'Is it "Ripped" or "Torn"?' - 7/5/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Glenn back.

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

888-727BECK.

Hope you had a great Independence Day.

How was yours, Stu?

Good?

Wonderful.

Thank you for asking.

Yes.

How was the fireworks display in your little town there?

Did it turn out well?

Yeah, it was good.

You guys went, right?

Wasn't that in your plan on Wednesday?

We did go to the next one.

Or Tuesday.

Tuesday.

You said you were going to watch it that night because it was an early one, right?

Yeah.

And it was great.

Very windy.

And so they did about half of it.

And really things started catching on fire and they stopped.

That was a deterrent?

Yeah, I know.

I mean,

fire works.

It makes fire work.

That's the way I have always understood it, but no.

So hopefully you had a great 4th of July.

We've got

a lot of what this country was founded to do happening right now, including the nomination of a a Supreme Court justice right now.

And based on what everybody keeps saying, it seems to be

Judge Kavanaugh that's the lead contender.

Almost everybody thinks he's going to be the selection.

Yeah, I'm a little nervous.

And that seems to be the one

that we should be most concerned about.

You know, it's arguable.

I mean, there are people, really smart people who are conservatives

that believe he's going to be great.

You know, he went through the same Federalist Society

checks that all the other justices went through, passed those with flying colors, which, again, is a great indication.

He worked for the Bush administration.

He worked for Ken Starr's team back in the day.

So he has

a long history of being on the Republican side.

He is kind of talked about as an establishment Republican sort of figure.

Which seems problematic.

Seems problematic.

He has argued, however, in favor of expanded executive authority, which

seems to be

something that any president would like.

Unless you're massively motivated by the Constitution,

you're going to like having

a little bit more power.

Plus, he's written, as everybody on the news will tell you today, he's written extensively about the problems that investigations can

have for the country.

So, investigations of the president, which obviously Trump is not a fan of, as no president would be.

But, I mean, with him talking out so outwardly about that, people are speculating that that may influence his decision.

I'm nervous about it.

He wrote an Obamacare-related opinion that was not what I would want.

I mean, he basically approved the individual.

So, it's more Roberts-like?

More very Roberts-like.

I mean, they're very similar.

People have talked about it as sort of laying out a pathway of where Roberts wound up deciding that case.

So that's there.

He's had a couple of those like that.

A couple of decisions make you think, wait, what was he going for there?

But

again, he's gone through all these checks.

He does not appear to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but will he be Kennedy?

Will he be Roberts?

That's not what I want.

Yeah.

I mean,

there's a lot of space between what we're looking for and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

You've noticed some space there?

Yeah, there's some space there in between.

And

everybody seems to, at least on the conservative side, favor Amy Barrett.

And for some reason, we have to say her Coney name too, Amy Coney Barrett, which sounds very bizarre.

I keep thinking Amy Coney Island every time I hear it.

But her last name is not Island.

It's not.

No.

And she's only been a judge for a year.

That seems to be one of the slams against her.

And a tougher confirmation battle.

Right.

Is what they're thinking.

And maybe Trump just doesn't want to go through it.

I don't know.

Maybe.

I think he likes this.

I think he likes this element of the presidency.

I would like it.

I mean, it's all you.

You get to do it.

It's your own decision.

Nobody can make you, you know, can stop you.

You can name your, I mean, obviously the Senate is the only thing you have to fight through, you know, but you get to pick whoever it is that goes in front of the Senate.

You could pick, you know, a homeless person who's, you know, screaming a language they invented last night, and you could put them up there, and it's all you.

And I kind of, you know, that's kind of a cool part of the presidency.

It's not quite as cool as the pardon.

Pardon's still number one, I think.

Pardon is still the coolest part of the presidency.

You can pardon anybody you want.

That's pretty cool.

That's pretty cool.

I would say, too, you can also bomb anybody you want, but that's actually not the way it's supposed to work.

So

that's not way it kind of turned out.

It's kind of the way it works these days, the last few presidents.

But

true, the pardon is 100% like you get to do whatever you want, which is really cool.

But so far, Trump has obviously actually spoken to some of them.

Brett Kavanaugh, of course, Raymond Kethledge.

Kethledge, I like.

I think Kethledge might be a, would be a great pick if they went that direction.

He's from University of Michigan Law School, I think.

Okay.

So outside of the Ivy League, which I think would be nice.

And he is,

you know,

they attempt to do these little breakdowns ideologically.

And Kethledge is

equal with Gorsuch

in between Alito and

Thomas.

So he's about as conservative.

The only person listed on here that is more conservative.

on the ideological scale, and these things are imperfect, honestly, but still, is Mike Lee and Clarence Thomas.

So one justice, one potential justice, and then everyone else there.

That's a good, that's a good list to be involved in.

Amortha Parr is also pretty well

ranked on this if you're looking for a conservative justice.

He's just to the left of Kethledge.

And the president has spoken to him.

He's another one in the list.

Interviewed him.

Thomas Hardeman interviewed him.

Where does he stand on the?

Hardeman is the most to the left of all of them listed, yes.

So Hardeman is the one that was added as a, reportedly, as a favor to Rick Santorum during the campaign when

Trump wanted Santorum's endorsement.

And Santorum, concerned with the court,

said, look, you know, I want to see your list.

I want you to release the list, and I want Hardiman to be on it.

And then if you do that, and I like the list, I'll endorse you.

And that's supposedly, reportedly, what happened with how Hardiman got on there.

However, he's also friends with Trump's sister, serves with Trump's sister on the court, and interviewed very well, apparently, like even better than Gorsuch.

And the fact that they almost picked Hardiman over Gorsuch because he was so well prepared and did such a good job in the presentation.

Yeah, he's the one they say was runner-up last time.

Yes.

Now,

has Trump also spoken to Mike Lee?

I think they've interviewed him, haven't they?

Yes, I believe.

So at least they did that courtesy.

They threw a bone to conservatives and at least talked to him.

Yeah, the president spoke by phone with Mike Lee on Monday.

He's the only lawmaker on Trump's list.

Also, Also,

Brett Kavanaugh, we discussed, Raymond McCethledge, Amur Thapar, Amy Coney Barrett, and Thomas Hardeman.

That's the six that, again, like Lee, I don't know if Lee's really being considered or not.

I mean, it may very well be

that he's not.

However, I'm glad they made the phone call.

You know,

hopefully he is the guy.

Because if Mike Lee gets in there, you know, you're getting someone really strong.

Yes.

And you know someone who has a real record.

You know, it's interesting.

One of the stories, I think was from the the New York Times talking about these justices and what people think about them and kind of laid it out the way we just did, which was, you know, you have a Kavanaugh who is Kavanaugh and Barrett being the top two, Kavanaugh being the one from Bush administration, executive power, a couple questionable decisions on Obamacare and a couple of other things.

But, you know, he's very well respected in the legal community.

Amy Coney Barrett, not as well known, only been a judge for a year, was a law professor.

There's obviously the thing we talked about on Tuesday with her faith.

And that became an issue with Diane Feinstein, who said that, you know, the dogma lives loudly within you or whatever.

And the point,

people are talking about this as she probably isn't this high level of a pick if it's not for that moment.

It's making Supreme Court or conservatives and faith-based people saying, like, I love the fact that we have somebody who stood up and said, yeah, what are you talking about?

You know, like, there's an exchange there, and she's become a little bit of a billboard, right, for the movement.

The one thing that they pointed out, and most of it was written as you'd expect the New York Times to write a story like this, essentially saying, eh, you know, she's kind of one of these religious wackos.

It's kind of how it feels.

But at one point, when they're not discussing that, they said the only thing she's really written extensively on is

making sure that we continue to accept precedence.

And that makes me super nervous.

Yeah, that's not a good thing.

Now, maybe the Times is designing the story to make me nervous.

It's not impossible they include that to dissuade religious conservatives from, you know, for seeing something in there that maybe isn't there.

I don't have any, there's no reason to believe, per se, that she would be someone who would think Roe versus Wade is a good idea.

But, you know, again, it's not about legal precedent.

It's about the Constitution.

There's a precedent you need to look at.

And it was, you know, 1791 is about the time you need to kind of look back to.

And then you see how it's developed over time with amendments, not how it's developed over time with case law.

You want someone who's an originalist, a textualist.

And that is the, that's the concern here, is if you don't find that right person, and it's not easy.

You know, people, people make it seem like, oh, what, well, look, you know, don't screw it up.

I feel that way as well.

It's difficult, though.

These guys get in the court and they get that same sort of unchecked power.

You know, no one says they did something, you know, we can all talk about them doing something wrong, but we can't do anything about it.

With the exception of, of course, impeaching, which is pretty darn rare.

But it's happened once.

It's happened once in our entire history.

And we're Thomas Jefferson, so it's been a few years.

We should point out it wasn't supposed to only happen once in the country's history.

It was meant to be utilized.

As many times as necessary.

How many times you should utilize it?

Nobody even considers it anymore.

I'll bet it hasn't even been talked about in the last 150 years.

In any serious way.

There was one candidate.

Was it Cruz?

It might have been Cruz that was talking about this as we need to bring this, this is part of our system, and it needs to be thought about more

seriously.

Because if you get a justice that goes in there and it's terrible, I mean, we have to be justices who are falling asleep.

Yeah.

You know, I mean, if legitimately.

They're falling asleep and just discount the U.S.

Constitution.

Right.

It's too old.

The clip that we played last week, or earlier this week, from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is also the justice that falls asleep a lot.

Yep.

Is, to me, legitimately impeachment material for a justice.

She's saying that we should look at other countries' constitutions.

You know, we shouldn't look at ours.

You know, she tried to explain this away later on, but with very little success.

The bottom line is she's there and no one does anything about it.

Right.

But that's not the way the system was supposed to work.

Again, it's not about making liberal decisions.

It's about someone outwardly advocating against our constitution.

One of the people who's supposed to protect it.

Yeah.

Her really, her only job.

That's all she's supposed to do.

Yeah.

You should pay no attention to anybody else's Constitution and your decisions.

Also, yesterday at a parade, at a 4th of July parade, Senator Susan Collins said, I think I've made it pretty clear if a nominee has demonstrated hostility to Roe v.

Wade and has said they're not going to abide by that long-standing precedent, that I could not support that nominee.

So, again, she's reinforced the fact that if you're pro-life, she's not going to vote for you.

Well, they're all, again,

they're supposed to all be

in that bandwagon, right?

Everybody who clears the Federalist Society, I mean, again, they're looking for the Constitution.

It's not a Roe versus Wade test, but

everybody that would pass the test the way the Federalist Society believes it should be passed should be casting the vote the correct way on Roe versus Wade.

I think if you want to read that, the best way possible, the best way possible is Susan Collins is pro-choice sort of light.

She's never been a huge activist for pro-choice things per se, but she's voted that way, and she's pro-choice.

Maybe she's saying, look, don't put up somebody who makes this hard for me.

You know what I mean?

For example, Mike Lee

would make it hard for her because Mike Lee has spoken eloquently about how horrible of a decision Roe versus Wade is.

So is she just coming out and saying, look, don't put Mike Lee up there.

Don't put, you know, Bill Pryor up there.

Put up somebody who has not outwardly taken large stances on this and make it so I can vote for them.

That's the best reading of what she says.

Yes.

I don't know that I subscribe to that theory.

I'm trying to be an optimist.

I think

she's essentially

Democratic.

Yeah, she's just a no on anybody that we would like.

Well, we know the list, though.

I mean, if he's picking off that list, she has said there's no.

Well, it's going to be Kavanaugh for her, I think.

She'd probably vote for Kavanaugh because he seems to be the okay mainstream choice,

the establishment Republican, and that's what she is.

Although, I don't know what makes anybody a Republican anymore because they don't have any principles or values.

They just have an R after their name.

So this whole process is pretty difficult now.

So you do know what makes them a Republican.

You just said it, the R after that.

Right.

You just did the whole mystery.

You solved it.

Thank you for noticing.

It's amazing.

Done.

All right.

Triple eight, 8727BECK.

Patents do for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

888-727-BEC.

Found this

article written by Vox a couple of years ago.

Was this 2015 on the 4th of July?

The headline is:

Three Reasons the American Revolution was a mistake.

This July 4th, let's not mince words.

American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake.

We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.

Now, at this point,

it crosses your mind of they're trying to make maybe some interesting observations about this era.

Yeah.

Maybe you could have gone about it a different way or made a few mistakes here and there.

And you're thinking maybe they're just trying to illustrate this in the most explosive way possible to get clicks, right?

Yeah, then you realize you pretty quickly realize, no, they just hate America.

Yeah, it's just not a fan.

Not fans

of the revolution of our founders of any of it.

Legitimately don't like the country.

Who was it yesterday that had to delete their tweet?

Oh, it was Brett Hume.

He tweeted out that Democrats

hate America, or at least that they don't love it.

Democratic Americans don't love America.

And, you know, then you read articles like this, and you got to think, oh, well, there is something to that.

Some of them really don't.

Some of them really.

And we just had that poll the other day of how many Americans are extremely proud to be American.

It was 32% of Democrats.

32%.

Wow, that's high.

Now, you might think, okay, that's

a lot higher than I would have guessed.

74% of Republicans.

So you think, well, Trump, you know, they're not proud because of Trump, but it was only 46%

when Obama was in office.

And that does not surprise me.

Again, the entire philosophy was basically written around how America went the wrong direction at some point in our history.

Right.

And we've never been able to be progressive enough to get it back on track.

I mean, look at Barack Obama with the fundamental transformation of America.

How many times have we made the point that you don't

fundamentally transform something you love?

Yeah, tell your wife,

I really love you, honey, but I just really want to fundamentally transform you.

I just want you to be completely different in every way.

I mean,

whatever is at the base of your soul is wrong, and I just want to change that.

So yeah, you don't, I mean, obviously you don't love it if you want to fundamentally transform it.

Doesn't that make sense?

Right.

Like

you could say,

let's say you have a relative that has a massive drug problem, right?

You might love them, but you want to fundamentally transform them, right?

But that's how serious they look look at this.

But see, that's not even fundamental transformation.

That's just altering one flaw, one character flaw.

At the foundation, at the fundamental level, that really says something.

Yeah, it's even more serious, I guess.

It's real serious.

Anyway, in the Vox article, he continues, of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals.

As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business.

We obviously can't be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer.

But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be a better one than the one we live in now for three main reasons.

Slavery would have been abolished earlier.

I don't see how you draw that conclusion at all.

Look at the first draft of the Declaration of Independence that we had at the Mercury Museum a couple weeks ago, where Thomas Jefferson lays into the king for allowing slavery to continue and for stopping, for stopping the legislative efforts in the United States to stop it, which was not the United States at that point.

Right.

But

they were trying to stop it legislatively, and the king kept blocking the efforts.

We'll deal with this a little bit more coming up here on the Glenn Beck program.

I love how, it's Pat and Stewart for Glenn this week, by the way.

I love how one of the major events that everybody looks forward to on the 4th of July now

is the hot dog eating contest where people just jam hot dogs into their mouths for 10 minutes.

It's like a great way to celebrate our independence, I think.

Don't you?

I just see how many, if you can jam 74 hot dogs into your gullet in the first 10 minutes of the competition,

that says America right there.

It's like, it's like one of those, you know, it's like American flag with fireworks times an eagle plus the White House.

Like, it's just like every American thing jammed into one.

Yeah.

It is, it is physically revolting to watch.

I don't know how much.

I don't know why people show up and watch that thing because it is.

It's nasty.

I can't even watch it on television when the highlights come on.

And it's not even just that eat.

Like watching someone eat is something you don't want to do anyway.

That's not

something I want to do.

In addition to that, they're eating these hot dogs really fast and they're drilling them.

Dip them in water.

And then that really is gross.

Bread in water, wet bread, is one of the worst things ever that has ever happened to humanity.

And you might say that's overstating it.

No, it's not.

They should ban dipping it in water.

Just see how many regular hot dogs eat them like a person.

Eat them like a person eats hot dogs.

And obviously, you're not going to get 74 down, but you know, there'd still be a substantial number if you have to have the competition.

Joey Chestnut is the guy who's won this 11 straight years now.

It used to be a Japanese guy

who won it.

But now Joey Chestnut is apparently

the state-of-the-art

in the eating world, in the competition eating world.

And he did break his record yesterday.

The record before yesterday was 73 sent last year, spent set last year, and then he set a new one of 74 this year.

You have a little bit of a history with eating multiple hot dogs in one sitting.

I do, actually, yeah.

You did it not for a competition.

No, I did it because

I'm a glutton.

And I really enjoyed the hot dogs.

Glenn and I were at

an event.

It was the Harvard-Yale football game in New Haven, Connecticut one year, and we had this big listener get together, and it was just awful weather.

I mean, it was sleeting, it was cold, it was, it was kind of, you know, it was a rain-snow mix, and it was just blowing sideways, and it was horrible.

So, we had this tent set up.

Nobody came to the game.

Nobody showed up for the event.

And we had like 5,000 hot dogs ready for people because we thought it was going to, you know, be a nice day and everybody was going to have a good time and come enjoy it.

Oh, look at that.

They did.

That's fun.

So, all I had to do was stand there.

We did cut-ins during the course of the day because it was a Saturday, so it wasn't really doing our show.

I was doing the cut-ins.

Can I guess as what they sounded like?

Oh, it's amazing amazing down here.

You've got to come down and check this out.

That people everywhere.

We got 5,000 hot dogs.

We'll free hot dogs for you when you come down and say hi to us.

Please, please come.

Somebody, please come show up at this thing.

And nobody did.

So all there was to do, really, was eat hot dogs, and they were darn good hot dogs.

And I ate 12 of them.

Not in 10 minutes, but over the course of the two-hour event, I put down 12 hot dogs.

And you were not trying to set a record.

It wasn't.

It's what you wanted to do.

Yes.

And you did not restrain yourself.

Not at all.

If you left to your own devices, you will eat 12 hot dogs.

In my younger days.

Yes.

I don't think I could do that today.

In fact, I try to avoid hot dogs completely now.

But

that...

That was a very proud moment for me.

And I think my family's really proud of that, too.

And so you're basically thanking me for bringing it up.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So, we were talking about this Vox article because I guess they did this three years ago, but it's amazing to me that on the 4th of July,

this is what you publish.

Three reasons the American Revolution was a mistake.

Okay, and those reasons are: slavery would have been abolished earlier,

which I don't know where do you get that?

Why would you even assume that?

The slave trade in England went on for 300 years.

It went on for 89 here.

I mean,

people forget there was a time before the colonists revolted,

and it was all filled with slavery during that whole time, too.

And they're the ones who instituted it here.

Right.

And they've tried to force it when

the Americans tried to...

the founders tried to

overcome it legislatively.

It was blocked by the king.

And you've said many times, and I can't remember the exact date, but you're talking about when the actual slave trade ended.

It was

1807.

So it was not law.

I mean, again,

we actually enacted it, but

it didn't take effect until the following year, but we enacted it before England did.

So we abolished our slave trade in 1807 shortly before, like a few months before England stopped their slave trade too.

And then they abolished slavery in 1834, 1834, and it took us till 1865 and 600,000 deaths in order to stop it.

But

it was a tough,

because it was so ingrained in the colonies,

it was a tough thing to extract ourselves from.

And yeah, that took some time.

And you see that, again, I keep coming back to the same document, but it's a struggle where Thomas Jefferson's out there saying, like, this is the worst thing the king has ever done.

He goes on for paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, bashing the king for slavery.

And then in the end, the final document that gets removed because of

states, I think it was Georgia and South Carolina specifically

that decided they didn't, you know, they didn't want it in there.

And we know how bad that was.

But I mean, there was a huge passion to remove slavery.

It's one of, really is one of our founding concepts.

It was one of the things that actually motivated the founders to do this.

And you'll get the pushback from, well, if Thomas Jefferson was such an abolitionist, why did he own slaves?

Well, he couldn't stop owning slaves because it was illegal.

He couldn't set them free.

And I think, I really believe he would have if he could have.

But you could not free your slaves because, first of all, in that day and age, they thought, well, what are they going to do?

Where are they going to go?

You didn't allow them education.

You didn't really have anything set up for them.

And so in Virginia, it was illegal.

Even upon your death, you couldn't free your slaves, especially if you were in debt,

which he was when he died in 1826.

So there's a lot of explanations for the Thomas Jefferson thing, but he was definitely against slavery and wrote really passionately about it.

Really glad you guys found that section because it's pretty amazing and very telling.

So, first of all, they believe in Vox that slavery would have been abolished earlier.

American Indians would have faced rampant persecution, but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated.

And America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.

Oh, you got to read that.

When you go into the parliamentary democracy

thing, which is something that a lot of people on the left say they want, and as opposed to our presidential-based system,

this is great.

In the U.S., activists wanting to put a price on carbon emissions spent years trying to put together a coalition to make it happen, mobilizing sympathetic businesses and philanthropists and attempting to make a bipartisan coalition.

And they still failed to pass cap and trade

after millions of man hours.

In the U.K., the Conservative government decided it wanted a carbon tax, so there was a carbon tax.

Wow, that sounds like a lot better.

Right.

So the government can just throw a lot of really big taxes on everyone whenever they want.

Just because they want to.

Wow.

There's not even a system to be able to stop it.

Right.

I love that.

It's absolutely an argument for the system.

Of course.

Listen, passing big, necessary legislation, in this case, legislation that's literally necessary to save the planet.

Cap and trade is not going to save, even under the most

feverish of Al Gore dreams, a cap and trade does not save the planet.

No.

It's not what it does at all.

I mean, it's just,

it established the only, it's just a carbon tax with a fake market mechanism in there to put a price on it.

That's it.

It's not a, it would not at all, you know, it's just like, you know, the Oklahoma City Thunder are going to go into the luxury tax this year in the NBA and spend up to, it looks like $300 million

on their

salaries this year.

Because every dollar you go over a certain amount, it's like $450 in taxes.

Right?

So at some point, it's going to stop a lot of people from going that way, but you can still, it's not going to save the world.

It's ridiculous.

You know, a tax like that can dissuade certain activities, but it's not going to save the world.

In fact, if you turned off the United States completely and we didn't do any,

there's no more increases at all.

No carbon at all.

Forget even increasing it.

Turning all the cars off, all the power plants off.

People stop exhaling.

So all of the things that create carbon dioxide

goes down to zero.

You would only cut

emissions globally by about 20%.

And then even then, you'd have other countries like China and India would replace that within a decade.

That's if you turn everything off.

If you turn off just the transportation sector, you'd save about 4% of global emissions, most likely made up by increases in other nations in about two years.

So think about that when you have

someone telling you that you should take, you know, make sure to bike to work once a week when they give you these little helpful tips

that can help the planet.

Yeah.

They don't do anything.

That's just something.

It's like a psychiatrist tool to create a habit so you support their larger policies.

Like if you're at home and you're unplugging all of your appliances before you use them every day,

you are much more likely because you've taken that physical step to walk in line with their actual policy goals.

And you're much more likely to give in to their demands of power that they don't have constitutional right to.

If you're at home sifting through garbage every day, you have a physical

statement of loyalty to them.

That's what that's about.

It's got literally nothing to do with saving the planet.

It's about getting you in line.

And once you take those steps, well, I've already gone to the point where I'm literally sifting through my own waste to

try to please this planet, to please Mother Nature.

Well, of course I'm on board for cap and trade.

Of course I want the president to be able to just institute a carbon tax whenever they want.

Of course that's what I want.

It's exactly why we have the process.

We do, because it's supposed to be hard to get things like that through

and to make them law.

It's supposed to be difficult.

There's got to be that process so that you don't have carbon taxes just show up and

ruin the economy almost overnight.

I mean, can you imagine had we done all the carbon taxing that Al Gore and the rest wanted to do, what situation our energy sector would be in right now?

Oh, my gosh.

It'd be horrific.

Our energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.

Seems like I heard that from somebody.

Oh, that's right.

I did.

Barack Obama.

Yeah.

Who admitted that the things he wanted to do, like bankrupting coal, would make the energy prices skyrocket.

Yeah.

And by the way, isn't this a good way to pass a law?

Like they had to get a bunch of people together, right?

They wanted to mobilize businesses, sympathetic businesses, put a coalition together, get philanthropists on board, attempt to make a bipartisan coalition, and they still fail to pass cap and trade after millions of dollars in man hours.

Well, that's just you failing, right?

Like, that's not, this isn't some magical thing lined up in the government.

You didn't get enough of those people together.

If you got, I don't know, let's say 50, 55% of people to believe it was a really important cause, you would have been able to elect whoever you wanted, and you would have been able to get it through.

The problem is, people don't like your bill.

This, you know, going back because as we've mentioned, this makes the rounds, I guess, every year around July 4th, because it's such a ridiculous article.

Again, the three reasons the American Revolution was a mistake.

But if you look at that part of it, it's so, it reminds you of the Obama era.

It reminds you of that time where bipartisanship was just come to our side,

believe what I believe, or you're in the way.

And certainly Trump gets criticized for that now, but man, the people criticizing him forget completely about those eight years.

Oh, yeah, they loved it then.

They loved it then.

And remember when Barack Obama would always be like, look, I'm willing to talk to any any Republican who will come over,

but I'm not going to talk to someone who's just going to get in the way.

They want the opposite thing.

Yeah.

Of course, they're going to get in the way.

They want the opposite thing to happen.

The Yankees get in the way of the Red Sox trying to win.

That's their job.

And when you're making the case for getting legislation done faster and cleaner than we currently do it, wouldn't a king be even better?

Because a monarch just decides, and that makes it so.

I just decree and declare that there will be carbon taxes, and you're done.

Yeah, they actually make the opposite argument.

They say our system is more likely to lead to a dictatorship.

Pathetic.

I mean, that's ludicrous.

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

Pat and Stu for Glenn.

Triple 8-727 back.

We were.

Stu, you mentioned earlier that there was some kind of

problem,

potential problem with Amy Coney Barrett's thoughts on precedent, that she's a big precedent person.

Yeah, I mean, you know, the New York Times article writes this line.

She also said several times that as an appeals court judge, she would follow Supreme Court precedent on abortion.

Now, I think that that means that as a lower court, you have to honor what the Supreme Court says.

That doesn't necessarily mean how she's going to decide on the Supreme Court.

I can't imagine.

I mean, she's so highly praised by so many smart conservatives.

I'm sure that she.

But, you know, you get nervous.

I get nervous.

This is a big one, guys.

It's a big one.

Glenn back.

Patton Stew for Glenn, triple eight, 727 Beck.

I hope you had a great 4th of July Independence Day.

Happy birthday to America.

242 years old yesterday.

Is there a problem?

Yeah.

You got an issue?

No, I just don't like the way that

you're all positive and celebratory.

Really?

Was there something wrong?

That's what we're going through.

What are we going through?

Well, first of all, what's going on at the border?

Okay.

I don't know if you know this, they're ripped and ripped and torn.

Ripped and sometimes they're torn, sometimes they're ripped.

Sometimes they're ripped.

And once in a while, but it's only

those particular situations that occur at the border.

They're not carefully taken and placed nicely somewhere

as this thing is being adjudicated.

That's not the case at all.

Please don't mock what's happening here, especially with the sacrifices people are making.

Oh, okay.

Who's making sacrifices now?

Well, celebrities.

Making big-time sacrifices.

In fact, they're going on a hunger strike.

No way.

Yeah.

Like, who?

Who's going on a celebrity hunger strike?

A celebrity hunger strike.

Don't act like you don't know about this.

I don't know about this.

This is a huge,

huge deal.

Who are these celebrities that are hunger striking?

Alec Baldwin.

Oh, wow.

And Martin Sheen.

So right now,

our top two celebrities, first of all.

Let's point that out.

Right.

Number one and number two.

No, no question.

I don't know what order you put them in, but we know they're number one and number two.

So Alec could last, what, six, eight months on a hunger strike?

Are you making a commentary on his appearance by any chance?

No.

No, I'm just, I'm just, that was just a guess that his constitution is such that

he could last a while.

Because he cares so much about the border.

Right.

Got it.

Okay.

Right.

The hunger strike is incredibly dramatic.

This has been organized by the Kennedy family and the RFK Human Rights Center.

And oh, and their strike, is there, are they striking about the border?

They are striking about the border.

And people being rip-torn?

Rip-torned from people, from their parents.

Now, I don't want to.

It's already stopped, hasn't it?

I mean, we went back to catch and release.

I don't think we're rip-tering people away, man.

But now the case is, and I heard this on CNN this morning, they had a doctor on who saw one of the facilities i want to say and was saying how someone had one of the kids hadn't been hugged uh in in several weeks hadn't been hugged she they had gone with the kid had gone with zero hugs for a hug shutout as it were wow

is he okay is he in critical condition

i mean obviously i don't think you can survive without hugs how what's it what's the maximum can you look this up what's WebMD.

What's the maximum amount of time you can go out without a hug?

It can't be more than three or four days.

It can't be.

Nine.

It can't be.

I'm pretty sure.

Pretty sure that.

Did they really say that?

I mean, he hadn't been hugged.

He hadn't been hugged.

I mean, look, as a little kid, you know, that's an important part of you're separated from your parent, supposedly.

I think this is the same doctor that wrote about this earlier.

And it's interesting because there's just an obvious

hatred for the Trump administration in her commentary.

She's like, I talked to someone who claimed they were a clinician.

I have no way of knowing that.

It's like, well,

I don't.

I mean,

I guess.

I mean, I have no way of knowing that you're a doctor, right?

I mean, we all have no way of,

there's some level of,

you know, I guess we're trusting a little bit here.

You're on TV saying you're a doctor.

I wasn't at your graduation.

I don't know if you're actually a doctor or not, but I'm assuming you are, right?

Yep.

A government representative comes to you and says they're a clinician, and

your

reaction to that is, I'm suspicious of the background.

It's like, all right.

I mean, you're coming at this with an agenda.

But that's, I can't talk about that doctor.

I can only talk about celebrities.

And we know celebrities mean what they say.

If there's one thing that you're saying, especially Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen

are number one and number two celebrities.

Above reproach.

Above reproach.

So So this is why I bring this to you with a bit of hesitance, Pat, because I don't want to depress you.

I don't want you

to become so overturned emotionally that you can't function for the rest of the show or for the rest of your life.

Well, we are in danger of that right now.

We are.

My level of concern

is high.

It looks high.

It's intense.

Your concern looks elevated.

Yes.

So I want you to make sure as you hear this news and what they're going through.

So how long are they?

Are they going to strike until that kid gets hugged?

No.

How long will this

hunger strike last?

Well, no, they could not.

This kid will never get hugged.

Let's be honest about it.

Never again.

That's never going to happen.

So they can't do that because they would die.

Well, Trump has probably ordered that.

He did.

He's probably ordered that that kid not be touched or hugged.

There's an executive order, the no-hugging executive order,

which is very real in some ways.

And inhuman.

In that I said it.

Okay.

That's the way it's real.

Okay.

So this is the hunger strike for Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen

is going to last for

24

hours.

Whoa.

24

hours?

Hours?

Now, I don't know if they have to be able to do it.

Are you sure it wasn't 20?

It could just be like one a day for 24 days.

Are you sure it wasn't 24 minutes?

Because I could see that, but 24 hours?

Yeah.

Seemingly in a row.

Wow.

Are they going to be monitored?

I hope their vital signs are going to be continually monitored because can you survive for an entire day?

One full day?

I don't think.

Well, I do once a month.

So maybe it's possible, but I don't know.

These are celebrities.

They have different needs than I do.

And

to see them not have food

for 24 full hours.

Scary.

It's very scary.

But once you know the real motivation behind it, you feel better about it.

According to Carrie Kennedy, who is organizing the protest, the hunger strike is designed to raise money for an organization called Break Bread, Not Families.

Wow, that's powerful.

They're not

powerful.

I support that.

The way way you're saying that, it doesn't seem like you think it's that powerful.

No, just let that soak in for a second.

Break bread,

not families.

Not families.

Because this is the new thing.

Now that the policy has been changed and we're back to catch and release, they can't really complain about the policy anymore.

Now they're just complaining about the people who were caught up in the policy previously.

So like, you know, they haven't reunited all the families yet.

Right.

And now there's reports of them trying to do DNA testing to make sure that you're not just handing it off to some human trafficker.

But that's, of course, also being vilified as this.

They're taking their DNA.

The essence of their humanity.

They're taking it.

The Trump administration is.

That was this whole break bread, not families situation

is going to agitate against Trump's family separation policy, but has

since they've objected.

There's a word there I'm trying to find that I'm not finding.

Is it objected?

Objected.

Abdicated.

They've come up with a new policy.

Yes.

And that's so it doesn't really stand anymore.

But the hunger strike did go on.

Now, no one checked to see if Alec Baldwin actually ate a cheesesteak in the middle of the hunger strike.

Like, there's not like,

there's no hall monitors here.

Like, you know, Alec Baldwin is jamming down croissants the the entire day.

But it was supposed to happen.

It happened, I guess, just a few days ago.

So

can we check to see if they're okay?

Are they okay?

See if Alec Baldwin is alive.

Has he been hospitalized?

Did they monitor his vital signs during that full 24-hour period of time?

It's frightening.

It's frightening what these, but it shows you the level of their commitment

to actually go without food for 24 hours

is

above and beyond what any other human could do.

That's why they're celebrities, though, because they do extraordinary things.

That's why you prepare your entire life for a hunger strike by storing fat cells.

Yes.

Because if you can do that,

if you can do that in a large enough number, then you can barely squeak it through and survive a 24-hour fast.

That's why I've been doing it, just in case at some point in the future, I want to break bread and not families.

I can't imagine you because you're a hateful conservative, so that's probably not likely to ever happen.

That's true.

But if you're breaking bread and not families, it doesn't that indicate eating?

Like, why is it a hunger strike if you're breaking bread?

Well, right.

Are you saying you want to break the families?

Is that because if you're

if your concept is, hey, we're going to all have dinner together, let's not break families apart.

If you're fasting, does that mean you do want to break families apart?

i would say yes i think the answer to that is yes i think the answer is yes and there's nothing we can do other than assume that's what they mean

there's nothing we can do other than assume the worst possible thing for their point

so amazing that nobody cared under barack obama that 25 000 children were separated from their siblings they were put into cages they were covered in aluminum foil or whatever

uh you know we we poked them with pickle forks.

Yep, there's a big pickle fork initiative.

Nobody cared.

Nobody cared.

Not one person raised their voice or raised it as an issue.

You happened to go to the border during this period with Glenn Beck and Ted Cruz.

Crew.

That did happen.

Actually delivered them supplies and Christmas gifts.

But I don't remember seeing anybody else there from, let's say, Hollywood.

or Washington, D.C.

You did not see Alec Baldwin.

I did not see Alec while I was there.

I didn't see Martin Sheen while I was there.

Nor Nancy Pelosi,

Chuck Schumer, Sean Penn.

No.

Danny Glover.

Would you see Danny Glover there?

No.

I'm sure they were busy with Hugo at the time.

Probably.

Celebrating the wonder that was Venezuela.

And this is what's so interesting about it because when the number was 25,000 kids in detention

with the Obama administration, nobody cared.

Nope.

When the number was 10,000 during the Trump administration, nobody cared.

Nobody cared.

It's only this magical line between 10 and 12,000 that set off like a bright red line that set off a media firestorm between the 10 and 12,000.

And you know, it seems that started when the Trump administration did something Obama never did, and that's to check on the kids

who were separated to find out how they're doing, where they are.

Can we reunite them with their families?

Which led to a bunch of op-eds and reports about how we've lost X amount of children, which wasn't true at all.

It was just that they hadn't been able to contact them.

But all the children, under this definition, all children were lost previously.

So when that was,

it's like, it's a ridiculous way of looking at it.

But when that part was explained, and then everybody understood, okay, well, this is only, I mean, they haven't really lost these kids, but oh my gosh, they did separate them from their family for a time.

And that's how it started.

And that's how it all started.

It's interesting, too.

This 2,000, this group of 2,000, which is the whole focus of this entire controversy, is actually broken up into three different categories, not just one.

Everyone's saying, okay, well, if they separate them with their families, well, there's three categories there.

You have criminals, people who were criminals for reasons other than the border.

Okay.

So they separate them every time.

And that's never been a controversy.

We've always done that.

Secondly,

there are a group

in this 2000.

that have crossed the border illegally multiple times.

When you do it more than once, it's a felony.

So then you are a criminal and you are separated.

That's what happens all the time.

It's that third group that we're talking about.

And even that group is broken into two categories.

I was watching, I think it was CNN a couple of weeks ago, and I was fascinated by

this breakdown.

They talked about how

there are some of these kids came in with their parent, and the parent was given an option.

One, You could take your child home with you to your home country.

Two, you can leave your child here and let them go through the immigration process and then be joined with someone else on the other side.

And some, we don't know what the number is, some percentage of this 2,000 decided to go home on their own

and be, you know,

not quite deported isn't the right word, but you get to leave, they're leaving the country, going back to their home country

and left their children.

by themselves on purpose to go through the immigration process because they believe whatever's on the other side is better for them.

Oh my my gosh.

But if you think about that,

that's part of the parental separation.

And we don't know what the numbers are.

We don't know

how many that.

We don't know how it's broken down.

So there's three groups of immigrants there.

The main group everyone's talking about, plus multiple

border crossers, which is a felony, and separate criminals, like if you happen to be a drug trafficker and you cross.

So those, really,

two of the three groups are not even part of this conversation.

Absolutely.

You would always have the option of just taking your child and going home rather than being separated, right?

In most cases, certainly not in the ones when there's criminal behavior.

But if it's a normal first time we've caught you and you're with your child and you say, okay, I'll just go back home.

They're going to give you your child and let you go back home.

I think they...

Not necessarily because of the idea that they're going to try to prosecute all these.

The zero tolerance concept was to say, hey, if you crossed it, that's it.

We're not going to let you go back home.

So you can cross again in two months, which I think is an understandable

situation.

And by the way,

another part of this was they had a lot of reports.

They found an internal DHS report that said that

there was a no decrease in border crossings after they implemented this.

And they're like, it's not even a deterrent.

It's not even working.

And first of all, yes, that's the question.

Either it's the worst thing that any government has ever done to a human being, or it's a deterrent.

Like, if it's that, it has to be a deterrent.

Like, you can't say, here, hey, the Nazis are gassing Jews, and also it's not a deterrent for Jews to enter the country.

If you're going to make it into concentration camps, you have to also say it's a deterrent, right?

That doesn't mean it's a good policy.

It could be a terrible policy, as we've seen in the examples they are using.

But if you say it has to also be a deterrent, right?

You can't, they're trying to say, like, it's not even effective policy.

Well, it is effective policy.

Now they are saying that because, you know, the media has been talking about it and people are becoming aware of it south of the border, that border crossings are decreasing.

Now, my guess is that's going to reverse itself because they've ended the policy.

Yeah.

Right.

I mean, it is a deterrent.

That doesn't mean it's the right policy, but and it certainly doesn't mean that they're doing it the most effective way.

Again, there was seemingly no preparation here and no planning.

They did not seem to have, they don't seem to have a way,

an easy way to reunite.

these families even after they decided to do it, which again just shows a lack of preparation.

And this has happened happened multiple times with these sorts of things.

Even when the policy is the right policy, a lot of times it's not implemented correctly.

But that's government.

I guess we all understand that.

Triple A 727B ECK, more Patent Stu for Glenn.

Coming up.

It's Patent Stu for Glenn.

Yesterday

I noticed an article on Drudge of what a scorcher it was through much of the country for the 4th of July yesterday.

So I started

researching a little bit on

what is normal for

a lot of cities this time of year and what is, because you know that this is going to be used as

75 records were broken all across the country yesterday.

You're going to be hearing that stuff, and it's because of global warming.

It's always global warming.

So the average days

in Dallas, Texas that hit 100 or more.

You know what that average is every summer?

No.

18.

So last year, okay, Hottest.

Of course, every year is the hottest on record.

And last year is no exception.

Hottest on record.

So if the average is 18 days of 100 or more in Dallas, how many last year do you think hit 100 degrees or more?

12,000?

I'm going to go.

That's a really good guess.

Okay.

Other than the fact that there aren't that many days in the year.

Am I low or high?

You're just slightly high.

Okay.

It was 10.

Thousand?

10, just 10, the number 10.

So there's 18.

Yeah, 18 on average.

It was under that.

It was less than average.

On basically half.

10

of average.

Yeah.

Amazing.

And

I looked at multiple cities across the country, and that seemed to be the case everywhere in the hottest year on record.

And then they showed just general cities.

We usually have more 100-degree days in the West.

So they looked at Sacramento, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix.

And they were all below average last year.

You know, Tampa has never had a day of 100 degrees or more?

Tampa, Florida has never hit 100 degrees.

Really?

Yeah, isn't it amazing?

Feels that way.

We live there.

I would not have guessed that.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

It's Pat and Stew for Glenn.

You know what's great about today?

Feels like Monday.

It isn't.

It's actually Thursday.

That's great.

Doesn't it feel like it?

Oh, that feels great.

I keep thinking it's Monday.

Nope.

Wait a minute.

No, we're almost through the week.

On Monday, President Trump reveals his Supreme Court domine.

At least that's when it's supposed to happen.

So

we'll find out in just a matter of days.

We can speculate.

a ton, and I'm sure everybody will in the meantime, but we'll find out for sure just a few days from now.

So we don't have a really long wait.

But

most

news outlets believe it to be Brett Kavanaugh.

They think he's the most likely choice.

And the other one that's mentioned most often is Amy Coney Barrett.

So she's only been a judge for a year.

There's not a lot of track record for her, just a lot of academic writings.

Yeah, and she has, you know, she's clerked for Scalia, I believe.

Yeah.

And

we were listening to a speech she made off the air.

And I mean, the praise and understanding of Scalia and his legacy is pretty significant.

I mean, this is not someone, you know, people are kind of throwing her out there as like, well, she's a woman, and Roe versus Wade's about the women parts, so

you should pick her.

It's like, that's not really how you pick a subject.

Of course, per se.

Although, there is an element of, you know, we've talked about this idea of central casting.

Trump has always talked about this as something he loves, right?

You want to pick the person who kind of looks the part, right?

You don't want some slovenly dolt like me as the Supreme Court justice.

You want someone who is, you know, that looks the part.

And Gorsuch looks the part.

Like, Gorsuch looks like a guy who would be on the Supreme Court.

You know, he does.

He really does.

And that's not necessarily the case.

Like, you wouldn't say

Scalia necessarily did at times.

He was a little disheveled

at times, but who cares, right?

You don't care.

So there is an element, though, with Barrett, is she is 46 years old,

an attractive woman.

And the idea is you pick someone who is

good-looking and female and young.

And they're going to have

a harder time beating her up than they would a man.

Yeah.

And she knows, I mean, you could, you know, she is, she's very well-spoken, very reasoned,

and is not going to be

off like a kook of any kind, like an extremist.

No, no,

because that's how they're going to paint whoever it is.

Whoever it is, they're going to say that about them.

I mean, anyone from

extremist to them.

You have to find someone.

And the idea is, you know, we need a consensus pick, is what I keep hearing from the Democrats.

You're never going to find a consensus pick.

No, it never.

I mean, of course not, right?

Their idea of a consensus pick was Merrick Garland.

Oh, geez.

You know, that was what they thought was a consensus pick.

That's what they want.

Because they want someone on their side.

side.

It's interesting with Amy Coney Barrett, that I think you have somebody who the idea is you'd go to a Susan Collins, you'd go to Elisa Murkowski, and there'd be something pulling on them to say, I want

a conservative female or a female in that position.

And I, again, think picking Supreme Court justices, picking presidents, picking anyone based on

the type of their genitals is not typically the best way of doing it.

Like, there's actually usually almost always a better way of picking.

And I don't know why we get into this identity politics world where it's just like, well,

you're a woman.

But the idea is

it's going to play better if you have a woman overturning Roe versus Wade than a man.

And again, like, I,

Roe versus Wade is a terribly decided case, whether a man or a woman overturns it.

Still the same

crappy case.

Still the case that led to the destruction of 60 million babies over the last 45 years.

On the Morning Cup of Postum today,

Joe and Mika were kicking this around a little bit.

And that's why we have these two favorites that we just saw there.

The inside line is that Amy Barrett would be better for the base, but a tougher confirmation fight.

So that's the calculus AIDS are making.

But Mika and Joe, this won't surprise you.

People who are involved in the vetting tell us that for the president, it's going to be all about the personal connection, who he feels comfortable with in the moment.

So you're saying he's going to pick the man,

the white man?

Oh, no, I totally don't think so.

You disagree?

So, what's interesting about that to me is

this is the guy, Joe Scarborough, who claims, oh,

I'm so conservative.

I'm the guy with the 100% NRA reading.

That's how conservative I am.

I'm Mr.

Conservative.

He is now left of Mika.

Who just said, oh, no, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I can't go along with that.

He's offended Mika's conservative principles.

I don't know.

I don't know.

The only reason I say that is, Caddy Kay, if you look and see, at least through the first year, 90% of Donald Trump's elections for U.S.

attorneys and federal judges were white men.

Yeah, look, I think the issue here would be this.

Did Donald Trump spend a minute with any of them?

Again, his theory here is who he's going to have a personal connection with.

Is he spending more than maybe a passing meeting?

I mean, I can't imagine he's meeting a lot of these justices.

There's been hundreds of them.

He'd be shuttling in judges.

There's not time.

No, it's just

do that.

He's got people doing that for him.

He's delegated that responsibility and that two weeks credit.

I mean,

now this one is different.

This is high-profile.

He's very involved in this.

This is his pick.

He gets to choose.

He is committed to staying on this list of 25.

And I'm just flipping through the list of 25.

Lots of people that are not white men.

Lots of them.

Lots of women.

Lots of.

Is Amul to par?

He's not.

Is he white?

He is not.

He is.

He is the first South Asian

Article III judge.

And he's one of the four candidates who Trump interviewed this week.

Looking at Robert Young, also,

he is one of the on the list of 25, went to Harvard, happens to be African-American.

You have Diane Sykes,

who is Wisconsin U.S.

Court of Appeals, seems to be a female.

Again, I don't know how she identifies, so I'm hesitant to note that.

Joan Larson, Michigan,

she's another one who actually I think is possible.

There's not a report of her being interviewed yet, but these things trickle out.

Like the Mike Lee thing that was not out when we talked about it on Tuesday, came out either, I think, yesterday

that Mike Lee was talked to on the phone.

Also, of course, Amy Coney Barrett as well.

Also, Allison Eyd.

She is from Colorado, U.S.

Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, another one who is on the list.

So again, you know, there is a pretty good set of diversity here, which, by the way, basing it on whether you're white and male.

That's not going to be the basis that he decides this on.

It's ludicrous to say that.

And it's just interesting how to see the transformation of Joe Scarborough to just a complete pandering liberal now,

just pandering to the people who watch MSNBC now.

And he had been that for a long time.

A long time.

He is a member in good standing of a particular Hall of Fame of note here

on the Patrick's new show.

Right.

So, you know, I think there is an element of

that, you know, this is not a new thing.

It does seem that since the romance started

with Mika, that the move has been, that the tone of his commentary has become more overtly left-wing.

And now he's come to the point, apparently, where he's actually moved past Mika.

She's like, oh, no, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are you talking about?

Are you calling our president a racist, misogynist, sexist?

No, I'm not going there with you, my friend.

So, and are you telling me that if

a Clarence Thomas type were presented to Donald Trump, he wouldn't consider him?

Of course he would.

Of course he would.

There was a black judge who is along the the lines of Clarence Thomas.

You know, he's looking for ideology, I think.

You're looking for somebody who's going to be a constitutionalist, someone who's going to be a traditionalist

in interpreting the Constitution.

And that's what you're looking for.

You're not looking for some white guy or a rich guy or

even a conservative guy.

You want somebody who's a constitutionalist.

And I think that's what he's going to look for.

Yeah, I mean, look, that's what he did with Gorsuch.

It's more outwardly done with the left.

We know that.

I mean, you know, Obama picked Sodomayor and Kagan.

Soda Mayor was a good pick for

Barack Obama.

Like, I mean, that was a good pick if you're a left-winger.

Like, she is an absolute, like, leaves the Supreme Court and goes to an Antifa rally.

Like, she's,

it's like,

she is, she is, like, going to code pink gatherings the second she leaves the office.

She is as,

by some measures, to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The most left on the court.

And you shouldn't miss, right?

If you're a progressive, you've got the presidency, you're getting someone through.

I mean, remember, we had Republicans calling us up and saying, hey, well, look, you know,

you got to cede to the president's wishes.

He's the president.

You know, in the nominations, you let it go.

It's kind of what it seems like it was Rand Paul that was saying that at the time, right?

That he was just going to vote for him because that's the president's prerogative.

Well, yeah, but the Senate's prerogative is to say no to the president.

Yeah, and oddly, Paul seems to be against Kavanaugh, like saying that he will not vote for Kavanaugh, which is bizarre to me because he was the guy who called up.

And I don't remember if he voted for Sodomayora or Kagan or not.

I don't remember if it was either

about the judges or if it was

about the Supreme Court Justice, I think it was.

When he was saying that, and I just don't feel comfortable with that, or was it about a Cass Sunstein or something like that?

It was one big profile, high-profile

Obama cabinet person.

It was.

Yeah.

And it seemed like he was saying, I'm going to vote because this constitutional is what he does.

Yeah.

So I don't know.

Maybe, maybe that wasn't.

Maybe it was just cabinet and not Supreme Court.

Bottom line, though, is that

he's come out and said probably he might not vote for Kavanaugh, which is a huge deal here because you can't lose anybody.

That's why this is a really hard pick for the president.

Because the last one,

you're going from Scalia to, no matter where you go from Scalia,

the court makeup isn't going to change.

You can't pick someone too conservative, right?

Like,

you know, if you're a left-wing person and you're worried about the balance of the court, going from Scalia to Gorsuch is not much of a difference.

But this one, they're going to pick up.

But this one is, right?

They're going to go hard for Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote.

And this was one of the arguments, by the way, when the Gorsuch thing was happening.

Everybody knew Gorsuch was a very talented, qualified jurist.

Everyone knew that he could go on to the Supreme Court and do his job, and he's the right guy.

He's not some crazy extremist.

He's a great pick in the mold of Scullia,

but he's a great pick.

And

the idea was maybe the Democrats shouldn't do their BS fight against it, because if they do that, the Republicans are going to go to the Supreme Court, the 50-vote nuclear option anyway, and Gorsuch is going to get on the court.

If they would have been honest and let Gorsuch go through,

they could have had a legitimate argument to come to the people and say, hey, you know, we're fighting this one, but we let Gorsuch through.

So they do have that argument now.

But they can't do it because they fought Gorsuch and didn't let him get to 60 votes last time.

So they already had to change the rule.

So the rules already changed.

Now everyone knows.

But they'll claim, well, you got Gorsuch, but we're going to put up a fight this time.

Yeah, but what they should have done.

I know they will.

I mean, you could argue very seriously that they should have just said, they knew they were going to change it.

They should have just said, you know what, get him to 60, let him get over 60 votes.

You know, whatever.

We know this guy's, you know, he's a conservative.

We don't agree with him, but he's legitimate.

Let him get to 60.

And then when this second one happens, whether it's Kennedy or God forbid, from their perspective, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Breyer or somebody else leaves the court, then you would have an argument to go to the people and say, look,

we would absolutely allow someone sensible

like Gorsuch.

I mean, we all voted for Gorsuch,

but this is crazy.

And then they'd have to change the rule after they had already approved of somebody.

Now they don't have that argument, which was it's a real blown opportunity.

They got nothing out of it.

At least they would have something to come to the people with here.

And they don't.

They've got nothing.

Except, you know, they'll still do it.

They'll still

try to use it.

They'll still try.

I think it'll be less effective, though.

I think the average, like, sure, you're going to get your liberal activists to get on board for this, but you actually probably could have won some people over with that.

Wait a minute.

They put someone so extreme that they have to change the rules to get them through.

You know, now, like, you know, they've already blown that opportunity.

And it was, you know, they couldn't even make that point because everybody watched, everybody who watched the hearing knew that Gorsuch was completely reasonable,

was not anywhere near an extremist.

Triple 8, 933, or triple 8, 727, B-E-C-K.

More Pat and Stew for Glenn coming up.

It's Patton Stew for Glenn.

When LeBron James left Cleveland in 2010 to go to Miami, remember how angry Cavs fans were?

Yeah.

People in Cleveland were

burning jerseys.

And it looks like there's some

who are just as angry this time.

A

Cavs fan just set himself on fire trying to burn a LeBron James jersey.

You know what I say about that?

Worth it.

Absolutely.

It's worth catching on fire.

It's worth catching on fire to make sure that you burn the jersey.

Yeah.

So there you are demonstrating again your your

incomprehensible hatred for LeBron John.

It's not incomprehensible.

It's incomprehensible.

It's definitely not.

I mean, I can't, I don't think I can get through it in 30 seconds, but I can spend the whole next hour on it if you wish.

I don't think you could.

I don't think it's.

Is there an explanation for why you dislike him so?

Yes, I've explained it many times.

But I mean, the music's on.

Yeah.

So now there's no time.

We'll talk about it off the air and nervate ourselves.

Glenn back.

Pat Gray Gray and Stu Bergeer for Glenn this week.

And you can also join me on my show immediately following this one on the Blaze Radio and TV network.

How would I find you?

Pat Gray Unleashed.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So.

Can I follow you at Pat Unleashed on Twitter?

You can.

You can?

Yes, you can.

Very good.

I just wanted to make sure.

Indeed, you can.

Because either that or someone's posing as you, which is obviously true considering you don't really tweet yourself that much.

Or at all.

Yeah.

But I've tweeted once in my life, I think.

Actual tweet

from me that I actually typed and hit send.

Send

one.

So you actually did do it and didn't find

massive internal satisfaction?

No, is that hard to believe?

That's really.

No, I didn't actually.

So you're like every one of you.

I can, yes, pretty much live without Twitter

in my life.

I can definitely live without it.

I just still am on it for some reason.

Yeah.

And I don't know why.

Well, I vowed to myself that I'm going to get more involved in it.

Although I have not yet.

I think I remember that vow in 2011.

And I've vowed it many times since.

And so that day is coming sometime.

That and more Facebook.

You do not want to be on your deathbed, Pat Gray, and say,

I always said I would tweet more, and I never got around to it.

Biggest regret of my life.

I didn't tweet more.

This has literally never occurred in human history.

Not once.

No one's like, oh, if I had only posted that really important opinion of mine.

Or if I'd only linked to that cat meme.

If I'd only done 140 characters or less, a lot more than I did.

Oh!

Dang it.

Right now, too, speaking of Facebook, algorithms, Facebook algorithm flags and removes the Declaration of Independence text as hate speech.

This is going to be really good when they start trying to decide what's hate speech and what isn't.

Of course, they're doing that now.

They're starting to decide.

But when it really kicks in, I think it's going to be a disaster.

They already said

Facebook and Twitter and Apple are all trying to figure out how to weed out fake news during this upcoming election cycle.

And

I don't know how you do that necessarily because who deems what's fake and what isn't?

I mean, look, there are

fake news is a term started

before the election last year.

And it was

I hate the term.

And it is not.

And look, to Trump's credit, he was able to,

this is one of the things he does well, which is take a term and kind of

made it his.

It was actually made not even.

People are like, oh, well,

the media started it because they wanted to say that Trump supporters were floating fake stories to support Trump, and they wanted to come up with a a term to do that, and then Trump took it from them.

That's kind of the popular narrative.

In reality,

no, it was more designed.

Like, there's a story that Jeffy sends me approximately once a week, which is about a man who went to go see a prostitute, and it was his wife.

Now, this story has been

replicated in every market.

Like, it's always like man in Kentucky, man in Ohio, man in California.

And it's the same story.

It's basically the

piña colada song.

It's similar to the piña colada song.

You know,

that kind of gives the story of this guy who goes out and he just can't, he just not get anything from his wife anymore and decides to go and he calls a prostitute.

And that's the only difference from the pina colada song.

It wasn't a prostitute.

But then he goes and he meets up with her and it's her.

And then I think also in the pina colada song, they just laugh about it for some reason.

I was like, can you imagine?

I was really annoyed.

Both of them should have been like, what the hell's wrong with you?

And left each other immediately?

But instead, no, we just like the same fruity drink.

So let's stay together.

This case, there's no fruity drinks, but it's like legitimately a story that didn't occur.

Now, it may have occurred at some point

in history, but it's not this particular story.

And it's stuff like that all the time, where, you know, it's just legitimately fake news.

And if that's what you're removing, that's fine.

But in fact, that's great, I think.

Yeah, I mean, at least I can understand it.

You know, it's, I think the main problem here is Facebook and Twitter have taken responsibility and people are like, well, they haven't taken enough responsibility.

I had the opposite.

It's not their responsibility to tell us what we should share and what we shouldn't share.

It's not their responsibility to tell us what we should post and what we shouldn't post, even if they're all lies, right?

Like even if we're writing stories that are completely false,

it's a platform.

And what they have decided is, and I do not believe that this has anything to do with them being like, well, we need to be upstanding members of the community.

That's not it.

They just realize that people are now kind of getting annoyed at spending time on their platform because, as we just said, no one gets to the end and is like, oh, I wish I was on Facebook more.

And they want that to be the case.

They want it to be more of a family connection device.

But I think their problem there is it's one thing to do that and try to emphasize those features.

It's another thing to actually take responsibility for

spreading of news

that you don't think is real.

I mean, you're right.

That now we're getting to the point where if the Declaration of Independence is hate speech, I mean, what isn't?

Yes.

That's the problem.

And if your definition of fake news is a story with a negative spin on Donald Trump,

that doesn't make it fake news.

It just means,

you know, you don't share the opinion that's being expressed in the story.

Now, if you're printing things

that are just blatantly untrue about the president, that's

but it's up to us to figure that out.

Right?

It has to be.

It can't be fair.

We have to take responsibility and do more to weed that stuff out ourselves.

Yeah, and it's amazing how many conservatives

blame Facebook for this stuff.

It's like, I'm sorry.

It's our responsibility.

You know, it's your responsibility to click on an article and then see if it's real and follow it down those lines.

And, you know, we obviously are upset when, because there's plenty of liberal nonsense like this, too, where things that are completely fake about the president or about the senators or whatever Supreme Court justice is going to be named on Monday.

There'll be tons of fake things that are printed to make those people look as bad as possible.

But that, I mean, is it really Facebook's responsibility to go through each individual post and try to find the ones that aren't real?

I say

no.

I mean, if you wanted to do anything on it, you could start banning

certain sites that do this often.

I mean, the problem is they just keep creating new ones, you know.

But when you find a certain site that really is legitimately posting fake things, but again, you're going to get down this, you know, this road.

It's not your responsibility.

It's like if people want to go on that are conspiracy theorists and put all the stuff that Alex Jones says every day and keep posting it, should he be limited to that?

Should they stop Alex Jones just because what he says isn't true?

I mean, to me, the answer to that is no.

No.

It's like saying that

the phone company should step in and say, well, the conversation you're having right now

isn't based on reality.

Well, so what?

It's not your business.

It's not the phone company.

It's not their responsibility.

Yeah.

And I just don't like the idea that they're coming in and doing this.

And I think we're both in the same boat in that I don't really get a lot from social media.

I mean, I do it for work, but I don't actually get anything out of it necessarily in personal enjoyment-wise.

And because of that, I don't put a huge premium on

how wonderful the experience is on Facebook.

I don't care.

They obviously do.

So I can understand why they think that making those improvements will be something good, but I think it's going to cause more problems than not.

Do we have any idea how this turned out with the Declaration of Independence thing?

Was it, you know, now it's okay, and

they figured it out.

They figured it out.

Well,

since June 24th, the Liberty County Vindicator of Liberty County, Texas, has been sharing daily excerpts from the Declaration in the run-up to the 4th.

The idea was to encourage historical literacy.

So the first nine posts went up without incident, but part 10

did not appear.

Instead, they received a notice from Facebook saying the post goes against our standards on hate speech.

The post in question contained paragraphs 27 through 31, the grievance section of the document, where the put-upon colonists detail their irreconcilable differences they have with King George.

So

they say that they can't be sure which exact grievance ran afoul of Facebook's policy, but he assumes it's paragraph 31, which excoriates the king for inciting domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers frontiers the merciless Indian savages.

So maybe just the phrase Indian savages prompted them to remove it.

So the automated

response from Facebook was

that they took it off, sent a feedback message with the hopes of reaching a human being who could then exempt the declaration from its hate speech restrictions.

Fearful that sharing more of the text might trigger the deletion of its Facebook page, they just stopped doing it.

So that was kind of the resolution of the problem.

They just stopped sharing portions of the Declaration of Independence because

they weren't able to get a hold of a human being and say, hey, it's the Declaration of Independence.

Right.

And that's the problem because they're going to be, an algorithm is not going to understand these nuances, at least not yet.

I mean, let's say Khan talk about it.

Eventually, AI will be able to do these things.

Maybe.

That's definitely what he believes.

And it seems like they have a lot of ability to do things that are completely amazing and will be a lot more advanced in the future.

Still, though,

these problems are going to happen.

And then there's no way to really just, you know, you realize like how far we've come with these huge companies.

There's no way to even get a hold of them.

Like, I mean, and we're talking about like, like, you know, like the Blaze, like a media company, a mid-size, right, media company.

When we have issues, like, it takes a long time.

You have to develop relationships with with individual people or you just don't have any way of addressing things that it's not like facebook hates uh certain you know like they may very well i mean obviously we all know there's left-leaning it's a left-leaning company but i mean it's you know they they also want money they're really just a company that you know they they want money and so they want to help their big media partners be able to get people to the platform and sometimes they can't even address those things and they have people but it's like Think of how much is being posted.

And there's people that post a hundred times a day.

Yeah, where you have 2 billion people posting stuff, there's no way you can cover everything.

No, there's just no way.

So it has to be done by algorithm, right?

And then, and so when the algorithm makes mistakes and it's going to a lot, what do you do?

And this is, I think, one of those situations where it's most easily solved by just letting me decide.

Right.

Let me decide.

That's where I think it should go.

Let me decide what I post.

Let me decide what's fake.

You can come up with an algorithm that, you know, where, so I'm going to see the stuff that I like.

But if I like all fake news,

you know, all every single piece of it is a lie, then just keep giving me the lies.

That's not on it.

Like, I know that sounds like you'll just believe lies.

That's okay.

Yeah.

Some people are going to do it anyway.

Yeah.

They're all going to find this information anyway.

It's not your job to manipulate what we think.

It's really not.

And you know what?

The people who are in, like, if I start sharing all lies

about, you know,

if my entire feed are all lies about LeBron James, which is certainly possible that my feed might be that someday.

If that were the case, the people who like LeBron James in my feed will not like me anymore or block my posts.

And over time, those things kind of have a way of working themselves out.

I think Facebook's position is, no, they didn't.

We tried it and no, they didn't.

But again, like you're telling your consumers what they want to consume is wrong.

You know, you're telling them, hey, you know, we don't, like, it's like if people started,

you know, when I was a kid, they used to make those

like Coca-Cola popsicles.

Like, you put them in the little popsicle containers, you put Coca-Cola in there, and then you freeze them up.

Like, if Coca-Cola was like, that is not what it was like, we wanted you to drink our soda.

And they came out and started banning, you know, freezers so that people couldn't make popsicles anymore.

It's like, well, that's not your job.

Don't worry about it.

Don't worry about it.

I bought your product.

I do what I want with it.

Right?

That's what you would tell Coca-Cola.

There's an interesting story with McDonald's going back in the day.

They had these little tiny spoons

for stirs.

They were little mini stirs.

And people were supposedly, in media reports, using them for drugs because they were little tiny spoons and they were easy to like snort a little bit of whatever drug you were doing.

I don't know if it was cocaine at the time or whatever.

And they...

McDonald's had to come out and change their entire product line because people were accusing them of helping people who were doing drugs with their stirs.

Oh, man.

It's like, what the hell?

Come on.

What are they supposed to do?

But again, they just fold to it.

Every time

they figure every long run, it's better.

No one has a spine on anything.

Stand up for your drug paraphernalia that you make.

That's what I'm saying.

It's Pat and Stupor Glenn.

One of the most brutal

terrorist groups on the planet,

the Somali terrorist Al-Shabaab, they have announced a ban on single-use plastic bags.

Wow.

You know, they're environmentally friendly.

Thank God.

This is, you know, finally.

Well, they're doing more than just that, though.

They also are ending people's lives, so they're not emitting any carbon dioxide.

Exactly.

Because they've stopped breathing.

They're not drains on the planet.

Population control.

The group's radio station, Radio and Dulles.

Which, you know, who doesn't have that on their dial?

Oh, that Wacky Morning show is hilarious.

They're funny.

Oh, my God.

They're funny.

They are so good.

Habib and Mohammed.

Yeah.

Really good.

In the morning.

Well, actually, Mohammed, I think, left.

Oh, he did?

Yeah, recently.

What happened?

He got afternoons for Al-Qaeda.

It's a good gig, though.

Yeah, he got a good gig there.

Has Habib found a new partner?

I can't remember.

I think so.

I think he's bringing somebody in from AQAP in Yemen,

producer over there coming in doing afternoons with him.

So they've announced that they will be banning single-use plastic bags in the territories they control because the discarded bags, quote,

pose a serious threat to the well-being of humans and animals alike.

So do you.

Yes.

It's like we don't, well, we don't.

I mean, I don't want to clog up our waterways with them, but I don't mind blowing up a

school bus full of children, apparently.

What a bizarre,

what a bizarre

announcement for them to make.

In addition, though, they're not stopping there.

In addition to banning the plastic bags, this environmentally conscious group also issued an immediate ban on the logging of indigenous trees.

So.

Thank you, Al-Shabaab.

Thank you.

How many times

have we demanded indigenous trees are not logged.

We have stood up for this cause for how long, Pat?

We were marching on this indigenous logger.

I think is when we started it.

Yeah.

Right.

I mean, first march was probably early 50s, but yeah, we started the movement in the late 40s.

Yeah, we started getting really angry about it in the late 40s.

Yeah.

And then we were only moderately perturbed in the 30s about it.

But we did get

a little bit further on that.

A terrorist group is banning plastic bags and logging of indigenous indigenous trees.

Pretty amazing.

That is amazing.

It's almost like

an onion story.

Yeah, it kind of is.

You know?

And

something you might expect the Facebook algorithm to flag because it's fake news, but apparently it's not.

In fact, this story actually says,

what do Coles, Woolworth, and Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Shabaab have in common?

They're all currently in the middle of implementing plastic bag bans.

Seattle, too.

Seattle is in the process of banning plastic utensils

and plastic straws.

So you can still use a paper straw, but the far superior plastic straw is being banned.

Since July 1st, restaurants in Seattle are barred from providing customers plastic straws, cocktail picks, or utensils unless someone specifically requests one.

So I guess you can actually ask for one still.

In that case, the customer should be given a compostable option, according to the Seattle Public Utility.

Where did I see this?

Someone was sharing it maybe on Twitter or something of a person who went into a store and

into a restaurant and the waiter supposed, I mean, again, this is another dumb social network thing, but

the waiter said,

would you like a straw or would you, or would, can I bring you no straw or would you like to like kill the animals?

Something like that, like some sort of like guilt trip.

And they're like, Yo, I never thought of it like that, but that's true.

Like, I would have

stood up and immediately walked out of the restaurant.

Me too.

That's too bad.

I would have grabbed a handful of straws on the way out.

This is the Glen Beck program with Pat and Stu.

And joining us now, Jeffy.

Hey, Jeffy.

Hello.

Hi, thank you.

Hi, how you doing?

So anyway, I went to the fourth.

Did you see the fireworks?

Last night, obviously, some cities had them on the third, but I went to the fireworks last night that the cities so graciously do every year.

They spend a few dollars that they ask for donations for during the year.

It's just charity is what they're doing.

They're letting dollars explode in the skies.

I don't think that's how it works.

They just take donations and then they do the fireworks.

Based on the property tax bill that I'm obsessed with every year, I don't think they're donations.

Really?

Maybe they just got tired of asking and they knew you were going to say yes.

We'll just take it.

That's nice.

That is nice.

It's thoughtful.

So we're at the park and it's packed.

We're on a lake that's this lake grapevine that's close to this neck of the woods where we all live.

And I mean,

two and three to a mule, they're coming into this place.

It's amazing.

And it's about an hour away.

Two and three to a mule.

Yeah, it's packed.

It talks like that.

It's packed.

It's fathered time.

It talks like that over here.

And it's about an hour before the fireworks.

Here comes an ice cream truck.

I mean to tell you,

they were sold out within an hour of this.

They didn't even make it all the way into the park.

It was just two stops along this road, and they were packed.

Nothing says American.

Like capitalism bringing in an ice cream truck to the fireworks place at the beach.

I was amazed.

You expect to bring that story up and expect us to believe that other people got ice cream other than you out of that truck.

Is that what you're asking us to believe?

Of course.

I mean, I didn't have a whole bunch of money.

Okay.

I mean, I sent my daughter down to one truck.

You went to another one?

You actually came up with a system to maximize the amount of ice cream you get.

What a surprise.

Let me tell you some names: Babe Ruth,

Wayne Gretzky,

Pele,

Michael Jordan, Tom Brady,

Joey Chestnut.

Joey the Jaws Chestnut.

You're not really sure.

Don't even try to put him in there.

Oh, come on.

Don't even try it.

What's the...

I mean.

Joey's won't be a good

tournament.

I mean, that's strong.

Strong.

That's an athletic performance almost unmatched in America.

Athletic performance.

I will say, just a note on your list there, Tom Brady Brady has won zero consecutive.

It's because the Philadelphia Eagles beat him.

That's why.

Just to note that.

Just to put that on the pipe.

That's good.

Put that in your pipe, as it were.

The hot dog eating contest is, you know, as you know, I'm more of a distance eater.

Yes.

I'm not really a sprinter.

And the sprinters, man, those guys, I don't know how the heck they do it.

It's

kind of gross.

Yeah, they do it in a nasty way by dipping it in water.

And then just suck it down your

head.

It's revolting in every way.

It's unwatchable.

I don't know how anyone watches it.

It's so disgusting.

Like I, you know, there's just that physical revulsion that happens to you over certain nights.

That is one of them.

Just looking at the bread as it's wet falling back into the cup makes me want to die.

That's gross.

I mean, that's, I don't know, man.

I don't know.

I know you talked about eating, what, 12?

Yeah.

And I can easily eat 12 hot dogs, just not in 10 minutes.

Yeah.

It wasn't in 10 minutes when I ate 12.

Right.

It was over a couple hours.

Yeah.

I mean, you can easily

easily eat 12 hot dogs.

Now,

when we were doing the Patton Stew show, I had

a few peeps that I ate, but that was more of a distance eater.

A few peeps.

I forgot about that.

It was more of a distance eater there.

It was like for an hour or two, right?

Was it both hours of the show or just one hour?

It was both hours, John.

Mr.

Do you remember what the number was on that?

How many

it was over 73?

Over 77.

73, I think, right?

It was over seven now.

73 peeps.

So that's, you know, it was

average 35 an hour.

Again, that's marathon.

That's not sprint.

Correct.

Right.

Correct, yeah.

I just find it amazing.

And they were arguing over the count.

You know, the TV count was off because they were counting from one play to not two.

And I'm like, okay, just give the guy the mustard belt and let's move on.

Let's just stop this thing.

It was just.

And they did.

Yeah, they did.

And they did.

They absolutely did.

But he did break the record.

He ate 74.

Again, it's his own record.

That's athletic ability beyond belief.

I saw him interviewed, and I think it was ESPN that did the interview, and I'm like,

this is not a sport.

Oh, ESPN it is.

I mean, they had the ESPN 3 cam

in the back.

If you were watching ESPN 3, you could watch him eat from a different angle, which even would be better for you, Stu.

But

he was talking about how he felt really good, and

he felt like he could, uh, maybe attack his own record, and he was, uh, his body was in great shape for it.

And I'm like, you're acting, come on now, this is not an athletic competition.

Well, you just, well, Pat, you just don't do that.

You got to work up to it, man.

Those guys practice.

And he does.

Yeah, he does.

That's pretty amazing.

Yeah.

And he was, I think, pretty much not eating anything.

He was drinking liquids the day before, getting ready for it.

Getting ready for it.

But you could have messaged it.

Just spread it out.

Spread your gullet out a little bit and get it ready to just inhale those hot dogs.

And he's not a fat guy at all.

He's in decent shape.

I don't know how he does it.

I really don't know how he does it.

How do you not get full after, I don't know, 10, 12?

Well, you might get full, but

you got to push on.

You got to push through it.

You got to push through it.

And he did.

And he does.

You don't get this by saying, no, that's enough.

We've noticed.

And by the way, ESPN does think it's a sport because they're already dumping a bunch of money money into

the gaming arena, and they'll start broadcasting all those gaming

shows, the guys competing against each other, playing different games

for the esports.

I mean, it's amazing.

Yeah, they broadcast the Madden Championships quite a bit now.

I've been to that event before.

I guess it's one of those Madden championships where actual players play against each other.

Right.

It's wildly entertaining to watch, oddly.

Is it?

Yeah, it says like I don't know why I think.

Watching other players, other guys play video games.

I mean, it's

some of the biggest gaming channels out there, guys playing games and talking their way through it.

Well, and yeah, absolutely.

First of all, it's huge business now.

But they have some of the games I just don't know, like World of Warcraft and all that other stuff.

Like, I have no interest in it because I don't do it.

But, like, you know, Madden, I've played my whole life.

And like to watch, and then, of course, it's also like people that you know, like actual NFL players who know stuff about the defense and the offense.

I mean, there's been large stories written about how they come up with their player ratings and how the guy who comes up with them, and he did for many years

at

Madden and EA Sports, would actually get lobbied from players.

Like, he would, he's getting like, you know, getting harassing messages.

How can I only be an 84 speed?

I mean, come on.

What are you talking about?

I do this.

It's really strange, but it's a weird world.

And, I mean, they're going to start broadcasting all the drone races.

They've got drone race contracts coming up.

It's going to be.

I've seen one of those, too, broadcasts.

Yeah.

I mean, that does not sound so uninteresting.

Why am I watching this?

But I kept watching it for a while, but I wondered why I was.

Because the football season was over.

And that's why.

That's why I was.

College football was not on.

Neither was the NFL.

Okay, let's watch drone racing.

When the most exciting story is like, hey, there's a bunch of people in a cave somewhere and they're trying to figure out how to get out of the cave.

Like when you think that drone race?

First of all, I do definitely care about them.

But secondly, you actually kind of sold me on the story as we were coming into the

commercial break.

Well, because

obviously you have a heartfelt,

you know, you want them to live.

Absolutely.

It's like worldwide.

If people will

11-year-olds or whatever.

12 kids.

So you really care about it from that perspective.

But, you know, outside of that, like, I'm not an engineer.

I don't know how to rescue kids from caves.

But you, I mean, they could be in there for a long time.

A longer time.

Yeah, they're saying now they could be in there for at least a month, maybe.

Try to get them out.

If they don't get them out before the monsoon happens, it'll probably be a while.

It'll be quite some time.

Your moon's amazing.

It took a couple of divers, professional divers.

It took them, what, an hour and a half to get it?

It took them 90 minutes to scuba dive into that cave.

And they were thinking, well, maybe we can have the kids scuba dive out.

Two professionals, it took them over an hour and a half.

Well, it's going to take more than that to get them out now with the way the caves have flooded because they're talking now that they've brought in

full-face diving masks and they're trying to train them to dive.

There's no way.

And a couple of them can't even swim.

And it says now it's going to take a six-hour dive

through the narrow underwater passages to get out.

And some of those passages go black.

You know, you just got to keep going with your hands on the wall.

There's no way.

the kids survive.

And one kid, if one person, one kid freaks out, it's going to

kill the rest of them up.

You know, they will.

They're all going to be

dead.

So now

they say that some kids believe that they heard other sounds, outdoor sounds, when they were in there the first time they were trapped.

So they're looking around to see if there's some air hole or air vent that they can drill in to get them out before the rains come.

That'd be good.

You know, that'd be really good, right?

But they've already removed 128 million liters of water.

And I don't know how much that is.

No, there's no way to tell.

Is that a metric measurement?

There's no way to tell.

It could be a drop of water or it could be an ocean fall.

I don't know.

I don't know.

There's no way to tell.

There's no way to tell.

I don't know how much water that is, but they.

Somewhere between a drop and an ocean.

But they keep pumping it out, and now they're into the third cave.

pumping water out, and that's full, and they don't know how much more water is coming in

just you know because it naturally comes in so they're just trying to pump it out as fast as they can to try to get these kids out of there amazing and it's just fascinating to me i i was at first i was why were they even i mean i get that you want to go through these caves and everything but if you're a soccer team and you've got the coach there and play soccer and go home you don't have a guide and you think hey let's go check out the caves no you know no not today how about we we go back home how about that and then they and then it started flooding and they didn't know what to do So they just kept going back in, trying to find their way out, and you get farther and farther in.

Can you imagine what that would have been like?

You're in a cave and the water starts coming in.

You realize you can't go back out the way you came in.

And you just have to keep going deeper and deeper looking for dry ground.

I mean, that is

terrible.

Terrifying.

And then finally,

they found them and they heard them hollering.

And so they brought them food.

And like you said, they dove the divers,

the professional divers originally went in.

It took nine days, though, to find them in the first place.

Yeah.

Nine days.

What did they eat?

Did they not eat at all?

We don't know the full story yet on how they survived.

They may have started with 15 kids.

We don't know.

It's a daughter party situation.

No, they don't know the full story yet.

They're posting some videos saying hello to the family.

Some of their classmates are outside now praying for them, letting them know they're there.

They're posting videos, and the world is watching.

But man,

think about having to.

Well, we're gonna have to try to keep bringing this water out of here, and we'll hope that you're okay for the next three or four months.

Yeah, that's amazing.

That's unbelievable.

It'd be frightening.

Frightening.

Did you think you could go nine days without food, Jeffy?

Oh, nine days?

Yeah.

I mean,

because I mean, you've been able to, over time,

fight off a situation in which you might not have access to food by storing

cells of

fat.

I'm glad you asked me to come in there.

It's good to see it.

It's good to see you too, Jeffy.

Jeffy couldn't go nine minutes without food.

Not fully nine minutes.

He had to have a smoothie.

I'll tell you what.

I'll tell you what.

If Alec Baldwin can go 24 hours,

I can.

I'll take that bet.

All right.

Too bad Alec

already did the fast, right?

I think so, yeah.

Oh, so I have.

Yeah, me too.

Yeah.

Did you?

Yeah, I already did it.

You already done?

Yeah, for the kids.

Okay.

Way to go.

We didn't check in on you, though, the whole time.

You're sure you didn't eat anything for 24 straight hours?

24 hours.

Have you ever gone 24 hours without eating in your entire life?

12 hours?

Have you ever gone 12 hours?

Yeah, I've had a couple surgeries.

You can't eat before that.

Triple eight, 727, B E C K.

It's Pat and Stu for Glenn.

Triple 888-727-BECK.

Hey, it looks like Alex Jones has learned a thing or two from the lawsuits that have come his way ever since his Trump support.

You know, he gets some coverage now.

He can't just say anything anymore.

He can't.

And so I think he's decided that there is one word he needs to use

a lot.

And he does.

What's going on?

Whether it's hypothetical demons or space aliens doing this?

The Martians, hypothetically, you know, have these heads four times the size size of ours, taking barbecue kids on the White House lawn,

hypothetically.

Hypothetically, what we're talking about.

Little Jenny's been kidnapped by Alec Baldwin.

He hasn't literally kidnapped a little girl named Jenny and doesn't have her in a basement, but let's just hypothetically.

I just caught my wife, hypothetically,

with 10 guys running a train on her ass.

I value a flower garden in my backyard more than I value a big diamond ring on my wife's finger, hypothetically.

They got video cameras set up.

They're filming it for

pornhub, hypothetically.

Release pictures of you with your gay boyfriends when you were out in, quote, Reno or whatever, hypothetically.

Careless if Bush liked me.

You know, hypothetically, Bush

did try to co-op me.

If aliens could infiltrate humanity,

hypothetically, sure, they'll

end up dying.

Hypothetically, I didn't say that.

Hypothetically, saying what would happen if we called for violence.

Hypothetically, he could be looking to avoid some hypothetical lawsuits, I think.

Yeah.

By using hypothetically all the time.

It's funny because some of them are obviously hypothetical situations.

Like, you know, hey, if X happened, how would the media react?

Like, you can use that as a tool.

Yeah.

And a lot of people do.

But some of them are just like, the Bush administration tried to co-opt me hypothetically.

Wait, what?

That doesn't really work.

Glenn back,

Mercury.