12/29/17 - The Concepts of Freedom Are Lost

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand

love

courage

truth Glenn Beck this is the final Glenn Beck radio broadcast of 2017.

Glenn, of course, is off for the holidays,

and I am pinch-hitting for him today.

It's Doc Thompson from the Blaze Radio Network.

2017

will be remembered

by many people,

certainly by me,

as the year of all of the sexual harassment allegations, the sexual assault allegations, and the year the pendulum swung too far the other way.

The year that everybody went crazy, saying we must believe any allegation.

It just went bonkers.

I'm hopeful that at some point the pendulum will swing back and level off and we can get to a point where people will say, yes, if somebody makes an allegation, we investigate it.

If there is substance, we will continue to investigate.

And if there's evidence of wrongdoing, we will prosecute when applicable.

And if not,

In the court of public opinion, we will all say, ah, that was obviously just an allegation and there was no merit.

And I will hold or harbor no grudge or bias to the person who was accused.

I'm hopeful that's what will happen.

2018, we're going to see more of this, a lot more.

It's far from over.

And something else is coming in 2018

that is going to be huge.

A landmark decision is coming down in 2018 by the Supreme Court that is going to affect life in America

for decades to come.

It'll touch all kinds of issues.

And we are going to decide,

and by we, I mean the Supreme Court is going to decide for us

whether or not we are a country that truly values freedom

or whether we're a country who is going to social engineer.

The case I'm talking about is the gay wedding cake case.

The Colorado baker in 2012 refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple.

And he cited his religious values that say he did not want to take part in a religious ceremony.

I'm sure you remember the story, and you remember similar stories that have happened since then.

It has now reached the Supreme Court.

A couple of weeks ago, oral arguments were heard.

The court seems fairly split on this.

And the ruling will come down next year.

I speculate this will be one of the last cases that they actually

hand us the verdict.

Usually, I think it's the end of June, the final cases come down before they recess.

And usually the big ones come down then, so they can kind of get out of town

before we find out how they ruled.

This is truly a landmark case, and this has

very little to do with same-sex marriage, with gay couples, with the rights of people to live their life and be served at restaurants or bakeries, and has everything to do

with the First Amendment,

which is being completely lost on this.

The First Amendment guarantees us five rights under the Constitution.

If you don't know those five rights, you probably should.

Remember, though, that the Bill of Rights were added later as amendments

because there was a different attitude about the Constitution.

A smart,

nuanced, wonderful attitude

that also had some potential flaws.

The attitude was, and this became a debate,

why do we have to spell out what a person's rights are when the whole point of the Constitution is your rights are unlimited except when they infringe somebody else's.

So we don't have to put in the Constitution that, yes, you have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of the press and peacefully assemble and redress of grievances.

We don't have to put those things in.

It's assumed, unless it specifically says elsewhere in law, you cannot do this, we don't have to put it in there because America is about freedom.

It doesn't say in the Constitution you have the right to jump up and down.

Well, of course you have the right to do that.

And that was the attitude.

You have the right to free speech.

Of course you do.

And some people said, hey,

that's very nuanced.

You're right.

You're right about it.

But I'm telling you,

I know governments.

I know people like that King George.

I know history.

And unless we lay out some specific rights,

then we're not going to have rights.

They said, man, as soon as you head down that road and lay out those specific rights, they're going to say those are your only rights.

And this became the debate back and forth.

Well, they came up with a pretty solid compromise.

And

the compromise was, yeah, let's put the Bill of Rights.

Let's go ahead and add the Bill of Rights so we have some specifics laid out just to make it that much more difficult.

That much more difficult to say you cannot infringe these certain rights.

But

they also added

something else.

They added

the 9th and 10th Amendments, specifically the Ninth Amendment, which is beautiful.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, of course, 10th Amendment specifically powers to the states, but the Ninth Amendment was the compromise that just because we're putting the First Amendment in there doesn't mean

that you don't have all those other rights.

We just wanted to highlight those ones.

Unfortunately, we now live in an age where the concept of rights and freedom are lost.

And by many, and certainly

the culture and the media and entertainment

value

social justice, whatever the hell that is,

over rights and freedom.

In fact, many construed and say,

no, social justice is a right.

No,

you've misunderstood.

Social justice is nothing.

It doesn't exist.

It's made up.

It's manufactured.

It's a buzz phrase that is used to confuse people, to try to push a different agenda.

Rights are rights and freedoms are freedoms.

In the case of the gay wedding cake that the Supreme Court is going to rule on

sometime early next year,

they have said that the right for you to go into a place of business and demand that they serve you,

even if they say it is against their religion, regardless of why they say it's against their religion, whether it's because you're gay or you're a different faith or you're a

Satan worshiper with devil devil horns on

that, that

right,

which isn't a right, trumps First Amendment rights.

How backwards and wrong is that?

It's not just wrong, it's a 180 from the Constitution,

it's a 180 from common sense.

You have a social justice right to demand

somebody takes part in commerce with you?

Demand

that they do business with you?

That's no right.

What if you only had one item for sale, like a house?

Obviously, federal fair housing law says you can't discriminate based on certain things.

Well, what if you have two people that are interested and everything is equal?

Everything's absolutely equal.

Can people claim that you discriminated against them because of something?

Don't you have a right to just say, I want to sell the cow?

He's got a nice-looking face.

Looks like a good guy.

Shouldn't you get to decide?

But in business, You don't have the right to decide who you want to be in business with?

That makes no sense.

I understand the history of discrimination and the lunch counter and we're not going to serve you and we're going to have separate but equal.

I know the history of all that.

It's reprehensible.

I wouldn't support a restaurant like that or a business like that.

I don't

support discrimination.

But to say you must do business with somebody?

I'm going to stand next to the person who is absolutely wrong and racist and says, I don't want to do business with those people.

I'm going to stand next to them for them right to discriminate, but I'm not going to use their business because I hope eventually it'll go away.

They would have you believe that the right to force somebody to make you a gay wedding cake or perform at a gay wedding if you're a band or perform a gay ceremony is about equality and access.

No,

it's about a person's constitutional right

to say that doesn't fall within the scope of my religion.

One First Amendment.

But it also has another First Amendment application.

Your right

to promote and speak

that you don't want to be a part of it.

To make the statement, I don't want to do business with that person because

you're talking about multiple constitutional rights that are being stepped on in the name of social justice and social engineering because some people believe they should be able to force people to do business.

And that's wrong.

Here's how you know.

Even if you're a social justice warrior, And even if you believe that those people who make cake should absolutely have to make gay wedding cakes,

Even if you believe that,

don't you support freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the First Amendment.

You don't support that?

I'll bet many would say absolutely.

Well then,

shouldn't these at least in your world

be the same?

Shouldn't they at least have the same power?

The same concern?

Shouldn't this at least be a standoff in your world?

You give social justice rights status, although they don't exist in the Constitution,

to somebody being denied access to a wedding cake.

You give it that much power.

Fine.

You're saying that trumps the First Amendment?

That that's more powerful than a person's right to religion and speech?

Shouldn't they at least offset?

In which case, you go to your corner, I'll go to mine, and we'll go about our business.

They've given it more power.

This isn't about equality or love.

It's not about fairness, as they claim.

It's not about freedom, as they say.

This is about one thing,

as it always is with progressives.

It's not about the values they claim,

it's about one

thing:

control.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn Back.

Glenn Beck.

By the way, it's not just the Supreme Court case that is coming, the ruling on the gay wedding cake story in 2018.

The Oregon Court of Appeals just this week upheld a ruling against two

baker owners who refused to bake a wedding cake for lesbians in 2013.

They upheld it.

I mean, this is Oregon.

I mean, this is, you know, liberal central, but they upheld it.

The court reversed one part of the decision that said the bakers violated state law by communicating their intent to discriminate against the gay couple in the future as well.

So they threw that part out.

But this goes back to 2013, when Aaron and Melissa Klein were ordered by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry to pay the lesbians $135,000 as a judgment, but they appealed.

And then this was the appeals where they said, yep, $135,000, still got to pay them because you wronged them.

And then what?

Well, it could go to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Wait a minute.

Can we side note here?

$135,000

in damages, you were wounded to the tune of $135,000 for not getting your your gay wedding cake?

Because I didn't make your cake.

$135,000?

There's people that murder people.

Well, look at Kate Klein's killer.

I mean, Kate Steinley's killer.

Right?

That guy didn't even go to jail.

This couple got a $135,000 fine for saying, yeah, that's against our religion, so we're not going to make the cake for you.

Cool.

That's worth $135,000.

The lesbians were

bake the cake.

There's only one thing that could make it $135,000.

We're cool.

We're good, right?

That makes everything so much better.

I mean, granted, I like money, but damn, $70,000 wouldn't have made the point.

$15,000?

You know, eggs and butter are expensive nowadays.

Obviously, judges make more money than I do because,

I mean, $1,000 judgment against me, and I'm like, oh, snap, that's

wow, that's rough.

That's going to hurt quite a bit there.

Kids, we're not going to be eating this month.

$135,000 because you were wounded

for not getting a wedding cake.

Okay.

Rachel and Lorel Bowman Cryer, the lesbians who were wronged, made the statement when the first verdict came down.

All Oregonians can go into any store and expect to be treated just like any other person.

It doesn't matter how you were born or who you love.

All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally or will not allow a straight couple's only sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores.

Equal under the law?

Equal under the law.

You're misunderstanding that term.

Equal under the law,

primarily and should mean where the law is concerned.

So law about making wedding cakes.

By the way, I know that service when it comes to minorities has been ruled by the Supreme Court in the past that you cannot deny people the protected classes service.

And I've never understood that.

I understand how we got there.

I understand why they said it, why they did it, but I absolutely do not agree.

And here's why.

I believe you should be able to, quote unquote, discriminate against people based on what you like, what you don't like, who you like, what you don't want.

Why shouldn't you be able to?

And I pose this to you social justice warriors out there, you people leading with the hashtag me too.

Women are discriminated against all the time.

I didn't get a cake.

Me too.

Here's how I know or why I believe that you should be able to discriminate.

Because I believe you would like to discriminate as well.

And I believe there are scenarios when you, the hashtag me too people

and minorities, that you would like to discriminate.

Let's say you're one of the MeTooers.

Let's say somebody you were really wronged.

I don't mean you overheard a dirty joke.

I mean

you had horrible, horrible things happen to you and done to you by men, a group of men when you were growing up.

And to this day, you still suffer.

You're afraid of men.

I hear these stories all the time.

You don't understand.

I was sexually assaulted.

Now everywhere I go, I'm fearful.

Okay.

I think it's too extreme, but I don't live your life.

I didn't go through what you've gone through.

Great.

Okay.

Well, if that's true, and they lead with this all the time, you don't know what a struggle it is.

I live in fear because of men and what men have done to me.

Okay.

What if I forced you as a business owner then to do business with men?

Certain men.

Men similar to those that wronged you.

Men that you live in fear of all the time.

Shouldn't you have a right to say,

I've got a problem with that, was based on something that happened to me.

I'd just rather not do business with those people.

Of course, you should, and I support that.

There are many reasons why you wouldn't want to, but certainly religion should be acceptable.

Glenn back.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program.

Doc Thompson in for Glenn today.

I'm regularly heard on the Blaze Radio Network.

You can find out more about me by going to theblazeradio.com.

It's theblazeradio.com.

We'll get some calls coming up.

888-727-BEC.

888-727-BEC.

Can also tweet the program.

I'll share some of your tweets and we can engage there.

It's best if you just follow me at Doc Thompson Show.

At Doc Thompson Show.

Throughout my morning radio broadcast, we use the hashtag what I learned today.

And if you want to use that as well, that's pretty cool.

Some calls coming up first.

Some tweets, though.

Bob Loblaw tweeting.

Love the Bob Loblaw.

Love him.

Great opening monologue, Doc.

Non-TMB listeners didn't realize you just did a three-hour show, only to turn around and do another three hours.

Yep,

absolutely.

We do that quite a bit.

We put a lot of hours.

Man of the music.

I mean, I do.

Cal doesn't.

He's with me in the morning, but he slacks off a lot.

But, you know, it happens.

I'm not even there in the morning when I'm there.

I know.

Trust me.

The listeners know

halfway.

The listeners are well aware of that.

Donna tweeting, rights provide opportunity, not a guaranteed result.

My rights end where yours begin.

I cannot rule you.

You cannot rule me.

Donna, there's the key.

I think a lot of people, even the progressives, understand within their twisted little mind, my rights end where yours begin.

They get some of that.

It's twisted, it's off, they don't utilize it the right way, they're emotional, but they get some of that.

But what they don't get is the first part of your tweet: rights provide opportunity, not a guaranteed results.

Rights

are protections, things that are protected, where you are protected.

Protected from who?

Protected from the government infringing them, and in some cases, the government establishing a set of rules.

and punishments for violation of those rules when somebody violates your rights, the criminal justice system, for example.

It's equal opportunity,

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Is it an outcome?

All men are created equal, not an outcome.

All men are created equal.

If you think that means abilities and outcome, then how come I don't have $14 million

for not being able to throw a football 50 yards?

Where's my Nobel Peace Prize and million bucks that goes with it?

How come I haven't written 16 books like Glenn Beck?

How come I haven't built a media empire like Glenn Beck?

Because Glenn's better than me.

He's smarter than me.

You need some actual talent.

Right.

Glenn and I had the same opportunities.

He can speak.

He got a job.

I can speak.

I got a job.

Right.

It doesn't mean we're all going to have the same talents and abilities or we'll have the same outcome.

It means where God is concerned, we have the same basis, the same DNA.

We all have DNA.

We're all born.

Beyond that, you make choices.

That's it.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those things are protected.

Libertarian gave a pretty good tweet and an example.

Wedding cake debate remix at Doc Thompson Show.

A liberal musician owns a record store.

He's also a songwriter for hire.

An NRA member comes to his store, buys records.

Store owner gladly sells him anything in the store, but refuses to compose a custom pro gun song for his upcoming NRA event.

He has the right.

That is the right that must be protected.

You're right.

He should be able to refuse.

But how would you feel if you were the liberal that is so rabidly anti-gun?

I mean, you're a hoplophobe.

You're a gunophobe.

You're paranoid when it comes to guns.

You're crazed.

You can't even hear the term gun.

Okay, I think you're nutty.

You may have some sort of psychosis.

But if you do, I'm going to force you to do business with the NRA.

I'm going to force you to come to do business at my gun range?

Of course not.

And I stand by your right to tell the NRA hell no, even though I support the NRA.

If you're not careful, you're going to get what you're wishing for.

You social justice warriors out there, right now, your fingers crossed, you're hoping, you're not praying because you're all heathens, but you're hoping the Supreme Court rules your way about this gay wedding cake.

It's just what has to be, Doc.

Gays should be able to buy wedding cakes, and those Christians should have to make it for them.

You're all hopped up about it, and you have a shot at this thing.

You may get what you want,

and it is going to bite you in the ass.

It is going to punish you far more than it's going to punish me.

Because here's the thing.

I stand on principle, and I'll shut the thing down before I go against my values.

Like some of these wedding

service providers, I know a couple that was, I think it was Missouri, told me the story.

They had this beautiful little chapel.

They had wanted.

to do this for a long time and they built a piece of property and have this beautiful little wedding chapel, very small, specifically because they wanted to cater to weddings.

They're very strong about their faith and they think it's a joyous occasion.

And they would rent the chapel out.

And a gay couple came in and they said, we're sorry, we have to respectfully decline, you know, letting you rent this out for your wedding because

it's against our faith.

We hope you can understand that.

And the couple's very nice.

They said, we're not trying, you know, to offend you.

We're not trying to be mean,

but we hope you understand

you know, and respect our values.

See, the gays are saying, respect us and we have equal access, but you're not willing to respect others.

And they

sued.

And the couple said, fine, then we'll shut it down.

And they shut the business down.

Their dream sits there empty.

So I stand on principle.

And I'll shut the thing down.

But here's what's coming.

There are going to be people who force you into business and to do things that you don't want to do.

And you're going to be outraged because of it.

Well, guess what?

You brought this upon yourself.

There's a lot of bad that can come with this.

If they rule in favors

of the gays who claim that they were injured, why wouldn't this eventually be used

to question most religious ceremonies?

My faith, my Bible tells me homosexuality is wrong.

I I think a lot of Christians get it wrong.

It's not a greater sin.

It's not the worst thing you can do.

Churches out there want to say, those homotime sexuals.

And they lead with all these sermons that it's the greatest sin out there.

It is not.

It's a sin.

It's wrong.

I don't want to discriminate against gays.

Live your life.

You answer for it just like I have to answer for my sins.

And that's how I live.

Cal,

is homosexuality widely promoted and accepted in Islam?

No.

Is it determined to be wrong?

Yes.

Okay.

So there's a lot of religions out there where homosexuality is wrong.

If it's determined that you must take part in a wedding ceremony that is a religious ceremony by baking a cake or whatever else, why wouldn't this be used for your sermon?

You go to church, I go to church.

Why wouldn't they say, whoa, ho, ho?

You cannot preach that that's wrong.

You cannot quote scripture where it says it's wrong.

It could very well be the next step, yeah.

If they're saying you have to bake a cake no matter what your beliefs are next song be like well now you can't say anything negative you know absolutely sermons it'll be it'll be the slower road and here's how it'll start it they're not just going to start that way it'll start with well not just in wedding cakes for the sale for the uh um reception but for the ceremony got to sell them those candles well yeah but i make candles for i'm sorry got to sell them it's for the serp it'll be that'll be in church regardless of weddings and it'll be well you can't say that because what if there's a gay in your congregation and they want to join this or whatever?

And you're like, well, sorry, we're a church.

We're a private and we preach a certain, sorry, it doesn't matter.

You can't discriminate against them.

And you must, and you must.

Why wouldn't that?

And then the government monitoring prayers and services.

Well, it's a First Amendment separation.

It's a First Amendment separation when it comes to the Sarah or when it comes to the reception as well.

I mean, this might be to 1984, but what if all of a sudden scripture is banned because it's got a hate speech in it?

Exactly.

And that's where they're going with this.

And you know what?

A lot of the younger people won't stand up and defend it, even if they think this gay wedding cake thing, well, it's gotten out of hand and I kind of side with this or whatever.

They won't defend it because so few of them have a faith, a foundation in faith.

So few of them have been raised in the church.

So few of them have

even thought about their salvation, whatever their religion.

They're too busy worried about multiculturalism and social justice and all this stuff.

So they're not going to defend that.

And the ironic part is they believe in diversity, or so they say, and multiculturalism, as long as it's not

certain cultures, certain people, certain races, certain religions.

And that's the truth about it.

To the phones we go.

888-727B.

888-727BC, Sunshine State.

David, how are you?

Welcome to the program.

Well, thank you very much.

I've really enjoyed your monologue and programming.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

The only thing I think you overlooked was the point that our rights are natural.

We're born with them.

The rights are not constitutional.

They're not granted.

You alluded to this, but just to be crystal clear, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court does because we still have our rights.

If the Supreme Court decides that these people must do what they're told by someone, then what they've done is they've declared that the government is no longer supporting the rights of the people that created the government and no longer has a moral right to exist or operate as our government.

Powerful.

You're absolutely right, David.

That's the point of it.

And they want to conflate human rights for constitutional.

Constitutional rights are the constitutional protected rights.

They're God-granted rights.

But when you start saying human rights, David, who determines what a human right is?

Well, our natural rights exist when we breathe.

They are the right to live, the right to own property, the right to happiness as whatever that means, and our liberty.

And

I've memorialized all these on some big monuments at founderscorner.us if people want to see them.

What's that again?

What's that website again?

FoundersCorner.us.

It's granite monuments I roll around to various events to help memorialize our rights.

I'll tweet it out there.

FoundersCorner.com.

Gotcha.

FoundersCorner.us.

Excuse me.us.

Gotcha.

But thank you for pointing out that these are rights that we live with that the government does not grant, and they are natural rights.

Don't let anyone try to claim that you no longer have your rights.

They are inalienable.

They can't be taken away.

Even if you want to give them away, you still have them.

Excellent point, David.

Really appreciate the call.

Thanks so much.

Let's go to Arkansas now.

Kendall, how are you?

Welcome to the program.

Good morning, guys.

How are you doing?

Hey, good morning, guys.

Morning.

The analogy of the record store and the NRA members spot on because a couple of weeks ago, when they were arguing this in front of the Supreme Court,

it's not that the baker was denying the gay couple service or a wedding cake.

He was going to sell them any wedding cake that he had ready-made.

He just didn't want to use

his natural given artistic talent to design them a custom wedding cake, therefore involving himself in their ceremony.

Yeah, exactly.

And can you imagine in the future

if

they get their way and

this is upheld, that you have to make wedding cakes.

Can you imagine where this is going in the artistic community when other people, when other protected classes, because in many cases homosexuality is not a protected class, can you imagine when Christians start applying this and saying, sorry, you must portray us this way or make this movie or this record or whatever, they'll lose their mind.

Well, it's just

like you said, it only applies if it helps

the progressive side.

Absolutely.

Thanks so much for the call.

Appreciate it.

Kevin.

You as well, sir.

Yeah, and that's the point.

If you look at progressive ideas and thoughts or what they promote today, they end up coming in conflict with one another.

The progressives of the 19 teens era, the Teddy Roosevelt, the Woodrow Wilsons, do you think if you transported them to today's day and age and said, you are one of the founders of American progressivism, look at all the progressives today, would Woodrow Wilson's opinions side up, be very close to the progressives today?

These specific issues?

Absolutely not.

Woodrow Wilson was a rabid racist.

They've led with race because those are people they can co-opt for their ultimate goal of

control.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

give you another example of the failures here.

Ben Shapiro, who filled in for Glenn a couple days last week, I think, set to visit the campus of University of California, Merced in February.

And there's been a little controversy because a professor there went off on him during one of his lectures that it was posted to social media.

And he said

he wouldn't debate Ben Shapiro because it would discredit his own degree.

He's above it, blah, blah, would give credence to the blah, blah, all of that.

And the bottom line is

he can't.

He knows he can't perform.

He would lose.

Otherwise, exactly.

But then in the middle of it, it said, but he'd meet him in like an MMA-style fight because he would love to pull his shoulder out of the socket.

This caring progressive said that.

So the students started rallying around him for the criticism he got.

And they started a petition that actually wants him promoted and denounced hate speeches, they said it.

And as part of the the little

petition they have, it said, even though the invited speaker has not yet arrived on the campus, faculty and students are already suffering the real-life consequences of

the hateful speaker's rhetoric.

You're already suffering because of hate speech?

You're already suffering.

If that is the case, if you are already suffering, then the school has failed the professor has failed you, your parents has failed you, and society has failed you.

If you're that sensitive, if that's what's a problem in your life, if that makes you suffer,

then we have failed you.

Because suffering used to be hunger, and poverty, and homelessness, or people who were killed in service to America.

Glenn, back

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn Back.

There are all kinds of new laws going to be taking effect on Monday, January 1st, 2018.

Obviously, when new laws are passed throughout the year, they will often have them start either midway through the year, July 1st, but more often than not, they start January 1st.

So every January 1st, there's a whole plethora of new laws across the country.

New federal laws, rules, regulations, and then state laws and rules and regulations.

And then county laws and rules and regulations.

And new city laws and rules and regulations.

The year is 2017, soon to be 2018.

America has been around for 240 years.

Lots of states have been around for over 200 years.

Many communities, hundreds of years have we existed.

And still,

every year,

we need

hundreds and thousands of new laws.

Why in the heck do we need this many new laws?

Well, the truth is we don't.

The reason we have these many new laws that happen all the time is because politicians are looking for something to do.

Reasons to justify that they need to be reelected.

Well, you know,

I made corn the official state grain of Illinois this year.

I got that done.

We worked on it in my office for many years.

People said we couldn't get it done.

We had a lot of opposition from the wheat people, but

the quinoa crowd wasn't as big.

You know, but they had the power in the youth, the youth vote supporting Kinwa.

But in the end, we determined it was more of a seed and not a grain and won out with the corn.

So official corn of Illinois in 2018.

You know, we got it done and therefore re-elect me, Doc Thompson, to the state legislature.

It's stuff like that

that they do.

We don't need all these new laws and rules and regulations.

We need fewer ones.

Allow the free market to run.

Allow common sense.

We already have a framework in every state, every different level, criminal justice.

You can sue people civilly if you've been wrong.

All of that exists.

We don't need all the rules and regulations.

Quite often, all it does is cause more problems.

It gums up the works.

Often they have to have exceptions to those rules.

Well, we found out there was a problem.

We passed that.

You see those stories virtually weekly where people, well,

there's a loophole that allows murderers to get off in such and such a state because when they passed the new law, they forgot to add the period at the end of one sentence.

And therefore, if you murdered somebody, you know, between the hours of 3 a.m.

and 9 a.m., they walk free.

So there's an emergency session of the legislature that's going to try to patch that constantly with this nonsense.

Let's say 15, 20 years ago.

There was a state legislature in, I believe, Illinois,

who went to her fellow legislatures and said, I'm sponsoring the bill.

This was back in the pager day, Cal.

Remember the pager day?

You mean the actual pagers?

Yeah, when we had pagers and not cell phones, and then cell phone phone phone phone phone.

Then we got the cell phones, you know, had the pager.

Yeah.

Those were my Vegas days.

And we had the

guy who, you know, every local community had their local

cell phone and pager guy, you know, that had the goofy little commercials.

And in Vegas, it was, I am JJ, king of beepers.

I'm JJ, king of beepers.

Come down and get a beeper.

JJ, king of beepers.

Well, those are down in the early cell phone and pager days.

She went to her fellow

legislators and said, listen,

we need to ban cell phones in the classroom.

Got to ban them.

Got to get rid of those things.

Do you know what a distraction they are in class?

Of course.

Horrible.

Got to get rid of them.

You can't have kids with cell phones.

And you know what?

They're going to use them to cheat on tests.

Absolutely.

They'll do that.

It's a distraction.

And they're they're bringing them to class and they're ringing and all of these problems.

Got to ban them.

And she got co-sponsors.

They took her to the floor and they voted.

And it was passed.

And they banned them in the classroom.

Successful.

Ta-da.

And I'd be willing to bet she went back to her district and said,

Got those things passed.

Can't have those in the classroom.

And that's why you send me back to Springfield.

Pretty sure this was Illinois.

About five, six, seven, eight years later, later, this same legislator went to her cohorts and said,

we got to rescind that.

We need cell phones in the classroom.

They were like,

what?

We need them in the classroom.

You've seen all these school shootings.

My kids in class.

I have a teenager, and I want them to be able to call me.

if something happens or be able to call the Popo.

They got to be able to, it's an emergency service.

They were like, wow, you're right.

They wrote it up and they passed it and got rid of that.

So for a short while, this woman had it banned and then said, no, I was terribly wrong.

We can't do this.

And I'd be willing to bet she went back to her district and said, I got that cell phone ban in classroom rescinded.

Why?

Because it was a danger to our children.

And they're not held accountable for this nonsense.

You didn't have to do anything.

You could simply leave it up to a teacher to go, hey, shut that phone off.

I was going to say, when they ban them, I mean,

they can still put them in their bag or in their pockets.

Just don't take them out.

Well, they could still.

They could take a law for that.

Well, exactly.

Well, they could, first of all, even if it's banned, it doesn't mean they're not taking them to class.

Yeah, they're not.

And you could even have a local teacher go, yeah, I don't care who you bring them.

I'm not going to, not going to call the state on you, you know, whatever.

Not going to tell the superintendent on you or anything like that.

And you could have left it up to individual teachers or school districts to go, hey, turn those off or I don't want you bringing those to class or whatever.

And now here we are 15, 20 years later when they're everywhere.

Kids take the phones everywhere.

It's in the classrooms, I'm sure.

And I'm sure there's all kinds of rules and regulations.

But that was one example

of this person giving a passionate speech and passing legislation.

And what was used?

Safety and security in both cases.

And taxpayer money.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, but I mean, they sold it on the idea of it.

But yeah, I wasted taxpayer money on this stuff.

There was a state legislature

in Virginia.

Trying to remember which one.

I don't want to say the wrong name.

But anyway,

who passed years ago

a

no

texting and driving, pretty sure it was no texting and driving rule.

Got that thing passed.

And was busted within the year texting and driving.

The guy who sponsored it.

His argument, if I remember right, when got busted was, and this shows you why it was needed.

Because even I do it.

See, I'm.

You just prove my point, officer.

I do it, so we have to stop me.

I was testing you.

I was testing you.

Now, thank you very much.

I'll be on my way.

Thank you for doing your job.

I have proven why I was right to ban this stuff because I can't be trusted on the road.

How about if you really believe it that much, you just don't do it.

You can proceed that way,

but unfortunately, they don't.

It's nonsense.

We don't need it.

I mean, a little common sense and some personal freedom goes a long way.

Starting Monday, there are a few new laws that will go into effect in the state of Oregon.

Can't wait to hear these.

Take a stab, Cal, at the number of laws, new laws that go into effect in Oregon starting Monday.

At least 100.

A little bit more.

200?

A little more.

A little more.

500?

No, a few more.

A thousand?

750.

750 new laws.

In just Oregon.

By the way, when I say in Oregon, I mean at the state level.

That's not including what Ben decided to pass or Portland thought was necessary or Salem, you know, the city or any county thought.

Wow.

That's just what they did.

That's not federal laws either.

At the state level, 750 new ones.

Yes.

I can't even think of 750 new ones.

I know, right?

Right.

Exactly.

I couldn't come up with 14 new ones if you see them.

Other than don't kill people.

Yeah, we got that one.

What else?

Don't kill people this way.

Okay.

Really don't kill people.

Okay.

There's that.

By the way, it's not like for the last 14 years Oregon has not passed any laws.

It's not like, you know, we haven't passed a law in a while.

There's a lot of them.

We've been waiting.

Let's do them all this year.

And it's not like they'll stop this year.

I bet you they're proud of that number, too.

All the progressives in Oregon.

We passed 750 new laws.

I bet it's in their commercials.

Oh, yeah.

Would you like to know about some of them?

Oh, I am waiting with bated breath.

They are the fifth state to now raise the minimum age for tobacco products from 18 to 21.

Okay.

Because that'll stop

people from using tobacco at 18.

Obviously.

It is the most addictive.

18-year-olds will not be smoking anymore.

Yeah, one of the most addictive substances.

They'll tell it's more addictive than alcohol, many actual drugs that are illegal.

Yeah, it's more addictive than that.

But you're 19, we're bumping it up to 21, and you're going to be like, darn, I guess I'm a non-smoker for a couple of years.

Sorry.

No, sorry.

Doesn't happen that way.

California, Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey, all 21.

Smoke a cigarette.

Yeah, by the way, New Jersey, it's not like you're far away from every other state.

Yeah.

Because you can easily just go over in New York.

Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania, you're right.

Actually, a lot cheaper there, too.

The purchase of nitrous oxide containers.

You have to be 18 now, as of Monday in Oregon.

You want to buy nitrous oxide containers?

Got to be 18 now.

So like a can of cool whip?

I don't know if whippets are part of it.

Isn't that nitrous oxide?

It does have it, but I think they mean just nitrous oxide.

Just alone?

Yeah, if it comes with the whip, I think you're cool.

So

those kids don't use that to get high.

No, they don't.

No, they never did that at the Ash Debula Country Club when I worked there many years ago either.

Yeah, that never happened.

They have a new expanded motor voter law in Oregon.

Motor voter, where

when you get your license, you automatically register to vote and so on and so forth.

Here's how it works now.

When you get your license, even at 16,

you can be registered to vote at that time.

16, you can be registered to vote.

Isn't the national law 18?

Yeah, you can't vote till you're 18.

They'll sign you up at 16.

Why would they want this?

Because in the past, it was 18.

Why?

Because of the numbers.

Because of the numbers.

They'll sign you up for it.

And then they'll say there's more voters than actually are there.

Could be, but the other thing is younger people vote more progressive, more Democrat.

So you get them.

You're already,

when do you get your license?

At 16?

Hey, you're already registered.

The upcoming election, you're already registered.

You're good to go.

So you're on.

They don't have to say, oh, go back to the DMV or you're going to get your driver's license when you're 18 or 17.

No.

And you're already registered.

Yep.

That's the plan for it.

A couple of other interesting laws in Oregon I want to tell you about and a bunch of other states and interesting laws all across the country that go into effect as of Monday.

I'll share those coming up next on the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck.

Today, we're sharing some of the crazy new laws that are going into effect as of January 1st.

And by crazy, that might be redundant.

Crazy new laws, it's just new laws because most of them are going to be crazy.

If you've been around for hundreds of years and you still need this many laws, yeah, this is more about you than

actually creating a society where we can all live and just go about our business and try to excel.

Also, in Oregon, family members or law enforcement will be able, as of Monday, to go to a judge and ask them to remove the firearm from somebody who is deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Who is able to deem them a danger i don't know is that family members yeah family members or law enforcement can go to the judge but i don't know if it's the family member if if it's their standard he didn't eat his broccoli today he's the danger i don't know if it's or it has to have some sort do you have to go talk to a professional and then even that professional what type of professional and who decides and do they investigate and What are the standards?

I guess it's like getting a subpoena from a judge.

You can be like,

yeah, sure.

Can't you kind kind of do that already?

If I go to the police and I say, hey, my uncle Bob's a bit of a kook and he's, you know, we think he's a danger to himself, plus he's got guns.

I'd like you to check it out.

You can do that already.

They can't remove the gun.

It's more of they can put him in an asylum for a certain amount of time.

Put him on the radar.

Right, and put him on the radar.

So they could, and there are, you know, standards of how long they can be in and all this stuff.

But this specifically targets the firearm, and the judge then can say, you can't possess a firearm for a year.

Now, here's the thing.

they say you can't, but of course, you could still just go get one.

Remember, Adam Lanza, who shot up the kids at Newtown at Sandy Hook, guess what?

He didn't own the gun.

He stole his mom's.

This happens quite often.

So, this will do

no good for what they hope it will do.

Also, in Oregon,

they are expanding free reproductive health treatments for women,

including abortions,

Even for women who are in the country illegally.

Now, they don't do so much for

men's reproductive health.

Not a lot of free stuff for men, but a whole lot for the ladies.

And illegal.

And illegals.

Right.

So if you.

And they obviously should get everything else, you know.

Right.

If you're an illegal woman, wow.

Oregon's the place to be.

Really?

Wouldn't that just be a beacon for you then?

Some interesting new laws in Indiana.

Starting Monday, using a drone to interfere with law enforcement, harass someone, or peep inside of a home is now a Class A misdemeanor on Monday.

It's punishable up to a year in jail and $5,000 fine.

This is one of the few areas where I make exceptions and say we need some new laws and some adjustments or tweaks to old laws.

Technology.

Budgets change every year, so you need to get together for the budget as a legislature.

But new technologies.

well, we never foresaw drones, and now these things are being a problem.

So how do we fit those into current law?

Yeah, it's a technology that's advancing and changing.

It definitely needs something.

As of Monday in Indiana, anyone who uses force to rescue a pet from a locked vehicle is immune from criminal penalties.

For example, if you go up to the car and it's really hot and you see the dog suffering, And you break the window, no criminal charges for breaking the car window of the car you don't own, provided you have called the cops and you remain at the scene while the cops are getting there.

So you call the cops and go, come quick.

Fido's in the back of the car and it's really hot.

And they go, we're on our way.

And you stand there and you go,

you break the glass.

You cannot be criminally charged.

However, you are still liable for half the cost of any damage of the vehicle.

I'm okay with that one.

Just half of it?

Okay.

If you're someone who's,

I guess it also comes down to what is, you know, suffering or not, but if someone leaves their pet in the vehicle, it could be die or be harmed.

What about the stories where somebody says, I thought it was a suffering pet and it was a stuffed animal.

Oh, yeah.

I thought it was a baby and it was a doll.

So now they're only responsible for half the window and it's my car.

Do I have to pay the other half, my insurance?

Sorry.

It should include if you get it wrong, you pay the whole damn thing plus my time and effort to get on there and get it fixed.

I don't want to even have to make the call.

And I don't want to be without a car, none of that stuff.

But they didn't include that.

Also, in Indiana.

Yeah, that's it.

Well, we need to leave something for you.

751.

Protection orders in Indiana on Monday can be issued by a judge, and they can now include an explicit prohibition against harming a family pet.

These are protection orders for like domestic disputes, taking custody of a pet away from the abuser with police assistance.

And this is a new trend.

New laws to protect pets.

In fact, one of the ones that they're continuing to push, and you're going to see this have a

big spread in the next year or so, they are going to push this idea of domestic abuse against pets.

So, you know, you go home.

Isn't there any animal rights?

There's animal abuse in some areas, and they vary.

But what they're going to do is put this under the umbrella of domestic.

See, domestic disputes are different.

Cops can press charges even if a spouse says they don't want to in many areas.

So if you punch me and the cop goes, all right, Doc, he punched you, I said, I don't, it's Cal.

He was just drunked up.

I get it.

No harm, no foul.

I'm good.

And they don't have to press charges.

If a spouse does that, the officers have the right to press charges because so often people were afraid.

And they said, no, no, we're going to go ahead and push this thing through.

They want that to include pets now because they want people to conflate humans, human life, with pets.

You may love your pets, but they're different.

So, this is going to expand in the future where you see domestic disputes can include: well, he slapped the dog or whatever, and you're going to be locked up for that stuff.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

We're going through lists of new laws by state that take effect Monday, January 1st, 2018.

Every year, there's a bunch of new laws that go into effect.

Stupidly, there are.

They're just mainly unneeded.

And a lot of times, there's some pretty bizarre and interesting ones.

We'll get some of your tweets coming up.

Please follow at Doc Thompson's show, at Doc Thompson's show, and we'll share some of them.

We just,

in fact, I just retweeted the link to Brian Bresnahand, the former Marine.

I hate to say former Marine.

He's not active duty, but Marine's a Marine.

You're always a Marine.

I guess that makes sound like you're retired after 20.

I never know what to say there, but

formerly active Marine who is also a police officer from St.

Peter's, Missouri.

We told you his story yesterday.

And it's a tragic story of him suffering with mouth cancer.

Doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't use tobacco, anything like that.

He has a brand new baby that just came home a couple of days ago, and he's in the hospital all throughout the holidays, having at least part of his tongue removed and possibly all of it.

It's a tragic story, and they started a GoFundMe page.

We told you about it yesterday, and thank you so much for donating.

It's just shy of $20,000.

That's awesome.

Awesome.

Going to come.

And I know the goal was like, I think, 10.

Yeah, I think so.

Yeah.

And they've surpassed that.

And nowhere near what this family is going to need, probably even just for their bills.

Yeah.

But every little bit helps.

So even five bucks here or there, I'd love to see it get to $50,000, $60,000 because then that'll take care of some bills and maybe help.

Because the guy's going to be off work for a while.

He's a police officer in St.

Peter's, Missouri.

If anything, if he doesn't have the ability to speak, if they've removed a good portion of his tongue,

how can he be a police officer and do that?

I mean, maybe like desk work, but, you know, it's.

And even if he has some sort of disability, which some of us have short-term disabilities, not all of us do, short-term disability doesn't pay 100% of your salary or anything like that unless you've been paying gobs into it.

I would think that's not the case.

So, every little bit, this is an opportunity for people who don't want the government to do the work to stop taking our money and redistributing it.

This is an opportunity to say, this guy I know needs help.

They just take the money and they're like, well, a bunch of people need help.

You don't know if they do or not.

This guy actually needs it.

So, it's gofundme.com/slash Bresnahan-family, B-R-E-S-N-A-H-A-N-Family.

And I just tweeted a link to it again, but just hi, $20,000.

Thank you so much for donating, even if it's only $5 or so.

Every little bit helps.

Back to some of the new laws.

One more to tell you about in Indiana.

In the Hoosier State, as of Monday, public and private colleges and universities are prohibited from designating themselves sanctuary campuses and must comply with federal immigration officials to the extent required by law.

Thank you, Indiana.

Thank you for somebody standing up and saying, not only are we not going to be a sanctuary state or city, we're going to fight against this nonsense.

The hypocrisy of people on the left to constantly tell me when I mention states' rights and states are the laboratories of democracy and there should be differences by state where you are with like-minded people, even if you're the the bat crap crazy people in Massachusetts right now.

The majority of you are the over-emotional hand-rigging progressives that want more control.

You should be able to have that.

Good for you.

You should be able to do that.

And I should be able to get the hell away from you and find a state that people who think like I do.

You don't have to leave the state.

You can be with the nuts.

But I like having that opportunity.

And I don't want the people of Massachusetts saying, we got to pass this federal law to stop people from those flyover states from dot, dot, dot.

You do what you want in Massachusetts.

You do what you want in Oregon.

And let the people that live in Kansas decide for them.

When I say those things,

racist.

No.

You want to break up families.

Is what you want to do?

This is not the battle over slavery in the 1860s.

That's not what this is.

This isn't the battle

for civil rights and justice of the 1960s.

That's not what this is.

This is me saying

I support all people having the same freedom.

And I will not support with my tax dollars, organizations, businesses, or peoples I do not agree with.

But I ought to have the right to open carry

in my state if people that state say it's okay as a majority.

Yes, we want open carry.

And if you don't want that in Massachusetts, I support your right to say no.

You don't want open carry.

Fine.

And I'm not going to Massachusetts then.

And that's how it should be.

But when I bring these things up, they say you're a racist, and that's all that means.

It's code.

It's a dog whistle, doc.

You're playing to the racists out there.

But when it comes to immigration, you're like, well, we got to do this at the state level, sanctuary city, sanctuary states.

Then they're all about local community and local law and local control.

Then it's not racist, of course.

Then it's not a problem.

We'll stop with the hypocrisy.

Do you remember

when President Obama said, oh, we can't have a patchwork of immigration laws in response to Arizona 1070, six, whatever years ago?

Arizona 1070 did certain things where they were going to get tough on immigration because they're on the front line.

You can't have a patchwork of law.

It's got to be the federal law.

Okay, great.

If you really agree that, why the hell do you support sanctuary cities and states?

Hello, I'm a immigrant.

Well, that's right.

You're absolutely right.

By the way, California

is now officially a sanctuary state as of Monday.

It forbids the new law, state and local police, because this also covers local jurisdictions, from cooperating with immigration customs enforcement.

ICE law enforcement,

local law enforcement will not have to comply with ICE.

And local law enforcement will not be able to ask immigration status, period.

And it prohibits, same law, they blanketed this in too, it prohibits landlords from reporting

renters who are illegal.

So if you're a landlord and you know somebody is illegal, you are forbidden from reporting them to ICE.

What if you have some sort of

issue or they don't pay their rent or they're, you know, squatting?

I would bet that they would claim racism somehow and try to use this against it.

I don't think

it mentions that specifically in the law, but I bet you they could use it.

The reason they put that in there about landlords, it seems kind of disconnected, even though it's about illegals, is the claim by illegals that over the years, landlords have not

provided the service in their apartments that they needed.

Save homes, yeah.

Safe home, fixed things, repairs,

constantly charge them more or whatever, because all they have to do is threaten them.

I'll report you, and then they shut up.

Right.

Okay, that's wrong.

That's morally wrong.

But if you don't want them to have that power over illegals, there's another

much simpler solution.

Don't be here as an illegal.

No, you're just talking about that.

I know it's nutty.

Also, in California, as of Monday, ammunition purchases must be made in person through an authorized firearms or ammunition vendor.

So no more online purchases?

You can purchase online still, but

they must be shipped to

an authorized firearms and ammunition vendor.

So will this stop anybody from

being killed?

Will people still be killed with firearms in California?

Yes.

Will they still rob?

Will they still mass shooting?

All this?

Yes, absolutely.

All this does is say, hey, gun owners, it's just going to be worse for you now.

You're just going to have to do a lot more.

Oh, by the way, it's going to cost you more, too, because if you're shipping that licensed dealer, they're going to have to take a handling charge, right?

Yep.

Great, great.

People are no longer required to choose either male or female on their identification documents in California as of Monday.

What's the head shaking, Cal?

What's that about?

What's that?

What are you doing?

You're just giving me the,

I don't even know, look anymore.

I'm speechless.

I really am.

Yeah,

you're no longer required.

Transgender people will have a third option,

non-binary,

if you don't identify as a male or female.

Now,

based on what other claims about gender and how we identify and 182 supposed gender identities and probably even more on the way, do you think there will be any tweaks to this law in the future?

Yes.

Of course.

Most definitely.

So the way I understand it, you're not required to choose male or female, so you may not have to check the box at all, but it also said there's a third option in non-binary.

meaning other.

What's coming immediately is people going, non-binary.

So what?

I'm the other.

You're discounting mine.

Mine should be represented the same as male and female.

183 boxes to check.

Right.

The fact that I'm a double cis lesbian non-trans fat

latte toaster oven should be represented on there as well.

What?

I'm a second-class citizen.

It says male and female.

So what's going to happen is there's going to have to be a

whole bunch of other boxes added or, you know, why don't you just write what your gender is?

And then that opens up pandora's box because then people are going to put all kinds of crazy stuff down there and your driver's license is going to have to be like extended onto the back you know it's going to be 400 words

so

congratulations california you think you're doing something nice and it's only going to get really hard they are they are they're really trying hard they just want to be a whole other wait till ai comes and hits big then you're gonna have to add all that category no i'm also ai

and then uh I'm a robot.

What about the aliens when they come?

Then you're going to have the aliens.

And which alien are you?

Are you the one from Alpha Century?

Where are you from?

I don't know.

Also got new law, California.

And by the way, there's a bunch more.

I'm only spotlighting a few of these by state, not all of them.

Even like the Indiana ones I have, that's not all of them.

Diaper changing stations will be required in both men's and women's public restrooms as of Monday.

I kind of like that one, gonna be honest.

No, no, I do too.

I like the idea, but I don't like the mandate.

Yeah, I don't like the mandate either.

Just being a father with, you know, two kids

with a five-month-old, I can't tell you how many times

I'm at an establishment with my kid and there's nowhere to change her.

Here's the thing.

And then I got to go do it like in my car.

And it's like...

Right, that sucks.

But the flip-down changing stations, aren't you always kind of grossed out by them?

Well, I bring my own mats.

I bring every, like, I cover it like a haz mat before I put a baby down.

Which we do as well.

But then as you roll that back up, I'm rolling up all that funky stuff.

Well, then you throw it in the wash when you get home.

How else are you going to cheat with the kids?

Not going to float anymore.

No, there's not.

I just feel like we still have not

technology is not caught up to our needs.

Like there's a better, okay, necessity is the mother of invention.

Maybe we need a new product somehow you care with you and it's disposable and you drape it over that or something.

I don't know.

Yeah, they call those blankets.

Towels.

They're called bring the towels.

Bring them with you.

I feel like there's still some other option that we have not come up with yet.

That's a technology I'm looking for.

By the way, on our morning broadcast, theblazeradio.com, we always feature businesses and we give people free commercials because we're all about helping people.

And you go to send us an email, buildingamerica at theblaze.com.

Buildingamerica.com, we'll feature you as well.

We've got some really cool stuff coming up in 2018.

We are going even bigger to help you find some other streams of income.

It may not be, you know, a traditional business, but with the gig economy, you're likely going to need multiple streams of income in the next 5, 10, 15, whatever years.

It's just going to change and we need to be ready to change.

We're willing to help you.

We've got some exciting things come up, some other ways that you can make money.

We're doing this selflessly because we want to help you and we're also being selfish about it because we want to make money.

But we offer ideas all the time.

This might be one of those ideas, some sort of better device or thing that doesn't skeeve you out so much when it comes to changing kids in restaurants or other public establishments.

But anyway, send us that email.

It's buildingamerica at theblaze.com.

More laws that take effect all across the country starting Monday, coming up next on the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

It's actually Doc Thompson in for Glenn today.

Appreciate you joining me.

New law is going into effect as of Monday, January 1st, 2018.

Connecticut has a law for ride-share services like Uber and Lyft.

They must now, are you ready?

Rideshare services like Uber and Lyft, not the individual drivers, but the service, must register annually with the Connecticut Department of Transportation

and pay

licensing fees a non-refundable $50,000

initial fee

and then annual review fees of $5,000.

Wow.

Do you think it's going to stay, the annual renewal fee at $5,000?

Do you think the initial is going to stay at $50,000 very long?

No.

It's just a money grab and secondarily to try to protect the local cabbies.

Get out of the way of technology.

Let the free market run and stay out of my wallet.

Also in Connecticut, a new law as of Monday requires individuals and group insurance policies to cover medically necessary inpatient detoxification services for people diagnosed with substance abuse disorders.

Your insurance company must pay for your detox or my insurance company must pay for your detox if I'm in Connecticut.

So you got to pay for all the drunk people.

Yeah, the people that are, listen, I understand addiction and it's horrible and I know it's not as easy as just, hey, stop doing it.

I get that.

It's serious and it's difficult.

But it doesn't mean everybody else should be paying for it.

Exactly.

And it's like you got to pay for my leg transplant or whatever it is.

No.

And number two, at least on that one, it started with you making a bad choice.

At some point, you made a bad choice to initially pick up that bong or drink that beer.

Sorry, that's on you, buddy.

Glenn back.

Love,

courage,

truth, Glenn Beck.

Hi, it's Doc Thompson pinch hitting for Glenn on this, the last of the Glenn Beck Radio programs 2017.

Glenn will be back next week.

Is it a week from Monday, I think?

I think

another week.

It will be a little bit, something like that.

It's kind of a weird week since the holiday falls on Monday, New Year's Day on Monday.

A lot of people are saying, okay, I'll take Tuesday off too.

Some people, hey, I already got one day off.

I'll take four, get a full week plus two weekends.

So it's always,

I mean, me, yes, exactly.

Thank you.

You know what, Cal, thank you for keeping me honest.

Thank you.

You know, calling it out like that.

Thank you.

I mean, how dare you?

Yeah, I'll be here.

You will be here.

So, yeah, I'll be off my regular radio broadcast a couple days next week.

Then I'll be back for Thursday and Friday.

Find out more about me at theblazeradio.com.

We're talking about new laws that go into effect with the new year as of Monday.

And we're just going through a handful of laws in various states.

Michigan has a couple of interesting new laws.

Parents who allow female genital mutilation to be done to their children, their daughters, will risk losing their parental rights.

You can actually lose your parental rights.

FGM is a horribly unnecessary

torture to children.

It just is.

I agree 100%.

But on the other hand of that, it is.

Many people say that circumcision is the same thing.

True, exactly.

And there's no hubhub about it.

And I think there should be.

I mean, you're born that way.

If it's your religion, I get it.

It's your

culture.

It's your religious ritual.

Fine, got it.

But what about the people who claim that's their ritual when it comes to females then?

You see what I'm saying?

So I'm consistent with it.

I'm saying I don't think you should necessarily do it to men.

You know, I mean, there's arguments back and forth, the benefits and the disadvantages.

And

I don't think any of it's conclusive at this point.

So there does seem to be a disparity between the two.

Also in Michigan, high school coaches will have to undergo special training every 30 years.

Concussion awareness training.

Oh, I thought you were going to say like gender awareness training.

That's probably part of it.

That's coming as well.

Concussion awareness training.

What do you think about all of the

concussion awareness with the NFL?

And we need you can't hit certain ways and you got helmets and different protection.

What What do you think about all that?

It's definitely an important subject because, yes,

a lot of the damage that is done is significant, and the science proves that now.

So, I definitely think that it's

the education should be out there about it.

There is on the high school level because a lot of kids play high school football and they want to get making to college and things like that.

I think it's a good thing.

Somebody brought up a friend of mine a couple months ago when one of these stories came up, and specifically about the NFL changing rules and equipment, and said, you want to fix this.

It's not stronger equipment, more padding and helmets.

It's, you know, none of that stuff.

All that has done is give people

the ability to hit and not have to worry about their head.

Seemingly, they don't realize the damage is done inside, but it doesn't hurt because I got padding or whatever.

He goes, you go back to leather helmets and you'll see it go away.

And I was like, oh my gosh, you're right.

I know that sounds nutty.

You'll see the concussions go away?

Right.

Because who's going to, who's going to hit somebody when your head is exposed that way?

Other than, so the leather is keeping the, you know, a contusion from you, you know, getting it hit on somebody's cleat or something like that.

But you're not going to go head to head.

Because it hurts.

I wonder what the rugby statistics are for concussions.

Because they wear a lot less.

I was going to say, because they wear like no protection at all.

Right.

And

it's a rough sport, too.

Right, but you don't get concussions because concussions are when your brain keeps traveling, when your head stops.

Right.

So, okay, my head doesn't hurt when I hit it because I got padding because of the helmet.

But inside, your brain still goes

like that.

And that becomes the problem.

So I was like, maybe that would work.

In New York City, Cal's former home.

So he claims, but it was really New Jersey.

New York.

Nobody really wants to claim New Jersey.

Hey, I'm all proud.

I lived in New Jersey.

I did.

But I did live in New York as well.

When I got married and had kids, I had to go to the suburbs.

Can't afford to live in New York.

In New York, employees are going to be eligible to take up to eight weeks off of paid family leave as of Monday.

New law goes into effect.

You can take it off for birth of a child, to take care of a close relative, a loved one, serious health condition, to help a spouse, domestic partner.

You'll be able to take eight weeks off paid paid leave as mandated by the state.

Okay, that's nice.

Mandated gets into some dicey areas.

What do you mean mandate?

And what are the regulations?

And are you going to be strict about it?

Shouldn't I just be able to take it off?

You know, are you going to say, well, we got to prove that you really have a sick loved one?

Maybe it's a mental health eight weeks off.

Right.

You see what I'm saying?

When you get into it.

Right, you're forcing employers that now they have to pay their employees

on this time.

Workers

to pay for this are required to pay into the state's paid family leave program.

Oh, boy.

Uh-huh.

In 2018, the payments will be 0.126,

a little over 12.5%, is that right?

0.126

of their weekly pay.

By 2021, it'll be 12 weeks you get to take off.

This is another Social Security scam.

Exactly.

A bit of a Ponzi scheme.

So imagine this.

You pay into this,

but you're not taking the time off.

You know what?

I don't have kids.

I don't got a sick spouse.

Everything's fine in my life.

No six relatives.

Great.

Do you get that money back?

I don't think so.

So how long before you, as the worker who's paying in this every week, goes, wait a minute.

Steve has three kids.

Good for him.

He's taken eight weeks off.

Oh, it's now 12 because it's past 2021.

He takes 12 weeks off every time he has a kid.

I'm paying into it, but I don't get the benefit.

12 weeks, that's three months.

Right.

I'm not saying it's not needed when you have a kid.

Listen, you have two daughters, one of them's young, and that's nice to be able to do.

But what that means is people are going to start saying, I want that benefit that I pay into.

And then what?

Are you going to be strict about it?

Hey, you don't have kids.

Yeah, but I got a sick relative.

Prove it.

Yeah.

So then you're making stuff up.

I'm sorry.

If you're going to have this nonsensical plan, then you ought to just say you're free to take 12 weeks a year, however you want.

And then, what, you become friends?

And then this is mandated, so you don't have a choice.

You have to do this.

Right.

To pay into this.

You have to pay into it.

And I don't have a choice to opt out.

I don't think so.

No.

No,

that's not cool.

Dude, that's bad because I'm going to be ticked.

I'm like, you know what?

I'm going to find a way.

I'm going to find a way to make sure I get why.

How come if I pay into it, I don't get the benefit?

And this is not including your normal vacation time?

So you get 12 weeks of time off for whatever,

personal time.

Paid family leave.

Paid family leave.

And then you've got, you know, most companies will give you two weeks on top of that.

Right.

So I'm going to be really ticked off if I don't fit one of these conditions.

And meanwhile, Joan chose to have seven kids.

So over the last 12 years, she's gotten to take 12 weeks every time she has a kid.

Granted, she needs it.

It's not fun to have a new baby.

But I'm paying into it as well, and I don't have kids kids or whatever.

So then I'm going to start looking for a way.

Oh, I got a sick domestic spouse.

My dog's sick.

Right.

Which is, I don't know.

Which I think is fair if you're paying for it.

Yes.

Or let me opt out and I'll keep the cash.

New York, you have failed.

You have screwed the pooch on this one, man.

This is going to be bad for you.

They think it's wonderful.

This is for residents of New York City?

New York State.

New York State.

Well, yeah.

Yep.

And if you, because some people work in New Jersey and then commute into New York to work.

Sorry, I live in New Jersey and commute into New York to work.

To work.

Good point.

So you still have to pay it if you do, because you have to pay, if you live outside of New York City but work in New York City, you got to pay not your own, not only your state local tax, you also got to pay New York City tax.

I'm pretty sure this is work in New York State.

They wouldn't, if you're a resident and you're working somewhere else, it wouldn't apply.

If you live in New York but work in New Jersey, first of all, what's wrong with you?

Number two, I don't think it would apply.

I think it's if you work in New York.

So everybody who works, who lives outside of New York, which is probably majority of people that commute into New York City, are basically having to opt into this.

Yep.

Outrageous.

Sorry, guys.

That's a fail.

Illinois, lots of new laws go into effect as of Monday.

Murder defendants can no longer use the gay panic defense.

Gay panic defense?

I didn't realize this was the thing.

I wasn't aware of the gay panic.

But apparently, murder defendants have used, and I don't know if it was one of them that spurred this and people were outraged or it became common in Illinois or elsewhere.

But people claimed, well, I murdered him because I was triggered.

The violence was triggered when I found out he was gay.

So I killed him.

So I killed him or he was coming out of the fence.

That's a defense.

I guess, where they say you can't use it anymore.

And sexual orientation can't be considered for

provocation for any second-degree murder.

No sexual orientation, even if it's not gay.

If you've committed crimes committed at places of worship can be tried as hate crimes in Illinois.

At first glance, at least this is consistent with hate crimes.

So finally, crimes against Christians, like the guy who shot up the church in Texas, or against Muslims or Sikh when they go in.

Okay, at least you're being consistent.

It's a hate crime because in the past, they've excluded certain religions.

But the bottom line is: hate crimes are still, that term, that idea, the concept is still a fail.

It's a crime.

Motivation only matters when determining if you're guilty or potentially on some level, how we stop these crimes in the future.

But for punishment, it doesn't matter.

Cal, if I were to attack your wife or children,

does my motivation for doing it make the attack less serious to you or more serious to you?

Your concern is, my wife was just attacked.

My daughters were injured.

Yeah, yeah, I did it because you make really good guacamole, and I don't like guacamole, Cal.

Does that matter to you?

You're like, no, not at all.

You're a nut job either way.

Exactly.

Other than, all right, so this guacamole is kind of a trigger.

Should we put a warning label on?

Other than let's try to avoid those things in the future, it doesn't matter.

It's bogus.

Transgenders in the state of Illinois can more easily change their gender on birth certificates now.

Used to be

if you were trans, just transitioning and you wanted to change it officially on all state records, you'd have to have a doctor submit, yep, I gave me the old SNP job.

Yep,

I made the cuts, and now they are this different gender.

Now,

according to the new law, you can change if a medical or mental health professional confirms

that the person in question, the transgender, has received, quote, clinically appropriate treatment.

So it's up to them.

This is the identify.

Cal and I, although we have strong opinions about transgender and people who transition, I feel horrible for you.

I don't want you discriminated against.

It's got to be awful to feel that way.

So I get it.

I stand with you on that.

And if you think

transitioning is right, I'm not going to stand in your way.

You have to answer for your life just like I have to answer for mine.

Having said that, we have strong opinions on what makes a man and what makes a woman.

Can you, as a man, suddenly say, I feel like a woman and therefore you're a woman?

And Cal has reluctantly said, once you have the operations, you're willing to concede that that person

has changed genders, right?

Yes.

What this law says is you can officially change it on state documents in Illinois once a professional said you got clinically appropriate treatment.

That's the quote.

Clinically appropriate.

What does that mean?

No operation.

Not necessarily.

Clinically appropriate treatment.

Treatment.

Is that hormone treatment?

Is that counseling?

So there are going to be people walking around with male appendages

legally identified as a female in Illinois and vice versa.

Now, we have reciprocity in America when it comes to, and have always had things like marriage.

That's what started some of the gay marriage dominoes to fall.

Once it's legal in one state, all states recognize you're married.

Does that things like that also apply to gender?

I mean, so it says on my driver's license that I'm a male.

I go to another state, driver's licenses are accepted by other states, right?

For identification and to drive and whatever.

Okay.

Well, that means on your driver's license, you are physically still a male, but you had, quote, clinically appropriate treatment,

and you're still a female.

Those other states will, will this force other states to recognize that?

I

think so.

I mean, if they have go, if they go by your ideas as, you know, factual.

Wow, this is crazy.

Health insurance companies are barred in Illinois as of Monday from denying coverage for people with preexisting conditions.

This is an attempt to shore up some of the parts of Obamacare, at least on the state level.

Cal, what is the problem with health insurance?

Last week on our radio broadcast in the morning, I went off on one of the biggest problems being you don't know what it costs.

Yeah, you can't tell what your procedure is going to cost before you go in.

My son was born just weeks ago.

I don't know what it costs.

I won't know until they bill me and what my insurance paid.

And even then, I won't know the final price.

It's not easily displayed.

Shouldn't that be something we should fight for?

Yes.

Illinois is not.

What they are fighting for is prices to be displayed when it comes to hair salons, barbers, dry cleaners, and tailors.

They have to provide it, but not helping.

They do.

I know how much a haircut is going to cost.

Really?

I know how much.

Have you ever had your haircut in Illinois?

No.

Stop the lies, Cal.

Just stop the lies.

Quick break back with more on this, the Glenn Beck program.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

So the idea, Illinois has said hair salons, barbers, dry cleaners, and tailors as of May, or May, as of Monday, will be required to provide customers with a price list for services upon request.

Don't they do that already?

How many people go into a barber, dry cleaner, whatever, and go, all right, I want all this services done.

Wait, no, just bill me.

Let me know.

Whatever the price is.

How much per haircut?

I'm not sure.

We'll see after we're done.

After we're done, I'll turn it over to your insurance.

They'll send you a bill, let you know whatever else you owe, what they don't cover.

No, I think it's pretty right.

But do you know why this is an issue?

They're trying to combat what they call the pink tax.

No, not the singer, not that bad progressive singer.

The pink tax is when women are charged more for services.

So they want it all laid out so you can see if women are charged more.

It's more work, though.

Yeah, first of all, to listen to their blah, blah, blah while they're dropping off the dry cleaning or whatever is a whole lot more.

But ladies, you know this.

Which is easier?

To cut my now almost non-existent hair?

I mean, it's like clippers.

Done, sir.

Slowby.

That'll be $4, sir.

I mean, really?

Or yours where it's big, thick, full, lustrous hair that you're getting dyed and a permanent

and all of this stuff, right?

Come on.

You know, it's going to be more, and it should be, but they claim that's discrimination.

But it's ironic that they combated that.

They even have new laws governing health insurance in the health industry in Illinois as of Monday, but they didn't think to say,

let's try to promote the idea of health insurance or

medical providers providing a price list.

How about that?

Might be a good idea.

They're going to recognize Barack Obama Day starting Monday.

That'll be August 4th.

His birthday is going to be Barack Obama Day in the state of Illinois.

They don't get the day off or anything.

They just, it's Barack Obama Day.

Yay.

The Department of Natural Resources in Illinois will allow, as of Monday, legally via the state, designated areas in state parks for a specific purpose.

What specific purpose have they will they set aside an area in state parks for?

For what purpose?

A place for your dog to go do his business?

That's a good guess.

No.

Place to protest?

That'd be a good guess, too.

A space where people can spread cremated remains.

Really?

Fly, Bill.

He loved this park.

Here you go.

Be one.

Now, are you...

After a while, isn't that section of the park going to get a little dirty?

That's not a little dusty, right?

Dusty.

You know, kids, we were going to picnic over here, but I think maybe we go up with...

That's the dead zone.

Let's go up that way.

We're downwind of the cremated remains area.

That's going to be bad when you cut into that key lime pie.

That's going to be trouble for you.

I got

it.

In my mouth.

What is in the

ketchup?

What is

this is horrible.

And second of all, do you really want to dust?

It's yours, Uncle Bob in your tuna salad.

He would have wanted it this way.

He loved tuna salad.

Would you want to, if you're that driven to, to spread the remains in an outdoor place, do you really want it to be in a place where everybody else is spreading their remains?

And you think you're really going to be able to enforce that?

You know, just my love, my luck.

My wife would spread them with some progressive that's already been spread there.

I'd be like, oh, great.

Glenn back.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

New laws going into effect across the country as of Monday.

Lots of states have new minimum wage laws going into effect.

Federal minimum wage, 725 right now.

Bunch of states have said we want a higher minimum wage.

Minimum wages are a scam.

It's a bad idea.

They do not have their intended effect.

But to the extent that we are going to have minimum wages, of course, states should be able to pass a minimum wage.

In fact, the federal government should leave it on states.

Make it whatever you want, states.

The federal government doesn't need involved in this.

18 states are going to have a new minimum wage beginning Monday.

Eight states are inflation-adjusted, where they're going up because of previous laws that tie it to inflation.

New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Missouri, all inflation-adjusted.

Other states are seeing an increase because of specific legislation.

Colorado and Hawaii, New York, and Vermont all had higher or will have higher minimum wages because of the legislature.

Rhode Island, Arizona, California, Washington and Michigan all going up.

Minimum wages are a bad idea.

The idea is a minimum wage to what?

What's the point of a minimum wage?

You're not taken advantage of?

Well, here's the thing.

If you feel like you're being taken advantage of, don't work for the company.

But Doc, without it, they could pay nothing.

Great.

Then don't work for them.

If enough people said, I'm not going to work for them because it's too low, they would be forced to, if they wanted to hire people, raise the salary.

Raise the hourly wage.

That's how it works.

History has proven that.

As evident by the fact that

Does everybody on the planet, now let's just go to America.

Does everybody in America only make the minimum wage?

Obviously not.

No, they make more than that.

So if companies were just out to screw people, wouldn't they only pay them the minimum?

They pay them more.

For example,

after they passed the new tax bill, multiple companies came out, Wells Fargo, AT ⁇ T,

somebody else, I think Fifth Third Bank, multiple companies came out and said, we are raising

our in-house minimum wage to, I think, $15 an hour, significantly higher than whatever their state or federal minimum wage is.

Why would they do that?

We're talking for hourly employees at the lower end who would be the ones most likely to have a minimum wage type salary, income.

They're willing to do that.

Walmart, who gets a bum wrap for, you know, such low wages and so on and so forth, Walmart for years has had less than 1 or 2% of all of their employees making minimum wage.

And they made a commitment a year or two ago that by right about now, probably, that no employee would make minimum wage.

They would all be over minimum wage.

That's pretty good.

Why don't they just pay a minimum wage?

And

how much they would save?

Yeah, legally, they don't have to.

Exactly.

So there's the fallacy number one: that it wouldn't happen without the law.

But again, minimum wage for what?

So people make more.

Is that a livable wage?

Because the fight for 15 people say, we need a livable wage, $15 an hour, minimum wage, and $15.

So $15 an hour is a livable wage.

No.

I don't know where you're living.

Lots of these people that say that are living in places like New York City.

$15 an hour, even if you're working 40 hours a week, that's $600 a week.

That's before taxes.

Right, that's before taxes.

You're making $31,000 a year.

That's what that would be?

$15 an hour times 40 hours a week times 52 weeks out of the year, 31,000.

That's a livable wage.

The average rent in New York is

$2,

maybe $2,500 a month.

Right.

Really, really high.

So obviously, and remember,

$15,000 they were saying was the livable wage.

At the minimum wage at the federal level, it's, what is that, $14,000 a year if you worked 40 hours a week.

So it's obviously not a livable wage.

What is a minimum wage then?

It's not livable.

It's not needed.

What is it?

It's just a way for progressives to say you've got to pay more.

And then every day they constantly say it's not enough.

We got to amp that up, amp that up, make it higher, make it higher, make it higher.

And if minimum wage was such a good idea where it finally helps people because they cannot live making less of this, it's an insult.

Then why don't we just make the minimum wage $1,000 an hour?

Because now you're just being unrealistic, Doc.

Ah, that's what I've heard from others when I suggest this.

And then they, okay, how about $100 an hour?

That's still just unrealistic.

Well, why?

Who's going to pay $100 an hour for a burger flipper?

So you realize at some point the company can't afford that.

But you think randomly you can just mandate 15 without knowing any of these individual companies' profit margins, what the books are.

You can just go in and say, you must pay 15 because you think they're making enough to cover that?

What if they're not?

So they go out of business and you don't care?

Here's what happens.

Companies don't pay more and then just say, well, we're going to make less.

They have bills they have to pay and stockholders to answer to and profit margins and all kinds of things.

So they have to try to maintain that same profit margin.

They simply say, you, the employees, are going to work fewer hours

and the work that we need done that won't get done because you're working fewer hours we're now going to say Cal must do double the work

we expect more from you in the same amount of time they cut hours they cut full-time employees they've got to find automation solutions or they find automation they've got to cut so this is a failure across the board If it is a good idea at $7.25 an hour based on their logic, then why not pay everybody a million dollars an hour?

And guess what?

Just after a few weeks, everybody's rich and all of our problems are solved.

They know it won't work that way, but somehow they believe they can do a little bit of it at the other end.

I have an example from an obvious progressive how this is a failure.

Over the week, last week, a bunch of people reporting on the new minimum wage.

And somebody sent me a story from Yahoo Finance.

Ah, the great financial brain trust that is

Yahoo.

Okay.

So they have their little reporters there.

And the story is reported, and then they're all talking about it.

And they have a couple of chicks there, and some dude, and they're talking about this.

And the main reporter, the woman, she's given a bunch of the facts and figures.

And this is like a 30, 40 second clip I want you to hear.

Then they go to Rick Newman.

He is also a reporter, writer there, whatever, Yahoo Finance.

And he starts defending the idea of a minimum wage and challenges the the woman on her suggestion that

ATT and these other companies said they're going to pay more and give bonuses now because of the new tax law.

But I think you'll realize that he talks squarely out of his backside and contradicts himself multiple times.

Listen to his arguments based on minimum wage, and then you'll realize, but wait a minute, then your other argument doesn't necessarily make sense or mean anything.

This is Rick Newman from Yahoo Finance.

The states are taking control of this issue, which used to be kind of a federal issue.

I mean, there is still a federal minimum wage, but it's so low.

I mean, it's $7.25, right?

And that hasn't gone up in years.

2009.

President Obama wanted to raise it up to $9 or $9.50.

He couldn't get that.

And the Republicans don't seem likely to raise it at all.

So states and cities are controlling what's going on.

So pause right there a second.

So to the states' rights points, he sounds like he's glad states are going to local communities, because cities, some cities have higher minimum wages too that he's happy they're doing this hey they didn't get it done at the federal level republicans aren't going to do it obama wanted it they wouldn't let him so good they're taking it on their own

do you say the same thing about states rights when it comes to other issues probably not no but okay he's he's happy they're doing it kind of saying well we're just going to take care of it in our in our own states and that's what's what's happening And do you think that's right?

Do you think it should be a state issue?

I mean, we know that depending on where you live, the cost of living could be astronomically higher if you're in the Northeast compared to, say, somewhere in the Midwest.

I mean, I think the shift here is that the federal government is becoming a backstop.

And if there's enough political motivation in the states to do it, and in cities, cities can do this too, let's keep in mind, then they're doing it.

Of course, the way you want people to get ahead is not by earning minimum wage.

The way you want people to get ahead is to have more skills so they can actually demand.

Hold it right there.

So

you want people, minimum wage is not going to get them ahead.

So why are you advocating this?

You want them to have more than that.

Okay, gotcha.

All right.

By earning minimum wage, the way you want people to get ahead is to have more skills so they can actually demand.

That's kind of an ongoing problem,

which is a different problem.

But this is a backstop.

Yeah, and it's interesting to see the corporations that are now taking a stand as well.

So it's getting more and more micro.

Wells Fargo just announced that it will be raising its minimum wage to $15 for its employees.

so companies are taking it into their own hands and many of them are crediting the tax bill saying that because we are saving money we're going to be giving it back to their employees which is a big question that we are wondering yeah no i don't buy that

hold on so the companies have announced that right back that up about 10 seconds yeah he the companies have announced that's why they're doing it

and he questions no they're not

Okay, they've told you this is what they're doing, but you don't believe it still.

Okay, listen.

That are now taking a stand as well.

So it's getting more and more micro.

Wells Fargo just announced that it will be raising its minimum wage to $15 for its employees.

So companies are taking it into their own hands, and many of them are crediting the tax bill, saying that because we are saving money, we're going to be giving it back to their employees, which is a big question that we are wondering.

Yeah, I don't buy that.

I'm not sure if it'll translate.

The reason they're doing it is

for the right reason economically, which is they have to raise pay to get the workers they need.

That's what you want to happen.

And we're basically

doing it to get better workers.

They're raising it.

He doesn't doesn't won't give any credit to the Republicans and the tax bill.

They didn't do it for that.

No, it's not that.

No.

No.

They're doing it because that's how you get better workers.

So they're doing it to get better.

They're just taking it on their own to get better workers.

Doesn't that then show you that you don't need a minimum wage?

Kind of proves a point.

Right.

He just talked himself around and goes exactly against why we need a minimum wage.

From his perspective, I mean.

Okay, a little more.

I'm not sure if it'll translate.

The reason they're doing it is for the right reason economically, which is they have to raise pay to get the workers they need.

That's what you want to happen.

And we're basically getting into a labor shortage in some parts of the country, in some parts of the economy.

That's great news because then workers get raises for the right reason because the economy is really humming.

But there will still be some people left out.

Ah, did you catch it at the end?

He talked himself into a corner and realized he was being an outright hypocrite and was going to be called because of his business.

Like,

but there's still be some people left behind.

Why would they be left behind?

You just said,

it's humming.

We've got a labor shortage, and this is going to get it done.

They're doing it for the right reasons.

Some people will still be left behind.

And then what?

You believe that 725 is enough for them?

Right?

Oh, it's not?

Is 15 enough?

Okay, well, if 15 is good, isn't a million better?

Dude, it doesn't work.

It absolutely doesn't work.

You're just an over-emotional,

illogical,

hand-wringing progressive that will not let free markets go because you're ultimately about control.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

As of Monday, California will officially be a

recreational use marijuana state.

It'll be the eighth state to have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes as of Monday.

And the dominoes are starting to fall.

Within five, ten years, the federal government's going to be forced to do something.

It's still a Schedule I drug.

Meanwhile, cocaine and others are a Schedule II drug.

Cocaine, I mean, Schedule I is the most amazing thing.

Yeah, it's just bizarre.

And it's because of the alcohol industry and these others that say they don't want to make it legal because it's going to cut into their sales or so they think.

And that's what's behind it.

But the dominoes are falling.

And you have Bob Marley's family have licensed his name and likeness for a strain of marijuana and some other products.

Snoop Dogg has something, Snoop Leaf or something.

And now Whoopi Goldberg is.

Whoopi Goldberg is lending her name and financial backing to a new line of medical marijuana products designed specifically for

women.

I thought you were going to say lesbians.

So

it's marijuana for women.

It's specifically engineered.

Special strain.

No,

that's like saying, I'm going to start a pizza franchise.

It's pizza for men.

Wait, what?

What does that have to...

No, you don't understand.

It's cars for men.

Women.

What does that have to do with...

There's no difference.

Maybe this one, you know, makes you feel really

emotional.

Hmm.

Maybe it stops with...

No, you're already emotional.

When you smoke cocoa?

No, you're a woman.

You're already, what do you?

We didn't talk about that.

Okay.

Maybe it stops with the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But then it would be for men.

oh then it would be specifically diet designed for

I see what it is.

Okay, maybe it helps them tolerate um

I don't know men's problems and although men don't do very many things wrong, so I don't know what that would do.

My wife would disagree with you.

What a great way to end 2017.

Hey, thanks so much for joining us.

Please follow me on Twitter.

It's at Doc Thompson Show.

And don't forget, if you want to find out more about me, you can do so by going to theblazeradio.com, theblazeradio.com.

I'll be back on the air a week from yesterday because we have a couple days off next week for the regular morning broadcast on the Blaze Radio Network.

Have yourself a happy and safe New Year's, and we'll see you in 2018.

Glenn back.