'Logic Over Emotion'? - 6/29/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Glenn back.

Jared wants to be your friend.

If you're on Facebook, you've probably gotten a friend request or message from an old high school classmate you didn't quite remember.

Out of the blue, Jared wrote and thanked

a woman for being the only person to ever say hello or be nice to him in school.

She didn't remember him, so he sent pictures.

She googled him and found a yearbook picture and realized they apparently did go to high school together.

He was having some problems, so she wrote back and tried to help, suggesting a counseling center.

I just thought I was being friendly, she said.

The emails started in late 2009 or early 2010.

She can't remember exactly because it was only a few months later that they grew disturbing and she started documenting things.

At first, she felt bad for him, so she shared some personal information and offered advice.

But when it seemed to me that he was turning into something that gave me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach, that he seems to think that there's some sort of relationship here that does not exist,

I tried to slowly back away from it.

And he just started getting angry and vulgar to the point that I had to tell him to stop.

And he was not okay with that.

He would send me things and basically tell me, you're going to need a restraining order now.

You can't make me stop.

I know all these things about you.

I'm going to tell everyone about your life.

An email in April 2010 said, have another drink.

Go hang yourself, you cowardly little lush.

Don't contact you again.

I don't give an

expletive.

F you.

Later that month, the woman was suddenly put on probation at the bank where she worked.

She said a supervisor told her it was because of an email from Jared

and a follow-up phone call in which he advised them to fire her.

She said she was laid off in September and believes but can't prove it was because of Jared's email.

When she learned what Jared had done, she called the police.

Now, he stopped contacting her for a while and started counseling in November.

Still, the silence was not comforting.

It all just left me to feel like he was stewing, she said.

For all the time he was silent, he's collecting things about me.

And then he comes back at me like ten times worse than he had before.

The messages resumed, referring to friends'

Facebook profiles and postings about her, and Jared himself.

His messages rambled, calling her a bipolar drunkard and leading a double life, and saying, F you,

leave me alone,

even though she hadn't written him in months.

A Twitter page in Jared's name has a bio that read, Dear reader, I created this page to defend myself.

Now I'm suing the S out of half of the county and making corpses of corrupt career and corporate entities.

The account had been dormant

since January 2016.

Then at 2.37 p.m.

yesterday, the account posted a familiar message.

F you,

leave me alone.

The reason I read that story is because the guy who went in and murdered five people at the Capitol Gazette yesterday hates that story.

He despises that story.

This whole thing in his head goes back to the fact that that story was printed.

So I want to make sure as many people as possible know what occurred.

I want to make sure that everybody knows every weird freaking detail from that guy's life and the things that he did to this poor woman, who thankfully is unnamed in the story.

He eventually sued the Capitol Gazette over that story, claiming he had been defamed.

He lost that suit in pretty dramatic fashion.

However...

That didn't end it for the people at the Capitol Gazette.

They knew that he was a real risk.

In fact, they called the police in 2013 to report him, and they were worried that he would come back and do something like this.

He consulted

the people at the paper, consulted the lawyers about filing a restraining order, but decided against it.

They said,

This is a guy who is going to come in and shoot us.

And yesterday afternoon, that came true.

It is

a terrible, terrible story.

And the reaction to it is not helpful at all.

We're going to get into that in just a moment.

One of the people who died, Rob Heyson, was the assistant managing editor and a columnist at the Capitol, where he was hired in 2010.

He was 59 years old.

His wife, now widow Maria, said last night, which by the way was her 58th birthday,

that a birthday package from her husband still awaited her.

Her husband asked if she wanted to open her gift Thursday morning, but she told him she'd rather wait until he got home from work.

He never made it back home.

The case was thrown out because it had absolutely no merit.

Everything in the case and everything in the story that I read you was backed up by public documents.

This guy was a stalker.

He was stalking this poor woman who just tried to help him through a difficult time.

And to his own recollection of their high school relationship, was the only person who gave him any respect in high school.

She paid for it with her job.

She paid for it with a year of harassment.

She paid for it with terror.

And now,

in yet another case in which there are massive signs of danger

that someone could do something terrible like this, five people paid with their lives.

You probably didn't read that story in the Capitol Gazette unless you happened to be local and happened to pick the paper up on that exact day.

But you've definitely read something that was in the Capitol Gazette.

You've definitely read something.

Let me give you a little clip from it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

That among these are life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Back when it was the Maryland Gazette,

many years ago,

they actually printed the Declaration of Independence.

The Maryland Gazette goes back to 1727.

That's how long this thing's been around.

1727.

And years later, in July of 1776,

the Gazette printed the Declaration of Independence

on page two.

What was going on in the news that day?

That the Declaration of Independence was like, yeah, it sounds like a page two story.

Amazingly,

they put local news.

What they considered local news on page one because

it was primarily a local paper.

And I guess the national news of the Declaration of Independence wasn't quite as important as whatever happened locally that day.

It's a long history at that paper.

And, you know, we're going to get into the reaction to this and the way people are trying to use it for their own political ends in a second.

But you just realize, you know,

this this can happen at any moment to anybody.

And

you can try to pass laws for it.

You can try to blame politicians you don't like for it.

This is a person who obviously had severe mental problems.

He made one woman's life miserable

and then ended five others.

We'll get into the reaction in just a moment.

It's Stu

in for Glenn Beck on the Glenn Beck program.

888 727 Beck is the phone number.

Welcome to the Glenn Beck program.

It's Stu filling in.

Glenn's on vacation.

We're talking about the shooting yesterday at the Capitol Gazette.

Five people were killed.

And another just terrible, terrible day to watch this stuff happen.

Of course, you know, never let a crisis go to waste.

You can't let that happen.

You can't let a crisis go to waste.

You got to take advantage of it right away.

First thing you got to do is hop on Twitter and make some claims.

What little advantage can you pull from this tragedy?

That's the important thing to understand.

And that's, of course, what the media has done.

And look, you know, it's frustrating because, you know, the media does a lot of good things.

There are a lot of things that we learn.

All the arguments that we base our conservative arguments on at some level have come from the the media.

You know,

it's true.

There's a lot of bad reporting and a lot of people who are not being honest, but it's not exclusive.

But watching the coverage yesterday, a shooting goes down.

We find out it's at a newspaper.

And people, journalists who are supposed to be the people under control in these moments rush to Twitter and they start their tweeting.

Everybody wants to be the first one to tweet.

Everybody wants to be the first one who's made that little point so they can go back later and say, oh, you know what?

I knew that one happened.

And they can say that they said it first.

Lauren Duca

said the shooting today in the Capitol Gazette newsroom in Annapolis, Maryland cannot reasonably be separated.

from the president's mission to villainize the press as the enemy of the American people.

Can't reasonably be separated.

I just told you the whole story.

If you missed it, there was an incident back in 2009, 2010, where the shooter harassed a woman.

There was a news story written about the court case that went on afterwards.

And

he had a vendetta for multiple years against this newspaper.

It was before, it was when Donald Trump was hosting The Apprentice this was going on.

It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Nothing.

It can reasonably be separated.

Another journalist

from I-24 says President Trump, who repeatedly calls the media the enemy of the people, is offering his thoughts and prayers to the victims of the shooting at a newspaper office in Annapolis.

I'm not into the whole enemy of the people thing.

I don't think that's a great description.

I get what he's going for there in that, you know, a lot of times they're certainly his enemy, you know, but

it's not probably helpful to say the enemy of the people, but it's got nothing to do with this.

Nothing to do with this.

At the print, I'm reserving judgment on the Capitol Gazette shooting until we know more.

But like everyone else, my first thought was, this is what Trump has been building up since the election, and there's more where that came from.

Ken, you're not, I mean, when you tweet that, are you withholding judgment?

You know what I tweeted about this incident in the middle of it?

Nothing.

Nothing.

Because we didn't know anything about it.

There was no reason to make a judgment on the motive of the shooter because we didn't know what it was.

We had no evidence what it was.

Has there ever been a moment in human history where someone later on in the day says, darn it, I didn't tweet about that when I had no information.

Has that ever occurred?

Now, I can understand the average person running to Twitter and throwing out claims that maybe aren't supported by facts because they use Twitter as something of entertainment to get something off their chest.

I understand that.

I don't understand how someone in the media could do that.

I don't get it.

Has there ever been a moment where you would regret waiting to understand the information necessary to form an opinion?

Has there any, does anyone look back?

I mean, someone who's near death, call in.

Are you on your deathbed right now saying, darn it, I wish I tweeted about that story 15 minutes earlier before I knew anything about it?

Is there ever a moment that this goes on?

What has ever been accomplished by tweeting before knowing the facts?

Nothing.

KATU-TV anchor, Angelica Thornton.

Journalism has never been this needed and it's never been so threatened.

Attacks on journalists from every angle, from Trump to the ICE protest, and now a shooting.

Don't let up journalists keep doing your jobs.

Yes, you should keep doing your jobs.

But again, the Trump criticism of the media,

many times just, not always, but many times just and accurate,

has nothing to do with this shooting.

Now,

some are pointing out the comments made by,

you may remember this guy from a while ago, Milo Yiannopoulos.

He was a three-minute internet celebrity a few years ago.

He actually

wrote, he can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on site.

So, not helpful.

Not helpful.

I mean, you know, this is who this guy is.

And we've told you this is who this guy is since the very beginning.

He had his, you know, six or seven minutes in spotlight, and now he's, you know, this is how I guess you get more attention.

He's also

sending people Hitler messages and such, and has been kicked off of PayPal or Venmo

because he was tweeting Hitler or sending Hitler messages to other people, which is wonderful.

Again, you know, obviously you get desperate after all this stuff happens to you.

You lose your job, you lose your book deal, and then you're just desperate for attention.

So I can understand some of the people initially thinking, maybe thinking in that quiet part in your head, hey,

this crazy alt-right guy just came out and said this thing about

shooting journalists in the street, maybe these are related.

In the quiet part of your mind, it's an understandable little conversation going on.

Maybe you think to yourself, you know what?

Maybe those things are tied up together.

You know, I don't like the way Trump talks about the media.

I don't like how he talks about, you know, toughening up our libel laws.

I don't like how he targets journalists.

If you're a journalist, you've probably believe that.

But does that mean the first time you see a journalist have something bad to them happen, you blame the president of the United States?

My opinion of that would be no.

There's pages of these things.

We could go through all the tweets and all the comments made.

One of the people at the actual Capitol Gazette said, quote, you have a president who says everything that we do is fake news, who has no compunction about disparaging the people whose assignment it is to go out and report what he does and who gives us token sympathy and prayers.

The fact that this happened in a newspaper is no coincidence.

It most certainly is.

This is essentially, you want to go back to previous shootings?

You want to something that's similar?

Go back to something like the old post office shootings, where sometimes there are people disgruntled as employees.

It's closer to that type of situation than it has anything to do with an ideological killing.

This has nothing to do with politics at all.

This is the guy, one of the people who was essentially the enemy of this particular lunatic lunatic at the paper.

And he says the fact that this happened at a newspaper is no coincidence.

Of course it's a coincidence.

If this had been posted on a website and that's what angered him, it would have happened at a website.

This has nothing to do with the rhetoric coming from the president of the United States.

And it's so incredibly frustrating to see journalists get caught up in this.

Look, journalists are people.

They make mistakes just like everybody else.

They get emotional and lose control of themselves just like everybody else.

But stop yourself.

This is your most central focus when it comes to your career.

Limit inaccurate information.

Maximize accurate information.

Tweeting 10 seconds after a mass murder is not going to get you on the right side of that equation.

Back with more in a second.

This is the Glenn Bett program.

I want to take you back a few years, a little back in the history when we're talking about shootings, we're talking about firearms,

to a little advice given by Joe Biden.

Protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.

Have the shells, a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded.

I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here or walk out, put that double-barrel shotgun, and fire two blasts outside the house.

I promise you, who's ever coming in is not going to.

You don't need an AR-15.

It's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself.

Buy a shotgun.

Buy a shotgun.

So, yesterday, the shooter actually used a shotgun.

Now, can you blame Joe Biden for giving the advice for everyone to buy a shotgun and then later on find out that someone actually killed a bunch of people with a shotgun?

Can you blame Joe Biden for that?

Yes.

Yes, it's Joe Biden's fault.

100% Joe Biden's fault.

If you think that's ridiculous, you're right.

But I can tell you,

if you are a Joe Biden defender, if you happen to be Joe listening to the program today, you now know what it feels like for every

law-abiding gun owner every time one of these stories happens.

Every time you argue for legal use of firearms and someone shoots someone, it becomes your fault somehow.

And it's incredibly frustrating.

Of course, it's not Joe Biden's fault.

Can we come to the point as a nation where I thought we always were,

which is

people are responsible for their actions.

If you do something, guess who should be blamed?

You.

I happened to,

I don't know, was this a coincidence?

I don't know.

I was, as I was, you know, looking through the news last night, flipped on the TV in the background, Law and Order is on.

And Law and Order, they're doing

a horrible attempt at gun control commentary.

And so they have a case against a gun manufacturer in which they claim the gun company is responsible for a series of murders.

It was a spree shooting by some guy who wanted to kill as many women as possible.

And so he shot a bunch of people in the crowd.

And I can tell this is is not show prep.

I should have been actually reading something of value.

Instead, I'm watching television.

But Law and Order, once you get sucked in, you can't leave.

And the crazy part about it is almost every episode of Law and Order, the same thing happens to me, which is when one lawyer makes an argument, I completely believe them to the core of my soul.

It's the most important and true thing that has ever been spoken.

Of course he did it.

Of course they're guilty.

And then the other lawyer comes out and they start talking.

And I believe that with every element of my soul to the core of my being.

Every time anything happens on Law and Order, I believe it.

It just, I don't know.

They're so effective on that show.

Every argument made, it's the exact opposite argument.

And somehow they still convince me.

No, that, no, wow, I thought before they were guilty, but now I know they're innocent.

So they're talking, but that was not the case with this episode.

That's the case with almost every episode of Law and Order.

This one was not convincing.

They were trying to make a gun manufacturer look guilty for this killing.

And the reason is they have a weapon that can be modified to go from semi-automatic to automatic.

Now, if you don't know the difference between those two terms, or your name's Michael Bloomberg, the difference is

expansive.

It's a big difference.

Holding the trigger once for as many bullets as you have, or pulling the trigger each time for one individual bullet.

So

that's the big thing.

This guy, this murderer in the case, goes out and he actually

takes the gun out, spends a half an hour doing all sorts of tweaks to it to modify it into an automatic weapon.

And they're supposed to blame the gun manufacturer for it.

I mean, spoiler alert, probably the case, the episode aired in like 2006, so I don't know how much I'm spoiling here, but the jury found that to be...

a compelling argument and called them guilty.

And then the judge came in and said, I'm overruling the jury.

That was dumb.

What's interesting about that is it's the way,

it's reality,

right?

In reality, these arguments about guns are compelling to people who don't know the law, who don't know the Constitution, who just have their feels on every day.

All they do is feel all the time.

And when you feel all the time, you make decisions based on emotion and feelings.

And

the good thing about that is never are, you never get in an argument with a law.

You never get in an argument with the Constitution.

You never get in an argument with a founding document.

You never get in an argument with history.

You never get in an argument with global history.

All you do is you kind of exist in your own little emotional place.

And your own little emotional place is fine, I guess, for a lot of things.

But that's not the way you should make decisions based on the Constitution.

And it's not the way judges should make decisions.

And it's not the way, because we've seen that before.

I mean, read some of the dissents in the cases last week in the Supreme Court.

Emotion plays a big role.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is very emotional when she's not asleep because she does fall asleep quite a bit in the middle of proceedings.

But you give her a break.

She's 85.

The point here is that using logic in these situations is incredibly important.

Logic is most important when emotion is involved.

The reason why you see these giant pushes after mass shootings to try to change the law is they're trying to make a permanent change during a temporary emotional elevation.

They know everyone's fired up.

No one wants anyone to die.

No one wants a school shooting to happen.

No one wants Las Vegas to happen.

No one wants any of these things to happen.

Occasionally they do.

Your odds of being involved with one are impossibly low, but that does not make anybody feel good who was involved in one.

So, what you see is a sprint to the finish line.

There is a moment, a window of incredible emotion, and that window must be filled with permanent legal change, or you didn't take advantage.

You didn't

move the ball down the field.

You let the crisis go to waste.

And I don't know if this push is going to be the same.

We're already seeing a bit of it.

Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, who is talked about frequently as a potential 2020 challenger to Donald Trump, has some answers about what we can do.

How could we stop such an amazing

amazingly horrible incident that happened yesterday?

Here's her answer.

Are you aware of anything on the federal level that is being done actively to deal with the issues that seem to invariably surround these shootings?

We know what the states are doing, but on the federal level, is there anything to give any hope for any kind of momentum?

Well, Congress has certainly broken and has done nothing to end gun crime, but I do have hope because I believe the fact that this movement has become one led by kids, led by students, that it's intersectional, so it applies to all communities, all kinds of gun violence.

That momentum that's being created by these kids marching, marching out of school, marching on Washington is making a difference.

To have young women like Emma Gonzalez call BS on every excuse every Congress member has ever given her, to have a young man stand up to Marco Rubio and say, stop taking money from the NRA, that's going to change things.

And for everyone, every child that is marching and speaking out, they have parents who are now going to think about this issue differently.

And that's going to happen in red states and blue states and purple states.

So I actually am optimistic that when we do flip the House and possibly the Senate, our first vote can be on common sense gun reform to actually ban the assault weapons and the large magazines, ban the bump stocks, have a universal background check system where terrorists can't get access to weapons, and then have the investments in mental health that have been needed for a very long time.

I think that is all possible, especially if we can flip the House and Senate.

The only thing that would make any difference here, likely, is investments in mental health.

The only thing that could possibly touch this story, the guy used the shotgun.

There's not one piece of legislation out there that even Democrats are proposing that would have limited shotgun purchases.

That's not what it does.

Now, when you talk about this guy having severe mental problems, which it seems like he did,

there are bills that have been pushed by Republicans that can address a lot of those.

And a lot of times, Democrats are not on board with them.

But it's not like you can't change these things.

You can.

You can absolutely get rid of shotguns if you want.

First of all, I don't know, maybe ask for it because you're not even asking for it because you know how ridiculously unpopular it would be.

But you're going to say common sense gun reform and talk about bump stocks.

Was there a bump stock used in this?

High capacity magazines?

At least according to reports, that has nothing to do with this story.

You want to get rid of the guns.

You have a path to it.

It's an extensive path.

It's going to take some time.

First of all, you're going to start with overturning the Second Amendment.

Sadly, that's not going to be enough.

Because just overturning the Second Amendment does not do the job.

Overturning the Second Amendment would get you closer, but then you'd still have state laws you'd have to deal with.

Lots of states would pass

laws to allow them.

Remember, all the Second Amendment does is it says everybody has a right to bear arms.

If you get rid of the Second Amendment, you repeal the Second Amendment.

You still have people with the availability to do it.

They just don't have the guaranteed right.

So you'd be able to ban it in some states.

So just go through all 50 states and ban them.

Then you have a little bit of a cleanup problem because I don't know if you know this, the American people own 400 million guns.

In case you don't know how many guns that is, it's 100 times the amount of our military.

It's 400 times as many as law enforcement.

So good luck with that one.

Going door to door to picking those things up from people who believe that they have a right to defend themselves.

It's not realistic, but there is a path.

The path, however, is not

calling BS or telling Marco Rubio that he can't take any more money from the NRA or going on TV with Chris Cuomo and talking about it for the five millionth time.

You want to do actually something that's real?

Something that you could get support from the other side of the aisle on?

Talk about mental health.

Talk about safety in schools.

Talk about other security measures.

There are things you can do that will affect this.

You're not going to stop it all, though.

It's a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Some people will abuse it, just like every one of the other rights.

Some people will abuse it.

Some people will do terrible things to other people.

And you say, well, what are we supposed to just take this as a price of freedom?

At some level, yeah.

It's not going to make anybody feel good who's involved in one of these things, of course.

But at some level, we risk our lives every day because we live in a free society.

We risk our lives every day.

Every person you interact with, forget guns.

Every person you interact with could have a Michael Myers style machete

that they could come after you with when your back is turned and you're looking at the barbecue chips.

When you're noticing the new flavor of Cheetos on the rack, someone could be behind you with a flamethrower.

You don't know.

You trust people because you live in a free society and you have no other choice.

And you know what happens?

Every day, you come home in almost every circumstance and have not been attacked with a flamethrower.

That's America.

Lots of people have guns, and very rarely are they used in incidents like this.

Thank God.

Thank God.

But the answer is to not go and blame people who have given advice, like Joe Biden, to go buy a shotgun, or for people who

are law-abiding gun owners?

The answer is not to restrict people who follow the law.

It's to pursue people who break it and find people who are on the edge.

I will remind you, the police were called about this person several years ago by the newspaper who feared he would come and shoot up the office.

They called in advance by multiple years, and it still happened.

That can be stopped.

And that's the sort of thing we need to find a way to figure out

a solution to.

But it's not taking everybody's guns away.

That isn't doing anything wrong.

888 727 back.

It's Stu in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn back.

It's Stu in for Glenn Beck on a day that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is pouring $4 million into a project to create killer mosquitoes.

Now, you might say, why would anyone do such a thing?

Which is a good question.

Who wants killer mosquitoes to be around?

I don't even like regular mosquitoes.

Why would we want killer ones?

Well,

the idea is to get rid of malaria, and malaria kills millions of people.

I mean, it is a really terrible thing.

A lot of people talk about global warming as this giant threat.

If we could just get the amount of attention that we spend on global warming, a 0.9-degree temperature rise over a century, if we could only direct that attention towards malaria in impoverished nations, we could really make an actual difference.

And to Bill Gates' credit, and I'm not a huge fan of Gates on every issue by any means, but he's doing this

to stop malaria.

By the way, the killer mosquitoes are going to kill each other during sex.

Hashtag me too.

Anyone?

It's okay, I guess, because it's the male mosquitoes killing the female mosquitoes.

I guess it's okay.

Violence against women.

But only female mosquitoes bite, so Gates' army of gene-engineered male mosquitoes would be safe to humans.

This sounds like a Jurassic Park movie, the first scene from a Jurassic Park sequel.

Glenn back.

Wow, are we surrounded by stupid?

There is a lot of it out there.

Today's forecast calls for a downpour of stupidity.

I feel like we are just, we're at this point just bathing in it.

Every day, it gets it surrounds us.

We're just all marinating in stupidity.

Stupid arguments, stupid points,

people who really are certain that they're incredibly smart saying things that are incredibly stupid.

I feel like we're just like,

we're all living in a giant crock pot, and someone has just dumped gallons of stupid on top of us, and we sit here and cook slowly in it for years and years and years and years.

And this is the result:

the Supreme Court is filled.

This whole argument about who's going to replace Anthony Kennedy is just,

it's hard to fight through the stupid.

It's so thick.

Let's begin, though, with Chuck Schumer.

Now, Schumer,

I know there's a lot of people arguing that he's not stupid, but maybe there is somebody out there.

Let's see if I can give you an example of the way he's handling this particular moment in history.

Chuck Schumer talking about the replacement for Kennedy.

Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016,

not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year.

Senator McConnell would tell anyone who listened that the Senate had the right to advise and consent, and that was every bit as important as the President's right to nominate.

Millions of people are just months away from determining the senators who should vote to confirm or reject the president's nominee, and their voices deserve to be heard now, as Leader McConnell thought they should deserve to be heard then.

Because he just cares so much about what Mitch McConnell thinks.

Now, this one is a little bit hard to call stupid because there's no way he believes it.

That's the most important thing you need to take from this.

Is that, yes, the argument is absolutely ridiculous.

But also, there's no way he actually believes it.

Everyone knows the conversation was clear.

We were talking about a presidential election.

2016, there was a presidential election, and they held out to keep the seat without going for a vote for the death of Antonin Scalia to replace him with Merrick Garland, which is what Obama wanted.

Stunningly, he wanted to name a left-wing justice to replace replace Scalia, and McConnell wanted none of it.

Him holding that line is

potentially part of the reason why you have Gorsuch.

We'll get into that here in just a moment.

But the idea that you're going to wait in an election year because there's an election going on means that you disqualify all of the years.

Every year has an election.

There's always a senator running.

There's always you're always within a year of some senator being elected at all times Because there's always a special election.

There's always something going on.

And if you don't have senators, you've got governors.

If you don't have governors, you've got house members.

You've got mayors.

You've got local dog catchers.

They will use anything.

There's always an election of some sort going on.

We would never vote.

We'd be down to, you'd have Gorsuch at 112 years old being the last Supreme Court justice begging for somebody to vote on something.

There's always an election.

That doesn't mean you never have a Supreme Court justice in an election year, but the presidential election is what was pointed out.

Now, as you know, if you listen to this program for a long time, I think a better way of approaching this was letting Merrick Garland get a vote and voting him down.

You had control of the Senate, just say no.

But that goes to our,

I mean, that is another dumb argument people are making.

Oh, well, hey,

you guys stole the seat of Merrick Garland and gave it to Neil Gorsuch.

You know, you stole that seat.

The left is saying that quite a bit as well.

That's ridiculous.

Let's follow the scenario here for a minute.

Let's use our noggins.

Pull the noodle out and use it.

You got a noodle up there?

Use it.

It's supposed to do work.

If Merrick Garland was put up for a vote with the Republican Senate, by all expectations, they would say no thank you

a few months before the election.

And then the election would have come, and Donald Trump would have won, and then they would have named Neil Gorsuch anyway.

So, really, the only thing that Mitch McConnell did there was protect

some sort of unforeseen disaster in which a bunch of Republicans decided, you know what?

Yeah, we're going to go for it and go for Merrick Garland.

It's not impossible, which is why he held the line on it, but it's extraordinarily unlikely.

Because it was such an animating part of the election.

It was a big part of the reason why people went out and voted.

And not only for Donald Trump, but for Republicans down the ballot.

So that's another dumb argument, argument, dumb argument number two.

We're just swimming through the stupidity here today.

Here's another one from a CNN analyst.

This is Jeffrey Toobin talking about what the future holds.

Listen.

Let's talk about what America is going to be like that's different.

Oh, no.

You are going to see 20 states

pass laws banning abortion outright.

Just banning abortion.

And because they know that there are now going to be five votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v.

Wade.

And abortion will be illegal in a significant part of the United States in 18 months.

There is just no doubt about that.

And that's why these seats matter so much.

There's no doubt about that.

I've got news for you.

There's lots of doubt about that.

There's one I would love to be true.

You know, I consider

the pro-life issue to be incredibly important.

You know, we talk about a tax break here, a regulation cut there,

all of those pale in comparison to the fact that 60 million children that should be here are not here.

It's a really big deal.

So

I applaud the idea that Roe versus Wade gets overturned.

It was terribly decided in the first place, and it's led to tens of millions of people that should be alive that aren't.

So yeah, I think that's a really positive outcome if Roe versus Wade gets overturned.

But think of how far we have to get there.

First of all, Donald Trump has to name

a good Supreme Court justice.

Now, the first time he did a great job, it seems, with Neil Gorsuch, though we don't know for sure.

I think it's always too early to tell a couple of years into something like this.

You know, John Roberts looked great, I think, the first year or two.

And then slowly you're like,

who is this guy?

So you never know, but I'm very confident in Neil Gorsuch.

If Donald Trump got Neil Gorsuch wrong, I also got Neil Gorsuch wrong.

Neil Gorsuch, not only did Trump pick off the list that he promised to pick off of, which I was not sure of of at the time.

He did.

Not only did he pick off the list, I think he picked on the right side of the list.

He picked one of the best justices available on the list.

And so far, Gorsuch has been fantastic.

Do we think he's going to be on the right side of Roe versus Wade?

Yeah, we do.

But he still needs to do it again.

You know, George W.

Bush named Sam Alito and John Roberts did a great job with Alito.

You know,

we have seen Republicans miss on these things for a long time.

Now, the way Donald Trump is doing it is really encouraging.

He's bringing in experts.

He's not trying to do it himself.

If you remember, Souter, who was appointed by George H.W.

Bush, the thing there was, oh, well,

John Sununu said he's good.

He's my friend.

And we saw her like, okay, he must be pretty good.

You name him, and he becomes one of the most liberal justices on the court.

So real disasters like that have happened.

Kennedy, I mean, even even Reagan, right?

Reagan.

You've got Kennedy, and that was

has only been, it's been up and down at the best.

It's been up and down.

So, first you have to pick the right justice.

Then, you have to get them approved.

You've got to get them confirmed, which is not going to be easy because of

certain senators.

I'll give you a couple, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.

And I'll also give you John McCain.

John McCain obviously has not voted on anything in months.

We have no idea whether he's physically able to go and vote anyway.

That brings you to a 50-50 or 50-49 scenario, which means you have to hold everybody

in the court.

And,

you know, maybe you pick up a Democrat.

It's possible because of the way these elections are running and they want to win in Trump-friendly states.

But you got to get them through, and that's going to be really freaking hard.

Then after that, you got to get a court case to come all the way up through the court case, through the system, and then you have to have the correct ruling.

Are you?

I mean, ask yourself this: Are you confident that John Roberts is going to be right on Roe versus Wade and overturning it?

Do you believe that?

Are you 100% confident that John Roberts is going to vote your way on that?

Do you remember his ruling in not one, but two Obamacare cases

where he essentially rewrote the entire law to make Obamacare succeed?

I have very limited confidence in that.

And the big part of this is that Roberts wants to keep his legacy going, and he doesn't want to be seen as someone who's overturned these things.

Do it legislatively, he wants.

Now, of course, I typically agree with that.

That's where laws are supposed to be made.

However, the Constitution is supposed to be respected in the court.

And the Constitution was brutalized in the Roe versus Wade.

It was an attack.

They actually attacked the Constitution.

The Constitution Constitution filed charges against the court after that ruling.

And Kennedy went the same way in the Casey decision that maintained abortion rights.

Do we have any confidence that John Roberts is going to be right on that, even if Trump names the perfect justice?

I don't.

I think you might see little bits and pieces of it nipped away at the edges.

It may be more freedom for states to be able to restrict abortion in ways they've attempted and been been overturned in the past.

But the idea that 18 months from now, 20 states are going to have abortion illegal

is absolutely not a certainty.

Roe versus Wade is not yet doomed.

It's not feeling too well.

It's a little sick, but it is not dying yet.

And by the way, let's look at this scenario for a second.

Roe versus Wade being overturned, in case you don't know, does not at all mean that abortion is illegal.

It just means it goes back to the states.

So what does that mean?

Have you ever been out of your state?

Has that ever occurred in your life?

Have you ever been in, let's say, Utah and

driven across the border to another state?

Have you ever gone to a place that has large pieces of tarmac in which these things with wings take off and go into the air?

And then they land in other places.

There are other states with different laws.

Has that ever occurred for anyone?

My guess is it has.

I mean, at the absolute maximum, people are going to be able to get into a plane and fly or drive across a border and get an abortion, which will maybe increase the cost at some level and maybe increase the time spent.

God forbid, you'd have to drive 90 minutes to kill your child.

What an utter inconvenience.

is that too much to ask

i guess it is

in our society today but the i this is so overdramatized you you will there you think california is making abortion illegal you think rhode island is pulling the trigger on banning abortions

do you think that's happening

The insanity going on, you have multiple steps before Roe versus Wade could even be overturned.

Through all of those steps, each one of them is at some level uncertain.

Some of which you can't even get over 50% in believing it's going to happen.

And then if all of those things happen, you still can drive 90 minutes to cross the border, depending on what state you're in.

I mean,

if it's that, again, this is not something that happens weekly, right?

I'm not all that familiar with the female anatomy, but my understanding is you can't have abortions three times a week.

This is something that would be somewhat of a rare occurrence.

The fact that you may need to travel to a state that has different laws, just like you travel to Nevada to gamble.

Now you can gamble in many other places, but you travel to other states.

I mean, a lot of you'll see a lot of people going to Colorado.

to partake in a little

somewhat legalized marijuana.

Not really legal, but somewhat legalized marijuana.

People do that.

This would be something that you would have to travel for in this situation.

But I mean, when we're told it's the ultimate human right, you're not willing to hop in your Hyundai for an hour?

That's just, what, number three on our stupid argument list?

We've got one from Whoopi Goldberg that you're not even going to want to.

It will never leave your mind once I play it for you.

At some point, 30 years from now, you will be thinking about the audio clip I'm about to play for you.

And you know what you're gonna think at that moment?

Stu, who is now long dead because he was so unhealthy, I hated that guy.

Why did I stick around to listen to that clip?

I'm gonna do it to you in just a moment.

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

Glenn back.

I am about to destroy your soul.

If you listen to the end of this break, you will never forget it.

And you may never forgive yourself.

If you have small children in the car, they're going to be alive for too long

to outlive the regret.

Eventually, maybe 100 years from now, they will forget this.

But that 100 years is too long.

So I warn you, if you have small children, this is not the moment for them.

It's really not the moment for you, too.

Here is Whoopi Goldberg talking about the Supreme Court.

I have to tell you, as a woman, I think you're trying to take my rights away.

Okay, you don't care.

I mean, and as a person who believes in the Constitution, which tells me that I have the right to be myself and do the things I want to do, and I don't have to listen to what your religion is, and I don't have to listen to what you want it to be.

I have to make sure that as an American citizen, I'm doing the right stuff and taking care of business.

I don't like this line that

I, as a Democrat or an independent or whatever, is trying to take away anything from you.

I'm trying to hold on to my personal rights so that you can have the rights you want.

See, because if you take mine,

I feel like you, you're the one with the problem.

If you take my right away from me to judge what I do for my family and my body, I got a little problem with that.

You got a problem.

You don't want people to take your guns.

Well, get out of my behind.

Get out of my vagina.

Get out of here.

Well, I think you

I can promise you this, Whoopee.

Literally no one on earth has a problem with that request.

All people, big and small,

will run

from that particular location.

They say real estate is all about location.

This is an example of that.

People are trying to move away from that particular location as quickly as possible.

I love the logic there.

Isn't it wonderful how you can completely separate yourself from the other life that you're talking about?

She says

the Constitution gives her the right to be myself.

What a wonderful little

greeting card thing there.

Gives me the right to be myself.

It gives me the right to do what I want to do.

It gives me the right to go ahead and, quote, do the right stuff, whatever that is.

The problem here is what you're doing, the action that you believe you have the right to, does not allow someone else to be themselves.

Does not allow someone else to do the right stuff.

Does not allow someone else to do what they want to do because they never are born.

They never have the right to do anything except have their heart beat, which is what is going on when you end their life.

Absolutely revolting clip aside.

It's an important point, and way too many people think that way.

Back with more in a second.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

888 727 Beck is the phone number.

Welcome to the program.

It's Stu filling in for Glenn.

He's on vacation.

Some well-deserved time off, so he tells me.

So, Trump supporter Pam Bondi,

who is the Florida Attorney General, was at a movie recently.

She went to go see the Mr.

Rogers documentary, and she was shouted down and booted out of the theater, basically.

Which is a completely

ridiculous thing.

This is like the

It's civility, folks.

This is the way of the day.

Civility rules, doesn't it?

I mean, the most civil guy in the universe, Mr.

Rogers, and you're booting people out of the theater because you disagree with them on politics?

Could there be a more pathetic example?

And this is happening all over the place now.

Maxine Waters famously has been encouraging people to do it.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been a victim of this.

The DHS secretary has dealt with it.

There's a lot going on on this front.

But I'm amazed that it could happen at a Mr.

Rogers movie.

Mr.

Rogers was so civil,

so

specific in his wording, so concerned with the way

kids received the things he talked about.

And he talked about actually some complicated topics at times.

You go back and look at some of the clips from him.

You're like, why did he do a show on physics?

I don't know.

Did he really need to go that far in depth on quantum physics?

Yes, he did.

That's what, that was a crazy episode.

You really go back and you find like, you know, you find him talking about things like inflation.

It's like, what?

Let me talk about quantitative easing, neighbor.

So it was kind of, you know, he really did try to teach kids lots of things, but they go back and, you know, this documentary is out now, and it's supposed to be great.

I mean, Mr.

Rogers, oddly, was a real hero.

He really was.

You know, somebody that I grew up with, I was thinking the other day of like, my kids have never even seen it.

Never seen Mr.

Rogers.

They're five and six, and they've never seen it.

I don't, I mean, I don't even know if it airs anymore.

I mean, I'm sure I could find it if I wanted to, but so the new movie is called The Good Neighbor: The Life and the Work of Fred Rogers.

And there's a fascinating part of this

when they go into the history of Rogers and they talk about how he had a nine-step process

to translate the ideas he wanted to communicate to the children

into more specifically, more friendly, more understandable concepts for toddlers.

And the people who worked with him called it, they basically created a new language called Freddish.

Which is pretty crazy.

And they actually had nine steps.

Listen to this.

Listen to the work that went into that show.

This is a guy talking to a trolley.

Okay?

He's talking to a trolley.

That's what I remember about that show.

A lot went into it.

Step one, state the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible and in terms preschoolers can understand.

I think there's a lesson to be learned here.

So here's the first example.

It is dangerous to play in the street.

You want to communicate that.

Step two, rephrase it in a positive manner, as in, it's good to play where it is safe.

Number three, rephrase the idea bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.

As in, ask your parents where it's safe to play.

See how it's evolving, how that phrase from it's dangerous to play in the street is already ask your parents where it's safe to play.

Then step four, rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.

In the example, that would mean getting rid of ask.

Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.

Step five, rephrase any element that suggests certainty.

That would be will in this example.

Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.

Why is this even better?

This is a lot of work to get here.

Step six, rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.

Not all children know their parents, so this is like the politically correct back in the day.

Your favorite favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.

Step seven, add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.

Perhaps your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it's safe to play.

It's good to listen to them.

Step eight, I mean, this is a lot of work.

Step eight, rephrase your news statement, repeating the first step.

Good represents a value judgment.

So your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it's safe to play.

It's important

to try to listen to them.

Then finally, rephrase your final idea, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.

Your favorite grown-ups can tell you

where it is safe to play.

It's important to try to listen to them.

And listening is an important part of growing.

I mean, that is quite a process.

Though I think we are actually more familiar with that process than we realize because the media does this all the time.

The media has a very similar process.

They take one thing, they put it through their cycle, and it comes out on the other side a completely different way.

You start with something, let's take number one, take a conservative idea expressed as clearly as possible.

Okay, conservative says something.

Here's our example.

We want to lower taxes so that people can keep more of their money and spend it as they choose.

Easy concept.

But then step two, rephrase the idea, identifying the least sympathetic beneficiary.

In this case, people

turn to rich CEOs.

So now it's, we want to lower taxes so that rich CEOs can keep more of their money and spend it as they choose.

See how easy this is?

Step three, rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that the public cannot make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to sympathize with authorities they trust so spend it as they choose can be rephrased to

government cannot help as many people

see how you're reversing this

Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could indicate that the idea is fair.

In the example, keep more of their money, well, that sounds like that could be a justifiable thing.

We need to change that to hoard more money.

Easy peasy.

Step five, rephrase any element that suggests removing an unpopular concept.

For here, in this particular example, the concept that's unpopular, taxes.

So we change taxes

to public assistance.

Makes it sound a lot better.

Next up, rephrase the idea to eliminate any possibility of benefit

so instead of saying lower public assistance we say eliminate public assistance instead of saying government cannot help as many people we say government cannot help anyone

step seven convert technical phrases into simple emotional ideas that the public can understand

So eliminate public assistance, that's way too technical.

We need something emotional like take food from children.

Step eight, rephrase your news statement, but add protected groups that will then feel specifically targeted.

It's always a good move.

So children become

LGBT children, right?

You got to get specific.

Anyone becomes

disaffected minorities.

Disaffected is always a key word.

Anytime you can throw the word disaffected into a sentence when you're in the media, it always works out.

So, rephrase your idea a final time.

This is step nine.

Use visceral adjectives, the addition of more sympathetic groups to maximize anger and disgust.

And then, please, of course, use an emotionally gripping voice tone.

That's always important.

Lots of emotional pauses.

So, that you run that through the process, and this is how you change it.

We started with,

we want to lower taxes so that people can keep more of their money and spend it as they choose.

A quick nine-step process, and you have our final product for the media to present the conservative idea.

Ultra far-right conservatives and fascist hardliners want to rip food from the tiny hands of suffering, handy-capable LGBTQI children so that billionaire CEOs can steal more money, leaving those who care without the ability to help disaffected minorities, such as pseudo-Asians without torsos, bearded Antarctican ice dwellers, and one former Mongolian vagrant who now identifies

as a cancerous duck-billed platypus.

Glenn,

Poor plany.

Oh, no.

Glenn, back.

The extraordinary and astounding hypocrisy of it to see the constancy of the assertion of Christian virtue by political leaders in this country who have established internment camps for babies and toddlers.

And by the way, and I never in a million years thought I would sit here or anywhere and say this.

But the difference now between Venezuela and Cuba and the United States is this: Venezuela and Cuba are the countries without internment camps for babies and toddlers.

We are swimming in stupid this hour, aren't we?

Look.

Is that the difference between the United States, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Cuba famously has no economy.

The Kardashians went over there and visited when it first opened up for American travel.

And it's one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

Because they just kept looking around and going, wow, it's so quaint.

I like how they decided to keep the 50s vehicles here.

That wasn't a choice, Kim, or Chloe, or Courtney, or Reginald.

I don't know if Reginald is still a Kardashian or ever was.

Orinthal.

I don't understand

how people kind of missed the past, you know, hundred years or so, but they kind of did.

Venezuela currently has like, it's like a million,

it's tens of thousands of percent of inflation.

Isn't it one million bolivars now for a cup of coffee?

It just crossed that threshold.

It's a complete disaster in so many ways.

It's almost impossible to do something that's actually

what we take for granted every day.

I mean, when you move around and go wherever you want.

I mean, this guy is on, think about this.

This guy's on television.

This is Steve Schmidt, by the way, who's a former Republican strategist, just left the party, a very anti-Trump guy.

And look, I mean, Trump deserves criticism at times.

We've certainly heard it on this program.

I know this audience probably gets sick of it at times.

Occasionally, he deserves some criticism.

We are not to be subservient to the president.

And that's not the show that we have here.

However, there is a level of insanity that somehow Trump is able to trigger people to.

And it seems to have happened here with Steve Schmidt.

You want another one here?

Here he is also talking about the travel ban.

Listen.

Or maybe not.

We got an MSNBC travel ban.

This is a...

I'll give you the lowdown.

Apparently, we're having some technical issue.

He tells Nicole Wallace that the Supreme Court's approval of Trump's travel ban is a, quote, fantastic fulfillment of Osama bin Laden's vision.

You have it now?

All right, let's try it.

Today was a fantastic fulfillment of Osama bin Laden's vision by Donald J.

Trump.

What Osama bin Laden hoped to provoke was a war of civilization, a war between the West and one billion Muslims.

And so what Donald Trump and this Muslim band signal to the world is that Muslims are not welcome here.

That this is, whether the conservative justices say that in fact this is about executive power, the president's clear intent was to impose a religious test.

And that is as fundamentally un-American as anything that he's done over the course of this presidency.

here.

But, I mean, saying that we're Osama bin Laden slash Cuba slash Venezuela, it's not really one of them.

I mean, you got to stand out, I guess, in that crew.

You're going on MSNBC, right?

So you're not expecting pushback, which, by the way, it did not seem like he received any.

But there's got to be a moment where you're thinking, I guess you just go into the green room and you're thinking, what's the most outlandish thing I can say here?

I mean, that's probably the test of whether you get rebooked on MSNBC at this point.

By the way, our enlightened European friends found this to be interesting.

2015, there were 900,000 migrants that went into Europe.

900,000.

This year, 54,000.

A drop of 94%.

Now, part of that is, of course, the civil war in Syria and

conditions changing, but there's been a massive pushback politically for people who supported those policies that allowed 900,000 migrants to come in.

We all know, you know, I'm a huge fan of legal immigration.

I've said it many times.

It's like we, you know, it's how, it's like you can get an all-star team.

People who actually have the balls to cross oceans come here.

If they come here legally, they make us so much better.

They push us.

They challenge us.

These are people who want it.

They're people who are starving for freedom.

And they come here and they work their asses off.

They cross oceans.

They do things that are really difficult.

If they come here legally, they make us much better.

On the other side of that, when they come here illegally and their first step on our soil is a crime, it's a totally different situation and it's one that needs to be dealt with.

Glenn's on vacation.

It's Stu here on the Glenn Beck program.

Back in a minute.

Glenn Beck.

So your kid's going to die in a pool.

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

Your kid probably gonna die in a pool.

And that's how you feel, I think, if you read Parents Magazine.

Their latest report says the CDC has come to some alarming conclusions about swimming-related disease outbreaks.

Here's what parents need to know going into pool season.

Now, right now, you're thinking to yourself, I mean, I love taking my kids to the pool, but is there something that I need to know?

Will the film be at 11?

Magazine reports that from 2000 to 2014, swimming-related outbreaks of disease have resulted in 27,219 illnesses and eight deaths.

Now, I know there's at least, we actually do really, really well, at least when I fill in,

when it comes to ratings with mathematicians.

Almost every mathematician and scientist listens to this program.

Glenn has a 100-part series on physics coming up and chemistry, but we're going to stick with the mathematicians today.

If you happen to be one of those mathematicians noticing, you might notice that eight deaths in 14 years seems like less than one death per year.

And we have kind of a large country.

So maybe one death per year isn't all that scary.

27,219 illnesses sounds bad, but over the course of 14 years, we're talking about 2,000 illnesses a year, which again isn't exciting.

What's that, five or six a day in a country of 325 million people?

The ratio there, by the way, one illness per 162,500 people.

In all honesty, if that's scaring you,

what doesn't scare you?

Your odds of getting killed in thousands of other ways are much higher

now the cdc makes a couple of recommendations that aren't crazy but are pretty obvious starting with if your kid is having a problem

uh with his digestive

tract at the time maybe don't let him go in the pool number one i think we can all understand that Don't let your kids swallow the water.

Good tip.

Make sure your kids don't go to the bathroom in the water.

There are a lot of people advising their kids to do the opposite.

If there are, I've never met one of them.

But I love this.

Before getting into the water, use a test strip from your local retailer or pool supply store to check if the water's pH and bromine or a free chlorine level are correct.

Now, who the hell is doing that?

Are there parents out there that are going to their local pool with test strips?

Is that actually a thing?

Is that actually happening in the United States of America right now?

I mean,

that's incredible.

And it's amazing because

I have this really weird relationship with information like this.

I have a logical side of my brain that tells me numbers that walks me through how ridiculous a fear of

a waterborne illness in a pool actually is.

The chances of you getting anything are almost nothing.

Even if you do, it's very minor in almost every circumstance.

You're much, much, much more likely to drown in the pool than you are to die from some illness that you could have caught with a test strip.

Yet there's a part of me,

there's a part of me

that is the irrational parent that freaks out about every one of these reports.

There's a part of me.

I know it's not logical.

I know it makes absolutely no sense.

I know the numbers are there.

Yet I'm still a tad emotional about it.

Am I the only person who's like this?

I had my kid,

we brought my kids to the water park last week.

And I brought them there, my two kids by myself.

My wife was working and we're sitting there at the water park and they're going down this one slide over and over and over again.

And

dude, I do not remember having the energy that they have.

I mean, down the slide, sprint across the pool.

Because, you know, it's one of those pools that has like an inch of water in it.

You sprint across the pool, sprint up multiple, multiple flights of stairs.

I can't get up multiple stairs.

Multiple flights of stairs all the way to the top.

Dive into the slide again, all the way down.

Get out.

Sprint across the pool.

Sprint up multiple flights of stairs.

Dive in again and again and again.

Hours of this.

I cannot remember ever being like that.

I just remember a lot of sleeping.

So my kids are doing this over and over and over again, and I can see them.

I know where they are.

I know this is a publicly designed water park, specifically made so that they don't have lots of drownings and people don't want to come.

This isn't a 1980s action park we're talking about.

We're talking about a modern facility with slides, pools, very small amounts of water at the end.

They're all nicely designed, so everything goes smoothly.

And yet there I am, the second I can't see them,

you get that feeling

that completely irrational feeling that because your eyes aren't on them they are dead

or someone's abducted them or something terrible has happened a flash flood has gone over the lazy river and the child is swept away in the inner tube into oncoming traffic something is happening

Because I haven't seen them for eight seconds.

And I know it's irrational.

I realize as a parent that that makes absolutely no sense.

And yet every single time you're sitting there, you see them going down the slide, everything's fine.

They decide to go down a different slide.

You lose sight of them for 15 seconds.

And in that 15 seconds, you think, number one,

Clearly a small meteoroid has come in and it's landed in the pool and flash boiled the pool and they're gone.

I'm never going to see them again.

That's, of course, number one.

But number two, you also think, I am the worst parent of all time.

I am the worst parent in history.

Something terrible is probably happening to my children in the last eight seconds.

And what am I doing?

I'm sitting here looking like Chris Christie on the beach.

Which is not a positive visual.

And we all know that in the eight seconds, we know logically in the eight seconds that you haven't been looking at your kids that a freak tornado has not come down and pulled your kid off the water slide and landed them in California to be raised by Democratic socialists.

We understand that's not reality.

But you can't help but feel that way.

There's a woman, Lenore Skinese, she runs an organization

called Let Grow, and they call it free-range parenting.

And free-range parenting is just a nice, fancy, organic sounding word for like the way we used to raise our kids.

As I would, as I know, as a child, I walked around the neighborhood all the time, went to go see my friend's house.

You'd walk to their house with no parental supervision.

You'd disappear for the entire day.

Your mom would, or your dad would know where you were.

But it wasn't a constant monitoring process.

It wasn't one of these things where

basically it's like enemy of the state with Will Smith, where every one of your movements is tracked.

I didn't need a tracking device on me when I was going out, and I didn't get into too much trouble.

I was a wonderful child.

But like, I can't, the only time I

you see, you see your kid go into the water slide, you see them come down, and then you think to yourself, oh my gosh, they've been in the water slide.

I've only applied sunscreen 64 times today.

I better get them for number 65.

Probably the most unsafe thing that happens to them in that day is me spraying

suntan lotion into their face over and over again.

Like

they're being, they could suffocate.

As soon as they get out of my sight, I start thinking, have I hit them with so much sunscreen that they're so well lubricated that they're going to slip through a hole in the drain?

I know I'm not the only parent that feels that way, and I know it's such a weird separation.

Logically, I know it.

Lenore Skinesi will go through all the numbers for you.

And she will absolutely, I've started to use her name as like a verb.

You know, you just kind of think of like, I got to Lenore Skinese here.

I got to do it.

Because if I can Lenore Skinese,

your heartbeat comes down.

You become sane again.

And we all know that

it's much, much safer.

We've talked about this before with gun violence.

You see an awful school shooting happen.

And

you look at that and you're like, oh my God,

I think this myself.

I'm a huge Second Amendment supporter.

I'm a gun owner.

I believe that the current laws we have are unconstitutional.

In the way of gun, there's no way we can limit guns as much as we have.

I'm actually at the point, they did a poll recently, I think it was 11% of people think there's too much restriction on guns in this country.

I'm of that variety.

There's 400 million guns here, and I'm complaining that it's too restricted.

That's me.

However, you think to yourself, gosh, I hope nothing ever happens like that.

That's so terrible.

And you fear for your kids going to school.

And then I look at the numbers and I know, I realize when I went to high school, I was four times as likely to be shot in a school shooting.

Four times as likely when I was in high school.

Have you looked back and looked at when you were in high school and what the violence numbers looked like back then?

Have you stopped and done that?

Because I had looked at the numbers.

I knew that violence had come down.

It was hard for me to process initially the school shooting thing because it seems like such a recent phenomenon, but it's not.

It's not a recent phenomenon.

The violence of the old days used to happen in smaller spurts and smaller amounts.

It might not have been these mass sort of attention-grabbing shootings,

but there were many more minor shootings.

And I got news for you.

If you've got a kid who went to school and only one person was shot, you don't feel any better.

And so when you go back and you say the death rates

in school shootings, it was four times higher when I was in school.

I should have been four times more scared for myself than I am for my children, but that's not the way it is.

Logic completely separates when it comes to your children, which is why, you know,

you have to try to do everything you can to implement it.

Every moment you can to look at a boring chart,

you should do it.

Take your moments to actually realize, because I don't know, if you can get yourself to the point where you're thinking logically, you can get to the point where you take

the emotional fear out of these situations, at least until your kid walks to the other side of the water slide

and is scooped up from the kiddie pool and carried off by a giant genetically enhanced pelican.

When that happens, you're going to wish you were a little more emotional.

You're going to wish the fear kind of kicked in.

But I will say this:

sometimes I'm very lazy.

And from what I've understood, pelicans are not lazy parents.

So my kids will have that going on for them.

That's kind of positive.

So just remember,

when you go to the school or you go to a pool at any other location

and you dip your kid in, make sure you bring your test strip.

Because the only way they're going to survive is if you protect them.

There's a story in here about how

from Boston Magazine, Welcome to the Age of Overparenting.

And

guy has kids over to their house, 11-year-old daughter, and some of their friends.

Before the night, the parents of the younger kids began scouring his lawn for nails and shards of glass.

I mean, can you imagine living in a world where you fear your child's next step will be onto a shard of glass?

By the way, if my wife is listening, make sure you check our backyard for nails and shards of glass, please.

I'm very nervous about it now.

Welcome to the program.

888-727-BECK is the phone number.

I like this tweet.

I love it when Stu hosts, no one else can be so entertaining and so pessimistically inspiring at the same time.

I think that's a compliment.

Pessimistically inspiring.

I need shirts made with that phrase on it.

That's me.

Pessimistically inspiring.

Glenn will be back.

He's got a week off here, here for the summer.

So next week we have some great shows,

or at least shows that I expect to be mediocre.

Myself on Monday, Pat and me, Pat and Stu a little reunion tour on Tuesday and Thursday, plus

Pat's going to be doing the show Friday.

In fact, we're going to have Pat and Jeffy coming up here in just a couple minutes, which I'm very excited about that.

At least the Pat part.

But let me talk for a second about

one of my pet topics.

And you know what?

Glenn's not here, so I get to do this: LeBron James.

LeBron James has just opted out of his his $35.6 million option to stay with the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Now,

if you follow basketball at all, you know this is not really news in that he opts out every year.

That's what he does.

But can we step back a little bit here with LeBron James?

Because this drives me crazy.

He has the best record in the NBA.

with the Cleveland Cavaliers years and years ago.

And he loses.

So then he runs to Miami to join up with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosch for the first super team.

Remember this?

And every, you know, he gets beat up for it pretty hard.

And you're going to join a super team.

And you're leaving your hometown behind.

But that's what LeBron James does there, right?

He leaves a team that, by the way, again, had the best record in the NBA that year.

And he abandons them and goes to Miami.

to try to win championships in Miami, which he does.

It's a very good team.

And then the narrative goes, he wins the championship with Miami, and he decides he wants to go back to his hometown of Cleveland

and win them their championship.

I'm not saying there's no truth to that narrative at all.

I think he really does love Cleveland at some level.

Doesn't always act like it, but at some level he does.

Akron, big fan.

But let's be honest about what he did there.

It's the same thing he did when he left Cleveland, which was leave a team for a better team.

He left an aging Dwayne Wade and a broken down Chris Bosch to go play with Kyrie Irving and the number one overall pick in the draft, which then he pushed management to trade for Kevin Love,

even though Kevin Love only had one year left on his contract.

They could have waited a year and had both of them.

Instead, he forces that trade, gets all the players again around him that he wants, and once again, here we are.

A few years later, but he doesn't commit to a long-term contract with them.

No, no.

He opts out of the contract every year to make every last cent he can.

Now, I have no problem with a guy making as much money as possible.

In fact, I encourage it.

I love capitalism.

And LeBron James is absolutely good enough.

At playing the sport he loves to milk Cleveland for every last cent.

He can opt out of that contract every year and get every last cent.

And he can do that because he's freaking LeBron James.

But let's not act like he's charitable here.

And now

that the team that was around him has broken down a little bit and he doesn't, he got absolutely slaughtered in the finals this year, rumor is he's going to leave again.

Maybe he'll stay.

It's possible.

But again, look at all the people that have cycled through there.

Over and over again, we find out the same story.

Kyrie Irving couldn't just quite play with him.

Kevin Love, one of the best players in the league, comes to play with him and just kind of forgets how to play basketball.

And we see this over and over and over again with LeBron James.

I'm not saying that he has no right to do this.

He has all the right in the world to do it.

And he's a top 10 player of all time.

Don't even get me started with the top of that list.

But he's a top 10 player of all time.

He's a great player.

And wherever he goes, he'll be great.

But

let's not put him in let's not you know they don't give him sainthood yet

cleveland will always love him because he brought them the championship and they're great people and they'll always love him but let's not go overboard here back with more in a second

Welcome back to the program.

It's Stu in for Glen Beck, and I'm joined by the fabulous Pat Gray and the

Jeff Fisher.

Welcome to the program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Happy to be here.

here.

I'm so glad you're here, Pat.

I just could wait.

But I'm here too.

You are.

I'm very excited to see you.

This is great.

In fact, next week, we're going to be on as well.

Pat and I are going to be doing Tuesday and Thursday next week.

I'm on Monday.

Pat's on Friday.

And then Jeffy gets to come in at 3 a.m.

on

the 4th of July.

He's doing the overnight 4th of July holiday Gledback show.

We should be clear, not on the air.

No.

No, he'll be airing something else, but he will be in the studio.

He said, I get to be in front of the mic and everything.

You do get to be in front of the mic.

It's just not on.

Just not on.

I'm very interested because we were talking a little bit of the Radio Hall of Fame.

Maybe we can talk about that a little bit here in a minute.

But I mean, the obvious nominee for the Radio Hall of Fame to me, I mean, we're here on the Glenn Beck program.

We should probably acknowledge it, is Alex Jones.

Oh, you got that right now.

Thank you.

How is Alex Jones not in the Radio Hall of Fame yet?

It's a Travis Shamockery.

It is a Travis Shamockery.

That's exactly what you'd call it.

It's all political.

But he's not in there.

That's exactly what it's all.

It's all politics, man.

It's all politics, man.

That's what it is.

It's the globalists keeping me out.

So, Alex.

He could be in the slur your S's Hall of Fame.

He definitely leads that show.

Show?

What?

You're talking about a show?

No, I'm saying the word show.

You just don't want him to say the word hit.

He said the word.

Sit.

The sit is the one.

Five times that is like, you can't say it.

It's not on the radio, man.

Not when you're slurring your asses.

Bend down and put your rear on a seat.

But of course, it wouldn't be a sheet.

It wouldn't make any sense to anyone.

None.

So Alex Jones was talking about the Red Hen restaurant.

And this is the restaurant where

Sarah Huckabee Sanders went and was told to leave by the owner.

And then they actually, the people who worked there went across the street and protested her party at another restaurant, even though she wasn't sitting there anymore.

Like, even being friends with Sarah Huckabee Sanders was too much to be allowed to eat, apparently.

But Alex Jones had an important theory, and I think, I mean, he really called it out as to what was going to happen at this restaurant.

He always does.

As he always does, right?

Yeah.

Here is Alex Jones about what's about to happen at this restaurant.

This red hen thing that put out the personal info of Sanders and threw him out of the deal and then said, oh, you'll use your official Twitter to talk about us.

That's blah, blah, blah.

That's not the law.

It's all made up.

Notice they're the victims now.

What?

Like Night Follows Day.

You know, like in the show, House of Cards, where he throws a brick through his own window.

I mean, everybody knows, you know, wag the dog, all that.

In movies, everybody knows, oh, people stage stuff.

And in reality, the left's always getting caught putting swatches on their houses or fake crosses, burnings in their yards, and 99% of the time it's 90 million times.

The owner of the Red Hen

is going to stage something against their facility.

But what?

Like Night Follows Day, if somebody's smart,

smart,

if you want to dedicate something to your country, you need to go sit out in front of the money.

I wish you had the money.

I'd put PIs.

Millions of dollars.

I would sit every day, have teams of PIs all over the country.

I'd say, get on this site.

And I would just have PIs watch the red hen show when somebody firebombs it, God forbid, or somebody knocks the windows out, or somebody paints a swastika on the door.

We can follow them to their house, and you know who they're going to be, don't you?

Exactly.

We know.

It'll be something like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ADL, Antifa, which is is just college professors in mask.

Mask.

Balone Rangers going out hitting women in the head with bike locks.

But I don't have the

personnel to do that or the money.

But I'm telling you,

the left is going to hit the red hen in the next 48 hours.

99% chance.

And when they do hit it,

We can blow their operation in another devastating victory if somebody just politely goes and sits there and watches it with a camera rolling.

We will catch them.

You got to have a camera.

Can't just sit there.

We'll get to a few of these.

The good thing about this is sit.

We should be.

Right, it was sit.

The good thing about this is every time you play it, it is 48 hours from the time you played it.

I don't think that's true.

But it resets the clock?

Yes, yes.

Because what I was looking at is, I think it should be

more.

It hasn't been 48 hours yet.

He did that, what, Monday?

Yeah, because it's been 48 hours.

And as far as I know, did we fall in the 1% possibility of someone not fire bombing this restaurant?

Is that possible?

He said it was a 99% chance.

We went into the 1% chance where someone did not do what he predicted.

I think he, too.

Hard to believe.

He tries to say, like, we can stop it.

Every time something doesn't happen, it's like he said.

Because he did.

He did it.

He brought it up.

Exactly right.

If he says, aliens are going to land next Tuesday, and then they don't, he just says, well, I talked about it, so therefore they didn't land.

You shaved us from that.

You shaved?

You shaved us from that?

By the way, speaking of shaving, what is with the beard?

I know.

I don't know.

It's not that great of a look on Alex.

That is a weird look.

I mean, we have...

clearly have not done enough radio together recently because I was not even aware he was growing a beard.

And he's got a full beard.

No, not until we saw that clip.

Yeah.

This is very disappointing.

I try to keep up on these things.

I guess we have a clip here that explains why he's growing a beard.

I'm very interested

in hearing this one.

Here's Alex.

I said, until we turn the tide, I'm not going to grow a beard.

But yes, ladies and gentlemen, we've now turned the tide.

I mean, the war has just started, but we're beginning to win.

The globalists are on their heels.

So at least for the next month or so, I'm going to go ahead and fulfill that promise and grow a beard.

So that's the type of stuff we're talking about.

I've also said that

if we continue to be reversed on our heels, then I might just shave my head as a symbol of it.

But instead, ladies and gentlemen, I am growing a beard for now just to symbolize the fact that Liberty is in full bloom and the ghost of Christmas present is here in big time ways.

Do we also notice how well his diet supplements are working for him?

Look, I got nothing to talk about on this one.

Me, me, me, either, but he's the one shopping this, shopping this stuff.

So you would think

he'd be using his own products.

Possibly the globalist post office has not been delivering his male vitality as possible.

I will say too, I, going into that clip, had absolutely no idea why he was growing a beard.

And after watching it, I still have no idea.

Turn the tide.

Turn the tide.

What did it turn the tide?

What do you mean you have no idea?

We're winning.

We're winning.

Winning what?

He said he wasn't going to grow a beard until we turned the tide.

Globalists are on their heels.

They're on their heels.

They are.

It doesn't seem like it to me.

We might even turn the tide even more.

He was going to shave his head.

So you got that to look forward to.

That's kind of like, don't they have that

clock, the doom clock, where they put it like a minute towards the, you know, midnight?

Yes.

That's kind of like Alex Jones' facial hair situation.

Where like, I guess if he's kind of like that, where you know, if things are going well, he's growing more hair.

Right.

And if things are going badly, you'll see hair removed.

It's like a sundial almost.

But I think he was meant the other way, right?

He said, if we turn the tide, he's going to grow a beard.

Yeah.

Right.

So

more hair, more success.

Less hair, less success.

That's the Alex Jones scale.

I'm pretty interested in that.

Also, I want to get this.

We have a poll.

I want to see how you guys will do on this because I don't think I would have done very well.

Oh, boy.

Okay.

This is: you tell me

what percentage of Democrats are in these categories.

Okay.

Okay.

What percentage of Democrats are agnostics or atheists?

99.

99.

99.

You're giving them a 1%.

I am.

I can tell you right now, you're feeling generous today.

You are low on that one.

I went to 35.

35.

Okay.

Correct number.

9.

9%?

9%.

So now, Jeffy, you were right there on what Republicans said.

Republicans guessed 36% on average.

Actual number 9%.

Wow.

What about

LBG?

Now,

I'm holding back the T there.

I hope you guys...

And the Q and the I.

It's only LGBT.

What's about the A?

Yeah.

No A.

You're completely.

I'm saying only lesbian, gay, and bisexual.

No T.

No I.

No A, no Q.

Why is this so hateful?

It's a hateful survey, but I didn't do it.

So I feel like I'm just telling you about a hateful survey.

I don't know that I want to do it.

So are we talking to atheists within that?

No, I'm just saying of Democrats, how many are LGBTQ?

Oh, how many are okay.

Lesbian, gay, or bi.

And interestingly enough, by the way, it's LBG in this poll, not LGB, which is what I would predict.

If you're only going to go with three, don't they stay in the same order?

Why are you re-what's happened?

It's a shuffle.

So, how many Democrats are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

I'm going to say 85%.

You're a tad high on some of these.

Am I?

Yeah.

Jeffy, do you have a guess?

I mean, it feels like

25%,

25%.

Yeah.

Average Republican.

I'm guessing it's probably

average Republican said 38.

Oh, wow.

Okay.

Actual number, 6%.

Yeah.

I would have said 3.

So the average Republican guessed 32 points high on that one.

And last one, union members.

Are Democrats?

Yeah.

What a percentage of Democrats are union members.

Is high, I think.

Oh, union members

might be a different thing.

Than supportive of unions.

Right.

Mostly supportive, right?

Policy-wise, mostly supportive.

But people who claim they're Democrats are a lot more.

I think this is a low number because the number is pretty low as a whole.

About to get lower lower after that Supreme Court ruling, too, by the way.

18.

18 per pat.

In unions,

it's got to be like 25%, right?

25%.

I mean, that's where I would have guessed, I think.

Real number, 11%.

Wow.

Only 11% of Democrats are in unions.

The average Republican, I guessed 44%.

That number will be a lot less.

Yeah, which is crazy.

Now, they did the same thing when they asked Democrats what they think of Republicans.

What percentage of Republicans are 65 and older?

What they said?

What do you think?

Now, Democrats.

Democrats probably said 70%.

Right, you think they're very high.

They guessed 44% of Republicans are 65 and older.

Actual number, 21%.

So they were off by 23 points.

This one, though, is,

again, we spend a good portion of the day swimming and stupid because there's just so many people making so many dumb points right now.

I love the crock pot analogy.

It does feel like that.

Like you're in a crock pot simmering and stupid.

Yes.

They asked Democrats what percentage of Republicans are earning $250,000 a year or more?

80%.

$200,000 or more.

$250,000.

$250,000.

Okay.

They asked Democrats this.

And so I'm guessing what they guessed.

Yeah, what do you think Democrats said to that?

60%.

60%.

80%.

I believe that.

They're actually a little bit better than you guys.

They said 44%.

Okay.

You know,

how impossible?

I mean, the Morgan Stanley, 44% of their employees don't make $250,000 a year, right?

Like, the idea that a political party could have this much money.

But think about the narrative they get from the media, right?

These, you know, Koch brothers,

these rich evil bastards.

But we get the same thing, though, on the other side.

When we were, you know, the LGB, how many, what percentage there is?

I mean, we get that slammed on us all the time, too.

So it feels like there's so much more.

And the media complains that we don't do our jobs and we complain about their coverage.

Look at how bad.

How else could this coverage be so?

How could these numbers be so bad?

It's because these are the narratives we're fed all the time and people take, are immersed in it and just believe what they believe.

So 44% of Democrats or excuse me, Democrats said 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 a year or more.

Actual number, two.

Wow.

They are off by 42 points.

Wow.

Look, I mean, a very small percentage of Americans make 25%.

Make $250,000 a year.

I mean, if you're not, you're probably in the top 2%.

Yes.

And you're probably

the top 1%, I think, starts at $400,000,000 or $500,000, something like that.

$117,000, something like that.

So that's a lot, you know, that's a lot of money.

Although, did you see that in the Bay Area now,

$117,000 a year is considered low income.

That's how bad it is.

The cost of living in the Bay Area now.

And the average house, I have the story.

I may be able to do it Monday or something, but

the average house is...

Just under a million, right?

Right.

$935,000.

That's the median, not the average.

Median, sorry.

Yeah.

So meaning half or above that, half or below that.

That's incredible, though.

That's unbelievable.

And again, the average house in San Francisco is a lot smaller than the average house in other places.

they're selling dumps for a million.

Yeah.

You're paying a million dollars.

I mean, you're at the point where you're.

But if I could move my house from here to there, I could get a million dollars for it.

That would be a little difficult, Jeffy.

Although yours being on wheels, it might not be so bad.

Right.

But it's a double wide, though, isn't it?

Might take up too much.

I only live on one side, though.

Watch for the low bridge crossings, okay?

Because that's important.

What's coming up on the show today?

We're going to obviously

talk about many things.

One of them being

well, sometimes with the reaction to the Supreme Court is still going on, which is just maddening.

Just maddening.

We'll probably go in depth on LeBron.

We probably will, since this is a Glenn show and we can talk sports.

I want to show Bill de Blasio at the border for one thing.

Oh, that's an amazing show.

It sure is.

I love that.

And this Alexandria Cortez on Colbert last night talking about what socialism means.

Oh, yeah.

This is a scary time.

It is.

It is.

All right.

That's coming up on Pat Gray Unleashed, watchingtheblaze.com/slash TV or the Blaze.com slash radio or on any of your apps.

Check it out there.

Guys, thanks for coming on.

No, no.

Thank you.

Glenn back.

End of the show.

Let me take a call that Glenn would never let me take.

Mike in New Jersey.

Welcome to the program, Mike.

How you doing, Stu?

Glad to meet you.

E-A-G-L-E-S.

Hate them cowboys.

We are are Super Bowl champions.

I'm glad you wanted a game.

I wanted a parade.

That's four millionaire.

Third, second thing, Mike Green.

Man, I love him.

I hope Trump picks this guy or his brother.

That's best for me.

Third thing, I'm using real estate agent I can trust.

She's the most compassionate woman and confident.

I ever met a real estate agent.

She's in.

I'm using her out here in Cherry Hill, New Jersey to buy a house in Maysland.

Amazing.

I got to get where the Gugs guns are.

Plug, and we got Supreme Court stuff.

Amazing.