Best of the Program | 8/28/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Welcome to the podcast.

Today, it's Stu and Pat and Jeffy filling in for Glenn.

And we started the show, Jeffy, with this crazy story about asset forfeiture.

You know, $500,000 taken from just some guy for driving with it.

No, no charges.

It's unbelievable how we let this happen in the United States, where just you have to prove your innocence to get your money back.

Uh, no, no, we go to the details of that story.

Also, Tiger Woods.

Uh, is it okay to have any athletes that aren't constantly involved in politics?

Is that okay?

Doesn't appear, it doesn't appear to be, no, it doesn't seem to be.

Uh, we also go into the the weird thing that's going on in Texas with the Senate race between Cruz and Betto, who is a hardcore Hispanic, uh, been Hispanic his whole life.

That's why his last name's Ol.

You're talking about Ted.

Oh, I thought you were talking about Ted Cruz.

Oh, no, no, yeah.

There is a there's a Hispanic in the race.

It just happens to be Ted Cruz.

And we'll also go into CNN.

What is happening there?

You know, it seems like you know, I think CNN does some good things, but man, I think they're going down the wrong road here with the way they're turning into basically yet another opinion organization.

It sure does seem that way, and that's not the way they've been presenting themselves for a long time, and yet that's what we get.

And I will say this, nowhere in this podcast will you hear us trying some new kind of food.

There's no food.

We got no food.

There's any treats to us.

That's very disappointing about this day.

Incredibly disappointing.

It's all coming up on the podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

It's Tuesday, August 28th.

Glenn back.

It's Pat and Stu and Jeffy for Glenn.

Triple Eight.

What is it?

72727 back.

It's been a while, hasn't it?

It's been a while.

And And with all these phone numbers to remember, I can't.

I'm just incapable of it now.

I'm too old, I think.

You mentioned

on the little pre-show thing that the

civil asset forfeiture situation, which has gotten so out of control in this country.

We've talked about people who have been pulled over in Texas and they were on their way to buy a car.

And they had, you know, $30,000, some thousand dollars with them.

And the

law enforcement saw it found it took it and they just lost it the guy with the pizza parlor who

took his money to the bank every day the cash that he made and brought and took it from the till to the bank and because he was told hey if you deposit ten thousand dollars in cash they're gonna flag that and they're going to you know look into you because it might be a drug uh it might be some sort of drug deal when you're depositing that kind of money so he always brought in under ten $10,000.

That got it.

That got it flagged, and they took it from him.

They took it from him.

The guy at the airport that had the receipt for the money from the bank.

So, because they said, if you're going to travel, make sure you have the receipts and proof that it's yours.

Nope, we're taking that.

Yeah.

In one case, guy got pulled over, had $91,000.

I forget what he was going to do with it.

He was buying something too.

He was on his way to make some sort of purchase.

I'm trying to think, because I think I have the story here.

But $91,000, and they took it from him, and he didn't get it.

I mean, no charge cares what he wanted to do with his money.

Well, that's the thing.

It's supposed to be America.

If he winds up doing something with his money that's illegal, that's the time you charge him with it.

You don't just charge him for assuming he's doing something illegal.

Well, if you've got evidence, let's see it.

You know, charge him with a crime, but they're not doing that.

And

quite clearly, the assumption of guilt rather than the assumption of innocence, which is what our entire system is built upon.

Exactly.

In 2016, there was a guy in Utah who got pulled over by the Utah Highway Patrol because he was following a vehicle too closely.

So he's following too closely.

They search his car, and he's got a bag in it that has $500,000 in the bag.

They took it from him.

This was in 2016.

He still hasn't been charged with crime.

They don't have any evidence that it was a drug deal, but they took half a million dollars from him, and he's been fighting ever since to try to get it back.

He went all the way to the Utah Supreme Court, who just ruled that they have to give it back to him.

Now, they still haven't.

They still haven't because the feds and the state of Utah are fighting over how to divide the money.

The federal government says it's ours.

It's all ours.

And

the state is trying to take some of it.

So, I mean, none of it is yours.

Give it back to the guy or charge him with the crime.

Let's see the evidence.

And I'd be interested what caused them to actually search the car for driving too close on the tickle.

It didn't have that

in the story.

You think if you're bringing around $500,000.

Oh, it says, okay, a drug dog alerted authorities to the presence of narcotics, but none were found.

So there weren't any.

No, the money smelled like drugs.

That's what happens.

The dog smelled the money.

Okay.

And the drug dog thing, it can potentially have some value, but first of all, a dog is not evidence.

I know.

But what I'm saying is if you have, it may give you the opportunity to search for evidence.

And, you know, there's a lot of stories out there about how unreliable drug dogs are.

They make mistakes.

They're not right.

Like, they're not, you know, they're,

it's not science, right?

It's just like, you know, they might give you an indication is about all it's worth.

And you're suspicious of somebody who's carrying around $500,000 because

who carries around $500,000?

Well, I don't know, but he's an American.

So if he has $500,000 and you don't have any evidence that he got it illegally, well, again, the drug dog.

Leave him alone.

The drug dog alerted them that there was possible.

But then there wasn't.

But then there was no drugs.

Right.

So leave him alone, give him back his money, send him on his way.

How can it still be America?

when you can just have your property seized like that.

And there's plenty of departments.

That was the big fight fight with when the sheriffs went to D.C.

and talked to Trump, right?

They were all for that.

And because those departments are

using the, hey, we're stopping drugs as a good benefit to enhance income for those departments.

And I'm sure it is.

But you better be charging people with a crime if you're going to take their property.

They better have gotten it illegally, whatever it is.

In too many cases, you've just taken law-abiding American citizens, hard-earned, in some cases, life-savings from them.

That's unbelievable to me.

And there are a lot of law enforcement officials

who support this really strongly.

And they say, look, it makes it a lot easier to get convictions.

Well, of course it does.

When you take everybody's stuff

and

then you figure it out later,

yeah, it's got to be easier to get convictions.

And sometimes those convictions will be accurate.

However, there is a presumption of innocence in our society.

It's supposed to be that way.

And the idea that you can just flip that upside down and say, well, we're going to take your stuff until we figure it out is completely wrong.

Completely wrong.

Yeah.

And then be unconstitutional.

Yeah.

To take pieces of it because you think you've gone through some efforts to check out the story.

Like, no, you should be paying them.

I mean, like, it's closer to rational.

for the state to pay someone where they have taken them into custody incorrectly or have handled them in some wrong way than it is the other way around.

I mean, the fact that you're taking my money and then you're going to take a piece of it for your trouble,

you didn't do me a service.

I just, you know, it's tough to say.

I know Jeff Sessions is a big proponent of this.

He's huge.

He's huge on this, and he puts it.

So was the president, actually.

Yeah, and the president, and this is one of the very few things anymore they actually agree on, apparently.

But it's not, it's just not right.

And it's, you know, while at times it feels like it would be the right thing to do, and you might say to yourself, well, I would never bring around $500,000 in cash.

Are we progressives?

Are we hardcore leftists where we say we get to carry?

Are we the people that get to say to others how much of their own money they get to bring in their own car?

Is that really the position we want to take?

You have to ask yourself, is it illegal in the United States of America to carry cash with you?

I mean, if it is,

show me the law.

Yeah.

Because it's not.

It's not illegal to bring your money somewhere.

If I want to carry 500 million with me in cash, if I have that kind of money, I should be able to.

And if I get pulled over, nobody should be able to take it from me.

It's un-American and it's unconstitutional.

And it's amazing how many people, how many politicians are in favor of it.

Yeah, you know, and I'm surprised.

It's not supposed to be easy to get convictions.

It's supposed to be hard.

There's a burden of proof.

Right, exactly.

It should be hard.

Yeah.

If you're going to take, I mean, think about what's happening here.

You're taking constitutional rights away from someone, right?

You're taking away the life, the right to pursue happiness, right?

Yeah.

Because you're in prison.

You're taking away your Second Amendment rights.

You'll probably never get them back if you're a felon.

There are a lot of things you're just ripping away.

The right of free association, you're taking away.

You're taking away tons of things that are constitutionally guaranteed.

And of course, the Constitution Constitution does not guarantee them when you commit crimes.

When you commit crimes, you lose those rights.

You lose voting rights.

Right.

Okay.

So these are really important issues that should have a very high standard of proof.

They should have a burden that is difficult for the state to accomplish.

We should be letting go some people who are guilty.

We should be every once in a while erring on that side instead of the other.

And of course, we all want someone who's guilty to go to prison and

deal with those consequences.

One of the most important issues to me is law enforcement.

And

the police, generally speaking, do an incredible job.

I mean, they're a hell of a lot better for this society than I am.

And certainly Jeffy, obviously.

I mean, that didn't need to be said.

No, I don't think.

But you can't,

just because...

We want to take criminals off the streets does not mean we can reverse the Constitution to make it easier.

We can't do that.

That's not something that the reason the Constitution is there is to protect

against these things.

And I'm surprised there's not more of an uprising on this because it's one of those issues you'd think both the left and the right could agree.

Private property being taken by the government right in the conservative wheelhouse.

Yeah.

What do you mean you're taking my government or my

money for nothing?

And then the left should agree with us too.

They're always complaining about how the police do things that

are wrong and taking advantage of people who they shouldn't take advantage of.

I mean, there's stories from Chicago where people, and there's this story about a guy who was in Chicago and he was a

car repair technician.

Oh, right.

Yeah, and so he took his car and gave a ride to someone who brought his car into his shop.

He'd give rides to people to work or wherever they needed to go.

And while he was on the way, giving a ride to someone else, the car got got pulled over for what they said was a broken taillight, and he denies.

But when they decided to take the people out of the car and search them, when they searched them, the passenger, the customer, was found with heroin.

Okay.

Now, is he supposed to frisk every customer that comes into his office?

The customer is caught with it.

They take his car,

impound it, and he's been fighting for years to get it back.

Oh, my God.

Not to mention, all of his tools, thousands of dollars of tools were in the trunk of the car, and he couldn't get those back either.

So he did nothing wrong, was never charged with anything wrong, was never suspected of doing anything wrong.

And they took his car away for multiple years.

I think it's still ongoing, at least last I checked.

It's cost him thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, more than the car was worth.

He's paid to try to get the car back because all the tools are

on the back of his car, and he can't do his work without them.

This is insanity.

And I guarantee you, they're charging him to keep the car.

Yeah, they are.

That's the fees.

They all do that.

The impound fees.

Yes,

he can't can't work.

That's perfect.

So he can't get the money to pay the impound fees.

And then,

as he doesn't pay the impound fees, they get fines on top of the fees.

What's agonized?

And he has to keep going back to court and hiring lawyers.

I mean, it's insanity, and there's no reason for it.

I can't understand why people just aren't up in arms over this.

I know.

We should be protesting in the streets on this because

it's one of the most un-American things I think I've ever seen in my lifetime.

This is as bad as it gets in a free society because you're not free if we're able to do this.

There's no proof.

There's no evidence.

There's no due process.

Well, it's possible.

It's possible you did something wrong.

It is possible.

It is possible.

Right.

It is possible.

So lock him up.

Safety first.

Better as money.

Better safe than sorry.

Throw him in prison.

No, that's not how this works.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

You know, when I want really insightful political commentary, the first place I go to is ESPN.

That's where, that's where you're going to find out what really is going on politically in this world.

Don't you agree?

I mean, that's that is really the hub.

It's

for political discourse.

It does seem to be their goal.

It does to be the hub of of political discourse.

Now, there's rumors that they are trying to reverse that.

The big step that they've taken recently is blowing out Jamel Hill, one of their supposed rising stars, very recently.

Yeah, I saw that they just came to some agreement with her to part.

Yeah, so she started out.

She was on Sports Center, and they kind of did this thing with her as a star of Sports Center, one of the hours, and they tried to really customize it for her and her on-air partner.

And they tried to make it into a big deal.

It was very much, you know, sort of a social justice tilt on the news of sports.

And that wasn't working out so well.

The ratings were not good.

They spent a fortune on the show and got nothing out of it.

And then she started tweeting constantly about how bad Trump was and how evil he was and how he was a racist and everything else.

And of course, that pisses off half the audience at ESPN.

Or more.

So they took her off of Sports Center and tossed her over to this thing called the Undefeated, which is like a sort of like side website that only deals with like racial issues and sports.

And they were like, hey, why don't you go hang out over there?

And I guess even that, she's even too crazy for that world because now that's not working out.

They're saying it's funkable, but everyone seems to be speculating that basically she was fired.

And now, you know, likely she'll go even deeper into that world, right?

She'll certainly be embraced by some left-wing publication or think tank or something that has probably nothing to do with sports because of the stand she took.

That's what happens to the left.

They get rewarded for these things.

Oh, she'll go work for the New York Times.

She'll be fine.

She probably will.

She probably will hire this a columnist.

I mean, you can tweet about how you want all white people dead and get a column at the New York Times.

You know,

even if you're joking, I mean, that certainly would not be allowed for conservatives.

No way.

So

there are rumors that ESPN's, okay,

we've gone down this wrong road.

We're seeing that people hate it.

Let's try to reverse it.

It's going to be tough.

When you go down that road too far, it's hard to reverse those things.

But, you know,

at least today's news does not seem like they've made strides yet.

No, not when you, not when you see Tiger Woods saying, hey,

you got to respect the office of the presidency because he was...

I think he was being baited into bashing the president.

Right.

I don't think he wanted to.

No, because I guess he plays golf with Trump occasionally.

They've been friendly.

They have a relationship.

Yeah,

I don't think they're tight friends, but

they're acquaintances.

And I don't know Tigers' political ideology.

Do you?

No, and isn't that great?

Yeah, it's fine.

In fact, it is great.

It's great.

I don't want to know.

I just want to watch him play golf.

Yeah.

And I mean, look, he's absolutely free to express that if he wants.

He obviously

doesn't want to.

He knows better.

Right.

Right.

He knows everything about the guy.

Why would you limit your fan base?

Well, he's not.

He's not doing that.

So he said, you got to respect the office.

Well, Max Kellerman of that show.

Oh, no.

What is the name of that show with him and Stephen A.

Smith?

Where they yell everything they say.

First take.

Yeah.

They scream everything they say.

No matter what it is.

They yell at the top of their lungs.

That is true.

Yeah.

I mean, I really annoying.

It makes you cognizant of not doing that when you're doing a show because you realize it's not.

No, that's really annoying.

It kind of is.

And I love Stephen A.

Smith.

I think he's a brave guy.

You know, the fact that he's.

I like it better than Kellerman, that's for sure.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, Stephen A.

Smith has stood up in really difficult situations.

Taking strong stands.

Taking strong stands many times against what you would expect.

Yeah.

And, you know,

supporting Republicans and, you know, trying to speak, I think, truth about

some of the issues that are out there, black, white issues.

And, you know, I don't always agree with the guy, but that's one of the reasons why you actually listen to him is because you realize occasionally he'll say something that you don't expect.

He'll go the other way and he'll challenge his own audience.

And that's what I love.

I want that from a host.

Yeah, me too.

Well,

Kellerman took issue with Tiger Woods saying that you should respect the office.

Here's what he said yesterday.

I want to say something about what Tiger Woods said.

Okay, go ahead.

It really bothers me.

I'm angry at what Tiger Woods said because it is a thoughtless statement dressed up up as a thoughtful statement.

And it either holds in contempt the intelligence of the people who hear it, or else it's just a stupid thing to say.

Let me tell you what I mean.

If to say that the office,

you must have respect for the office, Tiger, be clear.

Are you saying that the office therefore confers respect onto its occupant, its present temporary occupant?

No.

What the having respect for the office means principally in my view is the office holder should have respect for the office.

That's the issue that the African-American community has always had because, obviously, from a historical perspective, you know, if one-third of you has a darker hue, a darker pigmentation, you know, the bottom line is you are black and it is that simple.

And you get it.

And it ain't even one-third.

I'm just throwing that out there.

One-eighth, exactly.

So what I'm saying to you is that clearly you are perceived as being a black man.

And even though you didn't want to disassociate yourself from your mother's ethnicity,

who was Thai, I believe, the bottom line is that that's the reason why he took that position.

But black Americans haven't respected that for Tiger for quite some time.

They haven't heard Tiger speak on a plethora of issues pertaining to having a social consciousness on many, many occasions.

That is something that people have lamented as well.

Stephen.

Kind of a weird discussion there because one of them's talking about the office of the presidency and respecting it.

The other one's talking about something Tiger said a long time ago,

or that he's always maintained, was that

he's mixed race.

Yeah, he's not black enough.

And so if you don't, I guess, ignore whatever

white portion of you there is, then you're.

You're not woke.

Yeah, you're not, you're a terrible person.

Well,

why should he deny

any of his ethnicity?

I don't understand that.

I don't understand any of it, to be honest with you.

I do.

There is.

I get no part of my life, my personality, the things I do every day.

I get none of it from my race.

I literally never think about it at all.

I mean,

personally, that's your white privilege speaking.

I think people would legitimately argue that, right?

Like, if

maybe if you're, you know, you're black, that is a bigger.

That's such a white thing to say.

It is a white thing to say.

But I never understand.

This is why I never understand things like the alt-right.

You know, like, I don't...

Don't care about it.

Don't care about it at all.

Don't think about it.

It's completely...

Just like the size of your hands or, you know,

whether you have acne or not is not a characteristic that I care about.

Like, none of those things.

They're just a physical characteristic that means nothing.

Who cares?

And so much, so many people are so obsessed with it.

I mean, it flies directly in the face of what Martin Luther King wanted, which is he wanted people not to care.

He wanted people to not care about the color of the skin, care about the content of the character.

And now the enlightened left has done, has instituted this way of thinking that every single decision you make, every comment you make about every story must be filtered through the lens of

race or gender or some other physically identifiable characteristic, which is insanity.

Sexual preference.

Sexual preference.

None of that makes any difference.

Do you ever,

I just, I never, does anybody go through their life thinking like that?

Do you go through your life thinking, wow, I would like to do this, but I'm going to do the reverse because of my skin color?

Who does that?

It's stupid.

It's a dumb way to live.

And I understand why there's, because

in our history, there have been real problems in this area.

And the fact that it's part of your, you know, your lineage is something that obviously,

you know, people will consider as part of their everyday life.

But the idea that Tiger, like the idea, we can't have one person who doesn't talk about this stuff.

We can't have one freaking sports celebrity who doesn't go up in front, in front of the nation, and bash the president every five minutes.

Really?

We have a litany.

The entire National Basketball Association seems to be set up to oppose Donald Trump.

That's a fact.

Every big celebrity takes stance against this guy every day.

The National Football League, there are a lot of people in the National Football League who are kneeling at the anthem and even when they're not kneeling saying, well, you know, Trump is wrong for getting involved in this.

Can we have one guy who, by the way, is in the middle of a return from a career crisis where he should be focusing on trying to win tournaments?

Can we have one guy who's not constantly talking about politics?

Can we have one?

Can we have one person?

If you're to listen to Kellerman and Stephen A., the answer is no.

No, we're not allowed to.

They can't let him just be him.

Every Every single person of prominence must take a position on politics.

And it has to be against, or you get bashed for that, too.

It's not just taking a position.

It's got to be the right position.

Yeah.

Oh, absolutely.

It does.

And, like, you know what I want?

Is almost no one doing it.

My choice is, you know what?

Look, I understand that people are people.

And why should it be that you and I should get along so awfully?

I understand that people are going to take stances.

That makes plenty of sense.

Right?

People are going to take their stances in their personal life.

You can't stop them.

You shouldn't discourage them from doing it.

But as a person who wants to escape this world and nonsense every day and go to sports, which is why it exists, it doesn't have any importance outside of that.

I would love to not hear about your political views all the time.

People come to this stupid show

to hear political views.

Yeah.

Well, you don't go to the NFL or the NBA or the PGA to hear that.

You go there to escape from it, to run as fast as you can away from it.

It's interesting, though, that all the sports guys want to talk about politics and all the politics guys want to talk about sports.

By the way,

maybe we just switch positions with Max and Stephen A.

Maybe that's what we do.

That's a good idea, Pat.

You guys, come on in.

The water sucks.

Yeah, let's switch shows.

Come on in.

Let's trade.

Let's check it out.

We'll go over there.

We'll talk some sports.

And you know what?

What we'll do is we will not get into any of these issues.

We'll talk about

what quarterback is going to win a quarterback battle.

We're going to talk about what running back should win the position battle there.

We'll go into what the defensive changes mean for the new coordinator.

And people might be bored out of their minds, but man, we'll love it.

I don't know if anyone cares about the actual sports anymore.

I need to talk about culture.

I do.

Good.

College football really kicks into gear in earnest this weekend.

I'm pretty excited about that.

Pretty excited.

And then it's the week after, it's what, two weeks from now?

Yeah, two weeks from the NFL.

The NFL.

You'll notice the Atlanta Falcons playing the defending Super Bowl champion, Philadelphia Eagles.

I hate this.

Whose Malcolm Jenkins is still kneeling?

He still is.

But again,

that's another part of this.

It's so funny.

Malcolm Jenkins is a great player.

Yeah.

You know what?

So they don't care.

The Eagles will sit there and sit through as much.

Eagles fans will sit through as much kneeling as he wants to do because they want to win the Super Bowl.

Exactly.

No, he's just resting up for the game.

He's not kneeling.

And the same thing would happen with Colin Kaepernick if he didn't suck.

If he wasn't a terrible quarterback, he would have had a job a long time ago.

And people were...

Well, and he was offered them, and we know that now.

From several NFL teams, including the Seahawks and the Broncos, offered him quarterback positions.

He turned them down.

So that's on you, man.

And that's on you.

And they wanted to keep that storyline alive.

They wanted you to believe so badly that people wouldn't hire him because he was taking a stand on Race.

Shut up.

And they kept that alive for how long?

And now that we know the other side of it,

there's no impact.

They've already got their points out of it.

Yeah.

Amazing.

You know what was fatiguing, though?

And Jeffy and I have talked about this a couple times in the last couple of weeks.

On what show?

On Pat Gray Unleashed,

which immediately follows this one on the show.

Jeffrey's on that show.

I'm on the network.

Every day from

12:30.

So

we couldn't help but notice

how fatiguing it was to continually see the NFL players during the offseason and their protests on the street corners and everywhere they were.

And you just couldn't get away from them and their protests and their social justice.

Because, man, did we see them everywhere?

We sure did.

Except for Wade.

I didn't see him anywhere.

And then I hear how important this is to him.

Well, you only want to do it on game day when nobody wants to see it.

Where are you the rest of the time?

You could even do it during the game, just not through the anthem, and no one would oppose it.

Yeah, I mean, look, I would still disagree, Pop, probably, with lots of some of your points.

Yeah, but they don't know what they're talking about.

Just don't do it during the freaking song, will you?

Yeah.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

Here's another sports figure jumping into the middle of politics: Lance Armstrong.

He is now throwing his support behind

senatorial candidate Betto O'Rourke.

Okay.

Oh, that makes me the Irish-American guy with a Hispanic nickname running against Ted Cruz, an actual Latino.

Which is incredible.

Incredible.

It's the weirdest thing.

Like, everybody believes there's a Hispanic in the race, and it's the Irish guy.

No,

he's not.

Anyway, Lance Armstrong sent out this

tweet.

Dear my fellow Texans, we have a choice.

This guy, meaning Beto O'Rourke, or Ted Cruz.

It's time for reasonable and balanced talk on all issues.

We are for Beto O'Rourke.

No,

we are not.

You know, I've been waiting so long to be advised by a manipulative, lying cheater.

And now finally,

finally, he stepped up to the plate and took a swing.

Was he asked, or is he doing this on blessing?

No, he's just doing this on blessings.

He just tweeted it out.

Wasn't that big of him?

Trying to be relevant.

That's good.

Here's a guy who lied to us for, I don't know, 20 years, his entire career.

And

I believed him.

I did.

And I defended him over and over and over.

And

then

he just beat us over the head with, nope, I lied the whole time.

Sorry.

Yeah, I destroyed anybody who tried to say that I might have been on steroids.

And I just ruined careers and fired people and

belittled them and

embarrassed them.

But don't worry about any of that.

I've been lying the whole time.

Yeah, I did everything I wasn't supposed to.

I broke all the rules I wasn't supposed to just to win.

Hey, but trust me this time on Beto O'Rourke.

Okay, thank you.

Is it possible he's actually working for the cruise campaign?

And now that would mean he's just kind of like, hey, trust me, Lance Armstrong, Beto O'Rourke is the right choice.

That's the way you do it.

You start hiring the most.

I wish that were true, too.

That's a great idea.

You should just start taking all the people that are not trustworthy, that no one likes.

It's like, you know, every, and just have them all run around Texas and campaign for Betto and Charlie Sheen.

Like, any

criminals.

Everybody who's been discredited.

I like that.

I like it.

That's smart.

That's smart baseball right now.

Did you see the poll that came out yesterday from Emerson that had Ted up by one point in this race?

One point.

That is amazing.

I don't know that I buy it.

Now, well,

it's interesting because I saw kind of a breakdown of this.

It was

they had they surveyed 550 voters, but they were registered voters, not likely voters.

Okay.

And that

taints Democrats.

Yeah, that taints it a little bit.

And I do kind of buy Glenn's analogy on this, on this race, where when you get in, you know, right now, when asked, you know, about Cruz, this is a way for

Cruz fans that were Ted Cruz fans to be able to say, you know, Ted, we're still mad at you a little bit.

When you get in the booth,

when you get in the booth, you're still going to vote for him.

I don't see the race being close after the election.

You know, I think the votes, Ted, will win by quite a bit.

Yeah, you know, it's interesting.

I think it's going to be fairly close.

I think you're right.

You know, the issue with Trucks.

It should be a blowout.

It should be.

It's by rights.

technology.

Cruz has a situation which is interesting in that I think

he's done a pretty good job as a senator.

I mean,

he's been pretty consistently conservative.

I like his voting record quite a bit.

There's very few stances that he's taken that I don't like.

But again,

politics is no longer related to policy.

All the things that we've talked about all these years really don't affect the general, I mean they affect people listening to the show right now because that's what they care about.

But the average person, it's all about feelings and emotion.

And for with Cruz, he has a weird, obviously no one on the left likes him.

So, and everyone's excited about Bedo here in Texas.

But on the other side of it is you have people who loved Trump from the beginning, who

were pissed off at Cruz because they obviously fought in the primaries and then he didn't endorse him at the convention and they've never really forgiven him.

So while they might get in there, and again, those people made arguments to us the entire time about it being a binary choice.

I assume when they go back in there, they're going to see a binary choice and pick Cruz.

Right.

Right.

But that doesn't mean they're not pissed off about it.

So they might be pissed off that he took that stand that time.

On the other side, the people who are not Trump friendly, who loved Cruz at the beginning, were annoyed at the way he handled his endorsement.

And those people are like, well, it seems like you've kind of just become every other senator in Washington that does nothing but kiss the administration's butt.

And so those people aren't too passionate about it either, but the vast majority of those people will also go in there and see it as a binary choice and pick them.

So I think in the end, he probably wins the race, and it's probably a

five-point type of margin, but it's closer than it should be, especially for Cruz's record.

I mean, his record is good.

His record is really good.

It's really good.

He's done very little incorrect on policy.

Yeah.

And for anybody who's still pissed off about the Trump thing, either way, it's time to get over that and realize

he's being outraised fundraisers two to one by Betto O'Rourke.

That's amazing.

Two to one.

Because all of this out-of-state money is pouring in from California and New York and probably Cuba and China.

And who knows where this socialist money is coming from?

But

there's a lot of it for Betto.

For some reason, he's a superstar right now.

I don't even understand it.

They're dying as the new Obama.

He's young.

He's a white.

He's a white guy.

He's Hispanic.

They're dying for somebody new.

Who's not Hispanic, by the way?

They're dying for somebody new who's Hispanic from Texas.

And he's not Hispanic,

by the way.

It's interesting because they had this huge article on him.

Oh, they followed him around the other day.

They followed him around.

They have followed that guy around and treated him.

They came to Texas and followed Beto around on his little run, March, phone call thing with him for days and then went back to New York and called Ted Cruz.

Well, maybe you, I don't know, maybe you're in Texas, maybe you stop by.

Yeah, and I saw a huge, huge article on him on some website.

It was, it was like the eighth paragraph before it finally said, oh, this was the article.

This was the article that claimed that he is

providing his rise in Texas is providing hope for Hispanics.

What?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Shouldn't be

the Hispanic and the race is Cruz.

Right, exactly.

And he's the one who should be providing a hope to Hispanics.

However, it was the eighth paragraph in the story before it said, though not Hispanic.

I love that.

Well, you know, look, Ibeto, he's, you know, a young guy.

He's generally, you know, seemingly well-spoken.

He's had his moments that the left has really liked.

This whole kneeling at football games, he gave a response to that.

It was not really a bad response.

It was also a gift to Ted Cruz.

I mean, the fact that he's becoming famous as the guy who doesn't like the flag is probably a really good development for Cruz.

I think so.

Although it's helping the fundraising efforts of Betto quite a bit.

But I went to a birthday party with my son this weekend in one of his friends' house, and

as I was pulling up to the house, I saw a Ted Cruz sign, and I realized it's the first one I've seen.

Yeah, that's the first one.

I have literally, that is the first Ted Cruz sign I have seen the entire time.

I've seen a couple bumper stickers.

Now, we mock Betto's signage all the time that we've had 25.

I saw a new one in my neighborhood this weekend, so there's two.

I've got two in my neighborhood as well.

And I've seen zero Ted Cruz signage.

But I chalk that up, too.

He's already there.

He's the known quantity.

He's not the new guy.

He's not the exciting one.

I'm not going to put a sign in my head.

Right, exactly.

I'm doing it.

Yeah, no.

But still,

there usually is, I think, candidates from both sides.

The passion seems to be behind Betto O'Rourke, but a passion of a much smaller amount of people.

But the reason why they are making this into a big deal is if they can turn this state blue, it's over.

It's over forever.

If you can keep, if Texas is blue,

every national election will go to Democrats.

We have not.

It's about how important it is.

We've not elected a Democrat senator in 30 years.

So

big cities have, though.

It's our only store of big-time electoral votes that we can depend on.

Yeah.

When it comes to the presidential election, Texas is it.

I mean, Florida you can get sometimes, sometimes you can't get it.

You know, there's other, you can't get California.

You can't get New York.

You know, you can get some mid-to-larger states.

But, you know, I mean, even states like Georgia are trending the wrong direction.

But for a lot of electorals, it's Texas.

It's Texas.

You can.

And that's it.

You have to have Texas.

Have to.

You lose that, and you're going to have to pick up 10 left-wing states.

Wow.

You can't do it.

It's almost impossible.

And if

now, Cruz losing this race does not mean that they lose the presidential, you know, the presidential race goes away.

But if they can get this state to think, hey, it's okay.

Maybe I should vote for a Democrat this time.

Nope.

The electoral

future of the Republican Party is bleak.

Yeah, I agree with you, but our big cities have all turned that way.

Well, yeah.

I mean, it's been that way for a while, though.

Yeah.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

This new outrage, because Trump didn't say enough, didn't say the right things, lowered the flag, then raised it back up, and now they're so angry.

It was interesting to watch Brooke Baldwin, who you know she just absolutely admired and loved.

Oh, of course, John McCain.

You know, she did on CNN.

She was outraged.

You know,

just I think to watch the president,

you know, I saw the flag pictures this morning from the White House, but to watch the president with President Kenyatta of Kenya twice,

you know, not

saying

anything

About this hero, this lion of a man.

Lion of a man.

Oh, my God.

It's despicable.

It's despicable.

Okay, are you a news person?

Are you a journalist?

What the hell?

Where's the objectivity here at all?

It's despicable?

Wow.

Now, you can say that as an opinion person.

Isn't that a maybe Brooke Baldwin is that?

I don't know.

I don't know that much about her.

But is that something that should be on CNN?

You're calling the president despicable.

Is that really something you should be doing on CNN?

And Tom Brokaw said something very similar: despicable, disgusting, something to that effect.

I mean, they're all just breaking down and letting it go.

What?

No, I was just waiting for Tom Brokaw.

No, I was just, there was no Tom Brokaw coming.

I don't know how it was possible we mentioned Tom Brokaw.

Well, there were no L's in what he said.

Okay.

So there's no impression.

If he would have said despicable, it would have been

despicable.

But I think he said disgusting, so it didn't really work.

It's just a it's so fake, right?

It's so

fake outrage.

It's just a fake outrage, and that's the big thing.

I mean, that's what Glenn's new book is about.

It's about the addiction to outrage.

And you see this all the time on the left.

We should get a hashtag going,

you know, addicted to outrage and send us your examples of the left freaking out over nothing.

I mean, I have a stack of them here.

You know, a guy who is the president of the Humanist Students association.

I love that association.

He has to, he has resigned.

Why?

Because he retweeted the following tweet.

RT if women don't have penises.

If you agree with the idea that women do not have

penises,

retweet that.

You should retweet that.

Because of that tweet, he had to resign.

What?

Wow.

Men are now penis.

Yeah, I know.

Again, I will let you.

And it's a humanist guy.

None of us would agree with him on anything, except for the fact that women don't have penises.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

On some of Jeffy's sites, they do, but that's a

totally different situation.

And again, like, if you find stories like this, send them to us.

Tweet them at World of Sue, Aklanbeck.

Use the hashtag addicted to outrage because I want to make a huge collection of these.

Where do you send them?

You can go on Twitter, just hashtag addicted to outrage.

All right.

How about this?

People paying, men are paying $895 at a male feminism camp to cope with their own toxicity.

Oh, gosh.

This is our world.

Really bad.

Professors get $248,000 in a grant to study gender microaggressions.

A university has banned snowball fights and water guns.

They can't have that.

How many people have been killed in snowball fights over the years?

Well, water gun fights?

I will say, I saw the documentary Elf, and it did look dangerous in that particular film.

People got pummeled.

Pummeled at long distances.

But again, these things are all over the place.

Progressives are constantly jumping down these roads because

they want to pull you over.

They feel like they can intimidate you into silence if everything you do, you have to feel bad for.

So then you just don't do anything.

And that's a terrible way to go.

So let's, if you have any of these stories, hashtag addicted to outrage on Twitter.

You can find us on Twitter, by the way, at World of Stew, at Pat Unleashed, at Jeffy FRA.

Thank you.

And I would love to go through because these things pop up all the time.

Every day, you can find a batch of stories where people

have to deal with something.

This is, you know, going back to the issue where, you know, Santa Claus is on the town square and people get all freaked out about it.

There's not a real outrage there.

Everyone knows there's not a real outrage there, but we fake it.

We act as if something terrible has happened to, I don't know, make us feel alive.

I don't know if we're, maybe society, maybe our lives are so cushy now that we can all find food and we have shelter and the temperature is 72 degrees every day that we can't find anything real to freak out about.

But there's plenty in the world to freak out about that's real.

You know, I mean, you know, Christians are being killed all over the Middle East.

You know, Muslims are being put into death camps in China.

As we speak, North Korea, we've only a million, though.

Only a million.

A million thousand.

That's a small percentage of all the people in China.

Granted.

That's not very many when you think about it.

Right.

Out of 1.4 billion?

Yeah.

That's less than 1%.

Nobody's ever going to notice it.

No, you're not even going to notice.

Scary things are approaching in South Africa,

for example.

Another big one.

Right.

You know,

there's stuff all over the world.

See, which is real about that, too, by the way, on the South African front.

Sure.

That there isn't any genocide happening.

And we acknowledge, yeah, there doesn't seem to be evidence of that.

But there is, it's a fact that they are changing their constitution so that they can confiscate white farmers' farms without compensation.

And the hatred is brewing.

And the hatred is brewing.

So it is definitely something to keep an eye on.

It may not be

an out-of-control situation, but that's pretty, it's a troubling one.

Yeah.

When you're going to take people's farms without any compensation.

The really

understandable confusion here, obviously other than than the fact that it's difficult to cover these stories in these areas, is that just the general crime rate is so bad in South Africa.

It has one of the top five or 10 murder rates in the world.

And it's not all white farmers getting killed.

No.

It's everybody getting killed everywhere.

Yeah, black.

It's not just rural areas.

It's urban areas.

It's a really bad situation that they cannot seem to control.

Johannesburg is not a safe town.

No, I mean, really,

it's not.

And so I would really encourage you to go to, if you go to the Blaze and listen, read Leon Wolf's column about this as he goes over all of the sort of different arguments and points about this, because there's a lot of people out there with sort of agendas pushing one side of the argument or another.

And the media right now is pushing.

What are you talking about, South Africa?

I think everything's perfect there.

It's basically Beverly Hills.

And the sort of right people are saying, you know, it's white genocide all over the place.

Neither are true.

Right.

When you look at it, you see.

A lot of nuance in there, and he explains it really well.

We did a segment as well earlier this week.

If you want to go on the podcast, you can hear that as well.

Or actually, it was last week with Glenn.

He did it.

It's just important to understand where these claims are coming from and what they mean.

Because, look, there are real, there's real violence going on there.

It's just oddly more like general violence.

And so, and white farmers have been the subject of that violence, but not exclusively and not at a real high rate as relative to the rest of the population.

Although, if it happened to your family, it's pretty high rate.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I think you're thinking it's pretty bad.

It's not nothing.

And I think that.

I If your father got killed in front of

a five-year-old girl, and that apparently happened, according to documentarians,

that's a pretty high rate for that family.

Oh, God.

I mean, it's devastating.

Yeah.

And this is a problem with the media in that because Donald Trump, I guess, tweeted about it, now they have to be against whatever he tweeted.

So what he tweeted was it was bad there, and he wants to look into it.

And actually, you know, kind of, as you pointed out on the News and Why It Matters the other day, Pat, you know, he basically just said, we want to look into it.

We want to see what's going on there.

And that's a totally, that's what he should be doing.

Like, you should get more information.

But the media is now dismissing it because they want to make him look bad.

In reality, there's a really big problem going on there, huge crime problem.

The government is preparing to take land from people who,

some people who have owned it for a really long time, some have come upon it more recently.

Yeah.

Some who have come upon it more recently.

And that's where I think the disagreement comes.

But the issue here, I think, is

interesting in that you have outrage on both sides.

You have complete outrage on both sides.

You have people who are saying they're going to wipe out every white person there, and you have people who say nothing's going on, and they're outraged at the president for tweeting about it.

And in the middle, not in the middle politically, in the middle of two people groups of outrage are a bunch of people saying, I would really like to know the facts.

In this particular case, it seems like Trump is one of those people.

But he's saying, like, let's

look into it.

I don't want to look into this.

This looks impressive.

So that is.

It's reasonable.

It's reasonable.

It's a reasonable approach.

He didn't call it genocide.

He said, I have asked my

secretary to look into this.

Yeah.

Okay.

We should.

That's ridiculous.

We should, because there hasn't been a lot of good reporting on it.

You know, it's only been recent that people have actually looked into this with any

sort of

resources.

That's the Brooke Baldwin's of the world, though, right?

He says something, it's wrong.

He doesn't say something, it's wrong.

Yep.

Okay, I got it.

Thanks, Brooke.

This

is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

The main story

on this latest Catholic scandal,

the main telling of the story seems to be, how could they let it happen again?

How could this have happened all over again?

After what happened in 2002, they didn't clean their house.

They didn't get this mess fixed.

They did nothing, essentially.

That seems to be the narrative.

Yeah, and I've seen so many Catholics who are like, look,

I stuck with the church after the last time in 2002, even though it was really hard and I really hated

what I knew happened.

But this time, I can't do it.

I'm done defending them.

This is unacceptable.

And I think that's an understandable instinct, honestly.

By the way.

Based on the way it's been presented.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So if you don't know, the story was from Pennsylvania where they showed in excruciating detail that 300 priests abused 1,000 children.

Over 70 years.

Oh, my gosh.

Awful.

So has the coverage actually been accurate about the story?

Because it's uncomfortable to kind of talk about it because you don't want to seem like you're excusing any abuse and there's no excuse for it.

It's all

horrible.

In some ways, the coverage has actually been too generous.

For example, the number of thousand children is 100%.

We're 100% sure that's too low.

First of all, the report only dealt with 54 of the 67 counties.

So there's 13 counties in Pennsylvania they didn't even look at.

So we know there's more kids.

They also said they believe the real number of children whose records were lost or who were afraid to come forward is in the thousands.

So they think the numbers are much worse.

But the question is,

what do we learn from this scandal?

Yeah, and how did the Catholic Church not learn from the scandal that it hit in 2002?

How did they not fix this?

So, what did we know before?

We knew that it was really bad.

We knew that way too many priests were doing terrible, terrible things.

We knew that the church handled it horribly for many, many years.

And then in 2002,

the Boston Globe and others report on the abuse cycle and all the details.

They break the story.

This turns into the huge scandal.

And we all know about that.

They make a movie about it.

Spotlight, it wins best picture because that's what happens when you make movies about how evil the church is and how good journalists are.

You win best picture.

That's what happens.

I love the fact that that movie came out in 2015.

That's tremendous.

2015, two years before

Chapaquidic comes out.

Like,

Ted Kennedy died of old age.

It took him so long to make a movie about that.

Well, that's why.

That's why Kennedy waited till Kennedy was gone.

I think you're right.

I mean, Kate Mara, who played Mary Joe Copechni, wasn't born until 14 years after the incident.

14 years later, she was born, and she grew up to be the exact right age to play Mary Joe Copeky.

Wow.

Where, you know, Spotlight happens in 2002.

In 2015, they're making

a big movie about it.

And that was, I feel like they waited a long time.

It was actually restraint there before they actually made it.

So

the movie comes out.

Everyone knows about that.

And, you know, it's not possible to overstate how bad the scandal was.

It really was horrific.

Oh, my gosh.

And what the church did to cover it up and how that was.

Oh, horrific in every way.

The church, though, wants us to believe now that, you know, since 2002, they've turned it around.

They've changed the way they do things.

They've addressed these issues as much as they can.

And, you know, things have changed.

So

does this report blow that narrative up?

Because that's certainly the impression that I got when I heard the coverage of it.

And that was the narrative we all thought because everyone was talking about

that has been the culture in the Catholic Church.

It's still the culture in the Catholic Church.

Nothing's been done.

Nothing's been done.

I mean, to put a fine point on this, listen to Chuck Todd reporting about this scandal.

What's happening in the Catholic Church

this week out of Pennsylvania is something that is going to have reverberations here.

Pennsylvania grand jury report released this week identified more than a thousand child victims of more than 300 abusive Catholic priests across the state.

That's just one state of Pennsylvania.

This is in 2018.

Never mind what we thought they made movies about in 2002 and things like that.

Okay, so quite clearly is saying that this is a new allegation.

It's not the 2002 thing.

This is 2018, folks.

This is different.

So I went through the

900-page report, and it's incredibly extensive.

Okay.

One of the first things you notice when you're reading the report is it's going to be really hard to punish the priests involved in it because a lot of them are dead.

Almost, I mean, a high percentage of them are dead.

So the priests that were doing it this year in 2018, like Chuck Doug noted, they all died on it.

How did they all die?

Did the Catholic church adopt the death penalty?

Did they know?

No, they did.

No, they did not.

The reason why a lot of the priests in the report are dead is because the report is filled with a lot of really old stuff.

It's very detailed.

So this isn't new stuff.

This is not new stuff, as Chuck Todd just told you.

Wow.

None of what we're hearing is new.

I mean, look, it's very highly detailed.

That's new.

The details of what they did, how they abused these kids, those things are new and necessary.

I'm glad that that exists, and I'm glad the grand jury did that report.

These are not new instances of the state.

It did not happen

after

the initial scandal.

Wow.

If you look at

you go through all of the

dates

and try to figure out

what dates they were, you're looking at 1970s, 1980s, 85, 81, 78, 66.

There are two allegations in there from 1948 and 1945.

In 1945, you know, Hitler's still chancellor and this abuse is going on.

There is, you know, one priest from 1950 abused someone and died in 1968.

Now, that does not mean the abuse is not important.

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't cover it.

We should.

But let's,

this is completely misleading.

A lot of Catholics are looking at this and saying, wait a minute,

the church said they were going to change this.

Yeah.

Now, I mean, I went through as much pedophile accusations as I could possibly stomach to try to find something that happened recently.

There was one accusation from 2006

that happened.

However, the priest was not actually actively a priest, but was receiving retirement benefits.

So that's on there.

There is one other case where a priest

was caught with child pornography in 2007, or 2004, excuse me.

He was dismissed from the church a couple of years later.

He was also, you know,

accused and likely embezzled money from the church.

And I don't think there's anyone who's saying that the Catholic Church doesn't care about embezzling money.

Certainly the detractors would not fight that.

And the report actually states that

almost all of it is before the early 2000s.

We know the bulk of the discussion in the report concerns events that occurred before the early 2000s.

That is simply because the bulk of the material we received from the diocese concerned those events.

And while they can't rule out anything from the more recent past, they acknowledge things have improved noticeably.

They write, we recognize that much has changed over the last 15 years.

We agreed to hear from each of the six dioceses we investigated so that they could inform us about recent developments in their jurisdictions.

Their testimony impressed us as forthright and heartfelt.

It appears that the church is now advising law enforcement of abuse reports more promptly.

Internal review processes have been established.

Victims are no longer quite as invisible.

Is that not also really important to talk about?

It is.

You know, sure, it's important to detail how bad these things were.

And these victims deserved to be able to tell their stories.

There's no doubt about that.

But

the impression that someone like Chuck Todd gives you that this is still spinning out of control, that priests are currently still abusing a lot of people, there is no evidence of this.

The letter that came out the other day about Pope Francis, so you know, I'm not a fan of.

I mean, I wish you would spend more time on this problem instead of telling me what I should be driving.

Yeah.

But even that report considered,

there are issues about whether people were punished, and they're still sorting those things out in more recent history.

But that allegation goes back 40, 50 years.

And the report does say that things have changed.

And does say that things have changed.

That's amazing.

I mean, because that's the main beef

with the Catholic Church is that nothing's changed changed after the initial

scandal in 2002 from the Boston Globe.

And it seems like everybody's putting it on this pontiff that, hey, how come you're not addressing this?

How has this gotten swept under the rug again?

Well, it kind of didn't.

I mean, they did address it.

It didn't get swept under the rug.

They have improved.

And most of these charges aren't recent.

Yeah, we don't know.

Vast majority, apparently.

Yeah, the overwhelming majority.

You know, I went through probably 200 allegations, and there's two or three that happened after

the 2002 scandal.

I wonder, is that the impression Catholics have of this latest scandal?

I'd like to hear from Catholics.

It certainly isn't the impression.

I mean, we haven't heard anything like that from the Vatican.

I've been hearing them lament

another massive scandal, and they're embarrassed by it, and they're ashamed of it, and they're disgusted.

And they should be disgusted.

And they should be.

But if this is all from

the distant past and they've changed, well, you did what we asked you to do at least, right?

At least, you know, look, we can't rule out.

I mean, we know that there's a recent allegation against the Pope, which, you know, you've probably heard a little bit about, where someone who was accused again several decades ago

was maybe not punished by this pope the same way that the last pope punished him.

And we don't know all the details of that still.

They're still working that out.

But it does seem that there's at least, you know, look, there's not, you can't say, just like any population, you can't say that there's not still issues going on.

It does not seem to be systemic like it seemed to be before.

And one of the ways they talked about this, and I thought was, was interesting for our entire society, was the Catholic Church is out of the investigative business.

What they tried to do for many, many years is when one of these issues would pop up, they tried to investigate it internally.

They talked to psychiatrists who would tell them, well, you could probably rehab this person.

They'd shift them around to different areas.

They do all sorts of different things, trying to act as if they were their own police department.

And what they're doing now, when they get these accusations, is turning them over to an actual police department.

And it's so funny to hear the left come out and say, well, the Catholic Church, obviously, they're terrible.

They're evil.

Look at what they're doing.

They were trying to litigate these issues internally.

It's a rape.

It's a child molestation.

You can't do that internally.

By the way, let's praise universities for litigating rape accusations internally.

Let's all talk about how the rape culture is proved by some kangaroo court at Michigan State.

Let's all act as if that's the appropriate way to do it.

It's not.

Let's all act about how we should now go in the media and talk about Me Too allegations from many years ago where no one has any evidence or any chance to defend themselves.

These things need to be litigated through the legal system, not through your opinion, not through the media, not through any of this, not through the church, not through the college.

You have to bring them to police.

Police need to investigate them.

Legal outcomes need to be decided based on evidence and truth.

You can't just say,

try to handle it, you know, treat your friends differently, you know, favor one side over another.

That doesn't work.

We have a legal system for a reason.

And if it's not serious enough to deal with rape accusations, what the hell is it for?

You have to be able to go in there and bring these things.

And I hope, you know, with the Me Too situation playing itself out, if anything comes out of this, other than the fact that, you know, some people who were absolutely abused are able to tell their stories and everything,

we should be encouraging people in these situations to go to authorities at the time.

You have to, there's no way to investigate these things without that.

You can't get the truth by trying to litigate them 50 years after the events occur.

It just doesn't work.

You might have just had people are, you know, people are going to their memories, they're pulling things out, they think they remember.

Sometimes they're true, sometimes they're not.

Sometimes people have agendas, sometimes they don't.

And it's impossible to figure out.

You can't just believe everybody, as we've seen over and over and over again.

Yeah, you don't have the right to be believed immediately, as we've pointed out with the Me Too movement.

You have a right to be taken seriously.

And we'll look into it.

And let's get due process

going.

And

let's at least let the accused have their day in court to

present their case.

Because isn't this still America?

And it's amazing because this is not the way this current Catholic scandal is being presented in the media.

This is being presented as if it's all new stuff, as if it's all happening all over again.

It's really important to know

these are all, almost all, old allegations.

Pretty amazing.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.