'Tiny, but Powerful'? - 8/29/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Glenn back.

It's Pat, Stu, and Jeffy for Glenn this week.

We were just talking about Trump derangement syndrome.

And

there's a couple of terms that circulate through the media all the time.

One of them is fake news.

The other is Trump derangement syndrome.

And

they bug me.

And I think they bother you to a certain extent, Stu, because it makes it, I don't know, it just makes it seem like everybody who says anything about the president

has Trump derangements.

And that's not the case.

I mean, we don't have it.

And we complain about some of the things he does.

Yeah, I mean, the test usually is whether you can find things that you like, right?

I mean, we can, and

we've gone through many, many things that we do like that the president has done.

But I will say.

Even his critics, though, I don't think are always affected with Trump derangement systems.

Like, if you're, if you're a liberal, right, and you see things like Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, you may very well not like those on ideological grounds.

That doesn't mean you have Trump derangement syndrome.

That means you just don't like his picks, right?

There seems to be a different situation going on for some people, though.

Although, yeah, if there's any

if there's any location that's infected with supposed Trump derangement syndrome, it's just about everybody at CNN, including Jeffrey Toobin.

I mean, he's a guy that once in a while makes sense, but not really when it comes to Trump.

Yeah, he just, there's a, there's a, a sign of the, if you're going to make Trump derangement syndrome into something, there's a sign of it of like pulling every issue, no matter how separate

from race and

hatred, bringing all of them to that, no matter what it is, whether it's a Supreme Court pick, whether it's a tax decrease, whether it's

talking about North Korea, whatever you can, bring it back to the idea that the reason he's doing X, Y, and Z is because he hates black people.

It's just going to that same boring analysis, saying every single thing revolves around that one issue.

And it shows, of course, it reveals your obsession with that issue.

It reveals your obsession, not ours, but your obsession with skin color, with your obsession with

reproductive organs, your obsession with that.

That's not something that we want to care about, but you're constantly bringing it up.

And this is a perfect example from yesterday with Jeffrey Toobin when he was talking about

the president saying how if Republicans lose in the midterms and the Democrats take control of the House, there's going to be violence in the streets.

And listen to the way Jeffrey Toobin spins that.

The theme here is, I'm Donald Trump and I'll protect you from the scary black people.

Antifa is widely perceived as an African-American organization.

Oh, it's not.

And this is just part of the same story of LeBron James and Don Lemon and Maxine Waters and the NFL players and the UCLA basketball players.

This is about black versus white.

This is about Donald Trump's appeal to racism.

And it just happens all the time.

And we never say it or we don't say it enough for what it is.

Don't say that.

That's what's going on.

That is amazing.

Okay.

Antifa is widely considered just black people by whom?

By you, maybe?

Like you said,

like you were just saying, Stu, that says more about him than it does Donald Trump.

A lot more.

I mean, that's racist.

Yeah.

Because nobody considers Antifa

just black people.

I consider them.

Anarchists.

I consider them hell-bent on chaos and communism.

I don't consider them black necessarily.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But even more than that, we've done a lot of coverage on this group.

We've done multiple, you know, Glenn's done the week-long chalkboard on them.

He's done multiple big monologues about them, their history, where they came from.

First of all, they did not come certainly from African-American roots in any way.

They came from, you know, it started back in World War II.

But beyond that, all the videos we've seen of Antifa, I'm not saying there's no black people.

They're usually no organization, but I can't think of one picture in my brain of ever seeing a black person in Antifa.

Yeah, I can't either.

I mean, I'm sure they are.

I mean, just because of odds, but I've never, I can't remember ever seeing one.

They're almost always like the person who you think you're going to bump into Starbucks the next day.

Some like, you know, tortured, angsty, you know, 22-year-old who, you know, who went to too many communist college courses and now thinks they're going to change the world by throwing things at people.

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone make the point before, ever.

This is like the first time I've ever heard the point that black people are associated with antiphon.

I always think of it as like that, like Seattle Starbucksy,

you know, angst.

I don't think at all, it's not a racial organization at all.

It started against fascism back in the day, and you can make an argument when it started, it actually did good things, but it's been evolved to, at this point, it's ridiculousness.

I mean, it's just anything that they're just anarchists now.

Yeah.

Yeah, they're just left-wing anarchists.

And

it's agonizing to

continually hear the nonsense that everything's about race.

And, you know, that just diminishes when things are about race.

When you make everything about race, you've just watered down the actual racism that does exist.

And we see from time to time.

Certainly not as much as CNN sees it, but

I don't think I've ever heard Donald Trump even say anything about Antifa being

groups of black people.

No, I haven't heard anybody saying it, not just us.

Nobody claims that it's about blackness.

And this is what surprises me all the time, like when you have

these issues that pop up with race.

It's the left has

immersed themselves so completely in this issue.

And to them, it is like the ultimate equation that solves all math problems.

You know, it's just, I remember when Barack Obama was going and they talked about an apartment, and they said that was racist.

It's like an apartment.

I lived in a lot of apartments.

There's a lot of white people that live in apartments.

Way more white people live in apartments nationwide than black people do.

I mean, it's just an absurd thing because Chicago.

Yeah, Chicago.

It was a dog whistle for black people.

Right.

And like, no, what?

There's a lot of violence that goes on there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Chicago.

That's code for black people.

It's an absurd instinct.

The word car, that's code for people.

Yeah.

Really?

The word the.

If you use the too much, that's code word for black people.

You mean the black people.

That's what you mean when you say the word the.

What explains that motivation, though?

Racism.

I think it's racist.

I think that in and of itself is racist.

I think Jeffrey Toobin's a racist.

I'm just so tired of beating around the bush with these people on what they are and who they are.

I'm, I'm really kind of done with it.

When you see race everywhere, when that's all you think of, maybe you should turn that, you know, look in the mirror, become a little bit introspective.

Maybe you're the racist.

Yeah, because I think there's an instinct, especially with the older.

I mean, we used to say this about Chris Matthews.

Chris Matthews went through a generation in which race was such a big issue for people.

And it was something that was constantly talked about.

And I, you know, really, until Obama kind of got in there and, you know, he was, he really came from that perspective of viewing everything through the prism of race.

He constantly saw things in racial terms.

To the point where he said this.

You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour.

Right.

Because usually that's all I think of.

That's all I think so.

Right.

Like you think of when you think of everything in the term of black and white.

Uh-huh.

Well, shockingly, everything becomes a black and white issue.

Yeah.

And, you know, it's the same thing that happens with conspiracy theorists, right?

Conspiracy theorists, when you get down the road to 9-11 and you get down the road to Sandy Hook and you go down all these things, well, of course every shooting seems like a false flag to you.

Every time you see something, you think it's a conspiracy theory with a government.

And it's the same thing with the left and race.

It's not this, there are actual things, just like with conspiracy theories, governments do actually do bad things.

They have done things at times that are really terrible.

But it's the same thing with this, where you have racial issues that are real.

There are actual racial issues that come up.

But when you see everything that way, you can't stop yourself from pulling things that are 15 lanes over from race back into your lane.

Because that's all you think about all the time.

But it also, like Pat said, then lessens the real racism.

Yeah.

I mean, it just weakens that all the heck.

And that's the same with

the full Trump derangement syndrome.

You know, there are times when you want to be against Donald Trump, but you listen to the deranged syndrome people and you're like, okay, well, no, I'm not that bad.

Yeah, you don't want to be those people.

I mean, in a way, that's letting someone else control the way you feel, which I don't like either.

You know, just because the media says stupid things shouldn't affect my opinion.

I should be able to come up with my opinion on my own.

But this is another example of it.

They did this thing a while ago where it was like, you know, 13 of the last 15 people that Donald Trump has called dumb were black.

And this proves.

And Tobin actually kind of references it.

They're like, except that seven or eight of them were the same person.

Yeah, no, yeah, I think it was, it was something like 10 of 11 or something like that.

Yeah.

Where it was Maxie Waters and Don Lemon, the two.

And you also, to believe this theory, you have to also believe that he was not racist at all until he was elected because he did before that, he was calling white people dumb all the time.

All the time.

And then for the whole first year of his presidency, he only called one person dumb, Mika Brzezinski, who's white.

So you have to believe he developed the racism not in his first 71 years, but in the the last year and in that last year he developed the racism all complete solely based on maxine waters and don lemon isn't an easier explanation of that is he doesn't like maxine waters and don lemon maxine waters and don lemon have been recently yeah criticizing him and what donald trump does in those moments is call them dumb It's just like he called Jeb Bush dumb and Marco Rubio dumb and Tim Cruz dumb.

He is dumb.

He had a really good point there.

Jeb Bush is dumb.

Some people are dumb.

So is Maxine Waters.

Yeah, she is.

Now, John Lemon, I do not think, is dumb.

He is an opponent, and he's liberal at times.

But Maxine Waters, I think, pretty clearly is dumb.

She makes incredibly stupid complications.

She's made a good case

of being dumb the last few years, if not her entire life.

Her whole career.

I mean,

there could be other examples.

Maybe she's

losing her sharpness as she gets later in life.

I don't know.

But I mean, she is tripped up and made really

insane comments.

Hank Johnson.

Hank Johnson comes out and says Guam's going to tip over.

Can we not say that he's dumb because he's black?

He happens to be a black person.

No, that's not.

Whoever said that.

That's a dumb comment.

That's a dumb comment.

White or black, whoever said it, that's a dumb comment.

You know, Guam's not going to tip over because you put too many military forces on one side of it.

That's not what islands do.

Okay?

So, I mean, can we not observe that sometimes people have those moments?

Do you have that from a scientist?

Yeah.

I had it from a military source.

Okay.

Who immediately was like, oh, we don't anticipate that happening.

Great.

One of the greatest responses of all time.

So good.

But, you know,

you're right.

Taking these things from issues that are not related to race and trying to move them into

that analysis weakens the actual case.

And

it doesn't make any sense.

It's the same thing, you know, like the alt-right.

Largely speaking, the alt-right is a small group compared to conservatives and Republicans and everything else.

But when you try to

call every single Republican alt-right,

you fail.

You fail because you then weaken the case against people like Richard Spencer, who is really a problem.

His theories, I think, are real negative and certainly have nothing to do with conservatism.

But when you bring like Mitt Romney in and you call him alt-right, it doesn't, there's no, there's, there's, you lose all value in your criticism.

Yeah, and all credibility.

Yeah.

eight, seven two seven B E C K.

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

It's Pat Stew and Jeffy for Glenn this week.

You believe it's almost Labor Day already?

What, Monday, right?

It's Labor Day.

So we got that three-day weekend coming up.

Stuart, are you taking a four-day weekend?

I'm taking Friday off as well as Monday at home and stuff, but I don't have

to working at home.

I'm not taking a phone.

Stop.

It's my whole freaking life.

I'll take that one all day.

No, but I did the show solo Monday.

Pat Solo Friday.

Well, Jeffy, will you be in Friday?

No, I think Jeffy will probably be here.

Sorry about that.

And also, yeah, but no, you know, we don't do the, we have got a TV show.

We have some other stuff going on, but you'll be here by yourself, except for the criminal that you're sitting across from.

By the way, News and White Matters happens tonight and every night.

Actually, we're doing it now.

That's five days a week, which is pretty cool.

We added Friday.

Added Friday, and a lot of the reason for that is there's been a really big reaction to the podcast.

And it's one of those things that people really like listening to as well as watching.

So you can watch it on demand at any time at theblaze.com/slash TV or go to iTunes and pick up the podcast.

It's a great review, kind of the big stories of the day and all of us talking about them.

So check that out.

News and Why It Matters on iTunes.

And there is so much to talk about today.

Once again, there's a huge effort to try to

end

the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

And it's the same guy.

This time, rather than being the person who brought the lawsuit, he's the attorney for the atheists who brought a lawsuit.

Michael Newdow.

Do you remember this guy?

He's still trying to get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance.

It's amazing.

Also, we got to talk about this Chicago priest who says the Pope won't be distracted

by this meaningless sex abuse thing.

He needs to focus on global warming.

We'll get to that.

Not a good look.

There is yet another civil asset forfeiture story to tell you about.

Oh, wow.

If you listen to this time yesterday, you heard the crazy one in Utah.

This one's another

insane story where people's property just getting taken for no reason.

It's so hard to believe that this could continually happen in America.

And NPR has a really surprising study that they did.

I'm blown away that NPR, first of all, paid attention to it in the first place.

Secondly, actually reported their findings

because this doesn't seem to fit their narrative.

No, and it's one of those stats that when you hear it, it blatantly fails to you as possible.

You know, you'll see liberals constantly share these numbers.

There's been 7,000 school shootings this year.

Is there any moment where you just sit back and say, there's no way that's possible?

Like, you obviously know it's not true.

Is there any part of you that gets to that point in your analysis?

Well, there were supposedly in 2015 240 school shootings.

And we know that's preposterous.

Of course.

That didn't happen.

Now, sometimes they get to those numbers in various ways.

For example, a guy who has no association with a school at midnight feels despondent, leaves his home, pulls into the back corner of the school parking lot and shoots himself.

Is that a school shooting?

It's a school incident with a gun on school grounds.

To any

gun-hating organization, organization, that's a school shooting.

And they'll put that in.

You'll have times where police officers will come and the police officer will mistakenly shoot his gun that hits no one and they'll call it a school shooting.

You know, someone, there have been times where pellet guns, some kid will bring in a pellet gun and shoot one of his friends and they'll call it a school shooting.

These are the type of things they go in there to juice the numbers because we know the problem is there.

There is a problem with school shootings.

However,

now we don't have to juice the numbers because there was 240 shootings in 2015.

And this is a U.S.

Department of Education report.

So, you know, it's some credibility, I guess, behind it.

It's not like, you know, it's not Mother Jones or, you know, every town for gun safety.

This was a government report, which people, generally speaking, will take seriously.

The year was 2015, 2016.

Nearly 240 schools reported at least one incident involving a school-related shooting.

NPR,

God only knows the reason, decided to actually check into this, which is amazing in and of itself, because usually when the gun, when there's a stat about guns that make guns look bad, nobody looks into them.

That's kind of the policy.

Yeah.

But in this case, what they found was amazing.

240 school shootings.

They write, in 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn't confirm one.

So what they're saying is not not the stuff I'm talking about before, where like it's a pellet gun or it's a guy committing suicide near school grounds.

No, they're saying 161 of the 240 were just nothing.

It's even more amazing than that because of the remaining 59 cases,

some of those couldn't be confirmed or disconfirmed.

So they're unsure on them.

They actually found only 11 confirmed by either the schools or through news reports.

11 out of 240.

It's amazing.

It's amazing.

It's amazing.

And, you know, again, if you have a school shooting, it's probably going to be easy to confirm.

You know, you call Parkland School District right now, they're going to be able to confirm a school shooting occurred there.

Some of this is amazing.

The civil rights data collection for 2018 required every public school, more than 96,000, to answer questions on a wide range of issues.

What it appears is they put the wrong number.

Like someone put, I think it was Cleveland, put 37 in for school shootings, and they meant to answer the question before it.

Oh my gosh.

Now, if Cleveland had 37 school shootings, I feel like we might have heard of that.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

This week with Pat Stu and Jeffy,

just

learning about the right-wing conservative echo chamber that's going on here where,

you know,

there's no bias in the media, especially at CNN, which is it's good to know.

It's good to know that everybody's right down the journalistic middle

That's what they do.

When it comes to Donald Trump, it's all fair.

Chuck Todd went into this and made sure we understood why people believe there is a media bias.

Listen.

The truth of the matter is, 62% think the media is biased.

So in other words, if you look at the approval rating of Donald Trump, the approval rate of the conservative echo chamber created that environment.

It's not, it's not.

No, no, no, no.

I mean, it has been a tactic and a tool of the Roger Ailes created echo chamber.

So let's not pretend it's not anything other than that.

The Roger Ailes created echo chamber.

Like Fox News makes up for all the mainstream media bias.

Of course.

Oh, that's amazing.

It is.

It is amazing.

He's dead, by the way, Roger Ailes.

Just in case anyone's wondering.

For a while now.

Yeah, for a while.

It's an interesting thing because

there's never any responsibility taken for what the media actually does.

We talked about that with the, just a few minutes ago, with the claim that Donald Trump is a racist from Jeffrey Toobin, and because he calls black people dumb in the past, that means that he thinks all black people are dumb.

And when he criticizes an NBA player like LeBron James, again, he's criticizing anyone

who opposes him publicly enough for him to notice.

That's basically the Donald Trump policy.

If he notices that you said something bad about him, he'll say something bad about you.

If he doesn't notice it, then I'll probably ignore it.

That's the way it works.

But this latest story that happened with CNN,

and people are criticizing this as if it was, you know, it's again, the right-wing echo chamber calling it fake news.

CNN reported that Donald Trump knew about the Russian meeting before it happened.

Now, if that were to be true, it would be a pretty significant development in the story.

And it was treated as if it was a pretty significant development in the story.

They said they had multiple, you know, important, inside, credible sources that, that, you know, that talked about this.

And only weeks later, after the story has run its course after everybody's repeated it a thousand times do we find out that one of the sources that cnn had was lanny davis

now lanny davis is the attorney for michael cohen there's no way you can say it's a fair like lanny davis you know say what you want about him you can never take an attorney's word who's advocating on his for his client as a legitimate unbiased source.

He's just saying anything that will help his client.

That's his job.

So in the story, they cite Lanny Davis as one of the sources for Trump knowing in advance about the Russian meeting.

And

now Lanny Davis is saying, oh, yeah, by the way, I don't actually feel any confidence in that information anymore.

So Davis is coming out and saying, you know, look, this story probably isn't true.

CNN is standing by the story anyway, because they're saying, well, we had other sources who told us that too.

Put that aside for a second because, you know, it's ridiculous to stick around with a story like that, I think, when you have a major part of your sourcing fall apart.

At the very least, you should say there are now major doubts about the story because one of our major sources

fell apart.

However, we still do have other sources

available and we're checking into it.

I mean, at least you can give some sort of, you got to step back from it a little bit.

CNN isn't.

But bigger problem than that is, one, how you include Lanny Davis as a source on anything about Michael Cohen.

If Lanny Davis is saying it, you got to say Lanny Davis is saying it.

He's a paid advocate for Michael Cohen.

And we need that as part of our legal system.

But we don't need that as part of journalism.

You can't just be quoting the random claims of a lawyer.

as proof of anything.

You can say their lawyers are making this.

You can say a source from their legal team made this argument.

That's okay.

But you you can't just act as if they're just this fair arbiter of the story.

And

I think more importantly,

they included a quote or a section about Lanny Davis in which they asked for comment, and Lanny Davis would not give comment on the story.

Well, that's just flatly a lie.

He did give comment.

You included it in the story.

He confirmed your source.

He was one of the sources for the story.

If not the only source.

He gave no record, probably the only source.

He gave no on-the-record comment.

But what you're at, you are telling your audience, the source couldn't have been Lanny Davis.

It had to be more credible than that because Lanny Davis wouldn't give us comment.

We asked Lanny Davis about it and he wouldn't say anything.

Well, he did say something.

And we now know he said something because Lanny Davis told us he'd said something.

And that's a sort of thing that it happens all the time with the media where they are just, they're so itching to get something that will take the president down or that one story that's really going to change things.

I don't know if anybody's noticed, nothing's going to change things.

I mean, there really, it does not seem to be any story that could be printed that would change for positive or negative Donald Trump's approval rating.

It's been between 38 and 45 by most credible polls his entire presidency.

Now, 38 and 45 is a bit of a range, but not much.

You know,

when things are going well, it gets up to around 45.

When things are going poorly, it gets down to 38.

And sometimes when things are going really poorly, it activates his base and it goes up to 45.

And sometimes when things are going really well, people get bored and it goes down to 38.

It doesn't, none of it.

It's just in that range.

It's almost random chance at this point.

His approval rating is probably around 41 or 42, and he's got a range on either side of that that bounces and bounces back and forth.

People have made their mind up on Donald Trump.

The man has been one of the most publicly accessible figures in our society for 30 or 40 years.

We all know what we think about Donald Trump at this point.

So the idea that they continually try this and bend every rule that they would not bend for other people and take every liberty they can to make sure that people, finally, this story is going to be the one that convinces everyone that they should turn away from this guy.

I don't know what would make that happen or would make people turn to him at this point.

You know, we look about at the African-American approval rating and it has improved.

There's one poll that shows it very high Erasmus poll, but most polls show it has improved slightly, but it's still pretty low.

You could easily make the argument, and Trump makes it from time to time, that there have been really good results.

The black unemployment rate is as low as it's ever been.

He's actually addressed some of the criminal justice reforms that the community has been asking for for a long time.

There's a real argument to be made that he should have a higher approval rating among African Americans, but they've made their mind up largely.

So

on both sides, everybody's made their mind up, and everyone just keeps trying to come out here and act as if they can change it with their next story.

I don't know what could change it.

It will be interesting to see if

the winning idea goes away,

how is he received?

If what many of the pollsters are predicting, and they're not always right, as we know, but right now it looks like state of the race as of right now, looks like Republicans are going to lose the House.

There's a chance they could lose the Senate.

I think it's very unlikely, though.

I think that's very unlikely.

That would be a real cataclysm.

But if it were to happen and he lost both houses, you know, both sides, and he became, you know,

the winning sort of feeling around him wasn't necessarily there.

I mean, certainly he would take part of the blame, as every president does when their party loses power when you're president.

It would be interesting to see if people care then.

I don't think they will.

I don't think so either.

I think they'll just blame, you know, well, Republicans, that's the swamp or whatever, and you can kind of move on with your life.

I don't know that there's anything because

there is a real analysis, and many people have made it, that Donald Trump has done a good job on policy, and that's a really good reason for you to approve of him if you're a Republican, and at least on a lot of things.

There's another part of this equation that just turns out to be emotion.

We certainly recognize it on the left, right?

I mean, there is so much reflexive...

emotion against this guy for every single thing that he does.

They'll do everything they can.

They'll take things where he he makes an offhanded comment.

They'll try to take it exactly literally and then show you 25 other examples about how presidents said other things in the past.

You know, we'll obsess for multiple days about how high he put the flag for John McCain and whether he was responsive enough or really felt the amount of love that he should have for

one of his archenemies in politics who passes away.

You can absolutely obsess about those things, but it's not going to change anybody's mind.

And I think there's certainly a part on the right, as we've seen over the years, too, that just loves the guy and is not going to go anywhere no matter what he does.

So maybe the answer here is just to not constantly obsess about this person.

You know, maybe we look at other things in our life.

I mean, he certainly seems to be able to defend himself without other people getting on his side all the time.

He seems to be very capable of that.

It's like, it seems to be the thing he really enjoys about the job.

I mean, he really does seem to like getting in the middle of those things.

And I think that's why a lot of people love him so much.

Oh, he most definitely does.

And I'd like to do that, Steve, but then he tweets something, and I can't.

I just can't walk away from it.

That just does seem,

you know, the media should really look at it and say, okay, should we cover this story about Donald Trump?

Well, is it something, is the story about something he tweeted?

If that's your answer, then the answer should always be no.

No.

Right?

Like, who cares what he tweets?

The same thing with even, I would even argue, when Donald Trump says something,

The media should largely ignore it.

And I know the left will get all pissed off about that because they'll say, wow, what?

You were just ignoring what the president says or what the president tweets.

Well, I mean, he outwardly tells us all the time that the things he's saying are just negotiation.

I'm just throwing it out there.

Yeah, like he says it all the time.

He tells you the things he's saying are for different purposes, whether it's to piss one of his enemies off, whether it's to slam somebody, whether it's just to get a better negotiating position.

Right?

When he says something about North Korea, should you go out there and report it

crazily for months or just realize he's just he's he's negotiating he's saying what he thinks is going to help his base and just why spend time on it if you know that's the answer you know i mean trump likes getting into these battles he likes you know the sort of the the back and forth of the of uh of you know the verbal conflict he likes it and a lot of times in his own words he says things for

different reasons than he means them and i think the media likes it too as much as they complain i think so too about this battle they love it.

Otherwise, they'd be backing off of it.

But you got people like Jim Acosta, who is just soaking up the attention.

He loves it.

This is helping his career.

Jim Acosta will probably be able to write his ticket to whatever he wants to do next because everybody's focused on him.

And

he's the number one enemy in the media of the president.

And so he loves it as much as Trump does.

That's why they're just not going to stop because they think it's good for them

and

it's creating a lot of attention for them.

Yeah.

And I really do think, you know, if there's a better timed book than Addicted to Outrage, which is coming out from Glenn in a couple of weeks, I mean, I can't think of one because this is exactly the problem.

The media knows they get clicks

from throwing the outrage out there.

This is the big point.

Whether they feel it or not,

I have to imagine.

That, you know, if you're one of these people that are going on CNN all the time, you've just got to be like, oh, God, do I really have to talk about another one of his tweets?

Yeah.

Like, we all know he doesn't mean that.

We all know this isn't real.

We all know that him saying

that Antifa is dangerous has nothing to do with black people.

We all know that.

Again, I can't, someone looked, you know, started searching and did find one black person in Antifa in the way background.

And everyone in the foreground is white.

It's a, to me, largely speaking, I don't know 90 plus percent white organization.

I never really thought about it until now.

Yeah, I never thought about it either, but at least my impression from all the videos I've seen, it's always white people doing the violence.

It's always white people throwing things at people.

It's always white people hitting people with bats.

It's all

absolutely things that way.

But if you are in this constant outrage cycle where you have to blow up everything into something that it's not, you know, I mean, I guess that's what you do.

I guess that's your way that someone could get addicted to outrage, the new book, Michael Edbeck.

It's an interesting question, Jeff.

Because I don't see it anywhere in front of me, so I don't know.

Unfortunately, the answer is no.

You cannot.

No, yes, you can pre-order it at Amazon and everywhere else.

But it's coming out on September 18th.

So you should do that if you feel like it.

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

Glenn's on vacation this week.

It's Pat Stew and Jeffy for Glenn.

Hey, last night, the Democrats embraced

another socialist.

in Florida this time.

This time,

the big socialist victory happened in a fairly red state.

So it'll be interesting to see how the Democrat nominee fares in the general election against the Republican.

But once again, the Democrats, who claim the Republicans are the ones who have gone so extreme, they've turned to socialism and a socialist

for their hopes in the election in November.

Obviously, a huge gift to Republicans.

I hope so.

It doesn't mean necessarily necessarily that it's going to work out, but if they had a chance of winning, they will have a better chance of winning against the socialists.

Especially one that's talking about it so overtly.

This is a Sanders-backed candidate.

A guy who was kind of in trouble in his campaign, and then Sanders came down and seemed to push him over the edge.

That's why.

And Trump pushed the Republican over the edge.

Yep, and in Florida as well, DeSantis.

It's interesting.

Kind of the opposite happened in Arizona, where Kelly Ward and Arpaio lost to a more conventional sort of.

Now, now this is, of course, right after McCain passing away, which may have played into that.

Also, two candidates that were very Trumpy, if you want to say, like Ward and Arpaio.

Obviously, Arpaio was very much that way.

So it was kind of two candidates splitting that vote, maybe a little bit.

Either way, that one worked, went kind of to the establishment.

So, I mean, really, these races have been mixed.

I mean, you know, Alexandria Casio-Cortez had a candidate she was fighting for and got destroyed.

Something like 86 to 14.

So it's still none of her candidates, none of her endorsements have worked out, have they?

I don't think so.

I can't think of it.

She's like 0 for 8 or 0 for 9 now.

So, I mean, that's

a positive thing.

It's the same, you know, certainly same policy-wise.

And his

guy,

because his guy came through in a tough race.

Andrew Gillum,

the Tallahassee.

Glenn back.

With Pat, Stu, and Jeffy this week for Glenn, you know, there's some kind of Ruth Bader Ginsburg hysteria going on right now.

And I, you know, not only is there a documentary,

there's a major movie release coming out, I think, on Christmas Day.

And now there's a CNN special.

Are they running the...

Is it

playing the documentary?

Man, are they promoting that thing?

Ruthsteria.

Yeah.

Ruthsteria is good.

I like that.

I like Ruthsteria.

It is really amazing.

You know, again,

there was a Ruth Bader Ginsburg documentary made and just like praising her.

There's like a little cult following around her.

And it's kind of one of those things that here's this little tiny old lady who's super tough and doesn't give up on her.

And of course, she's super liberal, which helps.

But I honestly think it's part of it is like sort of a Betty White syndrome.

Where like I, you know, I love Betty White, but like there was that thing she had a few years ago.

Oh, Bader Ginsburg?

But after you reach a certain age, and I'm well aware of this, is that after you reach a certain age, people are like, oh, he's cute.

I haven't reached that yet.

Well, you've reached the city.

I'm well aware of it.

You haven't reached the age where people think you're cute, but you have passed Ruth Peter Ginsburg's age, I guess.

But it also is, I think you're right with the Betty White syndrome.

And I think also it's,

man, we've got to build her up and make her happy so she doesn't leave.

I think there's something to that, too.

Because I will tell you this, if she were to retire tomorrow, they would hate her more than anybody has ever been hated.

How dare you?

How dare you leave now?

Well, they did it to Kennedy.

They bludgeoned him for leaving.

They loved him for years because he was the quote-unquote conservative that kept siding with them.

He was the greatest guy in the world until he was gone.

And then he was the worst guy in the world.

The Ginsburg thing is so amazing because

there seems to be...

I mean, other than the speculation, I just can't figure out

what the reason for it all of a sudden is.

I think she's an interesting character in which she's...

If you think about it, if you're a liberal, right?

Like the same way I love Clarence Thomas, right?

Clarence Thomas, because he's generally, he's the most conservative

person on the Supreme Court.

And at least, you know, depending on how you measure it, and those things are always tough to measure, but he's certainly one of the top one or two.

And he's a, you know, I think he does a great job on the Supreme Court.

And he, so he's really, so that part of it, if you're a liberal, you love Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.

She never disappoints you.

She's always

on the liberal side.

She never always, oh, wait, wow, this one.

She went the other way.

She's super predictable, 100% like, you know, basically Alexandria Casio-Cortez, add about 100 points to the IQ and put her in the Supreme Court, right?

Like, it's that sort of arrangement.

It does seem like that.

Of course, the left loves that, right?

I mean, you know, she's,

and, you know, that's part of it, I think.

Another part of it is, you know, just her physical sort of stature, right?

Like, she's this kind of

tiny, like, old lady.

Who's just still a powerhouse, you know?

And I think that's one of the things they like about Betty White.

That's how Betty White had to research it in some way.

In the past, we heard how much, what a relationship she had with Scalia and how he loved her.

Yeah.

They loved a battle.

So she's had that kind of

a little bit of love with that.

But can you imagine?

And she's fought for women's rights, women's rights,

for all the causes that are popular.

But I mean, think about this from a news organization standpoint.

This is essentially a pro-Ruth Bader Ginsburg propaganda piece.

She, you know, it's basically trying to turn her into a cult hero, which has sort of happened.

and this is

on that level.

Should CNN be airing that?

I mean, to me, the answer is no.

Even the same thing with, you know, with Scalia, right?

Like, Scalia passes away.

Should you make a documentary or air a documentary that's a one-sided propaganda piece about Anton and Scalia if you're a news organization?

Probably not, right?

I mean, if you're going to do the thing about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you probably also have have to do it for Antonin Scalia if you want to even attempt to look fairly.

Well, the good thing is, is that she believes in the United States and the Constitution.

And that's the thing that

we're talking about.

There's nothing better.

Yeah, absolutely.

We saw that.

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

Constitution.

Nor does the word freedom.

Your Honor.

Booyah!

Oh, did she

nail him?

Wow.

That's supposedly based on a true incident, I guess, from her past when she was in her 30s and her 20s.

I don't know.

But the Supreme Court justice leans in and says, the word woman doesn't appear even once in the U.S.

Constitution.

Nor does the word freedom,

Your Honor.

Except for, well, it does.

But other than that, don't worry about the fact that it doesn't screen.

It isn't.

I mean,

it's not in our Constitution, though, right?

I mean, it's like

a goal to the First Amendment before you find the word freedom.

So it's pretty tough.

I mean, it's tough to find it.

Yeah.

And she is the one who famously, as Jeffy was kind of just pointing out there,

said that South Africa's Constitution was

South Africa's is the one which you should focus on.

And Canada, because it was written in 1982, Ours is too old.

But for instance,

in South Africa,

what does that analysis mean for her?

You know, it's like, I love this, this idea that the oldest person on the Supreme Court can tell us it's, you know, the Constitution's too old.

Should we get thrown out Supreme Court justices at one of the five, too?

One of the reasons that she really liked the Constitution from South Africa.

Well, they came up with a really incredible concept of an independent judiciary.

Yeah, who would have thought of that?

Why the hell didn't we think of that?

An independent judiciary.

What if we had, wait, what if we had an independent judiciary, an independent legislative branch, and you couple that with an independent executive branch?

They're all separate and co-equal.

What would happen?

I mean, I can't even think what kind of government you'd have then.

It's like, what do you mean they came up with independent?

We did that 240 years ago.

What are you talking about?

Have you seen our Constitution, Ruth?

Have you read it?

Certainly by her rulings, I don't think she's read it.

And by this little trailer, I don't think she's read it.

You're telling us that the word of freedom is not in it?

And I love the way she pauses there because it's so powerful.

What's she saying?

So powerful.

The first time I heard it, I thought she was saying, no, the word woman isn't in there, but the word freedom is.

No.

Listen to this carefully.

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

Constitution.

You can tell he's a message.

The word woman.

You can tell.

Listen to the

almost like Christian Bales Batman.

The word wuba.

It's almost like he's vomiting the word woman.

It's so offensive to him.

The word woman.

Listen to this.

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

Constitution.

Nor does the word freedom.

Yeah, nor does the word.

Your honor.

Whoa.

Oh, my.

Ooh, that's powerful.

Oof.

That's just.

I mean, what is

freedom of speech.

The point is that the U.S.

Constitution is flawed.

And, you know, the word woman's not in it.

Neither is the word freedom.

Neither do we have, I guess, an independent judiciary that's set apart.

I mean, it's ridiculous.

Was she arguing for a new amendment to the Constitution at this point?

In this particular?

I don't know.

The only thing you can maybe think of, and off the top of my head, I can't, I don't know, but she's just saying that she's not concluding the amendments, like we had to amend the Constitution to get freedom in it.

Well, is that what she's trying to say?

If you would have said

it doesn't appear until the amendments, that's one thing.

But when you, because the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

Right, I know.

But what I'm saying is if she's arguing for, which I would maybe suspect, the Equal Rights Amendment,

maybe she's saying we have to add in the word woman

here with another amendment.

I don't know.

Again, I'm giving her too much of a break here.

Way too much.

And we always always do that.

They never do that for us.

No, of course, never.

Never.

But I'm just trying to understand.

I feel like that's valuable to at least a team.

Trying to understand it.

But I can't wait till Christmas Day when this power

movie.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, man.

Before we open presents, we're headed to.

Yeah.

Oh, man.

I've already got the wine ready to go, open up, take a drink, sip of wine, go to the movies, and just celebrate Roosteria and go for it.

And Ruth Beter Gitzberg is about the size of my Elf on a Shelf, too, so it kind of fits.

She doesn't look like Elf on the Shelf.

She's so tiny.

Tiny but powerful.

Tiny but powerful.

Like powerful.

Atrobe.

It's kind of like tiny, you know, like

the same way people think about small dogs.

We're like, you know, there's really, it's really difficult for a small dog to be ugly, even though, like, I have pugs, and pugs are absolutely ugly, but people think they're cute because they're small.

Yes.

Right?

They're small.

Not Jeffy doesn't, but of course, Jeffy, you know, look at Jeffy.

But

there's that thing where I think when you're small and powerful, it gives you that like, there's some cool part of that that people like.

Yeah.

And I think that's the main part because there's no reason, like you could easily love Breyer, who's also old and also super liberal, right?

Like there's, you know, you could have, I mean, you could go and praise Soda Mayor, who in some measures is to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is younger and Hispanic.

You could do that if you wanted to as well.

But they're picking Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I think, because of just physical qualities, which again, they say you should never do.

But she's tiny and she's old and she's cute and

you want to give her a little hug, maybe pet her.

Right.

You know, and it's like, you want to help her up and walk with her?

Yeah, you want to just give her a big hug.

She's Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I don't necessarily.

I really don't.

Personally, I want the new Ruth on a shelf now.

Ruth on a shelf is a solid product.

We could easily get some of those.

Yes, you feel like your house might be haunted with it, though.

I don't think I'd want to come out in the middle of the night and that thing's just scampering across the ground somehow.

That happened.

I think it could happen.

A roof on a shelf easily comes alive.

That'd be tremendous.

And that I don't want.

No, it's scary.

That's a frightening thought.

Triple 8727 back.

It's Pat Stew and Jeffy for Glenn.

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

Constitution.

Yeah.

Nor does the word freedom.

Your Honor.

She nailed him.

Ooh.

Super powerful.

She is.

We need somebody to make a Ruth on the shelf.

We need that, I think.

Ruth on the Shelf could be a good product.

I think we should make it.

I mean, that's a...

I'm telling you,

it can't be that expensive, right?

You put it on the robe.

And then every day

you move it further from the Christmas tree because you don't want anything to do with...

You want it to be a separation of Ruth and

Ruth and state.

Church and Ruth.

Yeah.

I like that.

And maybe if you have like, it's always moving further and further away from...

Maybe you should put...

Maybe

you post the Constitution somewhere in your house, and every day it runs a little bit further away from it.

That could be.

And maybe on the other side of your house, you put the South African Constitution because we see how well South Africa is going right now.

Closer and closer to the South African Constitution.

I love it.

I love it.

I don't know about this.

I don't exactly know what the audience is for this product, but I think I'd put it in my house.

And speaking of South Africa,

did you see that they ruled 300,000 gun owners have to hand in their guns?

Oh, this is good.

This is great.

This is going really well.

Everything's going fine in South Africa.

There's nothing to say.

It's not safer, right?

Yes.

There's absolutely nothing to see here.

Okay, there's no problem whatsoever.

And if you think there is, you're a racist.

You're a white supremacist.

Did you happen to read

the story from Leon Wolf on the Blaze about South Africa?

He did an analysis piece about it and trying to put it in context and perspective because there's so much online right now that you can't trust.

And

some people are saying basically it's the Holocaust times 50.

The other side, they're saying

life is perfect in South Africa.

And, you know, somewhere in between is probably the truth.

But, you know, one of the big issues with it is

there is a lot of violence in South Africa.

The question is whether it's actually based on, you know, farms and race.

And there have been incidents of that.

But the crime problem in and of itself, I had no idea it was this bad.

Listen to this description and tell me you want to live in this place.

How bad is the violent problem in South Africa?

Let's put it in perspective.

In the United States, Chicago gets a lot of publicity for having a shockingly high murder rate.

Last year, Chicago had 650 murders in a city with a population of just over 2.7 million, meaning that Chicago had a murder rate of about 24 murders per 100,000 citizens.

The entire country of South Africa had a murder rate of over 33 murders per 100,000, which means the entire country, including the relatively rural and peaceful portions, has a murder rate that's more than a third worse than Chicago.

It's an entire country of Chicago and then a third worse than that.

Imagine how bad the violence problem is.

And it seems to be largely associated in cities, not necessarily in farms.

That's exactly why we need to get rid of the guns, and that's what they're doing.

Right.

I bet that is what their argument is, right?

You know, you couple the gun grab with the land expropriation without compensation, and you got yourself a really good situation.

Perfect country.

Perfect.

There's nothing wrong there.

I don't know why people are getting all upset.

Stop it.

There's nothing to see here at all.

Let's move along.

Yeah, let's move along.

South Africa is an interesting study, too, in the idea of

what liberals always say about places like Denmark and Sweden and Finland, these sort of, you know,

sort of homogeneous, you know, countries where there's never been any history of integration or different cultures coming together.

It's been one culture.

that has lived the same way for a long time.

Almost everyone is involved in that culture, has the same traditions, the same things.

People, when you have different groups in a country, a lot of times they disagree with each other and real problems come out of that.

South Africa is obviously an extreme example of this, but it's also why you can't just say, all right, we'll just put universal health care in our country because it works in Norway.

You know, oh, we'll just do all the things that they do in Denmark and we'll just do them here.

Well, this is a different place.

Yeah, much.

You can't just drop in their crappy system that I particularly don't want.

I like ours much better, but you can't just drop theirs in.

It's going to work the same way.

It's ridiculous to assume that.

And they're finding that out themselves.

They don't need us to tell them that.

I mean, those countries are already admitting that.

That with

their immigration policies, the old policies that were so great,

they're not so great right now.

All of a sudden, they cost way too much.

And all of a sudden, they're starting to really hurt the economies.

And all of a sudden, they're starting to drain money from their citizens.

And of course, this happens.

And all of a sudden, they've got people who disagree with each other now.

Because they don't come from the same culture.

Right.

So you're saying when there's diversity, it's a little tougher.

Yeah.

Is that what you're saying?

And I think that was, you know, one of the main things the founders talked about, you know, and

just generally speaking, our conception of a melting pot, right, is that where we, I mean, we do, I think this country has benefited greatly from immigration over the years.

In incredible ways, legal immigration, by the way.

But it's been

an incredible, you know, improvement on our society.

And we've melted into each other.

We've taken, you know, I've used this example, but like the NFL's condiment, official condiment was like hummus.

Like, think about that 10, 15, 20 years ago.

Now, again,

it's so ridiculous.

It's just an advertising thing.

Right.

It's just an advertising thing.

But I mean, to give you a better one, the most popular condiment in the United States of America is salsa.

It is not ketchup.

It is not mustard.

It's not mayonnaise.

It's salsa.

Now,

is that a negative thing?

I mean, if you like salsa, you may think it is.

If you don't like salsa, you might think it is.

But it's just an amazing thing.

It's an amazing thing.

It shows you the diversity here.

It's because something we, we didn't just say, oh, we don't want your new thing here.

Get away.

We said, your new thing tastes pretty freaking awesome.

Let's have more.

Right.

You know?

Yeah.

It's something that America has done and many other cultures have not.

You know, like you get, you know, you, if American culture, God forbid, you know, penetrates another country, there's protests and everyone whines about it, why not take the good things from our culture, too?

You know, you should be melting in the things that are great.

We've come up with a lot of freaking great stuff.

They have no problem melting in our medical innovations.

They have no problem melting in our, you know,

technological innovations.

But like, culture makes people

feel stress and strife and anger and protectionism and all of those things.

And you shouldn't.

I mean, really,

you pick and choose the things you like.

You know, there's, I, like, guacamole is really freaking popular in the United States.

I hate it.

Me too.

I think it's,

I can't imagine someone wanting to put this green, mushy thing in their mouth.

It's just, if it touches something that I eat, I want to throw the thing out to me.

That's the, that's how hard I am on guacamole.

But again, like, it's a good, a lot of people like it.

You know, and it's a positive thing that we're able to have this new product that, you know, a lot of people like.

That's a great part about America.

That is something that we've gotten away from because now people are trying to come here and protect their old culture here and say, I don't stop touching my culture.

The point of this was to melt together.

Yeah.

You know, not to put us all in different kitchenware.

I'm going to say the guacamole thing's not a good thing, though.

No, that's obviously terrible.

It's awful.

I hate guacamole.

If you hear yourself saying, feels pretty good to see somebody rub their nose in it, you may be addicted to outrage.

We've expressed our outrage at everyone and everything that is different.

Every thumbs up is like a dopamine surge, and every retweet is a serotonin hit.

In my new book, Addicted to Outrage, we bring clarity to this addiction.

If enough of us can just drop our anger and outrage, we might just stand a chance to heal ourselves.

Addicted to Outrage by Glenn Beck.

Pre-order now at Glenn Beck.com/slash/addicted to outrage.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program with Pat, Stu, and Jeffy this week for Glenn, triple-8727-B-E-C-K.

The Me Too movement continues to swim along quite nicely.

And,

you know, make sure that people don't work.

And that's fine if people have actually committed egregious

crimes.

You mean like one of the founders, Asia Argento, who is apparently now getting thrown out of her jobs,

which is interesting.

That's an interesting development.

It is interesting.

Yeah.

You know,

I don't know how to handle this stuff because when you have a legal system, right?

What you do is in advance of the trial, you have laws on the books, and then people know what those laws are.

And then when you go in and you have a trial and you're found guilty, there on the books is a range of punishment, which would be applied to the person who committed the crime.

So you're saying after the after you have, say, I don't know, presented evidence and a jury has perhaps said that there's enough evidence to say, yes, you're guilty.

And then after that, there's some consequences.

Yes, that is what I would say.

Before that, that's what happens.

Because

you're a bad person.

Okay.

So just the accusation is enough to say you're a bad person.

You need to get out of your job.

And that seems to be where we are now.

So you feel the punishment right away.

You lose all of your jobs.

You lose your company.

You lose everything, whether you did it or not.

And again, it is certainly just for people like, let's say, Harvey Weinstein, who did a lot of terrible things.

However,

on that same front, you should actually

be convicted of a crime before the punishment gets associated with you.

And we've jumped the gun on that one, and we now believe the person should get punished immediately.

And with someone like Weinstein, it's easy.

We all suspect that he really did all these things, and it seems overwhelmingly, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence, including his own words on tape, that indicate that.

So, you know, no one really cares on that one.

But when it comes to someone like Louis C.K.

is a good example of this, Louis C.K.

was part of the Me Too movement.

And if you remember the story, basically he did things to himself in front of women.

After he asked them if it was okay.

Yeah, awkward.

Right?

I mean, as you'd expect from Louis C.K., very awkward.

Hey, can I do this in front of you?

Well, one of the stories even was that one girl remembered that he asked, and I said no, and so it didn't happen.

So he right yeah so she said no amazingly and he didn't do anything yeah right like right now the other system works said yes and now they're still complaining about it right well if you didn't want him to do that then you should have said no right and then if he continued you'd have a case if he if he does now what we have from my understanding is that there's no allegation that he ever did that against their will yeah I don't see true I don't know if some of I don't know if any of them said that I don't remember any of them I mean it's creepy what he was doing yes very Very creepy.

But he did ask for permission, and seemingly permission was granted.

Yeah.

Or I think one of there was one.

We were saying that they didn't say anything.

They didn't say anything, and they just kind of laughed at him.

And then he just said, I'm going to take my clothes off now, okay?

And they kind of went

uncomfortably and then stayed.

Right, and then leave.

He takes his clothes off, and they're so upset they don't leave.

Well, I mean, their argument here, he's a comedian, he's a comedian, and he's powerful and famous.

Now, this is some of these.

Comedians have all power over people.

Because I wasn't aware of this up until this point.

Well, comedians have this

extraordinary power over people.

How are you still working?

I don't know.

Well, I guess you could argue.

I mean, again, I think their argument is poor here.

But their argument is he does have power in the world of being a comedian.

And these were people who were trying to rise the, like, you know, like Jerry Seinfeld certainly has some impact.

Sure.

At the time, he was doing a TV show.

He was doing other stuff.

He had deals with Netflix.

Those are all gone.

But at the time, he did.

But he did have some kind of power.

Right.

Like, you have power.

Like, you know, would you say, you know, Jerry Seinfeld could have an influence on a young comedian's career?

Yeah.

I mean, the answer to that, of course, the answer is yes.

All young comedians that he did this in front of?

I know at least a few of them were.

You know,

there was one who said

that, I mean, even talk about

a weak allegation.

The allegation.

Again, these are just such weird topics.

The allegation was that

Louis C.K.

got on the phone with a woman,

and the woman

during the call suspected.

He never said he was

suspected that he was masturbating while on the phone with her.

Oh, my gosh.

Now, there was no confirmation of that, but that's what she thought was going on.

And that was a Me Too allegation.

And he was so powerful that she could not hang up?

I guess so.

Okay.

There we go.

I mean,

let's be honest.

He did not ask for permission.

Well, he's on the phone.

He didn't say he was doing it either.

No, she just believed it.

She just believed it.

So the idea is, okay, well, Louis C.K.

could then go to some manager.

Anybody could say that.

Anybody who's been on the phone with that guy could say, yeah, I believed he was pleasuring himself when we were on the phone, and I'm really offended by that.

And

I think for all of my stress, I need like $3.5 million for this stuff.

No, you know what?

No, I don't want to seem greedy.

$2 million.

So their argument is, okay, well, he could behind the scenes say, you know what, I just don't like her work.

I don't like, I don't think she's a good comedian, and then she might not advance in her career.

Of course, a lot of times comedians will say, you know, anybody will say that if they feel, a lot of people feel inaccurately that others have thwarted their careers, right?

A lot of people say, oh, well, this person's keeping me down.

It's a very human instinct to believe that.

Unless you have real evidence of someone doing it, it's hard

to take anything from it.

And there was very little of that with Louis C.K.

I think one person, I think, may have said that, if I remember correctly.

I was headed in the opposite direction.

I think a few of them were saying that

it seemed like

he did things to help them.

Right.

Like it was awkward.

And because of the awkward situation, he actually tried to assist them in their career.

So Louis C.K., for the first time now, has come out and done a comedy set.

In New York.

Was it the

Comedy Cellar?

Was it the Comedy Cellar?

It was was one of those smaller clubs.

115 people were there not knowing he was coming.

So, you know, and Comedy Cellar in Carolines and New York, a few clubs like that are famous for

big-time comedians popping out out of nowhere.

You're just there for a normal show.

Practice their new set.

Practice their new set, try out some new material, and then leave.

So out of nowhere, Louis C.K.

comes out for his first public appearance, does normal comedy, does not mention.

Standing ovation.

Standing ovation before he even starts.

Does not mention the scandals at all.

Just does his little routine, tries some stuff out, and leaves.

There was apparently one call from a patron of the concert, of the appearance, said, I wish I would have known in advance so I could have made the decision whether I wanted to come or not.

Which, you know, I guess I can understand, though I bet they would have no trouble filling the room.

Yes.

And I just think this is an issue when you don't use the justice system.

There's no punishment.

that has been allocated already.

Like we saw Glenn Thrush from from the New York Times, and he's been at Politico and a bunch of different things, you know, a left-wing sort of White House type reporter who also got a Me Too allegation against him.

The allegation against him was that after late night parties, he would often hit on younger employees

of the papers he was working for.

And again, he was a these are people who want to get into journalism.

He's an important, powerful journalist.

And there was no accusation that he actually forced anyone to do anything.

The accusation was that he should have known better to not fraternize with the younger workers.

So,

and what happened with him is he's back working.

You know, he did not seem to have, he did lose, he was suspended, I think, for a while, but I think he's back now working.

But there's no set punishments because there's no legal system here, right?

We've decided to go around the legal system, right?

And we've decided that these things should be educated in our own minds.

What do we think Louis C.K.

did?

What do we think Glenn Thrush did?

What do we think

Kevin Spacey did?

And we will allocate those as it comes.

Was it Jeffrey Tambour had a Me Too allocation?

He seems to have felt no repercussions about it at all.

After this, he was in the death of Stalin.

He was,

you know, people, I don't know, do people just believe him?

Because

he's on the right side of things.

Possible.

Yeah.

You know, maybe

it doesn't seem to be a real obvious pattern here.

Is it wrong for Louis C.K.

to now be able to come back and talk about things that he thinks are funny in front of people?

Well, I mean, I think the answer to that is if people don't show up, he should probably stop doing it.

If people aren't interested in hearing what he wants to say, then he can't be a stand-up comedian anymore because people don't want to hear him.

And that is a

market-based job.

If people like your comedy, they come and you get to do it for a living.

If they don't and you suck and they don't come, then you don't.

So

the outrage here that we have to allow,

you know, we have to make sure that he never gets in front of people again and he has to be punished till the end of time is kind of a

crazy instinct.

You know, I don't know.

It's almost as if we're addicted to outrage.

Is this your job this week?

No,

this is Jeffy.

No, we've come up with

a useful

job for Jeffy.

I was looking at the stupid poster the whole time right across from me for the addicted to outrage.

For those of you listening on radio, that's all I see.

I look at Stu, I see the glutt back.

Well, it is coming out soon, so you can buy that.

But I guess it's, in some ways, is tied to that, right?

I mean,

we all act as if we're perfect, and we all act as if we've never made a mistake, and we all act as if we can just slam everybody who has had their public issues.

when, in reality, like there has to be, and this is, I think, part of the job of people who really support the Me Too movement and think its work is important, and a lot of it is, that

you have to take a stand as someone in the Me Too movement to say this particular claim is bullcrap.

This particular claim doesn't rise to the level of what we're talking about.

You know, the fact that there's a statement made by someone that's a little bit sexualized, or I mean, who was the guy?

Was it Amazon?

I think was it the Amazon guy who was at a party he was one of the heads of Amazon development I think or I think it was Amazon not Netflix but it was one of the big streaming providers and he went to a party and he said some offensive things to a woman at a party he was hitting on her and and that was I think the only allegation that he was inappropriate in conversation at a drunken Christmas party

and like that is something you know if you look back at

at the office the show things like that happened all the time and it's not appropriate but like that person would just have, people would think he's a dirtbag, or people would say, do you believe he did this once?

But now he doesn't seem to do that anymore.

And it would kind of blow over.

And now we have to make sure they're fired.

We have to make sure they pay some public payments.

And he was.

And he was, he did wipe up a penny.

I think he resigned.

I think he resigned under pressure, is what actually happens.

I mean, who among us haven't been drunk at a Christmas party and started to do that?

I mean, think about it.

Quite a few of us.

Who among us?

It's quite a few.

I mean, quite a few of us.

Certainly, Jeffy would.

If these standards were

around in the 1830s when Jeffy was coming of age, I mean, I can't even imagine what would have happened to him.

But, you know, look,

there should be some level.

Most, I don't know what, I don't know what the percentage is, but I bet there's half of people wind up meeting their significant other at work.

Yeah.

I don't know.

I mean, I'm guessing.

It's probably a high percentage.

Probably a high percentage, right?

I mean, you have, or, and then if you want to add in people who are at bars that have been drinking, you're even higher, right?

I mean, like, you,

that, that shouldn't mean if you, if you do something inappropriate, and many women made this argument around the Me Too

point when that was really happening, is that you know

that's part of what I want.

Like, I want there to be some available level of sexuality that, that, is, that is able to be expressed by someone I'm trying to court.

If, if not, I mean, you know, there has to be some sexuality.

Well, we have to realize that no means no, right?

A hundred percent.

So when,

you know, when you start bashing Louis C.K., remember he asked.

Right.

He asked.

And that's the thing.

It's gone from no means no to don't ask.

Yeah.

Yeah, it has.

And, you know, that is a flirt.

Don't flirt.

Don't ask.

Don't show interest.

Don't look.

Don't certainly don't touch.

So how do men and women ever

get together again?

You know, to ask fundamentally, how does the species continue?

Yeah.

At some point

in every relationship, you go in for your first kiss.

Rarely are you saying, hey, do you mind?

Do you mind signing this contract that allows me to, or my lips to touch yours?

Like, that's not how it happens.

You know, and there are people who misjudge it, right?

Like, I mean, I've always been on the case of being such a wuss that you wait way too long and eventually it's so obvious that it's time to go for it.

That's, that's what I waited till because, you know, I'm a loser.

But, you know, not everybody's that way.

Sometimes people call it wrong.

Yeah.

You know, sometimes, and that shouldn't be, that can be something where we say, hey, you know, that's inappropriate at this place.

Hey, don't do that anymore.

No, I'm not interested.

Thank you.

Then the person absolutely needs to stop.

But, you know,

there has to be some room for men and women and maybe men and men and women and women to do the little dance.

Yeah.

That is part of it.

That's not Harvey Weinstein, but it is part of it.

888-933-93 893393 or 888-727-BEC.

Oh, that's what it is.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Pat's doing Jeffy for Glenn.

Pat's doing Jeffy for her, Glenn.

Yeah, you can subscribe to theblaze at theblaze.com slash TV and listen to Pat Gray Unleashed, which happens every day.

We have also the news and why it matters.

I'm going to be filling in for TV again for Glenn tonight.

We've got some pretty interesting stuff on socialism and the new wave of it.

We saw a big election last night where a socialist in Florida was able to beat out

some pretty well-funded competition for the Democrats.

As the Democrat Party just keeps going more and more extreme

every day.

I'm not surprised they're getting more extreme and being more overt about it.

I'm just surprised with Venezuela going on, this is the time they've picked up.

I mean, that's the DNC chair

already said that's the future.

We're sure the party is future of the party.

Amazing.

More in a second.

It's Pat, it's Stu, it's Jeffy for Glenn.

Glenn back.

It's Pat Stew and Jeffy for Glenn.

Yesterday we were talking, I think it was around this time, we were talking about a case in Utah with civil asset forfeiture.

This is something that's come up from time to time recently because it's one of the most incredible and most egregious violations, I think, of the U.S.

Constitution that I've seen in my lifetime.

And we continue to get these stories.

Yesterday, we talked to you about the Utah Highway Patrol, which pulled over a guy

named Kyle Savely

in Utah.

And he had,

there was a drug dog

that apparently had a hit on something in his car that smelled like drugs, but they found no drugs.

So there weren't drugs there.

They charged him with nothing.

He's never been charged.

And this happened two years ago.

What they did find was $500,000 in cash, which they helped themselves to.

They took it.

Nice size?

Yeah,

it's a nice little score for the Utah Highway Patrol.

And I think they have to share that.

They're trying to decide now how to divvy up the cash between the federal government and the state government.

Not the person.

Not the person.

They did rule he was supposed to get it back.

Fortunately, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that he needed to get it back, which has not, it still hasn't happened.

Now, you might suspect that a guy who's carrying $500,000 in cash with him did something wrong to get that money.

But we don't know that he did.

And it's not illegal to carry $500,000 in cash with you.

Maybe he's on his way to pay cash for a house.

I don't know.

Yeah, but he obviously was doing something wrong.

Maybe it's not illegal.

Well, prove that.

That's the thought.

Prove that.

That's where you do.

That's what you do.

You prove it.

I mean, because like, let's say, let's just say, for example, you went and you pulled this person over and you took the money and you looked around the car and you didn't find anything.

And then later on,

as the investigation continued, eventually you found that he was a drug dealer.

Yeah.

And he was absolutely, this is all dirty money.

And you charged him.

And you charged him.

You arrested him and you charged him with a crime.

Right.

Would that be just?

Now, the outcome,

just, right?

Yeah.

The outcome of it, we're not initial seizure.

Person committing a crime goes to prison.

But if you get it through a way that is wrong, usually those things don't stand up in court.

Right.

You can't just go like if we could run, if the

police department would go house to house and look around everybody's house, they'd probably find something illegal.

Certainly, if they got to Jeffy's house, they'd find many things.

Oh, they better have a warrant.

Yeah, right.

But that's the thing.

That's what we have, right?

A warrant.

You got to get a warrant.

You can't just walk in and look for crimes.

You have to have a suspicion of the crimes that's legitimate.

Now, I mean, the dog thing is really pushing that standard, honestly.

I mean, the fact that a dog smells something, I know some of these things.

They're wrong from time to time.

You know, the dog-sniffing dogs are not perfect.

Well, and again,

with $500,000 in cash,

we know for a fact that most of our money has some kind of drugs on it.

Yeah.

That's right.

So that's true.

The dogs are smelling.

If they get a hint of some kind of drug

on the money.

You can, I think, make the argument that a dog sniffing something is justification to search for something in the car.

But when you find something legal in the car, you don't get to take it.

If you find a great stereo system in the back, you don't get to help yourself to that because the guy smelled drugs.

The dog smelled drugs.

And that's the same thing with money.

Money is property.

Money is not illegal to carry with you.

When did this start in America that you can't have a large sum of cash with you on a trip?

Yeah.

That's it's madness.

And we occasionally

will hear, I mean, it seems to be more and more frequent where we hear stories like this where someone's carrying around a large portion of their money with them.

Sometimes it's someone coming from the restaurant to the bank, right?

And they're carrying, you know, $10,000, $15,000 for them.

Except to that pizza guy.

They took his

savings.

They took that.

But beyond that, how many times is this happening where they're taking $1,000 or $500?

We're not going to get stories about that.

That happens a lot.

Yeah.

And would you fight it?

I mean, the bottom line is if they found nothing and they took your $1,000, you're really going to bother going to court to get $1,000 back.

It's going to cost you $1,000 to miss work.

You're going to want to be more than it would take

in lawyer fees to get the money back.

And you mentioned us not taking a stereo, but in some cases, they would take the stereo.

Yeah.

I mean, we're seeing where they take cell phones and keys and keynote fobs and everything else.

Well, listen to this.

This story we just found from West Virginia.

This happened on June 9th.

West Virginia state police trooper issued Demetrius Patlias a warning for failing to drive within his lane.

So

they pull the guy over.

He wasn't driving within his lane.

And

the officer finds $10,000 in cash that he and his wife have on them.

Now, his wife is about eight months pregnant, and they were headed to the Hollywood Casino in Jefferson County.

They were going to go gamble, so they had some cash on them.

They'd capitalized on several promotional offers and had 13 and 14, respectively, between them, $100 gift cards on them

along with the cash.

Okay.

So if they had $1,400 gifts, they had another $1,400 in gift cards there.

Well, no, and then they got

$2,700 worth of gift cards.

So

the officer who pulled them over started accusing them of smuggling cigarettes, having drugs in the car,

gift card fraud,

and searched the car, searched the couple.

So he gets to search because he accused them.

Right?

Because he accused them.

He can search.

I don't, yeah.

Where's the probable cause here?

Searched her purse and then finally let them go with a uniform warning citation.

He just gave them a warning, charged them with nothing.

He found nothing.

Well, except for $10,478 in cash, which he took.

And then

I guess they had a total of 78 gift cards in the car.

He took those as well.

That's amazing.

What in the, how is this possible that you can

just take their property from them?

I mean, the gift cards obviously didn't come from a drug deal.

What is this Sinaloa cartel now paying in gift cards?

What is this?

Maybe.

I mean, they might be.

And that may be

a way for them to wash their money and clean their money, which is, you know, it's obviously could be.

So now they're broke.

But he left them with $2.

He left them with $2.

Not even like a $20.

They didn't get gas or something, no, nothing.

Didn't charge them with a crime.

And didn't find anything.

They've been charged with nothing, and yet they lost their $10,478 and their 78 gift cards.

And I think the argument from the police side would be, most of the time, we find out that these things are right.

Most of the times we're right.

I just don't think that justifies it.

It doesn't.

It doesn't justify it.

It doesn't.

You know, the bottom line is,

even if this person, let's say they find out later on that they are dealing with drug dealers, that does not justify taking their stuff before you have evidence of it.

Yeah.

It just doesn't.

We got to stop this.

I don't know how, but somehow this has to be stopped.

If we are still living in America, this just is unacceptable.

It's true.

It can't happen anymore.

And, you know, we talked about yesterday about being, you know, because they're short of money.

And they even talk in the story.

I mean, the county in West Virginia gets 90% of the proceeds and the state gets 10% of it.

So they're making it so the police officers

find it easier to take the money from you because they can.

And then once they get it, what happened is if the if the if they start proceedings, if the assistant district attorney starts proceedings on this pro,

then you have to go prove that it's yours and that you didn't do anything wrong.

You have to prove that it's yours.

And if you did anything wrong.

It's completely unamerical.

Right.

But if they don't start proceedings,

you can get it back.

You can go to them and they can decide, well, we're not going to start proceedings and they'll give it back to you.

Once they start proceedings, you've got to go through the whole process, which is where you decide it's not worth it for $500 and a stereo.

It really really is incredible.

And, you know, the fact that people aren't outraged by this more often is surprising.

You know, Jeffy keeps bringing up addicted to outrage, Glenn's new book, but it's like,

this is a good reason for outrage.

Like, not all outrage is bad.

You just shouldn't be addicted to it and getting and going crazy over every little thing.

Correct.

This is a real problem.

Can you imagine if this happened to you?

Can you imagine if you had a situation like this?

It wouldn't be good because I'd probably be arrested or worse because I I would go absolutely nuts.

Can you imagine the injustice you would feel if you hadn't done anything wrong?

You're just carrying money with you.

You're on your way to the casino.

You're on your way to buy a car.

You're on your way.

In one case, a guy had $91,800 to go buy a

sound studio and they took that money from him.

That was...

Three years ago, he still hasn't gotten it back.

I mean, that's, for most people, it's going to be crazy.

They're life savings.

I mean, think of the amount of work you put in to be able to put that amount of cash away to purchase something that you've always dreamed about having.

And then they just rip it away from you for nothing.

Again, if there's a crime committed, that's a different story.

You know, if it's, if there's a crime committed and you can prove that those funds came from

that crime,

you have a situation where there's something valid to look at.

But there's no burden of proof here.

There's no burden of

even probable cause in a lot of these cases.

I mean, what's a probable cause when a guy's got a lane violation and then you suddenly take every penny they have.

Well, not every penny, but left in $2.

Thought

that they were trafficking in gift cards.

That's not enough.

Yeah, that's not enough.

Trafficking in gift cards is an interesting business.

How does that work, Jeffy?

You know everything I know.

You know more about crime than anyone I know.

I do know that that's, I have read articles where that's how they're starting to, you know, ideas of how to clean money.

So if you have a bunch of cash, you buy gift cards and then you send the gift cards across the border or whatever, and then people can use them on Amazon.

Whatever you want, or you get your, or, you know, some places like might give you money.

And do we now know that?

If you had a gift card, $100, I give you $75

for the gift card.

Good for both of us.

Right.

Is the Gulf cartel dealing

a lot in gift cards now?

Do we know that?

A lot of these drug

transactions wind up in gift cards.

I'm advised not to answer.

At some point we have to make this into a story.

And it seems like when we bring them up, the audience gets pretty fired up about them.

It just, it doesn't seem to have the, I guess because it's just happening to a small amount of people.

But that's a type of liberty that you have to fight for, right?

Well, they're trying, right?

In this story, it even talks about the West Virginia State House Judiciary Committee considered a bill that would tie civil asset forfeiture to its respective criminal proceedings, which means, you know, if you're acquitted criminally, the seized property can't be forfeited.

Don't worry about it.

We're going to let the bill die.

Wait, wait, hold on.

So they're still taking it.

So they're taking it even if that they're acquitted?

They go through the trial,

they're acquitted of the charges, and they still take it?

They still can now.

Yeah.

Yeah, because the bill failed.

How does the bill fail

in that case?

I don't understand.

I mean, here's some of the things.

Well, these people weren't even charged and they took it.

So, like I said, if they started, if the district attorney starts procedures saying saying that

this was property that we seized, then you have to go in and fight it to prove.

If you don't go in and fight

after so many days, they just take it.

It's just, it's gone.

And here's the county in West Virginia has already auctioned off certain things that they've obtained from people that they've confiscated.

Right.

Like, listen to this list.

A Nintendo Wii with controllers.

Okay, was that done in a drug deal?

Right.

No, you were joking about

it.

Yeah, shoes, jumper cables, a Mickey Mouse watch, a jogging stroller, Legos, and other toys.

Why would you take Legos from someone's car?

It's unbelievable.

You're taking Legos from people?

Wow, that is really unbelievable.

We're taking it all.

We're taking the cash and we're taking everything else.

It's pretty bad.

It strikes me as

a similar issue to the Kilo case.

They made a movie about it called Little Pink House recently in New London, where, you know, this woman built her little dream house near the water.

And

the town said, well, we want to bring Pfizer in here.

So you guys are all going to buy your houses from you.

She's like, I'm not leaving.

And then they did eminent domain, and they took her house, and it went up to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in one of the worst decisions, I think, ever given,

sided with the town and allowed her

for just, you know, well, it's helping the tax base, so therefore it's good for the people to get rid of these houses, which, of course, would justify almost anything.

You could justify almost anything.

You could always come up with a projection that's going to help the tax base.

But the reaction to that ruling was pretty swift and pretty strong.

I think over 40 states passed constitutional amendments or laws in their states to prohibit the government from doing that

in cases like this where it's just business reasons.

Like, I mean, there's always going to be something for a highway or the eminent domain is, you know, we all know that that's part of it.

But, you know, for things like this, where you're just bringing, well, we want to give it to a business instead of you, that has been out.

I think it's 42 states have passed things to stop that.

And that's the type of action that needs to happen here.

You need a bunch of people going around and saying, wait a minute.

We get that at times

law enforcement needs resources.

They need these abilities.

We're rooting for law enforcement to take out criminals.

But you can't just take stuff from people's car and pocket it.

And even if they're acquitted, still hold on to it.

I mean, it's insanity.

And there's no doubt I agree with you.

But again, what we talked about in the past, too, but those in support of it talk about, well, look, we can hamstring drug dealing networks by leaning on their finances, which can be more effective than the criminal charges.

And

they also point out that the proceeds can help police buy much-needed equipment.

That's incredible.

They're actually bragging about taking people's stuff to buy stuff.

It's unbelievable.

Triple eight seven two seven back.

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

Pat Stu and Jeffy for Glenn.

888727 back.

Did you hear the latest outrage

from Cynthia Nixon?

No.

She's going to be debating de Blasio, or not de Blasio, Cuomo, coming up for the governor's race.

She's not, it doesn't seem all that competitive, but it's been a high-profile race.

It's New York.

She's a celebrity.

Right.

And this got set into with the hashtag addicted to outrage.

If you were taking these submissions for the ridiculous things that people get outraged by, and we'd love for you to send some in at World of Stew on Twitter.

We have

people now complaining that the

remember they took the bars off of the

box where the animal crackers were, so they didn't look like they were caged in?

Well, now they're complaining about that.

That was not far enough.

Apparently, they left.

They're outraged that that does not cure that the Nabisco CEO

earns 600 times what the average employee earns or something like that.

What does that have to do with the animal cracker?

I don't know.

I don't know.

Or this one,

a student yanked a Make America Great Again hat off of another's head and called it a racist and hateful symbol.

Yeah.

This one, though, I love is Cynthia Nixon.

She is outraged.

Why is she outraged?

Well, she wants the debate room to be 76 degrees when the debate happens because

apparently

is a well-known sexist, it's notoriously sexist to keep a room cold.

Oh.

Now,

of course, it is also notorious that if you don't keep a room cold,

the people who are on television will start sweating.

And so every single debate stage in every single studio since 1960 has been filled with people in cold environments.

It's freezing in here all the time.

I mean, how do you think we can, I mean, Jeffy's not even sweating right now, which is almost impossible to accomplish.

It's because it's like 25 degrees in this room right now.

It's very cold in here.

It's not close to 12.

Yeah, it's pretty cold.

It's pretty cold in here.

And that's because you want your, you don't, people don't like watching people on TV sweating as they're talking.

It's just like, ideally, you avoid it.

You may expect it in an NBA game,

but ideally, you don't necessarily see that from your anchors.

Especially with Jeffy, since he sweats gravy.

And that's just unpleasant to look at.

Yes, it's not.

You know what I mean?

I thought we were talking about Corbo.

Right.

So Cynthia Nixon is saying

that there is a study.

There was a study apparently published some time ago in Nature Climate Change in this journal, which said that the office buildings base their climate control fluctuations on the needs of the male metabolism.

Since half of the workforce is female, the system is rigged against women who often have colder extremities than their male counterparts.

And it's even worse for women on the birth control pill, which can raise women's bodies' temperatures slightly, making them more

responsive to temperature fluctuations.

So now we have to be out.

Now, look, we all know there's real reasons for that, and I hate the cold.

I hate how cold it is in these studios.

But I don't think they're doing it to punish me, although Glenn may be.

I know I am.

But I know.

But I mean, the idea, 76 degrees, that's way too hot.

That's way too hot.

I mean, you just got to dress more warmly, I think, right?

And she knows that.

I know.

Again, it's not real outrage.

It's an addiction to outrage.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

With Pat, Stu, and Jeffy, this week for Glenn.

Now, yesterday,

yesterday we were talking about the

potential.

Or maybe I was talking about it on my show on Pat Gray Unleashed.

Done so many shows this week, I can't remember which it was.

A lot of shows.

But Alex Jones was caught in a little bit of a just

kind of a sticky wicket, if you will.

A bit of a moment.

Yeah, he was showing.

How to navigate on his website on Infowars.

Which does seem to be a high percentage of their programming.

A lot of it is just how do you get to the male vitality formula.

Because that's how he makes all his money.

So, yeah, they spend some time with that.

So he's showing how to navigate on his smartphone, and then he taps it, and it goes back to the original screen that had all of his tabs out there.

Yeah, it brings like you where you see like nine tabs on the screen at the same time.

One of the tabs was a

transsexual porn site.

And

it could happen to anybody.

It could happen.

Well, anybody who's surfing for trans porn, yes.

For those of us who don't necessarily frequent those sites, it can't happen to you.

Okay.

So I thought, okay, well, maybe somebody just went in there, and here's what he's going to say, even if it's not the case.

Somebody photoshopped that into his phone.

Right.

As long as he says that because you can do time when there's no evidence of it.

Why not go with that right defense?

Somebody in the deep state photoshopped that.

And that's not what he said, which is fascinating to me.

Here's instead how he explained his

little trans porn site.

And also, what about the trans porn on your phone, Alex?

Are you ever going to talk about that?

Say that again.

Say that again.

Trans porn on your phone.

That's all they keep talking about.

You know, I saw a couple of news articles about that.

It's ridiculous.

I was like looking up some reporter we're trying to hire today and punched in some number.

It popped up porn on my phone.

Everybody's had porn pop on their phones hundreds of times.

So I'm sitting there with a phone on air showing it to everybody because I couldn't get a URL up in the studio.

And then like something pops up and like, oh my God.

And I looked at it.

It wasn't the news blurted out because there was nothing there.

They blurt it to then say something was there.

Then you went to it with some porn menu.

I probably had porn menus pop up 500 times on my phone.

So I appreciate your call.

You're surfing them.

It's insane, ladies and gentlemen.

There's two types of people, people that look at porn and people that lie about about it.

But I wasn't looking at porn on my phone.

I don't take phones on air that I look at porn on.

And so I saw all that.

I didn't respond to it.

I mean, if I respond to happy attacks on me,

but then it'll look ridiculous.

But I'll say this.

The Amazon ads, the Viagra ads, the weird non-plastic bag ads are taking my iPhone over.

iPhones didn't used to be that bad like Androids.

It's a great point there with the plastic bag band ads that are taking over his iPhone.

He does seem to be admitting that he looks at porn.

Absolutely.

not with that phone.

Like, you know, Alex Jones looking at porn or trans porn is absolutely not the worst thing about him.

Like,

that's probably one of his better characteristics.

So I don't know why that would be a big deal.

It's just, you know, the trans community thought it was unusual because he bashes trans people so much.

Yeah.

And every time there's a trans story, he's, you know, he's raving about it, ranting about it.

And so it's interesting that he's actually looking at trans porn when he's ranting about

trans people.

The trans site was excited.

The trans site was very happy.

Very happy about it.

Yeah.

Yes.

I mean,

maybe not as transphobic as you once thought.

There you go.

And that's probably what he should say.

There was a

years ago, there was a

morning show host in

Texas City that I once lived in

who

got into a traffic accident while leaving a gay bar at two in the morning and then left the scene and went home or whatever.

And so it was kind of an issue.

And then so

there's a lot of, you know, he's a conservative talk show host.

And so people were wondering, what were you doing at a gay bar?

And he said, well, I, it shows you I'm not homophobic like they say I am, doesn't it?

That was his explanation.

So maybe that's a good one for us or Ellen's response.

Shows you I'm not transphobic.

Oh Oh, man.

I'm telling you, Val, it does bode to one of the things that I live by is clear your search menus.

One of the things,

thank you, Jeff.

100%.

So does this happen to you?

Does porn pop up on your phone?

Hundreds of times?

500 times?

That seems to be

a real issue with your phone.

I will say, no, that doesn't happen.

Especially on an iPhone.

I mean, iPhone is like it's a closed ecosystem.

And when I'm looking for reporters, I will say it has never popped up while looking for reporters to hire

is it possible that this particular trans porn star happens to have some journalism chops it is possible she's out covering the tough stories in between porn shoots I think that's

it is possible it's possible absolutely it is

it's possible okay let's let's grant him that I don't know how much

Alex knows how tough it is to run a website and have people subscribe to it and that's what that

porn person was doing.

Because

he offered Alex a free pass.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

Come on, Alex.

If you like it, I'm here for you.

I thought it was nice.

What an amazing world we live in.

It's just an amazing world.

So she did actually respond to this.

Yeah.

And she offered a free pass.

That's pretty smart, actually.

Yeah, I know.

You might as well jump in there.

I think the days of

the porn sites all popping up on your screen, which did happen in the past, are long gone.

Yeah, I think that doesn't happen as much anymore.

It certainly doesn't happen 500 times.

No, it does not.

But it does.

If you don't delete your search entry, if you type in a word and it pops, then whatever you've been searching for and bringing up comes up as a reminder.

Hey, I'm still here for you.

Is that what happens?

It could happen.

That's what I understand.

It's possible.

Somebody has told you about it.

Yeah, they've had it happen to them.

And they related that story to you.

Can you imagine the amount of transporn being tweeted and sent to Alex Jones?

Oh, man.

Oh my god.

I mean, it's got to be people are probably trolling him constantly with it now.

Hey, check out this new conspiracy theory I found, Link.

This guy's going to be opening up so much transporn.

I guess that's what happens, you know?

Yes.

You know, whatever.

It's not like we had a high opinion of Alex Jones.

This happened to a pastor while he was on his church.

Like, that might be notable.

Like, the fact that Alex Jones does weird things is the least surprising thing.

I mean, it's good for him, right?

It's keeping him in the news other than being blocked from bringing people to his site.

And by the way,

let's say once again, we're absolutely opposed to Alex Jones being eliminated from

all of these sites, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube.

put his stuff back up and let the people decide.

If they want to see it, they see it.

Stop banning people because they have a different point of view.

Now, again, Facebook is a private business and so are all the rest.

So they can do that if they want.

It's just not the right thing to do.

Yeah.

The interesting part, I think, in this conversation, because I think we all agree that private businesses can do whatever they want.

And we all agree that Alex Jones is trash.

And we all agree that even though Alex Jones is trash, he he should still be left

on the platform.

The interesting addition to this is a lot of these social networks get protections from

legal action because they claim to be, hey, we're just user-generated content.

We're just a platform.

And so, like, for example, if someone were to post child porn on Twitter, Twitter doesn't, the employees of Twitter don't go to prison for child porn, right?

If someone

posts a terroristic threat on Twitter, they then don't,

you know, you can't go to Twitter for that.

Right, it's like Twitter's fault, right?

Yeah.

And they get protections from these situations, as they should, by the way.

Or copyright fraud is another one.

If someone posts a

copyrighted material,

then people,

you know, if they do it and don't try to take it down, they can get in trouble for it.

But generally speaking, if someone just posts something,

they'll have a window there to take it down as soon as as possible.

And it's not like they're going to put Twitter out of business for it.

But for that protection,

there's a responsibility.

Yeah, and their responsibility is to not control the content.

So they can't be a partisan entity.

They can't be biased.

Right.

They can't.

And they are.

And they kind of are.

And Ted Cruz has brought this argument up before.

So it's a good argument.

Yeah.

I mean, again, I still think they should be able to

handle their own content, but that, you know, maybe you don't get the same protections.

If you want to go that direction, you want to to make it an all-liberal social media site, you should, in my view, should be able to create it.

If you want to create, you know, you know, liberal.com and make it all people tweeting to each other about liberal things.

Except that's not what you agreed to

when you got these protections.

So you're going to have to change the rule if you want to do it that way.

Or we just remove the protection.

And you're subject to prosecution when somebody does something on your site.

Which is it?

What do you want?

Yeah, and the easiest thing is just let people decide.

Stop, yeah, stop.

And I think their supposed good motives and the motives of many people in Congress are like, hey, you got to take responsibility for what's on your site.

You need to take responsibility.

And they all went in front of Congress and said, you know what?

We do.

This is on us.

We need to do better.

Not really.

No.

You really don't need to do better.

You don't need to manage.

You don't really need to do it.

People will click on the things they want to click on.

People will like the things that they want to like.

It's not your responsibility, not your responsibility to manipulate what people believe, even if they believe dumb things or inaccurate things, even in that circumstance.

When there's other crimes that are committed, like threats and child porn and stuff, yeah, that's your responsibility to get it off as soon as possible.

Yeah, but that's different than speech, and you should just leave it up there.

So, what Alex Jones wants to say something that's blatantly false over and over and over and over again?

So, what?

We figured it out all these years.

Why can't we now?

I mean, it's not like I believed in the 9-11 theories to begin with.

So, what's the big deal now?

It's not like I really thought that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a false flag operation.

I never believed that.

There might have been some people who did,

but I think any normal human being knew that that was an actual event that occurred and a real tragic one.

Yes, and I think we all can agree.

One thing that Alex was right on is that everything starts at the Gulf of Tonkin.

There's nothing that doesn't start there.

That's right.

That's where it all started.

It is.

It is where it all started.

The Gulf of Duncan.

Exactly right.

You could go back a little bit further to the

Rothschilds if you wanted to.

If you wanted to, but

we won't go there.

I don't want to go to high-level.

Only that's Alex's job.

Right.

All right.

Triple 8, 727 back.

Pat, Stew, and Jeffy for Glenn on the Glenn Back program.

Google needs to be careful.

I don't know if you're aware of that.

President told him yesterday that they need to be careful because what they're doing isn't fair to the American people.

Now, he keeps threatening people with, I guess,

censorship or

I don't know what the threat exactly is to Google here, but

they better be careful.

I, you know, all of these

warnings about

speech are somewhat troubling to me.

Well, he's just mad, you know, because the head of Google just told the Senate, some Senate committee, that

no, I'm not coming to talk to you.

They wanted him to come and talk to them, and he was like, no.

This is another

to me, somewhat of an example of the type of story where you have to ask yourself the question, should we cover this?

Right.

Right?

Should you cover it?

Is it about a tweet?

Well, then the answer is no.

Right.

Is it about something he said?

That's true.

Is it about something he said?

The answer is no.

Because is it about something he did?

Then you have something there.

If he starts saying, like, okay, we're passing this bill, we're trying to pass this bill.

Here's what we're doing.

That is a legitimate thing to cover.

But he just says stuff for the point of hearing his own voice.

It's just something that Donald Trump has done his entire life.

And this was

that soccer World Cup thing where Mexico, United States, and Canada is going to host the World Cup like in 2026 or something.

And so they were there at the Oval yesterday giving him presents, and he was joking around.

You talk about him loving messing with the press.

They gave him a referee wallet with a yellow card and a red card, and he pulled out the red card and joked around about throwing it to the press, you know, giving him the red card, kicking him out of the game.

Both sides love that.

They're loving it.

Both sides love that.

That's when they asked him about Twitter.

Oh, they better be careful.

Right.

Should we cover it?

He was just hearing himself talk.

It's like his way of saying, I don't like this one thing I saw.

It's just to say, I might shut down Google.

You know, I mean, like, that's just the way he is.

The Senate committee is mad because the head of Google won't show up, and he knows that.

So they better be careful.

Yeah.

And it's not like you can certainly argue that that's not the right way for a presidency to operate.

I think I can fairly argue it.

But you also have to recognize what is occurring in the world.

And you're going to drive yourself crazy if you panic every time Donald Trump tweets something you don't like.

He's going to do it probably.

If you're in the media, he's probably doing it five times a day.

And either you have to get past it and say, well, he's tweeted this sentiment 25 times and has done nothing about it.

Maybe we just let this one go by until he starts doing something about it.

And then at that point,

I certainly have my support in opposing Donald Trump trying to regulate Google.

He has nothing to do with that.

Nothing to do with it at all.

And he shouldn't

spend his time worrying about it either.

Yeah, he is Mr.

Hyperbully.

He just

says outrageous things.

And yeah, I think we know that by now.

Donald Trump is going to continue to say and tweet outrageous things.

And then, so like 90% of those things, you just don't worry about.

Yeah, O'Reilly was.

It's a good rule of thumb.

O'Reilly was the first one that sort of talked about that with us when he said, it's just like, yeah, yeah, don't worry about it.

He just tweeted it.

And you start thinking about it.

When you live your life in that world where nothing he says or tweets means anything, it's a lot easier to understand.

For example, Russia.

If you ignore his tweets and what he says, he's pretty tough on Russia and what he's done.

It's a better way of looking at it, I think.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.