'Is this Still America?' - 8/28/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

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 with all these phone numbers to remember, I just, 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 $30,000,000 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 took it from the till to the bank.

And because he was told, hey, if you deposit $10,000 in cash, they're going to flag that and they're going to look into you because it might be a drug, it might be some sort of drug deal when you're depositing that kind of money.

So he always brought in under $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,

who 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 it 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 a crime.

Let's see the evidence.

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

That way too close on the ticket.

It didn't have that

in the story.

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

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.

Yeah.

In today's world, it is.

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, you know, drug dogs are.

They make mistakes.

They're not right.

Like, they're not, you know, they're, it's not, it's not science, right?

It's just like, you know, they, 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 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 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, well, 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

pieces of it because you think you've 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 see.

I know Jeff Sessions is a big proponent of this.

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

So is 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 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 do we say we get to cut?

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.

Right.

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 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 supposed to be.

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

And certainly Jeffy, obviously.

I mean, it 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 this 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, 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 this to 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 pulled over for what they said was a broken taillight and he denies.

But when they, 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, 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 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 what they're doing.

He can't pay the impound fees.

He 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.

Wow.

It's possible you did something wrong.

It is possible.

It is possible.

Right.

It is possible.

So lock him up.

Safety first.

Better his money.

Better safe than sorry.

Throw him in prison.

No, that's not how this works.

All right.

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

It's Pat Stew and Jeffy for Glenn.

888727 Beck.

We've been talking about this civil civil asset forfeiture situation, which

is as unbelievable a story as I think we've had in the last, well, ever, probably, because

you can just apparently confiscate people's life savings, people's earnings, even if it's not their life savings.

You can just take a large sum of money from them because they're carrying it around in cash and not charge them with anything in America now.

That's a pretty sweet deal for the government.

That's nice.

Yeah.

You know, they're looking for some new vehicles.

They've got to pay the rent too.

Yeah.

And on the federal buildings.

And the local municipalities are a big fan of it as well.

Big, big fans.

Yeah.

The story I was talking about in Chicago was the Chicago, the city of Chicago, not the federal government.

But this is one of the reasons why this is such an important issue to get out in front of is because these cities and the federal government

are all dealing with situations where they don't have enough money anymore.

And you remember how we used to talk, I I mean, there's some people I know who've had dozens of speeding tickets.

And people, some of those people have speculated that perhaps the town is just going for a money grab from people driving through it.

I must say,

I think I agree with that person.

Yeah, I do.

That person happens to be sitting right here, Pat Gray.

But I mean, that's a common theory, right?

And it's true.

Yes, but at least there is

a violation there.

Right.

And that makes sense.

Having exceeded the posted speed limit.

But when you can't get enough people to have real violations,

you find others because this is about paying the bills.

The impound stuff in Chicago is all about them paying the bills.

They're getting aggressive on going after these people.

They have no leniency even when the situation is, I mean, because this guy's had multiple court rulings in his favor, but Chicago still won't return his car or his money.

It's just, how can that be?

Yeah.

And how do we stop it?

How do you, you know, you feel powerless and you feel like, well, call your congressional representatives.

Okay, I've done that a million times.

And it's just to the point where we're so beaten down, we don't think anything we do is going to matter anymore anyway.

So it makes, it makes effecting change pretty difficult.

And here we are in a situation where people are just getting tens of thousands, half a million, millions.

I mean, they've confiscated tens of millions of dollars in the last.

In fact, did I read a figure about 2 billion, I believe?

But I think that includes some who are actually charged with drug offenses.

Yeah.

And

look, you know, police are good people.

I think these are outlier stories.

I think a lot of times what they're doing

is pulling over people and they are drug dealers and these stories wind up being true.

I mean, we're obviously highlighting the ones where it doesn't seem like they are because it makes the point.

But the issue is, even if it is a drug dealer and they have $500,000 in the car, unless you have evidence that they are a drug dealer, you can't take their money, even if they are a drug dealer.

It's not the type of thing where you can just be like, well, I mean, he look at him.

I mean, it's basically the big Lebowski.

I think we just got to say he's probably a drug dealer.

I mean, if that happened, think of how many times Jeffy would go to prison.

People would look at him and just say, he obviously just deserves to go.

Look at the guy.

And that's not the way our case is.

We could not have that.

We could not have that.

If look at him was enough, Jeffy would have been put to death a a long time ago.

A long time ago.

He would have gotten the death penalty.

Incredibly.

A long time ago.

A long time ago.

A long time ago.

So fortunately for you, look at him

isn't, it's not the way we work in America.

Good.

Yeah.

Right.

Because we all know there's obviously associated plenty of evidence that if people looked into it, they would find it.

But you can't just say, look at him.

That's not enough.

It's the United States of America.

It's not supposed to be.

I mean,

would Iran even admit to that?

I mean, think about it.

I don't think so.

Now, they may do it all the time, but we are doing it

as if it's legal, as if this is an accepted practice in the United States of America.

It's incredible.

Government should never have enough power that just because you're driving down the road with a bunch of your own property, they get to take it.

It's insanity.

It's not like close to the line.

You know, five years ago, I would have never believed that this was possible in America.

Would you?

I wouldn't have believed it.

You could have said, you know what?

Within five years, people are going to just,

they're going to be pulled over for routine traffic stops.

There's going to be cash in their car, and the authorities are just going to take it.

I'm like, well, yeah, if they're charged with a crime, they might, right?

Nope.

They don't have to be charged.

There doesn't have to be any evidence against them.

If they have a large sum of money, they shouldn't.

And they're just going to take it from them.

Yeah, but

they're drug sniffed some drugs in the air.

Yeah, except there weren't any.

So

yeah.

Where's that?

So

I also have another pretty amazing story that's going on, and you wouldn't think it was happening in America.

Does anybody know that the TSA is having air marshals follow Americans on their trips?

For instance, if you've been to a country that the TSA suspects is terrorist-related, if there's a lot of terrorism going on there, if you've been to that country, let's say Turkey, in the last little while, there's a chance that they could assign air marshals to follow you on your trips.

And then when you get to your destination, follow you there.

They've done that to over 5,000 Americans.

Wow.

They just assign air marshals.

It's called the Quiet Skies Program.

Because it's not in the skies.

That's why the skies are so quiet.

And they're just there without

having evidence that people have done anything wrong.

They're actually following them on their flights.

Again, they could

be something wrong, though.

They might.

They might someday do something wrong.

Or they might be planning to do something wrong.

But there's no evidence they've done anything wrong.

Well, they bought a ticket to a country.

To Turkey, for instance.

Yeah.

And it's named after a Thanksgiving dinner.

What are you going there for?

What is that all about?

That's just stupid, right?

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

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

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 is really the hub for

political discourse.

It does seem to be their goal.

It does.

To be the hub of political discourse.

Now, there's rumors that 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 in 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 familiar, 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, you should go work work for the New York Times.

She'll be fine.

She probably will.

She probably will get hired as a colonist.

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've got to respect the office of the presidency because I think he was being baited into bashing the president.

Right.

And 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 Tiger's 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?

Uh, 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, isn't it?

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 stood up.

I like him 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, on race.

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.

You know, 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 am angry at what Tiger Woods said because it is a thoughtless statement dressed 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 has always had because obviously from a historical perspective, you know, if one-third of you has a darker hue or darker pigmentation, you know, the bottom line is you are black and it is that simple.

And you get it.

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, 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 was

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 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.

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, that's your, personally, that's your white privilege speaking.

Well, I know, I think people would legitimately argue that, right?

Like, if they would.

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

care about it.

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

Like, none of those things.

They're just a physical characteristic that means nothing.

And 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 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 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 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 want to talk about culture.

I do.

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 is

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 what makes it, 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.

Yeah, 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.

Yeah.

And people.

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

Yeah, 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, it was fatiguing, though.

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

On what show?

On Pat Gray Unleashed,

which immediately follows this one on the Voice Radio Television Network.

Every day from

about 12:30.

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.

Except for Wade.

I didn't see him anywhere.

And then I hear, you know, 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 us 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, triple eight, seven, two, seven, back.

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

Back, Mercury.

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

Stu is making a point about the NFL players who are kneeling.

You don't have to kneel during the anthem.

In fact, it might be better if you knelt some other time during the game.

Yeah, like if you were to kneel before the whistle started play before a kickoff, so everyone's kneeling on the field.

First of all, ESPN.

So they go out there and before the opening kickoff,

everybody on the field takes a knee.

Right.

And then they stand up, obviously, for the kickoff and play as normal.

Right.

That would, I mean, that would make an impact.

People would talk about that a lot.

Yeah, and I wouldn't agree with their points still.

And it's away from the national anthem.

Yeah, but that's the issue.

That's the problem with it.

Is so many of them

about the anthem.

It is about the country.

They keep saying it's not, but it is for many of them.

It sure is.

Including the founder of this thing, Colin Kaepernick, who said himself it was about the anthem.

Who said himself it was about

the flag.

Yeah.

I mean, and as you pointed out, you didn't see a lot of

social justice warrior activity in the offseason when they were all on vacation in tropical locations.

Nope, you sure didn't.

You know, I mean, that's it's he saw it from something, you saw it from Carson Wentz going to help people, but you never know.

Interesting.

Glenn back.

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

Also, stay tuned for Pat Gray Unleashed immediately following this broadcast on the Blaze Radio and TV network.

We were talking about

sports a little bit as it applies to politics and the kneeling in the NFL and Tiger Woods trying to avoid being political and getting hammered for it.

You know, a lot of people think he's not black enough because he doesn't just claim to be black.

He is mixed and you're not supposed to talk about your white portion at all.

I don't know how that's, how is that not racist?

How is that not a problem for anybody?

If you're not supposed to talk about anything but

being black

when you're part black, part white, part Asian,

why is that okay?

I'm not really sure.

I don't fully understand that, but he gets a lot of criticism for that because he doesn't claim to just be black.

And this has gone on for so long.

In sports where, you know, even back in the, you know, when O.J.

Simpson was playing football, it was a big issue in his career early on and that he was not talking out about.

And that was just for not taking a stand.

Yeah, he didn't take a stand.

He didn't want to come out.

He didn't want to be involved in it.

And other players did.

Certainly like Jim Brown was very active.

And by the way, still active, now supporting Trump, which is amazing.

I would have not

predicted that one.

I wouldn't either.

But

there's that split.

And this is the thing we were talking about earlier: is do we have to have everybody, every single person that we see in the public eye take a position on every political issue?

We're

sick with it.

And I guess the answer is yes.

It used to be a situation, I think, before the 2000 election, where people were like, we need to get more people engaged in politics.

We need to get people, we need to rock the vote.

And I feel like we've gone to the complete opposite side of the spectrum now, where way too many people are engaged.

People don't know anything about the issues act as if it's the most important thing in their life every day.

And that's not.

Including 18-year-olds.

Yeah.

Who don't know a thing.

Nope.

And what about the 16-year-olds, though?

They don't know a thing.

Oh, let them vote.

They know less than a thing.

In fact, we need to raise the voting age ever so slightly from 18 to 35.

Yeah.

But just the 17-year-old.

We're not going to double it.

Don't be silly.

No, I'm not talking about doubling it.

That would be too much.

What do you think about this proposal?

That

you have to be old enough to hold the office to vote for it.

Right?

So you could vote for a congressman.

Alexander Okasio Kurti

is 28.

So it's 25.

25 and then Senate 30 and President 35.

I think that I'm fine with that.

So you get a little bit more experience.

You get a new benefit at the polls.

Think how exciting it would be if you're not going to get to vote for a Senate.

You can vote in local elections at 18.

Yeah.

Right to go.

For school board or city alderman or mayor, whatever.

You want to even lower that one?

You could even probably do that.

Yeah, I'm okay with that.

If you can hold the office, you can vote for it.

That's a pretty good rule of thumb, I think.

That's an easy one.

If you don't qualify to be president, you shouldn't be voting for president.

Yes.

I think it's a new platform.

Yeah, you might get a little pushback on that, but so be it.

Notice I make that after I turn 42 or whatever I am.

Like at that point,

I make that argument now.

But I mean,

I guess when I was 25, I would have been really pissed off about this.

But then again,

when did consistency start mattering in the society?

And would you have really?

At 25,

I can't vote for him.

I can't vote in that race.

I don't know that you'd be upset about it.

A lot of 25-year-olds don't vote anyway.

Price.

Really, we've only seen one election in recent memory where, you know, the rocking of the vote actually occurred, which was 2008 with Barack Obama.

I mean, he really did get young people out to vote more than any other.

Not in 2012.

Yeah.

And 2012 was a pretty normal.

2016 was pretty normal.

2004 was pretty normal.

2000 was pretty normal.

2008 was a spike for Barack Obama.

And you can understand that for certain reasons.

Certainly the attention

from the media was so glorifying.

He was basically an archangel.

So you understand why people are like, yeah, you know what?

I've got to vote for that guy.

But really, it winds up being most people who are young.

It's not the focus of your life at that point.

It isn't.

And we've inserted it into everybody's life as if you have to take

strong positions on these things before you have any of the information to make the decisions.

And that's a problem.

A big problem.

And

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.

Oh, that makes me.

The Irish-American guy with a Hispanic nickname running against 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 harding 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,

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.

And that usually favors 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.

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 Truze.

It should be a blowout.

It should be.

By rights, it should be a

blowout.

Yeah.

With 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 Beto 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.

It'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 saying him as the new Obama.

He's young.

He's a white guy.

Oh, he's Hispanic though.

He's 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, Marge, 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 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 it?

So it was 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 a young guy.

He's generally 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 really a bad response.

And it was 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 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.

You know, he's not the new guy.

He's not the exciting one.

He's not Ted Cruz.

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

Right, exactly.

I'm doing it.

Yeah, no.

But still,

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

Now, 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 Texas is blue, every national election will go to Democrats.

We have not.

That's about how important it is.

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

So it's just too many elections.

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.

And that's have to have Texas.

Have to.

You lose that.

And what are you going to have to pick up 10 left-wing states?

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.

It's been that way for a while, though.

Yeah.

Triple 8-727-BECK.

It's Pat Stu and Jeffy for Glenn on the Glenpeck program.

It's Pat Stu and Jeffy for Glenn.

This week.

Triple 8-727-BECK.

David in Texas.

You're on the Glenbeck Show.

Hi.

Hey, how's it going?

Good.

I was calling in earlier.

I heard y'all talking about Tacker Woods, and I've heard a lot of what you've talked about since then.

growing up in communities like mine,

I'm a Hispanic, half Hispanic, half white, but I grew up in a predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhood.

And there is a there's an expectation almost that

where i if you uh if you're mixed race or something, if you're half Hispanic or half black, you know, it's like, hey, what do you claim?

And you know, it's it's like an expectation to like disown your your white parent.

And going you know, going through that,

I don't think it's as bad as it

once was.

I'm 34 years old, so I don't think it's as bad as it was maybe 10 years ago.

But growing, you know, coming, I think it was in 2008, I was going to vote for Barack Obama.

I was registered to vote by Democrats that I knew nothing about politics whatsoever.

And they were just like, hey, you got to vote for this guy.

And here he sounds real good.

And if it wasn't for the Tea Party like protesting in downtown Waco, I never would have had

a different perspective shown to me.

But because of that,

I started learning and actually started watching Glenn when he was on Fox.

And, you know, Glenn's show really kind of showed, you know, it helped me learn a lot more about the history, where the nation comes from,

what, you know,

what's to the United States of America.

And so

that, you got to be bold enough to speak up and say, hey, you know, I'm not going to disown my mother just because, you know, you expect me to be this purist or something.

But it absolutely is racism.

Yeah.

And you shouldn't have to disown your mother.

Why would anybody expect you to do that?

It's outrageous that that's the expectation.

I don't even, seriously, I don't understand that.

How did we get to a place where

you expect people who are half white, half black to just say, yeah, I'm all black, or half white, half Hispanic to say, yeah, I'm all Hispanic.

Well, what about your other parent?

You just ignore them.

You just forgot about them.

They don't exist.

That's certainly what we saw with Barack Obama.

Thanks, David.

Right?

I mean, you know, it's exactly what we saw with him.

If you noted that he happened to be mixed race, you would

racist.

He's not.

How?

Again, like,

it's not an important thing to discuss per se, but I mean,

the left is constantly bringing it up.

Barack Obama was constantly bringing up.

There's an obsession with race in this country.

An obsession.

Everyone's like, oh, we need to have a conversation about race.

The last thing we need is another freaking conversation about race.

That's all we've been talking about.

It's all we talk about all the time.

When do we got to have a conversation?

When haven't we had the conversation?

Yeah.

I mean, it's just ridiculous.

And it's never ending.

We do not need another conversation about it.

People should just get over it and realize that, you know, there's other more important things about a person.

Period.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Pat Stewart, Jeffy, for Glenn this week.

A lot of people outraged about the president

and his response.

to the death of John McCain.

The left who

cherished John McCain.

They've always loved him.

Oh, my.

Do you remember during 2008 when they supported him so strongly against Barack Obama?

They just loved him.

And they wanted him to win.

And they tried to help, but they couldn't quite get him across the finish line.

Yeah, by calling him one of the biggest racists in the world,

lying about how he wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

100 years,

basically saying he was one of the most evil people ever born and grew up to be even more evil than expected.

And by the way, he might not even be

eligible for office.

He was born in Panama, this guy.

Like, oh, my gosh, I forgot about that.

Yeah.

It was they who brought that up.

Yeah.

He wasn't even born in America.

And then he chose Sarah Palin to be the vice presidential candidate, which shows nothing worse could have ever happened.

What a horrible, horrible person to have chosen Sarah Palin because what an extremist.

And we said this at the time.

I mean, this goes back years and years and years now, but the point is John McCain loves the media and he kissed the butt of the media for decades

and kept saying go on to go on MSNBC all the time and say how bad the Republicans were.

And he explained and he'd be that Maverick.

And I think he legitimately expected

the media to say, you know what?

Here's that one rational Republican and we're not going to bash him.

The second he was running for president, they all turned on him.

The second he got the nomination.

Yep.

It was over.

They all turned on him.

They trashed him constantly until he conceded.

When he conceded the race from that moment forward,

he's largely been praised.

In fact, when they've been doing this, he's a maverick.

Yeah, he's a maverick.

When they've been doing these retrospectives on him,

the things they've been citing are

the biggest thing they cite is his concession speech to Barack Obama because he basically said, hey, we should come together, and it's still, you know, even though I lost, it's still our president.

Which, again,

is a good sentiment, and it's a sentiment that everybody says.

I mean, you know, the only, again, like Trump kind of turned that one upside down.

He's basically saying that if he lost, he might have problems with it.

But he didn't lose.

So we haven't seen anybody do anything other than that.

Right.

Even Hillary Clinton came out after the election and was like, look, you know, we have a, we, you know, we have peaceful transfers of power.

Right.

I mean, you know, she's been obviously terrible on many other issues, but that's a pretty basic one for a politician in the United States.

And so they, so they went with that, and they said that was tremendous.

They said when someone in

a town hall called Barack Obama an Arab, he said, no, he's not.

He's a good person.

We just disagree.

They keep playing that one over again.

Again, that's a good sentiment.

He's obviously correct on that one.

He was right, and it was a good thing to call out.

But I mean...

The guy has been in office for 40 years.

The moments you're picking are all moments that he just agrees with the Democrats.

Right.

And the talk radio thing.

And the talk radio thing is the third one.

Yeah.

He bashed talk radio and said it was, you know, what

loved it.

Yeah, of course they love it.

When a Republican agrees with a Democrat, he's just a Democrat.

Right?

Just because you have an R after your name and you say things, again, this is not every vote of John McCain's.

I mean, you can go back and find, he voted with President Trump over 83% of the time.

This is not a guy who was constantly opposing him.

He was with him on most issues.

And if you look back at the issues he voted against Trump on, it's stuff like raising the debt limit.

And we all remember the healthcare thing, which was an issue.

Healthcare was probably the biggest one.

The biggest one.

However, you can't overblow that one.

There was almost no chance of that succeeding.

It was a Hail Mary pass.

And you know what?

When you're down by four points in the last seconds of a football game, you don't take a knee, which is essentially what McCain did, as opposed to throwing into the end zone.

But the chance of success was so low on that because, and we can go back and rehash the whole healthcare thing.

But if you remember correctly, it was the skinny repeal, and it was basically an empty shell bill that they had to build afterwards with the House.

They weren't even close to agreeing on what was supposed to go into it.

There was almost no chance of that succeeding.

I would have really liked if he voted yes, and then we gave it a chance.

But there was almost no chance of that succeeding.

I'm glad you got to that point because you better not be saying anything bad about John McCain.

I'm not.

My friend.

I'm not.

But

how about the surge?

Right?

He strongly supported the surge in Iraq.

Did he get any breaks from the media on that one?

Nope.

Nope.

No, he was trashed constantly.

We talked about the hundred years quote where he's going to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

They made him look insane.

You're right.

He was not saying that at all.

And they pinned the economy, the bad economy on him.

Yeah.

When it wasn't him.

Nope.

That wasn't his deal.

That's right.

So

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 Kenyana of Kenya twice,

you know, not saying

anything.

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.

Is that maybe Brooke Baldwin is that?

I don't know.

I don't know that much about her.

But I mean, is that something that should be on CNN?

You're calling the president despicable.

Is that really something you should be doing?

And Tom Brokoff 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 the Tom Brokaw.

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

We mentioned Tom Brokaw.

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

Okay.

So that'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, it's

fake outrage.

It's just 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,

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 penised.

Yeah, I know.

Again, I would let you know.

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 at Clembeck.

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

So where do you go 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.

You 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 Jeff EFRA.

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 spoken.

It's only a million, though.

Only a million.

I mean, 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.

Say what you feel 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.

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 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 all 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 a 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.

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.

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, kind of as you pointed out on the news and Why It Matters the other day, Pat, 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, well, 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 of some people who have owned it for a really long time, some who came upon it more recently.

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 it's, you know, 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.

He's saying, Let's

look into it.

I want to look into this.

This looks study it.

So that is

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.

Thank you.

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 not exactly.

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.

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

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

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

Triple-8-727-BECK.

Did you see the list of people that are going to be participating in John McCain's funeral?

It's a pretty diverse group of people.

Warren Beatty, I guess, is a close friend.

Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Phil Graham, Russ Feingold,

Henry Kissinger, Barack Obama, George W.

Bush will be there.

Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, Michael Bloomberg.

It's a diverse group.

It is.

Yeah.

He got along with a diverse group of people.

Well, the Maverick.

Yeah, he was definitely a Maverick.

Yes.

Glenn back.

Pat, Stu, and Jeffy for Glenn this week.

You know,

the main story

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.

Based on the way it's been presented.

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?

story?

Because it's uncomfortable to kind of talk about it because you don't want to seem like you're like 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 1,000 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 do 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 was tremendous.

2015, two years before

Chapaquiddick 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 they waited until 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 Copekney.

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.

There 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.

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 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, you know, 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 Todd noted, they all died on the church.

How did they all die?

How did they die?

Did the Catholic church adopt the death penalty?

Did they kill them?

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.

Highly detail.

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 abuse.

The initial scandal.

Wow.

If you look at

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.

45, Hitler's still chancellor, and this abuse is going on.

There is

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

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.

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 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.

They have been.

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.

The 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, you know, 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'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 you know 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'd 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, that with the Me Too situation playing itself out, if anything comes out of this, other than the fact that 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 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 wind up just 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 that

these are all, almost all, old allegations.

Pretty amazing.

Yeah.

It sure is.

Triple 8, 727, BECK.

More coming up.

It's Pat Stu and Jeffy.

Board Glenn this week.

By the way, you can hear us as well on the News and Why It Matters every day.

There's a podcast available, too.

It's been one of the biggest ones, new and noteworthy on Apple for a while now, and it's up pretty high on the charts.

It's myself and Pat and Glenn and Doc Thompson, Sarah Gonzalez.

It's a really good conversation about the news of the day.

You can go there.

And remember, too, you can subscribe to the Blaze, theblaze.com/slash TV.

If you subscribe there, you can get all the shows.

You get all the, you know, there's a lot of extra stuff that we put up there.

Every day on the News and Why It Matters, there's an extra segment called the News and Why It Matters Overtime, which is trying to become the longest show title of any show in modern history.

But it's an extra 10, 15 minutes of us going over additional things we could do.

Sometimes much longer than that.

And sometimes it's almost like an hour, it feels like.

Sometimes it's longer than the actual show.

Yeah, sometimes it is longer than the actual show, which is good if you're a subscriber.

You'll probably like it.

It's good.

So definitely check out that.

We have a great time doing it.

We do.

I actually like doing that show.

It's a lot of fun.

Yeah, I do too.

It is fun.

And the other thing is, what's great about it is Jeffy's not there.

Right.

You know,

I'm not allowed on that show.

No, definitely not.

When are you going to come on?

How come you're not going to go?

I don't know.

I don't know.

You know what?

I'm being shadow banned.

I'm

shadow banned.

Really?

We need to look into that.

I need to look into the Jeffy shadow ban.

Not with a lot of effort, though.

No.

Well, I just did.

I just looked into it.

I found nothing to it.

There's no shadow banning going on.

We'll look into it.

We'll look into it with the same effort that social media puts into conservative complaints about shadow banning.

And so it's all over.

There's no shadow banning going on.

That's good to hear.

You can come on anytime you want, Jeff.

Thank you.

Yeah, don't worry about it.

Don't worry about it.

Have you seen that things are so bad in Venezuela in this socialist utopia?

So it's hard to believe because it is a socialist utopia.

We heard about that from, you know, Sean Penn and Danny Glover and all these big-time Hollywood celebrities who went down there and loved Chavez and the socialist things going on,

everything was great.

It's an oil-rich country.

It's a first world nation.

They're doing fantastically.

Well, things are so bad, they don't even have running water most of the time.

There's an article written by somebody who lives there talking about the fact that when they're lucky, there's a trickle that flows through their apartment building's rickety pipes.

He says, when I'm lucky, they deliver as much as 30 straight minutes worth of water.

Whoa.

That's enough to fill up a 200 or so gallon tank in my kitchen and trigger a celebration.

I'll do something crazy and run the water until it gets hot before I jump into the shower, if that happens.

The tank is hooked up to the building's distribution system, so he doesn't have to be there to collect it.

But in the past, he didn't have that, and so you had to be home in order to collect water and have water.

So apparently, in Caracas, Venezuela, they go without reliable access to all kinds of basic essentials, food,

water,

medicine, and toilet paper, toothpaste.

They don't have these things because it's all dried up.

So they don't do their dishes.

They don't flush their toilets.

They don't take showers.

They

are in a really,

really terrible situation where they can't even get the water to run through their pipes in Venezuela.

I don't know how this isn't being talked about more.

You know, it's kind of like this situation in South Africa where it seems like people just don't know about it.

And the people who do know about it just dismiss it, which is kind of what's happened in South Africa.

And what an odd moment for the Democrats to openly embrace democratic socialism.

Right.

Here's

a giant

example of it failing right in front of our eyes.

One of the worst failures in history.

And we seem to be embracing it now in this country.

It's unbelievable.

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

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

This is the Glenn Beck program.

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

Triple 8-727-BECK.

Hear that clip you played a little earlier from CNN?

Burton Baldwin?

Yeah, listen to this.

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.

It's despicable.

It's despicable.

This lion of a man.

Today loves John McCain, how they love him.

They always talked about him.

Like Like when he voted for the surge, it was just, oh, this lion of a man supporting

the person and helping turn the Iraq war tide.

When he was opposing Barack Obama for president,

lion of a man.

You got to vote for this lion of a man.

But

I'm fascinated by what CNN is attempting here.

And, you know, I think CNN, there's some good people on there.

There's some good reporters there.

They do some good things.

Name one.

Oh, we talked about Jay Tapper many times.

There you go.

One.

There are several.

But I would say

the issue.

I'm going to go through all the names because they're going to start leading people out.

That's the problem.

He can't.

He can't.

Right.

The issue I think I would have here

with them, generally speaking, is they seem to have turned in the era of Trump to something they're not supposed to be.

And

like they started this out, you know, when Trump, you know, because Trump says things and he doesn't, you know, a lot of his supporters say things, and sometimes they're not true, right?

I mean, we see this from both sides of the aisle all the time.

Yeah.

But there are things that are false in our political discourse.

This is not going to surprise anybody.

What do you want Hillary Clinton to win?

Is that what you're saying?

Is that what you're saying?

You want Hillary Clinton.

They're not running.

I don't know.

Why do you think?

You know, we haven't been here in a little while.

Are you a copyist?

Wow.

Wow.

Not saying that at all.

So

their response, CNN's response to this idea that there's all these fake things out there is to push back.

And of course, obviously they're from the left.

They're saying that Trump is lying all the time and all the Trump supporters are lying all the time.

And I I was talking about this yesterday.

CNN was headed in a different direction.

Yeah.

Remember that?

They were.

They were headed in a pretty good direction for a while.

And then all of a sudden, they did this U-turn and went further left than MSNBC.

Now, all of a sudden, they've taken the MSNBC position and

have to oppose everything on the right, and certainly everything about Donald Trump.

They came down to the bottom of the bus.

Everything with the derangement syndrome for sure.

They did.

It really happened.

Yeah, they did.

I think honestly changed the fabric of the company in many ways.

Yeah, they did.

And I don't know if MSNBC is less left or more left than CNN.

I think they've largely been swallowed up.

Like, CNN has been making so much news about these opinions because they present themselves as objective.

Where MSNBC, I mean, I know, just like Fox.

We've always fairly balanced.

We all know

they're not objective on a lot of these things.

They both, you know, Fox comes from the right, and MSNBC comes from the left, and we can handle that.

CNN makes a big deal about how balanced they are, and they keep coming out so far left.

And here, let me illustrate this.

You remember this big ad campaign they did after Trump got into office about the apples and the bananas?

Listen to

the first spot, and obviously there's a lot to criticize about CNN because they don't hit this standard that often, seemingly.

But listen to this commercial.

This is the first one from the apples campaign.

This is an apple.

Some people might try to tell you that it's a banana.

They might scream banana, banana, banana over and over and over again.

They might put banana in all caps.

You might even start to believe that this is a banana.

But it's not.

This

is an apple.

Okay.

So

conservatives made fun of that ad and criticized it a lot because they don't hit that standard often enough, right?

The idea that something is a fact and it's a fact and you can't change it.

Even if you tell me something else is true, we know what the fact is.

The truth really exists, right?

And that is something I think,

while I don't think CNN hits it as often as I'd like, is actually what CNN should be doing.

That is actually a good ad

as to the point of what they should be shooting for, right?

Absolutely.

Like they should be saying, hey, here's what really happened.

Here's the truth.

Let me tell you about it.

And it is.

Without agenda.

It's actually kind of what they once were.

And that's kind of what they once were.

In the 80s and 90s, that's what CNN was.

And even in the early 2000s.

Yeah.

You know, even, I don't know, until just a few years ago, they were closer to that idea.

I think they at least...

They're certainly a left-leaning network.

There's no doubt about it, as almost all the mainstream media is.

But nowhere near what they are today.

Nowhere near.

So let me make the case that this second commercial is where they've gone wrong.

Because the first commercial, again, this is them trying to tell you how wonderful they are and how great their coverage is.

They first say that we always tell you an apple is an apple, no matter what.

If someone else tells you a banana, we're going to tell you it's an apple.

But listen to this next ad.

It was a follow-up ad that got a lot less attention.

And this is where I think CNN has really gone wrong.

Is this what CNN should be doing?

Listen:

this is an apple,

and this is an apple,

and this is an apple.

And this is an apple.

And when you put them all together,

you've got

a case.

Now,

they have a case of apples on the screen.

Obviously, if you're listening, there's a bunch of apples and they've made a case.

Is it CNN's job to make a case about the news?

That lawyers take facts and turn them into cases.

Talk show hosts do it all the time.

Like, we will constantly go back and say, hey, here's what Barack Obama did.

This is why we believe this about Barack Obama.

We build cases.

Opinion people build cases.

Why is a news organization trying to build a case against somebody?

That is not what they should be doing.

It's actually the complete opposite.

They should be putting the facts out there and letting listeners decide for themselves.

They're not, this is, they're acting as if they're prosecuting attorneys in these cases.

That's not what they're supposed to be doing.

They're supposed to be laying out the facts and letting people decide for themselves.

And I think they think their job is, here are all the things that we think are bad about Donald Trump.

And here's our case.

So you should agree with us that Donald Trump is bad.

And that is, I think, the absolute opposite of what a news organization is supposed to do that is fair and right down the middle.

You see this from their hosts all the time.

They'll be like, you know, Donald Trump will come out and say something about,

you know, whatever.

He'll misspell something on Twitter.

And they will go through for 10 minutes and review to you all the other times he's misspelled things on Twitter.

Now, that doesn't, they're not saying anything false.

He did misspell things on Twitter, right?

I'm just using a dumb example.

But they're trying to get you to believe that he's an idiot.

You see this all the time when they go through with someone, there's a new corruption scandal or there's a new scandal that comes out where that looks bad for the president.

They'll build the case that the White House is in constant turmoil by listing all of the past accusations and all the other things that may or may not have been true or proven out.

With McCain, they'll list all the other times they've had problems and all the other times they perceive him as being a jerk to McCain to prove that he's being a jerk to McCain this time.

You shouldn't be trying to prove that he's being a jerk to McCain.

You shouldn't be trying to prove he's despicable to McCain, as she said.

You should just be laying out the facts and let people decide themselves if they think it's despicable.

That's not your role.

It's for opinion people to lay out a case.

And supposedly, CNN's a down-the-middle news organization, but they're not now.

Not right now, they're not.

They're not, though.

Not right now, they're not.

And look, you can like Trump or not like Trump, but you should still want him to be treated fairly.

You should still want him to be treated

with the respect of a president, but also just factually.

You can report when there's these reports that come out in these newspapers, you might not like them as a Trump fan, but it's okay for them to report on those things and then try to get to the bottom of them.

But don't try to build a case against the guy.

That's not your job.

And I feel like that is really where they've gone seriously awry.

Because you're right, Pat.

When you listen to their coverage

before the election really heated up, you'd get some good things and you'd get some bad things.

You'd get some stuff where they took on

the left.

You'd get, I mean, they did a lot of reporting that was critical of Hillary Clinton before

the election and, you know, some in the election.

There's some of it.

But as Trump has, I don't think they ever thought Trump was going to win.

And from the second that he actually won, it seems to have been on the organization inside out.

Well, they've already decided, right?

I mean, that's that's part of the problem: is that they've decided that we're supposed to hate him because they do, and we're going to show you all this stuff that will make you hate him because this is the stuff that makes us hate him.

Yeah.

And you shouldn't know that a news organization hates anybody.

No.

There should be, there should be no sign of that.

There should be objective reporting, and then listeners decide

if they're going to hate him or they're going to love him or they're going to be somewhere in between.

That's the way news works is you just present the facts and leave it alone.

Yeah, and I think unlike the normal reaction to this, where I think ratings, I think, for Fox and MSNBC drive some of these decisions where people want opinion.

They want the case made.

They want these things to happen because it makes them feel good or whatever.

Who don't pretend to be just journalists.

Right.

You know, like I was,

I saw an article that

somebody said that Sean Hannity's, it called into question whether he's a journalist.

And then there was a big to-do about Sean Hannity's not a journalist.

You're calling him not a journalist.

And Sean Hannity came out and said, Of course I'm not a journalist.

I'm an opinion person.

It's the same thing, Glenn, and I and you and you have all said, we're not journalists.

We don't pretend to be, though.

When you have somebody who's pretending to be a journalist and supposedly down the middle and just presenting you with facts, that's where the deceit comes in.

Because when you have a Chris Cuomo who claims to be a journalist

presenting you with opinion, well, that's deception.

Cuomo is a great example of this because he is his background as an attorney.

Yep.

And he thinks, you even hear it on the other side with him at times.

He thinks he's an attorney making a case against whatever guest he has on.

And obviously, 90% of them

are going to be on the right, and he goes crazy on them.

But he'll even do it occasionally on the left.

He thinks of himself, I think, as a guy just prosecuting a case on the air.

That's not a good look for a news organization.

No.

And tell me what's actually happening.

Give me the news.

Take your emotion.

I mean, calling the the President of the United States despicable on the air from a news organization is not even close to the line.

It's true.

Right?

I mean, it's now we, us calling the president of the United States despicable is not.

I mean, it's, you could, it's our opinion, and that's why people come to the show.

If they don't, if they're going to CNN for opinion, then be honest about it.

Stop doing your apples and bananas at

you can do that.

I mean, MSNBC is doing it, right?

They have Rachel Maddows out there.

She's not hiding the fact that she can't stay in the president.

She's super liberal.

And she's making that case every night.

The case of why Russia is, there was collusion in Russia.

You can tune on, tune into Rachel Maddow, and she will make that case for you on a nightly basis.

But that is not supposed to be CNN's job.

And I don't know what, I don't know.

Yeah, they lost their way.

They really seem like they did.

Yeah.

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

Pat, Stu, and Jeffy for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

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

Triple

727, B-E-C-K.

And in just a few minutes, you can hope you stick around for Pat Gray Unleashed, immediately following this program on the Blaze Radio and TV networks.

So,

this really strange development about the Catholic Church scandal, the latest one,

something we haven't been hearing from anybody, including the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which really is kind of surprising to me because these are virtually all old allegations that happened prior to even the last big scandal.

It's basically an accounting of that last big scandal from 2002.

It's all the cases up 70 years before 2002.

How is it we're not

aware of that?

I don't know.

I mean, Chuck Todd certainly didn't seem aware of it when he was railing about how it was happening in 2018.

Yeah.

And completely not, I mean, he had no understanding of the story as he was telling it.

And we played a bunch of clips that either people didn't know that they were old accusations or they were intentionally wording things in a way that you should probably, that most people would take it as if it was a new allegation.

Yeah.

You know, you kind of, if you leave out that detail or you say it's just over a long period of time, it makes it feel like, okay, well, it's, it's that whole other thing we talked about and continuing into the present.

And they still haven't dealt with any of it.

Yeah.

It doesn't necessarily seem to be true.

They're talking now about this latest letter that comes and they want Pope Francis to resign over.

And again, I would not say I'm a fan of the way Pope Francis has dealt with many things,

but

they're trying to push back now and saying

what has been accused here is potentially disturbing.

However,

they were not kids and it does not seem, their argument is that it was not an unwilling thing.

Now, if you're a priest, you're not supposed to be having sex with anybody.

So any problem like that, if you're just hooking up with parishioners, that's a really bad thing.

But it's different than

the scandal as we've understood it in the world.

But then certainly pedophilia.

Yeah.

Yes,

which is how we look at this as pedophilia.

But they're saying these are willing participants and women.

That is the claim.

Like 18-year-old

plus girls.

But again,

that's against the rules of the Catholic Church.

Yes, but that's a different issue.

But it's a different issue.

So we'll see.

We'll see how it plays out.

Now, some of these accusations are very old as well.

We may hear new ones that come up.

But it's important to have it's an important distinction, I think, especially for Catholics who you know might be questioning this thing that they believe so strongly.

Oh, no kidding.

Yeah.

And a lot of them are.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right.

We'll see you tomorrow right back here filling in for Glenn.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.