'When Is Enough, Enough'? - 8/03/18

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.

Glad back.

I am.

I'm going to plant my flag

today in a hill that I have said many times,

but

we need to now defend this hill.

More voices,

not less.

More voices, not less.

It is not my place or your place

to silence anyone.

I'm going to have to check with our HR department today.

I mean, I don't know if we have the latest fad worked into our employee contracts yet.

The old retroactive, oops, I didn't mean to hire that person

due to old tweets, and now the social media mob is dogpiling on us in, you know, and pushing our face into the dirt clause.

I don't know if, do we need to update that?

It feels like this should be the thing now for everyone that could be considered a public figure.

Because we're all public figures now.

And if you're at a well-known company, well, you're doomed.

If the social media mob has a cause or a torch to bear, then they're going to pick a person.

They're going to scroll the Twitter feed

and pray for any missteps.

They're going to expose them all and then watch them burn.

And some of them, we're going to feel really good about watching them burn.

We are.

It happened to James Gunn.

Should it have?

In my opinion, no.

Disney knew what they were getting when they hired him.

But beyond that,

the guy apologized in 2012.

The guy hasn't repeated any of it.

And his apology was because he found it offensive, not because somebody outed him.

But I don't know about you.

Judge not lest you be judged.

Does anybody notice the fires that are starting to burn?

I'm not a social media judge.

I'm not a social media judge.

I'm not a social media jury.

And I'm not a social media executioner.

We don't know anything about James Gunn.

I don't know a darn thing about him.

I know nothing about what he believes.

I know nothing about him, what he is today, who he is today.

I have no idea the circumstances surrounding something is the ridiculous

social media posts.

And some of them are horrible.

But I I don't know.

The mob won the battle and gun was fired.

And this era of social media lynchings is now snowballing.

Because now,

finally, we're good at it too.

Revenge.

Yesterday, the New York Times announced that they had hired Sarah Jong to their editorial board.

Now, the New York Times, obviously, very high-profile company, and Sarah is somewhat of a public figure.

So, of course, the social media hit squad went into action just as they do with us.

Immediately after the announcement of her hiring, without missing a beat, some of Sarah's old tweets three years ago, she tweeted some racial comments about white people and they began to surface.

And they are despicable,

they're despicable.

I suppose I could read them in several different ways.

The New York Times dismisses them.

They would not dismiss them if they were anything about transgendered or homosexual or black, Hispanic.

They would not dismiss them.

They would have never hired her.

But that's them.

That's them.

Life is not about them.

Life is about you.

Life is about me.

My life is about the decisions I make, not the decisions others make.

I cannot control the New York Times.

I am not going to change the people in New York.

I am not going to change the people in Hollywood.

I'm not going to do it.

But they are changing us.

I am not going to become them.

But Glenn, we just got good at this.

We're making an impact.

We hated this.

This was unfair and wrong when they were doing it to us.

Should this editorial writer be able to work at the New York Times?

Should they have fired her?

I don't know.

I'm not there.

I don't know her.

The New York Times issued a statement yesterday defending their hire.

Firing her would only encourage this kind of behavior to continue to snowball.

Well, if you base it just on that, you're right.

However, I wonder if I were hired as an editorial writer for the New York Times, if they would have the balls to stand up like that for me.

I highly doubt it.

But again, that's them.

Did you see the social media war that was going on last night?

Did you see what it's doing to us?

There were actual journalists, some respected, some not so much, actually defending racism.

They were seriously trying to make the case that racism isn't racism as long as it's coming from a minority directed at the majority.

That's insanity.

Racism does not come from one race.

Racism comes from all races.

Racism is a human problem.

So, one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

And I am not going over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

I am planting my flag here.

This is insanity.

It is insanity to say that bigoted words are somehow or another not bigoted if they come from another race.

That is wrong.

I'm not going over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

And I am also not joining the mobs demanding somebody be fired for something that they said on Twitter.

You know who acted like an adult this week?

CBS.

Now, I don't know if they would have done it for anybody else except their CEO.

Don't know if they would have done this for anybody else that was expendable.

Don't know if they would have done it.

I highly doubt it.

If I were on CBS and these charges came up, I'd be gone.

But you know what they did?

They said, we have an independent council coming in to look into all of it.

Look into all of it.

And if we find it to be true and a problem

and against our principles, we'll fire the person.

If we can't get people to understand that racism

is human,

you really think you're going to get people to understand that hatred is human?

That hatred and violence doesn't come from just one side?

Because I have news for you.

It doesn't.

Anybody who thinks, well, our side isn't violent, really?

Watch?

Watch.

The left has had a long time to get good at it and be dismissed.

Our side, I think, would be just as bad if we hadn't been called to task every step of the way.

They've never been called to task.

And God forbid,

and I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this, but God forbid the tables ever turn.

Because if this kind of stuff,

if this

continues the way it is continuing, we will round each other up.

It just depends on who grabs the pendulum.

The tribal nature that we are living in right now,

this

tribal community where we are headhunters, is so far beneath Americans,

it's frightening that we don't see it.

I don't know, Sarah Jong.

Were her comments racist back in 2014?

Yeah, yeah, they were.

In fact, they were racist at any time.

But I can't testify to what she meant, who she was, who she is today.

Maybe the New York Times can.

Maybe they can't.

Maybe, I know this is going to go out on a limb.

Maybe the New York Times is, they're just hypocrites.

After all, they did fire another journalist, Quinn Norton, earlier this year when old tweets surfaced about

her saying slurs about African Americans and gays.

She was out.

But I do know this.

If we're ever going to get through all of this, if we're going to reach some kind of common ground, I'll forget all of that bullcrap.

Social media mob attacks are wrong.

These are assassination tactics.

Do we even know the difference between right and wrong anymore?

Because it's not about them.

I don't care about changing their mind.

I'm never going to change the New York Times mind.

Never.

Never.

Not going to change the minds of those who are, who have a deep-seated hatred for the white culture.

Not going to change their mind.

They're not going to listen.

But those people are not going to change me.

If you've been listening to me for a long time, this is it.

You are now on the other side of the threshold, and you are either going to go over the cliff with the rest of humanity, or you are going to stand.

I refuse to go over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

It is only going to get harder from here.

You must exercise the muscles to be able to stand where you have always stood.

We are not part of a lynch mob.

No matter how good it feels, no matter how many times the other side has done it to us,

I will not be that person.

It's Friday, August 3rd.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Cowardice.

Was it cowardice?

Was it indifference?

One of the best-known speeches

from the Second World War began circulating in the 1950s.

And there's different different versions of it

because it was a speech.

It wasn't a poem.

First, they came for the socialists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Now, you have to remember:

socialists,

socialists, and communists

were fighting.

And so

there's there's

there's a debate going on whether Niemoler actually said socialist or communist.

Most likely it was communist because that was the enemy of the state at the time.

Because they were national socialists.

So was this yet another trick of historians trying to make socialists look like the victim here?

Socialists were not the victim.

Communists were the victim because the national socialists rounded up the communists.

So first they came for the communists.

But remember, this is political.

This is political.

It was those people that were causing all of the problems.

It was those people.

They were communists.

They're communists.

They're working with Russia.

They want to take over the whole world.

Communism is evil.

We're over here.

We just want universal health care.

We just want all of the things that they want, except we're not working for Russia.

That was the difference.

We are nationalists.

We are German workers first.

We are not workers of the world unite.

Everything else was the same.

The difference was international or national.

And so first the national socialists came to round up the communists.

But if you were part of the national socialists, you knew it was their philosophy that was going to end in disaster.

It was anti-German.

We have to round them up.

And as long as I'm not part of that freak group,

it's fine.

Then they came for the trade unionists.

Where were the people?

Where were people when they started rounding people up?

Communists.

Well, the church.

The church didn't stand up for the communists because the communists, they were atheists.

The communists didn't like religion.

Communism thought that religion was one of the bigger problems.

These are opponents of our religion.

If we don't round these people up, if we don't stop them, they're going to put us out of business.

They're going to round us up.

We have to stop the communists.

So the churches didn't say anything because they were opponents of religion.

They were the enemies of Christian.

Christianity, any kind of religion really, that wouldn't bow down to the Führer.

Within six months of the Führer becoming the Führer,

They took down the pictures of Christ on the Christian altars and put a picture of the Führer up.

See,

first they came for the communists who were trying to stop these guys and saying, No, no, no, that's not who they are.

They're not your friends, Christians.

But the Christians knew that the other side was worse, and so I'll just get into bed.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But as it turned out,

they weren't really your friend, were they?

Should I be my brother's keeper?

I mean,

look,

these people are sick.

They're incurable.

We are having financial troubles.

We've got wars going on.

We can't afford to pay for those incurable diseases.

They are just eating through everybody else's money.

Your kid won't be able to have.

Oh.

Well, I guess out of concern,

I mean, I do have a responsibility, and they are incurable.

Next, they came for the incurable, and I said nothing because

I was still close to a cure.

This poem, this speech, this warning from history is happening now.

Let me tell you about our sponsor this half hour.

I want to thank Car Shield for being a sponsor.

And Car Shield is just amazing.

Was the last time you have, you have an old car.

You have an MG?

Yeah.

What a stupid move that was.

Yes, that's what year was it?

1978.

I don't even know if Car Shield goes back that far.

But yeah, it was 1978 and it runs

about 19% of the time.

Yeah.

When you buy an old car, you're like, oh, this is going to be so cool.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Nope, nope, nope.

No, the cars have improved.

There's a reason why you see very few of them on the road.

Anyway, if you have Car Shield, I don't know if they'd even take an old MG because that was never good, even when it was new.

But if the car breaks down after your warranty expires, you could be out of pocket for thousands of dollars and you won't be with Car Shield.

Visit carshield.com now or call 800 Car60100, 800 Car60100 and use the promo code back.

That's 800 Car6100 or CarShield.com promo code back.

Deductible may apply.

You know,

this is really hard, and it's only going to get harder because these tweets from the New York Times, absolutely racist.

Absolutely, without a doubt, racist.

No question about it.

Read those, read all the same sentences and insert the word black for the word white and tell me if it's racist.

It's the easiest way to test it.

If you're on the left and you're like, I'm not sure, you know, there's different arguments for the power of prejudice.

And if you have that point, and a lot of people do, just read it.

Just, you know what?

In your own car by yourself, say all the sentences out loud, but insert the word black and see how you feel.

See, I tell you what, tweet them with the word black in it.

Yeah, and see if your friends will be happy with you.

You'll have a lot of vacation time coming up.

It's going to be, it's going to be, this is going to get harder and harder for us to do, to take this stand, but we can't go over the cliff with everyone else.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

We conflate every issue now, and we have to stop doing that.

We have to break issues down.

And

this New York Times

editorial writer that

the New York Times refuses to fire,

and in some ways, I say rightly so, in other ways,

the other part of me says, are you kidding me?

But let's tear it apart.

Let's look at these things and tear this one issue apart.

Instead of just being outraged by it, let's look at it.

Because remember, this isn't about them.

This is about you.

You cannot change them.

But will you allow them to change you?

So, are the tweets racist?

Well, first thing we have to do is we have to define the word racism.

So let's get the dictionary

definition of racism out.

Couple different ones for you.

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Okay, so antagonism.

I think we are being antagonized.

Okay.

And the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or race.

Okay, so I think those two race superiority is in both of these, that there's a superior race in both of these, or they have traits of a superior race.

Is racism a good trait or a bad trait?

And a superior or inferior trait?

Racism is a terrible trait.

Terrible trait, right?

Okay, so if you cannot be racist as a

you are a superior race to the white culture.

White people, are you not?

Yeah, I guess.

If all white people are racists and

you can't be because you're not white, then you are

superior and you've actually turned yourself into a racist.

This is like,

can God build something so heavy he can't lift it?

I don't think so.

There's an actual answer to this one.

There's actually an answer to this one.

If you believe that no one in your race could be racist,

and I just like to point out Louis Varicon, if you believe that someone in your race cannot be racist, that you can say whatever you want about another race, denigrating or, what was the word, antagonizing that race for being inferior,

if you don't think that that is racism, then you are a racist by definition.

Okay, so are the tweets racist?

Here's first, first step was define racism.

Second step, are the tweets racist?

Do you have any of her tweets?

I don't in front of me.

I can pull them up, though.

Yeah, pull them up.

Now, here's the thing.

Stu is very good with this.

He always checks himself on, wait a minute, wait a minute.

Let me say that.

Let's say that out loud before we jump on the bandwagon on something like the 25% steel tariffs.

Donald Trump's 25% steel tariffs are good for the economy.

He's negotiating.

Okay.

Let's change one word in that and see if it would be,

if it would be comfortable to say

Obama instead of Trump.

Obama's new 25% steel tariffs, good for the economy.

He's negotiating.

Would you have said that?

No, none of us would have.

Even if it was negotiation or take the negotiation out.

Yeah, the one that hit me with that was

Barack Obama is about to go meet with Kim Jong-un one-on-one.

What a great development.

I don't think I would have said that sentence.

Now, that might be because I was wrong about Obama, right?

It might be that I really considered that you may have been right about Obama.

And right here.

Yeah.

Right.

I mean, so the point is that it takes, it does give you the ability to take your own bias out of it, right?

Or at least check it.

At least check it.

Right, exactly.

It makes you stand stand up to your own opinion yeah it makes it it does this you it makes you think uh obama is going to meet with kim jong-un one-on-one nobody's going to be there with him

okay that makes me very uncomfortable why

is it because of obama or is it because of his past with marxism and cozying up to dictators okay it's probably that now

Donald Trump also cozies up to dictators.

So why was I a little more comfortable?

Because I think that Donald Trump understands capitalism, is a fan of capitalism, and is a fan of America.

I didn't have that opinion.

So while it's uncomfortable,

I at least know why there's a difference.

And that controls the way you talk about Obama in that circumstance, right?

When people were saying, well, Dick,

you know, he wants to meet with dictators.

A big portion of the right's criticism of that is you never speak with dictators.

Right.

That wasn't like, hey, I wish a different person would go speak with dictators, or I wish I had a different president who I trusted that would go speak with dictators.

It was, it's insane to go speak with dictators at any time.

And so I think at that point, if we would have looked back at that and said, okay, well, maybe that's not the way we actually feel.

Maybe the way we feel is this particular president, because of some of his past behaviors, I don't find to be trustworthy on this particular mission.

Yeah, I don't know if I'm proposing it.

I have more of a problem with FDR meeting with Stalin than I did with Churchill meeting with Stalin.

That's totally different.

Totally different.

One understood who Stalin was.

The other one was playing footsie with him.

So

we have to look at the tweets.

Now substitute

the

adjective, right?

Yeah.

I mean, like, so you have this situation, like, for example, she tweeted, cancel white people.

Hashtag.

Hashtag cancel white people.

So if you were to just insert the word black for white, would that be racist?

Would you keep your job after that sentiment?

And of course, the answer to that is absolutely not.

And that's an easy one.

You know,

here's another one.

You talked about being

inferior.

It was one of the qualifications of racism, right?

Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins?

Number one, I would agree with her tweet.

I think it's probably true.

We should live underground, and we are genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun.

However, again,

that is a statement of generalities based on race and genetics.

I mean, it's quite-what that wouldn't.

I don't really even have a problem until she gets to groveling goblins.

Yeah, I mean, it's.

I mean, can you imagine saying that?

Just saying, should black people be,

should black people, are they predisposed to live underground like groveling goblins?

Do you think that's okay to tweet?

Of course not.

Of course not.

How about why?

Because it's racist.

Oh, man.

It's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old black men.

Do you think that would do you think if you meant that statement and I wasn't quoting and changing an adjective that

I would be able to keep a job?

No.

And in really any industry, remember, the people there's people in Charlottesville who went to this rally and were racist and said things just like this, right?

And went back to their hot dog stands only to lose their jobs.

They lost their jobs at their hot dog stands, not New York Times columnist, a hot dog stand.

You are not allowed to serve hot dogs to people if you went to the Charlottesville rally.

Yet you can say

you get joy out of being cruel to old white men and have a job at the New York Times.

Now, that is not a fair standard.

The question is, which part of it is wrong?

Okay, and that's where I think sometimes we fall down is on the right.

Okay, so we know that the tweets on the surface are racist, correct?

We know what racism is.

We know how to make sure that we are consistent in our belief.

And if we're not consistent, why we're not consistent, just by changing it from black to white.

We know that they are racist again because of that substitution.

Now the question is she racist?

Is she racist?

If all you know about her is that she works for the New York Times, if you are on the left, you say, no, of course not.

If you're on the right, with just that information, yeah, probably.

Okay?

That's subjective.

That should be thrown out.

Is she racist?

Well, what do we know about her?

We know the tweets.

Well, the argument from the New York Times that they would not, this is a separate issue, they would not ever, ever tolerate from someone like me, is that she was engaged in throwing crap back online.

That somebody was attacking her, and then she attacked them, and then she said, Man, do I love making old white people sweat?

Or whatever she said.

Okay.

Well,

I guess you could say, do you have anything like that in your

Facebook?

Or have you ever said anything like that?

Have you ever really made somebody squirm online and go, man, it feels good to make these fill in the blank

sweat?

i mean i you know i understand it and i'm fine with it and that's why i always err on the side of no you shouldn't fire people and there are probably will be comments that are deserve firing i mean if for any other race these would absolutely deserve firing right i mean if someone said the thing the exact same thing she said with inserting black people or inserting jews or if you were anybody if you were white if you were said these things absolutely would be a fireable offense how and i think if you make a blanket policy that says no one ever gets fired for a tweet you will make mistakes probably

however it's okay i'd rather err on that side i'd rather err on people keeping their jobs and uh people not being fired for tweets even though some people probably should be and some there's at least an argument for it that's just not the right way to go let's i'd rather err on the side of freedom okay i'm not going to fire somebody over their tweets i'm going to fire them for real intellectual reasons i i mean you know why hate somebody because of their color when you can get to know them and hate them for good, solid reasons?

Okay.

I mean, this is so stupid.

If you are tweeting something, I want to look at the tweet and then I want to get to know you.

We know nothing about Sarah.

We know nothing about her.

This could be true.

This could not be true.

I lean towards she's probably a racist because you just don't say those things unless you feel you're under attack and you feel you have a right to put people in their place.

Does that sound familiar?

Because you feel like you've been so attacked.

And of course, like you, if you apply that standard and give people a pass for angry reactions,

you got to go back and hire a lot of people for the pass.

No.

The last thing is the New York Times.

Are they racist?

I don't know.

I think they're postmodernists.

I think that's what they are.

I think they're postmodernists.

I think they

don't don't believe in the Judeo-Christian traditions of this world.

And I don't mean like, we're all a Christian nation and everybody should be in church.

I mean the Judeo-Christian laws that gave birth to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I don't think that they are all with that.

How could they be?

They all run in the same circle with these eggheads from the universities who are telling us all of these crazy things.

How could they be?

So are you going to change the New York Times?

Nope.

Nope.

Not going to change them.

Here's an idea.

Why don't we look at this another way?

Instead of getting everybody fired because they've said something out of anger,

they're saying she was angry.

And so she did this because she felt she had a right.

Okay.

Why don't we just back off of everybody?

Why don't we just back off of everybody and say, you know what?

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

We are sitting here arguing about words.

And they will tell you, well, you have to understand the context of the words.

And, you know,

words are just words.

Yes.

Okay, that's good

until you start saying this group of people starts to use this kind of language and that kind that causes all of these kinds of problems without recognizing the problems you yourself are causing because of your words

it's just it's it's just really time to have um adult conversations and nobody in the media is going to do that because that doesn't give you ratings doesn't give you ratings if i wanted ratings today i would be tearing the new york times apart and I'd have good reason to do it.

That's not going to get you ratings.

What's going to get you ratings is doing that, tearing them apart.

What's going to save us as a people, what is going to save beyond the country, forget about the country.

We are not even talking about saving the country anymore.

We are talking about saving the Western way of life that gave birth to our country.

That's what's up on the auction block now, the Western civilization.

And if you want to do that, there have to be people who will stand up and say, I am not engaging in that.

Because there has to be a safe place that people can come to with different points of view and say, man, I am tired of that too.

I can't take it anymore.

Thank God.

There's a group of reasonable people that are not lighting the torches and setting off as a mob.

Bill O'Reilly's coming up in just a second i doubt he's going to be this charitable uh we're going to talk to him here in just a second wanted to share some recent feedback from our partners at palm beach letter and tika tawari's crypto course 97 of the listeners who have taken the cryptocurrency course are now giving it a four or five star rating Thanks, Glenn.

We've been waiting so much to learn about cryptos.

Didn't know where to get the information.

We didn't know who to ask.

We're looking forward to our continuation of learning.

Another person, courses open up a whole new world of opportunities.

I never invested in stocks, but I like the Bitcoin concept.

The presentation is clear and easy to understand.

I made 100 on all of the quizzes except for the first one when I misread the question.

I fully understand blockchain, the concept.

I intend to become a Bitcoin millionaire one small step at a time.

Thanks.

Everybody is saying the same thing.

97% of the people who are taking this smart crypto course is saying the same thing.

You don't even have to be an investor, but this is a part of the future.

Cryptocurrency and blockchain play a very important role in what's coming in the next 10 years.

Understand it now.

Get ahead of everyone else.

Be the person that can explain it.

SmartCryptoCourse.com.

Call 877-PBL Beck.

877-PBL Beck for more information or just go to smartcryptocourse.com.

Glenn Beck.

Bill O'Reilly's commentary

might be best described as a holy jihad.

I'm guessing.

We'll find out when we come back with Bill O'Reilly, the news recap of the week.

Glenn back.

Well, California progressivism never ceases to amaze anybody.

Now San Francisco is trying a weird form of forced capitalism, which is an oxymoron.

As usual, it's all about control.

This time it has to do with the massive campuses of big tech companies and all of the on-site amenities that they provide their employees.

Apparently, too many amenities.

It's too great to work at these places.

So the city is working on an ordinance now to force employees at these big tech firms to go out for lunch.

Now, if it passes...

This is crazy.

The ordinance will prohibit new campus construction from having a company cafeteria at all.

You see, the problem, according to the city's progressive officials, is the campuses are just too cushy, too convenient, too insular.

They're trying to force the employees from these companies to go away and stop getting those free lunches, you know, often gourmet free lunches that they're being offered as a perk of, you know, working at a particular company.

They want them to go out into the neighborhood and support local restaurants instead.

Well, now, San Francisco didn't come up with this brilliant plan on its own.

Mountain View, California, has already banned Facebook from serving free meals at its new campuses that opens there this fall.

But it gets better.

Under the new proposed San Francisco law, current employees would be grandfathered in so they could continue to use existing cafeterias.

But new employees would be banned from using the company cafeteria.

Oh, HR is going to love explaining this one.

No, I'm sorry.

You cannot use all of the perks.

San Francisco is upset that these tech companies got, oh, oh, oh, oh, here it is, the crux of the matter.

They're upset that these tech companies got tax breaks in 2011 to move into troubled areas of the city, this one called the mid-market.

Several companies, including Twitter, Square, and Uber, moved in, but the neighborhood hasn't taken off.

Why?

Aaron Peskin, a city supervisor who is co-sponsoring the bill, says, well, these tech companies have decided to leave their suburban campuses because their employees want to be in the city.

And the irony is they come to the city and then they're creating an isolated, walled-off campus.

Now, this is not against these folks.

It's for them.

It's to integrate them into the community.

Now, it could be that these progressives suddenly are all in love with a wall

because their tech workers prefer not to walk out, you know, to a local restaurant and, you know, risk a shiv here and there or, you know, getting jabbed with heroin needles by San Francisco's estimated 22,000 intervenous drug users.

There is also the fact that, well, I should say this portion of the program brought to you by new Pooperoni.

Pooperoni on San Francisco streets.

So new pooperoni, I mean, sure, it's delicious and it smells great, but maybe a wall would stop having the pooperoni in my campus on my front doorstep.

The city wants to ban the company cafeterias, and it just opened two safe heroin injection sites for the addicts.

Sounds great.

Progressive priorities.

They never cease to amaze.

It's Friday, August 3rd.

This is the Glen Beck program.

Man, I'm excited to hear from Bill O'Reilly today because the news this week is

Bill, do you even recognize your country anymore?

You know, I'm building a wall, and

I hope I'm going to be able to eat in my kitchen, but maybe I'm not.

You maybe not.

This portion of the program, again, brought to you by Pooperoni,

the San Francisco treat.

Poop Aroni on San Francisco streets.

So, my question is, Beck, what would Carl Malden think?

I think Carl Malden would have thrown himself off the bridge years ago.

And where's Dirty Harry when we need him?

So, so let's start with.

I think we need to start with the media, don't you, Bill?

Yeah, that's fine with me.

It's pretty insane.

Yeah, so let's see.

Do we start with the New York Times or CNN?

Your call?

Let's go to CNN because I have a message of the day just posted on billorilly.com about

Jim Acosta's display yesterday with Sarah Sanders.

So if you didn't see it, if your listeners didn't see it, basically the CNN chief White House correspondent cajoled, word of the day cajoled

Sarah Sanders

about Donald Trump's opinion that some journalists are enemies of the people.

So he was demanding, Costa was demanding that Ms.

Sanders give her opinion about the president's opinion.

That's what it came down to.

Is that the role at all of the press secretary?

Of course not.

The press secretary is there, as Ms.

Sanders eloquently stated, to reflect what the president says to the press corps so they can report it to the people,

not to give her opinion.

But what Costa obviously was trying to do is

create a wedge between Sanders and her boss.

And he was demanding, not asking,

demanding that she give her opinion on the Enemy of the People line.

So, number one, that was just insane.

And I'm sitting there going,

what happened to Jim Acosta's bosses at CNN?

Where are they?

They should have been on the cell phone going, Jim, you better sit down because this is inappropriate and is embarrassing our network.

But instead, as we've discussed before, this is the culture and the financial profile of CNN.

This is what their people are ordered to do.

Let's play the audio here for anybody who missed it.

Here's what Bill's talking about.

I think it would be a good thing if you were to say right here at this briefing that the press, the people who are gathered in this room right now, doing their jobs every day, asking questions of officials like the ones you brought forward earlier, are not the enemy of the people.

I think we deserve that.

I think the the president has made his position known.

I also think it's ironic.

I'm trying to answer your question.

I politely waited and I even called on you despite the fact that you interrupted me while calling on your colleague.

I said it's ironic.

I'm not going to ask you to do that question, which is why I interrupted.

I'm trying.

But if you if you finish, if you would not mind letting me have a follow-up, that would be fine.

It's ironic, Jim,

that not only you and the media attack the president for his rhetoric when they frequently lower the level of conversation in this country.

Repeatedly, repeatedly, the media resorts to personal attacks without any content other than to incite anger.

The media has attacked me personally on a number of occasions, including your own network, said I should be harassed as a life sentence, that I should be choked.

ICE officials are not welcomed in their place of worship and personal information is shared on the internet.

When I was hosted by the Correspondents Association, of which almost all of you are members of, you brought a comedian up to attack my appearance and call me a traitor to my own gender.

In fact, as I know,

as far as I know, I'm the first press secretary in the history of the United States that's required Secret Service protection.

The media continues to ratchet up the verbal assault against the president and everyone in this administration.

And certainly we have a role to play, but the media has a role to play for the discourse in this country as well.

And Sarah, if you don't mind,

if I may follow up, if I may follow up, excuse me, you did not say in the course of those remarks that you just made that the press is not the enemy of the the people.

Unbelievable.

Are we to take it from what you just said?

We all get put through the ringer, we all get put in the meat grinder in this town, and you're no exception.

And I'm sorry that that happened to you.

I wish that that had not happened.

But

for the sake of

this room, the people who are in this room, this democracy, this country, all the people around the world are watching what you're saying, Sarah, and the White House for the United States of America, the President of the United States, should not refer to us as the enemy of the people.

His own daughter acknowledges that, and all I'm asking you to do, Sarah, is to acknowledge that right now and right here.

I appreciate your passion.

I share it.

I've addressed this question.

I've addressed my personal feelings.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the President.

He's made his comments clear.

That's absolutely appropriate.

Everything she said was absolutely appropriate.

Okay,

so you know what I do.

I not only analyze the news, but I give you the why of it, not just the what of it.

And again, this is a post on billorilly.com if you want to read the whole thing.

What Acosta is doing, in addition to pleasing his masters at CNN, and by the way, that's going to change once ATT gets in there because CNN's ratings are terrible and they're an embarrassment now.

Did you see the latest poll?

This was actually posted

just this week, and it's gotten very little play.

That CNN is now the ninth trusted news source, the ninth media.

Yeah, Trump has succeeded, and then CNN has helped them in demonizing the network.

And I don't think that that is a surprise.

But getting back to Acosta, why is Acosta doing what he's doing?

Well, he's following in the great tradition of Dan Rather and Richard Nixon and Sam Donaldson and Ronald Reagan.

That's what Acosta is doing.

Acosta knows that before Donald Trump, nobody knew who he was, wasn't making a lot of money.

He was running around going nowhere.

And he said, you know what, I I really despise Donald Trump, and Acosta does personally.

And so I'm going to make a career out of torturing him and haranguing his people.

And therefore, that's going to catapult me onto the Glenn Beck program with Bill O'Reilly, and everyone will be talking about me.

And my bosses will like that, so they'll give me more money.

And since I despise Trump anyway, there's no downside for me.

That's exactly what Jim Acosta is doing.

Could I give another version of that that leads to the exact same place?

He was a, you know, he was a relative nobody, that nobody knew who he was.

Sounds familiar, kind of like me, relatively nobody knew who he was.

But he actually believes this guy is a danger,

and his bosses do too, and they let him go because they want to stop this trend of Donald Trump and what Donald Trump is doing.

And so he just does it because he believes he's in his own mind.

He's not doing it for money.

He's doing it because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

Well, sure, and that's true.

These zealots believe that Donald Trump is a danger to America, and therefore any vehicle that can diminish him or get him out of that office is legitimate, whether it's honest or not.

That's true.

They're true believers.

Rather was a true believer.

He hated Nixon.

Donaldson was a true believer.

He hated Reagan.

I was there.

I saw it.

I saw it personally personally with my own eyes.

Okay?

So yeah, that's fine.

But there's supposed to be some kind of responsibility on the part of the press.

And going in to try to embarrass on a daily basis a sitting administration with no intent of finding the truth about anything

is corruption.

It's simply corruption.

And that's what you're seeing right before your eyes.

You play that clip to Americans, the clip with Acosta and Sarah Sanders, and you do a poll on it.

Sarah Sanders is going to win 730.

You know, the 30 who hate Trump are going to side with Acosta.

But rational, fair-minded people going, the guy's out of line.

She's under no mandate to give her opinion.

And here's the final thing.

Acosta doesn't care what Sarah Sanders thinks.

Why would he care?

Why would he care if Sarah Sanders thinks the press is the enemy of the people?

I mean, he doesn't care.

It's so hollow and phony.

He's just using it as a staged mechanism to get himself on the Glenn Beck radio program.

So

I doubt that his goal.

But

let me switch topics because one of the problems, not topics, angles.

One of the problems that I have, and I think the American people have, and we'll get into the New York Times debacle this week coming up in a second, but

is

the amazing lack of self-awareness that they are stirring the American people up using tactics that they said were terrifying, diabolical, and destructive to the state.

That when Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck were on Fox News, we were a danger to the Republic because of what we did in our two hours.

And yet

they're doing it 24-7, and they don't seem to recognize it.

And stories like this are downplayed.

Play the audio, please, Sarah, of the

Representative Scalise, the guy who is shot by a leftist when they tried to kill 30% of our Congress.

One guy, a Bernie Sanders volunteer in 2017, he just had a new credible death threat.

Listen to this.

You are taking ours.

We are taking yours.

Anytime, anywhere.

We know where they are.

We are not going to feed them sandwiches.

We are going to feed them lead.

Make no mistake, you will pay.

Ojo por ojo, diente por diente.

In Spanish, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

That is our law.

We are the majority.

Have a good day.

Those voicemails were reported to the Capitol Police, and in each instance, the Capitol Police traced those phone calls and those voicemails to an individual identified as Carlos Bayon, age 63 of Grand Island, New York.

Mr.

Bayon Bayonne has been charged in a criminal complaint here in the Western District of New York with interstate communication of a threat.

We'll get Bill O'Reilly's comment on that and the New York Times and the rest of the news of the week when we come back.

First, I want to thank our sponsor making this half hour possible.

It is Simply Safe Home Security, a really great security system.

And you need security in your home.

But, you know, if you've ever bought a home and they had the old security system

installed, and then you have to sign up with that security company, otherwise, you know, you can't use the system and somebody else has to come in and rewire and put everything else in.

And then you're locked into like a four-year contract.

No, thank you.

Simply Safe, Simply Safe is this amazing company that started out with five people.

They were just

announced this week.

They're now a billion-dollar company.

When they started with me, they had five people.

And they were just trying to make a better alarm system for your house, better security that didn't have contracts.

You weren't spending an arm and a leg.

It was your system,

and the monitoring was $14.99 a month.

That's simply safe.

That's why they're now worth a billion-dollar company because they know how to build it right.

Simply safe.

I want you to go see their system and see how much money you're going to save and how protected you and your family will be.

You'll rest well when you're away on vacation or, you know, at night during the day.

SimplySafe.

Get your SimplySafe system now and 10% off of that system at simply safeback.com.

That's simply safeback.com.

10% off your home security system right now at simplysafeback.com.

So, Bill, last night I was having dinner with my kids and we were talking about this thing with Steve Scalise and I said, you know, he's got another threat and it's credible.

And my adult children, my adult children at the dinner table said to me, Dad, who's Steve again?

And I said, the congressman that was shot.

When was he shot?

He was shot at the baseball diamond.

What baseball diamond?

The baseball diamond a year ago when they tried to kill 30% of what?

30% of Congress.

They tried to kill, and it was a guy who was a Bernie Sanders.

In my family, My older children didn't know.

Now they had heard about it, but they didn't really know what the story was back at the time.

Just thought it was no big deal.

I'm not sure they thought it was no big deal.

I just think there's so much chaos in this country now every day that people forget because they're just overwhelmed.

You know, I don't know your kids, but it would seem to me that they were interested enough to ask you about it now.

Oh, yeah, no,

they just, they were shocked last night that

this wasn't known by by them and everybody else and was a very big deal.

30% of the Congress could have been killed.

Yeah, it was covered when it happened, I thought it responsibly.

But I just think we're in a society now where it's just

one atrocity after another,

and people are just overwhelmed.

They can't retain.

I mean, if you ask about mass shootings, I mean, you're not going to be able to get folks to say where they were.

Maybe they'll remember the Florida one, but

the others they won't remember because it's just too much.

We live in a real chaotic time.

So when we go to,

I mean, I know you have security.

I have security.

We've had it for a while.

We've had the left

in organized campaigns try to and effectively get you out.

They tried and tried and tried for a long time to destroy me, and you could make a good case that they did a pretty good job on both of us.

They don't see that as a problem.

Now it's happening to them, and they seem to think that it's a problem.

Well,

you know,

we're living in a time now where

because the press does not seek the truth about anything, that

charlatans and dangerous organized zealots can level accusations,

and corporations buckle

because they don't want boycotts, they don't want sponsors this, they don't want bad Me Too publicity, whatever it may be.

And everybody knows that.

So it's a lot easier now than it was three years ago to destroy people.

And every person I know, and I know them all, that gives opinion on television is in danger.

Yes.

Yes, they are.

We all are.

All right.

Bill O'Reilly.

We'll come back with,

I think, maybe the definition of racism first as we go to the New York Times story.

Next.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

We do have breaking news, something that is, I think, really important, and we're trying to get somebody who is actually on the scene before the end of the show today.

Stu, do you have that news?

Yeah, Joe Paris at KTVP in

Boise has this update for you, and I hope you're following this.

About 100 goats are on the loose right now in a Boise neighborhood.

They are going from house to house, eating everything in sight.

Nobody has a clue where they came from.

Updates to follow.

Okay, so we'll give you those updates as they.

When he started in, he said, Have you heard the?

I mean, there's a hundred goats.

And he could have said, Glenn, there's breaking news.

100 goats have just been appointed as advisors to the 12 chairs of the Fed.

And I would have been like, hmm, yeah, probably.

That actually makes more sense than most of the news today.

Bill,

let's go to the woman who is

now on the editorial board of

the New York Times.

I'm sure you've read the tweets that she wrote.

She's Asian.

She wrote them about white people and how she likes to make old white people uncomfortable.

And

I think one of her hashtags was, what was it, white people die or something like that?

Yeah, it's basically white men.

Yeah.

She doesn't like white men.

Yes.

So racist?

Are those tweets?

Let me take this and break it down.

Are those tweets racist?

Yes.

Why?

They target a

group of people based on skin color.

Okay.

Question two, is she racist?

I don't know.

People do this to curry favor and to get themselves attention, just like the Acosta thing we're talking about.

It worked in her case.

She's hired by the New York Times to be on the editorial board.

Is it?

So it worked.

Is the New York Times,

by knowing that she had written these things,

are they racist?

You know, I never do that because I just think throwing that R-word around

is not what.

Good for you.

You answer those questions exactly the way I did.

Last question.

Last question.

Yes.

Should the New York Times fire her?

Well, I mean, should they?

They never should have hired her in the first place.

They know she is.

I mean, they know.

But again, let's go to the why.

You know, this is the O'Reilly formula on billorilly.com, the why behind it.

Okay, so everybody who's sane is going, how could this happen?

And this woman obviously is a hater.

And

how could she get this position at the New York Times?

Well, if you know anything about that operation, you know their editorial philosophy is that white men have destroyed the country.

That's white supremacy, white privilege.

May I go a step further?

I said this morning that

they're cut from the postmodernist

cloth that says that

the Judeo-Christian Western culture is the sickness that has swept the planet.

And so anything that helped create that is bad.

Yeah, and who runs that culture?

Yes.

White men.

Right.

Okay, so if you look at their editorial policies, the New York Times wants open borders.

They don't want any enforcement of immigration law.

They want amnesty for everybody here.

And if you show up and say, I need asylum, you get it.

All right.

So why do they want that?

They know that already 20 million people have entered the country illegally,

and they applaud the news that white people are now going to be a minority in the United States.

New York Times thinks that's great, all right, because the oppression brought by white people in Judeo-Christian culture must be obliterated.

And the best way to obliterate it is to convince all Americans that white men are bad.

And that's the philosophy of the paper.

paper.

The last piece here is

we have suddenly gotten good at doing and turning the tables.

We have suddenly gotten good at saying, oh, really?

Well, two can play at that game.

And there have been a lot of firings.

However, there's also been a lot of firings on the other side.

And it feels good to point out the hypocrisy of the New York Times, because if this would have been said about any other race by a white person, they would have been fired.

And we all know it.

Sure, but the New York Times has shifted into we don't care what Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and other white men think because our audience is not that.

We are marketing our newspaper to a sliver of the American people who think the way we do.

We're not interested in covering the news or finding the truth about anything.

We're interested in destroying the current fabric of the country, destroying the president, and getting in another Barack Obama.

That's what we're interested in doing, and our readership will uphold it.

Now, they're hemorrhaging money over there, like the despicable New York Daily News, which is just about out of business now.

The New York Times is in financial trouble because you can't really run an operation at that level by narrow casting, which is what they're doing.

But it is shocking that this kind of a person would be hired to be on your editorial board and the paper would defend the person, which they did today.

So, what do we so I said today, you know, first they came for, you know, Kevin Williamson, and they didn't say anything because they weren't Kevin Williamson.

You know,

we're living the Nemolar poem.

I think we are starting to go down this really frightening road of a mob, and we've been going down it for a while, but now both sides are doing it, and it feels really good.

But I made

a pretty bold declaration in hour number one today.

I am not going over the cliff with the rest of humanity, even though it feels really good.

What should we be doing as people?

Well, I think the individual American is angry on both sides.

So we have that anger and you have it equally divided.

I talked to Victor Davis Hansen yesterday who's a very, very smart guy.

And that's posted on billorilly.com if you want to hear that.

And he basically said, unlike the Vietnam War, which was maybe 65, 35

against the government, most people stood with the government even though they didn't like the war.

Now we have 50% of the people who are actively trying to undermine the government and the other 50%

saying that's wrong.

So you really have a social civil war here.

Now, as far as individuals are concerned, I always tell people you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

So what you need to do is take the high road and whatever you do.

But people will say but people will say you we get our butt kicked.

Then they just do what they want.

You can expose it and you can challenge it

and it's effective to do that.

I mean, then why do they think they want to silence voices like mine and yours

and other people in in the media that that go against the progressive movement?

Because it is effective.

I mean people do step back and go, you know what?

Do I really want a Stalinist society?

Do I want a San Francisco telling me where I have to have lunch?

Do I really want that?

And the answer is no.

So you can win the propaganda war in the sense that you can make a stronger case.

But it's vicious.

I mean, it look, just compare Les Moonves to Roger Ailes.

Roger Ailes is dead because he was attacked ceaselessly, mercilessly.

Okay?

And if you stack up allegations, Ailes versus Moonvez, it's not even close, yet Moonvez still maintains his job as the head of CBS.

I mean, if any fair-minded person just looked, one guy's dead, and the other guy's still doing a conference call on earnings.

Well, I will tell you this.

I personally think CBS has been the most rational this week.

It's the way Ailes and everybody else should have been dealt with, and that is what are the facts independent, and if it is a fair independent, they're listening truly to both sides.

I have no quibble with that.

Right.

Because due process has to be

told.

Yes.

Okay?

But it's not CBS that I'm criticizing.

It's the coverage.

Yes.

Yes.

It's the news coverage.

Yes.

Okay?

So you get one thing is we're going to kill this man, Roger Ailes, and they did.

He's dead.

But the other guy, we'll criticize him with me too.

We'll do that.

But we're not going to attack his family.

I mean,

it is the difference that the media is missing with the Trump coverage.

You know, there are things to cover with Donald Trump that aren't good,

but they cover absolutely everything like it is, you know, the Ebola virus.

And they don't cover anything that's positive.

Correct.

They don't cover the employment figures in the minority communities and how a lot of those neighborhoods are being revitalized because now there's work for people who want it.

They don't cover that.

All right, because that's not in their agenda.

Their agenda is to get him out.

Their agenda was to kill Fox News.

I'm going to lose.

I'm going to run out of time here.

I've got to ask you one more question, and that is on

What's His Face that went to trial this week.

What's What's his name?

Manafort.

Manafort.

Manafort, I'm tired of the coverage of this.

This is the Manafort story as I understand it and believe it to be.

Manafort is a dirty, corrupt guy.

He's been dirty and corrupt long before he met

Donald Trump.

His business dealings are shady.

He has dealt with thugs, dictators, and killers that has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

He should most likely go to jail just on what I know, but I'll let a court decide.

This is

a reasonable trial, but it has nothing to do with collusion and Donald Trump.

And that's not the story.

The right is saying this guy should never be prosecuted, and the left is saying this proves Donald Trump, and neither of those are true.

Well, I haven't heard anybody on the right saying he hasn't been prosecuted.

He should be prosecuted.

I haven't heard that.

Because the guy, if he is guilty of not paying taxes on $60 million, I mean, it's, you know, sha-na-na-na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye.

I mean, that's just the way it is.

But there is one element that does attach to Trump, and that's that.

And the judge in the case pointed it out verbally.

He said, look, I know what this prosecution is about.

It's about getting Manaford to say bad things about Trump for a lighter sentence.

That's what it's about.

Right.

And so now the American people know what it's about.

Right.

And that is a separate, we conflate everything.

That's a separate issue.

The guy is dirty, I think, and should go to jail just based on what I've been, I've covered this guy for a while.

You know, before he joined Trump, when Trump picked him, I was like, no, no, no, no, no, no, really bad guy.

So we knew who he was, and he should most likely go to jail if they can prove his guilt.

However,

you know, that's a separate issue from they're just trying trying to squeeze him because the problem is he's not the only guy that's dirty.

You got guys dirty on the on the Democratic side that are just as dirty as Manafort.

Sure.

I mean, that lobbying thing is just as corrupt as it gets.

Cohen's involved with that, too.

Yeah, well,

so is Podesta, who just walks out and closes his business so no questions are asked.

Bill O'Reilly, thanks so much for being on the program.

I want to say one real quick thing.

I'm going to delay the release of Killing the SS because I don't want it to coincide with your book on September.

You've got to be kidding me.

You are not going to believe this.

We were talking about delaying the release just because.

Just because.

But there's another factor that we'll talk about, I hope, next week.

Okay.

And that's Bob Woodward.

Ah.

Okay.

Good, good.

Woodward as well.

So what's the release date now, Bill?

I don't have a firm one, but I'm not going to compete with Beck on the same week.

I told my publisher I don't want to do that.

Yeah, right.

No, I did.

Really?

That is really kind of you.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

Is this the week that Bob Woodward's releasing his book?

September 11th, but the New York Times will put it at number one no matter what.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Bill.

I appreciate it.

Hey, guys.

All right.

Good.

All right.

Let me tell you about Casper.

He said,

I'm not doing it.

His book is coming out the week before.

He'll be number one, and then I will lose my number one position.

It had nothing to do with me.

That's the no spin zone.

That's the no spin zone.

All right.

It is in the middle of the night and you're tossing and turning.

You're not sleeping.

You're drenched, covered in sweat.

You could run the AC.

You could run a fan all night and try to keep cool.

Or you do what I did.

Last night I had the best sleep I have had in so long.

Casper mattress.

Man, there is nothing like being really tired and hitting the bed after a long day and just being comfortable and being able to sleep and then wake up feeling good.

Your body's not sore because of the mattress.

Casper.com.

I want you to call, use the promo code Beck.

You're going to save about $50 on let me share.

Yeah, $50 towards the purchase of a select mattress.

It's at casper.com.

Casper.com.

You have to use the promo code Beck.

Try it in your own home for 100 nights, risk-free.

You're going to sleep cool and comfortable.

You're going to wake up refreshed.

Try it for 100 nights.

You don't like it?

They come and pick it up and they refund every single penny.

Casper.com, promo code Beck.

Terms and conditions do apply.

If you're watching on the Blaze, I just retweeted some live video from Phoenix.

If you're watching on the Blaze now, can you pull that feed up?

Look at this.

This is live from Phoenix, a dust storm.

I mean, it looks like the mummy.

Doesn't it?

Yeah, it looks like a Dubai or something.

All caused by the rhetoric of Donald Trump.

I'm sure.

I'm sure of it.

It's got to be.

Do you think it's Trump's fault?

I do.

Has anybody checked on Jim Acosta?

Where is he?

Does anybody know?

Is he in Phoenix?

If Trump makes comments today, I know they'll say Trump comments amid dust storms he created.

Or it could be the goats, too.

Is it trampling goats?

It could be.

The goats are on the loose.

Do we have an update on the goats?

We are starting to see now that it appears the goat situation may be under control.

We don't know.

We don't know.

Don't say those things and report fake news.

The goats may still be out of control.

I feel like we lose the ratings bonus if we say that it's under control.

So I'm going to deny that right now.

Coisey may be trampled by free-range goats,

and we'll give that to you in just a second.

Is that dust storm not terrifying?

If you are listening to us in Phoenix and you are going through it, call us.

I'd love to know what it looks like in the, you know, inside the dust storm.

Call us if you're listening to us in Phoenix.

Back in just a second.

Glenn, back.

There's a man rustling cattle.

There's a dangerous man on the loose.

I got the rope.

We got the tree.

We just don't have the man.

You're all deputized now.

In the 1800s, that's how it happened.

In the 1900s,

first they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I'm not a Jew.

And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

That's how it happened in the 1900s.

How does it happen now?

Have you seen what they said on Twitter?

Have you seen what they said on Facebook?

Do you know who their friends are?

Do you realize what they've just read?

The anonymous fanatics on Twitter.

have influenced the media once again.

The outrage mob has struck once more.

And I'm not talking about the outrage from yesterday with the New York Times.

No, no, no.

This time the victim is Chris Rock.

And his crime?

Tweeting a link to an article about comedy

from a conservative news site.

Let me say that again.

His crime.

is tweeting a link to an article about comedy from a conservative news site.

Chris Rock, who as a comedian has had his fair share of saying occasionally really hilarious and occasionally offensive things.

In this case, he didn't say anything.

He didn't say anything at all.

At all.

Like the Shapiro and DuBlasse situation, the whole outrage started with an act of camaraderie.

The article is well-meaning.

He isn't there to blow the, I'm quoting, he isn't there to blow the lid off of any hot stories or try to present his own politics as the only way, the author writes.

He simply has coffee with people he finds funny, and whatever they discuss, well, whatever they feel like.

This was an article talking about the Seinfeld show.

The mere act of mentioning this whole debacle right now empowers the idiocy that drives this mentality.

So, what are you going to do today?

Yesterday we burned some books.

What can we do today?

We have to dismantle the outrage platform.

We have to get control of our own outrage.

How long is Twitter going to serve as the cultural gallows?

Because that's what they are.

The gallows.

More importantly, when is the power of anonymous people online going to dwindle?

When are these lynch mobs going to go away?

When will we finally say, I don't want to be a part or related to in any way, shape, or form or give power to any mob?

This is something that I've written about in my new book that's coming out next month called Addicted to Outrage.

And I think it's really important that we as a culture confront the bully mentality that social media has taken.

It is deeply rooted in our culture of outrage.

And you know what?

The media is to blame.

If the media just stop amplifying the platform, by the way, I

put myself in the media.

No one would feel empowered enough to take people down, to wreck their lives.

And for what?

How many of these forest fires of outrage have actually accomplished anything positive?

Very few.

And they are becoming fewer by the day.

Now, what they are beginning to accomplish is just dividing our country further, tearing us apart, and making each side outrageously angry at the other.

And that is something we certainly do not need more of.

It's Friday, August 3rd.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Look,

here's the real problem.

And Stu and I have talked around it today, but we haven't really discussed it.

It feels good that we're actually good at this now.

You know, this is what they've been doing to us forever, forever.

They've been taking our stuff out of context.

They've been taking the slightest offense.

And they've been taking it and they've been hammering us and they've been destroying us.

Is that not what they've been doing?

Oh, they've been doing that.

The way you phrased that was: it feels good that we're good at this now.

There's a part of me

that embraces that.

However, I think I find myself more disappointed that we would want to apply that standard to anyone else.

So I agree with you.

I absolutely agree with you.

I'm talking about the

gut

level.

You SOBs have been doing this forever.

Yeah.

Oh, you don't like it.

Oh, really?

Oh, it hurts.

Oh, you smoothed the road.

You paved it, and now you're upset.

People are driving down it.

I mean, it's.

And that is, you're right.

To hear Jim Acosta say, you know, hey, well, you get secret service protection and we don't.

Yeah, you know how much I've spent about $6 million in the last 15 years on security.

That's a lot of money.

That's a lot of money.

Would have have been better utilized in raises for employees, for example.

Anything, anything.

But I don't take a chance with my family's.

I don't take a chance with my family's life.

Of course.

My family has been threatened.

For a while, we lived in practically a prison because of the threats.

And to hear the CNN people talk about, oh, well, you know,

we don't have.

Excuse me?

Well, to be fair, they did a lot of segments talking about how bad it was and the pressure you were under and the fact that you had to deal with all these threats.

That was a a big topic of discussion.

No, it was never.

Oh, really?

Never?

It was never.

Oh, okay.

It was never.

It was never.

Never.

They did the same thing.

And so it is really, really hard.

I mean,

I listen to these crybabies at CNN.

See, that's unfair of me.

That's unfair of me because I know what they're going through.

But they won't listen to somebody, just like they said about me.

You have no idea what you're even doing.

Well, you know what?

Part of that is true.

Part of that was you're right.

I didn't.

I didn't.

I'm not changing any of my opinions,

but I should have changed my approach, perhaps.

Now, I could say the same thing and have tried to say the same thing to the left.

Look, guys, I'm not asking you to change your opinion.

I'm asking you to change your approach.

You are doing damage that will haunt you for the rest of your life i'm beginning to think now no it won't they don't have any conscience they don't have any any any opportunity ever to reflect because everyone they're surrounded by is part of the cheering section it's like they live as bill maher with that audience traveling with them all the time

And occasionally, they'll go to a Trump rally and they'll meet these people.

They're out of control.

They all think that we're bad without ever asking themselves, what is it we're doing that is causing 50% of the nation?

Now, it is really easy for you to sit there, CNN, and to think, nothing.

We're not doing anything.

Just as I did.

I'm not doing anything.

I'm speaking the truth.

I'm speaking truth to power.

And that indeed was true.

However, my approach,

coupled with the way Media Matters and everyone else took everything out of context and you

supported it,

made things much worse in the country and

caused real damage to me.

and to my family and to my safety.

But you didn't care because you said, well, you just brought it upon yourself.

You deserve it.

They're still saying that.

You deserve it.

Okay, well, what are you going to do, CNN?

You got 50% of the country.

Now, some of us, I did, I recognized, you know what?

This whole American experiment doesn't work with only 50% of the country.

We have to find a way to come back together.

Otherwise, some point, somebody's going to have power and get so pissed off and say, it's those people, because this is the way history happens, and we're going to round up or kill those people.

They have to be silenced.

And we're already standing at the gallows of Twitter every day.

This is the beginning of people being rounded up.

We are having McCarthy hearings without McCarthy, without the Congress, and without hearings.

We're having the Twitter hearings.

It's really true.

There's no hearing anymore.

There's no hearing.

Nobody is standing up saying, have you no shame?

Because they don't have an opportunity to even talk back.

Most of the times you don't even know what you're accused of.

Yeah, it really is amazing.

And, you know, it's, it's, it's frustrating, but the argument to maintain this standard, I think, is weak, right?

We are, let's say, a victim of someone on our side making a, maybe a joke or an off-color comment or something that's not really that serious and they get fired for.

Kevin Williamson, maybe being the best example of this recently, where he loses his job at the the Atlantic completely unfairly over a nonsensical Twitter outrage.

So the arguments split there, right?

What do you do?

Next time, there's one that comes out.

Kind of the same situation.

I think, you know, there's more evidence here for the New York Times person to be fired than Kevin.

I mean, Kevin was making a point, bringing it to its logical extreme,

and he's talked about it on the show this week.

You know, here she's making blatantly racist comments.

I mean, blatantly racist comments.

So there might even be better argument for her to be fired than Kevin.

However, if we believe the Kevin thing was wrong and we apply the same standard to the other side, our argument purely is two wrongs make a right.

We are saying, you know what, we can't.

We keep getting beat up.

We have to do something different.

We have to go over and use their terrible standard on other people because two wrongs make a right.

Or at least it's not as much a wrong.

And I don't know.

I just don't want to go down that road personally.

I can understand you do.

I mean, we have, you know, we talk about this a lot about, we love when liberals eat their own.

It's a fun, there's a bit

of satisfaction in it.

It's because, oh, really?

You were part of the mob.

First they came for Glenn Beck, then they came for Bill O'Reilly.

You said nothing because you weren't.

And now they're coming for you, and there's no one left to defend it.

I mean, you brought up media matters.

Here's an organization,

you know, as stated by her, partially created by Hillary Clinton, along with money from George Soros and all the big names you've heard over the years, that was specifically designed, specifically designed to take comments out of context, plaster them all over the media to ruin people's lives.

That is absolutely their only jobs in the world.

Okay.

They created organizations and funded them with tens of millions of dollars for this purpose.

And now they're like, well, we have to secret, we have to really look at her comments on Twitter.

Were they fairly, she was, maybe she was doing satire.

Maybe, I don't know, maybe she was trying to respond with equal amounts of animosity to make a point.

Whatever this is, by the way, all those are fair, fine arguments that I actually side with.

I don't think any of these people should be getting fired.

But the idea that the same group that took the research directly from the interns at Media Matters and put it all over their newspapers for years and years and years.

And would accept comedy, sarcasm,

subtlety, context, none of it.

All of a sudden, they're going through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify why this one is different.

And that is incredibly frustrating.

I wish there would be a little bit of a self-examination here.

Let's just say, let's do a guide.

Tell me if you think I'm wrong here.

Quick guide for media sources who have these situations where someone on their side is involved in a Twitter controversy.

One, take the controversial comments and flip the keyword.

Then, importantly, say it out loud to yourself.

Take white and turn it to black and say it out loud.

Would you, do you think that feels racist?

Would you fire a person who said it with the other word involved?

Would you be friends with that person?

Would you defend that person?

And I think you should go a step further.

If you think it's not racist, then you should tweet it.

Just reverse it from white to black.

And you know what?

From black to white.

And do it without context.

Don't put any context around it because you're not going to allow context in some of these situations.

Just tweet it out there.

Say it to yourself.

Tweet it out there if you don't think it's racist with the other word.

Were you consistent in your response when you changed the word?

When you changed it from white to black?

Did you say the first time it was okay and the second time you should fire the person?

Because if so, you're applying a double standard.

But that doesn't mean your job is done.

You got more to do.

Ask yourself, what part of the standard was flawed?

What part of your analysis was flawed if you're applying a double standard?

Should you attack and fire more people and maintain your previous standard?

Or should you become more lenient with what you allow?

Think about that.

Which one is it?

Pick one.

You're still not done with this difficult process, however.

Pick one of those, then write it down.

Put it in giant font, tape it all over your office, and apply it consistently next time, regardless of party.

Apply that standard consistently next time, whichever one you pick.

If you are going to be for firing everybody every time something controversial is

unearthed, okay, but apply it consistently.

The same thing the other way.

All right.

So let me tell you why you're absolutely right, but you're expecting something to happen that cannot happen.

It cannot happen.

And it's not that, oh, they just won't do it.

No, it cannot happen.

And I'll explain why here in a second.

Filter by air pollution.

National parks is as bad as the top 20 major cities.

And because the parks are downwind from, you know, the air pollution sources, you know, major highways, urban pollutants.

So you get it.

Can you imagine what it is?

We have anybody online yet from Phoenix.

We got to get somebody online from Phoenix who is

sitting in that.

We do?

We'll get to them.

Okay, we'll get to them.

If you're in Phoenix and you were part of that amazing sandstorm that was rolling through, I want to hear from you.

But can you imagine how dirty the filters are now today?

You have to change your filters, and you don't need a sandstorm to do it.

You just need regular life.

Go to filterbuy.com and keep a fresh set of filters in your home central air system because

your air conditioning is working overtime this summer, and if it gets clogged or is dirty at all, it just slows down and will cause problems with your HVAC system.

Filter Buy, family-owned business.

All the filters are made right here in America and they have auto-delivery, so you don't ever have to worry about it anymore.

They come right to your door, you don't have to go to Home Depot, you don't even have to think about it.

Save time, save money, and breathe better with filterbuy.com.

That's filterbuy.com.

Filterbuy.com.

Glenn Bax.

Stu, what are you looking for when you say, let's, you know, let's let's reason this out.

What are you looking to accomplish?

What are you looking for?

I mean,

I want a standard applied consistently.

Consistency.

Ideally, the one that is people are able to speak their mind and not

be taken out of context.

But you're looking for people to engage in critical thinking.

Yes.

You're looking for consistency.

Yes.

You're looking for some sort of truth or principle.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Never going to happen and cannot happen.

It, listen to me, cannot happen.

And until you understand this principle, it's like understanding progressivism.

If you didn't understand progressivism, you'd have no idea how to deal with it.

If you do not understand the goal of postmodernism, you cannot survive.

We will lose this fight.

What you're asking will not

happen

because the goal goal of postmodernism is to destroy the Western way of life, okay?

The Western culture.

Critical thinking and scientific analysis is what created this culture, okay?

A set of principles and truths.

They created this culture.

It built what we have.

And they believe what we have is oppressive, wrong.

It must be stopped.

It gave us the principles that created this stable culture that was built on certain truths that we found self-evident.

Those truths, that stability, that culture, they say are all wrong.

Okay?

So if you're setting out to destroy it,

anything that

is helping stabilize, prop up, or continue the Western set of values has to be destroyed.

Okay, there is, what do they set out?

There are no truth.

There is no truth.

There is no truth.

There's no objective truth.

It's all subjective.

Okay.

Well, if it's all subjective and your goal is to destroy the Western way of life, then you'll use any tool you have to.

And that tool works for me, but not for you, because you are propping up the system and continuing these truths.

You must be destroyed for me to accomplish my goal.

Glenn, back,

Mercury.

Welcome to the program.

Glad you're here.

We have a goat update.

We have a goat update?

We do.

Okay.

Pat Gray joins us.

Pat, I don't know if you've heard the developing story that's happened today.

We started with breaking.

About a thousand goats are on the loose right now in a Boise neighborhood.

Actually, a hundred, not a thousand.

They are going.

That would have been really

crazy.

In fact, ten times as crazy, almost exactly.

They are going house to house, eating everything in sight.

No one has a clue where they came from.

Updates to follow.

And they have pictures of just goats all over people's lawns trying to climb trees and eating things off.

Climbing

goats trying to climb trees.

Yeah, I've seen the video.

It's pretty amazing.

They're leaning that going up against them, trying to climb the tree.

I don't think they're actually trying to climb the tree.

I disagree.

They're trying to get some leaves off of the tree.

However, we do have this:

the loose goats have been cornered

and loaded back onto a truck owned by the company werentgoats.com.

So apparently, shut up.

We rentgoats.com exists, number one.

And number two, I don't know if they left their truck open and the goats just are like, you know what, we're going to get out and get something to eat.

This just gives me all kinds of ideas.

What can I do?

Who could I deliver a truckload of goats to?

That would be really satisfying.

If you have an enemy, just someone just drudges you.

Job a couple hundred goats off of the lawn.

Two can play at this game.

Two can play at this game.

Poor Jim Acosta soon is going to have a hundred goats on his front lawn.

So we were just talking about

why you cannot connect with

truth in reality, why it will never happen.

Because if the goal of a postmodernist is to destroy the Western way of life, to destroy the hierarchy, the things that got that hierarchy into place, reason, scientific analysis, principles, truth.

And if you are standing up for those principles and those truths that built this culture, then you are part of the problem.

And they can use it against you because you are part of the problem.

But they're not guilty of anything because their goal was to destroy the culture.

And this is why it's so important that we do not change our principles, why we don't get involved in these things.

Because

what is one of the key factors of the Western culture?

Why have we been so successful in America?

Because we're stable.

We're stable.

We don't kill each other.

We don't have the strife that everybody else has.

We're a stable nation.

We've found a way to live together for a very long time.

Well, now we we've lost that ability to live together and so everything if your goal is to destabilize and to destroy the culture what you need is somebody to get off of those principles forget the principles forget the truth forget kindness forget your judeo-christian thoughts forget all of those things win destroy beat them now you're playing and it feels good two can play at this game.

Oh, really?

You think you've been good?

Look, we're getting pretty good at this now, aren't we?

That should terrify you if you care about America and the Western way of life.

Because the fastest way to get us to destroy is them to not play by the rules, for them not to engage in reason.

Only so we will then as well.

Once we're both doing it,

where is the culture?

Where are the truths and the principles that built us?

Nowhere.

Because it strikes me as we're going down that road a little bit on the right with some of these controversies where we're saying, hey, the standard you applied to

my ally was unfair.

It was a terrible standard and what you did was completely wrong.

Now the same thing happens to someone on the other side and we say, hey, you know that really crappy standard we all hated?

Let's apply it to them.

And there's a temptation, I think, that's really sensible.

Have you heard the latest with the latest Twitter hanging?

What's the latest in your head?

It's the latest Twitter hanging.

New York Times?

Yeah, probably.

Okay.

No, there's a new one today.

Hang on.

Do we have the addicted to outrage?

Pat hasn't had his fix yet today, apparently.

Addicted to outrage.

Put this needle in your arm.

Okay.

Chris Rock just tweeted an article that said nice things about Jerry Seinfeld's show, you know, comedian cars having coffee,

and he's in trouble for it now.

He's being beaten up because that nice story about that was from a conservative website.

And so he has to be destroyed today.

Is that crazy?

Pathetic.

How's your outrage?

Pathetic.

Are you feeling it?

I am.

Do you get a little bit?

Can I put

another shot there on it?

Okay, here's another one.

Do we have the jingle sarah?

Addicted to outrage.

From Andrea Ruth at at Red State.

A Seattle woman is accusing Western Washington's primary energy provider, Puget Sound Energy, of intentionally allowing its automated computer-generated temporary password system to send a racial slur.

Erica Conway believes the insult was deliberate and wants the company to get to the bottom of it.

I clicked forgot password and got temporary password from PSE, and it was capital N-I-G-G-A.

And I was quite shocked.

It was, listen to the reaction.

It was like an emotional roller coaster.

Shock, disbelief, disgusted, angry.

And it was just, yeah, even now, I'm just kind of like, I can't believe this.

I just can't believe it.

Conway is a longtime volunteer of the Seattle chapter of the NAACP.

She showed us past temporary passcodes that were just random letters and numbers.

So she believes this passcode slur was created deliberately.

A temporary password isn't meant to say anything, as Conway, who is black, even states herself.

These passwords are randomly generated mixtures of letters and numbers.

A PSE spokesperson, Janet Kim, said this was offensive.

There was no question about that.

Again, what kind of reaction is that?

What are you talking about?

It's offensive.

What are you talking about?

It's a random word generator or random letter generator.

Have we checked the algorithm?

Is the algorithm racist?

We apologize to the customer

and the community.

I'm not kidding you, by the way.

That is an actual statement.

It's in my new book.

You will not believe.

When I tell you that story, it'll blow your mind.

The algorithm was racist.

Anyway, go ahead.

The passwords are generated automatically, so they go straight to the system, to the end customers.

It is not able to be accessed by an employee.

Are you outraged?

Are you outraged?

Because I'm outraged by that one.

Very.

No, you don't sound it.

Give me the jingle.

Give me the jingle.

I'm addicted to outrage.

Transgender attendees at the pro-LGBTQ music festival, known as Love Loud, are not happy about the concert's alleged lack of inclusion in the bathroom.

Trans concertgoers publicly complained about feeling discriminated against by Love Loud, underscoring their disapproval for the pro-gay charity Queer Meals, and will not accept any donations from the festival.

When I was,

apparently the concert was created by the Imagine Dragons to by the lead singer Dan Reynolds to support LGBTQ organizations and to affirm youth in Utah, no matter their gender, identity, or sexual orientation.

When I was confronted, I was

saying I was in the wrong bathroom.

It kind of threw me off.

I mean, I have a fear every time I go into the bathroom.

You never know what's going to happen.

It's strange because some of these things don't seem like real outrages.

They don't.

They seem like people are outraged about things they maybe shouldn't be outraged about.

What?

No.

No, I don't think so.

How about Madden 19

editing Colin Kaepernick's name out of the song in the game, in the video game?

Wait, we need the jingle.

Wait, we need the jingle.

Addicted to outrage.

The song Big Bank by YG featuring two chains, you know, by Sean.

You're going to be surprised.

No, I don't know.

No, you don't know.

No.

You don't have one hip.

Oh, I have all of two chains stuff.

Oh, yeah.

Two chains.

Plus, Big Sean and Nicki Minaj.

Some of my favorite stuff.

Yeah, I'm not really fond of.

It's one of just several songs featured on Madden 19.

And in the song, Big Sean wraps the following lyrics.

Feed me to the wolves.

Now I lead the pack and

stuff.

You boys all cap.

I'm more Colin Kaepernick.

Well, now they have edited

You Boys All Cap.

I'm

and it kind of cuts off.

Do they really?

Is that a real thing?

Yeah, it's a real thing.

Yeah.

Oh, and they're pissed.

I mean, they want an explanation.

Colin Kaepernick's girlfriend is all pissed off.

Who is.

Oh, no.

Oh, no.

We cannot.

Why do you have to do that?

Why do you spizzle in your fizzle?

Who is they?

They are all.

Well, Colin Kaepernick's girlfriend.

Okay, all right.

Big Sean is pissed.

Okay.

Big Sean was, in part, responsible for the song.

Has two chains.

Two chains I have not heard from two chains.

All right.

What about the first chain?

The first chain is pissed.

Okay.

The second chain is the pissed.

But the second not hurt piss.

And you do not.

One chain does not speak for both chains.

No.

No.

No, that's true.

Don't make them.

It's like the Kirk brothers.

They're two different people, guys.

Let's just talk about them as two individuals.

That's important.

They don't do the same thing.

By the way, I think there's a third Koch brother.

And in case anyone's interested in that.

What a loser that guy must be.

But I mean, like, again, what are we just talking about?

Taking a standard and apply it equally, no matter whether you like the situation or not.

That is a very weird choice.

by Badden if they actually did that.

It is, isn't it?

If you don't buy Colin Kaepernick's name in your game, then don't pick up that song.

Check another two-chain chain.

You can change the song.

You can pack and list off 12 two-chain songs right now that would also fit in your game Glenn could be all over Big Sean songs you can just list off the whole catalog you can pay any of them any 12 I could do I could probably

do 25 without even thinking about it right so we could give you the list the point is if you don't want the name in there don't pick that song right and if you're gonna put the song in there don't delete the name it's not a swear they do delete they edit for swears yes uh in usually in uh and that's that's what big sean said they edited like it was a cuss word and so they're wondering why.

And

they're demanding answers.

And fair.

If that really happened, which I have not, I don't have to say that.

It is dumb on the part of EA Sports and Madden.

But, you know,

it's their game.

They can do that if they want.

Right?

Usually, I mean, it's interesting.

Usually, I would say yes, though I would be interested to see what the arrangement is with the song and the people who wrote it.

You probably don't want to be pissing off the artist whose song you're using.

Yeah, probably not.

You know, I think an artist would understand.

You know, you edit it.

And they didn't go through them.

They didn't talk to their people at all.

Big Sean was left completely out in the dark.

No.

And so were two chains.

And that aside.

Of course, that's probably the record company has the rights.

That's not right.

All up in here.

What was that?

All up in here.

That's wrong.

All up in here.

In here.

Yeah.

And where?

Where exactly is he?

You know what I'm talking about.

Yo.

You know what I'm saying?

This is you.

This is really off-fair, Pat, you're getting right now.

Yeah, that's true.

Because obviously, Pat is...

That's the way I really speak.

I have to tone it down.

You're a highly trained broadcaster, and people can pick that up when they listen to Pat Gray Unleashed or watch on the Blaze.

But

when we're just hanging out, Pat goes very much into the two-chains mode.

It's like Tony Street.

Play no games.

What?

Play no games.

Play no games.

Right.

Which, of course, is a Big Sean song.

Oh, you're just quoting.

You're quoting your favorite artist.

One man can change the world.

Sure.

Well, that's Pat.

That's Pat.

That is Pat.

Also a Big Sean song.

So both of those are the titles of Big Sean.

IDFWU,

which is one of the catchiest titles of

easily going to recall what it stands for.

So go ahead.

Yeah,

what it stands for?

No, I can't on the air.

I can't on the air.

You can't on the air.

Nope.

You can give us a hint.

I can't.

Nope.

I can't.

It's look, if you're not into Big Sean.

Are you saying it because you think it's like a spoiler alert if you want to listen to the song?

That's like the big reveal of the song.

You don't want to ruin it for people.

I'm going to let you guess.

Could be, or it could involve swear words.

Cool.

I'm not going to say.

So without looking, then just give me the letters in the same order.

Without looking at what?

Yeah, without looking at the iPad that you have in front of you.

Give me the letters in the same order you just did.

Like it's an iChat.

It was I

D.

Come on, you sing it all the time.

Come on.

WF F

U.

I may have those last two

out of order, but

takes a lot, Pat.

Interesting.

There is a song,

I D W F

W U,

which you're very close on, but it's a different, different artist.

Really?

That's a lot of ID songs, apparently, in the rap community.

I may have gotten my

big Sean songs

mixed up with,

you know, that guy.

Oh, okay.

all right

all right uh i want to tell you about realestate agents i trust.com uh realestate agents i trust.com is uh something that was really born out of frustration um you you you have to have the right real estate agent and that right real estate agent um

it

you have i guess i guess it's this you have to have the right real estate agent you have to know what to ask that real estate agent before you hire them what is your marketing plan?

What is the plan?

How many people are you attracting to just even your website?

How are you getting people to see my house?

How much do you know about my neighborhood?

How much is my house worth?

How much are the houses worth on my block?

What's your plan?

Great real estate agents are not easy to find, especially ones

that really know your neighborhood.

Your wife's nephew nephew may dabble in real estate, but I really don't want your wife's nephew selling my house, quite frankly.

Realestateagents I trust.com, over a thousand

real estate agents, all of the best, all personally hand-selected and vetted by my team at realestateagentsitrust.com.

If you want to sell your home for the most amount of money, you want to sell your home fast, realestate agentsitrust.com.

Go there now, realestate agentsitrust.com.

Welcome to the program.

Anything special happening this week?

Any good movie coming out or anything?

I did see Mission Impossible last night.

What'd you think?

It was really good.

I liked it.

I don't love that series, I think.

I mean, I really like Cruise.

Best of the series.

I like the one with a tall building.

I remember liking that one.

But what was that, two ago?

Yeah, Ghost Protocol or Rogue Ghost.

Ghost Protocol.

Okay, I remember liking that one.

But it was good.

I enjoyed it.

It was was worth it.

It was a little on the long side, but I liked it.

The action was basically.

Have you seen the Rocks movie with a skyscraper?

Yes, I saw that.

Yeah.

What'd you think?

It was, you know, fun.

It was a lot of fun.

It's fun.

It's just fun.

It's the rock.

It's the rock.

Don't think too deeply.

Have a safe weekend.

We'll see you Monday.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.