of the big Twitter centers last night talked about the DeSantis should go on TV tomorrow and say, I'm sorry for saying monkey.

I meant to say we shouldn't F the country up with this socialism crap.

There you go.

And it's Pat's doing Jeffy for Glenn this week.

Triple 8727 back.

Is there football on tonight?

I'll bet there is, right?

There is

preseason NFL is on tonight.

Okay.

Any college football actual games?

There's got to be because this weekend, it really kicks off.

I think maybe Thursday night we have college.

Yeah, there's a bunch of games tonight.

I think tonight's Thursday.

What am I thinking?

Yeah.

Yeah, we probably do.

Yeah.

So football, football season's like right on top of us.

I love it.

Oh, me too.

I love it.

If only it felt like football season was on top of us outside.

And maybe

where you are, it does feel that way or it's starting to feel that way.

It's still very much pool weather here in Texas.

High today, like 97, I think, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

I love it.

Have you followed this idea of peak football yet?

No.

It's kind of interesting.

Yeah.

The concept is that football

as a sport has hit its peak and it's started to decline.

Now, a lot of people, you'll hear a lot of people on Talk Radio talking about how it's, you know, the kneeling or

the left-wing politics involved in it.

The rules.

Or the rules, right?

The rules changing to be more player-safe and all of those things.

It's interesting

that they are reporting now and they've studied the participants playing football from 1998 to 2018.

And the drop really started about 2002.

About that time, there was 26.5% of high school male sport participants played football.

That number has dropped now to about 23.5%.

And that turns into millions of people.

I mean, that's hundreds of, or at least tens of thousands of people.

That's significant.

Yeah, pretty significant.

It's dropped from 1.14 million, so about 80,000 less people have played football since the peak.

The actual, for raw numbers,

that peaked in about 2007 or 8 and has dropped.

And it's dropped significantly.

Now, obviously, a big part of that, I think, is parents saying to their kids it's not safe anymore.

I know I get that from my wife.

She does not want my son Zach playing football.

Now, of course,

he needs to play football.

It's an moral imperative.

Right, of course.

But yeah,

and flag football will still work, but a lot of parents don't want them to, when it gets to tackle football with helmet time, they don't want any part of that.

Yeah.

And so they're pulling, a lot of parents are, you know, saying no to their children, especially in the era of CTE.

Yep, CTE.

And people, you know, look, we're very early in our understanding about what is going on.

You know, a lot of the media will kind of make it look like, well, the NFL knew this whole time, and these bastards just let these players go out there and get hurt.

When you look at the side, I mean, they started taking their first steps about concussions about six months after

the very first people came out at Boston University and what they're talking about.

It was the next season, though.

It was the next season they did.

And, you know, you can argue whether they went too far or not far enough because I think the gameplay is really changing.

What was the name of the concussion movie where they showed

the doctor?

Was it called?

Concussion?

Yeah.

Now, that guy.

Did you see that?

Did you ever wind up watching that movie?

I don't think I did see it.

I saw the documentary on it.

They make the NFL look really bad in it.

And

it's not entirely accurate.

Right.

But because they presented everybody that way, everybody thinks, well, wow, they really handled that poorly.

Well, yeah, they dramatized a lot of it because they didn't know some of those things.

Some of those things didn't even happen.

I'm trying to think.

One of the guys who looked really bad was Dave Dewar from the Chicago Bears,

who was super callous,

didn't care about one of his friends who was in that situation.

Then, of course, later on, he himself died of the same thing.

And I was reading about that afterwards.

That didn't even happen.

It never happened.

He never had that confrontation with his friend with CTE.

And they just had to find a bad guy.

And I guess Dave Dewar wasn't around to defend himself.

And that's who they used.

Jeez.

Based on a true story.

Yeah.

And that's the problem.

When they say based on, everybody thinks it just is the story and it's not.

Yeah.

And it's just not.

It's interesting how little they actually know about this.

You know, one of the things that happened, because the famous doctor who first sort of identified this was not a well-known guy.

He wasn't a leader in the field.

He wasn't like, you know, the NFL had hired many of the leaders in the field.

Now it appears that

the leaders in the field at that time were wrong.

And this guy was right.

But I mean, like, if you're the NFL and some guy comes, hey, by the way, I'm going to take your sport down and there's this mysterious disease that no one else is recognizing, change all of your rules.

You just automatically

react to that and believe it.

Yeah.

And so when they actually went,

that guy got enough credibility over time, brought it to, I think it was Boston University.

And then they did a study on that.

And when that study came out and they finished the study and realized, hey, this is something,

that's when the NFL started changing its rules.

And it's interesting, to this day, they still don't know what causes it.

They don't know if it's one big hit.

They don't know if it's multiple small hits.

They don't know if it's more likely in smaller people or bigger people.

They also don't know if the general population has it.

They don't know that.

We don't know.

They don't know.

They don't test people who don't play football if they have it.

So

can you get the same thing in extreme sports?

Can you get the same thing in baseball?

Can you get the same thing if you bump your head several times during the course of your your life?

Can you get the same thing just

through

heredity?

Thank you.

Why can't I not think of that word?

It's a

CTE.

Oh my gosh, you're right.

Yeah, you might have CTE.

They're so far at the very infancy of their understanding of what's actually happening.

And I think it's smart, right, to do whatever you can to alleviate that risk to make sure that you're not.

Boy, begging your head?

Yeah, I think that's probably a pretty good idea.

Well,

I meant from the NFL's perspective, they should do what they can to protect the players

just in case that's what that is.

But to make them out to be these horrible bad guys that don't care about their people is such a stretch.

And it's just, it's an easy way to, it's the same thing you hear from

left-wing people all the time where they're like, well, this evil company

is doing this.

Modern day slides.

Let's blame

the big corporate bad people.

Blame companies.

Look for somebody like the Koch brothers where you can kind of focus your energies.

And it's just a simpleton way of understanding these issues.

These are not easy.

When you have a major development on something that's challenging,

put yourself in that position.

You built this giant business.

You bring in the best people

who you believe are the best doctors, people who are widely cited in medical journals and leaders in their field.

You bring them in.

They all say that this isn't an issue.

And then some guy that you've never heard of comes to you and says, hey, you know what?

The whole business you're building is like really hurting people.

You need to reverse that immediately.

Like, there'd be no way you'd react in a way of saying, Okay, well, let's change all the rules of our game.

Like, that, you know, that's like never going to be the way a human being reacts to that situation.

Right.

And because you're, it's going to take time for you to understand it, and can, and you're going to need backup and understanding of it.

And since they've had actual full scientific studies done and shown that this could be a risk, they have changed.

And I think a lot of people argue they've changed too much.

You know, they've changed too much.

It's, it's.

Leave Leave it to the NFL to monkey this thing up.

Oh, my gosh.

Oh, racist.

Did you know there's a black person in the NFL?

I know what you meant.

Oh, my God.

There's many, there's several black people, and that is exactly what he was referring to.

I hope everyone heard that.

I hope everyone.

I mean, he said it into a microphone, so I think they probably did.

Yeah, they probably did.

That's true.

You know what?

So did DeSantis, by the way.

Yeah, he did.

He said it into a microphone.

It's like, you wonder if you think he's a big racist and he doesn't want to get in trouble for racism.

He's going into, by the way, the general election, not a primary.

So even if you believe he has to give dog whistles to his audience, this is not the time for it.

He's got to convince people in the middle now.

Leave it to you to underplay this thing.

You're the one that just said monkey it up on the...

Dog whistles?

No, by full.

Let's listen to Andrew Gillam as to what this is now.

Was that racist or a figment of speech?

Well,

in the handbook of Donald Trump, they no longer

do whistle calls.

They're now using full bullhorns.

So that was what what I've got to say about that.

Thank you.

You're right.

And we've got to make sure that we stay focused, I think, on the issues that confront everyday people.

You know how I'm not going to get down in the gutter.

But what are you talking about?

That's exactly what he's doing.

It's exactly what he's doing.

He's beyond the gutter.

He's in the sewer system.

He's a bigger star in the future.

That's enough.

We've got to have.

But that's exactly what he's doing, right?

If he wanted to go back to the issues, what you would say is, look, he probably meant muck it up or monkey around.

He got him confused.

It's not a big deal.

I should beat this guy because he's a terrible politician with awful policies.

Not because he's come up, we're to all fake that we think this is a racial controversy.

It's not.

The guy wasn't doing, that is not what he was doing.

We're not grown up enough to do that.

No, we are not.

We're not.

Wouldn't that give you so much credibility, though?

Maybe I'm the only person anymore.

Maybe we're the only ones who think that way.

Like, I think, you know, if Tiger Woods came out today

and he said, you know what?

Here's a real issue about race that I think is really important and people need to focus on.

I would tend to give it a hearing because he has over time proven that he will dismiss nonsense about race.

And when it's not a real controversy, he'll dismiss it and he won't jump in the waters.

So if he did jump in the waters, he would have credibility with me because of that.

Tiger Woods has even dismissed things that you could construe as an actual comment.

Like what was the who made the chicken remark about him?

Yeah.

Do you remember that?

It was Fuzzy Zeller.

Was it Fuzzy?

Yeah, it was Fuzzy Zeller.

And he said, Look, I know Fuzzy.

That wasn't.

Yeah.

And that wasn't.

He didn't mean that that way.

And it just went away.

Yeah.

And the same thing he did that.

Yeah, because he was reasonable about it.

There was a female

golf digest or something reporter, the same exact situation.

He had this big opportunity.

And I think, you know, like LeBron James would have ridden it for every little

step he could have got out of it.

He would have gone on every television show and played the victim for six months off of being called a name by one of his friends.

And Tiger Woods is like, you know, she's on tour all the time.

You know, we have a great relationship.

I'm sure she didn't mean anything by it.

And brushed it off.

And that's why he gets beaten up so badly by the left-wing

sort of people who want everything to be some social justice issue.

And he's not.

He's not addicted to outrage.

He's not.

And who do people love to go see?

And who keeps the PGA pretty much afloat?

Oh, and 100% Tiger.

And, you know, despite the fact that he's obviously had his issues, I know.

You should have seen it.

I went to the PGA championship a few weeks ago, and, you know, tons and tons of people was in St.

Louis.

And the only way we could describe it was when Tiger was on a hole, it was like a moving stadium because

everyone follows him.

So you could watch.

If he comes to the 13th hole and you're on the 13th hole, which is generally where we were hanging around.

You know, Tiger comes up.

It's just jam-packed.

The next group comes through and you're like five feet away from the golfers.

No one's really around.

It was just like everyone there following this one guy.

And, you know, it's deeper than just what we're talking about, you know, when it comes to downplaying these things.

But I think that's, I do think that's part of it.

You know, someone who actually has the balls to not take the easy, the easy love of the victimhood, to just say, you know what, I reject what you're saying.

You know, this person, I could easily ruin this person's life right now by coming out against them.

But you know what?

No.

He's actually, he or she is not that bad.

And that was not a big comment.

That's a tough step to take.

He did it with Trump the other day.

And they're like, hey, you know, you want to come out and you want to talk about how bad Donald Trump is and race relations in America.

He's like, no, I'm hungry.

I just played 72 holes.

Like, that's

a great answer.

And we need more of it.

It's a great answer.

Yeah.

We need more of it.

Why do you think he's so popular?

Because he's not playing that game.

He's not playing the victim.

And by the way, he's black and white America loves him.

All America loves him.

It's the same with, you know, it's the same way we embraced O.J.

Simpson.

Nobody cared.

Nobody cared then.

Nobody cares now.

It's just a manufactured problem.

And so it's in front of us all the time.

And they're trying to make it a super divisive issue again.

When really, it seems like we were in a much better place before.

Before Barack Obama, we were in a much better place.

I believe that.

Prior to 2008, we weren't doing all of this stuff all the time.

No, it really was.

I mean, it's really a shame.

There was certainly a lot of disagreement.

I mean, you go back.

I was looking through some of our archives recently, and you go back at the things that people were saying about George W.

Bush.

They were, I mean, they absolutely were hammering him.

Honestly, looking back at it, it was closer to Trump than I remembered, you know, how hard they were on Bush.

I mean, they said all sorts of, I mean, they're calling him literally a terrorist in the middle of the war on terror pretty much constantly.

But that is at least about, you know, it wasn't about race.

It was more about the war.

It was about the war.

Policies.

Yeah.

It was more policy-based than just sort of, you know, accusations about some internal

vocabulary.

These dog whistles that they're constantly.

They definitely had racial allegations against him, but it was not nearly as bad as it is today.

We did not make any.

I mean, the polling shows it.

Barack Obama was supposed to come in as our first post-racial president, and the exact opposite thing happened.

I mean, race is more of an issue now than it's been in decades in this country.

Well, that was him.

I mean, that's what I'm saying.

And he inflamed

the opposite of Tiger Woods.

He inflamed it at every single turn.

Anytime he could advance that agenda, he would come out and talk about it, and he'd make it worse and worse and worse.

He'd talk about the birther thing constantly to try to get that into the mainstream more.

He did the opposite of what you'd want to do if your goal was actually to disarm these things.

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

Glenn back.

Coming up tonight on the Police TV, it's the news and why it matters,

featuring myself and Mr.

Pat Gray, along with Sarah Gonzalez and Jason Butcher, I think, is on tonight.

It's now five days a week.

You demanded it.

We're giving it to you.

Aren't we so sweet?

So that's coming up.

And also, I'll be hosting TV tonight as well.

And if you want to tune in, that comes up at 5 o'clock Eastern on the Blaze TV.

Plus, you can get the podcast.

I know the podcast, especially for the News and Why It Matters, does really well on iTunes.

I think you'd like the conversation.

It's

talking about the big stories of the day and breaking them down in a way I would say is considerably different than the way that MSNBC would do it.

I've noticed.

Yeah, I've noticed that.

I can get it on iTunes.

I hadn't noticed that.

I'll have to pay attention.

Really?

A little more closely, yeah.

We'll look into it.

Maybe I made it up.

Glenn back.

Hello.

Pat, Stu, and Jeffy.

For Glenn this week, 888-727-B-E-C-K.

Not that sharp today,

you know, having stayed out a little past my bedtime last night to see Def Lepper.

Where are you out?

You're acting like you were up till 4 in the morning.

Well, we got home at 11:30.

Oh.

Oh.

You know, come on.

We had dinner at 4 in the afternoon, the early bird specials at the buffet place.

And our bedtime, bedtime's about 7.

So that's

4 and a half hours past my bedtime.

Your current show every day begins at noon.

Correct.

Yeah, well,

noon Eastern.

Noon Eastern.

Here, though, it's 11 o'clock.

11.

Okay, so 11 o'clock.

Yes.

Yeah, come in and do some prep.

Right.

Your normal bedtime isn't 11 o'clock.

At night, you mean?

Yeah.

No, it's 7.

But my daughter bought us, she surprised me at Christmas with seats.

And, you know, so our seats that she could afford were somewhat high up,

like the exact highest row at the American Airline Center.

Really?

Our seats were so high, we were actually watching the concert from space.

Oh, really?

From space.

Wow.

But the good thing was the Hubble telescope, I was able to position it so I could gaze through it and see the stage with the Hubble telescope.

I'm glad you did it.

So that way it was.

I'm glad you found it.

Did you tweet and Instagram some pictures of it?

My wife actually did.

Yeah, she did.

They were good.

I mean, I know you're not a big, are you a big Deaf Lipper fan?

Oh, man.

Yeah, neither one of you are.

Can't keep away from

it.

For 60-year-old rockers, though, it were pretty good.

They still sound like they did in the 80s.

I could do that being a fun show.

They were really good, yeah.

And Journey Flipper.

And Journey was good, too.

You know, they still have most of the original members, but obviously Steve Perry is not part of the band anyway.

That Philip sounds like him is really good, though.

It's so weird to see that voice come out of him because you just, you don't, I don't know why you don't associate it with the Steve Perry voice.

But if you close your eyes, you could imagine it's Steve Perry on stage.

When you open your eyes, you realize

it's not Steve Perry.

It's not Steve Perry.

It's not Steve Perry.

But man,

he's good.

And

I don't know when he took over.

It seems to me he's been in the band almost as long, if not longer, than Steve Perry is now.

Yeah.

So, anyway.

So, did you Uber to the show so you could drink and party and get back home?

Oh, yeah.

You know what drinkers and partiers are.

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah.

So we hit it pretty hard, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, we hit it pretty hard.

I had a uh uh bottle of water.

Oh, my gosh, so I was

wiped out by the end of the night, 12 bucks.

You know, it's it's interesting because the soft drink I bought my daughter, my daughter came with us, uh, our 18-year-old, it was $9 for a soda.

$9.

Don't ever talk to me about price gouging during storms again, ever.

Right?

Ever.

I mean, they gouged you at a concert or any sort of event like this.

And the bottle of water was actually only $4.25.

Still, though.

That was a bargain.

Still, though.

$4.25.

I mean, if you would have bought a hot dog, I don't even...

$83,

I don't know what that would cost.

But man, they're making some money on concessions at the AAC.

I mean, I understand.

You go for Maverick games a lot, don't you?

Yeah, I go to a couple a year.

Is that about what you pay for the basketball games?

It's actually not a particularly expensive arena either, I would say.

I mean,

you can get some things that are relatively cheap there.

They give free refills on sodas and things like that.

You don't get that in most places.

Boy, no kidding.

But, you know,

it's a stadium.

We all know it.

I mean, we all know that you're trapped.

You can't leave.

You can't come back in with anything.

Right.

It's just, you're trapped.

You've got to let you in or out with your.

You just fled to the airport.

Yeah.

Security was fairly tight, too.

I don't know if they were expecting something, but man, it took a long time to get in.

Well, I mean, I'm sure this concert was great, but you missed the real entertainment of the evening.

That's what I heard.

Which was the Cynthia Nixon-Andrew Cuomo debate.

Uh-huh.

Which, again, I mean, they're both sort of nuts, right?

Like, they're both, you know,

but that's what makes it fun.

Yeah.

These hardcore leftists are eating their own.

I love it when that happens.

It is entertaining.

It's entertaining.

It is entertaining.

And they were very, very upset at each other.

There was a lot lot of fighting that went on.

It's a weird race because you have a guy who is a legacy name in that state.

His dad, Mario Cuomo, of course, was governor.

He's currently governor.

His brother is Chris Cuomo, who's on CNN every night.

And then Cynthia Nixon, of course, well known for Sex in the City.

She was like the one that people didn't really like that much on that show.

She's also essentially socialist, isn't she?

Yeah, she's like a Democrat.

She's like an Alexandria Casio-Cortez policy-wise.

So she's attacking from the left, Andrew Cuomo, and saying, you know, Andrew Cuomo, who has launched how many investigations against the Trump administration, who has, you know, trashed him at every

turn, is too pro-Trump for New York.

That's basically her case.

Wow.

Let's listen to some of the clips from this.

First of all,

I mean, this is the back and forth.

This is about lying.

Listen.

He used the MTA like an ATM, and we see the result.

He has had seven and a half years to avoid this very avoidable crisis in our New York City subway and he has done next to nothing.

Why would the next four years be any different?

Governor Wisdom.

My opponent lives in the world of fiction.

I live in the world of fact.

Let's just do a few facts, okay?

The subway system is owned by New York City.

The subway is controlled by the state since 1960.

Can you stop interrupting?

Can you stop interrupting?

Can you stop lying?

Yeah.

As soon as you do it.

So he is admitting that he's lying there, apparently.

He will stop lying as soon as she stops lying, is his premise here.

It's amazing because, first of all, you hear all the little pre-made catchphrases that are built in there.

You use the MTA like it's an ATM.

And you live in a world of fiction, and I live in a world of fact.

You know, the back and forth is somewhat uninteresting to me.

I don't care really what happens with the New York City subways.

I don't have to deal with them anymore.

So I, you know, if

they exist, if they don't exist, if they turn them into a museum, if they, you know, if

they never get used again, eh, they're really a huge factor in my life.

However, it's interesting to see them go back and forth because, again, you know, she's, of course, arguing for more centralized control, which is what you do when you're a democratic socialist, right?

And

I don't know the ins and outs of the subway debate there, but it's kind of a it's amazing that, like, you could tell she's tried to read up and tried to, you know, inject herself into this race as someone who's credible rather than just a celebrity.

You know, whether this is going to work or not, I don't know.

She's a huge underdog.

She did go on to, we always talk about bringing everything to race.

It's kind of a thing you have to do as a Democratic candidate.

And certainly if you're a Democratic socialist, every issue is really a race issue.

And Cynthia Nixon found a new one.

Listen.

You even ran a campaign contest giving away a bong to lucky supporters.

What do you say to a parent who's trying to teach their children to stay away from drugs?

So

I think it's very important that we legalize marijuana here in New York State.

Eight other states have done it, plus the District of Columbia.

There are a lot of reasons to do it, but first and foremost, because it's a racial justice issue.

Because people across all ethnic and racial lines use marijuana at roughly the same rates, but the arrests for marijuana are 80% black and Latino.

Marijuana in New York State has been legal for white people for a long time, and it's time to make it legal for everybody else.

What do you say to parents who don't want their kids starting to use drugs?

That's great.

I would say that

people now don't choose to use marijuana because of its legality or illegality, but what we need to stop is we need to stop the very uneven arrests of people of color for marijuana.

The way I would teach your kids to not do drugs is to completely avoid your question.

That's what I would like to do.

I mean, you know, look, the issue, if marijuana, if these numbers are correct, which they may be, I mean, I would assume largely a lot of that has to do with

the way cities are going to be policed as opposed to rural areas, right?

I mean, you're going to have larger minority populations in cities.

There's going to be more police officers in cities.

There's going to be largely more arrests of people in cities than someone who's on their farm in the middle of upstate New York smoking pot.

If those numbers are right, I mean, there's probably very logical reasons for them.

But beyond that,

if you think there's a problem with racial prejudice in the police department, the excuse isn't to make everything legal.

Like, you don't say like, well, you know, black people get arrested at higher rates for murder, therefore murder is legal.

Like, that's a really stupid solution to the problem you're trying to attack.

So, I mean, there are many reasons and arguments to be made about whether drugs should be legal.

You know, Jeffy can give them to you if you want them.

I mean, geez, there's a lot of them.

But still,

there's no reason to make something.

legal because of the fact you think it's a racial issue.

That's a totally different issue.

So if you believe police are racist and they're just racing, you know, looking for reasons to arrest black people, they're going to find other reasons to arrest black people.

Right.

Right.

If you can make pot

not a crime, they'll find another reason to arrest them because your premise is they're all racist and they want to arrest black people for no reason.

So why on earth would this make any difference in the problem you're trying to solve?

I guess the answer would be it's not.

That's not.

Cynthia Nixon also wants Medicare for all, just like so many on the left.

Now, we talked about this yesterday on the TV show.

If If you get a chance to go back and watch it,

talking about how there's a list of the top five candidates

for the Democratic nomination in 2020.

And

four of the five, I think, really fairly could be called Democratic Socialists, or at least at this point running as Democratic Socialists.

I mean, Bernie Sanders has already admitted it, right?

Now, in 2013, Bernie Sanders introduced Medicare for All for the country.

In 2013, he got exactly zero co-sponsors on that bill.

Zero.

When he re-announced it this time, he got Kirsten Gillibrand, who was there.

She's in the top five.

He got

Elizabeth Warren showed up for that one.

She's in the top five.

And there's one other one.

Oh, Kamala Harris, who was also in the top five, and she showed up.

Four of the top five supported that.

You know, Joe Biden is just like, I think, at home

in a hammock at this point, but he was actually number one in the list, I think, most likely, which is an amazing statement.

But I mean,

you could argue Biden isn't a Democratic socialist.

I think he's a super liberal guy.

And I think when he gets in the middle of this campaign, he's going to start sounding a lot like a Democratic Socialist because he's going to have to defend his left flank to win that primary.

So you're going to get a Democratic socialist as the Democratic nominee under most situations we can consider right now.

Now, you know, someone else jumps in, it could change the race completely.

But it's kind of interesting.

Here's Cynthia Nixon talking about Medicare for all.

Ms.

Nixon, you are proposing that New York State move to a single-payer health care system, also known as Medicare for All.

Everybody would be covered.

A RAND Corporation study found this would cost $139 billion.

That's almost the size of the state budget.

It would double it.

How do you plan to make this happen?

So the RAND Corporation also said that it would be a tremendous savings for New York State.

We can can ensure all of our people here by a single-payer Medicare for all system.

We can do it better.

We can do it cheaper.

We can do it with no co-pays, with no deductibles, and 98% of New Yorkers would pay less for their health care than they do now.

The same study also found this would nearly triple the state tax rate for an average family from 6% to 18%.

That's a family making roughly $100,000 to $150,000.

If you look at, say, what a family now who earns, let's say, $49,000, the cost of health care for that family is $17,500.

The cost between the individual and the employer would be a sixth of that.

What we would have is a payroll tax in order to pay for it.

It would be taken out of people's payrolls the same way that Social Security is taken out.

It would be an overall savings for 98% of New Yorkers, and it would be an enormous savings for employers here.

It is seen that it could create 200,000 jobs because employers would no longer be responsible for providing health care for their employees.

Wow.

I mean, that is none of what she said made sense.

No.

No.

It's going to double the budget, but it would also provide savings.

It's going to save us lots of money.

It's going to create 200,000 jobs.

Who's paying the 200,000 people?

Right?

Like, these are all,

you know, I mean,

we all know, when you start a gigantic government program, there is always some report you can cite that it's going to be a savings.

And all they have to do is take it out of their payroll.

That's all they have to do.

That's it.

It's just take it out of your payroll.

Well, is that...

I mean, that's what he's saying.

It's a payroll tax is better than

any other tax.

Well, it's a savings.

Well, it's a savings in that it comes out of my paycheck before I get my paycheck.

So that's a good thing.

I don't see how.

It's the same money.

It's still coming out of my cancer.

It's less money, though.

No, it's really not.

No.

You just say it's cheaper.

And then, I mean, we all know, obviously, the problems that go along with this.

I mean, we had this story, there's an NHS story here that I've been holding on to.

A woman,

mother, dies after failing to raise the 200,000 pounds.

So, you know, what's

going to be $250,000, $300,000.

She needed to get a cancer drug that was actually covered by NHS, but only covered for a different type of cancer.

So they have really promising results on her type of cancer as well.

And she wanted to try to get it covered.

They wouldn't cover it.

And they let her die because she couldn't raise the money in time.

And we've seen that, you know, stories like that over and over and over again from these systems.

Now, what she's arguing for is not quite all the way to Great Britain, but it's not far away either.

It's certainly a nice big step in that direction.

And because it will go bankrupt and because it will fail, they will eventually have to go to a more NHS-type system.

Yeah, they'll say they didn't go far enough.

Yep, it's always the answer.

We didn't charge enough, not enough taxes, not enough money from rich people.

We didn't get enough government control.

If we only could get that this time, it will work until next time when we have to do it again.

Based on the debate last night, who do you like in that race?

I mean, I'm afraid to cast my vote.

They're going to be tough, right?

I actually did cast my vote by moving to Texas.

Yeah.

Triple 8 727 back.

Glenn Beck.

It's Pat Stu and Jeffy for Glenn.

Triple eight seven two seven

back.

Mexican TV reporter was shot dead in Cancun.

It used to be, it seems, in Mexico with all this violence.

And last year there were

something like

32,000 murders in Mexico, almost double what we had in the United States with three times the population.

But it used to be that in the resorts,

the drug cartels didn't carry out their

killings and their violence because they still wanted tourism to come and

they didn't want their clientele to stay in the United States and be afraid to come to Mexico.

It seems like that's off now.

And they're killing people everywhere, resorts, inner cities.

It doesn't matter to them.

So a Mexican TV reporter was shot yesterday, becoming the eighth journalist to be killed this year in a country that's pretty dangerous for the media.

And it was pretty dangerous last year for the politicians.

Did you follow that where something like 180 candidates and politicians were killed last year?

It's hard to

imagine a country like that.

I mean, certainly we had a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer who tried to make that happen.

Yeah, right.

Generally speaking, that's seemed, especially the way it happens there.

It's just people walking down the street and just executed for no reason.

And then it's not like a mass shooting or a, you know, like if a building blows up with a lot of politicians in it, it's just like constant attacks all over the country.

Yeah.

In one case, a guy had just finished up with an interview and came out of a television building.

Some guy just walked up and shot him in the back of the head and walked off.

I mean, that's the kind of stuff that happens on a pretty regular basis.

And so you might think with that sort of violence south of our border, we might be careful about who's crossing that border.

Oh, don't be silly.

Yeah, I know.

I mean, the State Department has only ordered a travel advisory for Mexico now.

Oh, okay.

You know, it's a level two, so don't worry about it.

No, I just mean so.

I'm not, but I'm not worried about it.

But that's going us going to Mexico.

Right.

That's not.

That's not Mexico coming here.

Thank you.

No, don't worry about that.

Because everybody who comes across, just good, decent, hardworking family people that can't be separated from their families.

So it's not an issue.

I'm sorry I even brought it up.

Never mind.

What a jerk.

Never mind.

Why did you do that?

And I apologize.

Racism?

Well, no,

a terrible mistake.

Sorry.

You sort of monkey that up.

It's Pat Stone, Jeffy for Glenn.

You know what's been fun to see over the years is the evolution of Kanye West.

Is it an evolution or is it just, I mean, it's a complete change.

Yeah.

Yes.

180 degrees the opposite direction.

Do you remember right after Hurricane Katrina, they had that big fundraiser and all the celebrities got together and they went on TV and Kanye was one of them.

And

he and Michael Myers were sharing the stage and talking about how bad things were and how you needed to donate.

And here's this happened.

The destruction of the spirit of the people of southern Louisiana and Mississippi may end up being the most tragic loss of all.

George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Okay, so

Kanye going off script, just a tad, and Michael Myers was like,

I don't want to be here for this.

No, I don't.

That's not on the teleprompter.

Why are you saying that, Kanye?

Legitimately incredible.

And his delivery is so good of it.

George Bush doesn't care about black people.

He doesn't even try to make a transition

in Louisiana and Mississippi may end up being the most tragic loss of all.

George Bush doesn't care about black people.

So, not caring about black people is funny, is it?

No, it isn't.

No, just the way he presents it is funny.

Fantastic.

It's a little different now.

Yeah, it's changed quite a bit with Donald Trump.

He's a big fan of Trump, and he was doing an interview on 107.5 WGCI

about

apparently Donald Trump, or at least that came up in the interview.

Here's what he said:

I feel that he cares

about

the way black people

feel about him.

That's true, I would say.

Yeah, I'd say that's true.

And he would like

for

black people to like him

like they did when he was cool and the rap songs and all this and stuff.

Yeah, and

he will do the things

that are necessary.

to make that happen because he's got an ego like all the rest of us and he doesn't he he wants to be the greatest president and he knows that he can't be the greatest president without the acceptance of the black community so it's something that he's going to work towards but okay we're going to have to speak to him well that

that was actually pretty good analysis a decent case that he lays out

yeah we all know that that president trump likes to be liked wants to be liked and

will try to please people.

He's a pleaser.

And so that's kind of what he's playing into there.

He likes the people who like him, and he doesn't like the people who don't like him.

Exactly.

And, you know, if the black community,

again, one of these groups eventually is going to learn this.

You know, if you, I mean, and I think, you know,

Kanye and Kardashian and Kim Kardashian are two of the probably, I guess, the leaders in this because they know that if they're, if they take the

hit of going out

and backing Donald Trump, he'll give you you what you want.

And was there any doubt that when Kim Kardassian presented the woman who was in prison for 20 years for the first-time drug offense, was there any doubt in anybody's mind that the way she presented that to the president then showed up and was respectful and never said anything bad about him?

Was there any doubt in anybody's mind he was going to pardon her?

No way.

No doubt in my mind.

And he did.

It didn't matter whether he should have or not.

It was dumb.

It worked.

It was a dumb thing.

He knew it was going to happen.

They did it right.

They did it the way it was going to affect Trump positively.

And

I think Kanye's playing that same game now.

That's interesting because that's a different explanation than I would have thought he gave here.

Yeah, because until I heard this,

I was kind of under the impression that he just likes to be a contrarian from time to time, that he just likes to stir things up once in a while.

And so he just took the opposite stance of most of his peers and just said, I like Trump.

Because he's never really outlined that I've heard.

Maybe I've missed, you know, I try to stay as current on Kanye affairs as I possibly can, but it's possible I may have missed an interview where he outlined exactly what policies he likes about Trump.

But when I've seen him interviewed, he hasn't been able to articulate anything he particularly likes about him or why he's there.

And he doesn't there.

And he doesn't really there.

He just kind of, well,

he wants to be liked by us, so he's going to try to do the things that we like.

So we like him.

Right.

And I think I look, that effect is exaggerated with Trump, obviously.

But, you know, I think that it's a good approach for everybody.

Right.

I mean, like, if you don't come out and be a constant jerk to somebody, you have a better chance of getting something that helps you.

You know, we certainly all understand that when it comes to our business lives.

We certainly all understand that when it comes to our family lives.

Yet when it comes to politics,

all we do is, and this is not just us, it's the other side as well.

All we do is just rip each other constantly.

And, you know, people always say, well, you're never going to change, you know, Democrats' minds.

You're never going to change that.

Well, I mean, I don't know.

Look at, I mean, Trump does not get elected without Democrats.

He has absolutely no chance.

I mean, he does not win that race without,

what is it, you know, 10 or 20% of people

who voted for Barack Obama twice and then voted for Trump.

You know, so

if you go there and

and you can win over people that are, you know, that are winnable.

Some aren't.

You're not going to win Michael Moore over to your case.

But if you focus on actually trying to persuade people rather than, you know, just trying to kind of have your views, you know, echoed back to you, I think that's a good approach.

And it's probably a smart approach by Kanye here, right?

I mean, you're not.

I think it is.

I think to turn your thing around, is there any chance that this woman gets pardoned without Kanye and Kim Kardashian?

No, I think the chances are

very low.

I know Jared Kushner's big on the criminal justice reform thing, so maybe he would have found this particular case

because what we've heard from other

people who are for criminal reform since then that wouldn't be for letting her go.

They weren't for that release of her, which is weird.

So

there was, they, they had some other problem with why she was in jail, how it was portrayed.

It was portrayed that she was the first-time offender and that she was a mother.

And that necessarily, I don't think, was 100% true.

I've definitely heard the case that the idea, you know, when you say a first-time offender and she wasn't, you know, doing drugs or selling drugs, she was transporting them.

And you think of that, and you're like, all right, well, what did what?

She's bringing them across town.

But I guess it was a very large amount of drugs that affected a community very negatively for a long period of time.

So

it wasn't quite as simple as it was portrayed by, you know,

do we really expect the nuance out of Kim Kardashian?

Is that, you know,

no, not at all.

But again, does she get out without them?

No way.

I don't think so.

No.

Right.

No way.

And we had, we hadn't been told when that happened that they had dozens of other cases like this that they were planning on moving on, and we haven't seen any really since.

So I don't know if they've just halted that program or, I mean, maybe they need, you know, I mean, this is something, you know, maybe Trump, I think Trump likes the idea that, you know, a celebrity comes in there and says, hey, you know, here's a sensible thing, and

please do it.

And then you've got to believe it.

Kim Kardashian has, what, 100 million followers on social network, probably.

The fact that she's coming out and saying positive things, Kanye West the same.

That doesn't hurt.

That doesn't hurt.

And while, again, there is a Rasmussen poll out there that has Trump's approval rating among African Americans very high, I think in the 30s,

most polls have shown.

an improvement, not quite as drastic as Rasmussen, but in the mid-teens, which is high for a Republican president, at least in recent memory, going back at least a couple of presidents.

And there's probably a couple factors.

One,

black unemployment is at record low levels.

And the other factor is probably Kanye West and Kim Kardashian saying good things about him.

I mean, really, the black unemployment level really should be a lot more important than what Kim Kardashian says.

But I don't know that it is.

I don't know that it is right.

I think, you know, politics are so much emotion and so much feeling and so much perception that the Kanye West, Kim Kardashian thing might actually be more important than the low unemployment rate, which is ridiculous.

But I mean, because it really, that should be, if all is fair here, just that difference.

You know, the African Americans having such a high unemployment rate for such a long time, the fact that he's the first president who's really overseen a large decrease in that to the lowest levels that we've seen in a long time.

You know, it should be enough to win over 30 or 40 percent, you'd think, of the population.

Because that's such a big issue.

Again, it's the economy stupid.

We've been told that for decades.

And the fact that that one has really been improved, you know, really hasn't had the fanfare that you would expect if we weren't all in our tribes and all partisan all the time.

There's a new issue with the president that he tweeted out this morning that I don't know what it is.

And I don't know that anybody knows what this is.

There's only one person who might know who it is, and the president of the Lester Holt fan club, Jeff Fisher.

Yes.

So, Jeff, we'll be turning to you in a moment.

But President Trump tweeted out this morning: when Lester Holt Holt got caught fudging my tape on Russia, they were hurt badly.

What?

What did Lester Holt do to fudge your tape on Russia?

I don't even know what he's talking about there.

What?

Yeah, there's been no stories about that.

He's never, before today, complained about it.

There's been no leaks from the White House press corps about this tape being a problem.

He did an interview, and he's never said there was anything wrong with the interview, really, before.

And no one seems to know that.

Lester Holt has done nothing but

report the news and been down-the-middle road.

Jeffy's been obsessed with Lester Holt since I've known him.

No one understands why.

He can never explain why he loves him so much, but he loves him.

He's an ardent defender of

Lester Holt, which is strange.

He is the only Lester Holt fan I've ever heard of or seen.

Yeah.

So it's kind of fascinating.

Yeah.

It's kind of fun to see.

There's another situation like this recently where Donald Trump tweeted out that he had a 52% approval rating in a recent poll.

And, you know, again, like

all the people who follow polls for a living were tossing this around and saying, what is he, like, what is he talking about?

There's no poll that has been released that shows him with a 52% approval rating.

Now, it's kind of standard Trump treatment and really any politician treatment is to pick your best poll and act like that's the only poll, right?

When you have a good one, you tweet that one, but when you don't, you don't.

That's very typical.

Pretty functionality.

You do that all the time.

Everybody does it, right?

Like you highlight your good things and you de-emphasize your bad ones.

But this one doesn't even seem to exist.

The only thing they could come up with was there was an NBC poll that showed he had 52% disapproval rating and that maybe he just misread it, which is, you know, everybody makes mistakes.

But I mean, this is a great example.

That's hard for me to believe that Donald Trump would make a mistake like that, though.

I guess it could happen to anybody.

Is it hard to believe?

Oh, yeah.

But it's interesting in that this is the great reason, I think, to implement the policy that I've been living by for a while, which is, you know, if Donald Trump tweets it or Donald Trump says it, there's no reason to spend any time on it.

Maybe you get the quick, okay, here's what he might have meant and let's move on.

But I mean, both of these things, like the fact that

he's talking about Lester Holt, like we can spend a month trying to figure out, try to read his mind and figure out what he's talking about.

But it does it matter?

If he has evidence of it, I'm sure he'll produce it.

And then when he has evidence, that's him doing something, not just tweeting it.

When he wants to do something, we talked about this a little bit yesterday with Russia.

If you look at what Donald Trump has said and tweeted, you may very well get the impression that he's super light on Russia and is best friends with Vladimir Putin.

When you look at what his administration has done with Russia, it's sanctioned them a lot of times.

He's actually been, I mean, you know, and you could say, well, it's only other people in his administration.

Well, that's his, you know, he's responsible for his administration.

And by the way, he's been taking away those sanctions, but they haven't haven't been taken away.

They haven't been taken away.

So a guy like Donald Trump, who continually tells you a lot of the things he says and tweets are about negotiation, meaning he doesn't actually mean them.

He's just sort of throwing them out there to push negotiations in a direction that he finds favorable.

Why would you listen to them?

He's telling you half the time he doesn't mean what he's saying.

So why not take him at his word and just let him tweet and let him, you know, pay attention to these, you know, or and let him talk and say these things.

But when he actually moves to do one of them, at that point, you can start to take it seriously.

And obviously, when he's tweeting bad things about Lester Holt, those can't be true.

Obviously.

This is your big problem.

This is your biggest problem with Trump right now.

Jeffy's on board with all the other stuff, but

you do not bash Lester Holt in Jeffy's world.

They're going to have a few words about that.

Triple 8, 727, back.

Pat Stew and Jeffy.

For Glenn this week, We have an interesting guest coming up in a few minutes who is about to hopefully debunk some widely held beliefs.

And one of them is by my wife.

And I want him to call her because...

The main reason this interview is happening is so that you can easily debunk your wife.

Yes.

Exactly right.

It's going to be great.

Aaron E.

Carroll, he's, you know, you may have seen his stuff online.

He has a big YouTube channel, also writes for the New York Times.

And he wrote a book called The Bad Food Bible, which goes through a lot of myths about, you know, everywhere you look online now,

is someone sharing some scary claim about something that doesn't seem all that bad.

And you're supposed to, you know, like you're never supposed to have any salt.

And

gluten hurt-free tomorrow.

Salt is going to kill you.

Yeah.

And you go through all this stuff.

He goes through all of it with the science that's what we actually know.

And a lot of the stuff winds up not being true at all.

It's amazing.

Or there's a little tiny hint in one study, but 20 other studies prove the opposite, and there's no reason to believe that one study is right.

Or there was a hint at one point about this thing being bad, but since then they've run other studies and proved the opposite.

That's why I've lived my life still under the guise of everything in moderation.

That would be a guise for you.

That's a good word.

The guise of everything in moderation.

So this is going to be pretty interesting.

And, you know, I think so many people get locked up in this stuff, especially with social media, where you feel everything's evil.

Everything you eat is going to kill you.

And you wind up not enjoying life like you should be able to.

So, we're going to go into that coming up with Aaron Carroll after the break.

And 888727 Beck is the phone number.

We invite you to subscribe at theblaze.com/slash TV.

Check it out.

Lots of great shows, lots of news and commentary you can't get anywhere else.

Theblaze.com/slash TV.

Glenn back.

I don't know about you, but probably we all got about a week to live.

That's that's how I

was on Pinterest yesterday, and everything on Pinterest tells me that I'm going to die on the bottom.

All of it kills you, everything on it kills you.

All foods will kill you very soon.

Bananas?

Deadly.

Oh, deadly.

Deadly.

Everything is.

Oh, man.

What is the deal with bananas lately?

It's the worst food you can eat.

It doesn't eat.

Bananas?

Yeah.

Or the worst food I can eat.

No, I can think of, I don't know, pork rinds.

That's got to be worse for me, doesn't it?

Kale has to be.

No.

Kale has to be.

I don't eat that, though, so that's not the worst thing for me.

Kale is definitely deadly.

It's confirmed by science.

Inedible.

One of the interesting things we're dealing with in this, in kind of this social media world is

people like to take a real scientific study, which might be really conclusive or maybe not, pull out one kind of scary thing out of it, and blow it up into a very scary sounding article or tweet or Pinterest post.

That, of course, scares the hell out of everyone and gets shared wildly because you're trying to protect your friends' lives.

And this phenomenon is building upon itself.

And I actually think it's worse than what we say.

We complain about fake news and politics or something like that.

You hear those complaints all the time.

I think it's much worse when it comes to health stuff because it's not partisan.

And there's not really anyone on the other side pushing back.

At least when Democrats and Republicans go back and forth at each other.

There's at least an argument there.

So you can at least look at, I don't know, two sides of the issue, no matter how nonsensical they are.

With health stuff, it's just scary or nothing for the most part.

One person who actually does push back on that is Aaron E.

Carroll.

He's a professor of pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine.

He's got the IncidentalEconomist.com, also has a great YouTube channel called Healthcare Triage, and he joins us now.

Aaron, how are you?

I'm good.

How are you?

Really good, really good.

Really appreciated your story about the latest scary, scary study

about the risks of alcohol.

Seemingly everywhere that I saw it reported, it meant that the only safe level of alcohol was none.

And if you have any, you're really putting yourself in danger.

What does the study actually say?

So, I mean, that absolutely was the take-home message, and that's what the news said.

So, and I think that if you read the study, I think that there are authors of the study that might actually vocalize that and say it.

But that is not what the study actually showed.

So, first of all, it's important to understand this was not a new trial.

This is not like they

did some randomized controlled trial or study where they gave some people alcohol and some people not and saw what happened.

This is just what we call a meta-analysis, which means that once again, they sort of gather up all the research that's already out there and just put it in a big pile and analyze it again and again and again to see if they can get anything new out of it.

And when you do that, you get statistical significance because you keep adding data, but it doesn't necessarily change the outcome or how bad things are.

And so, what they found was that they can say, Okay, look, we're looking at 23 different harms that might come from alcohol, and we're looking at 28 million people in studies.

And we could detect that even at one drink a day, there's a statistically significant risk.

And, of course, then they say, Well, then anything greater than zero is bad.

But the first thing to understand is, one, this is observational data.

They can't control for things, and that's important because people who drink tend to sometimes be different than people who don't drink.

People who drink often smoke.

Smoking is terrible for you.

People who drink are often poorer than other people, especially when they drink a lot.

And that, of course, has health implications.

And people who drink might live in different areas or drive differently or all kinds of things can be related, and they can't control for any of that.

But even if we accept all of it, the actual numbers are much less scary than the headlines would have you believe.

So even they in the study say that for every 100,000 people who have one drink a day, 918 might experience one of these 23 health effects in a year.

So, right off the bat, 918 out of 100,000 is not that much.

But then they have to acknowledge that of 100,000 people who don't drink, 914 of them are going to have a

significant health problem.

So, that means that of the 100,000 people who might drink, 99,082 of them are unaffected.

914 of them are going to have a health health problem no matter what they do.

Only four out of 100,000 people might have a health-related problem that's related to alcohol.

And that's a might.

That's not a definite they've proved it's causal.

It's a maybe.

Four out of 100,000 is unbelievably small compared to almost anything else you might do every day.

And even at two drinks per day, that 914 only goes up to 977.

Even at five drinks per day, it's still less than 1,300, which means still that 99% of people almost who drink five drinks a day, which I think all of us can agree is probably too much,

still don't have a health-related effect.

So getting people all panicked about this is sort of done by sleight of hand or by arguing that

the relative risk or how much your risk might increase is much more important than the absolute risk, which is really what we should care about.

Yeah, because I mean, I thought looking at the study and the way you explain it, which is great, four out of 100,000,

that gives you a cost-benefit analysis in a way, where you could say, I would have honestly guessed that drinking alcohol

was worse for my health than that level.

It was almost encouraging me to go to the bar, which is like, no, it's not what you intended.

But it's interesting, and you brought

a term to my attention that I think would be a great thing to become a lot more popular, which is the number needed to harm.

Can you kind of explain what that means and how it applies here?

Well, there's two sides of that coin.

So one of the things we always talk about is number needed needed to treat, number needed to harm, and they're both both sides of that.

But we can absolutely focus on the harm.

So, this is what's important: that people don't get, is that harms happen often whether or not you get the actual thing that we're worried about.

So, that's what I was trying to talk about when I say, look, 918 people who drink a drink a day have a harm, but 914 people who don't drink every day have a harm.

So, you can't just look at the people who have harm.

What we have to care about is the people who would change change based upon whether or not they get the alcohol.

And so if only four out of 100,000 people get the harm because of the alcohol, in other words, not just that they got a harm, but we can absolutely say it's because of the alcohol, then that means that the number needed to harm is 25,000 people.

Which means that we have to give a drink a day to 25,000 people to get one of them to experience a harm because of the alcohol.

And too often when we talk about health stuff, we only focus on the harm and how many people are harmed, but it's how much how many people are harmed because of the alcohol.

One out of 25,000 is unbelievably small.

Really small.

And I feel like this stuff really is

happening so often.

People just don't understand risk.

They take everything in absolutes.

And I feel like with social media in particular, it really scares the hell out of people to live a life that they want to live.

And I feel like that's a really bad outcome.

Do you see that?

absolutely.

I mean,

absolutely.

I think that

we're trying to scare people with food, but I think there's another side of that coin:

you get people who will swear on the benefits of certain diets and food, too, when those benefits are almost just as small as the harms I'm talking about here.

You know, people will swear by if you go gluten-free or if you avoid genealogy, like there's there's like no evidence for any of that stuff.

And even if there is a benefit, it is again so small that it's inconsequential in most people's lives.

And with the harm, I think what also people seem to forget is that, you know, one, there's sometimes a cost to these, there's an economic cost to these kinds of avoidance or these kinds of seeking out certain kinds of food, but there's also a quality of life lost.

Some people like to have a drink every day, and it is perfectly rational to accept, even if it is true, a four in 100,000 chance if the quality of life that they are gaining from eating or having that drink is greater than whatever harm they might be having.

That is rational.

But too often, I think when it comes to health studies,

we think that we're all supposed to live forever and that there's some magic to this, that we should avoid all harms no matter what, even if we're sacrificing happiness or money or quality of life.

We have to be able to judge whether or not these kinds of risk avoidances are worth it.

Aaron, you brought up gluten a minute ago.

That is one of the fads that is so prevalent now.

So many people I know and have seen and talked to are on gluten-free diets, and a lot of them aren't even allergic to gluten.

In fact,

very few people are actually gluten-intolerant, and yet everybody's on this bandwagon now.

How did that start?

Well,

so first of all, we should acknowledge, like, you know, some people have celiac disease, which is an immunological issue.

That's a different thing.

Absolutely avoid gluten, but that's maybe 1% of the population in the United States.

If that.

People who have a wheat allergy and therefore are avoiding gluten because they're allergic to wheat, yeah, might benefit from avoiding gluten because the wheat ever goes, but that's less than 1% of the population.

It's the other 23, 24% of the population who don't have either of those two things but are avoiding gluten for whatever reason

that are doing it again in a way that actually might be providing more harm to their lives than good.

So, you know, a lot of them will claim that they're gluten intolerant or there's some vague clinical syndrome that's doing this, but But there have been really good randomized controlled trials trying to find these people, trying to test whether, you know, secretly eliminating gluten from their diet makes them better.

And those studies show that it doesn't.

One, the people who think they're gluten intolerant don't meet the clinical criteria for it.

And even when they do,

being secretly put on gluten-free diets doesn't make a difference in their health.

In which case, why are you doing this?

Gluten-free foods cost more.

Gluten-free foods often are less nutritionally good by whatever sort of people would measure.

We spent like, in the United States, like, I think it's like a billion or two on gluten-free dog food or pet food in the last year or two.

I mean,

we've just gone too far.

Oh, my gosh.

It's the panic du jour.

It's, you know, what we've decided to focus on and say it's the problem.

We've been eating gluten for tens of thousands of years, and the human race is doing just fine.

It's not some magic thing that people have all of a sudden figured out.

Now, I will say, if by going gluten-free, people, you know, eat less processed food, stop eating so much bread, or somehow, you know, change their diets in such a way that they lose weight and they feel better, great.

But don't think it's gluten and don't sort of proselytize and tell everyone else that they have to eat like you eat.

There's nothing really to fear from gluten in that respect.

You know, I just read an article a couple of weeks ago that the headline was, There is no safe amount of bacon you can eat,

including one piece, Not one a day.

One piece.

Is it serious?

Yes.

Is it serious?

Yes, it was serious.

Oh, my God.

I thought it was serious.

In a column I just wrote in this alcohol study, I made this joke with dessert.

I was like, I can, there's no safe amount of dessert.

I bet I can make a chart, but that doesn't mean you should never eat dessert.

Okay, if somebody was serious about that,

processed red meat is sort of the thing that the WHO,

and which means the, you know, the I, whatever it is, the IARC, but the WHO declared to be absolutely a carcinogen.

Of course, you have to know that of the like, I don't know, 1,200 things the WHO has ever looked at to say whether or not it causes cancer, I think two of them, they said no,

which means basically they can find a link to cancer with anything.

And of course, that doesn't mean you should have none of it.

We know that the sun causes cancer in huge amounts.

That doesn't mean you don't go outside.

You just have to be careful.

Now with bacon, this is another one of those where it's the relative risks and everything else.

So, even the studies that they can find are confounded and they have problems, but they say for every extra serving of processed red meat that you would eat a day, let's use bacon as an example.

For every extra serving of bacon a day, your overall cancer risk goes up in a lifetime, I think, by 18%.

So, which means if I, you know, Aaron Carroll committed to eating three extra pieces of bacon every day for the rest of my life, my relative risk of cancer might go up, and I say might again, 18%, but that's relative risk.

Wow, okay.

If I go to

the NIH and I plug in my statistics, and it really can't do that till you're 50, but if I did and said I was 50,

my overall cancer risk might, I think if I remember correctly when I did this once, it was like, let's say, 3 or 4%.

I can't remember the exact number.

But it's not, you don't add 18.

It just goes up 18 over 3 or 4%.

So we'll go from like 4 to 4.4, which is an incredibly tiny amount.

amount.

And that's if I'm going to eat an extra three pieces of bacon every day for the rest of my life.

And I love that.

But I'm probably not going to do that.

You know, that's a lot of bacon.

And they do make it seem like it actually does go up that 20% or that 30%.

That's a remarkable point.

Yeah.

And again, if it goes from 4 to 4.4 again, that's a 0.4.

That means the number needed to harm is hundreds.

Which means that for every hundreds of people that choose to eat three extra pieces of bacon a day,

every one of them but one will be unaffected, and one of them may actually be affected.

So even if you do it,

it's still overall incredibly low risk.

And still less than the alcohol risk we talked about before.

We're talking to Aaron Carroll.

He's the author of the Bad Food Bible, which goes over a lot of this stuff.

You should totally get that.

And works for the New York Times as well.

We want to get to this, though, for sure, because this is going to change Pat's life.

If you could mail this one, Aaron.

Yes.

Sure.

This is a salt.

Now, Pat gets the look from his wife every time he puts a salt on his food.

Every time I reach for the salt shaker, I get stink eye.

Right.

Yeah, we got about a minute or so.

Can you give us a rundown on salt?

Yeah, so salt is one of those things.

Well, look, if you have super high blood pressure and you're consuming a crazy exorbitant amount of salt, maybe you should cut back in it.

But the problem is that the vast majority of Americans are not consuming a crazy amount of salt.

And a lot of the studies have shown that very low salt diets can actually be, are linked to as much, if not more, health problems than high salt diets.

That eating a very low amount of salt is actually associated with a higher risk of heart attacks and a higher risk of death than high salt diets.

But even then, most salt that you're eating is not coming out of the salt shaker than what you're adding.

It's what's already in processed food.

If you're already thinking about if you're making your own food at home, especially if you're cooking, add as much salt almost as you want.

That's not where the sodium in people's diets are coming from.

But if you are not at high risk of heart attack and you seriously don't have high blood pressure, there's not much evidence for avoiding, you know, for the salt avoidance that everybody's pushing.

Certainly not to the very, very, very low levels that the WHO, the FDA,

and the American Heart Association are pushing.

I need you to call my wife after the show.

I get the book.

I have a whole chapter on salt in the book.

A whole chapter.

Perfect.

It's the bad food Bible.

Aaron Carroll, his stuff is, you can get it at the New York Times as well as on YouTube at Healthcare Triage.

It's great stuff.

And you can follow him on Twitter at Aaron E.

Carroll.

Thanks so much for coming on the program.

Thank you.

All right.

Back in a second here.

888727.

Beck is the phone number.

Glenn Beck.

We didn't get to asking him about bananas, which I wanted to do.

Dang it.

Darn it.

Well, it does seem to be a jihad.

There's a bananas for somebody.

There's a weird

against bananas now.

Bananas could kill you.

There's no safe level of banana consumption that can avoid death.

Really?

If I eat a banana, I'm going to die?

Well, yeah, 60 years or so, you will.

But probably not any time quick because you just ate a banana.

And it so much depends on the other things you're doing in your life, right?

I mean, like if you are, as he pointed out in the alcohol study, they don't control for smoking.

Well, you know,

first of all, drinkers are more likely to smoke.

Like you said, yes.

You know, and certainly people who drink enough to be alcoholics, on the chart, they show that the actual study produces results up to 15 drinks a day.

Now, look, if you're having 15 drinks a day,

yes, that is really bad.

You shouldn't do that.

But, you know, someone who's drinking 15 drinks a day is not only drinking 15 days of drinks a day, probably can't hold down a job, probably can't afford health insurance.

So there's other unhealthy things going on.

Probably is on drugs, too.

I mean, there's all, probably gets in their car after five drinks and drives it to the bar.

There's all sorts of terrible things that they're doing.

That's an interesting concept, yeah.

Yeah, and it is.

I feel like that is something that is completely the media has completely dropped the ball on, which is just explaining what risk means.

You know, if you, I think it's a completely rational stance.

Because they like the hysteria.

Because they like the hysteria.

They like the clicks.

But I mean, think about this.

If someone said to you, let's say the science is perfect, and someone said to you, you can have bacon every single day, which does anyone, I mean, I know Jeffy eats

his share, but

not every day.

You don't eat bacon every day.

I mean, bacon every day seems like a pound of it anyway.

No, I don't.

It feels like a thing from the 50s, right?

Where you'd wake up every morning and you'd have eggs and bacon.

Like, who has time to have bacon every day?

Not at all.

That's what you have the wife for.

But if you were told to have bacon every day and you had it every day, and you were told the risk for that was a 0.4% increase in your chances of it.

I'm going to have to have bacon every day.

Every day.

It's really rational to make a determination that, hey, it's worth it.

I really enjoy bacon.

I'm going to get to have it every day and a 0.4%

increase.

I'll take the risk.

And I think that's completely rational.

We do it all the time.

When we get in cars, we all know there's a risk that we're going to get to die.

We're going to get into

planes, cars.

Everything.

And we say, you know what, worth the risk to go to work every day day because we were going to help our family, and blah, blah, blah.

It's a totally rational way of thinking about it, but that rationality never enters into the way the media covers science and health.

And I think it really affects people's lives negatively.

This is why I'm having three pounds of red meat for every meal from now on.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

With Path Stew and Jeffy, for Glenn,

727, B-E-C-K.

It looks like the effort to silence people did not start this year.

They were talking about doing this.

They were talking about the process by which you would begin to, I don't know, curb the internet and the expression of people's freedom of speech on the internet.

That started a while ago.

Yeah, this is pretty interesting.

Listen to this clip.

It's from Barack Obama

several years ago.

I want to say it's 2011, but it does not say it in this article.

I looked it up earlier, and we've been kind of sitting on this for a few days from when sort of the Alex Jones thing was really going crazy.

Again, put Alex Jones back,

put him back where he was.

Thank you.

Is he crazy?

Yes.

Does he like trans porn?

Yes.

It looks like he does.

It does seem like he likes it.

It does seem like he does.

He's a fan.

But to Jeffy, that makes him even more appealing.

Am I right?

So, but we can decide for ourselves if the guy is telling the truth, if he's making stuff up out of whole cloth, give us a little credit.

Put him back on.

Yeah.

Stop silencing people.

Yeah, just let him speak and let him make an idiot of himself in front of everyone.

I mean, that's one of the best things about our society is that we have free speech enough so that you can make a moron out of yourself in front of people.

There's nothing wrong with that.

And I think we need to get over it.

The idea that you're going to be able to control things like that is, I think,

misguided.

They're showing us that right now.

They want to.

And we've been seeing that, I think, for a long time.

So listen to this.

I mean, I think you can look at this and say,

Let me put it by you guys.

Is this innocuous?

Is this just Barack Obama saying, hey, we got to get people to, you know, to be more accurate?

Or is this

foreshadowing?

It's sort of a foreshadowing of what we've seen recently with these big companies kind of cracking down on speech that they don't like.

Here it is, Barack Obama talking about truth on the Internet.

Look,

this takes us a little bit far afield, but I do think that it's relevant to the scientific community.

It's relevant to our democracy, citizenship.

We don't have a democracy.

We're going to have to rebuild

within this wild, wild west of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to.

Oh, hmm.

What people?

Huh.

You know, I use the analogy in politics.

It used to be there were three television stations and Walter Cronkite's on there, and

not everybody agreed, and there were always outliers who thought that it was all propaganda, and we didn't really land on the moon, and

Elvis is still alive, and so forth.

But generally, that was in

the papers that you bought at the supermarket, right, as you were checking out.

And generally people

trusted a basic body of information.

It wasn't always as democratic as it should have been.

And it's always exactly right that, for example, on something like climate change, we've actually been doing some interesting initiatives where we're essentially deputizing citizens with

handheld technologies to start recording information that then gets pooled.

They're becoming scientists without getting the PhD.

And we can do that in a lot of other fields as well.

But there has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can

sort through

information that passes some basic

truthiness tests.

Truthiness

tests.

Truthiness.

And those that we have to discard because they just

don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world.

And that's hard to do.

But I think it's going to be necessary.

It's going to be possible.

I think

the answer is obviously not censorship, but it's

creating

places where

people can say this is reliable.

And I'm still able to argue about

safely about facts

and what we should do about it

while still

not just making stuff up.

And who is it that is the arbiter of truth then?

Well, the truthiness lord.

Okay.

Have we appointed a truthiness czar yet?

It's possible.

Coming soon to a country near you.

That's absolutely foreshadowing what's going on right now.

Yeah.

It took them a while to get to it, but they're doing it now.

Because it is.

Again, it's not coming through the government, as he kind of points out there.

He's not talking about government censorship.

Right.

But the censorship is sort of coming

at other levels from large companies.

Many people from the administration are on the boards of the people.

They've picked people to go out and

record and find truthiness.

It's the weird part of that, too, or deputizing citizens to go record things on climate change.

A little chilling.

And look, I think you can look at that and say he's correct that this problem exists, right?

There is a problem with people.

We just talked about it with health information, where that stuff gets completely

massacred when it gets to goes through the media cycle.

It's not even close to what this study actually says and we've seen so many examples of that but that's up to us to figure out yeah i mean that's kind of unbelievable hesitant to get me too to get i don't know the government involved in that stuff uh you know i think our founders were too they really like kind of made a big deal about government staying out of speech matters yeah i mean that was the big deal right when they when the printing press you know we had the printing press and people were just printing whatever the heck they wanted to print i mean that was the first set of lies right i mean they could print you just print whatever you want.

Yeah, Glenna was okay.

There's one, I can't remember which one it is.

There's some founding father that wrote about the freedom of speech and how far it goes.

And he defended it to the point that the press could print things that they maliciously know are false and are using only to hurt the person.

And it's still protected by social government.

That's how far they wanted it to go.

Good.

Wow.

And, you know, so government has, to me, zero role when it comes to free speech.

But, you know, they don't believe that.

Yeah, and they don't.

And it's interesting because what you have is a bunch of people.

And this, you know, probably goes both ways, but it certainly does on the left, where you have people who, if they had their drothers, would use the government to

suppress certain types of speech.

And then they leave the government and they go serve on the board of Google.

Right.

And they know the thing Trump tweeted the other day about Google censoring him does not seem to be accurate.

but still, there is, certainly with the Alex Joneses of the world, you see real censorship of somebody on these platforms, and it's a big part of his business.

I want his business to fail, but for other reasons.

I don't want it to be because other businesses have decided to target the guy.

And since we call it something else, since it's not, we're not calling it censorship, we're just, well, that's the algorithm change.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Yeah.

And we've given these private businesses a pass on squelching freedom of speech because they're private businesses.

It's not being done by the government.

However, right or wrong, they made an agreement with the government

that they will not be held liable for certain things that happen on their platform.

Like if there's terrorist threats on Facebook or Twitter, you're not going to go to Facebook and Twitter and charge them with a terrorist

threat.

But in order to have that protection, they have to remain impartial.

They can't be biased.

They can't take a side and be this political arm.

And yet they have.

So

they're kind of violating that sort of arrangement with the government protections.

So you either take away the government protection and say, okay, you're going to be held liable because you're not playing by the rules that were set up for this.

Yeah, and I think...

Or you stop taking people off who you disagree with.

And this is why they've been careful when they've taken Alex Jones off to talk about his harassing behavior, to talk about other things he's done, not about his political views, which currently target largely,

well, really anybody but Trump, right?

I mean, he still targets

Republicans all the time.

The guy's not a conservative.

No, of course not.

I mean, if you go back to the idea, you know, back in 2003 and 2004, and when this guy was becoming well-known as the father of the 9-11 conspiracy theory,

you remember that you know, he started that conspiracy theory against George W.

Bush.

And he still to this day, you know, we were just talking about him the other day when he was trying to give a eulogy to John McCain and was like, I got to take the high road here.

But, you know, McCain was a traitor with the Bushes.

I should have been court-martialed.

But, you know, at some level, I guess he was courageous.

Or, you know, I guess you could put a quote hero tag on him or whatever.

But yeah, he should have gone to prison.

All right, back in a minute.

When he was doing that whole thing the other day, you see that he still

railed against the Bushes in there.

Now, you know,

because he's seen now as a right-wing figure because of his attachment to Trump rather than his attachment to Cynthia McKinney, which was who he was hanging out with back in the day, you know, a woman who ran for party in the president

as a Green Party nominee.

And this is not a conservative by any means because he's not a conservative, right?

Blatantly not a conservative.

But so they don't put put it in terms of politics to try to avoid those things.

But if this does continue,

and the pattern is more and more clear, there will be investigations by the government on these companies, and they will look to take these protections away.

And they can't operate without them.

They can't.

It would be...

Facebook and Twitter would go to jail.

These companies would be shut down.

They can do what they do.

There's probably no corporation, no company in America that, if you give them responsibility for all the posters,

has issued more terrorist threats than Twitter.

Probably no one has posted more porn and probably much of it illegal than Twitter, right?

But because it's user-based, they get these exemptions, which they should have.

It's just that, you know, you have to be super careful.

You're not trying to put some agenda down people's throats with it, or you will lose those protections.

And Republicans already are looking at them to try to take it away.

I know Cruz has brought it up and several others.

Yes, he has.

So it's an interesting direction they're going here, but it's interesting to look back at Obama kind of talk about, that seems like kind of

a generalized blueprint of how this would be put together.

Yeah.

Like, you know, like there's certain tests you have to pass.

And I know, look, we've said this a million times.

Alex Jones passes none of those tests.

He is on the air saying things that are false every single day throughout the entire show.

That's basically what he does.

We noodled that out for ourselves without their help.

We got that.

We got that.

A long time ago.

I wasn't a 9-11 truther for one second at any time ever.

And he's the father of that movement.

And we've noodled all of that stuff out.

And he noodled out the fact that this is a CIA FBI substation.

Well,

the whole Glenn Beck operation is a CIA FBI substation.

It is the government.

Much of the information that Alex gets is from high-level people.

Well, yes.

So, I mean, I'm sure he gets his information about

this building

from high-levels.

Should he name names?

Should he name names?

Shunny.

He should.

That's from a very interesting rant about Glenn

from Alex Jones, where he was.

He's so good.

I mean, if you're a fan of his, take a look at what he's said about Glenn.

And it's amazing.

However, they came for Alex Jones, and I did nothing because I didn't like Alex Jones.

They're coming for the rest of us, too.

And this will be one of their first stops.

Triple 8727 back.

With Pat, Stu, and Jeffy for Glenn.

You can join me immediately following this show on Pat Gray Unleashed, my own show, every weekday,

again, immediately following this one on the Blaze Radio and TV network.

Plus, we're going to be doing the news and why it matters 5 o'clock, 5.30 Eastern, 4.30 Central.

I don't know what that is in Alaska.

It's earlier.

9.15 at night.

Noodle it out.

Yeah.

Yeah, something like that.

So that's coming up as well.

Are you as confused as I am over this Puerto Rico story that came out?

I told it.

Yeah, from the standpoint that I don't understand how you go from a death toll of 64 to...

No, it was about 3,000.

2,975?

That's a wide

disparity.

Yes, it is.

Yeah.

You know?

Really wide.

How'd that happen?

Now, my understanding of the thing that was just released is similar in some ways to the earlier high death toll that came out, in which they're not actually saying, okay,

Pat reported that his cousin died, and therefore we know they died, right?

It's not that.

They're looking at it and saying, okay, here's the normal amount of people who would have died in this period and here's the total amount of people.

And what we're seeing is an excess amount.

right like there's an excess amount of people died uh than would have normally been expected and so they're blaming those deaths on the hurricane.

So it's not that they just found anybody.

They found a bunch of bodies,

recounted.

No, it's like they're saying, okay, normally 100 people die, and this time 3,975 people die.

So, you know, we're saying, okay, or, you know, you get the point.

They're saying excess deaths.

And because of that, they're saying that.

I didn't realize that was the process.

To me, right now,

that still seems fake.

Not to say that it, because there's also, I will say, the government estimate has to be fake there's no way only 60 people died of this thing there's no way it was way too devastating and there's just no chance of this occurring but usually when people die there is a way to know which is they're not moving anymore and someone around them says hey you know that person I used to know they're dead like there's usually a way to check somebody didn't show up for work today right it was Bob people start looking right yeah well despite the total number we know whose fault it is Donald Trump that is certainly what the media is telling us.

And I don't know if that's true.

I don't think it is.

That does not feel right.

I mean, it's easy to blame the president every time there's a disaster.

They did the same thing with Bush and Katrina.

You know, that's common.

But what the hell happened?

It did not work.

Whatever they tried down there did not work.

You know, it seems like there's a lot of problems locally in Puerto Rico as well.

You know, but it doesn't seem possible that something, you know, these are United States citizens.

Right.

3,000 of them dead from a hurricane?

It seems bizarre.

Glenn, back,

Mercury.