11/30/17 - Chipping away our freedoms (Ajit Pai, Adam Foss & Sen. Mike Lee join Glenn)

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand

Love

Courage

Truth Glenn Back Well the Matt Lauer fallout continues in a statement just released a couple of hours ago Matt Lauer said and I quote there are no words to express my sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused by words and actions the to the people that I have hurt, I'm truly sorry.

As I'm writing this, I realize the depth of the damage and disappointment that I have left behind at home and at NBC.

Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed.

The details now are beginning to emerge on Lauer's behavior.

Variety published a story yesterday, disclosed years of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior.

There were dozens of people that came forward to corroborate

Lauer's actions.

It's kind of like the way Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein and was complicit in the reign of terror.

Can we not now say the same thing about the brass at NBC?

Andy Lack, the chairman of NBC, stated Monday night that this was the first time he had ever heard about Lauer's behavior.

But for a host of a show that makes three-quarters of a billion dollars, are we seriously expected to believe that?

According to Variety, Matt Lauer had multiple consensual relationships with women that he held power over.

He sent a sex toy to a female colleague, exposed himself to employees, and reprimanded a subordinate for not engaging in a sexual act with him in his office.

Like Weinstein in Hollywood, this wasn't a secret in NBC.

It sounds like nearly all all of the 30 Rockefeller Plaza employees had heard this was going on.

There is an obvious epidemic of perverts in our society.

Or is there?

Is it just the people that we watch on TV?

Is this what all of our society is like?

I'm not sure, but it's time we hold accountable those who have engaged in this type of behavior.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

If you're an executive, you're a manager, and you know something is going on, you need to do something.

If you knew and turned the blind eye, I believe you carry the same guilt right alongside people like Matt Lauer.

It's Thursday, November 30th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

For those of you who are placing bets on how long my voice will last,

I would bet on about an hour.

So I try to get everything out I can possibly say today.

Welcome and excuse me for the

sound of my voice, but I just wanted to come in today because there's so much to talk about.

And let's first get through some of the sensational news on Matt Lauer and then John Conyers.

His accusers actually spoke out on the Today Show today.

And it's pretty much the same thing that Matt Lauer is accused of.

Although Matt Lauer is accused of

having a door lock, a button on his desk that locks doors.

So if he wanted to have a door locked and he was in a meeting with you, he could just push a button and that way he could trap his victims.

Is that the way you heard it?

Is that the way you?

It's the way it's everyone heard it.

Basically, Matt Lauer had a button in his room that he would get women in there and then he'd press the button to lock them in.

And a lot of people, I mean, I would say reading social media as this news was coming out, because I believe it was in the Variety report that came out yesterday, was the first place that talked about it.

And people were calling it the rape button.

And people

were doctoring pictures of Montgomery Burns, who in Simpsons episodes apparently has a button that does a similar thing.

I mean, this was like the coup de grace on Matt Lauer, showing he was a pervert weirdo that went to lock in all of his interns.

And

it was absolute consensus on the internet.

How often do you see internet consensus on something?

Almost never.

Never.

And then there was this one voice in the wilderness standing out there

giving an alternative opinion.

And you realize, oh, crap, he works for us.

It's actually true.

It's true.

Jason Buttrell,

who is a

writer for us and researcher, as well as a

former

big-time security guy.

Yeah,

he was one of my protectors from Gavin DeBecker and Associates.

And Gavin DeBecker is, I would rather have Gavin DeBecker than the Secret Service protecting me.

They are one of the largest, if not the largest, protector of celebrities and people that don't have access to state security in the world.

And he was with me for how long?

Two years?

Three years?

Three years.

Three years.

And with me round the clock.

um and uh you did this with other people now when i saw this button with matt lauer my first thought was wow he's got a rape button right yeah it feels that way and then i realized wait a minute

i have automatic locking doors on my office because security told me and jason will take it a step further So I was, I was reading this, and I gotta tell you, I was in a Twitter groove yesterday.

There's North Korea ICBMs flying off and stuff.

You You know, I'm tweeting, getting like 10, 20 retweets.

And then I saw this report and I was like, hey, yeah, actually, guys, this is a very standard fare for CEOs, executives, and any public figure, especially on Matt Lauer's level, to have a device like this.

So I tweeted that bad boy out and crickets.

Like nobody wanted to hear it.

No one.

Wait, so explain why.

Why would Matt Lauer have a button that locks his doors from the inside?

Especially marked rape button.

Yeah, yeah, actually marked rape.

So this is standard fare for many executive CEOs, companies.

Actually, the chief of security, the security, will actually mandate that these are

in a lot of these offices.

And the reason being is if there's an active shooter situation, or many of these guys, and I bet Lauer is one of them, had a very long pursuer list, which is basically just a fancy way of saying there's a lot of people that wanted to either hurt him or they were weirdos.

So they marked them down in the list.

So anytime someone on that list would show up, they would say, hey, we don't, there's this guy here, activate your protocols.

He would hit the button.

They know he's secure.

Then they can find the individual.

I've protected many Fortune 500 CEOs, public figures, tons of them.

And many of them had this device as well.

It's nothing nefarious.

It's purely for security purposes.

Now, he may have used it in some nefarious way.

We don't know, but like the indication was just because he had this button prove these things against him.

It became ridiculous.

You thought, who does that?

Right.

Who does that?

Who would install that?

Yeah.

But then when you put a little bit of thought into it, like

what is the accusation?

Because the door would unlock from the inside.

So if you had a button that locked the door, the woman would be able to either escape or scream, right?

If she was being assaulted.

If the accusation is, well, they were just having consensual sex, you don't need a button to lock the door.

You can just lock the door.

Yeah.

Right?

Like, there's no reason why a button that just simply locked the door from your desk would do anything to advance your rape

ability.

Unless it locked the door from the inside

and you couldn't escape.

Right, but still, even in that.

And then you're Dr.

Evil.

Even in that situation, though, you're talking about a public office where someone could scream, right?

Like,

this is not a good strategy if your idea is to rape a bunch of people in your office.

It's ridiculous.

And the fact that other people actually have it and it's fairly common, it's interesting because, and I think this is important to get out there because

a lot of people, a lot of the speculation on Twitter by others was, oh, I wonder how many other people have these.

Like, it was like an indication.

If you have one of those, you're guilty of these types of things.

There's probably, after talking to Jason, there's probably dozens and dozens and dozens and hundreds of people who have this type of thing for their security.

Yeah, there's multiple, multiple.

And it's good security.

It's a good security policy.

But that's also something that's kind of ridiculous about...

Some of these allegations are very, very bad and they are very very nefarious but some of these allegations are just ridiculous and people will pile on and they'll just throw stuff out there that's like you know like oh we did this well then that led leads to that and

it just gets more and more insane so what can a person do i mean jason you and i talked this morning i said i'm you know i'm i'm even starting to get paranoid i was sending stuff out this morning um about these allegations and what matt lauer is doing and you know the people i'm sending to are women they're the ones who are assembling all of the stuff the the women on our staff were doing it this morning.

And I thought for a second, geez,

should I put something?

I'm just sending this for the, you know, hey, this includes offensive material.

I mean, even, and I am really careful.

I mean, Jason, you were with me for how long?

Three years.

And you're with me all the time.

I mean, he's a close, you know, I have my people are close body.

people.

And so they're with me usually in the room all the time.

Lucky them.

Yeah, I know.

I know.

They want to hang themselves.

So they're with me all the time.

And even with that, I don't know if you have somebody who's with you all the time, if somebody made an accusation and I could say, hey, yes, I was at that hotel.

I was there at that time.

But here's my security detail.

I've got three guys that were with me on that security detail.

One was with me the whole time.

I don't know if people would even believe that.

Yeah, probably not.

I mean, again, there's nothing you can do.

Nothing.

And a lot of these people shouldn't have anything they can do because they're awful people and they probably did these things.

But that's why you have some sort of due process.

Like, we don't just assume everyone's guilty from the moment of accusation.

We've gotten to a point to where it's a lot.

Some people actually have security threats and like public figures, you know, politicians, people like that.

And they need security for those reasons.

Now we've gotten to a point to where literally

if you're a male person in the media or Hollywood,

you need 24-7 security just for liability for sexual assault allegations.

Like someone with you all the time.

Who's going to believe that person?

Who's going to believe that person?

What do we, I mean, who's going to say, what are you going to hire a priest?

No.

You can't trust that.

I mean, what are you going to hire?

Who are you going to hire?

Who's going to believe somebody?

You know, it's okay.

Well, there's two against one.

Well, yeah, but you've been paying him.

He's just covering for you.

I mean, it's crazy.

These cameras everywhere, right?

Or, you know, it's, I mean, they've gone, there was a story that came out, I think, a week or two ago that talked about the rise in large corporations of sexual harassment insurance, in which they just are like, look, we're going to get a certain amount of claims.

We don't know if they're true or not, but we just have insurance that's just going to pay them off so we don't have to deal with it.

But you can't do that now.

I mean, you pay.

Still, if you pay, I know that.

But if you pay now,

if you settle, and you know, we were just in a settlement.

I had to settle.

It was lawsuit and attorneys.

Not about sexual, not about sexual harassment, about freedom of speech.

had to settle, had to settle.

The insurance companies were like, settle it.

Well, okay.

Well, I didn't want to settle it.

Now, so what happens?

So what happens?

If you're in a sexual harassment lawsuit and your company says, settle it, make it go away.

Well, then what?

Then what?

Right.

And that's happened

thousands of times to people who absolutely would maintain their innocence to this moment.

But they were like, all right, well, just make it go away.

And that was okay at the time because these non-disclosure agreements and, you know, it was understood, as sad as it is, that these things do happen.

And women at times would choose to, instead of going through the process of this public spectacle, they would choose to take a settlement.

And that would mean a good...

a good ending to a bad thing, right?

That was the way that was the best possible ending we can have to this terrible thing that occurred, right?

That was the way women and a lot of these attorneys, you know, attorneys who deal with these cases were looking at these things.

Now,

those things don't apply anymore because we're going after everybody publicly.

And the people who had those agreements are now breaking them after they've had the money.

They collect the money and then they break them down the road, which means if you're an executive in the future, why on earth would you ever go into one of these things?

You should never do that.

And what that's going to lead to is lawyers figuring out how to attack real victims who actually do deserve to do it.

This is not a good thing.

This is not not a good settlement.

This is not a good thing for this is not a good thing for victims.

At the very least, there are good things that will come out of this, I think, but there are bad consequences that are associated with this.

I thought the Matt Lauer thing was really good yesterday.

I thought that for the first time, I thought, okay,

they're actually serious about this.

I thought that was, because that's a guy who's, I mean, who makes more money than the Today Show for NBC?

Nobody.

Nobody.

And he's the main star.

They're paying him $20 million for

$26 million a year for a reason.

That's a three-quarter of a billion dollar business.

And, you know, the ratings are, they fight for every tenth of a point.

I mean, that's a really dog-eat-dog world.

To take Matt Lauer out of there could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

It could really destroy that franchise.

To me, that said, NBC is serious.

Now, I think they had to do this because, you know, they were quiet on Harvey Weinstein.

They, you know, Pharaoh, they said, go publish that someplace else.

To me, that shows the reason why they said go publish that someplace else is they didn't want to be the ones exposing it because they knew they had liability in their own building.

You know, what am I going to do?

I'm sitting here with Matt Lauer.

You're going to expose this and we're going to be all high and mighty on it.

And we're sitting here with Matt Lauer.

I don't think so.

Go take that to somebody else.

That just crossed my mind because it only took, what, 12 hours to fire Matt Lauer?

I mean, you don't make something that affects three-quarters of a billion dollars of business in a 12-hour period.

You don't.

That's something that you better be sure of.

They were sure of it.

To me, that tells you they knew.

So it is a, it's a good thing

that this is actually being taken seriously.

However,

it's not being taken seriously in one place, place, and that is Capitol Hill.

Thanks to Jason Buttrell for coming in and being the only pro-rape button guy we could find to represent that point of view.

Jason, thank you very much for that.

He's proud.

Wait, where do people follow you on Twitter?

What is your...

I don't know.

People don't want to follow him.

When it comes to your mortgage, buying or refinancing, you need people that will take stress away and not add more.

And that's why there's American Financing.

The salary-based mortgage consultants at American Financing are dedicated to helping you make smart mortgage decisions that align with your unique financial goals.

Pre-qualification lasts about 10 minutes, and you can close in as fast as 10 days.

With American Financing, you're going to get straightforward and effortless mortgage experience.

Find out if a reverse mortgage is right for you and your family today.

Reverse mortgages are a good way to increase your monthly cash flow with no mortgage payment while still retaining the ownership of your home.

Check it out and do your own homework.

Call American Financing.

The number is 800-906-2440.

That's 800-906-2440.

AmericanFinancing.net.

American Financing.net.

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

Glenn Back.

Glenn Back.

Kitty is one of our producers, and she's a booker on our program.

And she actually worked for NBC for a while.

And we were just talking off the air and asked her if

she had ever heard this about Matt Lauer or she had ever had an experience with Matt Lauer like this.

And you said everybody yesterday, all your friends at NBC were in shock.

That's correct.

Yeah.

Can we turn?

Yeah, you got to turn your microphone on.

There it is.

Go ahead.

That's correct.

Yeah.

I was an NBC page and I did an assignment at weekend today.

You know, I would drop off scripts for Matt Lauer in his office.

And even Lester Holt would use that office when I was a page.

I reached out to my friends yesterday and everyone was just in shock.

I mean, Matt Lauer is really loved by the staff and it must have been a really difficult difficult day for everyone.

I had heard that no one thought he was harassing anyone, but that

there's a reputation of him kind of hooking up with a bunch of women.

Is that

he was kind of an unfaithful dog?

I mean, I was at the bottom of the totem pole, but we didn't get that impression.

I mean, he was really well liked.

And I also worked for Meredith Vieira, who was really close with him.

So I really saw Matt Lauer through her lens.

And, you know, they were just like practical jokes.

And, you know, he just seemed like a fun-loving guy.

It's really weird.

Have you ever experienced?

I mean, we're as guys,

we're trying just to

that seems like a plague in America.

Is it just this group of people?

Or is this, have you had this experience elsewhere?

I mean, I've never had it at the office, but

I've, I've definitely experienced it in college,

you know, at parties, things like that, but never in the workspace.

Do your friends say

that they have this kind of experience all the time?

Do you hear from friends that it's this bad?

Yes.

Really?

And, you know, most of my friends, when I lived in New York, worked in finance, and there's not many people that work on Wall Street that are female.

And the stories that they would come back home with were just shocking.

Like, I don't know how they went into work every day.

Wow.

Kitty, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

You know, I think we should have that conversation.

I know

Carly Fiorina is going to be on with us tomorrow.

She wrote a great editorial in Medium, and she's going to be on with us tomorrow.

But I would really like to talk to the female side of our audience because I'm clueless to this.

Is this really what it's like, or is it just this collection of dirtbags?

This is the Glen Beck program.

So glad that you have tuned in today.

You know, I'm concerned that

there is a disconnect between reality, television, and politics.

Okay.

I shouldn't say television, maybe media.

That would include internet.

There's reality.

And I think that's where most of us live in reality.

And then the stuff that happens in Washington is completely disconnected from reality.

The step in between

is the internet, where some of it is just insane and others you're like, okay, at least there's a little bit of sanity here someplace.

But they're disconnected from reality.

And what we're seeing in the media now is this response to purge themselves of all of these serial sexual harassers, which I think is a good thing if it's real.

You know, I, I, you know, our, our system has always been, we don't want to put one innocent man behind bars.

We'd rather let a guilty man go than put an innocent man behind bars.

That's the opposite of what we're doing now.

We're just, it's just, um,

I saw, um,

oh shoot, what's the space show on Fox now?

The Oracle?

Orville.

Orville.

That's right.

I saw the Orville.

First season, like episode six.

We were watching it the other night, and it was, they went to a planet where everything was thumbs up or thumbs down.

And it was just the popular vote on who was guilty and who wasn't.

And I thought, boy, this, I mean, this is today.

This is what we're doing now.

Except there is one place

that is even further from reality, and that is Washington.

Here's all of these people.

How many did you have up on the chalkboard yesterday?

There was 37 since Weinstein.

Okay, 37 since Weinstein.

I've got a few more to add to that because I saw

you were missing some.

And I'm like, no, no, no, you forgot this guy, this guy, this guy.

So there's more than 37 since Weinstein.

However, those guys are all swept out

because why?

They're afraid the company is going to look bad and get bad publicity, et cetera, et cetera.

And so they get rid of them.

You'll notice that's not happening in politics.

You have Roy Moore and you have Al Franken.

You have John Conyers.

You have Donald Trump.

And you know there's a lot more in Washington than just those guys.

A lot more.

And yet we're not hearing about them.

And when you do hear about them, they don't go away.

This morning with John Conyers, they had his accuser on the Today show.

She was saying the same stuff John Conyers that got

Matt Lauer fired.

Probably worse, right?

I mean, it was

unwanted stuff.

A lot of unwanted stuff.

So,

what's going to make John Conyers?

What do you have to do in Washington to be fired?

What do you have to do?

Have you heard the interview with Al Franken yet?

Yeah, this is a pretty amazing interview, actually.

He was on with a station in Minnesota, and

the journalists pushed him pretty hard on a lot of these things and would not let him off.

Because, you know, Franken kept trying to do the same thing he's been doing, which is these kind of like

generalities and, yeah, so these sort of focus group,

you know, answers.

Let's start with Al Franken on disrespect.

If you had told me two weeks ago that

a woman was going to come forward and say I disrespected her,

I would have said no.

I don't think any of them are using that word.

I think that's your word.

I think

or done anything

like this.

Leanne Tweeden said he forcibly disrespected her.

I understand what she said.

And I, you know, I think they're not using the word disrespect.

I think some people are looking at that word and saying,

no, you know, Leanne,

Lindsay Mence said he molested her on Facebook right afterwards.

I don't, I think these women feel this goes way beyond disrespect.

I understand that.

I have a different recollection than Leanna.

This is the same thing every time.

Here is Al because it's amazing.

This is the same.

He has the same group of phrases.

If he was innocent, what?

He's trying to not dismiss them by saying, I have a different recollection of that.

That way, he's not peeing all over them, you know, because if he said, that's not true,

you're calling her a liar.

So he's trying to be, you know,

careful,

which is the only thing you can do.

But by doing that, you just sound, I mean, that's ridiculous.

It's ridiculous.

Ridiculous.

So he's trying to, you know, manage the wording

as well as possible to not draw out new accusers.

By the way, there's a fifth one today that said that he was

groping her during a photo shoot on the USO tour in 2003.

So who does that?

I mean, who gets their jollies out of that?

I just don't.

Yeah, no, I don't get it.

I don't understand.

But Al Franken does, apparently.

Al Franken on credibility.

Can you really continue to claim kind of a moral high ground on some of these issues, including the Trump-Russia investigation, when a lot of people feel you've been less than transparent about these particular allegations?

Well, I

think I'm a good questioner.

I think that the questions that I'm asking don't go to my credibility.

They go to the credibility of the witness.

They go to the credibility of...

Hasn't your credibility been undermined?

I would say yes.

And I have a long way back.

I have a long way back to win back the trust of the people of Minnesota.

Not that long.

I mean, we didn't really trust you that much before.

But it was interesting.

I'm really regretting doing this interview with WCCO right now.

Yeah.

I thought WCCO was in my camp.

I don't know why I'm sitting here with you.

They pushed pretty hard.

She's doing a great job.

It's interesting because he kept bringing this back.

She was bringing up, like, you were questioning Sessions.

You were questioning Tom Price and saying, hey,

how could you possibly expect anyone?

to believe that you didn't know you were buying stocks that that uh that had connections to the bills you were trying to pass.

How could anyone believe that?

And she said, how could anyone believe you that you didn't know

you grabbed a woman's butt?

How could anyone know that you didn't know that you like?

That was her kind of line of questioning.

I thought this was interesting, though, because you talk about, he kept bringing up this issue of intent.

And here he is, as you kind of point out, he's in a tough spot, right?

He's fighting for his life here.

He's got nowhere to go.

You got nowhere to go.

He's got nowhere to go.

And so he is

trying to look, do the progressive thing, right?

He's trying to give so so much ground.

So he looks so progressive and so in line with women.

He understands women so well that you can't possibly be mad at him for squeezing and pinching a couple butts, right?

How can you?

Come on.

He really likes the women.

Look at the bills he passes, right?

So he is, and

this is the same sort of thing that Louis C.K.

did and several others have done.

Adopting this new standard of intent.

Listen to how he describes this is really dangerous.

Yeah, listen to how he describes how intent should be thought about in these situations.

I meet thousands, as you know, people in Minnesota and I take thousands of pictures.

And

I'm a warm person and I hug people.

And

in some of these encounters,

in the pictures or meetings,

some women, some women, and any, you know, it's too many, have felt that I have crossed a line

and uh I am uh terribly sorry about they they feel that in these interactions I've done something to disrespect them and

that's not my intention.

But what I know is that the intention

doesn't matter.

What matters is we listen to women's experience.

Stop for a second.

Your intention doesn't matter.

What I know is that

my intention doesn't matter.

This is the standard that progressives have built for themselves.

The intention doesn't matter.

It's in many ways all that matters.

Now, if a woman has an experience that she doesn't like, And the intention is,

you know, you could argue from her perspective, look, you know, I mean, I didn't didn't like it, right?

Like the George, George H.W.

Bush, this was brought up, right?

His intention was to try to loosen up this situation.

He's in a wheelchair.

And yes, absolutely.

If that were the intention.

Right.

If that were the intention.

But again, like, you could argue, yeah, she should still be offended, but it would be a big point on how we would judge Bush, right?

It's a big point on how we would judge Franken, right?

So the idea that intention doesn't matter, well, it matters all.

It's the most important thing when judging someone in the middle of these situations.

If you run over a person because you don't like them on the side of the road, and that intention is important.

If your intention is to drive down the road and swerve out of the way of a cat that ran into the road and you hit someone, that's a terrible, terrible mistake.

It's a terrible thing you don't want to happen, but your intention tells the story there, right?

The intention is always if you shoot someone in the in the middle of the street.

Oh my gosh, you can't shoot someone in the middle of the street.

Well, if your intention was to protect the woman who he was raping, well, you know what?

All of a sudden, intention is a big part of that story.

Did you, did you, did you or did you not stick a knife into his chest, which resulted in his death?

Well, yes, I'm a heart surgeon.

I mean, yes, I did stick a knife in his chest.

What I do know is

that my intention didn't matter.

It does not matter.

The fact is, I did slice open the person's chest and cut open an artery, and for that, I apologize.

Apologies, not good enough electric chair for you.

Now, I want to talk to you a little bit about my Patriot supply.

By the way, we have,

if my voice makes it, we have the chairman of the FCC on with us in about 15 minutes.

Chairman of the FCC is

one of the mid.

I love him.

Yeah, he's one of my favorite appointments in the administration.

He's great.

And he's getting rid of net neutrality.

And people were boycotting at his house and terrorizing his kids on Thanksgiving weekend.

It was awful what's been happening to him.

But he'd like to set the record straight on net neutrality and what it really is doing.

And we have him coming up in about 15 minutes.

When emergencies happen, our thoughts and our prayers go to those who are affected, but it also goes to us going, geez,

I mean,

glad it wasn't me.

Or what would happen if that was me?

When you plan

for an emergency, you can control the effect that that emergency has on you.

And it's not complicated to prepare anymore.

It used to be.

If you wanted to do a 72-hour kit or you wanted to have, you know, a few weeks of food storage, you had wheat.

I mean, what do you do?

I don't even know what to do with wheat and legumes.

I don't even know what they are.

My Patriot supply has helped Americans prepare for emergencies for almost 10 years now, and I have depended on them for my food storage as well.

You can start your food storage really simply and inexpensively.

Their 102 serving food kit is only $99.

That means breakfast, lunch, and dinner, 102 servings.

For less than $1 per serving, call 800-200-7163 or order the kit online at preparewithglenn.com.

Preparewithglenn.com, 800-200-7163.

Preparewithglenn.com.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

So Garrison Garrison Keillor has also been fired from Minnesota Public Radio

for sexual harassment.

And listen to what Garrison Keillor said on sexual assault in 1994.

This is important.

We should be careful, though, not to make the world so fine and good that you and I can't enjoy living in it.

A world in which there is no sexual harassment at all

is a world in which there will not be any flirtation.

Hang on.

Do you believe that?

I mean, that's not how you flirt.

I guess it depends on how you flirt.

I mean, if you're flirting with somebody and it's unwanted,

you know, if you're notified this is not wanted, then

that's sexual harassment.

But

flirting is only fun when you're flirting back and forth.

You know what I mean?

So I don't understand what he's saying, but listen to what he says right after that.

A world without thieves at all will not have entrepreneurs.

Will not have entrepreneurs?

What?

As if entrepreneurs are thieves?

This just shows how

out of touch.

First of all, a world without sexual harassment means a world without flirting.

No, not really.

But I can see if we if we say me asking you out on a date or me, you know, saying you look nice or I like your dress or whatever.

25% of millennials say anyone who isn't their partner and asks them out for a drink, they've been sexually harassed.

Right.

So there is.

So that is that's true then on that point.

But without without thieves, there wouldn't be entrepreneurs.

Yeah, I mean, that's just an anti-capitalist argument.

Yeah, without thieves, there wouldn't be government.

Yeah.

And that is an anti-government

It wouldn't be the AIRS.

Exactly.

It's funny because, you know,

the only thing that I think connects there is to say,

if you were an executive, like if you were single right now, right?

Glenn Beck's single.

And you run the company, obviously, so you're really high-level here.

But I mean, if you were just a mid-level executive or a manager, would you even consider?

dating somebody who worked at the company.

You'd be terrified

of us meet our spouses at work.

I did through work.

Yeah.

I did too.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, both times.

And so I know more about marriage because I've been married twice.

Double the knowledge.

Double the knowledge.

But yeah, I mean, that is a very common thing, right?

I mean, that, you know, especially.

If you're in a position of power at all, you can't.

You can't date.

It does feel like that's probably the answer.

And so in a way, because he's, Keeler is obviously being hammered because he was just fired for sexual harassment.

The day he was fired for sexual harassment in the morning, he had written a Washington Post defense of Al Franken that he shouldn't step down.

And it came out the morning.

By the end of the day, he was fired.

And now they're going back and they're finding all these clips.

And this is there's a somewhat unfair process we do there where we go back and look at all the old clips, but there is something to it.

People may fear wanting to do that.

Glenn, back

Love.

Courage.

Truth.

Glenn Back.

One of my favorite quotes came yesterday.

Quote, the son of God himself wouldn't improve, end quote.

That is from a writer of Newsweek.

Apparently, she picked up the phone, she talked to Jesus about his opinion on Trump's new Christmas-themed Make America Great Again hats.

She's convinced that Jesus would not approve of the holiday merchandise.

Well,

I don't know.

I really don't know.

I know the hats cost $45.

That's nearly double the price of the traditional Trump hat, but it's a special hat, you know.

What would Jesus do about President Donald Trump's overpriced Christmas hats?

I don't know.

I don't have the bracelet.

That's what she's asking.

Then she goes on to cite several verses from scripture denouncing greed and 1 Corinthians, you know, saying that you shouldn't cover your head while praying.

Okay, all right.

If the article is supposed to be satire, it should also be funny.

But I think it was serious.

So

Newsweek, help me out on this one.

Would Jesus approve of your promoting your membership options immediately following that article?

Because on that article, you know, just like Trump, you used Christmas to sell your products.

Newsweek literally had an ad that says, give the perfect Christmas gift.

A magazine subscription makes a fantastic gift that lasts an entire year.

Would Jesus approve of that?

Come on.

How much for the cheapest subscription to Newsweek?

Only $1.90 a week, which comes out to $99 a year, more than twice the price of the Trump hat, which I can wear for five years if I wanted.

Hayes maybe should have looked up Matthew 7, 5 while she was reading scripture and removed the beam from her own eye before writing this nonsense.

But the bottom line is selling products, whether it's a subscription to Newsweek or a Trump hat, to consumers so they can give their loved ones a present on Christmas is a good thing.

It's a good thing.

Christmas is not about the presents.

But, you know, at the root of purchasing and giving gifts, it is a symbolic gesture of love.

And I think it would be a gesture that I would believe that Jesus would be okay with.

It's Thursday, November 30th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

I've done broadcasts for 40-some years, and I think this is the only time I've ever liked the FCC chairman,

Ajit Pai.

Welcome to the program, Ajit.

How are you?

Pretty good.

Thanks for having me on and for the kind word.

Well, you didn't have a high bar.

I do not like regulation at all.

And that's what the FCC has done.

And they have gotten stronger and stronger.

And I worry about the Internet.

And then you come in.

And you are now having a real problem because

people are, you're going to, you're going to repeal net neutrality.

And people are coming out.

And I'm sorry for what your family went through, picketing your house on Thanksgiving weekend.

It's outrageous, and some of the online threats have been even more outrageous.

And I think for anybody in public office, in any publicly exposed position,

you should not be threatened.

Your family should not be threatened with violence or the like simply because of the position you hold.

And it just simply steals my resolve to keep doing what I think is the right thing to do and also to keep my family safe.

So, Ajit, first of all,

I'm sorry for this, but this is what's happening all over the country to anybody.

When people disagree with somebody, we, you know, do we just all of a sudden do we think it's okay to harass them or terrorize them or offer death threats or whatever online?

Does the FCC have any place in regulating that kind of speech online or anywhere else?

We don't.

I mean, obviously, if it threatens violence or the like, we can

work with law enforcement authorities.

But

by and large, we have a hands-off role.

We don't regulate the content that goes over the Internet.

What I will say, though, is that

I have tried to speak out about the fact that we need to have a more civil, fact-focused discourse in this country.

It's one thing to disagree on policy, but if you go out there peddling misinformation, like democracy is threatened, the Internet is about to be broken, and here's the guy who's doing it, here's his phone number, here's where he lives, here is his family.

You shouldn't be surprised when people get alarmed and start to take outrageous actions.

And so I would hope that we try to focus on the facts as passionate as people are about this issue.

So they are claiming that this is the end of democracy on the internet because you are going to repeal something that Obama put in, net neutrality.

And that's the great irony about this.

All we are proposing to do is to go back to President Clinton's light touch market-based framework that was in place from 1996 to 2015.

It's a regulatory system that has been proven to work.

That's why we have the internet economy.

It's the envy of the world.

And so all of these apocalyptic predictions are simply ridiculous given the fact that we lived under these exact same rules for two decades and the world didn't end.

To the contrary, it thrived, especially for conservatives who have historically been marginalized when it comes to having the ability to express themselves.

Yeah, it's amazing that they would think that the era of 1996 to 2015 was a bad one for the Internet.

I mean, it changed our world completely.

It's incredible.

All these people suggesting that we were living in some digital dystopia before 2015 and that's why the government had to seize control of the Internet are completely

misinterpreting history, and I think are oblivious to the fact that these regulations do have costs.

And going forward, we want to make sure that we have rules that accurately reflect the market and promote free speech and expression online as well.

So I talked to Ray Kurzweil, who's the head of the Singularity University and consultant for Google and everybody else.

And we talked about this at one point, kind of half-jokingly, about,

you know, if Google can monitor all of the stuff

and see what people are searching for,

if somebody is searching for a better way to make a better google why would google ever allow them to do that um are you concerned at all about the rise of these gigantic corporations that are that are bigger than some countries in their power like google i mean google pretty much wrote um the um uh the net neutrality bill

this is a growing concern i think in some halls in washington and around the country and a part of of the argument I made earlier this week is that you should practice what you preach.

If you come to the FCC saying we need these heavy-handed regulations to be applied to one part of the Internet economy, but oh, don't regulate me,

you should be consistent in how you operate your business.

And that's part of the reason why I've said that we need to have a level playing field.

Everyone should play by the same rules, and the government certainly shouldn't be picking winners and losers and dispensing regulatory favors to those companies or parts of the industry that it favors at any given point in time.

So how does net neutrality benefit a company like Google and hurt the small guy?

Well, I think the primary way is it's essentially saying that if you're an online content provider, you get rules of the road that are going to favor you.

That

you essentially have the ability to pursue your business model without regulation, but the companies that run the networks that have to invest in those networks aren't free to essentially build out their networks and manage them appropriately.

And so that's pretty useful to companies that are sending and receiving a lot of traffic on the Internet.

And my simple point is let the market decide how this works instead of having the government micromanage it and pick winners and losers.

Aaron Trevor Burrus,

we were talking to Ajipai from the FCC.

And I know that a lot of, even some conservatives that I talk to see net neutrality as something that's positive because they...

They look at the way they use the Internet.

They stream Netflix, and Netflix is awesome.

Everybody loves Netflix.

It's great programming.

And I don't want some company telling me that I can't get the speeds I need so I can get buffering and everything else.

We need to stop that.

What do you tell those people?

I tell them two things.

First of all, I understand where they're coming from.

I love Netflix as well and stream a video all the time.

The problem is twofold.

Number one,

the companies that are building the networks have to be able to have a wide enough road, so to speak, to carry all of this bandwidth.

And that road, expanding it, maintaining it, costs a lot of money.

And so the question is, should we allow commercial arrangements where the companies that are occupying a lot of space on the road

will share in the cost of maintaining that road.

And that's one of the things that the market has traditionally been able to sort out.

My point is simply: we shouldn't have the government dictating up front that, look, we're going to set the rules of the road and you prefer one part of the industry over another.

Can you explain, because people say that by repealing this, it's going to make it harder for

poor Americans to afford the Internet, which is

usually the opposite of what happens when government, you know,

doesn't get involved.

When government doesn't get involved, the prices go down because there's competition.

When the government starts regulating, the prices usually go up.

Can you help solve this?

Absolutely.

And this is one of the classic bits of misinformation out there.

These regulations, these heavy-handed regulations on some of these network operators have actually led them to reduce their investment in building these high-speed networks, especially in rural and low-income urban areas.

Building these networks is hard.

It costs a lot of money, it takes a lot of time.

And what I've heard from myself, firsthand when I've gone to places like Spencer, Iowa and Parsons, Kansas and Reno, Nevada, is that some of these smaller companies, the very companies that are necessary to promote more competition and to reach rural and low-income consumers, they are the ones who are suffering under these regulations.

They've told us on the record that they are holding back on investment or they can't even raise capital in the first place because companies say there's not going to be a return on the investment because of these rules.

And so the argument I've made is that poorer consumers in particular are worse off because these regulations are standing in the way of them getting internet access or getting more competition.

Aaron Powell, I think, too, Ajit, there's a strong ideological argument to me that

there's no human right, there's no constitutional right to Netflix.

That is not what the government should be involved in when it comes to commerce.

But people, you know, they obviously like it.

They don't want these things to happen.

And when you have a situation where a company could, in theory,

strangle a particular site's bandwidth, people get panicked.

However, is it a real-world thing?

My understanding is it basically never happens.

And if it does, the result afterwards is actually a positive one.

Exactly.

And this is part of the reason why, going back to your earlier question about Netflix, and and this is exactly the reason why we should let the Federal Trade Commission, not the FCC, figure out whether or not there are any of these arrangements that are anti-competitive.

That kind of phenomena you were just describing doesn't happen in the marketplace today.

And if it did, one could imagine that it could be pro-competitive or it could be anti-competitive.

My point is simply the FCC shouldn't preemptively say for all the 4,000-some Internet service providers and for the rest of time, we know what the market is going to be, and we're going to forbid this or that business practice.

Let's let the anti-competitive authorities of the competition authorities at the Federal Trade Commission figure out what could be anti-competitive on a case-by-case basis.

That's a much better way of singling out the bad apples, I think.

Talking to the chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, about net neutrality, Ajit, do you look at all to the regulations of

FDR and

see how the big,

for instance, big three automakers put automakers like

Auburn out of business when they started regulating.

I mean, a lot of this stuff, as we are growing into a new area in technology, a lot of this stuff we can learn from the past.

Are you examining any of that?

Oh, absolutely.

In fact, the net neutrality regulations that the previous FCC adopted in 2015 were directly modeled on the rules developed in the Roosevelt administration to handle Mob Bell, the telephone monopoly.

And the argument I've made is somehow counterintuitive to a lot of people, but I think you might appreciate it, which is that these heavy-handed rules from the 1930s that were designed for monopolies actually benefit some of the bigger companies.

They're the ones who have the lawyers and the accountants and the lobbyists to comply with these regulations.

The smaller companies don't.

And so, ironically enough, these heavy-handed rules that were designed for a monopoly will end up leading the marketplace toward a monopoly.

And that's the last thing we want to see.

We want to see more competition, more smaller providers entering the marketplace.

And heavy-handed rules are not the way to get us there.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Seeing that you are the chairman of the FCC

and so much of freedom of speech, in some ways,

falls under your purview,

are you concerned about

the direction that our colleges or our universities,

even our media and our politicians seem to be moving in where

there doesn't seem to be any tolerance for different kinds of opinions?

Absolutely.

And I just gave a speech about this yesterday, in fact, where I said that there seems to be less of a tolerance for other points of view, and that social media, ironically enough, given the name, seems to be accentuating that problem.

And I'm very disturbed about the future of free speech and expression in this country.

I think the harbinger is certainly on college campuses where you see people not only not wanting to listen to other points of view, they actively want to shut down the expression of other points of view.

And this is the generation, these are the people who are going to have to carry the torch for this core constitutional freedom in the years to come.

And I've long said that the First Amendment is great.

It's nice to have that on the parchment of the Constitution.

But it also requires a culture that is willing to defend this principle that we are a pluralistic nation, that other points of view, even if repugnant to you, should be allowed to be expressed.

And I do worry that our culture is becoming less and less tolerant of other points of view.

And eventually that's going to have a serious impact if it's not corrected.

Ajit Pai, thank you so much.

I appreciate it and appreciate your time.

Chairman, you bet, chairman of the FCC.

You know, there's something happening up in Canada with a teacher that wanted to share the other side.

with her with her university class, and what she's going through is remarkable, and we'll talk about that coming up.

Uber has disclosed a breach of 57 million passengers and drivers records.

Hackers accessed personal information like names and driver's license numbers and

the names and email addresses and phone numbers of the passengers.

Although the breach was just recently announced, it actually happened a year ago.

So if you haven't had somebody monitoring your credit, your identity may have been stolen in ways you may not have detected.

That's why LifeLock is here.

Lifelock detects a wide range of identity threats that you might miss if you're just monitoring your credit, like someone stealing from your 401k or committing a crime in your name.

And if there is a problem, a U.S.-based identity restoration specialist is going to work to fix it.

Now, nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but Life Lock is the best.

Life Lock, they can help you see the threats to your identity like nobody else.

Call Life Lock at 1-800 Lifelock.

That's 1-800 Lifelock or Lifelock.com.

Use the promo code back and you'll save 10% off your Life Lock membership.

That's promo code back at 1-800 Lifelock or Lifelock.com.

Glenn back.

Glenn back

on November 18th,

a week ago last Saturday, I was about to take the stage at the M1 Mercury 1 gala, and the director of operations of the Nazarene Fund reported that we had just captured our 100th slave and set them free.

There were three Yazidi sisters

that were 14, 8 years old, and 3 years old, and they had been

kidnapped in Syria and

were enslaved in Syria and worked as sex slaves.

We got them out of Syria and returned them to their family through one of our rescue partners.

And we want to thank you for making this possible.

That's 100 Christian or Yazidi slaves that we have freed in the last, what, 18 months.

We have a huge goal, and we would like to not only expand and tear the heart out of the slave trade, but we haven't even touched upon the organ selling that is going on in the Middle East right now with the Christians and the Yazidis.

If you're, you know, if you're, if you won't comply or bow down,

you're just good for your organs.

And

it's horrible what's going on.

We are asking if you would help us raise $25 million in the next 12 months

so we can go and rescue those people, put an end to the slave trade,

not only in Iraq and Syria, but we are also going to be moving into northern Africa and around the world with our new partner, Operation Underground Railroad.

You can donate at the Nazarenefund.org, become an abolitionist, and donate now at the nazarenefund.org.

the nazarenefund.org so i saw this i just got this in um

this is uh a painting that has been done now i can't remember his name um shoot it's not here either um

uh the art i can't remember the mcnaughton i think is the artist's name and there is a a painting now of all of the abolitionists from the past and a painting to the new ones.

So you see Abraham Lincoln and all those people on one side.

Yeah.

I was shocked to see, look at my weepy face.

You see me?

Like towards the front.

I'm looking for Glenn.

Oh, is that you?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Isn't that wild?

Yeah.

You look, it's like what happens when someone takes the last cupcake out of the room.

It's like, oh, no.

And look at it go.

These are the modern day

people who are freeing slaves.

And it's a great, a great painting of the people of history and the people who are making a difference now, like Tony Robbins and Tim Ballard and Mike Tomlin and Mia Love and Ashton Kutcher.

You can find that at ourpainting.org.

Ourpainting.org.

Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Hopefully we'll have Mike Lee on with us for a second.

He's got a tax proposal that he's working on, and we'll talk to him about it.

There's some ridiculous things going on, arguments against the tax bill, and there are arguments against it, good ones, in that it's not as good as it should be.

It's not as bold as it should be.

Mike Lee is trying to do some things to it that may help, depending on your perspective.

But some of the arguments against it are also unfair.

National Review has four of them that they featured today.

People are calling it a middle-class tax hike.

This is an interesting thing because what they're trying to do with this is play with the numbers.

Tax Policy Center analysis on the Senate bill reveals that three-quarters of all families would get a tax cut.

12% would see a tax increase, and they are concentrated among the rich.

Now, to me, that's annoying because no one should be getting any increase.

But the idea that it's a middle-class tax cut, you're seeing that on Facebook, you're seeing that on all mainstream media.

The average middle-income family would receive a tax cut of approximately $850 through 2025.

Now, what they're doing is they're looking at the year 2027, and they're seeing lots of tax increases in that year.

The Senate bill is structured

to make these middle-class tax cuts expire in 2025.

They do this for a dumb budgeting gimmick.

The idea is in 2025, no one's going to say, well, we should raise taxes on the middle class.

No one's going to want to take that position, so they'll all keep the tax cuts.

That's risky.

I don't like it.

But even if you say that they don't extend them, what you would have is a $7,000 tax cut in the early years, followed by a $100

annual tax increase later.

I'll take it.

It's still a big cut over the time.

They're just focusing on the 2020s.

Nobody's going to do it at that time anyway.

Mike Lee is with us.

Senator Mike Lee, how are you, sir?

Doing Franklin.

Good to be with you.

Can you help us make sense and heads or tails of the tax plan and tell us what's going to happen?

And I don't want to talk about you.

You and Rubio have gotten together, and you're asking exactly what?

We're asking to make the child tax credit more meaningful to everyone who works, everyone who pays taxes.

What we want is a tax credit that people can take advantage of, up to 15.3%

of their earnings.

And this is a tax, the payroll tax is something that almost every American worker pays.

And our tax system fails to take into account what we call the parent tax penalty.

Our child tax credit proposal would address that.

Now,

I've been accused justifiably in the past of being really poor on your show.

Talking about this proposal subjects me to that accusation.

So,

we're going to let you go.

I mean, it's just that you get turned on by numbers and clauses in the Constitution that most people don't.

Don't we all?

Well, no, we don't.

But I appreciate that in a senator.

Well, thank you.

And I appreciate the chance to

talk about it.

It really is important.

Look, America's working moms and dads contribute to our senior entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, twice.

Once as they pay their taxes, and a second time, they incur the costs of child rearing.

Because of the pay-as-your-go nature of Social Security and Medicare, our working parents are contributing to Social Security and Medicare twice by increasing the child tax credit and making it refundable up to 15.3%

of earnings, what we're doing is we're making sure that we provide necessary tax relief to offset this parent tax penalty.

Mike, is this going to pass?

Yes, and we're going to make sure of it.

Look, it's going to pass because it has to pass.

And I'm not sure exactly what form the tax bill will take,

but it's going to pass.

And I and my Republican colleagues in the Senate are going to make sure of it.

Mike, they were talking about potentially as an offset to an increased child tax credit of having to increase

the proposed corporate tax.

So is it 20%?

They're talking about 21%, 22%.

Is that going to be necessary to do

the changes you're talking about?

This is one way to pay for it.

We are not necessarily wedded to that method of paying for it.

We're open to other suggestions.

I'd love to leave the corporate rate at 20% rather than 22%.

But as of right now, we've got to keep in mind that as President Trump himself explained to us at lunch the other day, 70% of the tax relief in this bill is for corporations, leaving 30% of the relief

for individuals.

This is one way of shifting more of that relief to individuals, especially to America's most important entrepreneurial class of investors, that is, America's parents.

Do you believe that America's corporations feel comfortable enough in investing that money

in

capital expenditures or

investment in employees, or are they just going to

roll those tax savings into the market?

No, I think they're going to invest in a lot of things that will create jobs, and that's why I'm pleased to offer corporate tax relief.

The corporate tax is itself kind of a devious thing because it disguises some of the costs of government.

People think taxes on corporations don't cost workers any money.

They do.

In fact, according to some economists, it may well be that half or so of corporate taxes end up coming right out of workers' wages.

In any event, we know that money tax corporations will chill economic activity and

effects on everyone, including America's middle-class taxpayers.

Is McCain going to stick with you guys?

I saw a story yesterday afternoon.

It looks like McCain's at it again, I think was the headline.

Is McCain at it?

I saw that story, too.

It gives me nightmares, had nightmares ever since that fateful night in July when he left his thumb hanging in suspended animation, leaving us in, we've turned the thumb down.

I want to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Look, I think he'll vote with us at the end of the day.

Even if he doesn't,

we can lose him and still pass the thing without him.

Mike, I know you.

I'm glad you're talking about the payroll tax because I think it's something that conservatives don't get fired up enough about.

Here's a tax that is a regressive tax, meaning that people on the poor end of the scale pay more than people on the high end of the income scale, which is something I can't believe any progressive ever defends, but they seem to defend it.

And not only it locks us into this

idea, and a lot of conservatives, I think, fall for it, which is these long-term giant programs that are supposedly funded through this, when in reality it kind of all goes into a big pot anyway.

These big programs are owed to us because of this separate tax.

We don't look at any other giant program the way we look at these entitlement programs.

And I think it's a real problem.

Is there any hope of attacking this payroll tax even more boldly?

Well, I think you've made the point well.

And this leads to a point I've been meaning to use in my messaging with this, which is the best way to understand the Rubio Lee amendment is that it basically provides a tax cut with respect to payroll taxes.

And for some of the reasons that you identify, we've got to focus on this more than we do.

And just as importantly, a related point is that the people who would benefit most acutely from the Rubio Lee proposal would be those workers who are perhaps most at risk of falling out of the workforce and choosing instead to go on welfare.

You know, parents with young children who are right

at the edge economically of whether or not they're going to decide it makes sense to continue working and instead stop and take welfare benefits.

We want to keep them in the workforce.

We want to give them plenty of opportunity

to stay in the workforce so that they can benefit themselves and their families, so that they can get promotions and continue to make more and be contributing members.

This would help incentivize them to do that and remove some of the incentives for them to just go on welfare instead.

Mike, I'm going to switch gears with you and then I'll let you go.

You know, Matt Lauer was just let go.

Garrison Keillor was just let go.

And

it's a little disturbing to me, A, that we're letting people go without any kind of real due process.

It seems like this could get out of hand quickly if we're not really careful.

I mean, I'm glad bad guys are going away and I want this to be solved, but it concerns me that there's no due process here.

However, the only ones that don't seem really affected by it are those in politics.

You know, on the Republican side, Roy Moore and Donald Trump.

On the liberal side, it's John Conyer and

Al Franken.

They're not going anywhere.

Does that concern you, Mike?

Yeah, in politics, some things operate differently, quite tragically, reminding us of the meaning of the word politics.

Break it down to its Greek roots, poly, which means many, and ticks, which are blood-sucking parasites.

A lot of what happens here.

Look, as to your first point about due process, in the case of Matt Lauer, for instance, look, he was fired by a private for-profit corporation.

I assume he was an at-will employee, or if he wasn't an at-will employee, that he had some kind of provision in his contract allowing his employer to take this action.

He did this.

So

speaking literally, in constitutional terms, that means there isn't a due process issue.

Due process in the lowercase sense of the word, I assume that NBC, being well represented by capable attorneys, made sure that they dotted their I's and crossed the T's and that they made sure that the facts were adequately substantiated before taking this step.

Firing someone who holds public office is a little bit different because

normally, in most circumstances, to fire them, you have to wait until the next election.

But I suspect that there are going to be a whole lot of people getting fired by their voters

as these things continue to come out.

You believe that there's more to come out, Mike?

You've been there for a while.

Sadly, I come to suspect that there are.

I've been saddened and surprised by

some of the horrible things that have been happening, and they seem to arise in circumstances where

men will do really bad things

in circumstances where they think they can get away with it.

There aren't enough reasons that they see not to do it.

And it's tragic.

It should not be that way.

But

of news entertainment, of media entertainment, and government and politics.

And

it makes me a little nervous that

if the people don't vote those people out, if they decide that it doesn't matter, we're going to end up with some of the worst people in the world, even worse than we have now in Washington, showing up because you'll literally be able to get away with anything.

Yeah, I think that's right.

And that would be an absolutely unacceptable outcome.

Fortunately, Glenn, I don't think they'll happen for two independent reasons.

First, I think a lot of people are going to take themselves out of contention.

Perhaps most or all those people who are in government right now, who are subject to these accusations are going to decide it's time to hang up.

Secondly, I really don't think their voters are going to put up with it.

This is unacceptable.

They shouldn't elect people who will do awful things like this.

Senator Mike Lee, thank you very much.

Good luck.

You know why I like Goldline as a partner is because they actually care about you and listen to you.

I had shared with them some emails that we had received from some subscribers who said, Glenn,

have you seen how expensive Goldline is?

Well, yes, Goldline is more expensive than some of the other people because they're very transparent.

They're buttoned up.

They're the best in the business.

However, we have been talking about it for a long time with them.

They just entered a new partnership with A-Mark.

Now, that is one of the largest publicly traded precious metal wholesalers.

So this is this who just who just gobbled them up.

So now they have access to all the gold at real low wholesale prices.

So Goldline wants to slash the prices on its most popular products

in ways that have never been seen before.

And they've done it because they listen to you.

Call right now, Goldline at 866Goldline and take advantage of this unprecedented special.

I've not seen Goldline.

They never have cut their prices prices ever.

The price of gold is the price of gold.

Now they are passing big savings on to you.

You can buy gold and silver at amazing prices.

The price of gold may have gone up in 2017, but goldline's prices are coming down.

Call 866-Goldline, 1-866-465-3546.

They're waiting for your call right now.

If you've already bought gold from them or you never have, now is the time to do it.

Unbelievable price of gold being brought down now only by one company, Goldline, passing the savings on to you.

1-866-Goldline, 1-866-Goldline or Goldline.com.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

So glad you've tuned in today.

For those of you who had Glenn's voice would be gone by the first hour, you're about to lose, even if you said the second hour.

I don't know if it'll last three, but we'll give it a shot.

Nice work so far.

Yeah, nice work.

Thank you.

So I'm just reading.

Now, Vanity Fair has just come out with something on Matt Lauer.

And this, NBC apparently had done a two-month investigation.

Yeah, this is what makes you believe that NBC.

I mean, they didn't act this fast with Mark Halperin.

They didn't act this fast, certainly with

Harvey Weinstein when they had that story in their own company and they gave it to the New Yorker for whatever reason.

They didn't act, they took their time on a lot of that stuff.

Here, I mean, it was instant.

At least that's what they say.

I mean, if it's a two-month investigation, it's hard to imagine that NBC didn't have wind of it before Monday night.

Well, here's what they said.

Variety's reporters said that they didn't have to do specific interviews, that

Lauer's behavior was an open secret among the employees and the management, and the management went out of its way to ignore his sexual impropriety.

I mean,

it's not good.

Yeah, now Variety is claiming that

they knew.

And NBC had complaints, and they fell on deaf ears at NBC from their employees.

NBC is saying, we just found out about it yesterday.

We swear.

And just the fact of how quickly they moved on a guy, they were paying $26 million a year.

The Today Show in advertising brings in $508 million a year in revenue.

I'm telling you, you do not get a call

on a Sunday afternoon and say, hey, somebody just filed a sexual harassment suit on Matt Lauer.

And by Monday morning, you have decided, okay, because of that one sexual harassment suit, we're going to put at risk $500 million.

There's no way.

Especially irresponsible for the shareholders to do that.

Yeah, and it would be irresponsible just

as a human, right?

Like you shouldn't.

These things, when they come in, and we've heard various, there's various levels of this, right?

The New York Times reporter who made passes at a couple of women at bars, they refuted him, you know, they rejected him, and he didn't do anything to

go after them.

And it was at a different job than his

previous employer.

Like, doesn't seem, I mean, look,

this is much further.

This is Matt apparently with several women dropping his pants and showing them his junk.

Which women don't like.

I don't know who what guy thinks this is good, but they don't like it, guys.

They don't like it.

Glenn, back.

Love,

courage, truth.

Glenn Bass.

So the U.S.

Air Force does a lot of things well, but data entry apparently is not one of them.

On Tuesday, the Air Force said that it found dozens of cases in which it failed to enter servicemen who had been convicted of a crime into the National Criminal Information Center database.

Why is this important?

Well, you'll recall that the gunman who killed 26 people in Sutherland Springs earlier this month was a former Air Force serviceman who had spent a year in military prison for assaulting his wife and threatening to kill his stepson.

The Air Force admitted that his conviction had not been entered into the National Background Check Database.

If his name had been in the database, it may have prevented him from being able to purchase a gun.

Instead, he passed all of his background checks and bought guns over the past two years.

Now the Air Force is doing an internal review of 60,000 cases that reach back to 2002 and they say they're correcting several dozen records that should have been reported to the national database.

The full review is going to take several months.

The Air Force negligence here is really truly staggering.

The idea that they found, oh look at here, another case, dozens, where they failed to register convicted servicemen.

And that's just what they found so far and what they're telling us about.

And that's just one branch of the military.

What about all the other branches?

What about all the state and federal agencies?

How much more negligence is out there?

Enforcing the laws we already have is imperative.

But if we can't even depend on the Air Force for due diligence in this area, then we have a serious problem.

Can we come together on something we can agree on?

Redoubling our efforts across the board to enforce the gun laws that are in place now.

We have to be better than this because every time that we're not, we chip away at all of our constitutional freedoms.

It's Thursday, November 30th.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Adam Foss is the founder and executive director.

of Prosecutor Impact, a guy who never thought he was going to be a prosecutor.

I love this.

You're so honest.

You got into law.

You went to law school for money.

My money.

I love that.

I love that.

And then you started seeing how the system really worked.

And you thought,

this is broken.

This is really bad.

You want to explain?

Yeah.

First, thank you for getting into this conversation.

It's an important one that

we need to be having and should be something that we're talking about more often than we already do.

When I walked into a courthouse for the first time in a city

and saw a literal and figurative divide between the people who were constantly impacted by the criminal justice system and those people who were

enforcing it, who were prosecuting, who were defending, who were judging, who were probating,

the divide and the sort of tone-deafness and the patriarchy of those folks, you could see the negative impact happening in the moment.

And yet we would tell ourselves that this is a great system, this is working, it's punishing people, it's teaching them lessons, it's creating safer communities was

a falsity.

And so that's what drove me into the criminal justice system and the work that I continue to do today.

So you're a prosecutor now.

And

you had a guy, I think Christopher was his name, right?

Yeah.

That came in front of you as a prosecutor, and you had a choice.

Tell me about this.

Christopher was a young person

who made a series of really bad judgments and stole a bunch of laptops from his part-time job and sold them for a lot of money.

And he was going to use that money to apply for college.

And it's something that we don't talk enough about is how people

many times commit crime out of necessity or perceive necessity.

He came in, a young black man

who was charged with 30 counts of felony larceny.

And

just the appearance of those things on his criminal record would have doomed him for life.

A young black man from my neighborhood being charged with 30 counts of theft, you're not getting employed anywhere.

And so at the at that point in time where I had to decide what to do with the case.

Because that's what the DA does.

I mean, mean, the DA decides what the charges are, how you're going to handle it.

I mean, you're one guy.

So one bad guy can make a whole bunch of bad decisions.

One good guy can make a lot of good decisions.

So

you're looking at him and you're like, what are we going to do?

And how did you balance justice and mercy?

Yeah.

Justice,

to me, and for

people who are in our justice system,

needs to be accounting for everything about that person and not just what does the law say and what happened.

And what will happen to them if we go down this road?

Is it just that this young man, because he made this decision based on his own calculation, should never get a job again?

And what is that going to do to us?

Is that going to make us a safer society if this kid is now 25 and unemployed?

Right.

When considering what justice is, you need to be thinking about all these things in context.

And for me, the context was we still have the ability to teach this kid a lesson, which was ultimately what the justice system was built for.

But we don't need to do so in a way that is purely punitive

and hopefully will have a better outcome than sending him to jail.

So this particular case did have a better outcome.

Explain the outcome.

So we worked together and he worked with community-based organizations to get himself into school.

He did community service.

He repaid what he had stolen from the store.

He got back laptops that he had stolen because he had tracked down the people on the internet that he sold them to.

And then I lost track of him, which is actually a good thing in the criminal justice system.

It's a good thing never to see people again.

Until

six or seven years later, I'm at a professional men's event, men of color in the city of Boston.

And this kid approaches me and it's the young man from court.

And I didn't recognize me.

It was a grown man at this point.

And he had a very well-paying job in Boston.

He owned a home.

He had a child that is going to not live in poverty.

And so all of these things

were the result of decisions that I, as one prosecutor and with the help of other colleagues, made.

And we have the ability to do that every single day.

People could be doing it right now.

So

I don't think anybody would disagree with the intent.

I mean, that's what the justice system is for,

to correct behavior.

And if behavior can't be corrected, then just take them off the streets.

However,

we're living in a time now where, man,

I've really lost faith in the justice system.

I mean,

I've always believed that justice was, you know, that it pretty much worked out.

I don't believe that anymore.

And I think it has been kind of a lie that I've lived my whole life.

It may may be the best system in the world, but it still sucks.

But we're also living at a time where people

are not held accountable for anything.

So how do you balance that?

So accountability is a funny word that we use in the criminal justice system.

As prosecutors, we use it all the time.

I'm holding this person accountable.

And for

the suggestion that if I do something on December 1st, 2016, and then we litigate my responsibility for that thing for the course of a year or 18 months, and then at the end of that thing, we either try the case or you plead out to that, which actually mitigates your responsibility in the action.

We call that accountability.

And we only call that accountability because hundreds and hundreds of years ago, some white guys sitting around a table were like, this is how we're going to do it.

We didn't measure it and validate it and say, yes, this actually brings about accountability.

We just said punishment equals accountability.

And we've just done that forever.

And so where the criminal justice system fails is

by exchanging punishment for actual accountability.

And with Christopher, and Christopher is one example of thousands and thousands of people that I had the privilege to work with when I was a prosecutor.

For Christopher, accountability wasn't about

getting a criminal record and going to jail and being

deprived of his future.

Accountability was about every day, him doing something that reminded him of the harm that he caused.

Christopher, you're going to write essays about what you did.

And I know that sounds sort of ethereal and trite, but.

No, with some people, it would work.

With some people, it would work.

It works.

You'd be amazed at how many people it works with to actually talk about harm and

let that person talk about why they created that harm and understand the gravity and depth of that harm and then work to repair that harm.

That's accountability.

Because doesn't it seem though, I mean, because I think the argument would be, isn't everybody who steals a bunch of laptops now going to come up in front of you and say, hey, I needed them for college, and I'm going to turn things around.

And eventually, if you let me go, I'm going to be a high-paid person in Boston, and it's all going to work out well.

How can you balance that?

Do you have to judge each specific case and just try to figure it out?

Does everyone get the same amount of chances?

The law obviously is supposed to treat everyone the same way.

How do you navigate that?

Well, first, it's the like the fundamental principle that the law is supposed to treat everybody the same way.

We know is a

falsity.

But we want to work towards that, right?

We do.

But in the time that we do, the people who suffer the most from that fallacy are our most marginalized people.

And you would put marginalized in anybody who can't afford it, right?

Can't afford it.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter your skin color.

It really is all about money.

It is.

It's about money.

It's about socioeconomic status.

It's about your capital and how much you are worth to the 1%, basically.

Student to your question,

sure, lots of people might say, hey, you know, I should get a break too.

And as a society, we need to start start asking ourselves, like, if young, poor black kids are coming up to me and saying, I stole laptops because I was poor, then maybe each case should get an individual look and say,

I hear you.

And we have some responsibility for creating that situation.

So as a society, we need to be prepared to say, yeah, we're going to give you a bunch of chances.

Because guess what?

Everybody sitting at this table got a million.

Everybody that is in Washington or in the media right now that suddenly are losing their jobs, that was after hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of infractions that we just looked aside.

The place where there's the most amount of sexual violence, the most amount of physical violence, the most amount of drug use, the most amount of cheating and stealing is not in

the impoverished neighborhoods of Detroit and Chicago and Boston.

It's on college campuses.

And as a society, we are okay with that because we know that at some point this young person will grow out of this behavior, they will be successful, and most of that hopefully will stop.

So you

you got into it for the money, then you left and you became a DA.

And now you are

trying to educate DAs all around the country to

what exactly?

One, it's not even to...

I guess it is to educate them, but

not in the sense that I know more than them.

It is a tragedy what we deprive lawyers of when they want to go and do public service in law school.

I didn't come out of law school prepared to be a prosecutor making really, really important decisions about people's lives because I didn't understand a thing about those people's lives.

I didn't know anything about the collateral consequences of convictions or even arraigning a person.

I didn't know that if you were arraigned for drug selling drugs in the city of Boston, just arraigned, not convicted, that you could lose your public housing and not just you, but everybody on the lease.

So if you are accused of selling drugs because you are poor to make money, the response of the justice system is to remove you from your public housing and make it to teach you a lesson.

How is that making us safer?

I think it might make it more likely to go back to that behavior.

And so because

it's the classic story of

Jean-Valjean.

Yes.

That, you know, you do you have your yellow ticket of leave, and if you don't have your yellow ticket of leave, well, then, you know, I got to present it, but if I present it, I ain't getting a job.

Right.

And so

for prosecute, unfortunately, law schools aren't trying to reinvent sort of the way that they teach people, especially people who want to do this kind of work.

We shouldn't be learning about whales and trusts in the states.

I learned that for a test.

I took the test, and I've forgotten it all by now.

But my first day of work outside of law school, I went into a courtroom and I was being asked to decide whether or not somebody should go to jail because they might not return to court.

I knew nothing about crime or behavior or poverty or what happens when you go to jail.

In fact, lots of people that I worked around had never been into a jail or prison on our first day of work.

Do you watch the show this is on Netflix?

It's about Bojack Horseman.

No, no.

No.

It's about the FBI when they first started looking into serial killers.

And everybody said these guys.

Oh, Mindhunter?

Yeah, Mind Hunter.

You should watch it.

They were called, you know, crazy, and you were just trying to babysit people like Charlie Manson.

And they're like, no, no, no.

We need to listen to them and understand them because maybe we can catch them.

Maybe we can change this behavior before it happens.

And it wasn't popular in the 1970s.

You kind of feel like that?

Yeah.

To me, it's crazy that formerly incarcerated people aren't employed by DA's offices.

Here we are, these these very privileged people that have never been, you know, maybe once in a while we've been the victim of a crime and that makes us feel like we're in a better position to do these things.

But the most I've learned about the criminal justice system came from

kids that I prosecuted.

This one kid who I asked him what he was thinking when he committed a serious armed robbery told me, do you actually think that I left my house contemplating whether or not I would go to prison because I was going to rob these guys for money to give to my mother?

And he said to me, one of the most profound things I've ever heard.

He's like, you are in the land of the living.

The criminal law is for the land of the living.

We are surviving.

17 years old, fifth grade reading level.

The most important education I ever got in the criminal justice system.

And it wasn't from my $150,000 education.

And for those of us, again, who think that we are better than because we go to college and we go to laws and we get these degrees, that we should be meeting out justice and deciding what is safe for communities and not including people from those communities in those conversations is is asinine.

How do people find you, Adam?

How do people join you and find out more about?

I mean,

you're on, you know, your TED Talk is popular and very, very good.

Thank you.

But if people wanted to reach out.

Yeah.

ProsecutorImpact.com is the website about my nonprofit that now is going around and doing trainings around the country of prosecutors.

Adam John Foss is my social media, everything.

And

I want to hear from people.

I want people to engage in this conversation because we need to have an even broader conversation than, you know, I enjoy that people bring up Christopher all the time.

I use the Christopher story because I knew it wouldn't turn people off right away.

But if we are being honest with each other about what we're going to do about mass incarceration, about the criminal justice system, we need to start talking about violent crime.

We need to parse out.

serial killers and serial rapists from young black and brown men and women who are shooting and killing each other because of intergenerational poverty and trauma.

If we really, really mean it as a country that we are embarrassed about this thing, then we have to have real conversations about it.

And

you're not looking just for a bunch of yes people that just agree with you and budkists.

You want to be challenged.

Yeah, I don't want to go.

I don't enjoy going to preach to the choir and everybody standing ovation.

That's great.

That's not doing anything for the system.

And in fact, a lot of the rooms that I go to where people are, you know, cheering and rah-rah-rah, as soon as the suggestion is, well, to solve this problem, you're going to have to give up a little bit of yours, conversation's over.

So you talk about all the people who are like, yeah, close Rikers, close Rikers, close Rikers.

As soon as the idea was put out in the air that if we close Rikers down, we'll put five jails in each of the boroughs.

And because of zoning, those jails will have to go.

Where you live?

People are like,

no, it's all right.

Expand Rikers.

Expand Rikers.

Adam, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Adam Foss.

Thank goodness for the Casper wave.

I was in bed almost all day yesterday.

With a nasty cold, a good night's sleep is really important.

And my Casper wave helped me do just that.

Casper went back to the drawing board.

They collected three years of data and feedback and foam research and sleep science.

And they created the wave.

It features a patent-pending support system that mirrors your body's natural curvature for a deeper, more restorative sleep.

The Casper Wave.

It has a new top layer that is so incredibly soft, but it doesn't get in the way of you experiencing the support you need below.

Like the original, the wave

has been designed with breathable foam so you sleep cool year-round.

That makes a huge difference alone.

The Casper Wave.

Try it in your own home for 100 nights, risk-free and with free shipping and returns.

Go to Casper.com and use the promo code back.

You can save $75 on your purchase.

That's casper.com promo code back.

Minimum purchase is required.

See site for details, terms and conditions to apply.

Glenn back.

Glenn back.

Adam Foss, the founder and executive director of Prosecutor Impact

and a DA up in Boston, who I saw him at an event and he came up to me and he's like, like, I got to get a picture with you because my dad and I are such big fans, and my dad has to have a picture of us together.

He was a really nice guy.

Really nice guy.

And, you know, he talks about something.

Obviously, we all know that the criminal justice system isn't perfect and there are a lot of problems, and some of them need to be seriously addressed.

One of the approaches he has that I like is many people who talk about criminal justice reform talk about it as if the prosecutors are just bad guys.

Like they have this power structure.

They want to keep people down.

They want to,

They have visceral anger against people, and they're always trying to

personify that.

He talks about it in a different way and just says the incentives are out of line.

We don't need it.

It shouldn't be about racking up wins.

It should be about justice.

Good conversation.

Glenn back.

You're listening to the Glenn Back program.

If you're not watching the show on the Blaze TV, if you're not a subscriber, you need to become one.

Every day, 5 o'clock,

we do a show, and we're doing the chalkboard and doing them in a different way.

We're breaking big ideas down, and then we'll do a series of four.

This week it was deep state, and the fourth episode is happening tonight at 5 o'clock, and you don't want to miss it.

You can binge on them if you're a subscriber at theblaze.com slash TV.

But this one is about the deep state, and it's...

It's fascinating because we hear, you know, it's the deep state.

And you think of, you know, the star chamber and everything else.

We do have a deep state problem here in America, but it is not the star chamber kind of deep state.

And it's important that you know

the difference between the two and you know how to stop it.

And this one can be stopped, but

it takes all of us.

And I would suggest that it would take all of us to vote for people that don't want to send photos of their junk to other people.

Well, you've just eliminated half the population of the world.

Apparently so.

Except in this room.

I am under no impression at all that women want to see my junk.

No,

even if I were wildly in shape, I don't believe that women would want to see the junk.

I don't know why guys keep sending pictures of their junk to people, but that's what apparently happened with Matt Lauer is he sent pictures of himself

or parts of him or a specific part of him to a woman, and she kept it.

And then that's what she showed Monday night to NBC management.

So that's why it went so fast.

That's why they were able to fire him so fast.

Now, were they in a line?

Did they

give him an opportunity to have a lineup?

Or anything?

I don't think that's how it works.

I don't know.

I'm having a hard time recognizing because they all look

That's what I don't understand.

Is yeah, I've got the most attractive penis on earth.

I don't know.

She's going to love it when I send this.

Here's a surprise.

They're not attractive.

It's not good to look at.

And they all look alike.

And it's not.

The light should be off.

Yes.

It's just

not a good thing.

It's an argument for darkness.

The male anatomy is an argument for darkness.

It really is.

It's interesting.

There's nothing we talk about that makes me feel older than when you hear these conversations about how, oh, this person sexted a picture of their junk to this woman.

Why on earth would you think that's

I don't know when?

When did that start?

Now, Lauer's older than us.

How old is he?

He's in his, what is he, 60?

Yeah, 60, 62, somewhere in there.

And what on earth would possess you to think it was a good idea as a multi, you're making $26 million a year.

You're one of the most well-known people in America to sext a picture of your junk to some woman.

Dumb thing to do.

No, no, you thought Martha Stewart was dumb trying to save 60 grand.

Yeah.

He just wanted to show his junk to somebody.

How stupid is that?

So weird.

So and I don't know.

I really don't understand it.

And I mean, guys, listen,

Victoria's secret, okay?

Yeah.

It's really just for the guys.

The girls, the women don't necessarily love it.

Okay.

It's for us.

So there's a reason there's not a Victor's secret.

Okay.

They don't want to see it.

Well, let me run this theory by you.

Pat and I, when you were out yesterday, kind of discussed this a little bit.

I think guys do this because they think that's what they want.

Right.

Remember every really bad penthouse letter from back in the day?

It always started with

guys would just walk over, they'd be delivering pizza.

They'd walk over to somebody's house.

I never thought these stories were true until it happened to me.

Right.

And they, and they walked in, like, you know, you walk into someone's house house for a meeting and the unbelievably hot boss walks out in her underwear.

Like, guys think that's awesome, but women don't think John Conyers walking out in his underwear is awesome.

Is it possible that guys are just

trying to,

you know,

they think this would be a positive when it is not?

Do you think women would find that awesome with any

male?

Like if you're, you know, Brad Breadhead and his craft.

You're walking out in your underwear.

Well, probably, I mean,

we were just, I was just seeing a video online that was posted of

NBC

apparently at the Olympics in Rio and bringing out, trotting out this guy.

I think it was a Tonga, and he was in the lineup.

Yeah.

And he came out.

He's all oiled up and glistening.

And his body is amazing.

And they're just, the whole interview, they're just rubbing their hands all over his chest and back during the interview.

They're just rubbing.

Women, multiple women walking up to the guy and just rubbing their hands all over his body.

Now, this is the same organization, of course, as firing people left and right for various levels of sexual harassment.

Now, he doesn't seem to be opposing it, but isn't there a power structure there?

Does the guy from Tonga have the same power as NBC anchors?

Shouldn't, I mean, aren't they put in this

matriarchal

society that we've

this power structure?

Power structure.

I mean, imagine Tonga.

You're the guy from Tonga, and you're going to say something to the women of NBC, and you're going to turn NBC against Tonga.

You can't turn it into turns.

They're too powerful.

I mean, these same arguments can be made.

They could be made.

But everybody knows that guys aren't necessarily opposed to that.

He didn't look like he was opposed to it

in the footage.

I mean, if you're.

You can't assume, though.

You can't assume.

You can't assume.

And again, even if they are.

This is the standard set with Louis C.K.

Louis C.K.

And who was the other one?

Still in trouble.

The other day, the same, Al Franken, in the interview from last night, where he says, My intent doesn't matter.

It just matters what they feel about the experience.

That's not true.

Louis C.K.

said, I never did anything that they didn't agree to, but I should have known because I was admired and a powerful comedian that they couldn't say no to my question of whether we wanted to.

They had no power of consent.

And it's interesting because Lauer has one of his accusers is similar.

It goes beyond what Louis C.K.

did, but in September, Lauer asked

in,

that's not the right one.

So they, one of two of the accusers have come forward since all of this broke, and one of them claims that Lauer summoned her to his office for sex, and she told the New York Times she, quote, felt helpless because she didn't want to lose her job.

So

you did have sex with him?

You're not helpless.

Whether you felt it or not, you don't have to say yes.

Hang on just a second.

I mean,

some kind of

an interesting dynamic in this.

And we've taken away the agency from women.

They're not allowed to say, like, they're not allowed to say no.

They're not allowed to make those decisions.

If the power structure looks the other way, they don't really have a choice.

I mean,

they can lose their job.

Yeah, yeah.

If they want to keep their job, if they value their job over

this experience, then they do.

Now, but if that's the case, years later, is it okay to come forward and say he raped me?

It was consensual, or you at least negotiated.

I thought it was consensual.

You negotiated the price, which apparently was your job, or you just assumed you negotiated the price.

I think a lot of times that's implied.

It's not even spoken.

Because it's outspoken.

It's outwardly criminal.

it is a huge violation.

But just assuming you feeling helpless, that's not the same thing as being helpless.

I think I'm more of a feminist than some of these women are.

I think they're stronger than this.

Yeah.

We talked about this a little bit yesterday, Glenn.

And I'd love to get your thoughts on this.

I'm not sure.

I'm not.

Hang on just a second.

I'm just pondering what Pat said.

I'm not, I do believe that's true now.

I'm not sure that that was true five years ago.

But this is why, this is how I kind of, we were talking about this a little bit yesterday.

If, if Tanya had a job

and she worked at an organization and the most powerful man in the company, you really needed the money, you couldn't lose that job.

The most powerful man in the company came to her and said, look, we're going to have sex right now.

Didn't say even anything about the job.

And she felt...

And he would be dead.

Right.

And you, and you, but wouldn't, if she did it, you'd be pissed at him for sure.

But you would also be pissed at her.

Oh, I'd be more pissed at her.

If it was my wife, I'd be more pissed.

I'd be like, what?

No, it's not as important to me.

No, it'd be better than that.

That's not important to me.

Your job and the money is not important to me.

Right.

So it's interesting because what the media is implying about these cases is essentially these women are making a cost-benefit analysis in which they're putting up their sexual lives at a lower priority than advancement in their career.

Yeah.

And that is quite an accusation to make against these women.

Yes.

However, we're looking at it from the side of A.

I mean, Pat, if I would have told you two months ago that 40 names and some of the biggest names in the industry, in Hollywood and

in

news and entertainment,

40 of the biggest names have been fired because of sexual being sexual predators.

Would you have believed me?

No.

No.

No way.

No way.

No.

So not only that, we would have never thought that they would have actually gone through with it,

but also I am shocked at the number of guys that are doing this.

You know, the guys you think, you know, Matt Lauer,

I may disagree with him, but I don't think he's a predator.

You know what I mean?

And he's doing this.

And then you find out he is.

You find out he is.

Like Anthony Wiener, we all knew that that was going on.

Not because we had ever heard a specific rumor, but just because he was so slimy.

You just assumed it was occurring.

Yeah, okay.

So

we're looking at this, not having this experience at all,

and seeing this stuff now going, this is going on for women, especially in those industries.

It's been going on for a very long time.

Sure.

And, you know, the casting couch has been going on for a very long time.

And if there's no one up above, you know, imagine when Roger Ailes was the guy and you knew that Rupert Murdoch was getting a billion dollars a year because of Roger Ailes.

You think he's going to believe you?

You think anything's going to matter to you?

No, take the money and shut up.

But again,

there's a level of that argument, and I understand and I agree, generally speaking, but there's a level of that argument that is saying you should,

you should, you should choose

this horrible

just to make sure you keep your job.

Yeah, there's no way that you're not going to be there.

There's worse things than losing your job.

That choice should never be presented to a woman ever.

It shouldn't.

Or basically.

But we all know that.

Or a man.

But we know that it has happened.

And we shouldn't assume that, oh, well, I guess, you know, well,

they didn't have a choice.

They had to have sex with them.

Like, no, you don't.

And how many people, we talked about this yesterday.

How many people were affected

by someone like this?

Especially like the Weinstein stuff.

You talked about this on Pat Gray, Unleashed, I think it was two days ago, about the woman who said, I had sex with Harvey Weinstein to get this role.

Right.

So, A, how many people, because she never reported that at the time and never talked about it at the time,

how many people did that happen to afterwards?

Many.

And secondarily, who's the woman that should have had that role in the movie that didn't get it because this woman decided to have sex with Harvey Weinstein?

Right?

Like, somebody else is affected there.

The person in the, you know, like when you have the, when you have the celebrity who wants to try out for the major leagues, there's someone who actually deserves to get the tryout that doesn't get the tryout.

But that's what they're thinking.

That's that's what you're thinking.

If you are in a place,

let's say Fox News or NBC or Weinstein, where if the guy at the top wants to have sex with you and you don't, there's a whole line of women that will, then you have to decide who you are.

Yeah.

And that's

unfortunate, right?

It's unfortunate.

You know, you shouldn't decide that.

But

what I'm concerned with is not the ones who have decided to just put up with it.

I'm

concerned about the ones who didn't, but didn't feel comfortable that they could say anything.

They just avoid, they got away from him and then just avoided him, but they couldn't, you know, they didn't feel comfortable saying anything.

And so it was a hostile atmosphere.

Imagine somebody doing that to you and then

you not being able to say anything, but he's not a predator towards you anymore, but you know what happened last time and you just avoid each other.

Imagine the pit that's in your stomach that you go to work with every day.

Yeah, that's not right.

And that's, I mean, I think, generally speaking, right, over this whole thing, over the last few months, there's going to be a lot of really good outcomes, I think, from this.

A lot of really bad people going away, a lot of really good changes in the workplace, a lot of really good things that we maybe didn't notice or understand before that are coming to light that now we can address.

And hopefully men won't take this chance anymore.

Yeah.

Hopefully they won't stop texting each other.

I don't have to do this stuff.

However,

That's a good safety tip.

Never take a picture of your wiener.

Never.

Never.

Never do it.

Even if a doctor says to you, I want to take a picture of your wiener, say no.

Nope.

Yeah.

In fact,

even if it's an x-ray or

just say, whatever happens, it'll happen.

If there's something broken in there, I just won't know.

If I've got cancer in there or something, it'll just fall off.

Don't worry about it, Doc.

It's not a problem.

More discussion about what parts of your body you should take pictures with coming up on Pat Gray Unleashed on the Blaze Radio and TV network.

Getting a good night's sleep is easier said than done, especially if you hear a noise downstairs.

What do you do in that situation?

You turn up all lights, you keep watch, you check your kids' beds, you know, make sure everything's asleep with one eye open.

Well, you can rest easy easy knowing that your home and family are protected with SimplySafe.

And that alarm is going to go off if somebody's in your house.

You can order SimplySafe online in minutes and have it on your doorstep this week and up in just about a half an hour to an hour.

You open up the box, you plug it in, and you're protected with professional home security.

No tools, no hardwiring.

With SimplySafe, there are no contracts or no hidden fees.

24/7 professional monitoring for $14.99 a month.

All you have to do is go to simplysafebeck.com and get a special 10% discount when you order today.

That's simply safebeck.com.

Save 10% now, simply safebeck.com.

Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck.

We want to invite you to join us and become an abolitionist.

This holiday season, we've just rescued our 100th slave from the slave trade in Syria and Iraq.

We rescued three girls to bring us up to 100

from 17 to four years old, was the youngest slave.

This is a huge problem, and it's one of those very few things that it seems like there's actual agreement with, no matter what political party you're in, saving victims of this stuff is

really important work.

So the Nazarene Fund has upped its goal, and we would love for you to join us as an abolitionist.

You know, you could just donate five bucks a month if you wanted, or make a donation to the Nazarenefund.org, thenazarenefund.org, and help us save those slaves in the Middle East.

Glenn, back.