'Standing for Balance'? (Riaz Patel & Julianne Benzel join Glenn) - 3/20/18

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand

love

courage

truth

glam back

the average American today is going to spend two hours on social media the average teenager trounces this number with nine hours that is longer than the average school day Nine hours on social media.

Only 5% of Americans were using Facebook back in 2005.

Today, the number is over 70%.

Roughly 50% of all millennials say they get their news exclusively from Facebook and Twitter.

These numbers are huge and are changing everything about America and the world as we know it.

Facebook is dominating news, and it is threatening to eventually render the legacy media outlets obsolete in the very near future.

Let me say that again, in the very near future.

Knowing all of these facts and figures, what would you say if I told you that there have been people leveraging this power to manipulate the way you think, the way you feel, and the way you vote?

A political data firm hired by President Trump's election campaign called Cambridge Analytica.

Its co-founder and co-chair was Steve Bannon.

They did just that.

Now, how did they do that?

This would have made George Orwell cringe.

And

this just happened to be done by the Republicans this time, but it was started really last time with Barack Obama.

And everybody yawned.

It wasn't a problem.

I'm telling you, this is a real problem no matter who is doing it.

The process is called psychometrics.

It involves mapping a Facebook user's personality and then analyzing the things that you look at and the posts that you like.

This information was then used to, in the words of the firm's co-founder, to fight a culture war in America.

Basically what they were looking for is what do you fear?

They would then

take that fear and manipulate it into anger and action.

In the end, over 50 million people were being manipulated by Cambridge Analytica.

But maybe the worst part of all of this is it's actually legal.

Facebook users agree to this type of research information when you click on the terms of service box after creating an account.

When this story broke, Facebook's stock went down 7%.

The New York Times wrote multiple damaging articles, and the pylon has even included a delete Facebook hashtag on social media.

Facebook has responded by condemning Cambridge Analytica and revoking their access.

It's kind of interesting given Facebook's track record here, because the Obama campaign did the exact same thing back in 2012, but both Facebook and the media had had a much different response to it back then.

In fact, an article on June 3rd, sorry, June 20th, 2013 in the New York Times, they said

they wrote a praise-filled puff piece on how the Obama campaign harvested Facebook data to manipulate the 2012 election.

The only problem is they didn't use the word quote manipulate like they're doing today.

Back when Obama was doing this, they called called it quote technologically advanced formulas for reaching voters, end quote.

I think our problem is with propaganda and lies.

And the problem is, whether it's on Facebook or the New York Times,

we're getting just that.

Carol Davidson, the former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America, called it, quote, sucking out the whole social graph, end quote.

Whatever name you want to put on it, Facebook, like the New York Times, apparently didn't see anything wrong with it when it was being done by Obama.

According to Davidson, when Facebook found out the

Obama campaign was doing this, they were surprised, but, quote,

on our side, end quote.

Facebook is a private company, and it can do whatever they want.

But we're now entering a time where the primary source of information, our information, in this case, social media, is being manipulated and used to direct us down a certain path.

Democrats did it in 2012.

The Republicans did it in 2016.

I ask you, are we better off now with this manipulation?

People have been blaming all kinds of things for our anger.

Are we really truly responsible for our anger

if we have been played and coaxed

and herded into it?

It's Tuesday, March 20th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Senator Mike Lee joins us now with a couple of things that we need to talk about.

First of all, Mike Lee, welcome to the program.

Thank you very much, Glenn.

It's good to be with you.

Good to be with you.

First of all, any thoughts on what we were just talking about with Cambridge Analytica?

It's fascinating, first of all, that it's something that can be called, we're just looking for clever ways to access our voters one day, and the next day be turned into something entirely different sounding,

something that involves manipulation.

I think voters can be made aware of this, and the more they're made aware of it, perhaps the less vulnerable they'll be to it.

This is a little bit scary.

Did you see the documentary from the BBC Channel 4

in England?

Yes, I did.

I thought it was fascinating and very well done.

Disturbing, to say the least.

Yeah, very disturbing, where they talk about how they have done this around the globe, and they have manipulated people, and they go out to find their anger and

then manipulate that anger into, or fear into anger, and anger into into action but they also talk about going and it sounded to me you're an attorney

wasn't that entrapment that they were talking about going out and and

trapping people into you know nefarious things

it certainly starts to resemble that and in any event it puts people in a position where they're acting on their worst impulses it puts people in a position where they're trying to catch them at their worst moments.

And that rarely brings out the best elements of society when our entire political system turns on a desire to harm others.

So, Mike, we have been exploring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on our broadcast for the last few weeks.

And I'm convinced that almost all of our problems are caused because we, over time, have said, we've got to do something.

and that something always seems to come back to let's violate the Bill of Rights, let's violate the Constitution one way or another.

And I know you are

sharing a strange bed with Bernie Sanders now to stand up against something that Barack Obama started and we're now continuing without any kind of congressional oversight, and that is a war in Yemen.

Yes, that's exactly right.

And to be clear, you're talking about a metaphorical bed there, and not a literal one.

I guess we have to hashtag me too on

violations of the Bill of Rights on the one hand and violations of the structural constitution on the other hand.

The two go hand in hand.

They are always accompanied by

one another.

And in this this case, what we have is a violation of the structural protection of the Constitution, we call separation of powers, where we have one branch of government that is supposed to declare war.

If war is going to be declared in our country, by our country, it has to be by Congress.

Why?

Well, it's because the Constitution says so, and it says so because Congress is the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals.

So if we're going to put American blood and treasure on the line, it can be only through the people's elected representatives in Congress.

We've drifted from that in recent decades, and we've allowed presidents, executive branches to take us into a theater of war and have us be involved there for years, sometimes decades at a time, without Congress declaring it.

That's a problem.

So hang on just a second.

I want to understand a couple of things.

First of all, the president can say we're going in for an action, but he has, what, 30 or 90 days, and Congress has to review it in that time period and say, we're either going to fund this or not.

Is that right?

Essentially, yes.

Now still, in order to undertake war, that does require an action by Congress.

The President can repel invasions where that occurs.

Or if it's not an invasion in the United States, the President can involve us in hostilities if there is an imminent threat

to the United States.

He can take such action.

But there are strict time limitations on that, and

Congress gets to respond.

But have we declared war in Afghanistan?

Has Congress actually declared war since 2001?

In 2001 and in 2002, Congress adopted two separate authorizations for the use of military force.

It's basically the modern-day equivalent of a declaration of war.

It's the closest thing we can get to it.

But we have not declared war since then.

We have not issued an authorization for the use of military force since then.

We certainly not

have not done so with respect to Yemen, where we are now in our third year of acting as co-belligerents in a Saudi Arabian-led coalition against the Houthi rebels in the Yemeni civil war.

So this is really actually very important for people to understand because

this is a proxy war against Iran.

And Saudi Arabia has been asking for our support and we're refueling their jets.

We're providing them equipment,

and we're actually engaged somewhat at their side.

And they are telling us this is really important.

If we don't do this,

we're going to lose a war to Iran, and Iran will sweep the Middle East.

So it's important that we talk about this.

Why is this one the tripwire for you that you say, okay, we've got to stop this?

Well, because because first of all, you use the expression, as so many do, we're going to lose the war in Iran unless we do this.

Well, what does that mean?

Have we declared war against Iran?

No.

Not last time I checked.

But we

have not declared war on Iran.

And so if you want to make this a proxy war with Iran, let's at least have that debate and that discussion.

If somebody thinks that it's time to declare war on Iran, then we can have that discussion.

But you can't just use the fact that,

well, we don't like a lot of the stuff Iran does, and Iran is

perhaps an enemy to the United States in some ways, or at least its government is.

That still doesn't justify our involvement in somebody else's civil war in Yemen, especially where Congress has yet to declare war.

I saw a Wall Street Journal op-ed

that basically said that you were a helper

to Iran.

I know you, Mike, and I know

you were not one that was standing with the Iranian deal that Obama made.

You're anything but an Iranian helper.

How does that feel to be called that?

Yeah, it feels really, really creepy.

I mean, look, you've got a despotic regime

in Iran with a disgraceful record on human rights, and I have never been called or thought of as Iranian as an Iranian helper in my entire lifetime.

So, somebody, somebody connected closely to the military-industrial complex, has decided that this is what it's come to: that we've got to resort to the politics of personal destruction.

And that someone who dares to stand up for the Constitution of the United States and say that the American men and women whose sons and daughters will be sent into this combat field

in connection with our involvement in the civil war in Yemen,

that they don't deserve to have the people's elected representatives in Congress making this decision.

And that for that reason, anyone who calls out on Congress to do that which the Constitution tells Congress to do has to be disparaged as an enemy to the United States.

This is disgraceful.

I think the Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of itself.

In many instances, it engages in careful, thoughtful analysis.

This is a notable, huge exception.

It worked in World War I when Woodrow Wilson was shouting down all of the people that got into his way.

I'm not saying this is coming from the president.

I have a feeling, you won't say this, but I have a feeling.

Well, let me just put it this way.

I don't trust Mitch McConnell at all.

And anybody who stands in Mitch McConnell's way is an enemy of the state,

I think.

Mike,

can you tell me, tell the American people why

they should call their senator and tell them you've got to stand against this?

Well, the Senate will be voting today on a resolution that I've put forward with Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont.

Now, Bernie Sanders is a progressive liberal, independent who caucuses with the Democrats, and I've never been described that way.

I'm a conservative constitutional

conservative Republican.

Yes.

And we have a resolution that calls out the fact that we haven't declared war in Yemen and that there's no authorization for the use of military force in place for our involvement in this Saudi Arabia-led coalition war in Yemen against the Houthi rebels.

Call your senators today and tell them to support this resolution and to vote against any motion to table this resolution today.

Okay.

Mike, keep up the good work.

God bless you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Glenn.

You bet.

Bye-bye.

Call the senators.

The separation of powers is really important.

This has been going on.

This was authorized by Obama, not Clinton.

I mean, sorry, not Trump.

This was authorized by Obama, and it's got to stop.

Now, let me tell you about the 100-day test drive that Casper Matris has going on right now.

Tanya just sent me a picture a couple of days ago.

She was, I think, in a Target, and she said, there's a Casper mattress display right in the center of Target.

You can go and lay down on the mattress in Target and flop around on it and go, oh, yeah, this is comfy.

You're not really going to know until you take their 100-night sleep challenge.

100 nights, sleep on it.

It takes you about, I don't know, about a week every night before your body kind of adjusts and you're like, okay, I like this or I don't like this.

100 nights, you know, absolutely sure.

That's a third of the year.

You know for sure whether this mattress is going to make you feel better in the morning, gonna help you sleep all the way through, and gonna you know be off of the right pressure points if you have pain at night.

It's Casper, a unique combination of foams that provide the right pressure relief and alignment so you feel perfectly balanced and comfortable.

It ships for free, and if you don't love it, they'll come and pick it up for free and give you a free refund.

Try it for a hundred nights right now at casper.com slash back.

That's casper.com.

Use the promo code Beck.

You're going to save $50 off select mattresses.

That is casper.com.

Promo code Beck.

Terms and conditions do apply.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn Beck.

Stand in that rarefied place

where you question with boldness and declare yourself a free thinker.

I'm so sick of the name-calling and the tricks like the Patriot Act.

As if it makes a

patriot to disregard the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendment of the Constitution.

Now is the time that you stand for the Constitution.

You stand for the balance of power.

I know that Iran is a problem.

You know, but most of our problems that we face today are caused by us refusing to abide by our own laws and our own principles because we say, yeah, but.

There is no but when it comes to the Constitution.

We don't torture.

Now, I don't happen to believe that waterboarding is torture because we do it to our own soldiers.

But what hypocrites we are when we ghostplane a terrorist to the darkest of cells of a dictator who will do our dirty work so we can continue to tell each other that we don't torture.

We either believe in these things or we don't.

We are really truly at a crossroads.

We either believe in our Constitution or we don't.

I do.

It's why I support Mike Lee and find myself in an awkward position of also standing with Bernie Sanders.

If we want to grant the last president who did this, who started this illegal war in Yemen,

did you even know we were there?

That started this illegal war in Yemen, nobody held his feet to the fire.

Now, as it expires and expires and expires, we either believe in the balance of power and we either grant the current and all future presidents new powers to wage war without any check or balance

and have the courage to do it by changing the Constitution, or we actually abide by the Constitution because we will never fix what really truly ails us until we begin to live our own rules and stop lying to ourselves.

Glenn Beck, Mercury.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

I want to talk about

Cambridge Analytica.

It is truly frightening what is happening here.

Now, so you know, this happened under the Obama administration, and the New York Times just kind of looked at it and went, huh, well, it's a new way of reaching voters.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

No, it's not.

This is manipulation of

people and our society.

And

this is Steve Bannon's stuff.

And he is trying to, quote, change culture.

And by changing culture, what they mean is they went in and they got all this Facebook data.

And then they found out exactly what you fear.

And then they played to those fears.

Riaz Patal is joining us now.

He is a, I know you hate this, but he was a Hollywood producer.

And every time I enter, I could say anything about him, and he's like, I'm fine with that.

Just Hollywood.

Why Hollywood?

It is the thing.

It is the thing.

I don't know.

I sort of like,

you're tanned and vapid, is what I think

of Hollywood.

And I am tanned.

So I'm fighting for you.

You're not really tanned as much as you are.

I'm year-round tan.

One of them foreigners.

It's true.

It is true.

You're a Pakistani

immigrant, a Muslim, gay man, married with two adopted children.

So you check every single box and Hollywood.

Every single box.

I am not trans.

If I could just transition, I would have the full set.

Everything.

Right.

So Riaz is a friend of mine.

We've been friends now for almost two years.

And he has really gone on a search to try to understand.

And you are on this amazing journey.

You're coming back and

reporting on

how people on your side, if you can call it your side.

Well, I think we do in this tribal time.

I think we do say your side, our side.

That's what everyone's referring it to.

I think you're turning into more my side.

But

you're coming back this time,

talking to me about how you said something surprising to me yesterday.

I said, you know, I don't think the average Democrat wants to take away everybody's guns.

And I disagreed.

And that was fascinating to me that that was your perception because because I feel like the anti-gun, grab them all, put them in a box, float them in the ocean is the best plan right now.

And what I'm finding so frustrating is that, you know, we all have children.

When they shoot children, they don't just ask, are you conservative?

Are you liberal?

So chances are we all want this to stop.

And to me, to actually engage in the conversation of how as parents we can make this stop without going down the rabbit hole of the Second Amendment,

it's shocking to me that your perception was that, no, no, that's kind of, you you actually said that's un-American, that Democrat, they wouldn't do that, that's un-American.

And I'm like, ooh, no, no, no, no.

They're exactly, they feel like it's the most American protective thing to do.

That is incredible to me.

I, you know, I, I'm sometimes a, many times, uh,

a, a optimistic catastrophist, and I try to hold off on the catastrophe as long as I, I possibly can.

I just don't understand that.

But we were talking about this Facebook thing.

And in context with you,

you're trying to help me and I'm trying to help you understand

each side

because we have different languages and we have to start talking to each other, but not necessarily to the politicians.

I mean to the average person.

I agree 100%.

And so what I did is I put on Facebook to fans of yours saying, are you having this in your natural life?

Has your family or friendships rifted?

And someone reached out to me from Virginia and said, this is affecting our friendships.

Like I have an old friend, 20 years, we parented together.

Our kids are the same age.

We don't ever talk about this.

And you could feel when the conversation came up in the room that it got uncomfortable.

What's interesting is when we talked, they both realized as a clip to play that they had the exact same experience.

Well, I'll tell you, they had the exact same experience being in the voting booth is that the Muslim progressive stood there and paused and said, I don't know if Hillary Clinton's what I want.

And the conservative said, that was my experience.

I was also in the booth and said, all I have is Donald Trump as an option.

And they had never ever realized until that conversation, which was a year after the election, that they both felt the same way.

But they tribally gone to their sides, defended it vehemently, and do not talk about it.

So to me, the biggest fear I have right now is when I go from Texas to DC or to LA, I'm jumping into a completely different

information stream.

It is a shocking amount of difference when I land from Dallas to DC.

And I get to go back between these worlds, and I'm constantly telling people, but this is a news story in Texas.

This isn't a news story because the flow of information is so separate.

And if you don't have people talking and say, hey, did you hear that story?

Then what do you do?

When we first met, I think I put down on a chalkboard like 10 different stories

that were big to conservatives.

You had never heard any of them.

It was Inauguration Day and when Obama, which I think is probably the most graceless thing to ever do, to exit and say, I had no scandals.

And then you guys listed 10.

And I knew, and I knew none of them because I, as his devoted audience, was never allowed to see any of them.

I mean, I'm a pretty well-read guy.

Yeah.

And I sat there embarrassed.

I watched the, I did not know and didn't even know them.

That is shocking to me.

And that is to me why we're doing this project and we're going to do it again and again of these friends, groups, communities that have stopped talking and say, okay, first connect.

You've been friends.

You have a personal relationship.

Who you are is so vast compared to who you voted for.

So let's remember that stuff and then let's actually have the conversations.

So

you were in Hollywood, and

you know, you're a storyteller, like I'm a storyteller.

And what is truly frightening to me is

this truly now is propaganda.

We have crossed into new territory from fake news to propaganda to where we are we're we're intentionally being manipulated

and

we're being categorized and then pitted against each other in a scientific way.

And also in a storytelling, in old Hollywood 101, you know, the graphics package of the debates is like the graphics package of a Tyson fight.

You have 24 hours of cable news that need to be programmed.

I'm a producer.

How do you program?

How do you get someone to watch CNN at 4 p.m.

as opposed to HGTV?

You have to get them excited, interested, and feel like it's devastating.

So that need to create the conflict, to get the viewer to change channels is now constant.

It's the new norm.

And so the hysteria happens.

You have to find new theories, new crack.

We've jumped the shark, and then now the shark is even looking at us and saying, what the hell are you doing?

The shark is like, this is beyond me.

So let me ask you this.

Facebook

engagement has gone down 23%

in the last quarter.

That's significant.

That's significant.

You look at the cable news ratings.

You look at all television ratings.

I mean, you've seen them.

They're remarkable that they are this low.

And most people in America are not reading a story about how low they are.

They just keep going lower and lower and lower.

And I don't mean

in what's called cuma, the amount of people even tuning in, not sicking around to watch it, just tuning in.

We're not tuning in anymore.

Except we're looking at our phones all the time.

So the tuning into long form, tuning into half hour, tuning into the nightly news, tuning into NBC, ABC in the evening is not happening.

But the four, three, two minutes, 20 seconds from Twitter that is constantly going into our bloodstream is a constant diet of where we get our information.

That's good because what America needs is less perspective.

I think what we've been dying for is more sound bites, shorter amounts of information.

More talking heads, I feel like we need.

We need more people just talking and giving their opinions.

But I think the key in this project with us, every time I come here, is I talk and then I stop and I listen and I always, always learn.

What have you learned since you were here last about conservatives?

I have learned that I think there is a great, again, generally speaking, I feel like conservatives love

generally being part of a group.

They are proud to be Americans.

They are proud to be patriots.

They're proud to be with their neighbors.

I find a lot of liberal progressives want to be very much in their individualized, individualized label with their agenda and their needs.

And I'm finding that in engaging conversations, and this is my experience coming as a liberal, I'm finding conservatives much more open to the conversation.

Maybe it's because of their presence of the White House, but they're so much more open.

Isn't it interesting that your perception is, and I think you're right, that

conservatives like to be part of a group.

They like to be a part of the bigger group, like America, et cetera, et cetera.

And progressives do see themselves as

my issue is this, and I want to focus on this, which is very individualistic, except

the Constitution, which protects that individual, is celebrated by the right.

And the left thinks it's a living, breathing document that can be adjusted, changed all the time.

The progressive way is collective thought.

How do you square that?

I don't, because I actually call them on these hypocrisies.

You know, we have conversations where I was, we had a conversation about abortion.

I mean, that's a tricky one.

And at some point I said, look, we're liberals, we're progressives.

I'm pro-choice because I believe, you know, it's the woman's right.

It's not my body.

That is my

thought.

But I said, look, we don't know when life actually begins.

You know, I studied science.

If we're talking about a gray area, what we are doing is progressives saying we protect the evangelist, we protect the weak, we protect the innocent, we protect the helpless.

Well, this is an example where we're saying we don't really know where life begins, but we're not going to protect you.

We're going to protect the mother.

Fine, that is a viewpoint.

Can you not notice the hypocrisy of it?

And they get very uncomfortable.

So to me, what I do,

what they do, what I do well.

See, but that's to me, do you have a problem with that?

Well, it's great to investigate that, right?

Like, I have to push in those directions.

I have no problem with people who will admit, look, I,

for instance, I am pro-life.

However, cases of rape and incest, I am so conflicted on that.

I know that I am a hypocrite on that particular thing.

I just can't get my arms around it.

And I think there's something to celebrate on somebody saying, look, I am conflicted on this.

I see my own hypocrisy.

In a tribal black and white world, which is where we are, gray will be where the solutions are.

Gray will be where people actually meet and engage and find out what the laws should be and decide what the laws should be.

I feel like gray pride is what I'm always sort of like,

it's an important thing to say.

I'm not just a progressive liberal and I'm carrying that banner.

I'm not just a Christian conservative.

That our views, I live next to you.

You know, we have to figure out the school shootings are affecting every single one.

If that's not something we can get over our own ego and the need to be right to say, okay, we protect these children, then I don't know what cause is more important.

I don't think you can be an American in good standing if you don't have absolute certitude on every issue.

That's my decision.

Because you're a traitor.

You're a traitor to me or somebody else.

Well, I mean, if we're really honest here, aren't you Canadian?

I'm a Canadian sports celebrity, but I'm actually, I was actually born in the United States.

I didn't know that

it was just a celebrity

celebrity.

Yeah, that's it.

Real quick, Rhea, because I've got to wrap this up.

I've got about a minute.

Talk about the thing that you learned in the conversation, and we played the clip last night on TV, of

you made an observation about taking a knee at the NFL to somebody who was

very progressive and is like, they have a right to do that, and didn't understand the conservative point of view.

Yeah, it was so simple.

It was words are to liberals, like symbols are to conservatives.

That if you want to know how a conservative feels about the office of president or the flag, it's exactly how you feel about labels and symbols.

They upset you, they hurt you deeply.

His words, his labels, racist statements.

Words anger liberals.

They hurt us.

In a similar way, symbols are hugely conservatives, hugely important to conservatives.

So if you want to know how can they be so riled up about the flag, well, why do you get so riled up about every single tweet, every single day?

It riles you up.

Words rile you up.

Symbols rile them up.

You wonder how the other side does it.

It's analogous.

And that's why the more I travel, the more the similarities just make me laugh.

I got on a plane and I'm like, God, if I could get the people in Alaska to sit in a room with the people in LA, to sit in a room with the people in Saudi Arabia,

they'd be shocked at how simple the conversation would flow.

Yeah.

It was what we learned after the wall came down

in 19, what, 91.

I mean, when that wall came down and we met the people who were living on the other side that we said were our enemies, all of a sudden we realized who they were exactly like.

You and me.

Yeah.

Riaz, thank you so much.

We'll talk to you again tomorrow.

You're here for a special project we'll talk about a little bit later.

Thank you so much.

Lovely to see you guys.

Good to see you.

I don't know if it was lovely to see us.

All right, I want to tell you about Simply Safe Home Security, Simply Safe.

Man, I just love this company and I love their

attitude.

I'm going to be real honest with you.

One of the people that works there

said to me yesterday, you know, when I was 20, I was a flaming Marxist.

And now I just see that

this is the way.

This is a company that is doing something.

It's doing something that

is protecting people, making people's lives easier and better.

This capitalism thing is great.

Yes, yes, it is.

It's really remarkable to see when somebody pursues their passion, really pursues their passion, how

great capitalism is as a tool.

Because all they're doing is thinking, how can I make that person's life better?

It's to me, it's the ultimate charitable venture.

Simply Safe.

Now, Simply Safe is ready to take all your worries away of an intruder coming in or cutting your phone line.

Simply Safe is ready.

Somebody destroying the keypad keypad or the siren, somebody breaking the glass and getting into your house.

All of those things you don't have to worry about.

Somebody breaking in, the alarm going off, them getting scared away, and then you never know who they were.

Cameras take care of that.

It's simply safe and it doesn't cost you an arm and a leg.

Simply safe.

They only charge what's fair, what's right, what it's worth.

24-7 professional security is not jacked up.

It's $14.99 a month.

There are no contracts, contracts, no hidden fees.

Simply safe.

You got to check this out.

It is what we protect ourselves with.

It's simply safe.

Go to simply safebeck.com.

SimplySafebeck.com.

Protect your home and your family today.

SimplySafebeck.com.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn Beck.

Another bomb in Austin.

We'll tell you about that coming up in just a second.

Also, a way for you to actually make a difference

coming up.

The Rockland High School history teacher that was put on leave for questioning the walkouts in California.

She's going to be back with us today.

We have an update from her.

Facebook has plunged yesterday.

They tumbled 7%

in the stock market.

Stu, I think we're starting to see

what possibly could be a soft spot for Facebook that could take them down.

They're taking it very seriously, that's for sure.

Emergency meeting today about it.

They should.

They should.

They've got a real issue.

Back in just a second.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn.

Beck.

Serial bomber is menacing Austin, Texas, and we may be entering a new phase.

It looks like he's expanding his range.

Overnight, another bomb exploded inside a FedEx facility near San Antonio.

The FBI suspects it might be linked to the previous four, but no inquiries have been reported in the FedEx explosion.

Sunday night, the fourth bomb in less than three weeks exploded in a residential area southwest of downtown Austin.

The previous three bombs were all disguised as packages delivered to specific houses.

But this time, the bomb was attached to a for sale sign and rigged with a tripwire.

Two men, just walking through the neighborhood, apparently, struck the tipped tripwire and were seriously injured in the blast.

Police say they see similarities in the bombs that make them believe that the same killer is responsible, but something's not right.

The tripwire bomb reveals a higher level of sophistication and skill, so investigators now believe the bomb maker may have military or police explosive ordnance training.

Perfect.

Investigators are also stumped because a serial bomber typically makes the device the same way every time, but that's not happening in this case.

They're also surprised that there haven't been any demands or indication of a motive from the perpetrator.

Police now are urging the killer to communicate with them and have raised the reward to $115,000 for information leading to an arrest.

Oddly, the fourth bomb actually helps investigators because of the increasing amount of trace evidence left after the explosion.

Surveillance videos expected to help crack the case as well on this one since the bomber is personally delivering and setting up the devices.

When the second and third bombs exploded last week, several outlets, including CNN and and the Washington Post, seemed eager to pounce on the idea that this was a hate crime, since two black men were killed and an elderly Hispanic woman seriously injured.

The Post even questioned whether there would be more urgency to find the killer had the initial bomb gone off in an affluent white neighborhood.

But Sunday's explosion largely sinks the hate crime theory since it was rigged to kill anyone who just happened by.

For the record, the two men that were injured by Sunday's bomb were both white.

When you are dealing with a serial killer like this,

does the idea that it might be racially motivated make it any more or less evil?

It's just evil, period.

Isn't every murder essentially a hate crime?

It's Tuesday, March 20th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

We have been kind of focusing on a few things in the last couple of weeks.

One is

if Christians would just

act like Christians, the world would be a much better place.

If, you know, I love the bumper sticker that says, Lord, save me from your followers.

The problem is not with Jesus.

The problem is with a lot of people who say they're following Jesus, but they're not.

And statistics prove this out.

There is no difference between somebody who doesn't go to church, doesn't believe in God when it comes to marriages, alcoholism, drug use,

any of this stuff.

That should tell us something, that we're attending church instead of tending a church.

And we brought in Nathan,

how do you say

last name?

William.

William.

And Ron Stoddart.

Ron is with Save Adoptions, and Nathan is the CEO of Adoption.com.

And first, tell me a little bit about adoptions.com before you tell me why you're here.

Sure.

So adoption.com is the connection engine for adoption.

So if a family wants to adopt, they can put a profile online and a woman who's pregnant and considering adoption can go and choose a family.

Or we have

photo listings of children waiting to be adopted and families can go look through thousands of photos of children and choose a child to adopt.

Or if an adoptee and a birth parent 20 years after the adoption want to find each other, they can put their information in and we help facilitate a connection.

So we connect people related to adoption.

I have to tell you, I'm an adoptive father and there is nothing better in my life than

that choice to adopt.

My children are everything and

we were afraid, you know, are we going to feel the same?

Yeah.

It's exactly the same and it is a marvelous thing.

If I tell you,

if my wife, if I could just, if I could dye my hair so I didn't look like I looked, because my wife, I'll say, we should adopt again.

And she'll look at me and she'll look at you.

Like, we're going to adopt again.

So, anyway, it's

a healthy relationship.

No, I don't say that.

It's a little harsh.

Anyway,

here's the problem.

Adoptions, overseas adoptions by Americans have gone down now, 80%.

And

places like Romania have tried to pick up the slack before, and it didn't work.

First, before we get to why this number is down, why aren't people in other countries like Romania, why doesn't adoption work like it does here?

Do you know?

Well, it does.

I mean, there are people in Romania, but there are not as many people adopting

in Romania because it is not culturally as acceptable as it is in the United States.

Isn't that weird?

When we first started doing adoptions from Russia, very few Russian families would even consider adopting an orphan because they looked at them as children of alcoholics and socially inferior.

But after Americans started adopting children from Russia and the Russians looked and said, maybe we're missing something here.

Now the number of domestic adoptions in Russia is much, much higher.

So we have an opportunity to show it by example.

Do you think that's a Christian thing?

Is that a Christian trait that came from us or just something unique in us?

Brazil is the same way, a very Christian country, but they don't adopt their own children very much.

It's the same issue.

It's a cultural issue.

They're not used to going to an orphanage and finding a child and adopting a child.

As you said, Christians ought to be doing it.

So is it a Christian thing?

It should be.

Okay, so now 80%

drop in foreign adoptions.

That's massive.

And I warn you, the next few minutes are going to become excruciatingly painful to hear.

It's because of somebody in the former administration that

was the head of adoptions here,

helped setting the laws here.

She still is.

Yeah, she's the chief of the adoption division, which is in the U.S.

State Department.

And she's a civil service appointment,

which is a problem in and of itself.

Because she doesn't seem real high on adoptions.

she's anti-adoption how could she have the job that's right of being in charge of adoptions and being anti-adoption why would we ever appoint someone to be our chief of adoptions in the united states who is anti-adoption and when was she appointed

in 2014 she was moved from the justice department to the uh

state department any idea what the motivation was to put somebody anti-adoption in there what why was that done don't speculate if you know

yeah i think that uh

the attitude at that time, the Hague Convention had been implemented in the United States, and the focus of the government on any

activity is to regulate and control.

So she was moved into that position because she had experience in adoptions years earlier, even though she had a proven record of being opposed to the Hague Convention and the regulations.

All right.

So she put in regulations.

They did not go into effect because Trump came in and he reversed them.

Is that right?

Well, Trump came in and said,

we're going to require that you have eliminate two regulations for every new regulation you impose.

So the regulations already existed, but she proposed new regulations in September of 2016 that would further give them control over the adoption industry.

Oh, my gosh.

All right.

So what has to happen to get Donald Trump to, I assume he's open to this.

What do we have to do to get him to

kick her out?

Reverse these?

What?

Move her to a more appropriate position that would use her skills

in a more positive way.

That's a great idea.

Very nice skill to adopt that.

Wow.

Put someone in that is pro-adoption if you're going to be in charge of the U.S.

adoption program.

Wow.

Okay.

So

what do you have people do?

So we believe Donald Trump would be very supportive of this, if this just got on his list of priorities, if this became something that he focused on.

So we've created a White House petition.

We started promoting it yesterday.

had about 2,500 signatures this morning.

The White House promises that if it reaches 100,000 signatures, that they will respond.

The petition was actually created on petitions.whitehouse.gov.

If your listeners wanted to

find that petition, they could go to adoption.com and right at the top, there's a bright yellow bar with a link to it.

Click on that link

and sign the petition.

Sign the petition.

Okay, so he'll look at it if we have 100,000 signatures and take it seriously of

correcting this.

How long will it take to reverse an 80% decline?

It'll take years, but

of course it has to start with a person being put in that position that wants to increase adoption.

So we have a problem in America

where we have

a need for foster parents.

And it's a lot easier to adopt a, you know, a little child than it is to adopt a 12-year-old.

If it takes years to fix this, the problems in the other countries of foster birth, because I got to believe, I mean,

our foster system is not, you know, a pleasure.

I can't imagine what it's like in some countries.

Not good.

Well, most countries don't have foster systems.

It's a system of orphanages.

And you look at the outcomes of those children.

You look at as many as 50% of the girls that age out of those orphanages end up in prostitution.

And you look at the homelessness at 60% or higher.

You look at the suicide rate of 10%.

Just ridiculously ridiculously poor outcomes for the children that age out of those orphanages.

You've been talking about this 80% decline in foreign adoptions.

How much of that has to do with the Russian sanctions that we've heard so much about?

Very little.

Very little.

Russia closed in the end of 2011,

and the decline has

continued.

So,

yeah, there was a time when China put a pause on adoptions.

That caused some of the decline.

The China's one-child policy was changed.

That caused a little bit of it.

But there are so many countries that are not even engaged in adoption because the U.S.

puts restrictions on them.

If they do not have

an administrative system for tracking documentation when a child is born out in the boondocks, then we suspect that there may be fraud with the documentation.

So a country like Nepal,

with children available for adoption, the U.S.

will not allow adoptions from Nepal because we don't trust their documentation.

And the key question about Russia isn't whether Russia closed its doors or not.

The question is, what has the State Department done to help open those doors?

What support have we provided to these countries to help them implement robust and ethical adoption programs?

And that's the piece that's missing.

We need a State Department that is innovating and helping create the type of adoption system they want instead of trying to regulate everybody out of existing system.

So I want to take a quick break, but then I have to come back and ask you this question.

I know there are people that

will come across this interview and they'll say, well, why don't we start in our own country?

There's some problems here with adoption in our own country and some things that we can take care of and some things that we all should be aware of.

There is a need in our own country and let's talk about that and that concern when we come back again you go to adoption.com adoption.com look for the banner up at the top and sign the White House petition to get this Obama appointee removed from the State Department or at least in this position where she's overseeing adoptions she's anti-adoption do that now adoption.com

in another dirty little twist of identity tax fraud thieves now are hacking online accounts at

tax preparation firms.

So they grab your account and then they put in for the refund to come to them.

Once the IRS deposits the money into the hacked client's bank account, the crook contacts them by posting as a collection agency, claiming that the refund was an error and demanding payments.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are falling for this.

There are a lot of threats in today's connected world, and it just takes one

weak weak link for the criminals to get in.

That's why there's new Life Lock Identity Theft Protection.

It adds the power of Norton Security to help protect you against the threats to your identity and the devices.

That you're just not going to see these threats until it's too late.

And if you have a problem, the agents are going to work to fix it.

Now, nobody can stop all cyber threats, prevent all identity theft, or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but Lifelock with Norton Security is able to uncover those things that most people miss.

Go to lifelock.com or call 1-800-LifeLock and use the promo code BECK.

Get an additional 10% off your first year with promo code BEC at 1-800Lifelock or lifelock.com.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn Beck.

The United States is down 80%

in international adoptions, and that's because there is somebody that was appointed by Obama to the State Department that is anti-adoption and has put all of these rules and regulations in to stop international adoptions.

It's wrong and it's dangerous for humanity all around the world.

And we're asking that you would go to adoption.com and you'll see a banner up at the top.

Click on it.

It'll take you to the White House for a petition.

The White House has promised over 100,000 signatures, and they will take this up and review it.

So

let me pick it up where we left our conversation with Nathan and Ron about international adoptions and adoptions here in America.

Why not focus on the kids that we have here?

That's a great question.

Children in the United States in our foster care system are very important and they need to be adopted.

Children in orphanages around the world are very important and they need to be adopted.

It's not an either or a question.

There are plenty of loving families families that would love to bring these children into their homes.

It's a matter of complexity, not a matter of numbers of families.

We need to simplify the system and make it easy enough that these families can bring children home.

I will tell you, I adopted my son, Rafe, and Tanya and I were terrified.

I mean, she was beside herself for three years.

We adopted in Texas, where it's pretty clear.

You know, the new parents are the new parents, period.

But still terrified that somebody would come knocking at the door one day and say, yep, he's not your son.

God touches our hearts in different ways, and sometimes we're motivated to adopt an orphan, and sometimes we connect with a 15-year-old child in the foster care system.

But

we have, there are laws that, I mean, that stuff does happen, but it is getting better here in America, isn't it?

Yeah, and Texas has some of the best laws in the country.

Yeah.

But unfortunately, that does happen.

Okay.

Working with the government is worse than labor.

It is.

It is.

If you talk to, my wife and I had two biological children and adopted twice.

The labor that she went through with our biological children was nothing compared to what we had to go through to adopt.

No, it is.

But this is, if we can correct this, we correct so many other problems.

That's right.

We correct homelessness.

I mean, tell me about the rates of

those in prison and homelessness and everything else.

Well, a statistic I heard the other day, the CEO of the United States Institute Against Human Trafficking said that 60 to 70 percent of the children who are trafficked come out of the foster care system.

Oh my gosh.

So the foster care system is good, but it's temporary.

And you need to get those kids out of the foster care system and into a permanent home as early as possible.

And the same thing happens internationally.

We've seen statistics that as many as 50% of the girls that age out of an orphanage, that leave an orphanage without being adopted, end up in prostitution.

Going back to your original question,

we've heard statistics a lot that up to two-thirds of children within 18 months of aging out of the foster care system, two-thirds of the children end up either homeless

in jail or dead.

The statistics for these kids, the outcomes for these children that age out of an orphanage or a a foster home are ridiculous.

The question isn't whether we should adopt from the United States or internationally.

The question is, let's do everything we can to get them adopted.

All of them.

All of the above.

And people say that there's not enough people.

There are plenty, right?

That want to adopt.

A recent study from the Dave Thomas Center for Adoption showed that 85 million Americans have considered adoption.

And they said that the biggest reasons they haven't adopted is the complexity and the cost.

We need to focus on reducing complexity and reducing cost instead of increasing regulation.

Amen.

Amen.

Thank you guys so much.

I appreciate your hard work and

everything you do.

And

let me tell you, as a dad

married to a wonderful woman who we couldn't have children and we wanted it so desperately and we worried about adoption.

Let me tell you, it's the greatest thing ever.

The greatest thing ever.

Go to adoption.com and

please sign that White House petition and let's get that Obama appointee out of the State Department and correct this problem today.

Adoption.com.

Thanks, guys.

Glenn Beck.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I want to start a new segment on the program called Fix Reason Firmly in Her Seat.

And here's how we're going to play this.

You have to just

stop feeling for just a second.

Stop feeling and just use reason.

Okay.

It's time to act like Spock.

No emotions.

We're all going to die, but it's logical that we're all going to die.

Okay?

Fix reason in her seat for a second.

Right now, the press is very upset, and everybody is upset at Facebook.

Facebook took a nosedive yesterday in the stock market of 7%.

Why?

Because the story is, is that

they gave bulk data

to

Cambridge Analytica.

And Cambridge Analytica used that to get Donald Trump elected.

Okay.

Well, that's not really the story.

Now, Fix Reason firmly interseat.

Facebook, what they actually did is they sold this bulk information to an app.

You agreed when you signed up for free Facebook, you agreed that they could do it.

Now, you can opt out of that, but you agreed that they could sell your bulk data to an app.

Right.

And you actually clicked yes to the individual app when you installed it, when you gave it permission.

Okay.

It goes an extra step further.

It's not just that

Facebook can sell it to anyone.

You had to actually agree to install and utilize this app and give this app access.

You agreed to it.

Okay.

So

that app

is the one that broke the covenant or the contractual rules by selling that information to Cambridge Analytica.

So Facebook did what they were supposed to do.

You clicked on it.

You approved it.

You should be mad at the app,

not at Facebook, because it was the app that actually violated the stated rules, the contract.

They sold it to somebody that they shouldn't have.

because they sold it without your permission.

Now,

the question is,

how exactly is Facebook responsible for this?

Don't feel.

Just think.

How is Facebook responsible?

Because many people seem to be blaming Facebook because they're this big monolith, right?

Yeah.

Well, and they certainly have done many things that I don't like.

Yes.

But in this particular case, again, you gave them the data.

You agreed to give them the data.

You agreed to let the app access that data.

You agreed to it you clicked yes then they gave the access to that app and that app

a third party did something that they weren't supposed to and gave it to cambridge analytica so how is that face i mean the only thing hey wait i want to before you go on i just want to remind you fix reason interseat do not drag other things about facebook that you don't like along with this right well facebook is censoring conservatives whatever no no, no, no.

That's not this part.

Let's not.

The problem is, is we conflate everything.

And it's getting really confusing.

I don't know who I'm supposed to be for and who I'm supposed to be against and why.

Okay, so fix reason and receipt on this one.

Feel nothing.

Just think.

The only thing that you can potentially say, which I think is generally speaking unrealistic, is that Facebook should

follow that information?

Well, I was going to say follow it because I don't think they would ever know.

But I think you could argue that Facebook shouldn't allow access to its platform from, you know, to some, they're responsible in some way of letting a company that did illicit things and giving them access to their platform.

With something the size of Facebook, I don't think it's realistic that they're going to be able to take every single app and make sure that they don't, outside of the platform, do something like that.

This is like a bad guy goes in and shoots at a school, taking away all the guns.

Right.

That's what you're saying.

Yeah, I think it's a bad idea.

I mean,

I honestly think, you know, look,

we get because Facebook, and I don't even like Facebook, to be clear.

I'm not even a fan of it.

But it's like when we wind up making this big, scary monster out of Facebook, which in many ways they are a big, scary monster.

But in this particular case, what did they do wrong?

You know, someone took data that the user agreed to give them to a, then that data went to a third party.

That the user approved that transaction of data.

The third party held the data and then did something they weren't supposed to against Facebook's rules.

They set up rules to stop this particular thing, and they did it anyway.

How is that Facebook's fault?

All right, so there's question number one.

Here's question number two:

Are we supposed to be mad at Facebook today?

Or are we supposed to, are they,

are they for us or against us today?

Are they traitors to the cause today?

Here's why I ask.

Do not feel

anything.

Just think.

Okay?

Very uncomfortable in today's world.

Don't feel you're in a safe space.

This is about the only audience in America that's that's even capable of this task.

I think so.

I really do.

Okay, so I just want you to think.

Facebook is a leftist organization.

Facebook helps Hillary Clinton.

Facebook does everything they can to hurt the Republicans.

But today,

unless you've just had the last thinking lesson, today,

for some reason, both sides are angry at Facebook.

Why?

And particularly,

why,

if you don't understand the first question,

would a conservative be mad at Facebook?

Because what the charge is, is that Facebook took all of their bulk data and handed it to Steve Bannon

and his

Cambridge Analytica firm.

They handed it to Steve Bannon.

Right.

If you believe Facebook is responsible for this,

then you'd have to believe that they were trying to help Donald Trump.

So again, don't feel anything.

Don't feel anything.

Go dead inside for a minute

and just think that one through.

Now, if you've already done the math on the first one, you could say, well, they helped Hillary Clinton last time, and

they didn't have a problem with it.

They are upset because they didn't hand it to anybody this time, but an app that they contracted with went against their agenda and everything else.

But see,

then the whole media story falls apart.

Because then it's, you can leave, you can leave Facebook as a liberal entity,

but you cannot also be mad mad at Facebook for giving Steve Bannon all of this raw data.

You can't have both.

So, which one are we going to choose today?

Fix Reason in her seat.

I have one.

Can I get one?

I have one.

Again, Fix Reason.

Firmly.

Don't feel.

Don't feel.

Not even a little.

Not even a little.

All right.

Big New York Times report came out.

New York Times.

Extensive data shows punishing reach of racism for black boys.

That's the headline.

Okay.

And this is, I mean, this is being shared like crazy all over the internet.

Big story.

All right.

Okay.

Goes into a deep study in which they looked at 10,000 boys.

10,000 boys.

And that's the first time anyone in the last 20 years has looked at 10,000 boys.

Well, except for.

Okay.

No, don't.

Whatever you're about to say, don't do it.

Because I thought the same thing.

We should stop.

Casting golf.

Anyway.

No, no, no.

Hey, by the way, did they say the Weinstein company went bankrupt?

Yes, they stay in House of Commons.

Nobody has looked at 10,000 boys in about two decades.

Okay, so 10,000 boys

that grew up in rich families.

Rich families.

What they found is that the white boys grew up to be rich adults more often, about twice as often, as black boys grew up to be rich adults.

Okay, so the white people had a much higher success rate into growing into rich and upper middle class adults than black children did.

Those bastards.

Right.

And so this,

as the headline shows, it is extensive data that shows punishing reach of racism for black boys.

Now, you look at that at the surface, and this is what everyone is doing, and you'd say, hey, it sure does.

They're black boys versus white boys, same rich.

They started out with the same ceiling, right?

They both were rich.

Right.

And then as that advanced, the black children flew, you wound up in the lower income areas a lot more often than white children.

That shows racism.

Can I ask a question?

Sure.

I mean, fix it, reason, and interce.

Is it fixed?

Because you used, yeah, it is fixed.

But you used two different words.

You said black boys, and then you said black children.

Okay, is it children or is it boys?

Did they also study girls?

Interestingly, they did.

Oh, they did.

Okay.

They did.

What did they find out about the girls?

So let let me give you the two statements of fact here that they give you.

And you have to scroll down a few paragraphs before you get to this.

I'm already on the headline.

I'm already there about, I'm really angry about the black boys and the racism of our society.

Right.

Black men consistently earn less than white men, regardless of whether they're raised poor or rich.

Bastards.

Bastards.

Right.

Over to the other side of the graph.

Yeah.

No such income gap exists between black and white women raised in similar households.

No such income gap exists.

So, women exactly the same.

Wait, wait.

Maybe I'm feeling.

Did those bastards

just check families that had one black child and an adoptive wife child?

No, they didn't.

No.

No.

Now,

when you use the word bastards, usually you are feeling a little bit.

That's a set of rule.

If we're going to do this as a game, we should probably use it.

Which is okay.

use the word bastard.

I'll stop that.

Okay.

But what's so what's interesting here is, first of all, how can it be race

if white women and black women have the exact same results?

In fact, looking at the chart, you could, I mean, it's, it's almost identical.

So

if

it's race, If it's racism, black women would perform much worse than white women from the study.

Yes.

So in a way,

a very real way,

this would disprove the headline that racism was the cause here, unless for some bizarre reason

we are only racist against black men, but that means it's not race, right?

So let's just, and this extends further than this, because the other thing we're told in society all the time is that sexism is incredibly vital and happening everywhere.

Women have a worse run of it than men.

However, again, in this, it shows the opposite, where the black boys are the ones that are hurt in this study.

The black boys are the ones with the worst results, where the black women

don't have the bad results.

So, again, I don't think this shows.

Listen.

Here in Texas, I can still hear the liberal heads popping in California.

I can't think anymore.

I can't.

It makes no sense.

It does not compute.

Fix reason in her seat.

Be a free thinker.

Celebrate that you are an independent thinker.

All right, every business needs to hire great people, and there's no better way to find them.

Something better than posting your job online and praying that you know oh

Jesus deliver that right person to me well Jesus needs you to do your part as well and that is to think it through and find the best way to let people know that you are looking for a job and there is a smarter way

you can find the right candidate now 80% of people within the first day find a qualified candidate if they're using ziprecruiter.com slash back

ZipRecruiter not only posts to a hundred plus job sites, but it goes out, it learns what you're looking for, and then it identifies the right experienced people and it invites them to apply for your job.

Now's when Jesus comes in.

Give me the discernment to be able to figure out which one is the right candidate.

They even help you on that.

They spotlight the strongest applications that you receive so you never miss a great match.

ZipRecruiter, it's how you find great people.

Find out out today how ZipRecruiter has been used by businesses of all sizes and industries to

find the qualifying.

Geez.

How did I get this job?

I should be saying.

Would you like fries with that?

All sizes and industries, and you can find the most qualified job candidate with immediate results.

Right now, post your job on ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com/slash back.

That's ziprecruiter.com/slash back.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn back.

I have an open letter

to James Madison

that I hope to be able to share today if we don't run out of time.

I also want to,

will you play another real quick game with me?

Sure, I like this game.

Okay, so another quick game of

fix reason interseat.

Am I supposed to be with the FBI or against the FBI?

Am I supposed to be with McCabe or against McCabe?

Against McCabe.

Well, now, wait a minute.

Hang on just a second.

The Republicans were all for McCabe because McCabe was in trouble with the Democrats.

The reason why this whole investigation started was because he was in trouble with the Democrats.

It was John Conyers that said, you know, we've got a real problem here.

Our Republic is at stake because he's leaking information that hurt Hillary Clinton.

And so

McCabe leaked information.

We know that.

That's why he was fired.

Right, but it was.

But that information hurt Donald Trump.

No, it hurt Hillary Clinton.

It was hurting Hillary Clinton.

And that's why John Conyers and Elijah Cummings said that

the investigation needed to be open.

So the investigation that got McCabe fired was launched by

Democrats.

So I'm not sure if I'm supposed to

be for McCabe or against McCabe.

Because now,

after he helped

Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton, according to the Democrats, now the Republicans are mad at him for some reason.

And

Glenn, back.

Mercury.

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn Beck.

An open letter to the Honorable James Madison.

Dear sir,

I'm writing to request your help and guidance.

It's been, I don't know, 230 years since you wrote the Constitution of the United States.

You know, I think you intended to establish a permanent, cohesive, democratic republic, the first of its kind on the face of the earth.

And in that document, you and your colleagues outlined a government that would be subservient to the people, that it would get its powers from the consent of the governed.

Having been through decades of despotic

rule from a king and a parliament that you didn't elect, you laid out a framework for a government with very, very limited powers.

Instead of creating a powerful centralized government, your constitution instead set forth a system that would ensure that the people would retain their natural rights, that they'd never have a king over them, that the individual states would retain their own sovereignty and control of their own destinies.

Your constitution was pretty, I mean, it was pretty amazing, quite honestly.

I mean, it was impressive for a good many years.

You know, it laid out the two houses and the legislature, and you ensured that rural and agricultural states would not be ruled by a densely populated urban state.

I mean, your document was really quite brilliant.

Three branches of government, each having the power to curb the power of the others, designed to ensure that no branch of government would develop the power to take away the rights of the people or the states.

And while the Constitution details very limited powers granted to the government, it also provides for the flexibility of being able to amend that by the people.

when they determine their freedom and security might be better served with new powers that they would choose to grant the government or powers that they would wish to take back from it.

In short, you wrote the Constitution to secure the blessings of liberty, not just for you guys, but for us to create upon this earth a great experiment, a nation of individuals who would self-govern, where the government would never be allowed to steal the freedom and wealth of its people.

Jim, I'm just writing to tell you, wow, did that fail, huh?

I mean, good idea and everything, but it didn't really work out.

If the goal of the Constitution was to form a government that had limited power over its people and would never grow to deprive people of their liberty, their property, and their lives, then yep, it failed.

Wow.

Don't get me wrong.

I mean, it had a really good run.

The nation you helped found, I mean, it became the most powerful nation on earth.

Freedom was let loose upon the land.

Ingenuity just in the United States, unencumbered by a controlling centralized government, it was able to build the most prosperous, wealthy, and powerful country that has ever existed on the planet.

We've lifted billions of people around the world out of poverty.

We've harnessed the power of the atom.

We have vehicles that have went to the moon.

We drive in vehicles that have 800 horses under the hood.

Mr.

Madison, I mean, the The nation you guys envisioned in your Constitution, it was real for a while.

When the government was out of the way, the people did exactly what you thought they would.

They would flourish.

However, it didn't really last.

I mean, today, in the nation that you founded, we've lost most of those freedoms you detailed so thoroughly.

Constitution designed to ensure the government of limited powers.

Yeah, and most of us don't even read it anymore.

We don't even know what it says.

You know, it's like a dusty document.

It's in a museum.

And that's really the only place that it lives.

Today, in fact, tomorrow in the Senate, they're going to stand and say, hey,

the president, because this is what the last president did, the president can't just declare war in Yemen and us fight it without it going through the Congress.

They're trying to actually, you know, take control of

their power and their branch to make sure they keep the president in check.

That was from the last president.

And then also in Congress, I think it's today or tomorrow, by tomorrow, they're going to pass a huge budget that none of them have even read yet.

Crazy, right?

And if anybody stands up on the floor of the House or the Senate and they actually defend your document, you know, that thing that you guys slaved over, they're ridiculed.

They're called traitors.

I mean, it's really nuts on what's going on.

In short, Mr.

Madison, I'm writing to ask for your help.

I need your help to understand because you wrote the Constitution, but you wrote it with this fatal flaw In order to fulfill its function of ensuring a government with limited power that is incapable of taking away the rights of citizens,

it relies on people.

I mean, the Constitution holds so much promise for people, but it then relies on people

to enforce it.

Like I said, I mean, if you stand and talk about limited government, you're shouted down as somebody who has to hate children.

You know, you hate minorities or women.

Today, our government is expected by the people to solve every perceived problem for every person, every group on earth.

Today, the government has to control the weather and the climate.

I know, I know, I know.

We have to end all disease and poverty.

We're expected to ensure that people don't get fat or aren't too skinny.

We don't get addicted to drugs, don't get concussions playing sports.

The government has to control hate speech.

That's something I'll have to tell you about later.

To ensure that nobody's feelings get hurt.

Today, people are willing to trade their freedom for the illusion of safety.

Here's what I really want to know, Jim.

Where'd that come from?

I mean, how'd that steal into the world?

What seed, what root did that grow from?

Who's doing this?

Who's killing us?

Who's robbing us of life and light, mocking us with the sight of what we might have known?

Does our ruin benefit the earth?

Does our ruin help the grass to grow or the sun to shine

is this darkness in you too have you have you passed through this night did you imagine this evil in your era james

i'm sorry if i'm judging you too harshly but that's what we do now we look at people of the past and we go whoa they were flawed what idiots

But you did design and build the most powerful, free, and wealthy nation that has ever existed.

It was your framework.

You designed a country that would see human beings for the wonderful creatures that they are, that would respect their nature as a species, that would allow them to think and act on their own.

Your document really is brilliant.

It respects a man as a man because of his nature, a self-aware being of free will, endowed by its creator with rights that aren't granted to or dependent on any other person or group.

Rights that belong to each of us just because we're human.

You guys are the original human rights guys.

I don't know if you know that.

That's a big deal now.

Except it's not.

We talk about it, but we don't know what it means.

I just wonder what you might say to us today.

What might you say to Mike Lee or Thomas Massey?

Just before they stand up on the floor of Congress today or tomorrow to defend the Constitution, what might you say to a school teacher in California that was excused for

expressing free thought and encouraging logic and reason?

What might you say to me?

I've defended those in government who still try to live by your document.

I've considered myself a staunch defender of your document for most of my life.

Maybe you would say to me, hey, thanks for the note.

Sorry about the whole Free Nation thing, you know.

Good luck in the gulags, Jim.

I don't know.

Maybe you'd say, don't give up.

Keep defending your liberty.

We had to do it in my day when a government stood against us to snuff us out and it worked.

Or maybe you just tell us all the simple truth.

Constitution is just a piece of paper.

That's all it is.

Paper has no power over you.

It only has the power you choose to grant it.

Your freedom and your liberty aren't guaranteed by a piece of paper, nor could they ever be.

They're They're secured and guaranteed by each of you acting and working together to ensure your fellow citizens don't act to deprive you of them.

Maybe you'd write to me and say, it's not the Constitution that failed the people, Mr.

Beck.

It's the people that have failed the Constitution.

It's Tuesday, March 20th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Julianne Benzil, she is a history teacher in Rockland High School, California.

Last week, when the kids were walking out, she just asked the question,

this is a march about the Second Amendment and constitutional rights.

Would our school be right

and justified to allow a 17-minute walkout from school if it was pro-life?

Well, that was too dicey.

Unsafe.

That's unsafe thinking.

So she was expelled from school and put on administrative leave.

When we talked to her last week, we wanted to get an update and find out what has happened since.

Julianne, how are you?

I'm good.

How are you?

I'm very good.

I would say that James Madison would be

overwhelmed by your brilliant prologue there.

That was something else.

Well, thank you very much.

But what do you know?

You're a history teacher in California.

Exactly.

Thanks questioning things.

So when,

you know, the last time we spoke, you were just getting the facts.

You were mainly getting the facts from the news.

You said your teachers union was standing up for your right to talk.

What has happened since?

Well, I have to tell you, Glenn, that I'm so appreciative of people like you, and I have such an appreciation for the industry at this point because I genuinely believe that had it not been for the outrage and the backlash from not just my local community because my parents and students have rallied around me like you would not believe,

but this nation and because of people like you,

my school district completely redacted

basically everything.

even though they violated not only the First Amendment, but my Sixth Amendment due process.

they never,

I genuinely, honestly don't know why.

They've never told me exactly what I did wrong.

Apparently, it was never a disciplinary issue.

But

yeah, like you alluded to, essentially, because I questioned whether one protest would be afforded the same convenience and courtesy as another protest.

I think...

a few students thought that was inappropriate, inflammatory.

They were uncomfortable.

And

I take away from this is go ahead.

No, no, go ahead.

You take away from this what?

Well

the

kind of frightening thing is that two students and one parent complained and that was enough to take a 20-year unscathed teaching record and put me on leave without giving me a reason why.

That's pretty scary.

Is that going to be removed from your record?

Well, there is nothing on my record because apparently this was not a disciplinary issue.

So my record is still unscathed.

My reputation is somewhat defamed, but I can handle that.

But no, there's no discipline in my record right now.

Okay.

So

I'm just wondering, because I mean, if I were a high school kid, because you're teaching AP classes, right?

I mean, you're teaching college-level classes.

Yeah.

If I were in your class,

I think just as an experiment,

I would organize a walkout for life even if I didn't believe in it I'm I was the kind of kid that would have organized it and said let's find out what they would say

mm-hmm well you know your history well enough that the ACLU loves to do test cases

you know scopes trial in 1925 with evolution let's test whether evolution is okay to be you know taught in public schools so I say let's test this

I

would

and this is genuinely not coming from me, but I'm going to go ahead and advocate for it.

I have a student who is actually meeting with our administration and going to go ahead and test this.

He's unbelievably brave and courageous to do this.

But as I told your producer, and I don't know if you want me to go ahead and suggest what they might be doing, but

let's go ahead and flip this.

Let's flip this, right?

So George Clooney backed with his own personal money the hashtag enough.

And, you know teen vogue and women's march in power all these people united behind this to you know organize this protest well how about we flip it and do hashtag life

and we try to maybe get a clint eastward or a tim allen or a rare hollywood conservative to back this and maybe get the heritage foundation or the american family association and let's just flip this and see what happens gosh we just had jim caviesel in studio yesterday that's uh

We might have some connections to some Hollywood people that might want to do that.

Can you pass on to my producer or ask this student of yours if they would like to come on?

Because I'd love to talk to this student.

Yes, in fact, I actually asked him if he was willing to have his name out there, and he said 100% yes, his name is Brandon Gillespie, and I would be happy to forward you his information.

Oh, yes.

I am literally,

I mean, I am impressed beyond belief because

he,

and I just want to be clear that I never advocated.

I asked a question.

Sure.

And

it came to his mind because he actually understood my question and he actually thought and he's like, hmm, I wonder if this administration would.

And he has the courage and the audacity to make an appointment and see what they say.

Well, I think that's fantastic.

So we're going to reach out.

We're going to reach out to him and maybe we'll have him on tomorrow.

And I am sure

that we have a few people in this audience that wouldn't mind helping with that.

And

gosh, I mean, I might even want to attend.

Well, if you don't mind, your opening there was so insightful.

And I have to tell you that I do believe that we can get back to a place of respecting and appreciating James Madison and this document that he created.

I received a barrage of emails, but there's this one email that stands out to me that I'm like, I think we can get back here.

There is a lady, I don't even know where it would, you know, there's all these people are coming from out of everywhere, but she said, I am pro-choice.

She said, but I would put my own money behind you and a movement to test this to see if a pro-life movement

or rally or protest.

Yes.

Who is this person?

This is this.

That's an American.

That's somebody.

That's an absolute patriot American.

So there may be an undercurrent of people who actually get it.

Okay.

Okay.

I, yeah, we're going to.

Hang on.

I'm going to get the information, but count

me in.

That's

Julianne Benzel.

She is the Rockland High School history teacher.

We'll talk to her again.

She's fantastic.

It's just a science experiment.

That's all it is.

It's just a social experiment.

We are known for our science and discovery in that field.

With volatility in the stock market and wild swings in Bitcoin, my gosh, what is Bitcoin at today?

$2?

$85.31.

It's just so...

Anyway, have you noticed that gold has gone up?

Gold has gone up.

Lots of room to run there.

When things go crazy, that's when gold starts to appreciate.

If you've done well in the cryptocurrency, you might want to think, you know, you should spread out that risk a little bit.

Gold is not an all-in strategy.

It's a way to spread out the risk.

So if other things go down, what's the stock market at today?

Oh, it's up today.

If things start to go down and unstable,

well, then that's when gold plays a role.

I want you to call Goldline now.

Great time of year to be thinking about adding to your IRA.

If you have an IRA now through the end of the month, Goldline is offering $750 in free coins when you purchase $25,000 or more using their industry-leading Express IRA program.

Call 866-GoldLine.

1-866-GoldLine, ask how you can get this special by calling them now.

1-866-GoldLine or Goldline.com.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn Beck.

Vince in Tennessee.

Hello.

Welcome to the program.

How are you?

Hey, good morning, Glenn.

God bless both of you gentlemen.

And I was so thrilled to hear the teacher talking about this.

When the gun walkout happened, I made sure to talk to my son, who's 13, about why it would be important, no matter what, even if his friends went, to stay inside because we don't want to be used as useful idiots.

And we talked about the real subject and everything.

So when I heard her talking about what this student is doing, it really excited me.

And I was hopeful that maybe this could spark something nationwide.

because that's something I can encourage him to actually participate in and that he can do proudly as a Christian.

And then that, you know, I would be able, if any teacher were to push back on it, I would be glad to back him 100% in standing up for what he believed when the others were given a free pass.

Well, that, I mean, some might say that would be a sharp stick in the eye, but I'm not one of those people.

So,

Vince, I'm going to take this and we're going to

have a meeting right after the show.

Make sure you join us tomorrow because

I really

like this idea and let's see can people stand up for the right of people that they disagree with to do the same thing that was just done do they get the same response in school

Glenn back

Mercury

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Let me go to Mark.

Hello, Mark.

You're on the Glenn Beck program.

Hi, Glenn.

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank you for doing that segment on adoption, especially bringing the attention to the petition that is currently up on adoption.com and on the White House petitions website about removing this lady from the State Department who is in charge of the adoptions for this country.

My wife coincidentally told me about this last night, and she works for a Michigan-based adoption agency here in Michigan.

She's worked there for over 20 years, and she told me about this last night as we were watching TV, and I was just astonished at how

asinine it is to have somebody in charge of adoptions in this country who is anti-adoption.

So I urge all of your listeners to go and sign that petition online.

Get this lady removed.

This lady, she was formerly of the Justice Department, and she is anti-adoption and she is in charge of all foreign adoptions here in the United States.

And she has put in regulation after regulation.

This is an Obama appointee and she's put in all kinds of regulation.

Donald Trump said, no, we're not going to do that.

She put in additional

regulations as they pulled the old regulations out that she had created.

And adoptions now are down 80%.

This is creating a crisis.

And

some, more cynical than I, might think that that was the point.

But we've got to change this.

And Donald Trump will.

He just needs to see that there's the groundswell of people that are wanting this to happen.

So go to adoption.com and sign that petition, and it will get to the White House.

And the White House, as said, if you raise $100,000, we will bring it up and we'll seriously discuss it.

So we need 100,000 signatures.

Adoption.com.

We could do that today.

Okay.

Glenn and I would like to announce the adoption of Pat Gray.

Wow.

Yeah.

Settled then.

We're going forward.

Yeah, well,

the show in this half hour was struggling a little bit.

And so you always bring in an adoptive kid.

Usually a little younger than 56.

Ding-dong.

Oh, look, it's Pat, the neighbor orphan.

It's our cousin.

Yeah.

Hey, cousin, how are you?

What are you talking about, Glenn?

Oh, that's good.

Write that down.

Yeah, you could use that.

So there was a shooting in Maryland today, and we pray

and our thoughts go out to all of the victims and the families.

What a waste.

And

our hearty thanks to the Sheriff's Department.

Apparently,

there were two wounded, but only one killed, and that was the shooter himself.

Yeah.

Because there was a guy in school with a gun.

A good guy with a gun.

A good guy.

And he shot him.

That can't be because more guns can't be the answer to guns.

It just can't.

That's

can't be the answer.

It was.

Usually is.

It was here.

Yeah, that's why

we don't arm our soldiers with flowers.

Why we don't speak German.

Isn't it interesting that that's what their continual refrain is?

You don't stop guns with more guns.

Well, it's exactly what's happened over the last 20 years in this country.

We have, by some estimates, 350 million guns, more than anybody in the history of the world, probably combined.

And the gun violence has gone down by 50%.

So, yes, you do stop guns with more guns.

Yeah.

Well, we have it.

It's official today.

That's how we stop the guy with a gun.

And with a gun.

At least that's what the reporting was.

Early reporting is indicating that it was the school resource officer.

If you remember, that's what the guy in Parkland was.

Early reporting is sometimes inaccurate.

Like, sometimes they'll say it's an invasion from Uganda.

And then it'll turn out to be, no, it's just the one shooter.

Okay, so,

you know, I should have learned this because Stu came in, and right when we went on the air today, this was happening.

And I said, You want to talk about irresponsible reporting?

This is real.

CNN had a kid

in a math class away from the shooting in lockdown at that school.

And he said, they started the interview and they said, you're there.

And he said, yes.

Can you hear anything?

No, we haven't heard anything.

We just know that we're in lockdown.

Apparently there's a shooter.

We've all been on social media.

And so we don't have any facts ourselves because we're just locked in here, but we're on social media.

What did the reporter at CNN say?

Do you know how many have been shot or killed?

Yes.

Well, it started with one, but it's up to seven now.

Now, I'm only getting this from social media.

Jeez.

But maybe seven killed so far.

Let's see.

You're talking to a stranger who claims to be a kid in a math class who has said to you, I have no contact at all or information on what's happening.

I can hear nothing.

I'm just scrolling down social media to see what's happening.

And they put that on the air.

I love that because

not their best moment.

I love that.

That's hard to choose.

I know.

Because I mean, they would never, in theory, go on social media and just start reading Twitter posts, tweets about what's going on.

Oh,

this person just says seven people are dead.

However, it's okay to call a person who's completely random and have them read social media

to CNN and put it on the air.

That's completely responsible.

They're just a crazy kid.

They would have gotten away with this plan, too, if it wasn't for those pesky kids.

If this is true, though, I mean, it's a really

encouraging, right?

I mean, you know, the fact you kind of

lose perspective on how

competent probably most of these school resource officers are with this Parkland situation, with the guy standing outside for, you know, 10 minutes.

You know, you've got to remember that, you they tried to use this as a way of disproving the idea of school security being effective.

No, we just had it.

And this is an example of that.

No, there was something in Parkland that was really, really, really wrong.

Really wrong.

I mean, did you see the news that came out this week that the school themselves had said we should institutionalize, that the family had said we should institutionalize.

Nothing was done.

Yeah, I mean, forced institutionalization, where they can at least evaluate him for three days.

And if you do that, it's almost guaranteed he wouldn't be able to buy a gun.

So had they taken that one step where they evaluated him for three days, he would have been ineligible to buy a gun legally.

Could have prevented it.

I mean, there's so many things along the line that could have prevented it.

And, you know, you got to enforce the laws.

You've got to go with what we have, which is why nothing works with immigration either.

We don't enforce the laws we have.

If you just do that, it would be a lot better situation for virtually everything.

Boy, that resource officer today in Maryland, if this is true, and the only one that was killed was the one he shot,

the shooter,

the killer or the attempted killer.

That's just

heroic and gives you faith again that

these guys aren't clowns that are sitting in our schools.

Yeah.

And I think it lends credibility to arming some people in the school, whether that's, you know, retired veterans or retired police officers

or you arm teachers.

Somebody in the school now has guns and a way to put a stop to something.

I don't understand how that's not a good thing.

Is the fear that

if somebody gives a wrong answer in class, the teacher is going to turn on them and shoot them?

Do we have a problem with armed security in banks?

No.

we don't.

That's a thing.

We go to any federal building.

And does your bank feel like a jail cell?

No.

No, it doesn't.

No.

Do we have a problem

when you go to a federal building?

No.

And there's armed security everywhere?

No.

You go to a basketball game or a football game.

There's security as you go into it.

It doesn't feel like a prison.

It feels like, okay, there's a level of protection here

when you're gathering large amounts of random people.

And, you know, I mean, sometimes you're going to do that.

You go to the Super Bowl every single year and they take some extraordinary measures.

Yeah.

Does it ever feel like you're in a prison at the Super Bowl?

No.

No.

I mean, you know, and there it's really extensive, too.

It's much more than you'd ever went to school because it's such a high-profile event that everyone's watching.

But it's like they, I mean, there's huge amounts of security, but still, like, they do a good job.

They don't make it feel like a prison.

Right.

You know, you don't want that to happen.

You don't want to scare kids and make it seem like every time they go around the corner, there could be another gunman, obviously.

But there are, you know, there's reasonable things you can do here.

And certainly, with the amount of nonsense, as Pat has pointed out many times, what's the school in Texas that has two arboretums in it?

Seven lakes.

So, I mean, when we're spending money on multiple arboretums in a school, you probably can direct some of those funds to someone with a weapon that's trained to use it that can protect children.

I mean,

it's going to be a waste in almost every single circumstance.

Almost every one of these guys will do nothing to actually take down a shooter in their entire lives.

And that's great.

But, I mean, why not a little bit of added security?

It's not, it's as long as it's not overwhelming and ridiculous.

We can take it.

I mean, we can make a sensible path to that, I think.

You know, I find it interesting that I knew things were good

in Maryland, that it wasn't a mass killing

when I saw CNN

stop covering it.

Yes.

I mean, why isn't this?

This is still news.

This is still, this plays right into the culture.

More shootings are happening.

Here's another one.

Here's another case.

Why?

Why are they not covering this one wall to wall?

And they got really excited at first and started covering it.

And then they found out, nothing to see here.

Let's go back to Trump bashing.

And they did immediately.

I mean, isn't it a huge, think about this?

You have a debate where both sides, you know, the conservative side has said largely school security is the answer.

The other side side has said gun control is the answer.

Here's one where it appears early on that the school security that was in place stopped an incident that could have been much worse.

If that proves out to be true, that should be a massive, massive story.

All they do is tell us

the guy with a gun has never stopped a mass shooting ever.

I mean, this looks like an example early on, and there have been plenty of other examples, by the way, but this looks like an example.

Right, what, three days before the March for Our Lives or four days before the March for Our Lives?

I mean, is this going to be even noted?

No.

No.

No.

No.

Absolutely not.

No.

I bet you you watch tonight on TV.

I'll bet you if you're watching CNN, they don't really even cover it.

Yeah, brief mention, maybe that it occurred and then it goes away.

But then move on.

There's no round panel talking about, well, now, wait a minute.

These kids were saying guns don't solve the problem, but here's

no round table having that.

There's nobody, there's nobody in a,

there's nobody in Maryland in an arena with cheering parents going, yes,

yes, the officer fixed it.

The officer killed the guy before he killed our children.

Yay!

Not going to happen.

Not going to happen.

Pat Gray Unleashed is the name of his program.

Our adopted son hosts it every single day.

I wonder what he'll say tomorrow.

He's so cute and crazy.

He's adorable.

And unleashed.

Get the podcast as well.

And I just

adorable, yet unpredictable.

You just never know what might happen when that doorbell rings.

Do you want your home sold on time and for the most amount of money without all kinds of excuses?

Of course you do, right?

You just want to sell your house or you just want to buy a house and have it all taken care of and just the people, everybody gets a good deal.

Right?

Isn't that what you want?

i want to get a good deal on a house if i'm buying a house i want the seller to make some money i want the real estate agent to make money i'm fine with that a fair simple deal for everybody just get it done without excuses here's the thing realestate agents i trust.com is going to help you find the buyer or find the house if you're looking to buy or sell

realestate agentsitrust.com are the people that can help you do it for the most amount of money and for a quick turnaround.

Over a thousand agents all over America that are just like you.

Their bond is their word.

They're fans of the show.

They share your sensibilities.

We have vetted them, handpicked them for their knowledge, their skill, and their track record.

These are the best in these areas.

Thousands of families have already put RealEstateAgents ITrust.com to the test, and the results are remarkable.

So go there now, RealEstateAgentsitrust.com.

They've already helped families who are moving from you know one area to another, families who are taking care of their parents remotely, or helping families just get the most for their home as quickly as possible.

It is realestate agents I trust.com.

Moving, realestate agents I trust.com.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn back

Well, welcome to the program.

Glad you're here.

Very excited to

share tomorrow's show with you tomorrow as we're getting ready to vacate.

We're already putting together a really exciting show for you tomorrow.

You don't want to miss.

If you're watching the NCAA tournament, you're probably very familiar with Simmons College, which is a huge, huge, huge college that everyone's familiar with.

But they have a, at their library, they now list six anti-oppression categories of microaggression that I think you should be aware of, Glenn.

I'm sorry, the name of the college again is

Simmons.

Okay, Simmons.

And it's

six anti-oppression categories when it comes to microaggressions: anti-racism, anti-transmesia,

anti-what?

Anti-transmesia.

Is that like,

are you transgendered with amnesia?

That is not.

So like, I can't remember if I started out this way or not.

If you don't know what anti-transmesia is.

Okay, all right.

I'm just wondering.

Anti-ableism.

Anti-Islamesia.

Okay.

Anti-sanism, which I think is against the sane.

And anti-queirmesia.

Queermesia.

Yes.

Okay.

Now, down in the anti-as Islamomesia tab,

students are sternly warned that saying God bless you after a sneeze is to commit the microaggression listed as assumption of one's own religious identity as the norm.

Ah,

what about Mary Christopher?

No, this conveys one's perception that everyone is Christian and believes in God.

At the end, they want to make a note very clear, though.

The term micro is used because this is an invocation of religious hierarchy at the individual level, person to person, whereas the macro level refers to aggression committed by structures as a whole.

Micro in no way minimalizes or otherwise evaluates the impact or seriousness of the aggressions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Just follow those simple rules.

And for those of you who don't know how you started, male or female,

you'll figure it out.

You'll figure it out.

Just

run, Forrest.

Run.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.