'Hyping Up the Hysteria' - 7/3/18

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand.

Glenn back.

Pat Gray and Stu Bergeer for Glenn.

Big day because Donald Trump yesterday interviewed some of the potential nominees for the U.S.

Supreme Court.

And Stu, you actually have a breakdown of some of these guys?

Yeah, well, I mean.

Because, I mean, I'm not all that

familiar with their judicial records.

It's not like I follow their court actions closely during the regular court season.

What an admission.

I know.

That sounds really ignorant, doesn't it?

It's one of those things I had a year, a couple of years ago, where I became obsessed with Philadelphia Eagles' draft picks.

And I kept just like scouting all of them.

And everyone that would be mentioned as a potential draft pick, I would go through and learn their history and watch their, you know, highlight films from college.

And then the draft came and they didn't pick any of them.

I was like, that was a complete waste of time.

Why did I do that?

Yeah.

I used to be the same way with the court, with the court system.

That's why I've every judge.

I would watch his rulings.

I would jot them down.

I would keep their stats, but I haven't done it in about three or four years.

So

I'm lost on where they are currently.

So

he interviewed five.

Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett,

Amul Top, Amultapar, Tapar.

I can't.

I just did the stupid one.

Amul Tapar.

Thank you.

Amultipar.

There's a rhythm to that one.

Amultipar.

Thapar.

What did I say it again?

Amultipar.

Yeah.

I mean, you followed these guys.

Yeah, right.

It's been a while, but yes.

And Raymond Kethledge are the.

I understand.

I keep hearing that Kavanaugh is the least desirable of all of these guys.

Yeah, well,

I'm nervous about it.

So if you think about this list, it's gone through three iterations.

It was first, I think, 10, then it went up to 21, and then it went to to 25.

So it's grown over time.

And

Kavanaugh was put in this last group,

this last group of five.

Now, if you go back to the way that they picked Gorsuch, they added 10 to the list, and Gorsuch was in there.

Reportedly, they basically added the 10 names so they could add Gorsuch, and they wouldn't draw attention to the, we added one more name we came up with, you know, would be kind of obvious.

So they added kind of a slew of solid choices, and they were targeting Gorsuch at that time as one of the favorites.

So

Kavanaugh and Barrett were both added in this last group.

Kavanaugh is the one we're kind of worried about here.

Wasn't he, was he the one that was the runner-up to Gorsuch last time?

No, that's Thomas Hardiman.

And Hardeman is also on the short list here.

So those are the two that I'm worried about right now.

Hardeman and Kavanaugh.

Now, both of them check all the boxes.

It's not like he's picking some guy off the streets.

They've They've gone through the Federalist Society's screening.

So this is...

Okay.

I don't think you're talking at all to just put this off the table

between a suitor where you make a mistake and it becomes one of the most liberal justices there.

I don't think you're talking.

The scale we're discussing here is not Ginsburg to Clarence Thomas.

The scale we're talking is Kennedy to Clarence Thomas.

Right?

There's no reason to get another Kennedy here.

There's no reason to get another.

Sandra Day O'Connor.

Sandra Sandra Day O'Connor is another great example.

You don't need that here.

Right.

You don't need it.

You don't need to please the left with this pick.

Not at all.

At all.

You shouldn't even consider it.

There should be zero risk.

So the issue here is not whether Kavanaugh is - he's not terrible.

He's not Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

He's not Souter.

But I'm worried he is

Roberts.

Do we have any idea where he stands on Roe v.

Wade?

We don't know

per se.

We do know where he stands on Obamacare and the individual mandate, which is really, I I think, the thing that's throwing up red flags for everybody.

He wrote a decision or an opinion on Obamacare as it was making its way up the court system to get to the Supreme Court.

So this is before Roberts rules on it.

And he, in his opinion, basically outlines a path to approve of Obamacare.

approve of the individual mandate.

Now, his justification for that was largely judicial restraint.

I think think

the legislature should make these decisions and not us.

The problem with that is, you know, when it's unconstitutional,

you don't need restraint to stick with the Constitution.

I want someone who has very little restraint to honor the Constitution.

You don't need restraint in that area.

You need someone who

is going to not try to make new laws, like, for example, Roberts did to justify Obamacare.

He rewrote the law.

As Scalia says, it's now SCOTUS care because we basically just rewrote it.

And that is what

was making a lot of people nervous here with Kavanaugh.

He is a guy who,

in this decision, we can go through this in more in depth.

I don't know how boring we want to get today, but the bottom line is.

Well, we want to be really boring.

Really boring?

Yeah.

Oh, I just want to.

Well, let's read the whole decision then.

Hold on.

No, if you go through the breakdown of it, you know, that is largely his reasoning is judicial restraint, which is something that was a priority of George W.

Bush when picking justices.

So, again, that got you Roberts.

And the issue with Roberts is he doesn't want to make these big

rulings come from the court because he doesn't want to be the one.

He wants to keep the court's reputation intact.

And I don't, look, the court's reputation is not your job.

Your job is Constitution.

Okay.

Look at, can you force people to buy things they don't want?

I know.

You're like, no,

it's not available as a government power and has never been utilized as a government power until we all of a sudden made it one when Roberts made that decision.

And that's the sort of thing I don't want.

To me, that's activism.

When you create a brand new thing that has literally never been utilized before, forcing people to buy insurance to be in good standing as a citizen, and you rework the law to make it okay twice, by the way, Roberts did this twice in two separate cases, the subsidies and the fee tax situation.

That's not what I want.

And there's no reason to get another Roberts here because people keep saying, well, Jeffrey Toobin's on TV every day saying, oh, well, in 18 months, we're going to have absolutely no Roe versus Wade.

Women are going to have no rights.

Gays are not going to be able to go into any bakeries.

They will not be able to purchase baked goods at any time.

Like, there's no reason to believe that.

We don't know how Roberts is going to rule on Roe versus Wade.

There's no way you can have confidence in that.

By the way, we don't even know how Alito, I mean, I have confidence in Alito.

I have confidence in Gorsuch on this issue, but we don't know how either one.

The only vote you know you have is Clarence Thomas at this point.

That's it.

Yeah.

So the fact that you're going to go four for four

with Roberts, Gorsuch, and Alito, which I'm pretty confident in, and then add on to that whoever this new justice is,

if it's over 50%,

I'll be surprised right now.

I don't think I would buy at one to one

the odds of Roe versus Wade being overturned.

I mean, I would need three four to one before I would sell it.

I'm nowhere near as confident as Jeffrey Toobin.

I wish I were.

And he's just fear-lovering, though, right?

I mean, I don't think he believes.

I don't know.

I think he's just trying to scare everyone

to oppose it.

I want to believe it, too.

I want it to happen more than that.

It should happen.

It should happen.

Absolutely.

And, you know, and we can go into that as well because it's really even a Roe versus Wade overturn is not as big a deal.

It's a big deal, but it's not the end-all beal.

It doesn't end abortion, certainly in the world, but not even in the United States.

So there's a lot there.

But

so that's one.

Kavanaugh, I'm nervous about Kavanaugh.

I'm also nervous about Hardeman.

Hardeman finished in second last time.

He was added as a favor to the list, reportedly, from Rick Santorum.

Now,

Rick Santorum's pretty conservative.

Although, you know, he's a guy, you know,

he's a different flavor of conservative, as we've seen with his minimum wage policies and, you know, certain, you know, he sees himself as sort of a blue-collar, you know, populist conservative, which is not my particular flavor.

He doesn't like, you know, he's been outspoken against libertarians in the past.

And on the court is where you really want libertarians, right?

Like the court is the place for libertarians.

Even if you don't want them as your, you know, your president or you don't want them as your senator, you want them in the court because they're going to look at the Constitution as written.

And that may not be Hardiman.

Hardeman is, there is a,

you know, they try to do these things.

They're imperfect, I think.

But when it comes to whether they're liberal or conservative, they have these ratings.

And so the court, as it stands right now, so to my Arn Ginsburg, way on the left.

Breyer and Kagan, liberal, but not quite as liberal.

Then Kennedy, who they have rated on the scale as to the left of center.

Okay.

So understand that

people are like, oh, they're replacing a conservative with another conservative.

I mean, moderate is really a fair description, probably, of Kennedy, but he's not really all that conservative.

He was good on certain things.

Then Roberts, then Alito, then Gorsuch, and then all the way to the right, Clarence Thomas.

What you want is another Clarence Thomas.

Of the 10 justices they, they, or potential justices that they rated, the closest to Clarence Thomas is Mike Lee, the most conservative out of that entire group.

The most liberal of the group that they rated was Thomas Hardiman.

Hardeman in between Kennedy and Roberts is where they have him rated ideologically.

And again, there's just no reason to

risk something like that.

Hardman might be okay, but there's no reason to risk him.

Again, you know, you have Hardman was added as a favor.

Now, Santorum is a good guy and a conservative guy.

It's not even in office.

But he's not even in office.

But he wanted, this is when Trump was looking for his endorsement during the campaign, and this is when he was added to the list.

But, okay, just because it's a favor or someone else, that's not necessarily bad.

It could be good, but that's also how he got Souter.

John Sunu, hey, I know this guy in New Hampshire.

He's fantastic.

You're going to love him.

And then we got the most liberal guy in the Supreme Court almost.

So that makes me nervous.

He's also friends with Trump's sister, serves with Trump's sister on the court, which, again,

you could argue fairly, hey, he's got insight on who this person is.

You know, extra insight.

Maybe that's a good thing.

Makes me nervous when you have personal relationships having anything to do with stuff like this because

that's how you make mistakes.

We've been burned many times before.

Yeah, really have.

And he also, you know, is on this list the furthest to the left.

So, I mean, to me, I don't want Hardiman.

The problem was he made it, he was reportedly in second place to Gorsuch when they picked last time.

He interviewed, they said, even better than Gorsuch.

It was a great interview, very well prepared.

And he is on the short list again here.

He's listed in the story today in the top five.

He has already been interviewed by Trump.

Trump went through four others.

So that's two of the top five, the two that I'm nervous about.

The other three are Amy Coney Barrett, who you'll remember her from

she when she was going through her last

advise and consent process, she was attacked for her religion by was Diane Feinstein, who was basically like, oh, yeah, the

what was the word she used?

The dogma.

Yeah.

The dogma is strong within you.

It lives loudly within you.

Yeah, like, wait, what?

What?

And she is a member of like a church group, and they're trying to make that look like it's a cult.

She's Catholic.

Yeah.

And then there's some group that she's in that's a Catholic group.

It's a Catholic group.

And it's like a Catholic group of people who like pledge to each other to help each other throughout their lives.

Oh, that's kookery.

That's crazy.

What a nut job.

You can't have her on the court.

But she, I mean, again,

seemingly would be on the right side of Roe versus Wade with that background.

So that is something that is positive,

possibly a positive.

Thapar, or what is it,

Amul Thapar.

There we go.

Amul Thapar.

This is another one recommended highly is the pick of Mitch McConnell.

This is who Mitch McConnell wants to get this gig.

And he's been on the list.

He's pretty conservative.

He's

on the ideological rating scale is slightly to the right of Alito.

Wow.

So that's seemingly a good pick.

Again, I get a little nervous when you have people recommending others.

It always makes me nervous, but I understand it.

And then Kethledge, who is equal to Gorsuch on this ideological list, which is

pretty nice.

So there's a, I mean, look, all of these justices are right of center.

Why we would go more towards the center than the right.

No reason to.

There's no reason to here.

You know what?

We talked about this on the news and why it matters, which we are both on every day here in the Blaze.

If you have, if you go in there and you put in the most, you put in Mike Lee, let's just say.

They're not going to do this, I don't think.

But let's say you put in Mike Lee, and Mike Lee goes through there and he's been outspoken against Roe versus Wade, thinks it's a terrible decision, blah, blah, blah.

And Murkowski and Collins come out and say, no, I'm not going to vote for them.

First of all, you're going to have a great case to go to red state Democrats in that election and say,

hey, hey, West Virginia,

we needed the vote for Manchin and he wouldn't do it.

You're going to have a great case to win all of those Senate seats that are in red states.

Yep.

I think you roll the dice with it

because there's a good chance Republicans expand their majority here in the Senate.

It's set up perfectly for them to do so.

If you have an outstanding Supreme Court seat,

it's going to drive people to the polls like crazy.

And I think you rolled the dice with it, and then you put in the most conservative person you absolutely can.

Now, you don't necessarily have to have him outspoken, like Lee has been, or maybe Pryor has been on Roe versus Wade, but you need to have someone who you're sure of.

No playing here.

No,

oh, well, let's pick someone who's never said anything about an issue.

Let's not anger the liberals.

Yeah, you don't need to do that here.

Even if you lose Murkowski and Collins, it's just an argument.

You come back.

You'll probably get to 54 or 55 seats in the Senate, and then you'll be able to get whoever you want through.

And if they go along with it, if you have another Gorsuch ready to go, and you think they're that good, then do it, and it's great.

But if you don't get it through, you can be patient with this one, I think.

I'd rather not pull the trigger on somebody like Hardiman, who is really risky.

And then at the end of the day, you're like, oh, well, if we waited three months, you know, we could have had somebody better.

You know, this is maybe the main issue for an awful lot of people

in voting for Donald Trump.

Those who weren't absolutely sold on him from the beginning usually came to the conclusion, well, the Supreme Court.

He'll be good.

He's a lot better on the Supreme Court, and we've got some openings that are likely.

And I'm not going to put Hillary Clinton there.

I'm going to vote for Trump because of the Supreme Court.

How many people did that?

Lots.

Many.

So now here's the chance.

Yeah.

And here's your opportunity.

Seem to do well with picked one.

You know, you never know this for, I mean, Roberts looked great in the first year or two as well, so you never know, but it looks great.

If he can pull out another one like that, it's going to be fantastic.

That'd be great.

Triple eight, 727 back.

It's Pat and Stew for Glenn.

Triple eight, seven, two, seven back.

Looks like we avoided a 4th of July attack on downtown Cleveland,

which is always a good thing.

FBI said Demetrius Nathaniel Pitts, also known as Abdur Rahim Rafiq, is taken into custody on Sunday around 10 on accusations of attempting to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

Apparently, he was trying to figure out how to give

toys with

explosives in them to children of military veterans.

Oh, my God.

Yeah.

And they had all kinds of things planned for downtown Cleveland.

And fortunately, we dodged a bullet there.

Frightening.

Wow.

You had targets like St.

John's Cathedral and giving remote-control cars packed with explosives and shrapnel to the children of military members.

Oh, my God.

Can you imagine?

Actually, I mean, we saw this in the documentary Halloween 3 Season of the Witch, in which

that company, which of course I can't remember the name of the company,

oh, Silver Shamrock, I think it was.

And

they gave Halloween masks to kids all around America.

Right.

And then you had to put them on while you watched.

Right.

And then you gather around the TV, and they had the three more days to Halloween.

Halloween.

Halloween.

Don't sing that other way.

I won't sing the full song because then if you're wearing the mask, it will apparently, I don't know what it does exactly inside, but I know bugs crawl out your eyes.

Yeah, it's worse than hypnotism.

Well, it crushes your skull, and then bugs crawl out your eyes.

I don't know exactly where the bug were the bugs stored in the mask, where did they come from?

But the bugs

and snakes.

Why were there snake?

Were there snakes in the rubber of the mask?

I don't know.

That never seemed to be fully explained.

No, but I just know it was horrible.

But I mean, that was legitimately like the plot.

You give kids something that they like, they hold on to it, they put it on their heads, and then it kills them.

Yes, that is the fact that that's a potentially real-life scenario slightly altered from Hubble and Three

Witch.

Yes.

I'm glad they caught this guy.

Jeez, that is.

Oh my gosh, can you imagine?

When you get into that stuff, I mean, look, killing people for any reason.

There's just a guy who

was arrested for threatening to kill Ajit Pai, the FCC commissioner, over net neutrality.

Now, look, there's a lot of reasons to kill somebody.

But net neutrality.

Your Netflix buffering is not one of them.

I just, the amazing world we live in today I know I you know they it's it's incredible and here like there's a certain extra level deep in the bowels of hell for someone who would try

to be an exploding toy no doubt about it wow wow really dodged a bullet there

it's Batten Stew for Glenn 888 727 BECK we were talking about potential Supreme Court nominees

what is this group that Amy the two names that we're hearing most right now are

Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Barrett?

Amy Coney Barrett.

They're both added in that last group, which makes sense, the way they picked last time.

Has he talked to both of them?

I think he has, right?

He's interviewing

them already.

Yes.

And also, CBS is reporting that those are the final two.

Now, she belongs to some scary, scary religious group.

Yes, it's Catholic.

Have you heard of this?

Catholic?

Sorry, am I mispronouncing that?

Catholic?

Catholic.

I think it's Catholic.

Okay, I don't know.

I'm not familiar.

It sounds really bad, though.

There's only like 2 billion of them around there.

That's it?

Oh, my gosh.

That's weird.

There's a tiny little fringe group.

So she is a faithful Catholic, and she had an issue with Diane Feinstein.

Diane is not apparently a fan of being a faithful Catholic, I guess.

I don't know exactly what she's describing in this clip, but it's become sort of a famous one because if you're a faithful person,

you know, if you're going to be attacked like this, if this is an attack, then you're eliminating everybody of faith, basically.

Yes.

Everybody who actually lives their faith.

And I don't think that's what the, I don't think that's what we're supposed to be doing here.

A litmus test to make sure you're not religious.

This legitimately seems to be what is being applied here.

This is Diane Feinstein with Amy Coney Barrett.

When you read your speeches,

the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.

And

that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.

What?

So that's a concern that you believe things strongly in your religion.

What are you talking about?

Is this the United States of America?

I don't know.

We take a wrong turn and wind up in a Soviet bloc nation.

What do you mean that's a concern?

Why?

What do you mean you're concerned about that?

And of course, what she means is, we fought so hard for Roe v.

Wade that we will not give it up, come what may.

Yes, absolutely.

We are going to continue the slaughter of children.

And if you want to stop that, I'm sorry, you can't be a part of any judicial system.

It is under, we believe, and we are under the impression that some Catholics do not like Roe versus Wade

and they do not like abortion.

And therefore, we do not want you on the court.

That's essentially what she's saying.

That's exactly what she's saying.

And she can't obviously state it that clearly, but that's exactly what she means.

Now, she is also, it goes further than this, Pat.

She is in a very deep cult, as described by a lot of people on Twitter.

But it does not seem like necessarily a cult to me.

I would like to get your opinion on this.

This is the People of Praise group, right?

Yes.

She is a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People

of Praise.

I don't know why.

It just seems like you should say it in a scary way.

The members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty called a covenant to one another.

Now, I don't know what that, I mean, obviously, like, if you take this to, you know, the Rajneeshis in, you know, Oregon, you could find a way that a lifelong cult or a lifelong pledge of loyalty or a covenant could be really scary, right?

Like, and that's obviously how this is intended to read,

you know.

But, I mean, when you listen to it, I mean, it's like...

Well, what is it a covenant to do?

Exactly.

So let me

current and former members say that the heads and handmaids, that's what they're called.

So they have,

the covenant is to one another.

They're assigned and accountable to a personal advisor called a head for men and a handmaid for women.

The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

Now, this is how the New York Times also characterizes the Bible, right?

So I don't know how you're, if you're going to be, if you're a religious person, why you'd be scared of this, because this is how they talk about these issues all the time.

And they just make it seem like it's the worst thing that's ever been invented.

Right.

And when you talk, you know, maybe it's the maybe this is a terrible group and it's the boy who cried wolf because it's they anything that is religious they make sound like this.

So I don't know.

I don't really know by looking at this.

It says current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions,

including whom to date, whom to marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

Now, that to me strikes me as the way the New York Times would write about a support group, a group of people who have similar principles and who realize that men and women are fallible and at times go off the road and you need someone to help bring you back to the correct road.

Right.

I know that that's in your church, right?

You have people who you have a system, not exactly like that, but it's pretty similar from my understanding of it, right?

Where like you, you know, Glenn has talked about how he's had people who are in troubled times that come over to the house and he he'll go visit them to try to help them through troubled times.

Yes.

Right?

Like, that seems like a really rational thing for a church to be doing.

Yeah.

Legal scholars say that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about judicial nominees' independence and impartiality.

So the idea here is that Amy Coney Bear is going to be like, I don't know what to do on Roe versus Wade.

Let me go ask my handmaid.

And then the handmaid is going to be like, oh, you absolutely want that.

Like, is that really the implication here?

I guess.

That's absolutely not going to be the case.

That's not going to happen.

This is ludicrous.

Ludicrous.

These groups can be so absorbing that it's difficult for a person to retain individual judgment, says Sarah Barringer Gordon, a professor of constitutional law and history at the University of Pennsylvania.

And an expert on the people of praise?

Absolutely.

Okay, sure.

Let's hear what she says then.

Does she go in depth into the group?

Well, she says, I don't think it's discriminatory or hostile to religion to want to learn more about a relationship with the group.

Okay.

All right.

Miss Mrs.

Barrett, through a spokesperson at the Notre Dame Law School, where she is on faculty, declined several requests to be interviewed for this article.

Leader of People of Praise, Craig S.

Lent,

said,

he changed his name to Lent.

Oh my gosh.

I'm just going to say that.

These people are crazy.

Oh, that's great.

Oh, boy.

He was joined by Bill Communion.

David Easter.

Craig Lent said that the group was not nefarious or controversial, but its policy was not to confirm whether Ms.

Barrett or anyone else was a member.

Mr.

Lent, whose title overall coordinator, who has belonged to the group for nearly 40 years, said in interviews that the group was about building community and long-term relationships and that members have a wide spectrum of political views.

We don't try to control people, said Mr.

Lent.

Again, a guy who's so controlled, he changed his name to Lent.

Let's be honest about him.

That's just not, no,

who is also a professor of electrical engineering and physics at Notre Dame.

Sounds just like a whack job.

You know,

there's never any guarantee that the leader is always right.

You have to discern and act in the Lord.

He later added, if and when members hold political offices or judicial offices or administrative offices, we would certainly not tell them how to discharge their responsibilities.

Again, it just seems like the type of thing that this is going to sound great to think progress, right?

This argument is going to seem really compelling to raise money for media matters.

You know,

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to be able to make a big deal about this when she's raising money for her campaign.

But it's not real, right?

I mean, it doesn't seem like it's an actual...

legitimate point to be brought up.

It's trying to scare people to think she's too religious and therefore can't be be accepted.

Right.

And I'm sorry, what's the difference between that and this from Nancy Paul?

She asked me all the time, what is your favorite this?

What is your favorite that?

What's your favorite that?

And at one time, what is your favorite word?

And I said, my favorite word, that is really easy.

It's easy.

My favorite word is the word.

The word.

The word.

Is the word.

Is the word.

And that's two words.

Everything.

It's everything.

It says it all.

Says it all.

And you know the biblical reference, you know, the gospel reference.

The word.

The word.

And that

is

word.

We have to give voice

to what that means in terms of

public policy that would be in keeping

with it.

In terms of public policy.

What kind of crazy nudge wackiness was that?

Wait, the word gives voice to your public policy?

Can you imagine if one of these Supreme Court justices?

Nobody had any trouble with that.

No.

You're telling me you make laws based on the word?

Yeah.

I hope so.

I wish you did because I know that you're ignoring the word when you make public policy.

If you're Nancy Pelosi, I wish they would listen to the word.

But nobody was scared of that.

No.

And part of the reason why no one was scared of that is no one believes that she actually thinks it.

True.

Like, no one believes she does that at all.

I mean, I love how the whole point of her is to say that it's the word and to give voice to the word, but she won't actually say the word.

I love that.

It's true.

It's true.

You know, this is her,

you know, Nancy Pelosi is famous for this, right?

She acts mega-religious in certain moments.

But then it's within the moment.

When she's with religious people.

When she's pandering to them, that's what she says.

When it's time to get donations

from a religious group, she sounds like that.

But she doesn't act like that.

Not at all.

And that's what they're comfortable with.

That's actually what the left likes.

Hey, you don't want to come out and you want to give a little voice to faith and stuff so we can suck in some of those people?

Great.

As long as you don't vote like that, fine.

And they scares them.

As long as you want to pander, as long as it's just pandering, we're completely comfortable with that.

Exactly.

But if you mean it, we don't want anything to do with you.

And this is reflected in their view of the founders as well.

I mean,

their argument when we bring out a David Barton document, you know, David's dug up some letter that George Washington wrote, and it's all faithful and it sounds so religious.

What's the reason?

Oh, well, that was just their public face.

They just said those things because they knew the people were religious.

They weren't really religious.

That had nothing to do with this.

Most of them were secularists.

Most of them were deists at the most.

And it's like their idea is.

Politicians lie and they were playing this religious face to the people.

It reveals a lot about what they are doing.

That's what they are doing.

You know, it's what many politicians have done throughout history.

It is a common practice to essentially fake your faith to win over the people and then vote however you want.

So that's very familiar to the left.

And I guess they're applying that.

There's nothing wrong with having faith.

In fact, it's very common here in our history.

Our society was built.

on the idea that faithful people would could make public decisions

based on a central, not only their own personal opinion, because that's not what this is supposed to be about.

It's supposed to be about, can you analyze the Constitution and stick to it?

That's what it's supposed to be about, period.

And there's no reason here someone run in and said, well,

we need Carson Wentz, not Ryan Leaf.

It's a first-round draft pick.

You got to be your first overall pick.

Pick the person who you think is going to be best.

Don't try to massage it.

Don't try to pick someone who you think might pass muster with some liberals.

Pick the most conservative person you have.

And conservative is not even the right way to say it.

the constitutionalist.

That's what you need here.

And, you know, look, a lot of people are defending Kavanaugh, which is one of the people we brought up that could be a risk.

Ben Shapiro kind of said, I'm worried about this.

A couple of other healthcare experts did not like the way he looked at Obamacare.

However, overall, he looks pretty solid.

Ed Whelan at National Review has been one of his defenders, and he's a pretty smart guy, too.

So

it's not universal.

I just feel like I'm just running away from risk here.

I'm risk averse.

Anybody who looks like they could go the other way, you should run from because we've learned from Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.

We've been down that road a million times.

Yeah.

We don't need to go down that road again.

I mean, look at this.

The reason why Roe versus Wade was not overturned is because Ronald freaking Reagan missed.

Right.

That's how hard this is to do.

Right.

Yeah.

I mean, that is a big statement.

This is not, people are like, oh, well, you know what?

You don't think Trump can pick another justice?

It's hard.

It's really hard.

I mean, you know, Bush probably went, I would say, one for two.

You know, it looks like Gorsuch is a home run so far, but we don't know.

It's not long enough to really tell.

But I mean,

Reagan went one for two, right?

Yes.

Or he actually had more than that.

He had O'Connor.

Yep.

And O'Connor he missed with.

Kennedy he missed with.

He missed with.

Right.

And Thomas was Bush, right?

Was Thomas Thomas?

Thomas was Bush.

Yeah.

So, I mean,

this is hard to do.

It's not a criticism of the president or this process or anything.

If you have any element of risk whatsoever, eliminate it.

Yeah, absolutely.

Don't miss with this one because even Reagan missed twice.

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

Glenn back.

Patent Stew for Glenn.

888727 B-E-C-K.

There are some things you should be concerned about in a Supreme Court justice.

Okay.

Let me share one of those with you.

You should certainly be aided aided by all the

Constitution writing that has gone on

since the end of World War II.

Yeah, we should be helped by the Constitution writing since the United States.

I would not look to the U.S.

Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.

Right, because it's

such an old document, right?

You might look at the Constitution of South Africa.

Right.

That was a deliberate

attempt.

A deliberate offense.

A fundamental instrument of government that embraced

basic human rights,

had an independent judiciary.

Yes.

It really

a great piece of work that was done.

Much more recently than the U.S.

Constitution,

Canada

organized the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And that was from 1982.

So those are way better than ours.

That's what you should avoid in a Supreme Court justice, somebody who doesn't even care about our Constitution.

Wow.

How about that?

Glenn Beck.

Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program,

888-727-B-E-C-K.

We've been kicking around the Supreme Court nominee a little bit today and kind of going over whether or not religion should be a litmus test against nominating a Supreme Court justice.

Seems somewhat unconstitutional.

But that's what they're doing kind of right now to Amy Coney Barrett.

She belongs to a religious group.

group, and well, she's Catholic, but then there's some subsection within the religion.

She belongs to something called People of Praise, which I'm not that familiar with, but they make covenants with each other.

Oh, no, that's a scary word for

progressives.

You've made a covenant?

Oh, okay.

So that means you're going to have to call that person and get their advice on all your Supreme Court decisions?

No,

that's not what that means.

Is there anything really concerning in it all, though?

Have you seen anything that we know one thing that's scary is one of the heads of the entire organization changed his name to Lent.

Lent.

Right.

Craig S.

Lent.

And I don't have any information to back that claim up.

No, and we don't know if he changed his name or that was his given name.

In fact, we don't know.

I would assume it's probably his given name, but I think to make this scary, we have to say

his name is

Craig Smith, and he joined this group and they made him change his name to Craig Lent.

Or he's such a fanatic, he did it on his own volition.

Ooh, but

that's almost just scary.

If he acts independently, though, then it's not a cult.

So it has to be somebody told him to do this,

along with his assistants,

Bill Easter, Bill Easter,

Terry Communion, and Jim Prayer.

So here's a.

That may be the whole leadership of the group.

We don't know.

We don't know.

We don't know.

Don't know.

Current and former members of People of Praise.

I would like to, if there's anyone in the audience who happens to belong to this or know someone who belongs to it or know anything about the group, I really don't know other than the New York Times is trying to scare me into thinking it's terrible.

Current and former members of People of Praise said that Ms.

Barrett and her husband, who have seven children, that's terrible.

Oh, there's another tip off that she's evil.

Seven children?

How many times did Craig Lent tell her to have a kid?

That's what I want to know.

Seven?

Probably seven.

Because she can't act independently, apparently.

They both belong to the group.

Their fathers had served as leaders.

The group was founded in 1971, claims about 1,800 adult members in 22 locations in North America and the Caribbean.

So a pretty small group, relatively.

Group believes in prophecy, speaking in tongue, and divine healings, staples of Pentecostal churches that some Catholics have adopted in a movement called Charismatic Renewal.

Hmm.

People of Praise was an early leader in the flowering of that movement in North America.

90% of its members are Catholic.

To fulfill the group's communitarian vision, unmarried members are sometimes placed to live in homes with married couples and their children, and members often look to buy or rent homes near other members.

No.

No.

You're just controlling their real estate choices now.

Yep.

Okay, Christian.

First Lent, just name the guy Lent.

Now,

you're just putting him on Zillow.

It's got to be within a radius of other people's houses?

That's almost like a community.

It sounds like a community.

Cross her off the list.

I say cross her off the list.

She's clearly a kook.

Some former members criticize the group from deviating from Catholic doctrine, which does not teach male headship, in contrast to some evangelical churches.

The personal advisors can be too controlling, the critics say.

They may betray confidences, and too often they supplant the role of priest.

Here you go.

So, I mean, basically,

we can tell here that this is

way off the list.

So, is that scarier than this from Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be.

On doing their new Constitution, this was...

2012-ish

when they had the revolution there and they were talking talking about putting together the Constitution.

So she was asked about that.

Because I'm operating under a rather old constitution.

Old.

Right.

Yeah.

The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation.

Yeah, but.

And yet we have the

oldest

written constitution still in force in the world.

Which is obviously a bad thing

that it's lasted this long and it's been this durable.

Seems like maybe they got it right.

Man, that is such a revealing.

Is that amazing?

Because she's not even like her

when she's in the court, right?

She's speaking on behalf of the court, she comes up with ridiculous justifications to say our decisions are constitutional.

That's what they always do.

The left doesn't come out and say, you know what, we don't think

this is in the Constitution, but this is what we think it should be.

I mean, occasionally they hint at those things in their decisions, but this is her telling you.

I don't believe in the Constitution.

No, it sucks.

This is not the right way to go.

We need to play this.

We started playing this, but we didn't have time to finish it.

Listen to what she was saying when

they were asking her

about the Constitution and giving advice to other countries on their Constitution.

You should certainly be aided by all the Constitution writing that has gone on.

since the end of World War II.

In her Supreme Court decisions.

That's right.

This was a 2012 interview, and they were asking her about how she bases her,

what she bases her decisions on.

So she should be aided by all the constitutions that have been written

since World War II.

Wait, what?

No, absolutely not.

I mean, that is the exact opposite.

You shouldn't be influenced by anybody else's constitution.

It doesn't matter at all.

No.

Completely unrelated.

In fact, I would say restricted.

Yes.

You're not allowed to look at them.

Right.

Not look to the U.S.

Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.

I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.

That was a deliberate.

To have a fundamental.

I don't know if you know this, Pat, but South Africa has been a shining example of liberty.

Of liberty throughout the days.

Right?

Yes.

We all long to someday figure it out the way South Africa has.

Well, if only.

I don't think we'll ever get there.

Stu, because

it's something we can only aspire to, we can never achieve.

It's the eternal harmony of South Africa.

I mean, what a ludicrous

embraced

basic human rights.

Basic human rights.

Had an independent judiciary.

It really is.

I think it's a concept.

Wait, an independent judiciary?

Who's Who's ever heard of that?

Where do you think these people are getting the ideas?

From us.

From us.

It's a great

piece of work that was done.

Oh, man.

Much more recently than the U.S.

Constitution.

Canada

has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Dates from

1982.

Oh, wow.

First of all, that's a good year, Pat.

That was a really good idea.

It was a good year for wine.

It was a good year for constitutions.

Gremlins?

Did gremlins come out around 1982?

That's close you want to make sure

it might be even more recent for gremlins really i think it was 84 oh wow okay but i'm not positive see that well that's the thing maybe we should learn from gremlins and that why not why in 1982 that's old what about a new constitution every wednesday what about that

it's constitution wednesday every wednesday tweet us your ideas for a new amendment

every wednesday we all tune in together yeah and see what the law of the land is i like it i like

what is the limiting principle?

Well, I want to know.

You go on there.

Maybe we just tweet it out line by line.

Yeah, everyone gathering.

My son did that.

We should learn a lesson from Iceland back in, what was it, 2010 or 12, 14, somewhere in there when they were doing a new, they wanted ideas, tweeted to them.

And I think we should do the same thing.

And I think you're right.

I think it should be every Wednesday.

Just pick a day and start tweeting us constitutional ideas, and we'll just put them into a new constitution and finally finally get rid of this old dusty piece of crap we have.

Just set fire to it.

Why?

It's so old.

But you know what?

The best thing about it is

it's so old.

It's incredibly flammable.

So it would light up right away.

Yeah,

you wouldn't even need lighter fluid.

Very dried-up parchment.

So it'll burn fast.

Look at the European Convention on Human Rights.

Right.

Look at that.

Yes, why not take advantage

of what there is elsewhere in the world?

Because you're not supposed to,

because that has nothing to do with your judicial decision here based on our Constitution.

I mean, so that shows you there's somebody who doesn't even believe in our Constitution that's sitting on the U.S.

Supreme Court right now.

Yeah.

But it, you know, they don't have any problem with that.

No, not at all.

They have a problem with Amy Coney Barrett because she's religious.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also famous for continually falling asleep in the middle of

her job, which is interesting interesting because she's one of the few people you actually, it's actually better if she's asleep.

Like,

I would much rather have her just kind of sleep through all of this and maybe not even vote.

At the end, just kind of

sleep through it.

Ruth, what do you want to?

Oh, she's out.

Yeah.

Okay.

She's asleep.

Everybody, talk about this quietly.

Soothing tones, guys.

Soothing tones.

Look, she's 85 years old.

And, you know,

we talk about this a lot.

And I think social media has ruined this in some way.

I would rather have a Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitting things like that.

I'd rather have her be honest, rather than what she does in the court, which is lie and act as if she cares about the Constitution, be honest like she just was there.

You know what?

Come out and admit it.

And I think because people get beat up so badly from social media when they tweet their real opinions, people now hold them in and hide them.

I'd rather know who people are.

I'd rather know.

We wind up trying to fire every comedian who makes a joke that's off color or every politician who makes a comment that doesn't work.

I'd rather have, I'd rather

just judge it on its merit, vote them out when it comes time.

Don't watch their show if we don't like it, whatever the case may be.

How many times have we said, at least we respect Bernie Sanders because he admits it.

He's a socialist.

I respect this millennial in.

The Bronx because she admits it.

She's a Democratic socialist.

You've got too many Democrats right now who are trying to pretend like they're actual Democrats when they're actually socialists.

Most of the party has become so left-wing that

there's no difference between them and socialists or communists.

There's no difference.

And it's about to get a lot worse.

You know, when you see these high-profile, kind of glamorous cases like Ocasio-Cortez in New York, where you're getting a Democratic socialist and an admitted one who comes out and says, hey, this is what I'm doing.

I want free, guaranteed jobs, free college, all the nonsense that goes along with the Democratic socialist platform that is completely unreasonable.

And you have that

not only winning, but a media glorified win, right?

They're coming to her aid and saying, what an amazing thing this is.

And as that happens, the praise will go to people like Bernie Sanders and people who supported Bernie.

And you will have

a Democratic Party that will be even unfamiliar to the one that elected Barack Barack Obama.

I mean,

we're going to find a place.

I mean, Barack Obama was, I think, in many ways

much further left than he led on in a normal, everyday way.

No doubt about it.

I mean, there's no doubt about that, but he at least was trying to hide it.

Now you're going to get to that point where they're coming out and just unmasking, as Glenn has said for many years.

And that's going to be when that is the only way you can win a primary is to be a socialist.

That is

going to be an interesting world.

But I think that I think we're almost there with the Democrats.

Yeah.

We're there.

Triple 8727BECK.

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

I don't know if you're aware of this, Stu.

Another ominous

record-breaking heat

temperature has been set.

Oh, no.

Or in the words of more like Al Gore, another ominous record has been set.

The city of Kyriat, Oman, hit an overnight low of 108.7 degrees on Tuesday, likely the highest minimum daily temperature recorded on Earth.

And that's ominous

because,

I don't know, we didn't have any records before now.

There were no records.

There were no records.

It never happened.

Everything was the same until now.

And now we're starting to set records

all the time.

You know what they say?

Records were made to be insurmountable.

That is what they say, isn't it?

Records were made to be insurmountable.

It's not ever broken.

It's been surmounted.

And that shows Al Gore was right.

He was right.

By the way, his last movie pretty much bombed, didn't it?

It did.

Remember, there was a big build up to $3 million or something in

the United States.

That's sad.

People didn't want to watch Al talk about graphs anymore.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the first time he did it.

It was mostly bogus.

I wonder if that was a good idea.

That doesn't make that is not consistent with the liberals that I know that they would be like, oh, well, it wasn't true last time.

I don't trust him this time.

That's not consistent with many on the left that I've run into.

So, what do you think it was?

Are we just not they're just not interested in climate change anymore?

Yeah,

I think that's part of it.

It seems like such a

it's it's it's not the marquee attention point right now right donald trump is yep right the the the thing that's exciting them right now is opposition to donald trump not you know 0.9 degrees over a century the resistance well and like it shows how dumb the claim is right

we've we've talked about this for a long time you know

even if you believe everything that dal gore says There's a lot of time and a lot of decisions and a lot of things that could happen.

For example, massive scientific advancement, right?

Where like there's no reason to believe that Elon Musk in five years doesn't come up with some solar panel that solves all of these problems in a minute.

Yeah.

Right.

Like

it just was so ridiculous to think that now is the time to

restrict economies by multiple trillions of dollars globally to try to stop 0.9 degrees over a century and a little bit more after that.

And so they it's just not it doesn't have any intensity to it, right?

Like I think there was a time where they tried every

maximalist claim to make it seem like the worst thing was happening right now, and it just

doesn't prove out.

Right.

Yeah.

And

they have to continually hype up the hysteria around this to keep people's interest.

Like we were talking yesterday about the, on, on my show on Pat Gray Unleashed on the Blaze Radio TV network, which you can listen to immediately following this show.

Or check it out anytime on podcast and just download it.

You should.

Listen to it whenever you please.

But we were talking about

the

Pacific Ocean garbage patch.

Have you heard about that?

I have heard a little bit about it.

Okay.

It is

double the size of Texas.

Two times the size of Texas.

That's pretty freaking big.

It's bigger than Alaska.

And it's out there somewhere in the middle of the ocean.

It's this big and they don't know where it is?

And no.

Well, they know approximately where it is, but strangely, there is no photo of it.

You can't find an image of the garbage patch.

This does not seem real.

So I started looking on the internet

for an image.

I wanted to see if anybody had one.

And, you know, you can find garbage in waterways in Singapore or whatever, but you can't find this size of Texas or Alaska garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean.

You just can't find it because it doesn't exist.

And I finally found an article on Slate

that said

that the garbage patch

is

not real.

I mean, they admitted it.

It's mostly in people's minds.

And it was made up.

I wish I could find the exact quote.

I got to find this because it's amazing.

So basically, they're saying there's.

It was made up to hype up

global warming and climate change and catastrophe because the oceans weren't clean enough.

And so we had to, they had to hype up how dirty it is.

And so,

in order to get people interested, they lied about how nasty this problem is.

And they just made it up and people continued to report it.

And he said the story got bigger as it went.

First of all, it was 3 million tons of garbage.

Then it was the size of Texas.

Then it was double the size of Texas.

Then it was the size of a continent.

I mean,

for real.

It's pretty amazing.

I'll have to try to find the article.

Yeah, it's pretty interesting.

So are they just saying that essentially, if you added up all the trash in the ocean and you put it next to each other, it would be the size of Texas?

Is that kind of the scam?

I don't think it's even

that big a problem.

I don't think so.

So a few years ago, Glenn and Tanya started a company called RealEstate Agents ITRUS.com.

Why did they do that?

Well, they did it because they were having a real frustration trying trying to sell their house.

And you might think, oh, Glenn must have been a nightmare to be around when he was whining about his house every day.

And I will say, yes, he was.

I was there.

It was not fun.

So I'm glad he started realestateagents I trust.com.

And I think you'll be too, because if you're trying to sell your house fast and for the most money, or if you're looking to buy, realestateagentsidrust.com is the place to go.

They've got over 1,200 agents all over America that are rigorously qualified by Glenn's team.

Experience, marketing plans, character, and the results they get are the barometers they use to find the best agents in America.

And then they don't let anybody else sign up.

So you have the best agents in your area available.

All the work is done for you at realestateagentsitrust.com.

Realestateagentsitrust.com.

It's the place to go to make sure the biggest investment you'll ever make goes smoothly.

Let these agents earn your business.

Get moving with Real Estate Agents I Trust.com.

It's Pat and Stew for Glenn.

888727 back.

We were talking about Al Gore and his hysteria over the fact that they had the record high, low temperature set on Earth the other night.

The record high-low.

Yes.

It's never been hotter at night than it was the other night in the Middle East.

108 degrees, 108.7.

That's pretty warm at night.

Yeah,

it's a...

You wouldn't want to keep the windows open for the next one.

Probably not.

You wouldn't get an awful lot of relief from that.

So it led us into the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is

just an incredible shame.

Because this has been making the rounds lately.

It has.

Why is that?

It was invented a long time ago, and now for some reason, it's resurfaced.

And I don't really know why, but you're right.

There might be an email floating around.

A lot of times that's what prompts some of these things.

So we got to talking about this yesterday and just looked in.

I just believed it.

I just believed that, okay, there's, you know, a garbage patch twice the size of Texas in the middle middle of the Pacific Ocean.

I don't know why I believed it.

I just accepted it.

And shouldn't have.

Found this article in Slate

that is from September of 2016.

There is no island of trash in the Pacific.

But the cause of clean oceans needed a good story, and our warming plant could use another one.

I love it when they just admit.

Yeah, we make these things up to create the hysteria so people will listen to us.

I mean, Gore has always kind of admitted that too, or or at least he used to.

He used to say that you have to kind of exaggerate things to get people to move.

What would you say?

It's kind of like to capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.

Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.

End quote.

That's from Steven Schneider, who is a UNIPCC report author.

This is a guy in the UNIPCC is the thing that Gore talks about all the time.

It's like the big UN climate report they do every few years.

That is, like, to me, the fundamental mission statement of environmentalism.

Let me give it to you one more time.

To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.

Each of us has to decide the right balance of being effective and being honest.

I mean, that is the most crystal clear, most honest thing you've ever heard from an environmentalist.

Yeah.

And that was made in 1989 by Steven Schneider, who wound up to become a,

he was Stanford, I believe, and he was a, wound up being a UN IPCC author, as I mentioned, was a lead environmentalist until he died in 2010.

He made that statement long before we had Al Gore-esque debates.

He just, he,

this is basically the environmentalist constitution.

It's that, that is exactly how, because it's not as if every one of their claims has no evidence as this garbage patch does.

Like, for example, the garbage patch is a good example of it.

Garbage patch.

Is there trash in the ocean?

Yeah.

Is there more than we'd like?

Sure.

Is there one that's twice the size of Texas?

Not even close.

No.

And is it a real problem?

I mean, it's highly debatable as to whether it's an actual real problem.

I mean, this is a mass, it's a lot of water out there.

Yeah.

And so you don't want any trash in there.

We'd like to clean it up.

There are problems associated with it, but it's not this mega disaster that they try to make it out to be.

So

to capture the public imagination, they made scary scenarios and simplified dramatic statements.

There's a giant

two times the size of Texas floating in the middle of the ocean somewhere in the Pacific, right?

Yeah.

That's how bad things are.

I mean,

I was kind of convinced, and I thought, well, okay,

how did it all end up in one place?

I guess the

ocean current.

Right.

Because you could see that.

If you've ever looked, been at a lake, right?

Where maybe, you know, there's like party boats that go out in the lake and people occasionally throw cans off the side, you'll see them collect in one area of the lake sometimes.

You know what I mean?

Something like that, where like the current or the motion of the boats, they create some waves and they push all the garbage into kind of one area.

Everybody's seen that.

So in your mind, you're thinking, well, maybe that happens in the Pacific Ocean.

That's just a giant, like, do people have to route around it?

I mean, imagine as you're going towards the giant two times the size of Texas garbage barge in the middle of the Pacific.

That's a lot of garbage.

A lot of extra time

to traverse it.

That would make for quite a photo.

And to think that there isn't one on the internet that you can find is pretty amazing.

It's a good example, too, of how technology has solved a lot of these problems because there would be a photo.

You have a drone even

over there.

A satellite.

Yeah.

Some kind of photo, a plane.

You take a snap of that from somewhere

and you wouldn't be able to get it all in one photo, but still, maybe from a satellite you could.

But

when you go and search for the images and you can't find any,

that should tell you something.

And it does.

And that's why I was so surprised to find this honesty and slate.

The author author writes, But the Great Pacific garbage patch has always been less substantial than it sounds, less an island in the ocean than a big idea that floats around inside our heads.

It's a throwback to the time when environmental threats were made of solid things, empty bottles, fishing nets, nuclear waste, canisters of slime that could be gathered up and buried or incinerated.

In a way, that's the very problem with the Great Pacific garbage patch.

That's the problem it helped to solve when the concept was invented.

Like its mirror image, the hole in the ozone layer.

Wait, what?

I like that.

Like its mirror image, the hole in the ozone layer, which he's admitting also kind of didn't exist.

It's amazing.

It's crazy.

And I was a kid in that era.

When was that?

That was the 80s, right?

Yeah.

When they were talking about that.

And I remember that.

That was a big deal for a while.

It was just real.

We were all going to burn up with cancer because of the hole in the ozone layer.

And then it fixed itself.

And then another hole appeared and it fixed itself.

Well, the Montreal Protocol, of course, was

important to us.

The Montreal Protocol.

But still, it's when we stopped using canisters of.

This is what is so frustrating about these environmental debates, though.

They act as if it's one of those things that's like, well,

it's like going to someone and saying, hey,

I just saw what you ate.

And if you keep doing that,

you're going to be 500 pounds.

Well, it's Thanksgiving.

Like I eat that way on Thanksgiving, then I don't eat that way other days.

So when you realize if there's a major problem, which has happened at times, I mean, go back and look at like Pittsburgh

in history when it was just a giant cloud of smoke.

Over times when civilizations become more advanced and most importantly, more wealthy, they start caring about things like environmentalism.

You don't care about it.

You know, who doesn't care about those things are people who can't eat,

right?

It's when you get to a point where it becomes a luxury problem.

Yeah.

And you have to have enough food, so now you can focus on something else.

Something else.

And

some of those things are really important, but they're not imminent all the time.

And that's why they have to use the phrasing we talked about, scary scenarios.

Make it seem simple.

Don't act as if we have any doubt because then people won't jump on board.

That's why they always call it settled science.

It's a settled debate.

There's consensus when there's nothing like consensus.

We just had a list of, I don't know, 36,000 or something scientists who are not on board with it, at least not on board with catastrophic man-caused climate change.

Many of them believe that the Earth has warmed somewhat.

The question is, why?

And is that just part of the normal process of the planet?

And of course it is, because it happens all the time.

Yeah, and there's multiple levels to the whole claim.

And this is why they try to generalize it all.

You don't believe, if you don't agree with Al Gore, you're a science denier.

But the Al Gore position and anyone on the left's position here is multifaceted.

It's not just has the earth warmed.

Is the earth warmed and

is it caused by man?

Not only is it caused by man, but is it almost entirely caused by man?

And not only is it entirely caused by man, but will it run out of control and become a catastrophic situation?

And not only does it run out of control and be a catastrophic situation, but but do you agree with these policies to stop it, which is large amounts of government control?

And the answer to all those questions has to be yes, or you're a climate denier.

All of them.

You can't just, like, let's just say you're Elon Musk.

Okay, I'm throwing this out here because he is very much on the global warming bandwagon.

But let's say you're Elon Musk, and he goes down the bandwagon.

He believes, yes, it's warmed.

Yes, it's man-made.

Yes, it's entirely man-made.

Yes, it's catastrophic.

But the way we're going to solve that is I'm going to create a solar panel company and I'm going to change the world with innovation.

That's a global warming denier position if he were to believe it.

He also believes in government intervention, so he's okay.

But if he just believed, if he was a Koch brother and he said, you know what, I'm going to create a company that's going to solve this without one dime of government funding or government regulation.

Don't change regulations.

Don't do this.

Let me solve it.

That person would be a denier.

He'd be out for profit.

He'd be an enemy of the state because this is all about government control.

It's not about the environment.

It isn't.

And of course, there are some crazy people who go really far on these things.

I was just going back as I was finding that

environmental constitution that we just kind of went over from Steven Schneider about making false claims.

Yeah.

I found that in an inconvenient book, one of Glenn's first, I think it was his first number one bestseller.

And in there are a bunch of great quotes.

There's a section called Environmentalists Say the Darndest Things.

And that's the one quote I read a minute ago is one of them.

listen to some of these.

He said, it was so classic.

Dave Foreman, the founder of Earth First, said,

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental.

It does create one additional problem I can think of, which is no one's there to enjoy the paradise.

Jacques Chirac, remember him?

President of France?

Oh, yeah.

He was talking about the Kyoto Protocol, which was the first thing that was supposed to

be

the way that we stopped global warming, which we didn't sign on to we didn't sign on to al Gore thank goodness didn't the sign the Senate voted it down like 98 to nothing but he said Kyoto is the first component of an authentic global governance

wow wow how about this is a classic Paul Ehrlich who is one of my favorites I would take this he said this in 1969 Ehrlich was maybe one of the worst he is really one of the worst yeah but one of the most famous and was embraced by the environmental movement very successful very respected except by those who pay attention to what he said then and what and what happened because this is not this is not some crazy person this is someone who is a well-respected scientist and embraced by environmentalists he said in 1969 i would take even money that england will not exist in the year 2000

That's a solid one.

And of course, I've missed England for these last 18 years.

It's been rough.

Yeah, that's been tough.

It's been tough.

I mean, look at Brexit.

It's showing that this is real.

It's actually, England seems to be coming back to life and taking its own independence.

Kind of.

How about in 10 years, all important animal life,

all important animal life in the sea will be extinct?

He said this in 1970, by the way.

Large areas of coastline will have to evacuate.

Yeah, but if you would have said that this year, I'd really be scared.

Yeah.

Of course, I don't think he's alive, man.

I don't think he is alive anymore.

Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.

He said that in 1970.

1978.

Again, think of the motivation behind this.

What do we want with energy?

We want people to be able to do what they want to do, air conditioning, all the amenities of life, not just for pleasure, but also for survival and civilization.

He said giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.

Said that in 1978.

Unbelievable.

Again, well respected.

Yeah.

Not just some lunatic.

And wrong on everything.

Absolutely everything.

Prince Philip from the World Wildlife Federation.

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

These are quotes.

I mean, geez.

Jarge Monabat.

Monbiot.

I can never think of how to pronounce his last name.

He was the environmental author.

In 2006, he said, every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.

I mean, these people.

Wow.

Helen Caldecott from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Union of Concerned Scientists is a great group because they will constantly, they're the ones that get these nice high-profile articles, the release like, did you know that having one diet soda every 16 years will kill everyone in your family?

They're those people.

Everything is going to kill you.

Every, every, you know, anytime a company does something, you're going to die.

And here is the motivation behind it.

Quote, free enterprise really means rich people getting richer.

They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process.

Capitalism is destroying the earth.

Again,

it's not just about the environment.

It's about destroying capitalism.

Yeah, because the green movement is the new communism.

It just is.

And some of them even admit that.

Yeah.

And this one is the most, in some ways, the worst.

This is from Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.

The only hope for the world is to make sure that there is not another United States.

We can't let countries that have the same amount of cars, same amount of industrialization that we have in the U.S.

We have to stop these third world countries right where they are.

I mean, what a

racist.

Yeah.

I mean, think about that.

These are people who are trying to live.

I mean, that's true, racism, right there.

Yeah.

That's amazing.

And you remember this Earth Day claim a few years ago?

The world is using the equivalent of one and a half planets to support life on Earth.

Wait, what?

what what other planet have we used half of

i didn't remember borrowing half of another planet triple eight nine hundred uh no triple eight seven two seven b e c k it's patent stew for glenn on the glenn pack program

glenn back coming up uh jeffy's going to join us and we're going to taste test the new dunkin' donuts doughnut fries oh you can't miss this they exist we have them we are going to taste test them and give you important information for your July 4th holiday.

Much bigger than the Supreme Court nomination.

Oh, yeah.

Much.

We're talking donut friser.

Glenn back.

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

You can also listen to my show, Pat, Gray Unleashed, which immediately follows this on the Blaze Radio and TV network.

And, of course, Stu and I will be back, not tomorrow because it's 4th of July, but Thursday together.

And then I'll be doing the show on Friday.

And then Glenn will be back next week.

And I think you're gone, aren't you?

Are you going somewhere?

Yeah, you're going somewhere.

A few weeks off.

I'm excited about it.

Are you going anywhere?

Going to see the family up in Connecticut.

Oh, okay.

For a little

cooler.

Family vacation, which will be very nice.

And my mom's coming in to visit for a couple of days.

It's going to be fun.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Yeah.

That'd be nice.

You know, a little family time.

Uh-huh.

A little family time.

So I'm excited about it.

Okay.

Apparently, Timothy Geither?

Geithner is back in the news.

And it's been so long

since he's been in the news, I didn't even remember his last name.

Yeah, you might remember him from the early Obama days, Secretary of Treasury.

Yes, and he was, he,

one of the big issues with him is he used TurboTax.

He blamed TurboTax for his tax problems.

Oh, that's right.

Yeah.

And everyone's like, wait a minute, you can't have tax problems.

So you're going to be the Secretary of the Treasury.

You need to be able to pay your taxes.

Yeah.

Well, he is back in the news, and he's got a new business he's been working on.

Okay.

It's very exciting.

What's he doing?

Well, he's, you know, how giving the Obama administration was.

That was solving all of our problems.

Well, Obama phones.

Oh, yeah, Obama phones, right?

Yeah.

So this is, he's coming to the business.

Obama cash.

Obama phones, Obama cash.

Yeah.

He's basically doing that.

It's now Geithner Cash, though.

So what Geithner's apparently running a business, this is amazing.

I didn't know this type of business existed.

It doesn't seem on its face to be a good business.

What they're doing is the business is they send checks to poor people.

Oh, well, that seems nice.

They just really send them free money?

Yeah, but it doesn't seem like it's a good business.

It seems nice, but it doesn't seem like a good business.

No, it seems like you'd go broke doing that.

Yeah.

Well, not if you do it this way.

What they're doing is they're sending checks to poor people.

Okay.

And when they receive the checks, they deposit those checks.

I mean, are they big checks or like a dollar?

$1,200, $2,000.

No, wow.

Some good chunk of cash if you're like on the brink, right?

Maybe you've got a car repair that's just happened.

That's one of the highlights, stories they highlight here in the Washington Post today.

And what is the check?

What is it?

Is there something that accompanies it that says, hey, here's a check from Timothy Geithner just because we really like you and we heard you're not doing well?

You seem nice.

I mean, I don't know you, but it seems like you might be nice because you're a low-income person.

And low-income people are generally nice.

Yeah, generally nice.

Here's some money.

We know you're not one of those evil, rich CEOs, which most people are all bastards.

Oh, my gosh.

You know that's true.

I hate that.

You know that's true.

I hate those people.

The Koch brothers?

Oh,

nobody more evil.

You know how many Koch brothers there are?

They have a thousand brothers in that family.

Wow.

They're all trillionaires.

Wow.

True.

Well, they've got all of the world's wealth

right in that family.

Yeah.

All of it.

Nobody else has any wealth.

Right.

That's true.

And they all, by the way, my favorite observation on the Koch brothers is there's really only two of them.

And one of them just retired, by the way.

And they're both somewhat left of center.

Yeah,

generally speaking on social issues.

They're libertarian-leaning, although they seem to have an affinity for certain tax increases and strange strange things like that but they're very like open borders and and while climate change has been pinned on them at least one of them agrees with climate change yeah believes in climate change but what's interesting is like they're adults

okay when you're an adult you don't become the the the blank brothers anymore right like you're just you're two individuals there's charles and david right yeah and so they not only i understand that they kind of like ran this business together so they had similar levels of wealth, which would make sense.

But if you look at them being listed, they'll just say they have the exact same amount of money.

It's like they both have like $24 billion or something.

And it's like none of them made a different choice to like buy a truck when the other one didn't.

There was never a time when one went out to dinner and spent a lot and the other didn't.

There was never a moment where one invested in something that didn't go right and the other invested in something that worked.

There's never been any separation.

They have the exact same account.

Yeah.

That's always amazing me.

Forever.

So anyway, Tim Geithner is not at that point.

But there's only two of them?

Because I thought there was...

Okay, there's Charles, there's David,

Tito, Marlon, and Jermaine.

No, I think you have that.

I think it might have something else really used there.

Okay, maybe I'll walk you through that in a minute.

Tim Geithner, though, is not that rich, and he does not have a brother named Marlon.

Okay.

He does have this company, however, in which so they send checks to poor people.

Legitimately, that's what they do.

So that people take the check and they deposit in their bank account, and all of a sudden they have an extra $1,200 or $2,000.

Now, of course, there's a level of you that would say, is there a string attached to this?

You know, that's how I would think about it.

And some of the people they highlight actually did notice that.

But the string attached is, it's not just free money, it's a loan.

So when you deposit the check, you're agreeing to a loan.

The loan, the terms of that loan are interesting.

For example, Stephen Huggins received the check for a loan for $1,200, and he didn't want to deposit it at first because he actually realized, okay, this doesn't look right.

He thought there's a string attached.

The interest rate, 33%.

Whoa.

33% annual interest rate.

But his Chevy pickup was in the shop.

He didn't have enough money to pay for the repairs, so he needed the money.

He decided to use the check.

He got $1,200 from the company, plus an additional $800 from a representative later on.

Hundreds of dollars in processing fees, insurance, and other items, plus interest.

He's now up to $3,221 that he owes them for a $1,200 loan.

For the $1,000, well, $2,000, I guess, total he got.

So he's up to $3,200.

And now

he is being sued because he's not paying it back, I guess, fast enough.

And so this is what they're doing because they've now added an extra $536

for extra fees that he's had to do to fight this.

And this finance company is going after, they're now saying it's a $11.2 billion private equity fund that is at the charge of this.

A president is, of course, Timothy Geithner,

who is now, they operate 450 branches in 22 states.

And their business is sending these high-interest loans to people who,

in their worst moments, have to use them.

And at 33%, now, look, I am not a bad person.

You know, we've heard about predatory lenders.

Exactly, yeah.

That's the very definition of a predatory lender.

Yes.

Now, of course, these people can make choices, right?

And

to be, I've never liked the term predatory lender, but it's not clearly to them

in fine print that most people aren't reading.

Yeah.

And just at the very least, it's a disingenuous business practice.

I don't have any problem.

Like, people used to be like, oh, check cashing stores are the devil.

Like, you know, well, a check cashing store is okay for certain people who need it, right?

There's a market of people who can benefit from a check cashing store.

Sure.

And you know what?

If you agree to the terms, you agree to the terms.

You don't have to go.

You agree to the terms, you agree to the terms.

That's the way these things work.

They're voluntary transactions.

And at times, however, some of these companies take advantage of people who might not be reading fine print or maybe not understanding it and making giant profits on it.

And now the Obama administration has a nice representative running one of these situations.

Geithner.

Is there any explanation from him on how he can live with himself doing this to people, especially people who can least afford it?

Well, this is the thing, Pat.

As Treasury Secretary, Geithner excoriated predatory lenders

and their role in the Wall Street meltdown of 2007.

The financial crisis, quote, the financial crisis exposed our system of consumer protection as a dysfunctional mess, leaving ordinary Americans way too vulnerable to fraud and other malfeasance.

Many borrowers, especially in subprime markets, geez this guy, bid off more than they could chew because they didn't understand the absurdly complex and opaque terms of their financial agreements or were actively channeled into the riskiest deals.

You mean a risky deal like getting a check in the mail on a 33% loan?

Could that be a risky deal?

I mean, that is

despicable.

I mean, if it was the evil Koch brothers doing something like this,

they might have an argument to say, look,

the terms are disclosed.

Maybe you think we should write them in larger font.

But these people may be able to do that.

And that'd be the lead story on every broadcast on CNN and MSNBC.

To be fair, this is the Washington Post with an extensive analysis.

And

they really dove into this.

Now, look, I don't know what beating up on Tim Geithner does for the political discussion at this moment now, because now he's a capitalist, and now it's okay to go after him.

Wasn't okay to go after him when he was using TurboTax.

Wasn't okay to go after him when he was in the Obama administration and making the arguments about how evil predatory lending was.

Now that he's out of there and he's a businessman, I guess you can go after him.

But that being said, give credit to the Washington Post here for actually doing a little bit of work and exposing, I think, I don't know if it's anything illegal, but something really hypocritical.

Unethical, anyway.

Hypocritical, sure.

You know who has a better idea to help the poor is Richard Branson.

Yeah, he's got a great solution to poor people, and that's to send them free money.

Just give them free money.

Not from Tim Geithner, but from the government.

And the government just has a wellspring of money, and I don't know where it comes from.

They've just got so much money, and they just give it to people.

So that's great.

So this is a good idea.

Is that the group that prints those green pieces of paper with the presidents on them?

Yeah.

Yeah, those are really cool.

Those are cool.

Have you used those?

And they can keep doing that over and over and over.

You just print it and give it to people.

As long as they have paper.

Yeah.

They have to get paper.

You do have to have paper.

That's why the environment is so important to keep trees

available for us to print money.

So he's also another guy that's on the basic income.

You just get a basic income bandwagon.

Oh, geez.

This is already failing.

It's already becoming prevalent, though.

There's a lot of talk of it.

Yeah, they failed.

Was it Finland or Denmark?

Finland.

It was Finland that did it, and they have abandoned the transaction.

It was amazing.

There's

a podcast that featured this, maybe 99% invisible, I think it was maybe.

And they did a whole thing on universal basic income.

First of all, did you know that Nixon advocated for this?

Yes.

Which is kind of amazing.

I mean, Nixon, the ultimate Republican, right?

A huge conservative that not only wanted universal basic income and experimented with it in the United States, by the way, but also wanted to ban all handguns.

So, but other than that, we're real hardcore conservative there.

That's one of those guys that does, he becomes a conservative after the scandal, right?

Like, you know, he was seen as mean.

And look, he was a Republican as opposed to a Democrat.

He was more conservative than some people in the country, obviously, but the idea that he was some ideological conservative is insane.

He was a

progressive Republican.

Big time.

So anyway, he wanted to do that.

Finland decided to try to do it.

And they had that interview with a woman who

was on the basic income giveaway from the Finnish government.

And it was interesting what they decided to do.

They didn't, they, you know, the idea here and the concept of the podcast was to say, what a wonderful way to design policy.

Instead of going out and just like passing, let's say, Obamacare.

They didn't, certainly didn't use that as an example, but just use it for our example.

You pass Obamacare.

What they say is, all right, like try things.

Maybe you try Obamacare in one community.

Maybe you try it over, you know, 10,000 people spread across the country.

And that's what Finland decided to do.

They essentially did a lottery, and in a way, a real lottery in which they gave away money as universal basic income to a bunch of people.

And I think it was just a few thousand.

It was a few thousand people.

So they interviewed one of them on this podcast, and she's like, you know, I just, I haven't had, been able to get a job.

And, you know, it's been really tough.

And I just find myself constantly struggling to do the basic things.

And now, universal basic income has come, it's come in, and it's, and I get these checks every month.

And now I don't have to worry about those things.

I'm able to focus on, instead of just scrambling every month to make my bills, I am able to focus on things that are more productive and spend time with my family and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

If you listen to the whole thing, at the very end, you find out that she still hasn't gotten, she hasn't been able to get a job.

So it hasn't, the idea was: okay, if you take the struggles of the everyday out of these people's lives, they'll be able to focus on more important things.

They'll be able to get a job.

They'll be able to hold out for something that's a little bit better.

And that's exactly what she wound up doing because all of her bills are paid.

She held out for something better and nothing ever came along.

She didn't take the day-to-day work because she didn't need the day-to-day work anymore.

She just did nothing.

Now, she enjoyed her life a lot more, I'm sure.

Wouldn't you?

If you didn't have to come in here and blab every day, wouldn't that be fantastic?

You just sit at home, all your bills are paid.

Yep.

That'd be great.

Yes, it would.

Now, the society falls apart when you do that with everybody.

That's Ben Franklin said.

People should be made to be uncomfortable in their poverty.

Ben Franklin was pretty smart, wasn't he?

Smart guy.

Yeah, there was a reason for it because if they're comfortable in their poverty,

just keep taking what you give them.

Yeah, triple-8, 727-Beck, more of a Patton Stew for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program coming up.

It's Pat and Stu for Glenn.

Looks like Bono is upset, and he doesn't really direct this toward anybody, but you kind of get the impression he's talking about Donald Trump.

He is saying that the United Nations and other international institutions, including the European Union and NATO,

are now under threat.

Good.

Good.

Now, that's not good to Bono because he thinks these are all, let's get together and

be peaceful and loving to one another.

And we can all talk about it at this wonderful organization.

The UN needs to fold or

be taken, just push it off this continent.

Get rid of the UN.

in the U.S.

and get us out of the UN and let them go do whatever they want in Belgium.

I don't care.

Headquarter, NATO, and the UN in Brussels.

I'm fine with that.

And then we're not part of either one of them.

We should get out of all these organizations.

Yeah, it's very odd.

I mean,

I don't know.

I mean, NATO, I have a stronger affinity to than the UN.

I mean, the UN, I see no value in at this point.

None.

None.

I mean, not to mention we pay, obviously, for the whole thing, basically.

But, you know, NATO is still as a, you know, I like, you know, NATO generally in that, you know, there is a, there's some value in a, you know, united front of,

you know,

the North Atlantic nations who aren't necessarily in the North Atlantic.

No, not at all.

But, like, you know, as similar thinking principled nations that stand together.

I like that,

especially when it comes to defense in that

you like the idea that there's some

some

alliance there.

However,

lots of asterisks to that.

It doesn't seem to operate correctly.

You know, I mean, certainly there's very limited benefit for us.

It's really more of a

something we owe, right?

It's like, well, hey, some Baltic state just got attacked.

We need to step down.

That's really the function of it.

It's not like Lithuania is going to jump in.

I don't know if Lithuania is even in it.

But

people aren't going to be jumping to our defense if we get attacked in any meaningful way.

No.

But there are

international norms that have

helped probably

in the idea of increased war.

We are in a period of downturn in violence due to war, despite the terrible narratives that we've heard, which is good.

I mean, we have come in the right direction in that front.

And NATO's been part of that.

But it is one of the things that I like about Trump.

He doesn't care.

He doesn't care.

He's American-centric.

And if these organizations are one-sided or count on us too much like the U.N., and man, that's certainly true, he's willing to get out there and say, yeah, we're not doing this anymore.

This is a bad deal for us.

We're not doing that.

I like that about him.

I do like that too.

I don't know that I necessarily agree with his analysis every time he says it.

A lot of times, you know,

I don't necessarily think that he, I mean, the trade stuff is, would be my biggest problem.

A lot of times he says we have, he's been talking about these really really bad tariffs with Canada and how they're hitting us with these terrible tariffs.

And it's like, well, actually, their tariffs are lower than ours.

We have a trade surplus with Canada.

Not a trade deficit, a trade surplus with Canada.

Bunny threw out a hot button issue, and that's the 217%.

270%, but it's not even a real tariff.

It's a real tariff on milk.

But it's not even a real tariff.

It's a two-tier tariff.

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah.

So it doesn't kick in.

We have almost no milk that actually falls under under the tariff.

And the thing he pulled out of,

the TPP eliminated it.

It was already gone.

He pulled out of it.

It was the only reason it's still there.

And it really doesn't make any difference anyway.

Yeah.

No, almost no dairy products fall under that tariff.

And that's been the one that they've talked about incessantly.

And again, he's right in that there are problems with trade.

Other countries do things that are poor.

I fully support his argument, Donald Trump's argument that he made when he talked to the G7, which was, hey, eliminate all tariffs for everybody.

Now, I think most people ignored that because they don't believe he's serious about it.

And I think he just threw it out there as a rhetorical device.

But I support it fully.

Me too.

And you know what?

It is revealing that these other countries didn't go, okay, we'll take you up on that.

You notice they didn't.

Yeah.

And so I think that was the point Trump was trying to make.

I'd rather see it as a real policy.

Go for it, man.

Get rid of these things.

They're terrible.

We eat donut fries.

Oh, next.

Yes.

Yes.

This is the Glenn Beth program.

Pat and Stew for Glenn today and being joined by Jeffy now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We heard about a new product that must be tried scientifically.

It's just for science.

We don't want to.

It's just that we do this for you and for science.

They are donut fries from Dunkin' Donuts.

I understand these are keto-compatible,

both pre- and probiotic, with all kinds of antioxidant power oh i mean if you say those things and then they've got to be good and then they're

five in a pack yeah you get five in a pack uh so they're four i got ripped off they're they are donut sticks i would say they're not they're really like thick fries my guess is these are just donuts in the shape of a french fry and so they're donut fries right i mean i think that's what they're going for here yeah almost a churro if you yeah almost yeah you could say churro i see on the outside if you see like salt would be on a fry you see i guess a sugar or a cinnamon sugar type of vibe on the outside of it.

They are, you know, about the size of your finger.

And they smell pretty freaking good.

I mean, donuts are good.

That's the thing.

You start with something like donuts.

And they're good for you.

Absolutely.

They're good for you.

Am I right?

I heard somewhere that they're prebiotic, probiotic.

Yeah, that's what I heard.

Keto compatible.

I heard that too.

Now, it doesn't say that here.

It's all organic.

It says here the

five sticks are 240 calories for the five.

That's not bad.

Yeah, five grams of sugar, 14 grams of total fat.

That's perfect.

That's not bad.

That's basically.

This is basically, you're right.

Kale or quinoa.

It's like eating one of those.

Very similar to quinoa.

Yeah.

All right, let's give it a shot here.

Dunkin' donuts donut fries.

Oh,

it's a donut in the shape of a fry.

Needs syrup, though.

This is almost like a French toast sticks.

It's a sugar donut.

Yeah, this is in the shape of a fry.

I think they were hot still, but these came two hours ago, so they're not.

They're not hot, so getting them at the store would improve this experience.

However, I will say, a donut

needs a thicker base because that's where the fluffiness lives.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And because these are thin, you're getting just like crunchy exterior of doughnut.

And it's not, I mean, it's not,

oh yeah.

And because they're cold,

it loses a lot.

So I'm going to say

I'll look at the rest of yours.

Shocking.

Yeah, that is a stunning surprise.

I didn't say I wasn't going to eat them.

I'm just saying they're not spectacular.

I'm supposed to have five.

I don't think four.

You can have the rest of those.

These are

very underwhelming to me.

Yeah, they're not worth the calorie intent.

No.

Now, if you went to the store, you got them right out of what.

Hot, fresh.

Okay, maybe there's something there.

They're okay.

But these are, this is not a good delivery system for fries.

Now, I will say this: at the Texas Rangers ballpark

here in Arlington, Texas, there is a stand right behind Home Plate, which has waffle, or not waffle, funnel cake fries.

Funnel cake fries are utterly amazing.

I love them.

But a lot of that stuff is like these as well.

They got to be hot.

They got to be hot.

You got to get them fat.

And also, I would say this.

With something like this, got to have dipping sauce.

Yes.

You got to have it.

Where's a raspberry dipping sauce?

Oh, my gosh.

The raspberry dipping sauce?

Are you kidding kidding me they'd be delicious

yes that's what's missing here

the heat and a dipping sauce i'm gonna give these in an eight

and by the way on a scale

one to eighteen because jeff and only count to 18

so that's where that came from in the patent stew era

uh i will just say this uh what i have here is the now empty bag of jeffy's doughnut fries

only had four of them was not even five as we were talking he ate the whole bag.

So we do appreciate it.

I was hungry.

I was waiting for them.

So it's not entirely true that you're a marathon eater rather than a sprint eater.

You're really kind of both.

You sprint and marathon.

You sprint and just keep eating.

Short distances, though, I sprint.

That's a surprise.

I would have guessed another outcome.

It's shocking.

So is there anything potential added value other than the donut fries that you're bringing to the table today?

Me?

Yeah.

You talking to me?

Well, congratulations are in order.

Oh.

To Angela Ponce.

She's going to be the, she,

he, going to be the first transgender woman to compete in the Miss Universe.

I actually like this story because of the twist in it.

There's a little bit of a twist.

Well, with our president?

Yes.

Yes, that's kind of, that's kind of cute.

But she's a.

You could have built that up a little bit.

You didn't have to just ruin the surprise.

Well, I didn't know.

The person responsible for her.

Oh, he's

100 years ago.

do you mean the part where they see dead people yes is that what you mean

you mean the part where he's dead the whole movie and you like find out at the very very end he's been dead the whole time you thought he was alive

did i ruin that for anybody no

you mean the part where dr bagar is his father

yeah that's the part the president though i don't it doesn't matter that he was the president then what matters is all they do is scream and yell about how evil he is.

If you're in GLAAD or any of these artists,

they hate his guts when, in fact, he's the most gay-friendly president to ever be elected.

There's no question.

There's no doubt.

It's hands down.

And he is the one who changed the rule and sided with GLAAD when this person sued.

Well, he actually claims that he did that before.

That was a bit of the fight that they had decided before the lawsuit.

That they were going to accept transgender.

They were probably going going to do it.

Right.

Because the girl that was going to, that filed the lawsuit was with Gloria Allred, who Trump hates.

Yeah.

And there's a tweet that he tweeted later saying, calling her a third-rate lawyer and asking, is Gloria a man or a woman?

Yeah, a few men would know the answer to that one.

Jeez.

Was that in 2012 or 1012?

That was a long time ago.

He was a little more aggressive.

And people think he's aggressive on Twitter now.

Wow.

They were not following him in 2012.

And he even said we made the decision two two days before we even heard that Allred was involved.

Had I known she was involved, yeah, maybe I wouldn't have made the decision.

She's so easy to beat.

So, Spain's Angela Ponce is now the first ever transgendered person to compete in the Miss Universe pageant coming up.

You know, good.

Good for her.

She beat out all the other contestants and she's out of the world.

In Spain.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So she's headed to the contest.

It would be interesting if Miss Universe is awarded to a person who was born a man.

Wouldn't that be fascinating?

It just shows how far we've come.

Intriguing commentary.

Plus, I think, too,

there's so many people that are just trying to, they live their lives to try to do something that would make Donald Trump mad.

Yeah.

Right?

Like, I would not be surprised if just because they think they can say his old pageant is now won by a man who is actually a woman now.

would be a wonderful statement of tolerance in the society in which now, you know, because it's all hate.

And, you know, the incivility is out of control, Pat.

It is.

The incivility of the right, the incivility of Donald Trump.

Donald Trump, thank you.

Exactly.

I know that.

Only Donald Trump's civility could cause someone to want to murder Ajit Pai, his FCC director,

about net neutrality.

And only Donald Trump's incivility could cause for somebody to threaten to chop up Rand Paul and his family with an axe.

Wait, what?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rand Paul's had a tough year.

Oh, my gosh.

Had a tough year.

He was at the ballpark, right?

Then he got, then the neighbor attacked him, and then he's had this guy threatening him.

Right.

I mean, that's all of this last close.

I know.

Was he at the baseball game?

Yeah.

He was at the shooting of the baseball game.

I remember for sure.

Was he?

Yeah.

You're positive.

Yes.

All right.

I mean, I've got no confidence.

You're certainly going to have your computer right in front of you.

Look it up.

Zero confidence in Jeffy's fortitude.

I will say this.

This is something I had discovered about Jeffy many, many years ago.

This is is go is that his

confidence level uh in between something like you know what is your wife's name or your son's name his confidence level in that fact uh and it and his confidence level in something he has absolutely no idea about are he presents them the exact same way and you're like oh really oh okay well really that's the basic of quantum physics absolutely absolutely it is

absolutely yep you're positive of that oh yeah oh yeah oh yeah fact

and then you you read it and you're like, wait a minute, that's not it at all.

He was completely wrong.

He was completely wrong.

He just walks through the door.

I'm pretty sure that was right.

Like, Jeffy's like the ultimate wedding crasher.

Like, he could just walk into a wedding and just he's just going to look like the family, and people are going to be talking to him and asking him things.

You're like, absolutely.

He just wants to be a family.

That has to be a big family if he looks like it.

I mean, that's one gigantic family.

Really?

Is there such a family on this planet?

I don't.

I mean, outside of the animal kingdom, is there?

Is there such a family?

That's all I'm asking.

You're welcome.

My answer to that is yes.

We should point out: chewing the fat with Jeffy happens every day on the Pat Gray Unleashed program.

Yes, it does.

It's a good time to remind you of that.

And you can listen to the podcast or watch it ontheblaze.com/slash TV.

Thank you for that reminder.

Appreciate that.

And sometimes things like this seem to happen as I watch

every day.

It does happen from time to time.

Once in a while.

You know, yesterday we talked about, I know you talked about the trash pile.

The garbage pile.

That was a revelation

that started with, you know, the bully.

Well, first it started with the bullying of whales.

That's a common thing that I'm taking on now.

There was a pilot whale.

That was bullied into eating 80 trash pages.

Plastic bags.

Trash bags.

And it killed him.

And it killed him.

I don't know

how many plastic bags pilot whales can eat and live, but 80s too many.

80s and one, at least one too many.

Yes.

So is this Donald Trump's fault too?

Did Donald Trump bully him into?

I don't know if it was Donald Trump or not, but somebody bullied this pilot whale.

The incivility of the Trump administration has affected this entire planet and every living thing on it.

Every living thing.

And that's why we can attribute his incivility to this death of a pilot whale.

Well, I will say there's one thing that both Pat and I unite on is we are against bullying.

We want to make sure no one.

Oh, I mean, that goes without saying.

I don't know why you'd even say something like that.

No, I just want to make sure people understand.

We're just reinforcing.

Yeah.

Because we never bully anyone.

Yeah, no.

Never.

We wouldn't.

Why are you looking at me?

We might say the truth about certain people.

Oh, sure.

Well, the truth has to be stated.

You know, but that's just us being honest and forthright.

It's like if Jeffy comes in and asks, Does my fat make me look fat?

Of course, we're going to say, yes, it does.

We wouldn't lie to him about that.

He doesn't ask that all that often, but we do answer it.

But we do answer it.

Just in case he

wants to.

Well, you look like they're going to ask him a question.

Yes.

Now I know what the yes means.

Thank you so much for that.

You're welcome.

So,

what's your rating, 1 to 18 on the donut fries?

You know,

what did you give it?

I think I get it more like a six.

That was almost an eight, right?

I was a seven.

Yeah.

I think I landed at seven.

I don't know.

Maybe if you had some milk or something with it, it might be better.

Good gosh.

Might be better.

I don't know.

I haven't decided yet.

You know, sometimes I think I missed the Patton Stew show, and then I remember Jeffy doing this.

I remember

this happening so often.

The milk thing.

For whatever reason, he must bother us with the milk thing.

Because you got a glass of milk.

Is there anything that could make it better?

Y'all let me make some milk.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you for this, Jeff.

You're welcome.

Yes, thank you.

We're really happy to have you here.

And yes, your fat makes you look fat.

But I didn't.

Pat and Stew for Glenn

on the Glenn Beck program.

We live in a divided country, Pat.

No.

Very divided.

In fact, a divided globe.

Did you know that?

A divided globe.

BBC did a poll of a bunch of countries and asked, do you think your country is divided?

Okay.

Okay.

What do you think the U.S.

percentage was?

People who think that we're divided.

Expected to be very high, right?

Yeah.

And it is.

84%.

84% say the U.S.

country country is divided.

Yeah.

Okay.

It's not number one on the list.

One thing I would say is pretty amazing.

It is two points ahead of South Africa.

You look at the example of a divided country.

You'd think of South Africa.

Only 82% of people in South Africa say

their country is divided.

However, not the highest.

Where did we place?

Can you say?

Let's see.

I think there's 19 total.

We were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

of the listed countries.

Actually, tied with a a few others.

Poland, 84%.

Spain, 84%.

Brazil, 84%.

I mean, every country.

What I think is interesting about this is pretty much every country thinks they're divided.

There's only a couple of exceptions to this, and they're not places you'd necessarily want to live.

Saudi Arabia, only 34% say they're divided.

Wow.

China, only 48%

say they're divided.

Those are the only two countries under 50.

Japan, 52.

Turkey, 65.

India, 66.

France, 75% say they're divided.

Mexico, 78, Germany 81, Russia 81.

South Africa, 82, Brazil, 84, Spain, 84, US, 84, Poland, 84.

The UK, 85.

So they think they're even more divided.

Italy, 92%,

say they're divided.

Wow.

Italy, what are they divided over?

I don't know.

I mean, Marinera versus Alfredo?

Maybe.

Could be.

Argentina, 92%

say they're divided.

Number one wasn't stunning to me.

93% of people in Serbia.

Okay.

Okay.

I kind of think, okay, yeah, they're pretty divided.

Yeah, that makes some sense.

They're pretty divided.

And do they even know what they're fighting about?

Because Americans sort of don't.

That Serbian thing was strange because I don't think a lot of Americans knew what the issues were or whose side we should be on, who was the good guy, who was not.

Because if you you remember, it was Christians against Muslims there.

That's not how it was presented, but that's essentially what was at the root of the problem.

And we were on the side of the Muslims,

right?

Against

the Serbian Christians.

It's a bizarre one.

It's interesting.

And we're never given credit for having helped

Muslims in Serbia.

Anybody ever said, hey, remember when the U.S.

helped Muslims?

Remember?

They took the battle to the Christians in that particular war.

It's amazing.

So, how much Civil War genocide talk coming up on Pac Ray Unleashed today?

100%.

Oh, really?

The whole show dedicated to Serbian genocide.

Wow.

I definitely want to tune in on July 3rd.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.