'No Truth In Outrage' - 6/4/18

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

Glen back.

California and Venezuela have an awful lot in common right now.

The governments of both Caracas and Sacramento are inadvertently forcing people out of the state and the country.

And they are leaving in catastrophic droves.

It shows the truth to America about what progressivism, progressivism, hardcore socialism, has done and what they have in common.

They are killers, and ultimately they destroy countries and states.

Now listen to these stats.

From January to May, over 400,000 people have fled Venezuela.

1.8 million have left over the last 24 months.

NGOs in neighboring countries report the numbers coming out of Venezuela are increasingly insane.

Since the beginning of the year, they report 4,600 new arrivals a day, a day.

That makes 700,000 people leaving the country this year.

And we are barely halfway through 2018.

Entire industries have packed up.

They are leaving the country.

This year alone, 48,000 teachers have called it quits and moved to neighboring countries.

But it's not just teachers.

Venezuela is currently seeing a massive shortage of doctors, electricians, bus drivers, engineers, oil workers, everybody.

Everybody is fleeing and industry is dying.

Now think about that.

People escaping and industry dying.

That's Venezuela.

But I find myself today,

and I have said incredible things.

into

this device.

In my 40 plus years of broadcast, I have reported on some amazing things,

but I never ever thought I would be able to compare any U.S.

state with a collapsing communist regime.

The similarities between socialist Venezuela and the progressive blue state of California are beginning to be very striking.

Over one 140,000.

140,000.

California now has the second largest amounts of residents fleeing the state annually.

They're right behind New York, their progressive blue sister state.

Taxes, the cost of homes, and homelessness, sending people to places like Texas and Nevada.

But like Venezuela, the scariest sign for California is what's happening to business there.

In the past 12 to 24 months, listen to the list of companies that have decided they can't take it anymore.

They cannot do business in California because of the high taxes, the massive over-regulation.

It's just too much to deal with.

Carls Jr., Carls Jr.

Wasn't that an icon of California?

Carls Jr.

moved to Nashville, Toyota to Texas.

Jacobs Engineering Group to Texas,

Nissan of North America, like Carls Jr., went to Nashville, Jamba Juice, Occidental Petroleum, Omnitrack software, Chevron, Waste Connections, they all picked up and moved to Texas.

This list is a lot longer and it's going to grow even more in the next six to twelve months.

Over two dozen companies have now announced they're looking into leaving California.

Some experts speculate that nearly 10,000 companies have left the state of California since 2008.

10,000 employers.

What is the future of California?

People are fleeing, jobs are leaving, businesses dying.

Progressives and socialists.

Sadly,

destroying lives

in

capital S states

one government at a time

it's Monday June 4th you're listening to the Glenn Beck program

I don't even know where to begin today how about the guy running for office

congressional office in Virginia that is a pedophile and doesn't have a problem admitting and is like ah people are tired of being PC.

Should we start there?

Should we start at?

Should the president be able to pardon himself for crimes?

Rudy Giuliani says yes.

Should we start there?

Or should we continue on the road of California?

It is now against the law in California to shower and do laundry on the same day.

Jerry Brown is retiring, but he's leaving a few gifts behind.

Two bills were signed into law Thursday to help California be better prepared for the droughts and effects of climate change.

Now, what you could do is build a reservoir, but no, no, no, no, no.

Even though you haven't built a reservoir in like 40 years and the population has increased, The last thing you want to do is build a reservoir.

Just let all that rainwater just go right into the ocean.

Instead, what they've done is put mandatory water conservation standards into effect permanently.

To make a long story short, now that these bills are the law, it is illegal to take a shower and do a load of laundry on the same day because

you will exceed your ration.

Senate Bill 606 establishes a governing body to oversee the water supply.

Oh, that's going to be good.

Assembly Bill 1668 establishes limits on indoor water uses for every person in California, and the amount allowed will decrease even further over the next 12 years.

The bill, January 1, 2025, would establish 55 gallons per capita daily.

The standard for indoor

residential water use will be 55 gallons.

It will even be less

by 2025 52.5 gallons

by 2030 it's 50

now let me ask you this how many gallons

do you use

well an eight minute shower is 17 gallons a load of laundry is 40 gallons.

If you have 55 gallons,

you've done a load of laundry, and one person in the family takes an eight-minute shower, you have already broken the law.

God forbid you flush your toilets.

If you want to take a bath, that's 80 to 100 gallons, twice the limit.

If you want to clean your dishes with a dishwasher or water, a

dishwasher uses six gallons of water.

That doesn't count anything that you want to use for your dogs.

God forbid you have chickens or livestock.

God forbid you want to turn on your sprinkler.

You are so far over your 55-gallon limit, every single person will be over it and breaking the law on day one.

What the hell?

And you know what they'll do?

They'll fine you, which will provide the state with more money.

Which will what?

Cause more people and more businesses to leave California.

You know, the weird thing about the California population is all of these people and companies have left the state in droves.

And yet the state's population has continued to rise.

Why is that?

How is that possible?

This is a state that is going to have the widest income

disparity

of possibly any place other than Moscow soon.

Because it will only be those people.

who are in the Hollywood Hills

and the people who are,

quite honestly, trapped there.

Well, you can't have the people, the people who live in the Hollywood Hills won't stay if you make them only have 55 gallons of water.

That's why provisions for swimming pools, spas, and other water features will be included.

Yeah, you'll be able to, sure, sure, sure, sure, sure.

You know, the people down in the valley, they're not going to be able to have, you know,

God forbid, they take a minute longer in the shower.

But I'll be able to wear, I'll be able to turn on my fountain.

Of course.

Yeah.

Of course I'll be able to do that.

I love this too.

I'm talking about that.

Because government never gets out of control with these types of things.

How are they going to find out how much water you're using?

Well, obviously there's some basic ways for things like showers, but when it comes to landscaping, there could be other issues.

That's why they, quote, shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or other best available technology to develop an accurate estimate of landscaped areas.

Other best available technology that couldn't possibly be invasive.

It's China.

We are building a cage for ourselves.

We are building a cage for ourselves.

What happens when California can no longer afford to do the things and run the lifestyle that those in Sacramento are insisting on?

What happens when the people don't have water?

What happens when the average person says, I'm going to take a shower

and I am not living by your rules anymore.

I understand landscaping,

but I am not going to do this anymore.

I am not going to take a, I am not going to make the choice between flushing my toilet.

and doing a load of laundry on the day I want to take a shower, which is every day.

I mean,

what kind of third world country is California becoming?

It is incredible, right?

I mean, the fact that you do something like this, I mean, it is absolutely incredible.

And this is what they've done this before.

They did this with electric cars.

Many years ago, they passed a zero emission rule.

that said that a certain percentage of cars, I don't remember what it was, 20% of cars by a certain date had to be zero emissions.

And of course, the technology wasn't available.

It wasn't ready to go.

So

because it's California, these companies forced into production ridiculous electric cars to try to hit these standards.

If you've

say ridiculous, you just...

You're talking about the Chevy Volt, which was

in time spent.

It was a disaster and just burned people alive.

Chevy Volt was a dream compared to what they actually churned out when they tried to hit those standards.

If you go back and look at that, there's a documentary about it, which is nothing but pleasing to environmentalists called Who Killed the Electric Car?

Yeah, yeah.

And it was about this idea that they were going to try to force them to create these cars that didn't exist.

And so they tried, and they were complete disasters for many reasons that the documentary doesn't talk about.

But the point is,

when they got to the end of this and these deadlines came up and they didn't have this percentage of cars, what they had to do is just change change the standards because they couldn't, all these, all cars were going to have to, every car company was going to have to remove itself from California.

And obviously, they know that that was not what they wanted.

The same thing is going to happen with this.

Do you remember?

What is the name of the car, Stu?

It was the biggest car in the Eastern Bloc.

Oh, yeah.

It's a really ugly

square.

That really ugly square car.

It wasn't the Zill.

I can't remember what it is.

But it was, it was a dream.

It was a dream.

People's car.

It was the people's car It was gonna be perfect and it was designed by the state and it's wonderful the problem is they made it out of a composite up until like what 10 years ago?

They made it out of a composite that

Cannot biodegrade in any way shape or form the earth until we're all covered in lava these the bodies of these cars are going to sit in Eastern Europe forever forever.

You cannot reuse them, recycle them, or degrade.

It's insane.

Why?

Well, it's not because the people of Eastern Europe wanted them.

They hated them.

Because the government got involved.

And said, this is the right thing to do.

And this is what we're going to do.

And we are going to do it.

And you are going to purchase this because we know better than you do.

Congratulations.

In California, you're about to start building those cars.

Maybe.

Trabant?

Somebody in the audience knows what those things are called.

Look it up.

Trabant, I think.

How do you spell it?

I'm looking at T-R-A-B-A-N-T.

They've made them from 1957 to 1991.

No, I think...

It may have been the Trabant, but I.

There was another one.

We watched a documentary on this

with the last couple of months.

The people's cars.

And I think this one was built until like 2010 or 2008.

The last one just rolled off the.

Yeah, I think you're right.

I think you're right.

It was even newer than that.

All right.

Let me tell you about American financing.

The June Fed meeting is coming up June 12th and 13th.

The economists overwhelmingly are predicting now that the Fed is going to raise rates.

If you have found a home that you're interested in financing, or if you're thinking about taking advantage of the low rates, do it now before the June 12th meeting.

And American Financing can help.

Whether you're buying your first home, your next home, even an investment home, let American Financing customize the right loan program for you.

You can pre-qualify in 10 minutes, close in as fast as 10 days.

And American Financing employs salary-based mortgage consultants, and they don't work on commission, they work for you.

A-plus rating from the BBB and over 1700 Google reviews.

They offer e-sign.

You can complete your documents from the comfort of your own home.

There's no upfront fees, and you can utilize every single loan in the industry.

But they're going to find the right one for you.

So, what do you do?

If you need to buy a home or refi,

you call these people, American Financing.

The number is 800-906-2440.

800-906-2440 or AmericanFinancing.net.

American Financing Corporation, NMLS 1-82334, www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org.

Glenn Back.

We're still, we're fascinated by this car thing now.

We can't get off of it.

I think it was the Travant.

It doesn't sound right.

I thought the factory closed later than 1991.

But maybe it was a Toronto.

Was it the Lada?

There was a car back in the day that the former Soviet Union

was building.

It was the People's Car.

And it was a nightmare.

And now,

all throughout Eastern Europe, there are just these giant fields full of

these cars because the body they built them on is non-biodegradable.

Because they want them to last for a long time and can not be cannot be broken down recycled reused in any way shape or form so it's just this graveyard of millions of these cars and i'm trying to remember stum

it was like

it was like more than all of the american car industry combined for a while some crazy stats which you'd actually see if we could get james may on he's the guy who i love him he's a you know british guy who does there's a series on amazon if you're a prime subscriber, you can watch it as part of their package.

It's called Cars of the People,

which is the name of the series.

There's a few episodes of it.

The first one, we've talked about it before, where they go through all of these really bad central government-planned automobiles and how every one of them turned out to be a

disaster except for one.

Except for one.

Right, which still was a disaster.

At the time.

Until it turned, which is Volkswagen.

Yeah.

Until it turned public.

That's what it turned out.

What the disaster was, was not the car.

I mean, it was designed by Porsche.

Yeah.

So the disaster was not the car.

The disaster was that the government said, here's savings stamps where everybody can have the people's car.

So send us your, you know, I don't know what it was, you know, 10 marks a month for the next 18 months.

And in the end, we're going to give you a car.

Well, they took that money and they used it for other things like the war machine.

So nobody got their car.

I feel safe saying that if you wanted to buy a car and instead funded the Nazi war regime, I would say that potentially that's a disaster.

I don't feel like it's not.

No, I mean, yes, yes,

I just wanted to.

No, no, no.

Hang on just a second.

I wanted to point out that, yes, it was a disaster because of that, but the actual car was not.

No, and it eventually turned into obviously a great car.

It was a great car when it was first shown, was it not?

Yeah, I mean, yeah.

I think, especially in comparison to these other ones.

The other ones are unmitigated disasters.

It was designed by poor Shiminit.

There was a lot to it.

You know, if you want to teach your kids in a fun way about communism and how bad communism is, it's a good series.

Or totalitarianism, watch that series.

It's on Amazon.

It's called, I think, The People's Car?

Car, Cars,

the People.

Cars of the People.

James Maze, Cars of the People.

Yeah, it's funny, it's entertaining, and boy, your kids will go, wait a minute, what?

It's really amazing.

Cars of the people people on Amazon.

Back in a second.

This is the Glendack program.

I am so excited for

the weekend after next, Father's Day weekend.

We are doing our Mercury Museum, our exhibition.

It's a limited exhibition of some of the items in our collection.

And it is all about rights and responsibilities.

It's all about

knowing these and knowing when they go wrong and what things are like

when they do go wrong.

What happens if you live in a world where man doesn't have any human rights, where it's not self-evident that you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'm convinced that our unum, the thing that the one thing that we can all agree on, the Bill of Rights, but we don't know them.

I'm also convinced that everything that that we have going on, every problem that we face today, is because somehow or another, we have found a way to violate the Bill of Rights.

So the heroes who have stood up for rights and the stories of when they go wrong,

you don't want to miss this.

It's happening on Father's Day weekend.

Tickets are now available, general omission, or you can get private tours with me or David Barton or Stu or anybody else.

And we're going to be there all weekend and we would love, love to see you.

If you've ever been to one of our museums, this one's going to be over the top.

I think you're going to really, really like this one.

Rights and responsibilities.

First time we've ever opened the entire studio.

This is 80,000 square feet, and you're going to be taken through

the floor of the entire first floor is open for the museum, and we'll have pieces that are pretty shocking.

I don't have word yet on what is coming on one section.

We know we have a lot on Abraham Lincoln, but we have asked the

Lincoln Museum up in Illinois if we could borrow a few items.

We know that they are coming.

We know that they are.

They haven't decided what they're going to loan us yet.

What we've asked for is the original Emancipation Proclamation signed by...

Oh, that's it?

Yeah, that's it.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, they've got to bring that.

I mean, that's the easiest.

I think that one is coming.

I think that one is almost a for sure deal.

I'm not sure, but I don't want to promise anything.

The things that we have asked for are remarkable.

For instance, I didn't even know this existed still.

The original handwritten Gettysburg address.

Handwritten in, you know, I guess on the train by Abraham Lincoln.

Wow.

And

also the stovepipe hat and gloves that are all bloodied from the night that he was shot.

That's also part of their collection.

And we hope to have some of the collection.

We know we'll have some of the collection.

We just don't know what yet.

Yeah, we're talking about how these things come together every time a minute ago off the air.

And it seems like what usually happens is there's this great collection of stuff that if we get none of these items you're talking about, it's still great.

Like it's still an amazing museum.

And then there's always these like three or four things that are like over the top that we request.

Well, last time, I think last time it was, hey, can we get the Bible that was actually taken over on the Mayflower?

Yeah, I think so.

And it happened.

It was there.

I saw it.

You're standing there and you're like, well,

that's really a pilgrim's hat and his clothes.

And that's his gun.

And that's the Bible that they were reading on the Mayflower.

Yeah, it's really cool to be here.

It's amazing.

To be close to that.

I mean, because I don't know, I hear the word museum.

Oh, Snorfest.

Yeah.

I think of how do I kill myself before I enter it?

I should take you through this one

with your imagination today so you can know what I'm planning.

Because this one is unlike anything that we've ever done.

Really?

Yeah.

This one is really,

really unlike anything we've ever done.

You're going to, I think you're really going to like this.

I mean, we just like four weeks ago, I'm like, okay, guys, I'm sorry to throw this on you, but

can we get an actual French guillotine anywhere?

Somebody's got to have one.

And in the circles that we run in, somebody did.

And so

one of the guillotine, the French guillotine, is coming because we want to show the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

One led to freedom, one led to the guillotine.

What was the difference?

It's really going to be amazing.

You don't want to.

I think this week they're starting to reassemble the gallows in

one part of the museum.

It's going to be an uplifting workplace for the next couple of weeks.

No, I tell you,

the first 20% of the museum is a little dark.

In fact, we're talking about having a pass-through because you may not want to have your kids go through the first few minutes of the museum because it's really dark.

It's quite dark.

But the rest of it is really uplifting and ends with the choices that we have to make.

The The possibilities of the future are unbelievable.

We can reach to the stars and beyond, or we can be shut up in a cage.

Which are we going to do?

And it will all be,

it will all just, it will all be decided on

what our future is based on our reaction to our rights and our responsibilities.

Really cool Father's Day weekend present because it's actually happening that weekend.

So you go to mercury1.org/slash museum 2018.

I know there's tours with Glenn, there's tours with myself and Jeffy.

That's on vacation.

David Barton.

What's that?

Yeah, there's a lot of great tours you could do, or you could just come and check it out yourself.

We'd love to have you.

Love to have you.

Come on down and see us.

We'll see you there.

That's a week from this weekend, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, June 15th through the 17th, here at the studios in Dallas, Texas, the Mercury Studios in Las Calinas.

We would love to see you.

Tickets on sale now.

mercury1.org/slash museum2018.

We don't have time to do this real justice here, Stu.

You know what?

Let's take a break and then we're going to come back so we can spend some quality.

So we can spend some quality time just asking a question.

Where is the line

in today's society?

Where is...

What are we willing to accept

because he's better than the other guy?

There's a candidate that is running for Congress

that is forcing us to ask this question.

And

it's a day of firsts on the Glenn Beck program.

We'll go there in a minute.

First, let me tell you about Zip Recruiter.

If you run a business, you know, one of the hardest things you do is hiring people, finding the right person.

Because they have to mesh with the rest of everybody else.

you want them to bring the right attitude you know people can talk a good game but I mean really how good are you at those things it's tough so what do you do you you know you'll go to a website and you'll just post your job at a website and you hope that the right person sees it and and and you can identify them in the pile of resumes that you get ZipRecruiter has a different way they go out it's smart technology so it learns what you're looking for and it sends your job to over a hundred of the web's leading job boards but then they scanned thousands of resumes to find the right person with the right experience and then invite them to apply for your job.

As the application comes in, ZipRecruiter analyzes every single one of these and then spotlights the top candidates so you don't miss what they see because it can scan so much information.

ZipRecruiter.

It is so effective that 80% of the employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate in through the site on the first day.

ZipRecruiter, try it for free.

I've got nothing to lose.

Try it for free and see who's coming through your front door that possibly will change your business.

That's for the best.

ZipRecruiter.com/slash Beck.

Go there now.

ZipRecruiter.com slash Beck.

The smartest way to hire.

ZipRecruiter.com/slash Beck.

There is a candidate running in Virginia

that

is an interesting

is an interesting choice for Virginians.

His name is Nathan Larson.

Now, he's a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia.

He's running for Congress as an independent candidate.

Now,

Stu, before I get into everything about him,

can you just give me a- Give me his personal life?

Yeah, his personal life.

Give me the stats on, you know,

like his tax policy.

Yeah, big-time libertarian tax policy.

He wants little to no taxes whatsoever.

Small government guy.

I mean, really.

Get the government out of everybody's business.

Which is great.

You don't want that.

Regulation, down the tubes.

Down the tubes.

Okay, he's really good on that.

He's a big speech.

Is he better than the big on free speech?

First Amendment guy, I'll tell you that.

Is he better

than the Democrat?

Oh, much better than the Democrat.

The Democrats want to raise your taxes.

This guy wants to wipe them out completely.

All right.

All right.

He's also,

may I quote him?

Sure.

A lot of people are tired of political correctness and being constrained.

And so am I.

I'm tired of political correctness.

I associate myself with him on that.

People prefer when there's an outsider who doesn't have anything to lose and is willing to say what's on

a lot of people's minds.

Trade in the swamp.

I'm in.

Okay.

All right.

Maybe you don't want the swamp traded this much.

Maybe not this much.

This is the creature that lives at the bottom of the swamp.

Okay.

This 37-year-old accountant has bragged on website posts about raping his late ex-wife.

I mean, stuff happens.

As I said, he's a First Amendment guy.

Social media thing.

Now, he hasn't actually raped his ex-wife, right?

He just talks about it.

Talks about it.

Correct.

He also has confirmed that he created the now-defunct websites, and I'm not going to give them,

but they served as chat rooms, as gathering places for pedophiles and also violence-minded misogynists.

I will say that the websites are defunct,

at least according to this report.

So it's probably not going to do any damage.

They're not going to get any traffic.

But what I found was interesting about it was there's a bunch of things I didn't know what they were.

Like, we've only very recently discovered what an incel is.

And that is.

I'm not sure I've discovered it.

You haven't.

Because the only reason I say that we have is because a couple of the mass shooters fell into this category.

Incels.

Incels, which is an involuntary celibate.

Ah, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Which, you know,

which is

one of those things.

You want to have sex, but you can't, no one will do that with you.

You can't do that with you.

So you're an incel, and usually that leads to, you know, some dangerous.

Right.

Now, of course, you know, a lot of people are involuntarily celibate.

You know, like go through every high school and college in America.

You're going to find like a lot of people who fall into that category.

Most of them not desiring to be celibate.

However,

however,

there is a certain wing

of this group that seems to act out in violence and talk about, you know, that they should not have to be celibate because they should be able to have sex with whoever they want.

He's one of them.

Yeah, he's on that side of it.

He's one of them.

He's written an essay about

father-daughter incest and about

raping his ex-wife repeatedly.

In a recent interview, he was asked whether there was a grain of truth in his essay, and he said, yes.

But plenty of women have rape fantasies as well.

Okay.

Well, look, maybe that's what he's talking about.

Okay.

You know what I mean?

He's like talking about

We talk about his tax policies.

Right.

He claims in his campaign manifesto, his platform is quasi-neo-reactionary libertarian, which includes protecting gun ownership rights.

See, good Second Amendment.

Establishing free trade.

I like free trade.

And a benevolent white supremacy.

What was that?

The last one was...

Well, let's

focus on that one.

Also, he's going to legalize a few things, incestuous marriage and child pornography.

oh

he also has urged congress to repeal the violence against women act this guy's a winner this guy's a winner he says we need to switch to a system that classifies women as property initially of their fathers and later of their husbands

He showed sympathy for men who identify as involuntary celibates or incels, suggesting it is unfair that they are forced to pay taxes for school welfare and other support for other men's children.

We've gone down a little bit of a path here.

I mean, the tax policy doesn't seem as exciting.

You want to

be forced to pay taxes for schools?

Again,

I don't want a Democrat in office.

I'll tell you that.

Yeah.

So.

And he's just saying these things.

He also posted online: why doesn't every pedophile just focus on making money so they can get a pedo-wife

and then either impregnate her with some young boy or adopt some young children.

That would accommodate both those who are and are not into incest.

And of course, the adoption process lets you pick a boy or a girl.

That's a quote.

Now, he has a child, by the way, with his ex-wife.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He lost custody for somebody.

Somehow he lost.

I don't know why.

I don't understand.

I mean, he's running for office.

You think this is an upstanding member of society, but he could not get custody.

He also identifies himself as a hebophilic racist.

Hebophilic racist?

I don't know.

What is a hebophilic racist?

We're learning a lot of new rapists or racist.

Rapist.

Okay.

H-E-B-E-P-H-I-L-I-C.

Okay, here we go.

Glad I Googled this, by the way.

I just want to point that out.

Thank you, Google.

Today's word of the day, kid, is hebophilia.

You can alert future people looking into investigations.

I did this on the air for informative purposes only.

Sure.

Hebophilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent, early adolescent children, typically

ages 11 to 14.

I don't think he's going to differ between

that and pedophilia?

It differs from pedophilia,

which is the primary or exclusive sexual interest in pre-pubescent children.

So I guess you're going younger than 11.

And from ephebia.

Ephebophilia,

which is the primary sexual interest in later adolescents, typically ages 15 to 19.

So

this guy's

a website.

The good news is

he's on the ballot.

Virginia, you can vote for him.

He's got low tax policies.

He also has just been released

from federal prison for threatening to kill the last president.

So you got that going for you as well.

Mercury.

Glenn Beck.

This is the craziest.

This is.

No, it's not the craziest thing I've heard because I just did a break where a guy in Virginia is running for Congress and he's a pedophile and he's open about it.

And he's like, yeah, okay, so what?

I dig children.

What's the big deal?

I think people are tired of, you know, these politicians not really being open.

Okay, all right.

No, not open, not that open, not that open, not when you're opening up your drawers for children.

No.

So I can't say this is the craziest thing I've heard, but it's it's on the scale.

So no, it's par for the...

Let me restart.

Hello, America.

Regular news today.

Looks like one of the reasons why we're meeting in Pyongyang and having negotiations with the North Koreans is because their leader wants a McDonald's.

Apparently...

You know, Kim Jong-il used to have McDonald's flown in from China.

Okay, of course, he's a fat man.

If you were running a country and you didn't have a McDonald's, but you ran a country where you had no limits on your power, come on, you're telling me there wouldn't be maybe once a month, every couple of months at least, you'd go, you know what, I really feel like having a quarter-pounder and a Big Mac.

Send one of those planes out to get one for me.

Of course you would.

You're fat and you're a dictator.

So apparently, they think this is a really big deal that they're gonna, we might allow you to uh open a McDonald's here in North Korea.

Okay, I don't know if they know this, but that's not a big deal for us.

That's not like a big chip.

It's not like everybody in America's been like, oh man, if we could just get McDonald's into North Korea.

That's not a big bargaining chip.

That's more about you, fat man, than us.

Apparently,

Apparently,

having a McDonald's in a closed country is a big deal.

Historically, when McDonald's franchises open in communist nations, it's usually a precursor to shaking off the communist rule.

Like the clown is a spy.

Like somehow or another, everybody's going to have Big Macs and

Phileo fishes and go, you know what?

We should be free.

I mean, I guess it is, but you know who wants to run the McDonald's?

His family.

Of course, I'm sure they're all fat as well.

This is about them, not capitalism.

I think there is a legitimate argument that you plop a McDonald's down in some communist dictatorship and it turns into revolution.

It turns into freedom.

People are like, wait a minute, this is available?

And then it all turns over.

That is, I think, what happens.

I don't.

No, I don't.

And can I ask you a question?

I mean,

Bill Clinton's got to be kicking himself.

If this is the way that you get freedom in North Korea, Bill Clinton's like, why did I not think of that?

It's Monday, June 4th.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Well, welcome to the program.

I'm, man, I'm, I'm,

geez, I, man, I'm glad you're here.

There's just so much wonderful things.

There's many, many wonderful places we can go to today.

None of them in the news.

None of them.

I don't think any of them in the news today.

I mean, unless you're a McDonald's fan.

Right now, McDonald's is like, yes.

Come on.

Well, there's such large

disposable incomes in North Korea that would be able to frequent this McDonald's.

I'm sure it would do well.

Who's going to pay for that?

Who could afford even a McDonald's?

I've got a food, let alone actual

food that's produced for you.

You know, it's like, you know, people say about North Korea, well, why are people starving?

Why don't they just go out into the fields and just grow, you know, because they've already been cleaned.

They've already been picked clean.

They've destroyed it because people have no food.

They're eating bark off of trees.

It's not like, well, you know what you need.

You need a central market.

if you just had a whole foods everything would be solved no they have no money

that is a problem yeah also many of them are in prison and being tortured that's another issue it's hard to get to the drive-through when you've got you know needles pushed in into under your fingernails there's there's uber eats

you got eat rates and doing cell block 14.

dominoes uh announced, I believe it was over the last week or so, that

they're doing hotspots now.

Domino's hotspots.

You know, you have like a Wi-Fi hotspot or you might be at like a park.

Well, now Domino's is saying they will deliver not just to houses.

So like if you're just out in like a, if you're out in a park, get a pizza delivered to you in a park.

What if you happen to be at a playground and you want a pizza?

Think of this.

Think of this.

We are meeting with

a country that is starving their people to death and can't seem to make it work okay centralized government somehow or another they just can't make it work

and we on the other hand are fatter than ever before

and and thinking to ourselves

man i wish i could get a pizza here in the park oh i can

And yet there's still a debate as to which way we should go as a government.

Like, there's still people out there going, I don't know, maybe the starvation one's better.

Maybe we should try that one again.

If we could perfect that one, we'd be able to nail this thing.

How about we work on this one?

Because it's working pretty well, even as corrupt and horrible as the system is.

It's working pretty well.

Let's clean this one up.

It's kind of like, let's dust it off a bit.

Hey, here's an old piece of paper I found.

Bill of

Rill of.

I don't know.

It's a bill of some sort.

Let's set that over here.

It should have spelled it R-I-T-E because people are like, rigats.

Or Bill of Rigs.

Rigat.

Riggs.

You know, I mean, think about this.

We are a country that has developed not one, but two separate individual tacos made out of a shell of fried chicken.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what's happening?

Wait, wait, when did this happen?

I mean...

I don't get my fast food food news.

When did this happen?

Taco Bell.

It's got the, what is it called?

The naked chicken talkalupa.

So it's got in the chicken.

Well,

the taco shell is fried chicken.

Yes, I love that.

And then inside, you have all the toppings that you would normally have.

Now, is it like sprayed?

Is it like the kind of, and I'm not saying this is a bad thing.

Is it like the

is it like the McGrib where it was chicken that was sprayed out

like some pancake batter.

I don't know what sort of anti-McCrib propaganda you're going with here.

I don't know.

I'm fine with.

I don't think McDonald's needed to make it in the shape of ribs myself.

It would have been a little less disturbing.

Well, because you don't want to eat the bone on ribs.

I know, but I get the idea that this is from the rib without it being poured into a mold.

You know what I mean?

I don't understand what it is.

I don't know if this is.

Is this spray chicken?

This is going to surprise you, but the chicken does not actually come in taco shape.

So yes.

Yes.

No, I know.

No, I know that.

But there's a difference to me.

And maybe it's just because I'm a connoisseur and a snob.

But there's a difference between, like, you know, the old, you know, Italian grandmother who's just pounding the chicken into cutlets so it's really thin.

And the one that just kind of puts it in a machine

and then it sprays out.

okay

so uh let me put you at ease okay taco bell has hired tens of thousands of italian grandmothers

to pound up then i'm good then i'm good i didn't think i was going to win that's so easy all right

but you wanted to believe all right so they take a spatula they cook it on one side they take a spatula and flip it over or do they deep fry it oh it's definitely fried chicken it's fried it's fried chicken now now is this i just i want to be i want to be very clear and careful here

because it took me a long time.

Well, it took me until I was old enough to where I didn't slurp the milkshake down from McDonald's, that I actually left it, you know, someplace and then I came back an hour later and I'm like,

this hasn't changed consistency before I realized it doesn't actually say milkshake.

It just says shake.

So

I just want to ask:

this chicken taco, is it spelled

with all of the same letters in the same way

as a person who eats many right chicken-esque products that are spelled c-h-i-c-k apostrophe

yes i will assure you this is actual chicken chicken okay all right good okay good we're okay i'm interested So you think you're going to put the lettuce and the tomato and the cheese and the sour cream?

I think they have an avocado ranch sauce that happens to be part of this one.

This should not be eaten.

In Mexican food, yes, it should.

No, it should be in Mexican food.

No, I don't know.

I don't know.

Look,

unless it's made right.

You know, the problem with avocado is unless it is really, really,

really fresh, like I've just

scooped it out of the peel myself and then mashed it into some sort of guacamole, it turns

dark green too fast, and it's not an appealing color or texture or anything else.

And that's why they keep

when they're like, come to your, there's these Mexican restaurants that will do the guacamole at your table.

They're like, we'll mix it at your table.

That's only because it's only going to last like 18 seconds.

We're going to mix this in your mouth.

Okay.

I believe it's Jim Gaffigan who says he saves time by just throwing the avocados out at the store.

That is exactly what happens to them every single time.

Okay.

So you have the mild and the wild naked chicken chalupa available now at Taco Bell.

Again, like, do I think that if we brought a bunch of wild naked chicken chalupas to North Korea, would Kim Jong-un denuclearize?

Yes, that is what he would do if we just did that.

They have to be hot and fresh.

I lost interest when you started getting into North Korea.

I heard the beginning of that.

Do I believe that bringing a bunch of these, and I thought you were going to say here to eat would make us happy,

the answer would be yes.

Would you taste test one of these if we get them?

Oh my God, for science?

For science.

For science?

Yeah.

Not with any guacamole.

No, of course not.

There's beans and spicy.

How are you on spicy?

I'm fine.

Okay, well, maybe you do the wild.

Well, what's in it?

The wild has lettuce, tomato, cheese, and wild sauce.

Now, wild sauce is a obviously found initially

by the pilgrims in the wild when they came to this country.

Sure.

And it went immediately onto the Thanksgiving table.

Right, wild sauce.

Wild sauce.

Does that bother you that it used to be like cranberry sauce?

Now we don't even, we don't want to say what's in it.

It's wild.

It's wild.

This is wild.

You know, I just scooped this up off the floor.

Taste this.

It's wild.

They're actually going to great lengths to not tell you what it is.

Yes, exactly right.

Just wild.

Just wild sauce.

It's not, I'm just honestly, I've realized I'm just assuming it's spicy.

It doesn't say that at all.

Well, of course it's spicy.

It's wild.

Yeah, I'm just assuming it's wild, so it must be right.

It's spicy.

Which is really one step down from hot sauce.

That's not telling you what's in it either.

It's just telling you, but warning, it's hot.

It's hot.

At least it gives you a direction.

This is just wild.

This is just, that doesn't mean anything.

It means nothing.

Wow.

But that being said, it's available now, and I'm assuming you want one

i think we should bring one in maybe uber eats uber eats oh that's right they deliver now yeah hello again look how awesome our country is she should we do communism or the place that delivers wild naked chicken chalupas with wild sauce wait it's a wild chicken chalupa wild naked chicken chalupa And then the wild sauce is, I guess, what makes that wild.

Oh, okay, okay, all right.

I thought maybe there was something else wild

as well.

I didn't want to get into like a double negative, negative

situation where one wild cancels out the other wild.

Let's talk to you a little bit about something a little more serious.

Money.

I know nothing really.

I know enough about cryptocurrency to be dangerous to myself and to others.

I don't know enough.

And I, Stu, would you put yourself in that category?

Yes.

Yes.

We know

far more than the average person.

Which is when you get most dangerous, it's when you, like, the average person isn't going to lose everything they own on cryptocurrency because they're not going to go near it.

I'm dumb enough to do it.

Right.

I'm dumb enough to lose every single dime I've ever made of it.

And we're one of those people that we're like everybody's friends

expert on something, you know?

But as soon as somebody who actually knows what they're doing comes into the room, their friend is like, well, you know,

you tell them, Bob, because they know they know nothing about it.

That's us.

Now, we have found somebody.

We found a smart person that walks in the room and we're like, hey, Tika, you tell them.

Tika Tiwari has put together a crypto master course that will teach you everything that you need to know about cryptocurrency, about blockchain, how to buy and sell crypto, why it matters, you know,

all of it.

All of it.

Just trying to buy cryptocurrency unless it's one of the big three is really difficult.

So, how do you invest in it?

How do you do it?

And is it right to invest?

If so, where do you start?

All of those questions are answered now in a Smart Crypto Course that we had Tika put together because we were like, okay, our friends need to know this, and we're not smart enough.

SmartCryptoCourse.com.

SmartCryptoCourse.com.

Find out for yourself.

Do your own homework.

SmartCryptoCourse.com or call 877-PBL Beck, 877-PBL Beck.

Okay,

we just got the news in that the Supreme Court has ruled on the gay

marriage

baker cake controversy.

Masterpiece cake shop, if you remember.

Which one is this?

Is this Colorado?

Colorado.

I'm kind of getting all these confused.

It is Colorado.

The Civil Rights Commission consideration of the case was inconsistent with the state's obligation of religious neutrality.

So

the ruling comes down, and I guess you would say it's always easy to put these Supreme Court rulings at a basic level first, which is it seems like it's a good ruling for us, right?

I don't know how else to explain it.

If you're a baker,

you're saying that's good.

Yeah, well, even more than you're a baker if you care about religious freedom.

You say that's good.

Now, what's interesting is if you look at the actual ruling, it was a 7-2 ruling.

Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined Kennedy's opinion.

That is a group of strange bad fellows.

Right.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor are the only two no's.

Wow.

Right.

Wow.

The court writes, I'm just going to read some of this commentary.

Scotus Blog is a great place to look if you ever care about this stuff.

The court writes that the delicate question of when the free exercise of the Baker's religion must yield to an otherwise valid excuse of state power needed to be determined in an education which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach.

So kind of what they're saying here is it's somewhat of a narrow win.

Basically, they're saying

the commission erred in being biased in the ruling, but it's not necessarily saying, hey,

every baker from now on will be able to make these decisions on their own, which is probably how you get it to be seven to two, right?

If you want to get a real ruling in a case like this, it's going to be five to four if you want that.

And you can pack the court.

Well, yes.

It's unclear whether the baker will have to go through another hearing in front of the commission.

Oh my god.

The commission might just drop the case, but we don't know.

Oh my gosh.

So can you imagine?

They basically just said the process was wrong.

It seems.

This is insanity.

This is truly insanity.

I have been doing

a lot of research because of the museum and then this book that I'm writing.

I spent, oh my gosh,

I don't know how many hours this week.

I went to home like noon on Friday and finally got up from my keyboard yesterday

about midnight.

And the only times I moved was because the dogs would be like, please feed me, let me outside.

And I've just been doing so much research on the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of religion and freedom of of speech and the freedom of press.

That First Amendment is so clear.

I mean

just look at what the founders said about freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press, they went so far to say that the press has a right

to even

lie about things.

They have a right

to...

I've got to find, I have to find the exact phrasing.

Because I found it this weekend and I'm like, you've got to be kidding me.

Because they were debating whether or not, you know,

where the limits of freedom of speech went for the press.

And they so wanted to protect religion and speech and the press because of what they had just gone through.

They had this debate to where they were like, but wait a minute.

You can say that's a lie, but it may not be perceived as a lie by this group that is printing it.

There's no evidence that this is truly a lie.

So even if their intent is malicious,

they have a right to say it.

I'm going to give you the quote.

How we can go from those people

to what we just heard from the Supreme Court is remarkable.

Glenn, back.

A few years ago, I had to sell my home and we had moved out of state.

This is right after the real estate sort of collapse had happened.

And, you know, housing wasn't exactly flying off the market at that time.

So I had to move out of state.

We were living in Texas and trying to sell our house back in Pennsylvania.

And it was just really hard.

I mean, you have to make sure that you have a really good real estate agent that can help you

make sure that the house is marketed correctly, make sure that all the paperwork is correct because you're out of town.

You know, you're signing things that, you know,

you're doing it digitally.

It's a complicated process.

And you need someone who's going to really keep you updated.

Might I suggest realestateagentsitrust.com?

It's the place to go because you're going to have, it's not going to be someone who just, you know, a family member or someone you just met recently that you kind of feel guilted into having as your agent.

These are people who have gone through a real rigorous screening process.

Realestateagentsitrust.com for the best agent in your area.

There's over a thousand on realestate agentsitrust.com.

So

I'm reading the arguments back and forth of the founders

of freedom of speech, freedom of religion.

You know, what does freedom even mean?

Are there limits?

And right now, we are talking about fake news.

And I finished a chapter this weekend on freedom of the press.

And

I just want to give you some of the things that they argued about.

when freedom of the press was so important to them, so important,

because they had no freedom of press.

It was sedition to print anything against the king.

So you had pamphleteers.

Basically, pamphleteers were people that had access to a printing press, and they would go and say, would you print this for me?

They printed it, printed a bunch of them.

Sometimes they would have to break it up for several different printers because they'd get caught.

So they'd print them and then they would pass them out or sell them.

That was Thomas Paine.

He was a pamphleteer.

This is a modern-day

blogger.

That's it.

Somebody who has his own opinions and is writing and is publishing them and getting them in front of the public.

That's why it shouldn't be post on Facebook.

It should be publish.

You're a publisher.

The printing press is Facebook or Twitter.

We take it so nonchalantly that it means nothing to us.

This is revolutionary.

So everybody now is talking about,

you know, fake news and, you know, opening up the libel laws, or there should be a license for people in the press.

There should be a license for people on the internet.

No, there shouldn't be.

We're all citizens and we have a right to say what we believe, especially when it comes to the government.

So

this was the

mindset of the guys, but as soon as anybody had power, well, then they started saying, well, you can't say that.

And the sedition act was passed.

Well, you can't say this.

I mean, we have to be able to shut them down.

Now,

we just heard from the Supreme Court that

the Baker case is being

adjudicated kind of in the favor of the the baker.

And there's a caveat here that I think is positive.

Right, because the debate that we've had over this case is if someone has a religious objection to participating in a gay marriage ceremony, should they be able

to not make a cake for a gay wedding?

That is not what was decided here.

That was not what we got out of this ruling.

What we got was

there's this battle between religious freedom and

the role of the government to protect the rights of a gay person, right?

And like the debate on talk radio and in the media has been, which can one

the religious freedom right say, hey, you know what?

It doesn't matter what the government says about what they want.

I have a religious serious.

So we didn't get that ruling, unfortunately, today.

What we got was you have to at least take religious freedom seriously.

Seriously.

And they didn't.

And that's a good thing.

That is a big step in the right direction.

Actually, is a thing.

That's basically like religious freedom is a thing.

So this is why you got it 7-2.

If you could boil down the rights that you have,

you have the right

unless it violates the right of someone else.

So this is an impasse.

This is why both parties need to just walk away.

Because you cannot choose a winner here.

You cannot choose and say,

especially when there are others that will serve you.

You can get this service.

It's not like, wait a minute, they shut off my water because I was gay.

No, no.

I don't care who, what religious person is saying, well, the Bible tells me.

No, you cannot do that.

Now, can I not make a cake because of my religion?

Yes.

Can you force me to do it?

No.

Because it violates my right of religion.

Well, this violates my right to be who I am.

No, it doesn't.

It does if it's the only place.

But your rights are canceling each other.

There's no right to cake even if there's only one cake shop.

There's no right.

There's no right to cake.

No, but it's a right to not be.

It's a right to

not be discriminated against.

You don't have.

Well, you do have a right to say.

Let me just go here.

This is so screwed up because we don't understand the basic right, the basic structure of these rights.

They are absolute.

And the minute you start to water them down, you start to dissolve them.

The minute it's like Alka-Seltzer, where you just would take the tablet and say, you know what, I'm just going to hold it up into the, I'm just going to put part of it.

I'm just going to hold it here at the top and it's going to be okay.

No, it begins to dissolve.

Before you know it, it's all gone.

You cannot just put a little bit of the tablet of Alka-Seltzer in the water.

It will destroy.

It will destroy it.

You'll have nothing left.

And they're absolute.

And I want to show you how absolute they are.

Freedom of the press.

Now, this is going to piss off both sides.

because both sides, one side wants to shut down people like me.

The other side wants to shut down people like, you know, CNN.

No.

We don't shut either side down.

No.

How absolute is it?

The founders were struggling with this because

they were like, how are we going to cobble together a country if we have a bunch of people in the press and a bunch of people, you know, who are pamphleteers tearing us apart every step of the way.

They, well, first they said, well, okay,

no liable.

I mean,

they have to express themselves in a manner that is decent.

At the time, that meant you can't liable anybody.

You can't lie about them.

Well,

they went back and forth and back and forth.

And then the sedition law came in and they're like, look, this isn't working.

We can't do this halfway.

There was

an essay written by Hay, who

was one of our

key founders.

And he said, a citizen should have the right.

Now, listen to this.

This is where we ended.

A citizen should have the right to say everything which his passions suggest.

Just think of Roseanne.

Think of Samantha B.

Think of me.

Think of all of the talk that the president has done.

Think of all of the talk that

Bill Maire has done.

All the talk that all of these people have said that some way or another has gotten them into hot water.

There should be a law.

No.

Every citizen should have the right to say everything

which his passions suggest.

He may employ all of his time and all of his talents, if he is wicked enough, to do so, in speaking against the government in matters that are false,

scandalous, and malicious.

And despite this, still be safe within the sanctuary of the press, even if he condemns the principle of Republican institutions.

Now think of that.

Think of the McCarthy trial.

What right

did we have to say,

you don't have a right to believe that, to say that?

We had no right.

We are afraid of words and ideas.

We should embrace words and ideas.

We should just use them perhaps more carefully.

The citizen, he continued, the citizen has the right,

even to the basest motives, even if he ascribes them measures and acts which had never had existence, thus violating at once every principle of decency and truth.

Later,

you should not think this,

you have no right to tell any citizen, you shall not think this upon certain subjects.

If you do, it's to your peril.

We have to understand

that there is a difference between the Bill of Rights for the government.

This

bakery thing, this is a government saying, I'm going to penalize you for your actions.

This is a violation of the Constitution.

But we also have to look at the Bill of Rights and understand that these were the things that brought us here.

These are the things, whether people realize it today or not, as they're coming across the border illegally, what they're really coming for is the Bill of Rights.

Because the Bill of Rights stops us from eating each other.

When the Bill of Rights are truly understood, it says we can live side by side with vast differences,

vast ideologies and theologies,

and we can live next to one another.

We can create with one another.

We can trade with one another

because I respect your right to be entirely different than me.

And you, in return, respect my right to be entirely different from you.

We may have nothing in common

and still live in harmony.

If we can only agree on that.

We only have to agree on the Bill of Rights.

The next argument you have,

no matter

what it's about.

Can I ask you a question?

Do you believe in freedom of speech?

And what does that mean?

And what are the limits?

And be able to back that up with facts.

Do you believe in the freedom of religion?

What does it mean?

Why?

Why is that important?

What happens if it falls apart?

Do you believe in the right to self-defense?

You know,

I wrote a chapter this weekend about

the Fifth Amendment.

And it just became so clear to me as I was writing this.

I don't even know where it came from, but I've just been marinating in this for so long.

that it, it's so clear to me,

we don't have the right to do things to other people

that we wouldn't want done to us.

The guy who has the coffee shop in Seattle, who kicked people out because they were pro-life.

Do you remember this?

And he was ranting and raving.

Get out.

This is my store.

I run it.

I'll sell you who I can have in here and who I can't.

You, I don't want in my store.

Why?

Not because of the way you were born, the way your race or anything else, but because of the ideas that you hold.

And he says, I want you out.

I celebrate his right.

I think he's wrong.

I'd never go in there and I would tell my friends not to go in there.

He's wrong.

However, he has a right to be wrong.

And I can guarantee you that that guy will be on the front line telling another business owner exactly what he must do

to be in compliance with his belief.

And at the same time, violating the other man's belief.

The only way this works, the only thing that can bring us back together is finding our e pluribus unum from many one.

What is that one?

The only thing

is the respect of basic human rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I tell you about about Simply Safe.

Simply Safe is a home security system that

is built like nothing else.

This is a group of people who were just trying to solve a problem.

That's the best.

When capitalism is the very best is when it doesn't set out to make money.

It sets out to solve a problem.

So what's the problem?

People were being

burgled.

Their houses were being broken into.

And these people were all college students and they couldn't sign a long lease.

They couldn't install some wired, you know, system in a house because they were renting for a few months.

So they had a friend who was a genius and said, Hey, can you help us on this?

He said, I can design something.

So he put something together just for his friends, and it took off because he solved a problem.

And that problem is, I don't want somebody in my house wiring my house.

It's old technology.

I want something

nimble, easy to use.

I want to own it.

I want to be able to have complete control over it.

I don't want a long-term contract.

I don't want to spend a lot of money because I know that's just a sham.

Okay?

SimplySafe.

It's the home security system done right.

Go to SimplySafe.

Get 10% off your home security system right now at simply safebeck.com.

That's simply safebeck.com.

You want security your way.

You're in control with no wires and no strings of a contract.

Simplysafebeck.com.

The more I read this ruling with the Supreme Court, the less it gets.

Yeah, the less can.

I mean, it seems to draw a line that if you're a pastor, you don't have to do it, you don't have to participate in God, but that's about it.

That's not what the First Amendment is about.

It's not about pastors.

It's about each of us being able to follow the conscience of

our own dictate.

We'll be able to follow our own spirit and our own God.

That's what it means.

Mercury.

Glenn.

Beck.

Josh Whedon.

You know who Josh Whedon is?

Josh Whedon is the feminist king.

Joss is, he's wonderful.

You know who he is?

Stu?

Huge fan.

Yeah.

Oh, my gosh.

He's the king of feminine wokeness.

He is.

Yep.

Now, some are saying that this is just a smokescreen to cover up his own misdeeds.

Last week,

he backed Samantha B,

who faced criticism for her off-color comment about Ivanka Trump.

That may be a little weak in its description.

Most recently, Whedon has taken aim at Jordan Peterson, who is the subject of a piece in the Los Angeles Times titled, Hate on Jordan Peterson All You Want, but he's tapping into frustration that feminists shouldn't ignore.

If feminists don't like his message, then maybe they should offer a better one.

What was his response?

Quote, feminism taps into a frustration that's been ignored in all of history.

So step the F back,

you incel courting fish rapper.

Hmm.

Well, that was an excellent point, I would say, Joss.

A very good point.

Well stated.

Although I might point out that what you're doing here may be just the fact that you're trying to cover up the hashtag me too accusation that you faced also last week.

In case you missed it, it started in August of last year.

Kaya Cole, his ex-wife, penned an article exposing him as a hypocrite preaching feminist ideals.

Quote, I want to let women know that he's not who he pretends to be, she wrote.

I want the people who worship him to know he is human and the organization's giving him awards for his feminist work.

You better think twice in the future about who you're honoring and honoring a man who does not practice what he preaches.

Stu, I cannot, I can't think of another case where that might have happened before, just recently in New York, in the Attorney General's office.

Or maybe

with the guy that New York just charged was another big vocal, Harvey Weinstein was a big vocal supporter as well, as far as Eric, what was his name?

The AG, as you

can't remember that guy.

We all know that guy.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So maybe we should just all step off our high horse here for a minute.

And maybe we should instead actually listen to what Jordan Peterson is saying.

Now, I don't think people, most people are going to take the time to,

you know, stop listening to themselves and reading the responses to their own tweets to do that, but I highly recommend that maybe all of us can learn from just spending the time and listening to what Jordan Peterson is saying.

It's Monday, June 4th.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

We're glad you're here.

We kind of had a curveball thrown to us today, and we're trying to figure it out on the fly.

But the court ruling has just come down

for the Supreme Court, the case of the Colorado

baker that

said, I can't, my religious belief is that I can't bake this cake for your wedding.

I'll sell you anything, any prepared cake, but not this.

I can't take my art and apply it for your wedding.

There's no problem.

There's no bigotry here.

You can buy anything from the store.

I just can't myself make it for you.

Well, that's not acceptable

in Colorado.

And so

they tried to shut him down, fight him, all kinds of went to the Supreme Court.

We just got the ruling back.

It's not good.

On the surface, it looks like a mixed bag, but I don't think it is necessarily a mixed bag at this point.

It's starting to look like it's leaning worse.

Leaning negative.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's hard to say that exactly, but

in case you haven't followed this or heard the announcement of it, it was a 7-2 ruling.

So 7-2, obviously you're like, wow, that never happens anymore, right?

It seems it's always 5-4 in these tough cases like this.

The reason, though, it's 7-2 is interesting.

A lot of people are complaining online at the AP and many others using the word narrow to describe the ruling in a narrow ruling, a narrow 7-2 ruling.

Right.

And people are saying, well, 7-2 isn't narrow.

That's not what they're talking about.

That's not what they're talking about.

They're talking about the narrow scope of it

in a legal sense.

They zoomed in and narrowed in on one part of this, and that is that Colorado did not give enough deference or take his religious stance seriously.

They came with an agenda and dismissed his religious argument from the get-go.

Right.

And what they're saying is, so the narrow isn't, is, is correct when it comes to this.

They're not saying that Baker could avoid making the cake.

They're not saying that, which is what conservatives wanted them to say.

Hey, Bakers,

you don't have to make a cake for a gay wedding if your religious conscience says

you can't.

They are not telling you that that's okay.

What they're saying is religious freedom is a thing.

You have to consider it.

And Colorado didn't.

That's basically it.

It's narrow in its legal scope.

It's not narrow as far as account seven to two.

I mean, seven to two.

That's why you got a seven to two ruling, though, because they only ruled on this little sliver of this and basically said this one case in Colorado Colorado wasn't decided correctly.

They got a 7-2 victory with Kagan coming on and Breyer coming on, which is rare.

Though I think you can make the argument at this point that Kagan is sort of turning into the left's Roberts, where like occasionally she's actually disappointing them.

They finally have someone who's occasionally disappointing them.

Not making them angry, just be like, wow, that's disappointing.

Yeah, why do you do that?

That's about it.

Yeah, right.

You know what?

I'll take that.

It's nice to have that.

Yeah, you're not getting the, oh, yeah, of course you can force people to buy products like insurance.

They're not getting that.

But at least they're getting a little disappointment, which is nice.

But that is the big thing here is that they didn't decide the fundamental question we're all asking, right?

Which is, does the Supreme Court think that religious freedom can allow you to not, you know, avoid participating in

a work of art?

Right.

Like photographers have been down this road as well.

You know, the answer is no.

To me, the answer is, look, it's flatly no.

Look, it's like, do I sell a product?

Let's say I sell a product that is, you know, it's, I don't know, it's accounting software.

You're going to sell your accounting software.

You're going to be allowed, you're going to allow it to be used by just anybody?

Yeah, it's accounting software.

You can just buy it at the store.

I'm not going to have a litmus test on who can buy it.

Well, do you know that Planned Parenthood is using it?

Well, yeah, I don't really like that, but it's a product that's on the shelf and anyone can buy it.

That's different than Planned Parenthood coming to this firm and saying, I need you to develop accounting software for us so

we can really track how much money we've made by selling these illegal body parts.

Ah, no.

My conscience says,

I'm not going to do that because I believe you're engaged in murder.

You want the product, you can go to the store and you can buy that, but I can't apply my talent to help you do that.

Now, that's people would say that's not artistic, but I believe it is.

Any of our skills, that is your art.

That is your art.

Should I be forced to take what I do and say something for a product just using my voice and likeness, because, you know, Glenn Back is, you know, repping this.

Should I be forced to do those things, especially if they're against my religion?

For instance,

we have had

alcoholic beverages that have tried to advertise on the program.

I don't have a problem if they advertise.

I'm an alcoholic and a Mormon.

Those two don't go along very well.

But I'm both of those things.

One is pure for the other, it seems like that.

Both of them say stay away from alcohol.

So I'm not going to, but

I'm a libertarian.

You want to drink, drink.

It doesn't bother me.

It doesn't hurt me.

I'm the one with the issue, not you.

I'm the one that's allergic to alcohol.

I break out in handcuffs.

It's not good.

Okay.

So

that is my issue.

My religious belief says, no, it's not good for you.

Okay.

But will I allow alcoholic beverages to be advertised on my program?

Yeah.

Why not?

About a little over a week ago, I drank one on the air.

We were trying the George Washington beer.

Yeah.

George Washington, by the way, beer.

Yeah.

Why wouldn't I?

Now, should I be forced?

Should a liquor company be able to come to me and say, we want Glenn Beck to endorse our product?

That's my art.

We want Glenn to develop a commercial for us.

And

he is the one that has to do it.

No.

No.

No.

Of course not.

Of course not.

First of all, I would be bad at it because, well, I might actually on alcohol, I might be good because I do have a finer appreciation of alcohol.

But I would be bad at it because I don't use the product.

I don't like the product.

I don't want to be around the product.

So I wouldn't do a great job.

Go find somebody else who would be better at that.

And the same thing applies.

The cake arguments apply here as well.

Why would a beer company want you to do a commercial for them if you thought it was wrong to drink it?

My communist friend, George Lang, that this audience has always loved, our photographer, who is great.

Yeah, he's close enough to a communist.

So

he is diametrically opposed to everything I said.

He speaks glowingly about the Obama years.

Glowingly.

He, the reason why he's my photographer is because he thought for an hour and a half, an excruciating hour and a half photo session with him the very first time.

All he did was talk about liberal politics because I worked at CNN and just assumed that I was liberal.

I wasn't.

And so we went for an hour and a half, maybe two hours before we took a break.

And I just couldn't take it anymore.

But I just sat through it and kept my mouth shut, as conservatives always have to do.

And finally, during the lunch break, he told me a story about how he was asked to shoot

with a camera George Bush.

And how he just couldn't do it because he hates him so much.

And he just, he just, his policies are just so horrible.

And he's just, he just doesn't like children.

And he wants to kill everybody, you know, whatever.

Okay.

Really didn't like him.

So called the White House back and said, look,

this is my art.

And I won't see the president the way he should be seen because my eye will only see a man I don't like.

And so I'm not going to take flattering pictures.

So I'm going to turn this down.

You should find another photographer.

Think about that as a photographer turning down the opportunity to take pictures of the president of the United States.

Especially when you have the ability in art to make him look like a fiend.

Right.

Which has happened to you.

Yeah.

And John McCain with the same photographer

who took photos and then intentionally made them look bad because they didn't like you.

Correct.

So should George have been forced to take a picture?

No.

And the White House shouldn't have wanted him.

It was after he told me that story sitting there in that very uncomfortable, outnumbered room, where I finally said to him, George, I have to tell you something.

I'm a conservative.

I like George Bush.

Not everything that he's done, but I like him.

Almost everything that you've said, I disagree with for the last hour and a half.

And he just went white.

And

I said, but may I shake your hand and tell you how much I admire you because of of that last story.

You had the integrity to say, I cannot apply my art because I see you differently.

That is admirable.

Should he have been forced to?

No, and that's not even a religious reason.

When it comes to religious reasons, if what the court on this narrow ruling kind of said was Colorado just dismissed the religious thing out of hand.

Do I want a, do I want a ruling?

I believe everybody should have this right.

Everyone should have this right.

We have to get over this idea that nobody can be discriminated against.

You can discriminate if you want.

It's just not going to be very popular.

But you can do it.

Roseanne Barr can say what she wants, just not going to be popular.

She paid a price for it.

But should she have the right to say it?

Yes, she should.

The same thing here.

Should you have a right?

Well, they're saying, well, they just didn't look at the religious reasons.

Well, you know what?

You have to.

And it's not just for priests and pastors.

It's for everyone.

But beyond that,

Even if you don't have religious reasons, I go back

to the sign maker, to the photographer like George, to me, to you in your business, whatever it is.

Should someone be able to come into your business and say, hey, we've got the, we're opening up a new store here.

It's called the

Coffee Cup Cafe, which is a real place here in Texas.

And we just want a big sign, but we want to spell coffee with a K and cup with a K

and Cafe with a K.

And we'd like those three Ks there to be all together and big.

Well, I'm no dummy.

I see exactly what you're doing.

I'm a sign maker.

Do I have the right to say, I ain't making that sign, dude?

Go find somebody else to make that sign.

Absolutely I do.

And it doesn't even have to be because my religion teaches this.

I have a right.

It violates me and everything I stand for and everything I believe in.

No.

Get out of my store.

See, the problem is we all want exceptions based on our feelings.

Yeah, but this one makes me feel

the rights that we have to defend, the only ones that need defense are the ones that all that make us all feel like crap.

Those are the only ones that count.

All right, Liberty Safe.

I want to tell you about Liberty Safe.

Make the best safes around.

They're just really rock solid.

We have some amazing, amazing artifacts that are coming into town and

are

currently being stored in Liberty Safes.

Now, you don't, I mean, you don't take

You don't take something like the

handwritten by Abraham Lincoln, you know,

Gettysburg address

and just put it in any old safe that you got off the shelf.

You need something that you know nothing is going to happen.

It's a Liberty safe.

We take the articles that we have for our museum and we secure them the best way we can, and that is with a liberty safe.

Now, your documents, my documents at home, my guns, your guns, where are you going to put them?

Put them in the same state, in the same safe where we have the writings of Jefferson and Lincoln and Washington.

A Liberty safe.

And now you can have it installed in your home with 12 months interest-free payments for as low as $20 a month on approved credit.

You can act now and protect what you value most at libertysafe.com.

The best-built safes on the planet.

LibertySafe.com.

Looking for a great Father's Day present?

Then bring the whole family to the Rights and Responsibilities Exhibition presented by the Mercury Museum.

Take a glimpse of what the world was like before men had rights and tyrants rule.

Join us Father's Day weekend, June 15th through the 17th here at Mercury Studios in Dallas.

Get your tickets at mercury1.org slash museum 2018.

Glenn Back.

Supreme Court ruled today, and it was a very narrow decision, wide margin, but very narrow on how they decided this.

So it's going to end up back in the Supreme Court at some point, I think.

And it's relatively good for the people at Masturpate Peace Cake Shop.

So that's number one, right?

It was there.

We're looking at it as a broader, like, you know, societal thing, but it's good for them because they get to go back.

They might have to do this all over again, though, which is a big problem.

But there's two things that we've talked about that are interesting here, and they are in this one paragraph.

One, what is the worst case scenario we've talked about?

If these things get out of control, maybe a priest or a pastor would have to perform a gay wedding, right?

That's like the worst, we've always talked about that.

Like it could go go to any, it could go within the walls of the church.

So, that one, they have a pretty bright line around that here, which says, when it comes to weddings, it can be assured that a member of the clergy

who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to free exercise of religion.

This refusal will be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth.

Now, so that's the,

you know, kind of that real invasion.

But the rest of this, I think, embraces a very left-wing version of your right to worship as opposed to your right to express your religion.

Does religion exist only inside the church walls, right?

We obviously would argue, no, you can live that every day of your life.

And people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz will say, well, of course, when you're at church, you can talk about whatever you want.

Well,

that's the problem with churches right now is they exist in their walls and not outside of their walls.

So what they say in the ruling is, yeah, you know what?

A priest or a pastor shouldn't have to do a gay medding.

Of course not, that's crazy.

Then they go on, yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to good services and public accommodations.

My reading of that is that it seems like they would rule against the baker in a certain circumstance.

It's not exactly clear if they would with this, but they're leaving leaving that open for sure.

All right.

We'll have more on the Supreme Court ruling on the same-sex couple wedding cake controversy coming up in a little while, and a lot on it tonight.

Full analysis on that tonight.

Plus, a lot more important things, like the Taco Bell naked chicken chalupa, both wild and mild.

Now, I was promised that these

would have been hand-pounded by some

Italian grandmother.

Yes, Taco Bell hired tens of thousands of Italian grandmothers, Pat Gray, who joins us, to pound these individual patties and make them authentic.

Do you have a problem with that?

Like, I don't have a problem with the McRib.

I just don't want to be reminded that it was poured into a mold.

Right?

Yes.

Because it shows the bumps where the bone would be when they're made of meat.

Because I'll tell you, the result is delicious.

And I don't want to know how you get there.

Right.

Just give me delicious.

Okay, so here's the problem.

I don't like things, I don't like meat that has been poured into any of it.

You don't pour meat.

I don't want to know about it either.

Okay, now you said, now, Stu, how did the Italian grandmothers pound these two in exactly the same shape and exactly the same size?

Talent.

Expertise.

You want to say our televisor for that?

Sounds to me like your chicken comes in goop, whoop, boop.

Yeah.

Look, I mean, it's a fast food restaurant.

As Pat and I have noted many times in in our very frequent visits to Taco Bell over the years,

it's the best, I think.

It is.

It's just fast food for it.

We don't want to know what it is, just speed it to us.

You know what this is?

This is America making the Atkins diet better.

No, it's not.

It's

breaded chicken.

No, I mean, remember when we used to eat, you know, we'd go to McDonald's and you'd just take the burgers.

And you just...

Right, the low-carb way of eating.

Yeah, yeah.

You'd use the burger as a bun or you'd use

the lettuce as a bun.

This is just using

the meat as a bun.

It is an actual chicken.

The shell of a taco is made of chicken.

Glenn is biting into the first one here.

And Pat is as well.

This is a...

It's a chicken sandwich without the meat.

No,

without the bun.

It's good.

It's good.

It is good.

I don't feel wild.

Well, maybe you're eating the mild one.

That could be the problem.

Are you tasting a wild sauce?

I don't know what wild tastes like.

You're about to find out.

Well, wild at Taco Bell.

That was really spicy.

Isn't all that wild, frankly.

You know, the hot sauce from Taco Bell.

No, it's not hot.

I'm funny.

You did the same thing I did, which is I just assumed wild was hot, but I couldn't actually determine why I thought that.

Well, because what else is it going to be?

Yeah, I know.

Gamey?

No.

No.

Probably not, but I don't know.

Tangy?

Well,

it's a little bit spicy.

I think that it's relevant.

I think it's wrong to call something wild because, I mean, hot sauce, hot sauce says what it is.

Wild doesn't tell you anything, does it?

It's just orange.

It's just, that's, they could have called it orange sauce.

I mean, it could be Pepto-Bismol.

This is wild.

Put this on that.

That's going to taste wild.

No, that's not a good flavor.

So

we're still overall generally positive reviews.

I'm going to give it a 16.

16.

Wait,

what was our scale?

1 to 18?

1 to 18 a day?

Because 18 was the only number that's actually really good.

Yeah, really?

Yeah.

It's good.

On a 1 to 18 scale what would you say one to 18 scale i'd call it delicious in fact

yeah i think i would too i think i might get a 16 really wow that's very good out of 18 impressive 18 stars i'm pretty sure it's good for you too this is we were

like eight calories in this oh yeah there's nothing well it's a little i did see the number it's a little higher

coming from the bread it's fried chicken what do you mean where are they this is your problem this is why we all get fat we're like where are the calories coming from oh all i did was dip this in hot oil for a couple minutes well that's the breading that holds all that but chicken

it's not what do you how do you think it cooks the chicken should not be holding the oil inside how do you think fried chicken cooks it goes in raw right not necessarily a taco bell but i mean in normal places it go it would go in raw it come out cooked not

not necessarily a taco bell i don't know why what do you imply i'm i'm guessing maybe these come they put them in the toaster no i'm guessing perhaps these.

Again, this is going to abandon my Italian grandmother philosophy, but I think potentially they might come frozen already made that way at Taco Bell, and then they throw them in the fryer.

I won't hear it.

It's surprisingly good.

It is.

The more I eat it, the more I want it.

Again, none of these arguments make any difference because you like them, but it's really good.

You know what the wild sauce is?

Crack.

Crack.

They actually put crack in there.

They put something in there that just makes you want to continue to eat it.

It's really good.

Now, Pat, you were not here for the beginning of this when we discussed how we got here was instead of bringing a McDonald's to North Korea to make peace, if we brought a Taco Bell, there would be denuclearization immediately.

Yes, I think you're right.

That would definitely warm up relations between us and North Korea.

Also, if we would bring five guys, it'd be better.

Just because, I mean,

we'd have a great burger place, but we'd also have five guys there.

The more stores they open up, you know, the second one, we have 10 guys.

All of a sudden, we are everywhere.

And then we can vote Kim Jong-un out of office.

Correct.

I love the fact that we're paying for his hotel room, too.

Yeah, what, six grand a night?

Yeah.

Apparently, we didn't go to Priceline or Travago for that.

I think there's maybe a little bit cheaper option.

Why are we paying for it?

The Super 8.

Do you have Super 8 in North Korea?

Because they're insisting on that.

They're insisting that we pay.

I guess they can't afford it.

But, you know, that's affected a nuclear program, but they can't afford a hotel.

So,

you know, that says something too: that they're willing to say they can't afford it.

Yeah.

I don't know that they're saying that publicly, right?

But that's the I think they're just saying we're doing you a favor of being there, so you're going to pay for our hotel.

And I will say, for the narrative of we've scared them into meeting with us because we're so tough,

man, they're not acting like that.

And then we pay for their hotel room.

That hurts that narrative.

It does a little, right?

Unless you go to Priceline and find a Super 8 for him.

That's true.

You can stay here.

It's $63 a night.

Continental.

We don't understand freeloaders here.

I'm surprised they're not giving him better stuff than the president has.

I know.

I know.

I don't even know where Trump is staying, but he's staying at this.

It's a neoclassical hotel on the mouth of the Singapore River.

It's called the Fullerton.

Have you ever heard of it?

I haven't heard of that channel.

No, I haven't.

I haven't, David, but maybe Buffy has heard of that neoclassical hotel there at the mouth of Singapore.

Right, because you're unfamiliar with it.

Thank you.

You're unfamiliar with really swanky hotels.

Thank you for doing it.

I totally.

Totally unfamiliar with it.

I'm just trying to hold back so hard.

I'm what?

How dare you?

You have no concept.

I've only stayed

at a rental.

Who do you didn't?

Hang on.

Who do you?

Who likes

me?

I don't stay in there in foreign places.

Tell me, how many people do you know?

And you know that I couldn't answer that question.

How many people could you pose the question to?

Do you know the Neoclassica hotel that's just right there at the mouth of the

Singapore River?

I don't know anybody that could answer that.

I know approximately one person, and I happen to be sitting in the room with him right now.

Yes, which is why I asked the question because he's the one person that might actually.

Yeah, I've stayed at lots of Fullertons.

A lot of them.

Almost all of them.

I'm a Platinum member, right?

If I had a stand neoplastic,

I'd kill you both.

Thanks a lot, Pat.

Appreciate it.

Not so much, but you gave us an excuse to eat.

Thank you.

And thank you to the fine people of Taco Bell

who I believe could bring peace in our times.

All right, let me tell you about our sponsor this half hour.

Who is it, Sarah?

Is it Lifelock?

Let me tell you, LifeLock just

saw an FBI report

that

cited that internet crime

with losses over $1.4 billion is now what we're looking at.

From 300,000 complaints received by the Internet Crime Complaint Center in 2017, two top crimes reported as non-payment, non-delivery, and personal data breaches.

So, in other words,

I'm a very rich prince, but you need to send me some money and I'm going to send something back.

Or I'm going to buy something and then they never send it to me.

Or personal data breaches.

Almost 2,000 complaints were identified as ransomware, which the FBI is now saying is really bad and getting worse because it targets both human and technical weaknesses.

So there are so many threats that are starting to compound now.

You don't have time or the capacity to be able to

watch over all of this stuff.

That's why Life Lock has now entered not just the identity theft protection business, but also securing your software,

securing

your phone and your computer, everything in your life.

Norton security now has been added for protection.

LifeLock uses proprietary technology to help protect you against identity theft, like your information on sale in the dark web.

and Norton will help against the online threats like ransomware.

So nobody gets into your stuff.

If you have a problem, they have the agents that'll work to fix it.

It's LifeLock.

I want you to go there now: 1-800-LifeLock, 1-800-Lifelock, or go to lifelock.com and use the promo code back.

You get an extra 10% off this

service now with Norton and Lifelock relentlessly protecting you night and day.

1-800-LifeLock or Lifelock.com promo code back.

Let's go through some audio here in the last few minutes of the broadcast.

Apparently, Bill Clinton is no longer getting completely safe interviews from the media anymore.

Yeah, it's unfortunate for him.

He was on the NBC Today show with Craig Melvin.

He's an NBC reporter, and

he was asked about some things in his past.

Here he is.

Here he is.

He was quiet at first.

Bill Clinton on Me Too movement and Monica.

Here we go.

Here he is.

One of the things that this Me Too era has done, it's forced a lot of women to speak out.

One of those women, Monica Lewinsky, she wrote in an op-ed that the Me Too movement changed her view of sexual harassment.

Quote, he was my boss.

He was the most powerful man on the planet.

He was 27 years my senior.

With enough life experience to know better, he was at the time at the pinnacle of his career while I was in my first job out of college.

Looking back on what happened then through the lens of Me Too Now,

do you think differently or feel

more responsibility?

No, I felt terrible then

and I came to grips with it.

Did you ever apologize?

No, yes.

And nobody believes that I got out of that for free.

No, you left the White House $16 million in debt.

But

you typically have ignored gaping facts in discriminating this, and I bet you don't even know them.

This was litigated 20 years ago.

Two-thirds of the American people sided with me.

They were not insensitive to that.

I had a sexual harassment policy when I was governor in the 80s.

Wow.

I had two women chiefs of staff when I was governor.

Women were overrepresented in the Attorney General's office in the 70s.

We know you liked women.

For their percentage in the bar.

I have had nothing but women leaders in my office since I left.

You are giving one side and omitting.

Mr.

President,

I'm not trying to present a side.

No, no, you asked me if I agreed.

The answer is, no, I don't.

And I asked if you'd ever apologized, and you said you had.

I have.

You've apologized to.

I apologize to everybody in the world.

I made a blanket apology for all things to all people.

By the way,

listen how old he's starting to sound.

Yeah, he really does.

It's interesting, too, because I mean, Hillary sounds relatively the same as she did from back in the day, which was awful the whole time.

The whole time.

But

she doesn't seem to have that same process.

No, he's really starting to age.

It's also, it's interesting how as soon as you're not

able to help,

you're done.

Done.

You're done.

Your wife lost.

Get out.

Yep.

Now all of a sudden they're really questioning him.

It's interesting.

It's also, is it a good defense?

And I don't know.

I'm not an expert on such matters, but is it a good defense if someone says, hey, you seem to have

harassed a bunch of women to say, I had a bunch of women working for me?

Is that a good defense?

No.

Like, I think that's actually

implicating yourself.

Harvey Weinstein also has that.

Yeah.

A lot of people, a lot of women working for him.

Yeah, lots of models I put in movies.

What do you mean I'm mean to models?

Lots of models I put in movies all all the time.

I've invited them to my rooms all the time.

That's not a good example.

That's not a good example.

And it's essentially his defense is the Mitt Romney binders full of women defense.

Now, Mitt was supposed to, it was only saying it not because of abuse accusations, but because they were saying he did, he was, I don't know, anti-woman in some policy sense.

So he said, well, I had binders full of women.

We went through them all the time.

I hired them all to high-level positions.

They're like, how dare you had a binders full of women, you misogynist.

Well, that's not misogyny in that case.

Here, he's saying, well, well, yeah, I hired a bunch of women.

And also, you're accusing me of abusing a bunch of women.

I didn't abuse the ugly ones that I had hired.

I know.

He also had some opinions on whether what would be happening right now if Trump was a Democrat.

I think they have tried, by and large, to cover this investigation.

based on the facts.

I think if the rules were reversed, now this is

me just talking, but it's based on my experience.

If there were a Democratic president and these facts were president, most people I know in Washington believe an impeachment hearings would have begun already.

If there were a Democrat in power right now.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: And most people I know believe that the press would have been that hard or harder.

Okay, I do believe that the Republicans probably would have gone for impeachment.

Maybe not against, maybe not against Barack Obama, but a less

forceful or popular president.

This president is beginning to galvanize

the right.

He has a higher approval rating

than anyone in Republican history since World War II, with an exception of George Bush right after 9-11.

George W.

Bush, yeah.

I mean, that's what?

Wow.

That says two things.

One, we are becoming more

partisan, right?

Like, we're more on our teams than we've ever been.

But also, I mean, you know, he's pleased the party.

Generally speaking, he has pleased the party.

I mean, with the exception of

the tariff stuff, which has a pretty wide opposition within the party, there's not much he's done outside of the personal stuff that people have spoken up against.

And what is the difference between the scandal that we were told to leave it alone, leave it alone, can't talk about it, of him spending 20 years with Jeremiah Wright and all of these radical Marxists all the way up until he ran for senator.

Why is that off limits?

Why was that off limits?

And you said, Don't pay attention to that.

Glenn.

And this in his personal life is.

Mercury.