Best of the Program | 8/27/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

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

It's Monday, August 27th.

Glenn Beck.

Think of the dumbest person you know.

Now, think of the dumbest person that they know.

And now think of the dumbest person that they know.

You're about to meet that person.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Elizabeth Warren.

So here's the situation.

Since the 1980s, giant corporations have kept on growing, but more and more of the corporate earnings have gone just to the shareholders.

Okay.

They've sucked trillions of dollars in cash out of our companies while workers have been left out.

The rich got richer, but workers' wages stayed fast.

Okay, let's stop for a second.

Let's take a little break because there's a lot to swallow here.

This is Elizabeth Warren's proposal

for

capitalism in the new age, in the age where the Democrats are embracing openly democratic socialism.

First of all, she says that it only benefits shareholders.

I mean, that's the company's job.

Okay, the company's company's job is to benefit its shareholders.

I know you don't like that, but shareholders are investors and, in a way, owners of the company.

That is what the company is there to do.

This is just in my mind, but obviously not in Elizabeth Warren's.

But the idea that

shareholders have sucked trillions of dollars out of the economy

is completely ridiculous.

When you are a worker, you earn a salary.

And when you you take that salary, you want to do something with it because you want it to grow.

You don't want to go into poverty as you get older.

So you invest it in a company.

And when you invest it in a company, you earn a little bit more out of that.

You're not sucking it from anybody.

When you invest in a company and you make actual profits and things finally go well for once,

that is not a...

There's no vacuum included.

You're not sucking it.

You're not stealing it from anyone.

And by the way, when you sell, if you buy a stock and you make a little bit of a profit and then you sell it at a higher price the person somewhere out there who bought it from you are they evil too

it doesn't make any sense and the idea that uh this doesn't benefit workers she gets into here let's listen to a little bit more

new bill the accountable capitalism act will help level the plan i'm sure it will it'll put trillions of dollars in the pockets of workers and it won't cost the taxpayers a dime okay stop so first of all we go to the idea that this doesn't benefit uh workers.

The idea that capitalism is not benefiting workers.

The money that goes into stock purchases, into the economy, into investing, is not about benefiting workers.

That's not how the arrangement is set up.

And you might say, well, that's what she's trying to say.

That's what Elizabeth is bringing to the table today.

She's trying to change that arrangement, which is understandable, except for the fact that the benefit workers get is called salary.

They get paid to go to work.

That's the arrangement.

They get paid, they get their health benefits, they get the 401k, which, by the way, you might notice has something to do with stock prices.

They don't benefit from stock prices, though, unless they buy stock,

which, by the way, they do all the time.

That's kind of what the way this works.

And the idea that you're trying to make a company and its stock price benefit the workers

part of the reason we're in the problem that we're in.

Let's listen to it a little more.

So, here's how it would work.

First, the biggest corporations in America would need to make new legally binding commitments to

take into account what's good for their workers and not just what's good for their shareholders.

Of course, that's good.

That's again,

every time a proposal like this happens, you have to hear it the right way, which is, you know, a new law is a new regulation.

It's going to cost the business money, and they're going to have to deal with that.

That is a,

it's something that the left never likes to take into account.

They always love to sit back and say that these things don't cost you anything.

They don't cost you a dime.

Really?

Does this not cost us a dime?

Does it really?

When you create a giant new regulation, And this is a series of them as we'll get into them, that costs us all lots of dimes.

Lots of dimes.

All right, more Elizabeth.

Workers would have a seat at the table when big decisions are made.

No, great.

My bill would make it so that at big corporations, workers would get to elect at least 40% of board members.

I mean, look.

All right, stop.

I'm having a real problem even getting through this.

So

let's stop here.

40% of

wage holders.

I mean, that is

ridiculous, right?

It's not true at all.

When your company does

go into the boardroom, there's a huge issue there.

40% of board members would be a formula for disaster.

It's completely insane.

This is a ticket to bankruptcy for every large company in America.

How could you ever stop a pay raise, for example, if 40% of the board were representatives of the employees?

How is that even possible?

You would never be able to stop the spending.

This is basically a way to backdoor reunionization.

We all know that unions are getting hammered because they're terrible for the economy.

And because of, you know, there's also a recent Supreme Court decision you may have noticed.

So instead, let's just put representatives of the workers in powers, positions of power.

This is a long-time union dream that they're doing even harder than the unions did before.

And they're trying to sell it as capitalism.

It's ridiculous.

Go ahead, Lizzie.

And third, to cut down on the dark money that flows from corporations into politics, my bill would require 75% of directors and shareholders to approve of political contributions before they're spent.

Ah, stop.

This is incredible coming from her.

Incredible.

The left just finished swearing up and down

that,

you know, the Supreme Court ruling that just came out about how you can't force union members to make political donations that they don't agree with.

And all those donations to unions went completely to the left.

Now, now, after that stopped, now they want to stop companies from using their money to donate to politicians because half of it goes to Republicans.

It's so transparent.

They were the ones cheering on you being forced into

donations you didn't want to make.

And now they want to make sure that companies don't spend their money the way they want to.

A little little bit more.

Right now, giant corporations only work for their shareholders.

Oh, my God.

And that means they work only for the wealthy.

Stop.

Seriously?

They only work for their shareholders, and that means they only work for the wealthy.

52% of Americans own stock.

More than half of the country does.

They're all wealthy.

All 52% of the Americans that own stock are all wealthy?

Because that's

who gets the benefits from this.

And sure, rich people own more, but the bottom half of stock owners average $54,000 in stock.

The bottom half average $54,000 in stock.

Do you think these things make a difference?

They certainly do.

They're putting money in real people's pockets, and that's an important thing when it comes to retirement.

A big part of this, too, is she goes on to blab about how the rich get richer and wages stay flat.

Well,

of course the rich get richer.

You know what?

I'm not going to deny that.

The rich do get richer.

You know why?

You know what?

It's one of the main reasons you try to become rich so you can become richer.

I know that sounds like evil capitalism at work, but you know what?

It's true.

When you have money, it's easier to make money.

That's true.

It's one of the reasons you do it.

It's one of the reasons you get up every day and you go to work.

It's one of the reasons you take risks with your life.

It's one of the reasons you might take a risk on a job that pays a little bit less in the short term to that might make a little bit more in the long term.

The idea is to, if you can get to that level, you can get to a point where you are comfortable enough to do things that you like doing.

And you're comfortable enough to maybe invest a little bit of that money to make a little bit more.

There's nothing wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with that at all.

You can handle some mistakes when you invest when you're wealthy.

You can overcome stupid purchases like filling your liberty safe with expensive purses your wife has acquired.

You could do things like that.

I know.

And the idea that wages staying flat and they've been flat, they're stagnating.

How many times have we heard this?

And we don't only hear it from the left.

We hear it from the left and the right.

It's just not really true.

It's a great talking point.

If you haven't had a raise in a while, it might connect with you.

And that's, of course, what they're going for.

It certainly feels right.

But it's not right for a few reasons.

Number one, most of it is just part of a statistical quirk.

When a 65-year-old making $100,000 leaves the workforce, who's he replaced by?

Another 65-year-old making $100,000?

No.

He's replaced by some teenager making $12,000.

As boomers retire, especially as they retire en masse, it's only going to exaggerate that little quirk.

So that doesn't mean that wages are actually stagnating.

It means that statistically it's sort of a function of older people retiring and younger people replacing them.

There's also, you know, the idea that you're now getting paid in different ways than you did in the past.

There's always been benefits associated with work, yes.

But the cost of those benefits is rising a lot faster than wages.

In other words, the money that should come in your paycheck, the money that you earn, instead goes to benefits that are more and more expensive.

The costs to the company of health care, 401k matching, you know, transit passes, if you get those, those have all risen about four and a half times as fast as wages.

Now, to me, as a capitalist in a perfect world, as someone who believes in my ability to make decisions in my life,

you'd get all your money that comes from your employer.

All of it comes to you.

And then you go buy what you want, including your own insurance, or you invest it as you like.

But what's amazing is the reason why that doesn't happen is because of people like Elizabeth Warren, progressives who believe that us little workers are too stupid to figure out how to spend our own money.

If we trust the workers, they'll spend it all at golden corral and on shotguns and dune buggies.

Who knows what they'll do with it?

So we can't trust them.

We have to make sure that it's required by the government to make sure that companies give you health care.

That costs companies money.

Their costs keep coming up.

They're paying you more.

You're just not receiving as much of it.

That's not a problem with capitalism.

It's a problem with progressivism.

The other thing is, you know, the number of what you earn specifically isn't necessarily all that important.

You know, to take a ridiculous example, if next year your boss offers you a dollar per year and cuts your pay to $1 per year, but as a result of other economic changes, you're able to live the life of Leonardo DiCaprio.

Are you willing to take that deal?

I think everybody is, right?

If you can live live that life and you only made a dollar a year, who cares what the number is?

It's about living a better life.

It's not that drastic, but I mean, in the 1930s, the amount of our disposable income we used on life's basics, think of like housing, clothing, food, gas, utilities, home furnishings.

We spent 62% of our disposable income on all that stuff.

It has fallen consistently.

at about the same rate to about 33%.

So it's been cut in half, basically, the amount of money we spent on all of life's life's basics.

And that fall has continued to go on when our wages were supposedly stagnating.

As things get better and cheaper, it doesn't necessarily matter if the number's going up.

It's nice when the number goes up.

We all like when the number goes up.

But can you afford to live a better life is really the important thing.

And what we're seeing, the answer is more and more yes.

And by the way, all the stuff that we just talked about is not only cheaper, it's better.

Houses are bigger, and they have things like central air that were only in super-rich people, people's houses before wages started stagnating.

Cars are faster, they're more efficient, they're more safe.

So now we get better stuff for far less money.

These are good developments, but not if you're Elizabeth Warren.

Glenn talks about this in Addicted to Outrage.

His new book comes out September 18th.

If you haven't pre-ordered it, I mean,

are you even an American?

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

You probably thought the media didn't understand the way the world works, but you were wrong.

You probably thought that the media didn't take serious issues seriously, but you were wrong.

You probably thought

that the media didn't look into the real cause and the real underlying issues that people are dealing with every day.

And the way that these stories really develop, you probably thought they didn't get to that next layer of understanding.

But you were wrong.

And that was proven this weekend by CNN.

Molly Tibbets, as you know,

was murdered by an illegal immigrant while she was out running in Iowa.

She had her funeral this weekend or service.

I mean, it's a terrible, terrible story.

And the discussion surrounding it has been: why did all these news organizations cover it so intensely when she was missing?

And then when we found out what happened to her, which was yet another one of these situations where an illegal immigrant murders someone,

someone here illegally, someone who should not have been here to be able to commit the crime.

When that happens, you know, it kind of just goes away.

And CNN has covered it a little bit, but we were looking for something a little bit deeper, right?

Not just telling us the story

of the events, but what, you know, can we go a little bit deeper?

Can we explore something beyond the surface of the story?

And

to be fair, we kind of were harsh on CNN.

We kind of beat up on CNN a little bit.

We gave them a hard time for their coverage on the story.

We were like, why don't you go a little bit deeper?

Why don't you look past that initial layer?

No more surface stuff.

Why don't you go deeper?

You know what we're talking about.

Get to it.

Let's have a real conversation about this because it's important.

And this weekend, I'm with my kids.

And,

you know, as tends to happen,

you get the news alerts that pop up.

Yeah, you get the little vibration on your phone, take it out of your pocket, you look at it, and you get to see the breaking news that's coming.

And I got this one from CNN, and I found out that I was wrong.

I had been blaming them for not really going deep enough on the story, and the whole time they were preparing a real expose, some real deep dive into what happened with Molly Tibbets.

What was the real cause?

Was it just a murder, or was there something more than that?

And they have uncovered that it is

something more than that.

The alert I got?

Think about how many people subscribe to the CNN app.

They got to have 20, 30, 40 million people on this app.

I mean, I don't know how many times it's been downloaded, but it's one that many people have for news alerts.

And they finally took that next step.

Good job, CNN.

Here is the headline: running while female.

You see, the danger

isn't illegal immigrants, The danger is jogging.

That's the danger.

And they made sure to push this out to all of their subscribers.

Running while female.

43% of women runners say that they've been harassed while jogging.

Molly Tibbetts' tragic story puts these numbers in a new light.

And you thought they wouldn't go deeper.

You thought they really wouldn't examine this one to make sure we understood the real societal implications of the story.

No, you were wrong.

CNN did the work and they found the culprit jogging.

Now, I am not one

to praise exercise.

I am not one to say positive things about something like jogging.

To me, it's one of the worst things in the world.

I would do anything to avoid it.

We all know it can create health problems.

Exercise, generally speaking, very dangerous.

Okay.

We're talking major injuries can occur, even to the most elite athletes.

They happen all the time.

Watch a football game.

All the time, these people are getting injured.

People can have heart attacks.

You know, major, look what happened to Harry Reid on the treadmill.

Terrible things can happen to you while exercising.

This is not a safe activity, and I do not advise it under any circumstances, but I'm glad CNN dove in here.

They seem to be saying the exercise is a little threatening for different reasons.

Running while female

is their summary of the Molly Tibbetts story, but it goes deeper than that.

Xenophobia and gender, of course, obviously

it's gotta start there, are at the heart of the national reaction to the Tibbets tragedy in multiple ways.

Xenophobia and gender is their summary of the story.

The alleged perpetrator is an undocumented immigrant.

Undocumented.

And the victim is a woman last seen out jogging.

Now, which one do you pursue?

Of course, you now know it's the jogging part that was dangerous.

It's a reality that American women are at risk in

both situations.

Molly Tibbetts reportedly found herself in

running.

Yes, they're still saying the jogging part is dangerous.

And saying no or leave me alone.

A survey by Runner's World found 43% of women reported being harassed while running.

Now, obviously,

no harassment is the right amount of harassment.

So we all know that that's a terrible thing.

And if a woman gets harassed for any reason, whether jogging or not, it's terrible.

We all are completely aware of that.

Women in relationships with men or simply encountering them in the street face the risk of violence anytime they rebuff a man's approach.

Now look,

you know, we've been, we're in the Me Too era here.

A lot of guys have done a lot of terrible things.

We all want it to stop.

However, you are in a situation anywhere you go in society.

Anytime you interact with another person, anytime you jog on a treadmill by yourself, ask Harry Reid, you are in danger of violence.

You're always in danger of violence because people exist.

I guess if you get to that last thing where you live by, you're, you're, uh, you're on, you know, you got your TV show, Last Man on Earth.

And of course, on that show, there's like a lot of other people for some reason.

But if you really were the last man on earth, maybe you could avoid it for a while.

You're likely to get killed by a bear then, though.

We all die.

There's always a risk of violence.

So yes, technically, anyone encountering someone else is at risk of violence.

But is that the proper way to talk about the world?

Is that the proper way you want your daughter to live?

Hey,

I met a new guy.

I must be constantly in desperate fear of violence.

Tibbets' case brings home, from CNN,

home for women in the harshest terms,

in which misogyny hinders their freedom, their very right to exist.

The Tibbets case has laid bare the uncomfortable reality that not all dead girls in America are mourned the same way.

Isn't this so nice?

It's just, it's so nice.

It's almost as nice a treatment as they gave McCain this weekend.

Those who do not fit into the narrative of white women in danger of being raped and killed by lurking brown men get comparatively little attention and consequently little or no portion of the nation's compassion.

Can you possibly be talked down to more than this article?

By the way, by CNN, given an alert on their news app, running while white.

Eleven months before Molly Tibbetts disappeared, for instance, a Virginia teenager, Nabra Hassanen, was killed allegedly by an undocumented immigrant who has been charged with capital murder.

In that case, initially labeled an incident of road rage by police, the man kidnapped and raped Hassanen and then dumped her body in a pond near his house.

She's a Muslim wearing a headscarf, and she had been walking to her mosque after

the dawn meal at a nearby McDonald's.

Neither Donald Trump nor the White House has ever spoken publicly about her murder.

Well, you know, first of all, that is a big deal, right?

And it proves the point of you know, it's another example at least of the point of why it's you don't want illegal immigrants in your country.

It does not mean that they have they're going to kill everyone.

Most of them don't.

But there's no reason to import crime.

That being said, you know, this story wasn't covered by a lot of news organizations.

It's not one that we, that I ever saw.

So I'm glad it was brought to light here.

And perhaps there's a point there that this one should have been made as big a deal as Molly Tibbetts.

I don't know all of the details, but as presented here, maybe it should have been.

But the idea that it's because of her skin color, it's because of her religion, does not connect with me because that one pisses me off just as much as the last one.

There's no upside.

There's no point in which we're like, you know what, I guess that illegal immigrant murder is completely okay.

That's not what we're saying here.

There is a limit to the amount of different stories you can follow at a given time.

And a lot of these times they fall into news cycles where they are dominated by other stories.

But that is a big story, and it should be covered.

She goes on, as in American life, so too in death.

White women, particularly those

whose ends involve the criminal acts of brown or black or Muslim men, deserve attention.

Brown women, particularly those wearing the headscarf, are, per the hierarchy's crude calculations, either complicit in their own death or deserving only a glib, that's too bad.

I mean, that is borderline slanderous.

It It is not true in any way.

That is not how anyone I've ever met believes.

Human beings, regardless of your obsession with the color of their skin, your obsession with the color of their skin, all deserve life.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You hear us talking about this a lot on the right side of the the aisle.

It's something we really believe in.

And you'll note that we mourn just as much when a black mother has her daughter or son aborted.

We mourn just as much for them.

Rarely do I hear that from the left.

Rarely does a progressive ever bring up the fact that tens of millions of minorities could be alive today if not for progressive policies.

They could be alive if you didn't end their life before they were born.

The CNN op-ed, which by the way, did I mention they sent it as a news alert?

There are historic underpinnings to the hierarchy, the white female runner killed by the foreign savage,

how it plays upon and replenishes existing prejudice, whether looking at the Jim Crow narratives of white women under threat by black rapists or more recent examples like the Central Park Jogger case, parallels persist between the black man's figure and that of the undocumented immigrant.

The Central Park Jogger?

What?

That's more, I mean, it is more recent than Jim Crow,

but it also can, you know, it happened in, what, 1989?

That's your recent example?

Goes on to say, say undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, to commit crimes of any kind.

Just to make sure we all understand, the crime rate for undocumented immigrants is 100%.

The first step they take onto our land is a crime.

The fact that you want to say that's not a crime is an argument for you to change the law, but it's not an argument for you to ignore that it's a crime.

An illegal immigrant is committing an illegal act the first time they step foot on our country.

Then they are stuck to stay here.

And what do they do while they're here?

Well, they have to commit either identity fraud or tax evasion.

They have to get a social security number somehow to pay taxes, or they're not paying taxes.

Neither one of those you're supposed to do.

One study does show that illegal immigrants

commit violent crimes at a higher rate than legal immigrants, but a lower rate than Americans.

One study does say that.

But that's not really the question, is it?

What level of crime is appropriate to import?

What level of crime is the right level of crime to bring into your country

without approval?

You know, when you have, if you're at a birthday party, you're at your kid's birthday party, and someone crashes it to eat cake, likely named Jeffy,

and someone comes in and they start eating cake, if you make the argument,

hey, I don't think this person should be invading my kid's birthday party here.

That's, you know, that's not the right thing.

Why are they eating our cake?

Does anyone ever bring up, well, did you know they're actually eating less cake than the average person who was invited?

So what?

They're not supposed to be there eating cake in the first place.

That's not, you don't measure this by whether, you know, we all know there's a lot of crazy Americans.

We're fine.

People act as if we think we're so much better.

Have you ever dealt with people?

They're all terrible.

This is why I'm wishing for the one person.

I want to be the last man on earth.

And even then, I'd be disgusted with myself.

It's not to say that people in America are all perfectly law-abiding.

We do have issues with crime here.

But you don't import it.

Legal immigrants, by the way, have the lowest level.

People who actually bother to follow the law and come in here legally have much lower crime rates.

Maybe that's something we should encourage instead of encouraging illegal immigration.

I mean, but how insulting is this?

The fact that the Molly Tibbetts killing is not about an illegal immigrant committing a crime that we didn't need to have, because we don't need to have illegal immigrants here.

We have legal immigrants, and a lot of them are great.

And I'm glad we have them here.

They make our country better when we do it legally.

But when you import crime, and some family has to deal with the loss of their daughter, and in fact, thank you for the story.

Two women have to have parents that have to deal with the loss of their daughter.

And we didn't need that to happen.

And then you blame it on misogyny.

You blame it on xenophobia.

You blame it on gender.

And you blame it on jogging.

I am not above blaming all of society's ills on exercise.

But in this particular case, it's crazy.

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

Hi, it's Glenn.

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

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

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

So the president has stepped up his attacks on Jeff Sessions, and he is now hinting that his days as Attorney General are numbered.

So we get to read and go through another cycle of this for the 417th time, I believe,

since these two got together.

They are not a good couple.

By the way, it's Stu in for Glenn Beck.

He's on vacation this week, back next week.

888-727-Beck is our phone number, and at World of Stu on Twitter.

And I saw this relationship sort of developing, and I tweeted out an observation

that Trump is to Sessions as Michael Scott is to Toby Flenderson.

Now, if you happen to be a fan of the office, I think you understand that immediately.

Michael Scott, the boss,

literally despised Toby Flenderson and spent most of his time just torturing him about all sorts of things.

He hates him with every fiber of his being at this point.

And he really, like, wants him to leave under any circumstances.

If he ever does leave, he'll celebrate it.

And he wants him to leave.

And he seems to be in charge of him, but he can't find a way to fire him.

Which seems very odd in both situations.

But when you really look at this,

I think it plays out pretty well.

First of all, you have this idea

of just utter contempt.

And this is a strange thing that's developed between Trump and Sessions.

If you don't know, Jeff Sessions was the first senator to endorse Donald Trump.

I mean, it seems like a zillion years ago, doesn't it?

Steve Bannon and Sessions met together and decided

that Trump would be the best vessel for what they believed America should be.

They went to Trump with ideological agreement and said, let's bring this guy on board.

Let's support him.

He can do what we want to do.

So they were very tight.

I mean, you know, Sessions put a lot at risk at that time, and Trump repaid him for that.

I mean, they were very close throughout the campaign.

Real agreement.

Everything seemed fine.

He names him attorney general.

And then obviously we've seen a little bit of a falling out.

It's interesting because Sessions was still senator when, at the very beginning of the Trump administration, before he was confirmed and went into

into the cabinet.

And he took 12 votes and voted with Trump on 100% of those votes.

He is a perfect pro-Trump voting record for over 12 votes.

And they were huge allies.

But now they despise each other.

Now it's turned into,

you know, Michael versus Toby on the office.

And I mean, I want to review some of this because we've done some deep research here.

Tell me

you could not hear these things playing out between Trump and Sessions.

Tell me this does not seem like the reality of a meeting between these two.

Let's start here.

Just the utter contempt that Trump has this point for Jeff Sessions.

Listen.

Should I keep going?

Why are you the way that you are?

Honestly, every time I try to do something fun or exciting, you make it not that way.

I hate

so much about the things that you choose to be.

I mean, that could be a tweet where Sessions is tagged.

I hate all the things that you choose to be.

And every time I try to do something fun and exciting, you make it not that way.

This is, it almost sounds like a Trump tweet.

And, you know, you can just tell at this point that Trump thinks Jeff Sessions is a complete moron.

He thinks, you know, him recusing himself from the Russia thing and these decisions he's making with the Department of Justice, he's just stupid.

He's a complete idiot.

Listen.

Can I just say that of all the idiots, in all the idiot villages, in all the idiot worlds, you stand alone, my friend?

With the exception of my friend, that could absolutely be something that trump said

this could be like we're listening to a meeting inside the oval office between trump and sessions

and at this point it seems like uh

trump hates sessions more than he hates like most dictators

listen

If I had a gun with two bullets and I was in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden, and Toby, I would shoot Toby twice.

This is what happens with sessions.

That is about the relationship at this point.

At some point, you need to just fire the guy.

Now, maybe they're going to wait till after the election.

But it's been a long time.

Maybe we're just, I don't know.

Maybe, you know, that seems to be what's being hinted now.

It's going to wait till after the election.

But I mean, think about this as well.

You know, Trump always comes up for nicknames for people.

And Michael Scott names,

comes up with names for Toby as well.

Listen.

Who let the lemon head into the room?

You were a waste of life, and you should give up.

Tell me, if Jeff Sessions walked into a room right now into a meeting, that Trump wouldn't either say that to him or tweet it to us.

Jeff Session, the lemon head, just walked into the room.

Walked into the room.

He should just get out and give up.

Feels like a...

Feels pretty fair.

And you wonder at times whether this relationship is going to escalate to physicality.

This is the worst.

You are the worst.

I hate looking at your face.

I want to smash it.

I mean,

this is the relationship in a nutshell.

And of course, the one thing that he's been very clear about,

Trump really wants Jeff Sessions out.

And that's pretty much what happens with Michael Scott and Toby Flenderson as well.

No, this is not a joke.

Okay?

It was offensive and lame.

So double offensive.

This is an environment of welcoming, and you should just get the hell out of here.

That's probably the last tweet.

That's probably it, right there.

I stand by this.

I think this works out well.

I don't know who the other characters are.

I mean,

I would love to get your suggestions on that because I think all of the characters fit somebody in this White House.

This is

a good situation.

I think it's a good comparison.

But at that level of contempt right now, it's uncomfortable.

It really at this point is just uncomfortable, which of course is what the office did so well, was to just elevate that awkwardness to those incredible levels.

So I don't know.

I'd love to get your thoughts.

888727 back is the phone number.

Or you can get me at World of Stew.

If If you have an idea of what other office character goes with the person in the administration, I'd love to hear them.

Or somebody in the sort of presidential orbit.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

An interesting claim about the environment, by the way, that Glenn is enjoying this week off

comes from the BBC.

And I found it to be particularly interesting and brought to light some

really important things about our environment that I did not understand.

We all want to be good stewards of the earth.

We all want to help out, want to do our part,

keep super green or whatever.

But this one I'm not sure that I want.

There's certain things the environmentalists want that even in the perfect world, I don't think I'd actually desire.

This is Deborah Tabbert.

She is from the Australian Koala Foundation, and she was recently on the BBC.

Listen.

You have to understand this planet's in trouble.

And I believe our Prime Minister did know that, but somehow or other, he's lost it.

I want your listeners to really think 85% of the world's forests are gone.

You've got to start thinking, how does this affect me?

And I think we've all become a bit in denial.

In denial.

It's an interesting observation.

So I guess we all have to think about how this will affect us.

85% of the forests are gone.

That sounds really bad.

Really bad.

Like, I don't, I mean, I don't want that to happen.

I mean, I don't want our country to be all forest, right?

We don't want...

everything to be forest.

We like some areas where we can do our thing.

But what's the appropriate amount?

I mean, first of all, you'd know that you have deserts, right, that are pretty natural.

They don't have forests on them.

You know, Antarctica

doesn't really have forests on it.

The tundra doesn't have forests on it.

Right off the bat, you know that not everything is going to be covered by forest.

But as far as the areas that we're in, what's the appropriate percentage?

You know, a quarter?

That sounds like a lot of forest to me.

But a half?

I don't know.

What's your goal?

What's the optimal amount of forest that would be in our world?

I don't think it's half the land, but let's say half the land was covered in forest.

Half of the land.

That would be a lot of forest.

But apparently, not as much forest as we once had.

Now, I was not aware of this,

but we're working through the BBC's numbers here and the Australian Koala Foundation

and trying to figure this out.

If 85% of the world's forests are now gone, what does that mean historically for how much forest we had?

Currently, we have about 4 billion hectares of forest.

Now, I know you guys are constantly measuring things in hectares,

but don't worry about it.

You don't need to know what a hectares.

4 billion hectares of forest currently exist.

So, to get to this number of 85%, 85%,

one of the issues with that number is that for it to be true,

sometime in history, all land on Earth would have to have been forests.

Now, I'm pretty sure there's been different,

you know, there's tundras and there's...

there's deserts and there's all sorts of different landscapes.

I don't think in history

all land had ever been forest.

But maybe I was wrong.

Maybe at some point it was, you know, everything looked like

Upper Vermont and everything was a forest.

Okay, let's take that.

The other problem with this theory, because if 85% of our forests have disappeared, the other part of this theory is all

land would have to be forest,

but also

all ocean

would have to have been forests.

Now, I'm

not a historian.

I'm not a geologist,

but I am a thinker.

And it seems to me that the oceans weren't at any point in our history covered in forest.

But see, there's a problem with that, too.

That's still not enough forest.

For her numbers to work,

all of the earth would have to be covered in forest, plus 80%

of another earth.

Did the forests live on top of the other forests?

How do you get that much forest?

We all like forest.

That seems like too much.

Sure, we'd have an ample supply of maple syrup at any time, and that would be a positive.

Though I feel like the poor fish would be bumping into trees all the time, be trying to swim around down there with all these tree stumps everywhere.

It would be very difficult.

You hear these things all the time.

And there's always another one,

always another scary claim going around.

This one is from about a year ago, but it's making the rounds yet again on

left-wing Twitter and social media.

An apocalyptic mass extinction will begin in 2100.

In the past 540 million years, the planet has endured five such wipeouts, including the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The worst took place 252 million years ago and is known as the Great Dying, which is not the title you want on your event.

The disaster killed off more than 95% of marine life when the seas suddenly became more acidic.

And they know that for a fact.

But the next one is going to be just as bad.

The next one is going to be even scarier.

Are you scared of the mass apocalypse coming?

Because we've already lost 85% of the forests.

What's next?

You, you're next.

You're going to die.

By the way, can we say how paranoid Republicans are about illegal immigration?

That being said, let's get back to the environment, which is going to kill you in a few years.

Your kids, they're all going to die in a giant cataclysmic wipeout that Mother Nature is going to take revenge on them for, for your actions, for your SUV.

But gosh, those paranoid Republicans.

I just hope, and I'm very concerned, that the Pope's message of, hey, don't drive your SUV gets through.

Because that's exactly what he should be focusing on right now.

The best of the Glen Bank program.

John McCain has passed away, as you likely heard over the weekend.

He had fought brain cancer and

hadn't been to Washington in quite a while to be able to

do what he loved.

He loved being a senator and he did it for

decades.

He was,

as you probably are aware, a very

well-decorated war hero who endured way more than I will ever do for anybody

when he was tortured at Vietnam and came back to, of course, go into the government.

And, you know, there's.

We can get into

his whole history

as far as his service in government, which a lot of times, frankly, I was not a huge fan of.

But just as we would mourn any

soldier who took their time and risked their life for us, whenever someone like that passes away, it's a sad day.

And John McCain

was highly appreciated by so many when it comes to his medical or excuse me, his military service.

Even if you just look at that,

it's a real loss.

As a senator, as I said,

wasn't a huge fan of a lot of his policies, but he did do it for a long time.

And he was there, you know, doing what he thought was right.

And certainly he did vote

a way that I liked on many occasions, just also many that he didn't.

But, you know, policy is policy and politics are politics.

You know, I think the best way to look at John McCain is the way his family is looking at him.

And if you see the way his family is handling it, as well as is humanly possible and respecting and, you know, missing their dad and,

you know, their husband, it's, you know, you could tell

it really hurts.

These are situations nobody wants to deal with.

And when they announced, of course, that they were going to stop treatment, it was incredibly upsetting for the family and for anybody who knew them.

We, of course, see the ugliness pop up almost right away when something like this happens.

We see it immediately from

social media now.

We no longer have to wait for the dumb politician to start trashing them the next day.

You get it right away on social media.

Some of the tweets in response here.

John McCain heavily promoted the lies that led to the Iraq war.

He championed the NATO bombing of Libya.

He supported and armed the jihadists destroying Syria.

He played a role in bringing neo-Nazis to power in Ukraine and backed Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen.

He was was no hero from someone who almost definitely did as much for the country in the military as John McCain.

Surely this guy on Twitter did that.

Once again,

the great part about this, these are responses to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Now, she wrote something

seemingly the only sane thing I've ever seen her do.

She says, John McCain's legacy represents an unparalleled example of human decency in American service.

As an intern, I learned a lot about about the power of humanity in government through his deep friendship with Senator Kennedy.

He meant so much to so many.

My prayers are with his family.

I mean, again, that's a very controlled, calm, reasonable wish of,

you know, farewell to a well-known figure.

I don't really

get it when it comes to wishing people

condolences on Twitter.

It feels like it's too serious a thing.

Maybe I'm back in the old days days where, like, I don't know, people,

Twitter seemed so frivolous.

Now it's the most important thing in the world, apparently.

But like, if you don't tweet, like, if you don't tweet your condolences in the right way, you get beat up.

Trump is going through this now.

I mean, he obviously didn't get along with McCain.

He recognizes that he did something for the country, but he's not a huge fan, obviously.

I mean, they've had a long time rivalry.

So he tweets out something and he puts his picture on it.

And it's not really talking about a service as much as just like, hey, I hope his family feels better about this.

And now CNN's spending multiple segments on it this morning.

What should Trump have tweeted as far as condolences?

Seriously?

Do we live in a world where that matters at all?

Man, people telling Alexandria Casio-Cortez that she craps the bed.

She doesn't know the facts.

Her credibility is plummeted.

We know you're just controlled opposition.

You, my dear, are no progressive.

It would have been better if you had not said a word.

John McCain is dead.

One devil less on the planet.

All of hell rejoices.

You know, it doesn't get any worse than that.

It's interesting, though, you know, because she talks about the friendship with Kennedy.

And that was a real problem, you know, when it comes to his politics, in my opinion, where he did go across the aisle so much.

McCain Kennedy was a great example, that bill.

McCain Feingold, another great example.

McCain Lieberman was another one.

You know, things he tried to promote to

move the country in a way I think was wrong.

But at least we did have, you know, we did have some tributes for him.

Hillary Clinton had one, and of course, obviously couldn't.

This is something I found is a real theme this weekend.

Listen to Hillary Clinton's eulogy, if you will, of Senator John McCain.

He did believe in the institution, and he knows, he knew that the Senate couldn't work if we didn't work together.

I think it was heartbreaking to him that,

as he said in the speech he gave right before he voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act, that we need to cooperate.

We need to learn how to trust each other again and do better to serve the people who elected us.

And, you know, he was so typically John in those remarks because he said, stop listening to the bombastic loudmouths on radio and TV and the internet to hell with them.

They don't want anything done for the public good.

He really understood in the marrow of his bones

what it meant to be an American and how important it was for us to, yes, disagree and differ, but at the end of the day, to come together, to work together, to trust each other, to get things done.

And

he will be missed for many years.

What's amazing there is, I mean, first of all, she highlights that John McCain told me to go to hell, which I don't remember.

Apparently, he told talk radio to go to hell.

Don't listen to him and go to hell.

And he's never, you know, he never got along with talk radio, and people on talk radio didn't particularly like his politics all that much.

But

of course, this is what they love about John McCain.

They'll talk about the military service a little bit.

But when it comes to his politics, what they like about him is when

he agreed with them.

Hillary Clinton thinks talk radio is a problem, and the fact that John McCain agreed with Hillary Clinton is why Hillary Clinton respects John McCain.

I mean, listen to the tributes.

I've heard it all weekend on the drive-in today.

What's the greatest moment of McCain's legacy?

His concession speech to Barack Obama.

That's what he's remembered for.

And you might say that was a great speech, and it's part of American history.

It's part of the American tradition that we have politicians who will cede power.

They will give up when they lose.

They will concede.

And those things are all great.

And, you know, as far as, you know, 99% of these races end that way.

And he gave a nice speech about coming together.

But again, the moment they liked about John McCain was him saying, come together behind Barack Obama.

Sure, we'll have our disagreements, but come together behind our president.

And that's not because they wouldn't like that.

You think they're going to go back and say Hillary Clinton's best moment was he said, come, she said, come together behind Donald Trump when she lost?

You think they would, you think they're going to look back at the legacy like that when Hillary Clinton passes away, God forbid?

And they're going to look back at it the same way.

Here's the other one they always bring up.

This is the other clip that they love.

This is from John McCain during his 2008 battle with Barack Obama at one of his town halls.

I got to ask you a question.

I do not

believe in, I can't trust Obama.

I have read about him, and he's not, he's not, he's a,

he's an Arab.

He is not.

No man.

No man.

No?

No, no man.

No man.

He's a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that's what this campaign is all about.

He's not.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I actually like the way he handled that.

It's a great clip.

And, you know, the fact is that,

you know, he was correcting the record, which is what he should do.

But again, that's what they liked about him.

You know, the fact that when he voted for the assurge in Iraq, which, by the way, was very effective, they were not on his side.

If you listen to him during that campaign, did they give him a lot of credit during that campaign about that moment?

Maybe a little bit.

But mainly they were telling him how evil he was for, you know, picking Sarah Palin.

So people kind of forget what these things were at the time.

People forget how this went.

It's interesting to look at his voting record, by the way.

And

I was going through this as we were prepping for the show today.

He voted with Donald Trump 83% of the time.

So this idea that he was this real maverick and was opposing Trump on everything isn't exactly right.

Now, he was

towards the left side of the Republicans,

as far as senators go and his votes, but

he largely voted with

Trump on most things.

Again, 83% of the time.

And when you, 538 puts together something they call the Trump score, which is a way to combine

how you vote with the president and how your demographics of your voting populace should affect that.

So if you're a, you know, they give, if you're in Maine, you're Susan Collins, right?

And everybody's Democrat there and you're somehow a Republican in office, they should say, they give you a predicted percentage that you would vote with the president, which would be lower because, you know,

you don't want to necessarily, you're a moderate, right?

You're in a moderate state.

And if you're a bright red state, you're in Utah, you're expected to vote a lot with the president.

And therefore,

They give you a lower score if you vote below that.

So it's basically a way to kind of control for your area.

John McCain is not like a far left example of Trump voting when it comes to that score at all.

He's in the middle of the pack.

And listen to the thing.

Again, you go back and everybody remembers his thumbs down vote on health care.

First of all, that's overblown.

It's hard to put yourself back in this situation, but it wasn't like the overturn of Obamacare was going to happen if he had voted yes on that.

They had narrowed that down to, if you remember these terms, skinny repeal.

And skinny repeal had no chance, no chance of actually being pushed through.

It was a Hail Mary.

It was as if there's three seconds left in a game, you're down by a touchdown, and the coach calls a Hail Mary, and John McCain at quarterback decides to take a knee and they don't even try it.

While, yes, you throw the Hail Mary, the chances of it being completed are so incredibly low.

You have to remember that that likely wasn't going to overturn Obamacare anyway.

They had to build an entire bill from scratch after that.

None of the people in the House agreed with the people in the Senate on it in the first place.

It was just

a hurdle to get through procedurally.

And so it gets overblown because, you know, McCain had a bit of drama in him.

He had

a bit of that in him.

But I mean, listen to the other things he opposed when it comes to the things

when he voted against Trump.

He voted against the tariffs.

I have no problem with that vote.

He voted against,

let's see, where's another one here?

Scrolling through the list.

He voted against,

excuse me, he voted for sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

I mean, do you have a huge problem with that?

He voted in favor.

Trump did not want it.

He voted against extending government funding for two weeks.

He voted against raising the debt limit

when Trump said he wanted it.

I mean, are these votes that you really hate?

I mean, generally speaking, you know, his voting record with Trump was not a problem.

I think his history, as far as going back multiple decades, you could definitely find a lot of problems, as I outlined earlier.

But I think it's important to take the high road.

And I learned that from the master of the high road, and you dome, of course, as Alex Jones.

There's no higher road than the road that Alex Jones takes on every issue.

And he wanted to make sure

you knew how much he respected John McCain's service in government.

Listen to the high road being taken here.

I'm going to take the high road here on John McCain, John Sidney McCain III, August 29th, 1936, August 25th, 2018.

He was only three days short of his 83rd birthday.

Because I've been on air 24 years and McCain's been a hated figure with conservatives and nationalists.

Wait, wait, hold on, stop for a second.

This is too much of the high road to do without some nice piano music.

Do we have some inspiring...

There we go.

Okay, let's get the Alex Jones real tribute here.

So I've had people that were in the Hanoi Hilton, famous...

naval aviators who's hated and army aviators you name it who were in the hanaway hilton with him saying that he was taken care of in the VIP area

because he was basically a traitor, and they called him Strongbird McCain.

So he's hated and a traitor so far as he's not.

Did you know that his father was a famous admiral, head of the Pacific Fleet, his grandfather, an even more famous admiral?

So he's a big blue blood like Robert Mueller and the Bushes or others.

They come from railroad families, you name it, very elite.

That said, I want to say that I want his soul hopefully to rest in peace.

I don't wish death on anybody.

I don't wish hell on anybody except any child molesters.

He's child molester.

Not quite a molestation.

McCain was a tortured figure.

He was a pretty good naval aviator.

He did flame out on the ship once and should have been court-martialed, but got away with it.

And he was a pretty good pilot overall.

And he did fly over combat zones and had scud missiles

and Sam missiles shot at him, service terror missiles.

So, I mean, you know, the guy was,

I mean, obviously at some level, had courage, and you could say, quote, a hero.

Wow.

Is there anything more heartfelt than that?

Let me tell you the history of John McCain, because I'm going to take the high road.

He was a traitor.

He was hated.

You know.

But I don't want him dead.

And I, you know, hopefully he's resting in peace, you know.

But,

you know, obviously not exactly a fan, I would say.

Alex.

That is a heck of a tribute right there.

I mean, you can just see the disgust.

He's basically, it's basically the Michael Scott, Toby Flenderson thing, except

Alex Jones was not John McCain's boss.

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

Tiger Woods this weekend.

He's a golfer.

For a living, he hits a small white ball with a club, and he tries to direct it towards a hole, which exists on a very flat piece of grass.

At least the grass is very short.

Sometimes there's some hills on it, but generally not.

And he tries to hit it on there and then hit it in the hole.

And if so,

he would then get a score.

And in this particular sport, the low score

is better.

I tell you this because I don't know that everyone knows it, because for some reason, Tiger Woods is required to answer deep political questions as he's walking off the course.

Listen to this from this weekend's tournament.

Well, he's the president of the United States, and you have to respect

the office.

And no matter who's in the office,

you may

like or dislike

the personality or the politics,

but we all must respect the office.

Do you have anything more broadly to say about the state?

I guess the discourse of race relations?

No, I just finished 72 holes and really hungry.

The question was, do you have any deeper comments on like the

state of race relations in America?

The guy just walked off a golf course.

Let him go get a cheeseburger.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.