'Prove Those Naysayers Wrong' (Bill O'Reilly joins Glenn) - 3/9/18

Love, courage,

truth,

Glenn Beck.

This may be

the hardest

decision of my radio career.

Which stories are going to get on the train today?

We have a trade war that is beginning.

We have gun control that is getting very serious.

We have Trump and Kim Jong-un meeting.

We had a terror attack done by Russia in the UK.

We have South Africa going into full-fledged race wars where they are going to seize the lands of white people

and they are already starting to just slaughter white people.

And we have

Chai Feldblum.

I'm going to start there.

The first,

the first on the train, because it is something that we can actually change.

This is something if you stand up, we'll change.

And if you don't stand up,

we may lose the First Amendment protection on religion.

Which is more important to Americans?

Sexual liberty

or religious liberty?

And do you believe that there needs to be a choice between the two?

Because I don't.

But if we had to choose, I would say traditionally it would be religious liberty

because that's why America was settled in the first place.

That is the cornerstone.

of our Constitution.

But that's my opinion.

But it is definitely not the opinion of Chai Feldblum.

Do not mistake Chai for somebody that will not affect your life.

Do not mistake her for a Starbucks beverage either.

She is a dangerous person that has been

appointed to a very dangerous position.

Trump has appointed her to the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

And we're just now noticing how radical she is.

He appointed her in December.

Chai likes to label herself as a lesbian with a crippling anxiety disorder.

Now,

this was before she mentioned her commission role.

It's telling where her priorities are.

This is a woman who is on the record saying things like, I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.

Sexual liberty should win in most cases.

Quote, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Quote, a law that permits no individual exception based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.

The Republicans are not going to stand against this appointment appointment unless you rise up.

Chai is a government employee who lets her personal private sexual orientation affect every aspect of her professional work.

It is highly unprofessional and not to mention unconstitutional.

Why should one person with a very clear agenda be able to dictate how you run your business?

Because

this

will

change

everything.

Trump has made some really great appointments throughout his presidency so far, but this is not one of them and this must be stopped.

We begin there right now.

It's Friday, March 9th.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Can you imagine, can you imagine what would be said by the Republicans and the Senate if Barack Obama would have appointed somebody to the EEOC?

Now, just so you know,

the EEOC

wields power over property rights, social norms, and discrimination laws.

It holds an unconstitutional, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial power to

Trump up, no, no pun intended, and adjudicate charges against businesses and colleges over quotas and discrimination.

This will change everything.

If you're religious and you believe one thing and it causes you to do, let's say, what Dix is doing.

Taking something that everybody has access to, but Dix has decided that people under 21 should not have the constitutional right.

If it's based in religion,

you will not win.

If it's based in political correctness, you will.

I want you to listen to these full quotes.

When religious orientation,

sorry, when sexual orientation and religious freedom come into conflict, I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.

Sexual liberty should win in most cases.

There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases, the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.

Now, I want you to understand something really clearly.

I have no problem

with homosexuals having all the rights and living and working and everything else.

They're people.

They're people that just live a different way than I do.

What's the big deal?

Let it go, people.

However,

Just like I'm not going to force them to live a certain way, cannot force others to live a certain way.

We have got to, you know, there is no idea.

There is no idea that should be terrifying.

There are no people with ideas that are terrifying.

What terrifies me in today's world are people with ideas that believe that only their idea is the right idea.

Only their idea is the one that should be heard and discussed and is valid.

Those people and that idea scares the hell out of me.

If we want to be a free society, then we must start taking responsibility of our own lives.

We have to stop blaming everyone else for our mistakes.

We have to stop blaming everyone else for our problems.

We need to take responsibility for our own life.

And then on top of it, we must start to tolerate one another.

Quote, just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African Americans in commercial arenas, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, We should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect the ability of LGBT people to live in the world.

For all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and gay couples, The point where I believe the zero-sum nature of the game inevitably comes into play.

And in making the decision in this zero-sum game I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.

Notice she leaves out the unmarried couple here as well.

I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest.

The government has no interest except protecting the rights of all of its citizens.

Government was established to protect those rights.

And when that government becomes

hostile to that purpose, it is the people's right and responsibility to abolish such government.

That's a butchering off the top of my head of the Declaration of Independence.

That's the only reason.

That's the only interest the government has.

But I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be

adequately advanced if pockets of resistance to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs

Let me say that again a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people.

This is the nominee for the EEOC.

I have received messages from people in the Senate who have said, Glenn,

the GOP is not going to stand up

and

we're being crushed.

By the GOP.

We are standing up saying, wait, wait, we would have never accepted anything like this.

It is going to, her nomination is going to go through unless you stand up.

This changes everything.

She has quasi-legislative powers.

She will have quasi-judicial powers where she can adjudicate cases in the EEOC.

If you thought the wedding cake thing was a problem,

you haven't seen anything yet.

The GOP would

be going crazy,

crazy if

this person was appointed, and I would expect it to be appointed from Hillary Clinton, and we would stand up and fight it.

But we're not

because no one wants to stand up against their own party.

It is imperative

for religious liberty for her

to be

stopped.

Please prove those naysayers wrong.

That

under a Hillary administration, the GOP would provide balance and stop crazy things.

But under a GOP administration, they won't stop them.

Prove that wrong.

Stand up and get your senators to say no to this nomination.

Just looking through the Constitution here.

I'm finding the religious liberty part of it, but the sexual liberty, I think, has been deleted from my copy.

No, it's not there.

I just don't see it.

It is not there.

And because sex is mentioned, you can't stop people from voting

by a sex.

You don't.

We're not even talking about LGBT.

We're talking now also, she's including gender identity.

That is, I've decided I feel more like a woman than a man.

Okay, you can say that all you want, but I do not have to conform.

All right.

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

Then

I need you to listen just for a second here.

We have about 1,000 real estate agents all around the country, and they have been hand-selected.

They are people that have a great track record.

They're the best at selling homes in their area.

They all listen to the program.

Their word is their bond.

They're cut from the same cloth as you are.

You need a real estate agent that you know when it comes to selling your house.

I don't know who to get for a real estate agent.

Who do I get?

I don't know.

Realestateagents I trust.com will help you.

If you're looking to sell or to buy real estate agents I trust, go there now, realestate agentsitrust.com.

Sell your home on time and for the most amount of money and the least amount of worry.

Real Estate Agents I Trust.com.

Glenn Back Mercury.

Glenn Back.

This religious liberty thing is, man, go back, please, please, please, please.

Go back and watch today's or this week's, what was it, Tuesday and Wednesday episode of our five o'clock show on theblaze.com.

Theblaze.com/slash TV.

They're on demand right now.

And it's free.

You just, you just, I don't even know.

I think you put in your email address and you can watch it for free and you can watch it for a week.

But watch those two shows, please.

And tell your friends to watch those shows.

Down of how our Bill of Rights is being violated right now and has been violated for the last 20 years at least.

But we've laid out a case, every single one, including including the quartering of soldiers.

We have found two different ways.

And quite honestly, my theory on the Third Amendment, I think, is absolutely correct.

The Third Amendment is the forgotten amendment.

Oh, they're going to quarter soldiers.

Well, why did they, why did they, why is that in there?

That's in there because the king It's followed by the Fourth Amendment.

You're securing your papers, persons, and property.

The king,

and without war, would just come in and say, oh, these soldiers have to live with you.

And their job was to spy on you.

Their job was to look at

all of this and say, what are they doing?

Go through their papers.

So that's the third and fourth.

What is the NSA doing?

Try this one on for size.

This week.

The FBI has been in cahoots with Best Buy's geek squad for the last decade, according to new documents obtained by the Electronic Frontier Foundation via the Freedom of Information Act.

An FBI memo obtained by the nonprofit digital rights group reveals that Best Buy, in September 2008, hosted a meeting of law enforcement agencies and their cyber working group at the Geek Squad repair facility in Kentucky.

The memo indicates that the local FBI division has maintained a close liaison with the Geek Squad's management in an effort to glean initiations and to support the division's computer intrusion and cyber crime programs.

The revelations of the FBI's relationship with Best Buy first surfaced last year

during a prosecution of a California doctor who was charged with

possession of child porn after bringing his computer to Geek Squad for repair.

This is potentially circumventing computer owners' Fourth Amendment rights.

In Wednesday, a statement to PC Magazine, Best Buy, said that four of its Geek Squad employees may have received a payment from the FBI after turning over computers to the FBI.

Now, look,

something's got to be done because of child porn.

Something is being done.

We're doing it legally through OUR.

We are doing everything we can legally.

And we are winning this battle.

If you are going to to say something has to be done every time,

and you don't care

what right is being lost, then we are lost as a nation.

The Third Amendment of Quartering Soldiers, I contend the NSA is using digital soldiers.

The NSA is in every single home in America, going through our papers.

Oh, they're not reading them.

They are spying on every American in this country.

That's the quartering of soldiers, and that's the least of your worries.

Every single amendment in the first 10 amendments are currently being violated.

And it's why we have such chaos.

Because we have made politics and politicians our God.

These rights,

these rights are what make you human.

How is it that Kim Jong-il can get away with what he does, Kim Jong-un, how can he do this?

Because the state tells you who's human and not, has rights.

How's China doing this?

Because the state doesn't recognize human rights.

It's what makes you human.

I have certain rights that are inalienable.

No one can take these away because I'm human.

They're all being lost right now.

And they're all being lost under the guise, we've got to do something.

We do have to do things.

We do have to improve.

We do have to make sure that everyone, everyone has the right to live and be who they are.

But not at the expense of other rights.

Call your senator today.

Call them today

and stop this nomination.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

When you think about what led to the rise of Hitler in the Nazis or the Soviet Union in Stalin or Mao in China, it's easy to look back and wonder: how did people fall in line?

How did this all happen?

It's kind of like we were talking about yesterday with the Netflix show, the push.

How do you get somebody to murder

an innocent person in cold blood in 90 minutes?

You have to start small.

There's no way any of this could happen today,

It's happening in South Africa.

What's going on currently in South Africa mirrors the rise of every fascistic or Marxist totalitarian in the last 100 years to the letter.

Last week, the South African parliament voted to confiscate land from the white farmers without compensation.

The time for reconciliation is over.

White farmers are about to have their property forcefully seized by government, rapidly headed towards racism, bigotry, and a race war.

What is happening in South Africa should chill every person on earth to the bone.

Much like the violent and anti-Semitic rhetoric from the German Workers' Party back in the early 20s, No one in South Africa over the past decade took the issue of land redistribution from white people seriously.

And then a man named Julius Melma began proposing it around 2011.

But back then, he was just a thug.

People thought

he was just a racist thug.

In 2010, he was kicked out of his political party.

He was indicted in court for inciting violence towards white people.

One particular political rally he attended, he led the masses gathered in the streets in a song called Kill the White Man.

He spent some time in jail to cool off.

Except

he formulated a kind of a manifesto while he was in jail.

Gee, I wonder if that's ever happened before.

He took all of this and created his own political party called the Economic Freedom Fighters.

Now, he's a Marxist.

It's a Leninist Marxist group that advocates black nationalism.

Nationalism is fine.

You might think there is

no way something like this could go mainstream.

It is now the third largest political party in South Africa.

Their political

pull has grown so much that they were able to convince the entire parliament that we, quote, have to do something.

And they did.

They did that something that every one of them scoffed at just seven years ago.

They're going down the road of Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe

said, Well, if the white settlers came here a couple hundred years ago and they just took the land from the black people, then we have the right to do that as well.

Now let's see how it worked out quickly for Zimbabwe.

In 1997, before the seizures began, Zimbabwe's economy was one of the strongest in Africa.

It was the breadbasket of Africa.

Today, after the bloodshed, the horror, and the theft,

it now relies on the international community for food for one quarter of the population.

Zimbabwe consistently now has unemployment rates over 90%.

The Zimbabwean government

is considering retroactively compensating the white farmers with $11 billion.

Several years after the farm seizures in 2000, Zimbabwe's economy is in ruins.

The agricultural output is an absolute disaster.

And now the new

Zimbabwean black farmer and farm owners are quietly reaching out to the white farmers who they didn't kill, but just threw off their land and saying, can we partner?

zimbabwe seized 35 million acres of white owned land but here's the thing

as all marxist leninist revolutions do

they didn't give that land to the people

they instead gave that land because it was a rightful inheritance of the black man to have that land

instead mugabe gave 40% of those 35 million acres to loyal cabinet ministers, senior army and government officials and judges.

Oh, and he also took 6,500 acres himself.

Seizing land and demonizing a select group of people, white, black,

straight, gay,

Christian, Muslim, it doesn't matter.

It is the playbook to power for fascist and radical leftists for decades.

Horror and slaughter always follow.

After Mao seized the farmland, he went on a mass killing spree because his starving people had to resort to cutting flesh off their own inner thighs and feeding it to their children.

One of Mao's greatest admirers, maybe your kids have one of the t-shirts with his face on it, Che,

marveled at the way land redistribution led to the furthering of social justice.

Che's social justice to Cuban farmers ended up with them staring down the barrels of a firing squad.

This is the direction that South Africa is going.

On Sunday, the new president of South Africa

voiced his plans and he said,

We're going to be disposing of the white politicians.

Quote, we are starting with this whiteness.

We are cutting the throat out of whiteness.

Meanwhile, crimes against the white farm owners all across South Africa are getting worse and worse.

On March 10th, 2017, a 64-year-old woman on a remote farm was assaulted during a six-hour long attack.

She was burnt with an iron, and a bag was pulled over her head in an attempt to try to smother her.

Her feet were impaled with an electric drill, and the attackers threatened to cut off her legs with a grinding machine.

In May 2016, a 68-year-old man was cruelly tortured with a towel that was pushed down his throat, and a piece of wire was wrapped around his neck to strangle him.

He died during the attack.

Boy, this sounds like the 1950s in America.

Good, they deserve it.

Is that

what this leads to?

In June 2016, a couple on a remote farm in northern South Africa was burnt with irons during an attack.

Robert Lynn, 66,

his wife Sue, 64, attacked on their farm 2 o'clock in the morning, February 19th, this last February.

Robert was tortured with a knife on his back and his legs, and he was burnt on his feet, his legs, his stomach with a blowtorch.

The attackers left Robert in a field and Sue was found next to the road where she was still alive with a plastic bag bound over her head.

She later died in the hospital.

I just got a note from a friend who said, Down the street where he lives,

a 68-year-old farmer, a white guy,

a mob came to his house.

They dismembered him with his wife watching from a window in the house in horror.

No help was coming.

They had bars on the doors and the windows, and she barricaded barricaded herself in, and the mob surrounded her house and burnt it down to the ground with her inside.

Boy, that sounds like Poland.

No matter where you are in South Africa,

you're in Iraq.

No matter where you are,

if you see your country going down these dark paths, you've got to stand.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a man who saw his own country deteriorate into evil and hate,

said it best.

Silence in the face of evil

is evil itself.

God is not going to hold us guiltless.

Not to speak is to speak.

Not to act

is to act.

I ask you again today, I'm sorry to bring all this to you on a this is just that's in front of me, the news today, and we're trying to get to all of it and make sense of it.

And there's just some really pressing things today.

Gotta call your senator.

Got to call your senator and stop this nomination

for the EEOC.

This is going to change religious liberty and the First Amendment.

It's dangerous.

Please pray for those in South Africa and all around the world

and learn the meaning and the value of our Bill of Rights.

Simply Safe is the home security company that I highly recommend.

I like these people.

I've watched them transform from a group of 10 people to now the fastest growing home security company in the nation.

They're now protecting over 2 million people.

Why?

Because their system is really good.

It is inexpensive and there's no hype to it at all.

It's just the real deal.

The system has been completely now rebuilt and redesigned.

They've just launched their new product.

It's unbelievable.

They've added safeguards to protect against power outages and down Wi-Fi and cut landlines.

They've tried to destroy it and they and it just holds up.

It just keeps going.

The all-new Simply Safe, redesigned to be practically invisible.

It's really small, but really powerful sensors

that

they capture everything, including if somebody's coming in and breaks a window or something, it starts the video and you now have who that is.

So when the police are called by the system and they arrive, if that person was scared off by the siren, they know exactly who it was.

They have photos.

Now, what's really remarkable with all this redesign and the years that it took to work on this new system, and I know because I saw it three years ago, and it's not what it is now.

They just kept working and working and working.

The amazing thing is all of that R ⁇ D that went into it, it's a still great, fair, and honest price.

And 24/7 protection is only $15 a month.

No contract, smaller, faster, stronger than anything they've built before, and you're in control of your own life.

SimplySafeBeck.com.

Go there now to order that simply safebeck.com and protect your family.

The simple, easy,

and efficient way.

SimplySafeBeck.com

Glenn back Mercury.

Glenn back.

Run, run, when you hear somebody say something's got to be done.

Run.

I'm really concerned

that the GOP is not going to stand up against anything

that

is proposed because we don't want to rock the boat.

We've got to stand for some principles, and one of those is trade.

This trade deal, I'm sorry, but Mr.

President, please talk to some of the advisors and

the thousands, hundreds of thousands of economists that can show you that

trade wars are not easy to win and it's not a good idea because it hurts the average person.

And I understand how the average person, I mean, look, you're an average person who has not had a raise, you're not feeling the recovery, and you feel like China is screwing us, Mexico is screwing, all these people are screwing us, and you want something done.

Okay, well, we have to understand a couple of things.

First of all, most of the jobs in the steel industry are not being taken overseas.

They're being replaced by robotics.

And that is something that we all have to deal with.

And that's why I've been so big on AI and robotics, because you have to understand millions of jobs are going to be lost.

And

first, the politicians will point overseas, but that will be a lie.

The second is they will start to point to Silicon Valley and they will say the robotics people are taking your job.

Well, what are you going to do?

You're going to stop progress?

Some will say yes.

Some will say yes.

And I understand how frightening this is and how people are struggling.

But what is being said

about the steel industry is not true.

It is a power grab.

When somebody says this is a national security interest,

believe me,

I've read the history of World War II.

If we didn't have the steel industry that we had, if we didn't have the manufacturing might and the

cheap energy that we had, we would all be speaking German today.

So I understand that.

We have to have a steel industry.

And I have thought about this years ago when we were losing our steel industry.

But our steel industry went down and then recovered.

Now it's never recovered the way it was.

It never will.

But right now, 70-some percent, what is the exact number?

Do you know?

72.5%.

Okay, so we only import

about 25% steel.

75% of our steel is made here in America.

Yeah, we're the fourth largest steel production country in the world.

And even if you go back to the old days, we were second.

And jobs are being lost because it used to take, I don't remember the exact number, 20 men to make a ton of steel.

It now takes less than 10.

It's like four or five, isn't it?

Yeah.

It's really, you know, it's remarkable.

It's

because production is going up, job numbers are going down.

That's what we're going to face in all of our industries because technology is changing.

The Pentagon has come out and said, look,

out of all the American steel made in a year, we meet all the needs that we have with only using 3% of that steel.

That's from Mattis, by the way.

Yeah.

This is a power grab to get around Congress and the Senate.

The Senate and the GOP has got to stand up for principles and constitutional powers.

Glenn back.

Mercury.

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn back.

So, in a bizarre development, President Trump has agreed to meet with Kim Jong-un.

You did hear that right.

Apparently, it's not a joke, and I hope the president brings a taste tester with him.

South Korean officials were at the White House to brief top administration officials about South Korea's recent talks in North Korea.

And according to the South Korean officials, Trump agreed to meet.

Kim Jong-un said that he would halt nuclear test and move towards taking all of the nukes out of his country.

They also said Kim Jong-un understood that joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises will continue as planned.

South Korean national security advisor announced the future meeting in a brief statement at the White House.

He said, Kim Jong-un

expressed eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible.

The White House said, we don't have a meeting scheduled yet, but it soon will be.

A report earlier yesterday said a letter delivered by the South Koreans to President Trump contained Kim Jong-un's message about getting rid of all of his nukes and wanting to meet with the president.

A senior administration official later told reporters that Kim's message was verbally delivered by the South Korean officials during their Oval Office briefing with Trump.

The same senior official tried to downplay the proposed meeting, saying, What we're talking about is an invitation by the leader of North Korea to meet face to face with the president of the United States.

The president has accepted that invitation.

In the meantime, the status of current sanctions and pressure remain unchanged.

Trump said he thinks the North Koreans are sincere in their desire to meet.

He credited our very strong, very, very strong sanctions and increased Chinese pressure.

CNN was right that if he pulls this off, he will be remembered just for this alone as a great president.

However, in today's world, upside-down world, I expect the Nobel Peace Prize to go to Kim Jong-un

and not Donald Trump if it were achieved.

But we've got a long way to go.

No sitting U.S.

president has ever met with a leader of North Korea.

Former President Jimmy Carter did visit North Korea in 1994 and then hugged it out with Kim Il-sung.

North Korea hinted around about freezing their nuclear weapons program back at that time as well.

That was 24 years ago.

Unfortunately, the most likely thing here is that the more things change, the more they stay the same in North Korea.

It's Friday, March 9th.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com is joining us now.

Bill,

first of all, you can't say anything but good things about this development.

I mean, it is because the president was so strong on North Korea that we've at least brought them to the table.

But what do you make of this?

Beck,

you can't say anything bad about it?

Well, what's MSNBC been doing all morning?

They say that this is a farce and it's just to deflect their words away from stormy Daniel.

Okay, so hang on just a second.

I don't want to talk about it.

I don't care.

I'm going to play you.

I don't care about MSNBC.

No, no, no, but it's a bigger deal and you should care because this goes to the heart of information flow.

Not everybody listens to Glenn Beck.

Almost everybody.

And me, Bill O'Reilly.

Almost everybody does.

But not everybody.

Well, I understand.

I understand that.

But here's the thing.

On this particular issue,

you know, I've had people write to me.

I've had family members write to me and say, what does this mean?

What does this really mean?

And I'd like to, I don't care about MSNBC.

Here's, I know you don't care, and you're right not to care, but it's bigger than them.

Okay, all right.

Because you have to understand something.

They don't do stuff in a vacuum.

I know.

I know.

I know.

All right.

They're not ordered to do it, but every morning, and your audience should know this, every single morning, there is a fact sent out to all the left-wing loons in the media.

All right?

And the fact says, here are our talking points today.

Bing, bing, bing, bing, bing.

Alright?

And then you can see it

on television.

There's very few left-wingers on the radio, so you don't hear it a lot on the radio.

All right, what does this mean?

So

the key thing here is the Chinese whispered into the ear of Kim Jong-un

that you better knock it off because it's bad for business, our business, Chinese business.

Okay?

The whole thing that you're doing here, trying to be a provocateur, trying to cause trouble, is hurting our business.

And our business is not that good right now.

So communist China, their economy is not that great.

They're not making China great again at this point.

They're not doing it because it's a billion and a half people, most of whom don't have electricity.

And they get a little teed off about it over there in China.

So China needs a robust, word of the day,

trade

with the United States.

They don't care about Vietnam.

They don't care about the other countries.

They need robust trade with the USA to send us all the stuff they make.

Trump is basically saying, look, you see this little steel boycott we're putting up here?

This is just a signal to you guys.

Pretty soon we're going to have a t-shirt and hat boycott.

It means we're not going to take your stuff.

All right?

That's why this this is happening, Beck.

It's a trade, all of this is tied into making China force this nut in North Korea to knock it off.

So do you believe that the trade war will be called off?

Yes, I do.

I don't even think it was ever going to be a trade war.

All right.

That Trump basically and his crew said, we're going to rattle some sabers.

We'll rattle some sabers.

So Billow

will say we're going to do this, and then everybody will collapse and we'll get better parade deals, and then I'll look good.

And that's what happened.

So when will this trade war,

when will we be able to declare victory and see that turn around?

What would be the first time?

I've got to give it a little time.

The North Korean thing is just to start.

I assume they're going to meet on Chinese soil, Beck.

All right?

Yeah.

I assume that's what they'll do.

They'll meet on Chinese soil.

And

when that happens, when the announcement is, well, we're going to meet here at this place, then you'll know O'Reilly was 100%

right about everything he said on March 9th.

That will be your signal.

Even Stu will get it, okay?

Wow.

Wow.

That's great.

Meeting in China.

So

here's the important parts of this, I think.

First of all, I don't believe that Kim Jong-un is going to denuclearize North Korea.

I think that

North Korea, as always, it will use this to their advantage.

This is a giant PR move from them.

The president of the United States coming to meet with North Korea, that's a huge win for Kim Jong-un.

He's now at the table with the president.

And I'm not,

you know, I don't really care about looks, quite honestly.

If we we can get things done, I don't care.

You know, we asked people to stop calling.

We asked people to turn off their cell phones.

I'm sorry.

I have so much communication.

That was a call from Beijing, by the way.

All right, okay.

So

he's going to use this as propaganda.

He's been on this propaganda campaign since

the Olympics.

And so I don't think we're actually going to get anything.

We have to just, we got to try it.

And I applaud President Trump for getting this part, getting this far.

I'm pretty sure he's not naive on what this, you know, what North Korea is and what they're going to do.

No, no, no, no.

Number one,

North Korea's got to behave for six months.

All right.

That's number one.

Again, they can't fire any missiles.

They can't.

They've got to behave.

All right.

Number two, Trump's already won.

It's already a victory for Trump.

Yes.

Because the headline in most of the media, but that will quickly change because of what I said in the beginning of this conversation.

It's going to quickly change.

So Trump's already won.

You know, he looks like, okay, I'm a hard-ass, sorry, I'm a hard guy.

And they're folding.

Yes.

The North Koreans, look, that's how the administration's spinning it.

If you want to watch Trump spin, you go to Fox News.

And what they're spinning on Fox, not the anchors, anchors, but the guests, is, see, we told you, Trump's such a hard guy that Kim has to come to the table.

That's the spin coming out of the administration.

So Trump's already won.

He's a tough guy.

Agree.

I agree.

And so

most of this stuff that happens, not only in the Trump administration, but the Obama administration, every administration,

with the exception of Bush the Younger, fascinating.

He never even bothered to play these games, Bush the Younger,

is perception, but it's not reality.

So we don't know what Kim Jong-un are going to do, but you're right.

We have to assume he's not going to do anything.

He's going to continue to develop whatever he wants to develop over there rather than trying to feed his people.

He's got big problems, Beck.

I mean, he doesn't have anything to eat over there.

I know, I know, I know.

If the Chinese decide to actively undermine him, which I'm sure was the threat,

the Chinese secret police

actively undermine him, you know, his head will be on a stick in two months.

So that's what's going on.

So

let me kind of switch gears and go to trade because you're tying this into trade.

Yes.

And

I think there's a good chance that you're right on that.

However, it's a tremendous chance.

It's 100%, right, though.

It's 100%.

Yeah.

So I think there is a good chance that that is tied into this.

However,

trade wars are very bad.

The strong arm threats,

okay,

maybe.

but you got to remember Smoot Holly.

I mean, every time this is tried, it fails miserably, hurts the average worker, hurts the economy.

All around the world,

it can cause just, just wreaks havoc.

If it's a threat, that's one thing.

And if he is threatening these things and saying, well, you got to come to the table,

okay,

that's one way to deal with it, and you can respect that.

However,

you seem to believe that these are not going to go through.

Okay, first of all, Smoot Harley is one of my favorite country singers.

I'm going to see his show this summer.

Right.

Guy is just off the chart.

Right.

Second of all, all right, two guys, two guys.

Yes.

This is so ridiculous.

Trump follows a playbook.

A hundred percent of his re-election potential

lies with jobs and increasing wages for American workers.

100%.

He will not be re-elected unless that is

really going

up.

So, a trade war, that's not going to happen.

What's going to happen is a bunch of little, I'm going to do this, you're not going to ship this, I'm going to do that, but in in the end, it's going to stay the same.

However, he'll come up with a couple of deals.

NAFTA be renegotiated.

He'll get a better deal with Sweden.

We'll get more

reindeer hides, a cheaper price.

I don't know.

He'll make a bunch of little deals.

He'll go, wow, look at the deal I made.

I'm the greatest deal maker.

But there's not going to be any trade war back because he can't get re-elected unless all the calendars of the economy are buzzing.

Why do the people around him, him, including his economic advisor, walk this week and say, I can't be a part of this?

Is he not telling.

Now, that's an excellent question.

All right, so.

Okay, so then wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, wait, wait, wait.

Okay.

Let me bask in that for a second, take a break.

Let's just leave it with Bill O'Reilly saying, that's excellent.

That's an excellent question.

We're going to take a quick break and then we'll come back with his mediocre answer.

Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com.

Can you imagine taking a car on a 100-day test drive or getting a pair of new shoes and having 100 days to walk around and see how comfortable they are?

That's what Casper is doing with their mattress, the 100 nights to test a Casper mattress in your own home with their 100-night sleep challenge.

100 nights.

I will tell you, I had this mattress in my home.

The first night or two I slept on it, I was like, I would not have picked it out in a store.

I wouldn't have picked it out in a store.

I was like, I don't know.

I don't know.

Within a week, I I was sleeping like a baby.

Love it.

Casper knows that, you know, you can go to a store and you can try it out with your clothes on and your shoes and roll around on 10 different mattresses and it's not going to tell you anything.

The best way to do it is to have it and actually sleep on it for 100 nights.

It ships free right to your door.

If you don't love it, I mean,

you know, I'm not sure.

Don't, if you don't love it, return it.

And they come and pick it up and they do all of the work and they refund every single dime.

When the choice is to test a mattress by sleeping on it for a hundred nights in your own home or flop around on a few mattresses in a store, I think it's pretty easy.

Take the 100-night sleep challenge.

100 nights right now, casper.com.

Use the promo code Beck.

Promo code Beck at casper.com.

That'll save you 50 bucks on select mattresses.

Casper.com.

Promo code Beck.

Terms and conditions to apply.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn Beck.

Bill O'Reilly.

Yes, Beck.

It was a great question, wasn't it?

It was.

And I have to say, I don't know why Cohn left.

But it wasn't solely over a tariff threat.

I mean, maybe he wanted to make more money.

I have no idea.

I really don't know.

But I do know Donald Trump.

And what happens with him as a person is very instructive to all of personnel decisions.

Trump has a very short concentration span.

Now, that can be good in the sense that he doesn't waste a lot of time like Barack Obama did in endless meetings that go nowhere.

But he tires of things and folks, too.

He gets tired of it.

And then he kind of loses interest.

And a lot of times when personnel personnel decisions are made, he's kind of lost interest in the person.

Here's a good example.

I mean, I have said for months that Jeff Sessions is going to be out as Attorney General, okay?

Because Trump just lost interest in him when he recused himself in the Russian investigation.

He was no longer useful to Trump.

That makes sense?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

But now Sessions went out to California and laid down the gauntlet on Sanctuary City.

So Trump is re-engaged with Sessions.

And then the next day, Senches says, you know what, I may appoint a special counsel to look into the dossier Pfizer stuff.

Aha!

Now Trump likes him.

So this is the way things go.

And you ever know a guy like Garren Cohen, economic advisor, there are millions of other things.

I'm reading a headline in my hometown newspaper, Newsday, on Long Island.

Trump misstep on world trade.

Tariffs risk a massive loss of U.S.

jobs.

This is the headline.

These morons who run this newspaper don't know anything.

Trump would never risk a, quote, massive loss of U.S.

jobs for anything.

Wait, wait, wait, wait.

Unless he believes it, everything in his life has

led people to believe that he believes it.

The one thing that I think he truly believes in because it's been consistent his entire life is he believes in trade barriers and trade wars.

No, but you're wrong.

You're reading it wrong.

He doesn't believe in that.

He doesn't care about that.

He believes in nationalism.

Nationalism.

Which is not necessary.

So

if he thinks that his bluster about tariffs is going to create jobs in the steel and aluminum industries, which he does believe, then he's going to do it.

But it won't.

But okay, maybe it won't.

And if it doesn't, number one, I don't even think we're going to get there because I think he's he's going to make his little deals and declare victory.

Okay.

That'd be great.

That'd be great.

You know, look, if you think that Donald Trump studied the tariff situation prior to the Civil War of this United States and then made decisions based on how tariffs have worked

over the country's existence, you're crazy.

Yeah, no, I don't believe that.

I don't believe that.

You know, he doesn't.

He's a gut fighter.

All right?

His gut tells him.

And that's why he's doing it.

But as soon as it doesn't work, then he pulls it back.

Would Bill O'Reilly have had

Nunberg on this week?

No.

You know, and I said on BillO'Reilly.com that it was a tough decision.

And I said, you know, I might have had him on if I had him on first.

All right, that was my analysis.

If they offered me Nunberg first and he hadn't been on the other cable shows, sure, I'd take him.

And you would have taken him as well, right?

Yes.

But as soon as I saw that he was inebriated or whatever he was, then I wouldn't do it.

And I think you would have made the same decision, correct?

Yes.

Yeah, the first time you would take it,

but by the time he had done three shows in your building, I mean, you know, geez, Bill, I know where the bar is across from CNN.

Yeah, you spent enough time in it.

Right.

And he spent time there.

And so is everybody else at CNN.

So, you know, you eventually say, wait, there's nothing.

We're watching a guy just destroy himself.

He's, by the way, testifying today.

What do you want to be a part of?

But I just loved Aaron Burnett.

Aaron Bay.

You know, I think I smell alcohol in your breath.

Oh, you know, are you drunk?

But she didn't go, Are you drunk?

Are you inebriated here?

I think I smell alcohol in your breath.

You know, it's such a mealy mouth.

You know, just say what you want, madam.

Will you?

You think he's drunk?

Tell the audience he's drunk.

It's your program, your responsibility to do it.

Bill O'Reilly from BillO'relly.com.

More in a minute.

Glenn back.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Let's go back to Bill O'Reilly.

Bill, I don't know.

There's a nomination now for the EEOC

chair that

happened in December and nobody is paying attention to, and the Senate is not standing against this.

It's

a radical LGBT activist that the president has appointed, and the Senate may approve.

And we just went through

some of her statements, and I always want to give you a couple of these and get your comments.

When it comes to sexual orientation and religious freedom, when they come into conflict, she has said, quote, I am having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.

Sexual liberty should win in most cases.

There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases, sexual liberty should win because that's the only way the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.

She said, we simply should not tolerate any private beliefs about sexual orientation and

gender identity.

that adversely affect the ability of LGBT people to live in the world.

I have all the sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and gay couples.

But this is a point where I believe there is zero-sum nature in the game of

inevitability.

Making a decision in this zero-sum game, I am convinced society needs to come down on protecting the liberty of LGBT people.

We need a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs.

So

that means that any kind of

access to

anyone's business has to be accepted by

every person in the United States.

Well, you know, it's fascism,

what it is.

But here's the big picture on this.

And I know you didn't see this, because if you had, you would have mentioned it right off the top.

This week on BillO'Reilly.com, we did an investigative report.

And the investigation that we did was on the leaders of the women's march movement.

I did see.

That is tied in very heavily with what you just said.

Yes.

The LGBTs.

Okay?

The three top leaders of the women's march movement.

Guess who their best friend is, Beck?

Louis Farrakhan.

You bet.

Did you do this earlier this week?

Yes.

Okay, good.

I'm glad.

Thank God there's somebody in this country on this.

So

you've got this women's march, women's movement, Me Too, Time's Up, all of this stuff.

And they're presenting themselves

as women empowerment.

And this woman, this EEOC

chair, proposed chair, is presenting herself as

alternative lifestyle empowerment.

So

we want freedom for these people, these oppressed women, these oppressed gays, whatever it may be.

It's what we want.

That's the presentation that the media has put forth to the American people.

It's not true.

These are pressure organizations designed to tear down

the traditional fabric of America.

So how can you justify if you're the leader of the women's March Movement, which came out of that march right after Trump was inaugurated?

It's now an organization,

Women's March Movement.

If you're posing for pictures with the most vicious anti-Semite in the country, what does that say

about the Women's March Movement's tolerance of Jewish Americans or Jews all over the world?

What does it say?

It says they're not worthy of tolerance, does it not?

So the Jews are not worthy of tolerance.

Because Louis Farrakhan can go out and say, the Jews are the worst people on earth.

I mean, he actually says we want to kill white people.

Well, whites are devils.

And it's not that those three were just

having their picture taken.

They were at the latest meeting where he was giving his speech.

They were sitting there in the front.

And after the speech, they posted pictures and put it on their Facebook account.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay?

So there's no tolerance for white people or Jewish people.

All right.

But there's this giant tolerance for women, but not all women.

If you're a pro-life woman, you can't march with them.

So this is just another example of this stealth fascism,

all right, that has been misrepresented to the American people by the New York Times and the Washington Post.

You see this in their newspapers, okay?

They know what's going on.

How could you not know?

It's on Facebook.

They're proud of it.

So this is the stuff that drives me nuts.

And I want everybody to go to billorilly.com.

We've got my commentary posted, all the facts, pictures of these women, what these women have said.

So don't give me any of this.

I want freedom for this group, and this freedom should override everybody else's religious rights.

They'd destroy religion if they could, Beck.

You know that.

That's one of the big tenets of the radical left.

So religion out.

So

here was the fear of

some people

that were conservative on Donald Trump.

The fear was that

he would do some things like civil asset forfeiture, which just happened with Jeff Sessions in an amazing press conference

and violate the Constitution, that he would appoint people like this person.

Her name is Chai Feldblum.

She's a radical LGBT activist

being appointed to the chair of the EEOC, and the Republicans are not standing up in the Senate.

There's a few, but they're using their body to block it, but there's no one coming to the rescue, and nobody is standing up against this anymore.

Because they're afraid.

They're afraid because they're going to be demonized in all the left-wing media if they do, if they oppose.

But if they don't oppose, it is the First Amendment.

It's the First Amendment.

Yeah, but I don't think this woman will get through, by the way.

I do.

If the people don't stand up, they will.

I mean, look, Donald Trump listens to the voters and the Senate, they're nothing but spineless worms,

with few exceptions.

And

if the people stand up, they will reject her.

There's no place for the conservatives to go

in the Senate.

If you're a GOP, you would never, you would have been ringing the bell like crazy if Obama would have done this.

We would have been crazy.

So the minute people find out about this, they'll stand up and the GOP will fold.

But if the people don't know about this and don't stand up, she'll go right through.

Well, it's a good point because they're not getting any, I didn't even know it, but you know about it.

I know.

All right.

I mean, I'm doing other stuff.

I know about everything.

I just found out about it yesterday.

The way to sell this, if you're going to try to sell it,

is in a bigger area not just this woman okay that look religion's under siege this this is what you know the jewish religion is attacked every day by lewis farrakhan all right the jewish religion

and the ones that are helping him are in charge of the women's radical movement now And they don't say they're radicals.

They just say, oh, the women's movement.

Here we are.

And we tied it in to the Me Too stuff.

They're buddies with the women's march movement.

They're pals.

They appeared on the View together.

And they're running the gun thing for the students.

Right.

They're involved in everything.

And if you oppose them,

believe me, you're going to be accused of misconduct.

Believe me.

And that's why the politicians don't.

Because they know if you come out and you oppose the women's groups and they come after you

and what happens just the allegations of conviction right

that's why they have obtained tremendous power over the last year

because men are scared to death

about any of this stuff and that's why you're not seeing opposition publicly against this woman you mentioned

Bill O'Reilly thanks for all of your hard work Thanks for standing and speaking out.

And thanks for that.

Brilliance.

Do we hear the word brilliance?

Yeah, when you mentioned it about my questions.

Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

I will say, Bill, I'm a tad concerned about that you may be a little congested.

Do you have the sniffles right now?

I was down in Florida, and they have the worst allergy season there ever, and I got little allergies.

Oh, okay.

But unlike Beck, I don't stay home in my jammies.

I'm here, and I'm working on it.

I'm going to do your show every day from your home.

I know.

No, no, no.

We're in the studio sometimes.

You guys got to look.

I want you guys to make it a mission this weekend to go to billorilly.com.

We have so much good stuff and breaking stuff to see.

I've seen it, Bill.

I've seen it.

I do watch.

I'm a subscriber.

I don't think you're a subscriber of mine, but I'm a subscriber.

No, no, no.

I have somebody watching you all the time, Beck.

Yeah, no,

probably on a free ride.

Probably on a free ride.

That's probably what it is.

Coming out of Bill O'Reilly's bank account.

Bill, God bless.

Thanks, man.

Have a good weekend.

Thanks for having me in, guys.

Have a good weekend.

Bill O'Reilly from BillO'relly.com.

You hiring?

Looking for somebody great?

And how do you find him?

How do you find him?

I mean, you can go up and then you just hope that the right person sees it.

I've been trying to replace Stu for how how long, Stu?

A long time.

89?

I mean, I mean, 99?

Something like that.

Yeah, I think so.

You really should try ZipRecruiter for that.

Because you should actually find somebody qualified for the job.

Really?

Which is very, I mean, they could.

Yeah, but I got to just post it and I got to post to 100 different sites.

No, no, no.

They'll do it all at once for you.

And actually, their interface is going to get you people who are the most qualified quickly.

Most people get a job applicant within like a day or two.

Really?

Are a qualified job applicant right away?

Yeah, but what if the people that are, you know, that are really qualified?

Somebody who's, you know,

somebody's worked, you know, somebody who actually deserved their job.

Well, you don't really need that in this situation.

You really just need somebody mediocre, right?

But you know, you could definitely sign a little higher.

You could, and you could get that from ZipRecruiter.

And I really want to leave.

So you should do this immediately.

So here's the thing.

ZipRecruiter actually goes out and finds the people.

They learn what you're looking for, and then they go out and find it.

And then just so you don't miss it, when they come in, they highlight all of the people that they're like, like, This is exceptional.

This person is far better than Stu.

And they're on life support.

Anyway, 80% of employers do find the right person within the first day.

I do qualify candidates.

80% the first day, ZipRecruiter.

They're going to find a great match.

Try it for free right now.

ziprecruiter.com/slash back.

That's ziprecruiter.com/slash back.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

Glenn back.

Welcome back to the program.

Still a ton to talk about.

But before we move on,

just a question about North Korea that I think is important because I think they're going through a...

I think we have to be really careful, and I applaud the president for the way he's handled North Korea, and this could be a very big win, but they are on a publicity tour right now, and they're trying to polish up their interest.

And

the president going to meet with Kim Jong-un is a very big deal for Kim.

Yeah, it's true.

And I thought about this as we were discussing, you know, because I had the same reaction, the same reaction of, wow, great.

I mean, look, I am very skeptical whether we're actually going to solve anything here, but hey, great.

We've got a chance to solve it.

And why not take that chance?

Right.

And I caught myself as I was saying that in my head and reminded myself about a CNN debate in 2008 in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were debating.

And Barack Obama brought up the point that he would go and meet with dictators because why not negotiate?

Why not take a chance?

We don't know if we'll get anything, but why not take a chance?

And he was absolutely destroyed for suggesting it by not only Hillary Clinton, but also conservatives.

Right.

I think there's a difference, though, between that.

And I could be wrong.

Maybe I'm just, you know, maybe I'm just fooling myself.

But I think there's a difference.

When he was talking about that, he was talking about North Korea, but it wasn't at a critical point.

He was talking about Iran, who we're not negotiating with Iran.

And he talked about Cuba.

Why would we sit down with Cuba?

There's nothing to negotiate here.

No.

So he was giving, it was almost as if he was giving away power

and

he was trying to prop these nations up.

That's different than North Korea.

Yeah, because the criticism was, don't elevate these guys.

Correct.

And I don't think that there is a, I mean, I'm willing to say that it's possible that my old opinion is the wrong one here.

Like, I think it's possible that maybe I gave Barack Obama too hard a time on that point in retrospect.

I don't think so.

I think it's possible because, again, why

if I, what I'm saying with Trump is,

look, take a shot at it.

If you're going to meet with a guy, take a shot at it, see what happens.

If, you know, maybe he does get a propaganda win out of it, but whatever.

Right.

And I think the same thing.

Now, I might, you might say, well, I think Barack Obama would fail and Trump will succeed.

And that's a fair point.

However, that was not the criticism at the time.

It was not that Barack Obama can't do this.

It was no president should ever meet with one of these guys because it elevates these hermit kingdoms into first world nations.

It gives them a propaganda win.

It tells his people who are slaves that their leader is so great he can demand the attention of the United States and have them begging at his family.

I think that's a real problem inside North Korea.

I think the difference here is

North Korea, we are at a critical position.

We're at a critical juncture here.

That

the,

you know, this is a crazy hermit kingdom that has nuclear weapons.

Now, I don't believe they're ever going to, they'll lie.

I don't believe that.

But if there is a chance to de-escalate and denuclearize, I don't mind if the president goes to meet with them.

I don't like it.

They were testing weapons back then, too.

I know, I know, I know.

And it was just, I mean, Iran was just as clear

then as it is now.

I don't believe them, and I would never put the president in a room with Kim Jong-un until it was absolutely done and verified.

But

I mean,

what are you going to do?

Glenn, back.

Mercury.

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn, back.

Okay, I'm going to tell you the truth on something, but you're not going to hear this from the media, and you're not going to hear this from governments because

what are you going to do about it?

But I want you to understand clearly what has happened in England this week.

There was a chemical weapon unleashed in London this week.

21 people were hospitalized after being exposed to an unspecified nerve agent.

That's like VX gas.

Three of the victims are still in the hospital.

Two are still in critical condition, and one, a police officer, is expected to pull through.

One of the victims in critical condition reveals what this attack was all about and who may be responsible.

But let me back up a bit.

At the very end of the Cold War, up until the end of the early 2000s, Sergey Scripball was a Russian intelligence officer and he was serving two masters.

The Russians thought he was a loyal undercover operative spying on the British, but he was a double agent.

What he was really doing was leaking information to MI6, British intelligence.

Well, Russia caught on to this treason in 2004 and they put him in prison for seven years and then he was transferred.

He was traded in a high-profile spy trade.

Everything seemed fine until four days ago.

Sergei and his daughter were found unconscious in a park on a bench and they were victims of an unprecedented assassination on British soil.

Scotland Yard now has has stunningly revealed that the poison that was used in the attack was a nerve agent like VX gas.

That means that a nation state was most probably behind this.

Now,

which nation state do you think was behind this?

The entire world knows who ordered this assassination.

This assassination was ordered by Vladimir Putin,

but Russia has fallen in line with their usual playbook.

Deny, deny, deny.

Now, it's ridiculous.

Everybody knows.

This is insanity.

Not only does Russia have the only clear motive, but they also are the only country with stockpiles of chemical weapons that could have pulled something list like this off.

It's not like you can pick up Sarin or VX gas down at the local 7-Eleven or, you know, whatever it is, the...

The 4-12 in London.

You're not picking it up there.

How did you even get it into the country?

The British know who did this.

We know who did this.

And of course, Vladimir Putin's Russia knows who did this.

And we do deeply care.

We

do deeply care about knowing who did it, but we cannot say it.

What?

Why?

Think of the ramifications of what might happen next.

What if the UK

what does the UK do if they find definitive proof that it traces back to the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin, definitive proof and it gets out into the public that sarin or VX gas was used on their soil

and it it poisoned 21 people

This is way beyond an attempted assassination of a Russian traitor.

21 UK citizens are hospitalized because of a chemical weapon attack There's no other way to describe this.

That's what this was.

A chemical weapon attack, a terrorist attack on

UK soil, possibly carried out by a foreign government, the Russians.

The only way to classify this is as an act of war.

Russian aggression has reached near suicidal activity.

But are you going to announce that?

Are you going to say to the people, yeah, we've got proof, this was Russian?

Because what are your options then?

That's an act of war.

The world is on the brink.

Where this goes from here is anyone's guess.

Pray for our presidents.

Pray for the prime ministers of Western countries, because they all have their back against the wall.

It all comes down to whether the British can prove who is ultimately culpable and then if

they want to do anything about it or can do anything about it.

The seriousness of this attack, knowing the global ramifications if Russia is publicly outed,

I have to admit for the first time,

we might be better off never finding out the truth.

It's Friday, March 9th.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

But you want to be the president of the United States TV.

No.

Can you imagine that?

No.

I mean, think of this.

Just think of this Kim Jong-un thing.

Okay.

You don't want to go to Kim Jong-un and be lied to and be a dupe.

And that's what's happened to every president.

Every president.

Well, the other presidents haven't gone to him.

No, no, no, but they've all made deals with him.

Okay.

And it's the same story over and over again.

Now you're going to go to him.

You don't want to be made a fool.

You also don't want to elevate him in the eyes of the world.

But he is the first guy to become a real, true, credible threat to the entire world

in a hermit state that's on the verge of collapse.

He did would the visit of the president elevate him or did his nuclear weapons on the tips of missiles elevate him?

This is why you don't give them up once you have them.

Only one country in history ever has.

Yeah.

And

this is the only reason why the president of the United States would consider going over and meeting with him because he is a threat to the entire world.

It's a wonderful lesson.

If you get them, don't give them up.

Because

once you have them, you better keep them forever.

Because you really do get elevated to first world status once you have them.

So you're the president of the United States.

I think think I say at this time, I'll consider going,

but there's conditions, and then I make those conditions so rough that,

you know, but reasonable,

that

you get a massive win out of it.

I still don't believe it.

But I mean, you know, you go, we met, you know, Gorbachev and Reagan, Khrushchev and JFK.

These are first world nations you're talking about here.

This is

only meeting with them because they had nuclear weapons and could destroy us.

That's why.

Global powers like that, we meet with all the time.

And a lot of them are really bad guys.

No president has met with, I mean, Carter went over there right in 1994 after he was out of office.

And hugged him.

And hugged him.

But that we have not dealt with them this way.

So it is a big change in policy.

I'm not saying it's the wrong change in policy.

It might be the right one.

I mean, you know,

there's a legitimate thought here by me that as I'm looking over this is that, you know, I was very critical of Obama, at least as I remember it, critical of Obama for saying he would meet with dictators during a CNN debate in 2008 with Hillary Clinton.

And Clinton was critical of him for that.

And so was everybody on the right.

I mean, he got killed.

He got hammered for that.

And probably a good chunk of the reason why he didn't wind up doing it at all is because every time it was talked about, he was hammered for it by almost everybody.

Now, Trump is going to go do this.

And when it was announced yesterday, my initial reaction was, this is great.

I mean, I'm skeptical.

I don't necessarily believe anything's going to come of it, but hey, why not take a shot?

This is a serious situation.

I'd love to,

you know, de-emphasize his ability to be able to kill a bunch of people.

You know, I think that's a great thing.

You know, diplomacy, you know, I don't always believe it's going to be successful, but why not give it a shot?

Yeah.

Right.

Should we not have given the same treatment to Barack Obama in 2008?

So may I make a case that you're confusing the

issues.

Okay.

Okay.

First of all, at the time, North Korea did not have nuclear-tipped missiles.

Did not, that had long range.

They've certainly improved their capability, but their first test was way before JS.

But it is not like it is now.

They've gone.

It's certainly improved.

Yeah, I mean, they can hit the mainland of America now.

At least they can hit U.S.

territories.

Yeah, they can hit territories.

Yeah, we think that they can now hit the United States.

One way or another, they could cause massive, massive casualties that in 1994 or in 2008, remember we were talking about North Korea and we were talking about

Iran at the time, saying these guys are going to become our worst nightmare for the world because once they have nuclear-tipped missiles, it's done.

Okay.

They will be players, whether you like it or not.

So, I was trying to convince the American people that we need to do something under George W.

Bush.

We need to do something right now, seriously, about those two nations.

Even back to Clinton.

You were on that.

Yeah.

So, we've never done it.

And I said,

you're going to to pass the point of no return at some point, and then you'll have no good options on the table.

When Barack Obama said that, we were not at the no-good options on the table point yet.

We still are not at the no-good options with Iran, but we are now with North Korea.

We're in no good option territory.

That's past president's fault.

When Barack Obama said, I'll go meet with them,

Donald Trump is not saying, I'll go meet with Cuba and the new dictator down in Venezuela, and I'm going to go meet and do a tour, a dictator tour.

I would argue he has said that.

You know,

I mean,

who the hell cares?

I'll speak to anybody.

Who knows?

That was his quote about dictators around the world, whether he should talk to him.

Who the hell cares?

I'll speak to anybody.

Who knows?

Maybe there's a 10 or 20% chance I can do something.

But there is a difference, I think, in the minds of at least conservatives with Barack Obama.

Do you remember when Barack Obama went to meet with Hugo Chavez?

That was a PR move by Hugo Chavez, pure and simple.

That wasn't a meeting between them.

They were at an event where they were both at the end.

And Hugo Chavez got up and gave the president a book.

The president accepted it, posed with it.

I mean, it was, there were sympathies there, okay?

With Fidel.

There was sympathies there with the Middle East.

There was sympathies there.

I don't think that Donald Trump has sympathies for any of those people.

He is looking for a better, safer deal for America.

And so I think that is a big distinction in the minds of conservatives, at least for me.

I think that is a big distinction.

You're right.

That was not the criticism at the time.

The criticism at the time was not, hey, Barack Obama is not going to be successful.

We don't think he's going to do a good job in these negotiations.

The distinction was, and this also came from other people who had inclinations to like

socialist countries, like Hillary Clinton, right?

This was not just a conservative criticism.

The criticism was the United States does not lower itself.

The presidency does not lower itself to go talk to dictators from hermit kingdoms.

I agree with that at the time.

And if Donald Trump was saying, I'm going to go to these hermit kingdoms and I'm going to meet with them, I would be saying the same thing today.

But this particular hermit kingdom has now elevated itself to a nuclear power, to one

nuclear power in 2008.

Not in the same way.

Well, not exactly.

Exactly the same way.

I mean, the world is in different circumstances every time.

The world is in a different place now with a guy who could blow up good portions of the world.

He could take out not just South Korea, which which he could have done then,

but also Japan.

We now know his coordination of the missiles is strong enough, powerful enough.

He could take out Hawaii.

He could take out Guam.

He could take out Los Angeles, California, we think.

The other ones we're pretty sure of.

That's different than it was in 2008.

And hang on, it was isolated.

This is isolated.

This isn't a global tour of dictators.

This is one guy because of this situation has changed.

I'm going to go meet with him because there's a chance, 20% chance I could change it by meeting it.

I'm not sympathetic to him, his cause, or anything else.

I'm rolling the dice.

I think that's massively different.

First of all, Trump has talked about other talking to other dictators.

So it's not, I mean, but this is the only one he's actually done.

Remember, Obama didn't actually wind up doing this.

But the policy of not talking that Obama executed in 2008 through 2009 or 2009 through 2016 is what led to the escalation to where you're now saying it's necessary.

I mean, it's not just that, but if he had talked in 2009, would we have had a different outcome?

I personally, because I doubt Barack Obama, don't believe it.

But as a policy, is it worth changing?

And rethinking that?

And I'm saying again, for anyone who's thinking I'm being critical of Trump, I'm saying switch to the Trump philosophy.

I'm saying the U.S.

philosophy has been different this whole time.

Do we consider saying, you know what, maybe we do engage these guys more one-on-one.

Maybe there is at least a chance.

This is Trump's point here.

When he was asked about this during the campaign, so this is before he was president, before the

tough talk, because that's another distinction, but this is before he was president.

Who the hell cares?

I'll speak to anybody.

Who knows?

There's a 10 or 20% chance that I can talk him out of all those damn nukes because who the hell wants him to have nukes?

And there's a chance.

Well, why not?

Maybe there's a right philosophy.

No, eight.

It depends.

It has to be a combination.

The only reason why he's coming to the table is because finally the United States under Donald Trump got tough.

And that's something I've been saying since the 90s.

You must cripple these people.

You've got to be...

You have to be so painful that they're completely isolated.

You make their eyes bleed.

Well, Donald Trump has done that.

So now you can go into talk because we have their attention and they know we're serious.

Going over to somebody today when there's no real sanctions, no real pain and talking, nope, not interested.

Not interested.

You want me to make the pain stop?

Because I can make it worse for you or I can make it better.

I'll talk to you now.

The only thing I would say is that we have had tough talk times with them.

They never, to the tweeting levels of Donald Trump, obviously.

What has happened is they've been brought to the table, not with the president, but with other parties in larger discussions.

And each time, North Korea has done the same thing.

They've said, we're we're going to give you, we'll give you X, Y, and Z.

We promise, we promise, we promise.

That hasn't happened over the long term, and it's resulted in their nuclear

programs.

Just so you know, I think the president is right on this, and I think what you're saying is you want to reconsider your old stance.

I don't think they're different myself, but you want to reconsider your old stance because you think the president may be right.

I think we can both agree.

The president should go in wide-eyed and come out wide-eyed.

Yes.

I don't believe there's going to be any change from North Korea.

And this is a publicity stunt that he will use in his own country and the press will lap up.

But we have to be, we can't be the fools that we have been

since the beginning of the nuclear arms race.

When an emergency strikes, Your first impulse is to run to the store.

And I'm not talking about, you know, a nuke.

I'm talking about, well, I bet, you know, I bet that would happen too.

I bet if Los Angeles was vaporized today, a lot of people around the country would be like, I got to go to the store and get some milk.

It might be the ultimate winter.

Anyway,

you need to be prepared for anything.

You need to be prepared for the winter storms that are blowing through.

You need to be prepared for a flood or for whatever, even a job loss.

You have to have emergency food.

Now, there's a two-week emergency food supply kit, breakfast, lunch, and dinner for one person for two weeks.

It's $67 right now.

This is the best way to begin.

$67 for two weeks of food.

It comes in this, you know, slimline pack that is easy to, you know, just put under the bed if you have to, but it's easy to store.

It lasts forever.

It's easy to grab and go.

I mean, if you have, you're, you got to get out of your house right away because there's a flood or whatever.

How are you going to afford food out?

How are you going to eat out?

I mean, you're worried about where am I going to stay?

Don't worry about food.

Grab and go, two-week emergency food supply.

One person, two weeks breakfast, lunch, and dinners, only $67.

Order your food kit.

It ends this week.

Call them now: 800-200-90-31.

800-200-9031 or go online to preparewithglenn.com.

Glenn back Mercury.

Glenn Beck.

Welcome to the program.

We just have some really important issues to

decide.

You know, we started with something I beg you to call your senator today.

Please call the Senate and tell them to stand against the nomination of the new chair for the EEOC, the Equal Opportunity,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whatever it is.

This woman is a leftist activist who believes that gender identity and sexual freedom

is above

freedom of religion.

She said that there is no way in her mind that she can can find a way for sexual liberty and gender identification to not trump religious liberty.

This is a radical that has been nominated, and the

GOP and the Senate are going to pass this unless you stand up.

Call your senator today.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Welcome to Pat Gray, who's joining us today on the program.

Great to be here.

Is it?

Well, yeah, I was telling your phone screener.

Yeah.

Well, it's not my first time.

Yeah.

But I'm a longtime listener.

Yeah.

How many times have you called?

800 and...

No.

Okay, stop.

9,312.

I thought you were really off that first time.

Yeah, I just underestimated for a minute.

I didn't carry the one.

So, Pat, what is on your mind today?

Because there's so many things.

There's a lot of stuff.

There's a lot of stuff.

I thought because it was Friday, we might check out something kind of fun.

Okay.

There's a log jam of Democrat candidates trying to gain the nomination in Wisconsin for governor.

And whoever obviously wins will go up against Scott Walker in the fall, which is a tough task.

The guy's done a tremendous job.

Unemployment was 8.1% when he came in.

It's 3.7% there now.

Wages have gone up.

Taxes have gone down.

It's been a really good run.

Anyway, there is a candidate who is

a working mom, and she wants to be governor of Wisconsin.

And I want to see if you guys can pick out the rather unusual aspect of this particular campaign ad.

So I said, well, Wisconsin is going to be the first state to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.

I was putting together my legislative update, and I went door to door to hand it out.

Approached this one door and even before it opened it was a summer day and I could like hear the sound of kids.

Woman opens the door and I kind of hand her my legislative update and grabs it and like slams the door and like runs back to deal with whatever her kids are yelling about.

I'm off to the next house already up the driveway.

And I hear her calling after me.

Oh my gosh.

And she said, I just read that you are working on the bread.

She's breastfeeding now.

You picked it out.

You noticed that.

I did.

And I started to tell her, you know, bisphenol A is a neurotoxin.

She said, I know, I know, I know.

Our doctors had some problems.

In the middle of the course, the doctor said that it's because she was exposed to BPA.

I just find that so bizarre.

Oh, God.

She just said, oh, that wasn't planned.

He just was hungry.

And so in the middle of your ad, you didn't stop.

You couldn't have taken a minute.

No.

Well, that's her issue.

Yeah, it's her issue.

I'm sure she's a militant breastfeeder.

If that is

fine, I mean, of course.

I am fine with breastfeeding.

There's nothing wrong with breastfeeding.

No, it's great.

It's wonderful.

It is the right thing to do with your child.

And if you're uncomfortable with it, look, I understand.

My grandfather was,

you know, he was born in a different era.

He's old school.

He was old school.

But we're not living in those days anymore.

And it's natural and it's right.

And you know,

all those things.

All those things, but that's just a little bizarre.

We just don't need it in a TV commercial.

Only

dad only because

that's obviously forced.

It is obviously forced.

It's like, don't feed him.

We got to get to the TV

studios to film the commercial.

Don't feed him.

He's got to be hungry.

So calculated.

So premeditated.

And is that really that?

That's the woman running for governor?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And that's her platform?

I think she's

breastfeeding in public as her platform.

I think it is.

I think that's

so pandering.

How could you fall for that?

If you're a mother who really thinks breastfeeding is important, how can you fall for that?

And anytime you say anything about breastfeeding moms in public,

you're accused of wanting to send them to Breastfeeding Island or something.

I'm not saying that.

Breastfeeding.

Yes.

But, you know, there's a certain amount of decorum, I think, can be employed, right?

And she did cover her.

Oh, my gosh.

He hates women.

Pat Gray.

What were we just saying?

Bastard.

That's what you're up against.

But

she didn't cover herself.

It used to be that people.

Well, Flora Wedder covered her breast.

Oh, I guess the most natural process of the world needs to be hidden from you men.

Mansplayed the breast to be a little more.

And yet, if we liked it, we would hear about that too.

How dare you objectify a breastfeeding woman?

It's so true.

Absolutely.

It's one of those titles you can't say anything.

But wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Yes, you can, and we need to.

Thank you.

Here's the thing.

She didn't, I want to make sure, because if you didn't see it, like, obviously you're listening to the radio, so you didn't see it.

She did not cover up.

She just didn't, you know, pull up her shirt, you know, and be like, look at my nipples.

She did it like every mother always does in public that I've ever seen.

They just, you know, take the baby and they lift up their shirt and the baby, you know, starts to breastfeed, and their shirt is covering the rest of it.

But it used to be that you would put a blanket over the baby's head.

You don't need to do any of that.

And it used to be that you'd go maybe to even another room

for privacy's sake.

How dare you?

Again, it's a recorded commercial.

You're taking out when she stumbles over a sentence.

You're editing out.

Stumbling over a sentence is also natural.

You took all that out.

It's such a oh, God, that is infantry.

I know.

It's just pandering.

And I will also point out that I know this will not be popular, but there is absolutely no science whatsoever that says BPA is dangerous.

There is not one.

Oh, is that true?

There is not one thing.

I knew you'd have an issue with that, too.

Yes, of course.

You know me.

He probably wants

it in Diet Coke, don't you?

You want it put in Diet Coke.

Yes.

Yes.

Will you come over to my house and have dinner with my children?

Because Hannah is.

Okay, so Tim says to me this is my daughter my 20 something daughter and her 30 year old husband and uh

uh

he says to me

I don't know do I do I stink and I said what

he said do I stink and I said I don't think so I'm not going to smell your armpits but I don't think so and he said

I'm using a crystal now for deodorant and I said

What?

Is that because of the aluminum?

Yeah, because of the aluminum.

So Hannah is making making her own deodorant.

She's making her own.

She's making everything.

She's making everything.

How do you make deodorant?

I don't know.

I don't care.

I bet there's a YouTube video on it.

I'm sure there is.

But anyway, so she's really actually, she's becoming very responsible and very,

I don't know how to, she's just becoming everything that I thought she hated, you know, I said to her, you know, we have a farm and she was like, you know, when she was living in the city, I'm in New York.

Now I said to her, you're the most likely to say, you know what, let's just move to the farm.

Oh, totally.

Because she's, you know, composting and all of this stuff.

Wow.

But she has asked for two books.

She said, I want the books on global warming.

I want pro and econom.

And I said, well, don't read Al Gore's for pro because it's just nonsense.

She said, well, that's what everybody would say that I should read.

She said, so I want to read that.

And I said, oh, well, if that's one, you're going to take, if you'll take that one as a legitimate, take that one.

But I need the best books on this.

And she's also, she's really well read now on

all kinds of, you know.

The Michael Crichton.

All kinds of stuff.

Global warming.

Oh, that Michael Crichton book.

But that was a fiction book, though.

I mean, by a lot of folks,

but the facts.

The last quarter.

of that book was all was all the fact if i if i remember that's right that that was the one that turned me yeah plus you get some enjoyment it's yeah entertaining.

I just feel, you know, when you're,

we can go through all the studies, and I did a wonderful World of Stew Model.

So you've actually specifically talked about BPA.

BPA.

Because it's one of those, I have young kids, and

every time you go to every store,

everything's BPA free.

They make a big deal of it.

You don't know what BPA is.

Well, it's famous for being in, it's a

organic/slash synthetic

compound.

Compound in plastics.

In plastic.

Yeah.

Now, of course, it's one of many.

You can find it in not just baby bottles, but all sorts of products from

food containers, move-up cans, networks.

Okay, I got it.

I got it.

I got it.

I remember now.

I thought this was what they were feeding.

No.

You know, it was in the breast, you know, the fake breast milk.

And when you described it as a plastic, I'm like, I'm pretty sure that would be bad.

I got it now.

I remember now.

Okay, yeah.

So, I mean,

they've tested this up to a thousand times what the average person would consume in a day because it's in a lot of products.

And it's one of those, it's the typical thing.

It's the typical thing.

Every single substance on earth at some level is a toxin.

Water is a toxin at some level.

People have died from having too much water.

However, no one has ever died from having too much BPA because even at a, they can't even find the level

in which in tests of which whether it becomes a toxic and she worked to get it banned in Wisconsin and it worked because it's a feel-good thing.

You know how, like, we have the situation here where

what does every liberal say about Europe?

Oh, they ban the things in Europe.

In Europe, they do it right.

They here, we have all these toxins, and over there, they ban all of the they ban all these bad substances.

The European Food Safety Authority did a study on BPA.

Quote, it concludes that BPA poses no health risk to consumers of any age group, including unborn children, which is a surprise because I thought those weren't people, but including unborn children, infants, and adolescents at current exposure levels.

Again, at some level, that's something else.

More than a thousand times what you could get in a normal day.

Because you know, it's more than a thousand because that's as high as they went.

Should I listen to you?

Because I remember an episode where you drank Weed Killer.

Yes, and am I dead?

No, I did not drink weed killer.

No, but it could have affected your judgment.

That's why you're telling us to adjust BPA.

Yeah, you drank Roundup.

Roundup, yes.

Again, there's no science on that one either, and we can get into that if you want.

But it was honestly the worst tasting substance I've ever put in my mouth in my life.

It is not designed to be in the middle of the day.

Speaking of punching.

Didn't you drink the fracking fluid too?

Yes, I did drink also fracking fluid because they were saying that fracking fluid was so dangerous and it was worse.

Definitely Roundup.

Roundup is not designed to be delicious at all.

It seems like like I don't think that the guys who are doing the fracking fuel or

fluid are like, you know what, pour me a glass of that.

I'm really thirsty.

Yeah, no, it's not what it's for at all.

Yeah, right.

You could at least add some stevia to it.

I think if you had a little stevia, or if I would say, freaking aspartame, that's what I want in it.

You have to come over to my house, talk food with my kids.

Pat Gray, by the way, will be talking, I I think, a little bit about the EEOC head today on Pat Gray Unleashed.

You need to get more information.

He's got a bunch coming up on Pat Gray Unleashed, including on the podcast, which you can get on iTunes and Stitcher and SoundCloud and all those things.

You can get this show on iTunes, too.

Yeah, you can.

You should also listen to this one.

That's probably a good point.

We should bring that up occasionally.

Tax season is in full swing.

Some experts are saying that filing your taxes early prevents identity theft.

Doesn't.

The underlying problem exists.

If your information is stolen and it is out there, somebody can

rob you blind one way or another.

It's being sold on the dark web.

So if your name or your information was part of a breach and you may not even know,

don't get too comfortable just because you filed your taxes early.

Many threats are out there because we're in an interconnected world now and it takes one weak link and criminals have everything.

LifeLock Identity Theft Protection adds now the power of Norton security to help you protect against the threats to your identity, but also to your devices that you can't easily see or fix on your own.

Now, nobody can stop all cyber threats, prevent all identity theft, or monitor all transactions in all businesses, but Lifelock with the new Norton security is able to uncover the threats that you might miss.

So go to lifelock.com or call 1-800-LifeLock and use the promo code BACK.

Get an extra 10% off your first year.

That's promo code BACK.

An extra 10% at lifelock.com.

1-800-Lifelock.

Glenn Beck Mercury.

glenn back

i i just i i just don't know what to think about a guy who drinks roundup i mean it's not like you're going out and you know give me a glass of roundup but no i would not drink it i would not want to drink it again because it tastes terrible and you're doing and you've done this because

you are trying to prove that these are not what you think they are.

Yeah, they're not actually dangerous for human consumption at all.

At all.

In normal amounts.

In normal amounts.

In the amounts that you could possibly get.

If you drank a glass of Roundup.

Yes.

I don't know.

That would be like millions of times of the amount that you'd get over your lifetime

as far as consuming that product.

So yeah, I mean,

there is some level of every substance that will.

Including water.

Including water.

But

I wouldn't look forward to drinking Roundup again, but I'd do it.

I think it's important.

It's an important important thing for people to tasha get round up for monday show

all right go ahead it's a chemical compound right designed to kill plants however it doesn't do anything to human beings because plants are different than human beings oh my gosh now

if i identify as a plant i might have a problem i am a fern I am a fern right here.

You are a fern.

I am a fern.

You are wearing green.

Because that's what ferns do.

That's true.

so anyway i think i'm i'm the type that look up unless i really have a strong uh issue i'm i'm probably gonna go ahead and eat a food if i like it right

like this there's a family in uh in i think it was colorado they uh they bought a box of Quaker 100% natural granola cereal at Walmart on March 5th

the family sat down for breakfast and

it was a little stale a little stale oh boy I love this line by the dad I just started eating and thinking, it just tastes funny.

It must be okay.

That's a good.

That's me.

That's me.

That's me.

Sure, it tastes funny, and I'm noticing it's stale, but it must be okay.

His wife warned him to stop eating the stale food, but it kept going, went through an entire bowl of.

Please tell me that there isn't a toy surprise of some sort in the box.

I don't think it's going to gross you out like that.

Okay.

They checked the box expiration date.

Turns out the cereal expired a little while ago.

Really?

February 22nd.

So it was March 5th.

Okay, that's not too much.

That's so bad.

It shouldn't taste funny.

Except it was February 22nd, 1997.

Oh, my God.

They just took it off the shelf.

Their daughter, who was 11, was not born yet.

Oh, my gosh.

How did that even get on the shelf?

No, apparently, I don't know.

I mean, I know when you work in a grocery store, you're rotating.

Like, the stuff in the back is supposed to come to the front.

Maybe

that just didn't happen.

No, no, for that long for that long maybe it just stayed in the back and stayed in the back and stayed in the back and finally all the other boxes sold and they just reached in and got the box from 1997 the only other thing i can think of is someone planted it there right someone who hates walmart just came in and put a box from 1997 in there because i can't imagine there was one hanging out behind the scenes so have you ever eaten stuff have you ever eaten stuff that you're just like well you've eaten roundup uh but stuff where you it's like the expiration date and you're like you smell it and you're like

well, I think it's okay.

Yeah, I mean, you know, they do say that, you know, the expiration date is really

overly

positioned to cover themselves.

Is it frozen?

No, no, no, is it a can?

You should go to the hospital.

Glenn, back.

Mercury.