5/22/17 - The optimistic Senator (Mike Lee)

The Blaze Radio Network

on demand

hello America and welcome to the Glen Beck program.

So glad you're here.

We have to explain the orb.

Did you guys see the weird orb that President Trump and the One Orb to Rule them all?

Yeah, one orb to rule them all.

We had to look that up.

I saw that and I'm like, okay, that's weird, Lord of the Rings kind of thing.

Kind of spooky.

What is it?

It's kind of a spooky

Saudi Arabian thing.

They're opening up a new center.

We'll tell you about that.

Also, can we stop the nonsense that President Trump bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia and he is in Jerusalem today?

We'll have more on that.

Also, Bill Cosby, his trial begins today as far as picking the jurors.

They're going to start picking the jury today with Bill Cosby being accused of being a racist, I mean, sorry, a rapist,

and also

an amazing story about how far gender studies have come.

They

wait until you see this is the greatest hoax on academia, possibly of all time.

We begin there, right now.

I will make a stand,

I will raise my voice, I will hold your hand.

Cause we are one.

I will be my drum.

I have made my choice.

We will overcome.

Cause we are run.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Hello, America.

Welcome to Monday.

We're glad you're here.

A lot going on.

It was a good weekend for the president, I believe, wasn't it?

Didn't seem to be, it seemed to be presidential seemed to be going really well the press is trying to make something or the left is trying to make something out of how uh donald trump bowed to the uh saudi king which they actually called him a hypocrite for it and

well if he would have bowed he would have been yeah but but he didn't he didn't bow did not that is not a bow they're no they're placing a like a ribbon metal around his neck yeah and he bends over to make it easier for the placement he wasn't bowing he's

He's 6'5'5'.

He's 6'5.

The king is like, what, 90?

Like 91 years old, some crazy, you know, he's an old king, and he's lifting this big gold thing and the president bends over so he can

put it around his neck.

And let me tell you something.

Every president has bent over for the Saudis for a very long time.

So I don't think anything new is happening here.

He did not bow to the Saudis.

Did you see Roger Stone had a real problem with this, though?

He said getting that award,

now the left, or sorry, now the right is turning on Donald Trump because

he didn't say Islamic extremism in his speech.

Apparently he danced with some swords and

he accepted this award from the Saudis.

And so Roger Stone came out and said, this is atrocious.

This is grotesque.

This is a betrayal of everything he said on the campaign trail.

I assume because Roger Stone has never said anything that either he believed or was actually true, that the exact opposite is actually what happened.

That was really.

Have you ever seen the documentary, Get Me Roger Stone?

It just started.

It just

came out on Netflix.

I haven't seen it yet, though.

It's supposed to be great.

It is.

He's a despicable human being.

Almost by his own admission.

Oh, yeah.

No.

No, no, no.

He admits to all of it.

Really?

Oh, he is a despicable human being.

And he admits to being a despicable human being.

Yeah, he says he's just playing into it because everybody says that's what he is anyway.

So why not embrace it?

Well,

or, you know, check yourself.

You know, just say, maybe I'm.

I was falsely acclaimed, accused of murder, so I've just been murdering people.

I mean, everyone thinks I'm a murderer anyway.

I might as well murder.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

It's a terrible argument.

Yeah, when you watch it, it's pretty bad.

But he didn't bow.

The globe, that spooky

orb

that he had his hand on, apparently that's the symbol of some.

It's an illuminated globe at the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, that's going to.

They're going to do a lot of good there, aren't they?

Are they opposing the extremist ideology in Saudi Arabia?

Is that the location of it or is that the location of it?

That's the location of it.

Do they know that

they have the hijackers for 9-11 came from Saudi Arabia?

Do they're opening this new center?

Right.

Guys, look what we just figured out.

Right.

Yeah.

Somehow or another, I think that's going to turn around on us.

Wahhabism comes from Saudi Arabia.

So maybe

just put your hand on the orb.

I don't know.

Just put your hand on the orb.

It is a cool little orb.

Well, yeah.

Cool slash creepy.

Yeah, it's a little creepy.

Maybe, you know.

It looks like a scene from a movie.

It does.

It does.

It looks like canal.

We all put our hand on the orb and it will read our palm prints and it will start the doomsday device.

This is the case with every president, though.

Like you go to these other countries, you know these pictures are going to look terrible for you at home, but you're trying to have a good relationship with another country.

So you just kind of go along with it.

And then it becomes like the defining moment of your presidency.

It does seem like it's a pretty common occurrence.

It never seemed to hurt

Barack Obama.

Do you remember the pictures of the video of

George Bush going to open up the big Chinese doors?

Yeah.

Okay.

And how many times they ran that over and over and over again?

Because

that exact footage exists with

Barack Obama.

He did the exact same thing, but they just didn't make a big deal out of it.

So, I mean, when you're going over there,

I mean,

when George Bush was dancing, where was he dancing?

And he just looked ridiculous.

Well, it wasn't

Mr.

Trump, President Trump didn't look that great dancing with the swords himself.

Well, yes.

Yes.

And I'm not sure as president I'm going to dance with the swords.

Yeah, I don't know what to do because I mean, you know, it is one of those things.

You're being honored.

They're telling you these are our wonderful traditions.

They mean so much to us.

Thank you so much for coming.

It's so important that you're involved in this.

And yeah, you can say no, I guess, but it's a tough spot.

I mean, I don't know.

No one seems to be able to actually pull off a no out of that.

I mean, it's just a matter of whether the press decides to mock you for it afterwards.

Which is funny because they're the same people who are telling us how important it is to be multicultural and understand diversity of people's different customs.

Like any American, like, like, you know, like

name a news person.

I hate to stick Jake Tapper out because he's a nice guy and tries to be honest.

Name a

lot of

Lester Holt.

I mean, you think Lester Holt's going to look good dancing with swords?

No, no.

Nobody's going to look good dancing with swords.

I think you're right on that.

And I think it's a, but it's funny because that is the type of thing that the the enlightened liberal does right you're in the city you go to some festival in some area of town where the the the the dumb tourists don't go and you go and you participate in an authentic event in Brooklyn

And then like

now you know, you know Trump or Bush or whatever Republican goes to the actual authentic event in the actual country and participates in it.

They just get mocked for it because they look like morons.

You're an idiot.

Look, I can't believe you dance like that.

Well, that's the thing that you would praise it in any other circumstance.

Bodge, I mean, that's the world we live in.

They'll go ahead and dance at a gay pride parade with the buttocks removed from the back of their pants, and that's fine.

That's perfectly fine.

Well, we found out this weekend that

we knew this to be true.

If you praise them and you pretend to be one of them, they'll go for anything.

This is perhaps the greatest proof on how much gender studies is just a crock.

There is a fake article that has been now published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

They had it for a month.

They sent it back and said, no, you need some more examples in this.

And the authors were like, oh, okay.

They put some more examples in, sent it off.

It was published.

Now,

here's the authors changed their names

and they submitted this paper.

And I just want to tell you just a little bit here.

We didn't try to make the paper coherent.

Instead, we stuffed it full of jargon like discursive.

and

ismorphism, nonsense, like arguing that hyper-masculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time.

We added red flag phrases like pre-post patriarchal society,

lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrases regarding men, including referring to some men who have chosen not to have children as being unable to coerce a mate,

And allusions to rape.

We stated that man spreading, a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread apart, is akin to, quote, raping the empty space around him.

After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn't say anything meaningful.

And as neither one of us could determine what it was actually about, we deemed it a success.

I'm going to give you a little bit of the paper, The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.

The

hoax on gender studies

that proves these eggheads have absolutely no clue as to what they're actually talking about.

We'll do that coming up in a second.

This is the Glen Beck program, Program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

I just, I love this.

This is a hoax

done by two academics who are tired of the academics who think they know everything and are

perpetrating what they think is a scam of gender studies.

They wrote a paper, The Penis as a Social Construct for Gender Studies, and they were trying to get it published.

And they intentionally, they said if one of us understood it, we would write a paragraph.

And if one of us understood it, then they'd have to change it until it absolutely made no sense at all.

So here are some of the examples.

In this double peer-reviewed study,

double peer-reviewed study that got high marks.

We conclude that penises are best

not best understood as the male sexual organ or as the male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations.

The conceptual penis presents significant problems for gender identity and reproductive identity within social and family dynamics.

It's exclusionary to disenfranchised communities based upon gender or reproductive identity.

It's an enduring source of abuse for women and other gendered

marginalized groups and individuals.

It is the universal performance source of rape and the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.

Okay.

Toxic hypermasculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neo-capitalist materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon-emitted fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments.

We need not delve deeply into criticisms of dialectic objectivism or their relationships with masculine tropes like the conceptual penis to make effective criticism of exclusionary dialectic objectivism.

All perspective matters.

They write, if you're having trouble understanding what any of this means, there are two important things to remember.

First, we don't understand it and we wrote it.

Nobody does.

This problem should have rendered it unpublishable in all peer-reviewed academic journals.

Second, these examples are remarkably lucid

compared to much of the rest of the paper.

Here's another paragraph from it.

Inasmuch as masculinity

is essentially performative, so too is the conceptual penis.

The penis, in the words of Judith Butler, can only be understood through reference to what is barred from the signifier within the domain of corporeal legibility.

The penis should not be understood as an honest expression of the performer's intent.

Should it be presented in a performance of masculinity or hypermasculinity?

Thus,

isomorphism between the conceptual penis and what is referred to throughout discursive feminist literature as toxic hypermasculinity is one defined upon a vector of male cultural machismo, with the conceptual penis playing the roles of subject, object, and verb of action.

The result of this trichotomy of roles is to place the hypermasculine men both within and outside of competing discourses,

whose dynamics, as seen via post-structuralist discourse analysis, enact a systematic interplay of power, which the hyper-masculine men use the conceptual penis to move themselves from powerless subject to positions to powerful positions.

They write, no one knows what any of this means because we made it up and it's complete nonsense.

Anyone claiming to understand this is pretending full stop.

Then they go into how they used a postmodern generator, a website coded in the 1990s

from NYU, a physicist.

It's a method of hoaxing cultural studies journal called social text.

It returns a different fake postmodern paper every time the page is reloaded.

We cited and quoted from the postmodern generator liberally.

This includes nonsense quotations incorporated in the body of the paper, citing five different papers, all generated by this hoax generator.

Five references to fake papers in journals that don't exist is astonishing on its own, but it's incredible given that the original paper we submitted only had 16 references total.

It has 20 now after they asked for more examples.

Nearly a third of our references in the original paper go to fake sources from a website, mocking the fact that this kind of thing is brainlessly possible.

Two of the fake journals cited are deconstructions from elsewhere and/or press taken directly from the postmodern generator.

Another cites the fictitious researcher S.Q.

Scrameron,

whose invented name appears in the body of the paper several times.

In response, the reviewers noted that our references are sound, even after an alleged careful cross-referencing check done in the final round of editorial approval.

No matter the effort they put into it, it appears one can simply

one cannot simply jump

a cogent social science shark.

They

tried

hard

to

leave breadcrumbs all the way through.

And they said the secret is

just compliment and tell them how smart they all are.

Yeah.

And they'll buy into it.

And use pre and post modern expressionism all along the way.

Well, it's the pre-post modernism, that is, but it's so problematic.

That's pretty amazing.

That's pretty amazing.

And you know what?

It's that kind of junk that our kids are learning and they don't understand it, but everybody pretends they understand it.

And it gives, provides the cover for the professors to say whatever they want.

And here's the proof of it right here.

And nobody understands it.

The Emperor has no clothes.

The Glenn Beck Program.

The Glenn Beck Program.

Bill Cosby, they're picking the jury today

as he goes to defend himself

against 51 women who say he raped them.

Here he is in one of his only interviews in the last few years.

Am I right that you have not spoken publicly for over two years?

This is true.

I have not performed

in over two years.

I have not

spoken at a graduation

in two years, or even to speak to

an incoming

high school freshman or fresh person

class to

give them some idea of what they're going to face and what they ought to do.

So, why now?

Well, as you're listening to my daughter,

so she doesn't mind listening to me.

And

I decided

I think it's time for me to do something so that the people who

still have faith in me, the people who are still wondering

what I sound like as opposed to the National Enquirer,

which is very interesting reading when they write

about

me.

You need to hear now his defense.

Now, so you know, he has

been accused by 51 women of rape, drug-facilitated sexual assault, sexual

battery, child sexual abuse, and sexual misconduct, with the earliest incidents taking place in the mid-1960s.

The most recent is 2008.

He's denied all of them.

Many of them are outside of the statute of limitations for legal proceedings, but one of them, he was charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

He surrendered to authorities December 30th, 2015.

He's out on a million dollars bail, and he is scheduled to have the trial start June 5th of this year.

And he is there picking the jury beginning today.

Here he is on

what happened.

Ensa delivered a statement of her own, and that's something else that's been provided to me.

Here's just a short clip from what your daughter Ensa had to say.

I strongly believe my father is innocent of the crimes alleged against him, and I believe that racism has played a big role in all aspects of this candle.

Do you agree with that?

Could be.

Could be.

I can't say anything,

but there are certain

things that I

look at and I apply

to the situation

and

it there are so many tentacles,

so many different.

This is bizarre.

Nefarious is a great word.

Yes, it is.

And

I just truly believe

that

some of it

may very well be that.

Do you believe any of that?

But your accusers are both black and white.

Well,

let me put it to you this way.

When you look

at

the power structure,

and when you look at individuals, there are some people who can very well

be motivated by whether or not they're going to work

whether or not they might

be able to

get back at someone.

So if it's in terms of whatever their choice is,

I think that you can also examine

individuals and situations, and they will come out differently.

So

it's not all, not every.

But

I do think that there's a lot of things.

He's writing a paper for the peer-reviewed journal.

Yes.

Well, I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

Very much like that.

I mean, you don't even get a sense that he even believes this.

He's basically explaining it saying, it's because I'm black.

Yeah, I mean, I guess your best reading of this, and tell me if you think I'm wrong, but at the best reading is he doesn't think he's trying to, he's very much struggling with what he can and cannot say.

Correct.

So therefore, he can't make any sense.

And you're supposed to hopefully believe that if he could say it, it would make sense uh

but i don't believe it i mean i don't believe he believes it his two daughters were the they recorded

i forget how long now both of them recorded stuff about their dad and listening with him and talking he was telling stories and that's where you get her saying that it was you know he's innocent and it's because of racism it's interesting because they had sort of forwarded the opposite response and that it was people who always accuse everyone of racism didn't like him because he wasn't embracing the narrative that everyone that's white is racist.

But he knows that's not going to help him in any.

Well, it's the, I mean, the OJ thing is very similar.

If you watched the 9,000 documentaries that came out last year on the OJ thing,

almost all of them covered the fact that his initial instinct was not to go down the Johnny Cochran racism road.

But it wasn't until he realized he might lose that he promoted cochran to the head of the team and went down the road of you know what it's just racism and when he started doing that it's when african americans started siding with him because initially they weren't because they saw him as a guy who was a sellout to black people his whole life he was the guy who in the 60s and 70s would not go with the black power movement he wanted no part of it his entire life And it wasn't until he saw, holy crap, I might lose this thing that he jumped on the bandwagon.

And somehow it works.

It feels very much like Bill Cosby.

It does feel that way a little bit.

Because Bill Cosby is the opposite.

He never said these kinds of things.

He never.

Neither did O.J.

Yeah.

Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

You can make it.

James Brown and

Jim Brown and

Muhammad Ali tried to get him involved in the race movement.

He just didn't want any part of it.

He really didn't want to mess up.

He wanted to be known for that, which I actually, I mean, that's what I would rather have at an athlete.

I mean, you know, I don't necessarily want my, you know, athletes and actors and everything else to be activists.

It's just a

explanation is coming from the guy who wrote Leonard Part VI.

So I just

want to throw that on a...

Incoherence isn't exactly odd in the sense of

the audio of how he explains 51.

Do we have that audio?

I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if they found it yet.

They're busy looking for it now.

I just sent it to them.

It's really good.

He tries to explain that they didn't have the

total amount needed to bring him down so that the numbers were the numbers that weren't the right numbers before they got the pile on numbers.

Here he is.

The numbers came

because

the numbers

prior to the numbers

didn't work.

What?

Right.

Oh.

How did he say that?

The numbers prior to the numbers didn't work.

Because the numbers before the numbers didn't work.

Those are the pre-post numbers.

Well, those were the numbers afterwards, though.

Right.

Yeah, the before they got the numbers and then they got the numbers

didn't work.

We should try to

apply with the actual just text of this interview for a peer-reviewed journal article.

I would just like to also just say, again,

Leonard Part 6,

that was the first and only movie.

He has a problem with numbers.

Yeah, he does.

He has a problem with numbers.

His argument here is it's inflated, right?

Like people, there was a few people who had courtesy, who were accused him of this a while ago, and now there's out there, a bunch of people are jumping on the bandwagon, and obviously they're motivated by other things.

That's his question.

And here's the problem.

When you're a guy, do you have the Spanish Fly thing?

When you're a guy who has been...

recorded in comedy for your whole life,

you end up saying things that you're like, oh, boy, that's not, that's going to leave a mark.

When I was 13, man,

start talking about weird things.

No, really.

Stand on the corner.

You know anything about Spanish fly?

What?

Spanish fly.

It always happens when you're 13.

Only when you're 13, on up to like when you get married.

Guys stand around and talk about Spanish fly, and it never starts with one of the guys on the corner.

It's always some strange 13-year-old who says, you know what?

You know anything about Spanish fly?

No, tell me about it.

Well, there's this girl, Crazy Mary.

You put some in her drink, man.

She goes,

Yeah, Spanish.

Oh, yeah, that's really groovy, man.

Spanish fly is groovy.

Yeah, boy.

From then on, man, anytime you see a girl...

Who's yours on Spanish fly?

Go to a party, see five girls standing alone.

Boy, buy the whole jug of Spanish fly and light that corner up over there.

So I thought it only existed in Philadelphia, you know, and I'm working on ISPY and Bob and I are working together.

Sheldon Linnet comes up, says, Boys, I Spy is going to Spain.

A childhood dream come true.

Somehow or another, not quite as funny.

Not really.

This is

the Glen Beck Program.

Mercury.

The Glen Beck Program.

I mean, there was a time.

Do you remember the My Brother Russell?

Do you remember that

piece that he did, My Brother Russell?

My Brother Russell, he thought he was smart, but Russell was really dumb because...

He started laughing at my father one time at the dinner table, and Russ didn't know how tough Dad really was.

He was just sitting there giggling at my father.

Dad,

he

see, Russell hadn't been with us too long,

so I said, Russ,

don't laugh at dad

because dad will pick up a tree and kill you.

So Russ said, I can't help it, buddy.

Just won't funny.

So you better cut it off.

And Russ started laughing.

And he had a funny laugh.

He's like,

And my friend said, What the hell's wrong with Russell?

And finally, Russell said, You look funny, Dad.

You got a funny looking face.

Daddy said, You think my face is funny?

You keep laughing at me.

I'll smack your face off.

And Russ looked at him, you smacked my face off.

I said, Russ, please cool it.

I'd hate to see you get hit.

And besides, he may

Jeez.

What happened?

He may miss and hit me.

He was tremendous.

I think that's one of the reasons that he did the interview is that

because people remember Bill Cosby, right?

The people remember that it's Bill Cosby.

That's the guy that we all grew up loving.

Okay, so remember we had the

creator of Priceline on last week.

So we go back to my office and we're talking, and he said

he said, you know, sometimes fate works in your favor.

Sometimes, you know, life just turns out all right, even though you think it's a disaster.

He said, when we started Priceline, he said,

you know, we had no money and who were we going to get?

And he said, I called and called and called and called.

Bill Cosby.

And he said, we wanted Bill Cosby so bad.

Bill was huge.

And we wanted Bill Cosby because he would appeal to everyone.

And he said, he wanted $2 million,

which was nothing to Priceline now.

We wanted Bill Cosby for $2 million.

And he said, you know, we didn't have anything.

And I said, look, you know, maybe we give you a piece of the company or something.

They hang up.

He said, so I meet with William Shatner.

Go from Bill Cosby to William Shatner.

Another icon, though.

And I love Bill Shatner.

I think William Shatner is hysterical, very self-aware and very smart.

And he said, you know, so we went, I went to New York and

I met with him and he said, we were having dinner and Bill Shatner's thing was, okay, come on, tell me, really?

You really think this internet thing is going to go?

For as futuristic as Bill Shatner was, he asked the priceline guy when they were starting, come on, really?

You think this, you think the internet thing has a future?

Amazing.

Wow.

It did too, right?

It did.

It wound up having a future.

Yeah.

I've heard that some people use it.

Yeah, they do.

Is that true?

They do, yes.

And now, isn't Shatner's daughter in on that too?

She's doing Priceline now, I think.

Right.

Wow.

Anytime between 2002 and 2008, you could have bought Priceline stock at about $20.

That is now $18.25.

Wow.

90 times

the amount of money.

Not $18 and then

$1,825.

You could have

$80 times your money.

Oh my gosh.

Yes.

So I think this internet thing has a future.

Yes.

Better than if you would have invested in jello pudding pops.

Just say that.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

CNN has an expose

that

defines

what the problem is with the mainstream media.

It is the definition of the problem.

And also news that just doesn't make any sense.

Billy Bush.

Billy Bush is speaking out now for the first time since he's, you know, he had the bus ride with Donald Trump.

When that broke in October,

just a couple of days before the debate, kind of an interesting

interesting perspective coming from Billy Bush on that.

Also, the president in the Middle East doing a great job.

Maybe we could have a week without something big happening.

It would be nice.

This could be the week.

Welcome to it, America.

It's Monday.

We begin right now.

I will make a stand.

I will raise my voice.

I will hold your hand.

Cause we have won.

I will be my drum.

I have made my choice.

We will overcome.

Cause we are one.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Hello, America.

Billy Bush won't say anything about NBC.

He walked away with a multi-million dollar settlement from NBC.

But he said NBC knew about the tape that featured him and Donald Trump discussing women in a crude matter in 2005.

Why is it his fault?

Many question the leaking of the timing of the leak.

Speculating politics played a role in

the release of the years-old recordings.

Of course it did.

No, I think they just found it and just released it.

I had no idea it was even running.

NBC News and their crocodile outrage.

We're so disappointed with Billy.

I think Billy was angry, notwithstanding his own own devils to reckon with.

You build an identity and reputation over 15 years and you lose it over 15 hours and you don't get to be a part of it.

You don't get to say, hey, wait a minute.

Billy Bush admitted to the Hollywood Reporter that he would have liked to have the chance to address his Today Show viewers as the scandal broke.

I would have welcomed addressing the audience.

After the tape leaked, Bush was bragging about the existence of the recording of a conversation between him and Trump.

I never shared knowledge of the tape with anyone who didn't already know of its existence, and that was plenty of people.

NBC didn't return calls for requests to comment on

what the network may have known about the tape.

A couple of fascinating parts of this.

Number one, he found out the tape was being leaked while he was sitting on the tarmac about to take off for a flight.

And so he was in the air for the six hours after with Wi-Fi, but nothing else he can do.

Right.

He's reading on the reports come down as his career is crumbling.

He's just in the air to Los Angeles.

Wow.

That is an unbelievable thing.

And I love his, his, is, is, is it, his talking about it is kind of interesting.

Um, he said, uh, when, uh, he, when he wanted to do this tape, obviously he's watching tape, he's only seen it three times in his life.

One time three days before the tape broke.

So he was re-alerted to it, right, before it broke.

And then twice just preparing for the Hollywood reporter interview.

So he's only seen it three times in his life.

He said, looking back upon what was said on that bus, I wish I could have changed the topic.

Trump liked TV and competition.

I could have said, can you believe the ratings on whatever, but I didn't have the strength of character to do it.

And that's really what you get from that tape is that he's

just like

he's going along with it.

He's not taking a big stand

and

trying to derail it or say that he's doing some wrong thing.

He's just pistol, though.

He's just playing along with it.

He doesn't want to cause any controversy.

He's not like egging him on all that much.

He's just kind of just going along with it.

And it's weird that his career basically is destroyed over this tape.

And the other guy in the story who's actually saying all the stuff is the president.

It's really kind of amazing.

It's very bizarre.

You could argue, I know a lot of people would, that Trump, you know, was a locker room talk or whatever, and he should have been forgiven for it.

And that's fine.

If that's true, however, definitely so should Billy Bush.

Like Billy Bush should not be paying a price for this if Trump's going to be president of the United States, right?

I mean, it certainly wasn't released to target Billy Bush.

It was released.

It would have targeted Donald Trump.

But it would have been the same.

If Billy Bush would have been on Fox,

he wouldn't have been fired.

Well, he might have been because of everything else that was going on at that time.

At that time, at that time,

he wouldn't have fired him.

And so

it all comes down to politics.

If this tape were about

Barack Obama, NBC wouldn't have fired Billy Bush because it would have meant that they were admitting that they think what the president did was wrong and they would hold that line of no.

I mean, it's like Anderson Cooper said, you know, to somebody this last weekend,

you could take a dump on your desk and you'll defend it.

The same thing with Barack Obama.

He could have stood up on your desk and taken a dump on your desk and you would have been fine with it.

Oh my gosh, he is the greatest.

Look at what he just gave me.

He just left this on my desk.

It is fantastic.

And a nice thing.

It smells good.

It's good.

And I'm keeping it for my children.

I mean,

it would have happened.

And nobody is recognizing that.

Billy Bush is the victim of this.

And personally, I mean, I think the whole thing, and those are not guys I want to be hanging around.

Right.

Okay.

So I think the whole thing is bad.

But as you look at this, Billy Bush is the victim of NBC not liking Donald Trump.

That's true.

As far as repercussions, you're right.

Of course, as I think he would admit and seems to have understand that he's a victim of himself for doing things he shouldn't have done.

Oh my gosh, he shouldn't have done this.

So he is, I think at that point, certainly Netty's taking responsibility.

It's just amazing what politics will do for you.

Right.

Like, I mean, Donald Trump is the, he's currently going across the globe as the most powerful man in the world.

The The other guy who's just the reporter and kind of going along, sort of, with the conversation flow, but not really adding anything to it, is doing the apologetic interviews to the Hollywood reporter trying to get his career back.

I mean, that's incredible.

Pretty weird.

Yeah.

And again, you know, how old was Billy Bush at the time of that interview?

I mean, 12.

12.

13, maybe.

I mean, it was 2005.

I don't know how old Billy Bush is, but he was young, a young reporter.

Donald Trump is a huge personality.

He's 24 now, so he's 20 years old.

And you're on an entertainment show.

You're on an entertainment show.

It's not like you're doing, you know.

Right.

Like, he just wants to get a good interview and get out of there.

You could.

Yeah, the problem with Billy Bush was the fact that he was trying to set him up with the girl.

For him to sit through the girl.

Give Donald a hug.

Give Donald a hug.

Yeah,

that was really bad.

And apparently he didn't really realize how bad it was until I guess his daughters found out about it and called him and went crying.

Oh, no.

can you imagine?

Yeah,

that's bad.

That's a fact.

I mean,

the human.

Punishment enough right there.

Yeah.

Oh, my God.

Can you imagine those?

That is punishment.

It's like, and these are fascinating thoughts.

Daughters call crying about really.

Horrible.

Why did you do that?

How did you do that?

Yeah, that'd be bad.

Oh.

Has that ever happened to you, Jeffy?

Oh, my God.

How many times has that happened to you, Jeffy?

I'm trying to think if anything like that has ever happened.

Yeah, kind of.

Kind of.

This has happened kind of to me.

Really?

With, yeah, with

a misunderstanding.

Hannah's school was preaching that I was an anti-gay bigot.

And

my,

you know,

I'm not.

I mean,

I was for gay marriage in a libertarian sense long before Barack Obama came to the realization of it.

From a very non-libertarian standpoint.

From a very non-libertarian, the state controls everything.

I don't think the state controls marriage.

But

she had really hard times.

In college, in New York, when I was at the apex of

the center of the eye of the hurricane, that was not good for her.

And they would,

I mean, they made her cry a lot,

you know, in school.

And all because.

Luckily, you were paying for that privilege.

Yeah,

but, you know, she would, she came to me one time, do you remember the show I did on Rockefeller Center?

And I did a show on Rockefeller Center on the art of Rockefeller Center.

And I said, look, I think this is a temple to man and a temple to money, temple to capitalism,

and the strong, the strength of the authoritarian state.

I think it is the opposite of, you know, I think this is our kind of our

temple of evil.

Okay.

I love Rockefeller Center.

I love the art and the architecture, but there is a story behind it.

And the story is they were leaning fascist when the thing was built, right?

And they wanted to, they honored like Mussolini.

Mussolini was on the front of the Italian building.

I mean, you know,

they took that off.

It was,

what's her name with the Unibrow

Frida.

Her husband was a huge communist and inside of the lobby was this huge communist art that was commissioned and destroyed only because it showed Rockefeller as a virus.

Okay.

And so this whole thing, and I laid it out on an episode of Fox.

Well, one of her professors, you know, took me apart and said, you know, he doesn't even know, not knowing that she was my daughter.

He doesn't know and just mocking me and ridiculing me.

And

she came to me and she said,

Dad,

how sure are you on that?

And I said, oh, I'm absolutely positive.

You have really good sources on that?

I said, I have the best sources.

And she said,

The best words and the best sources.

Yeah.

And she said, okay.

She went, she told her professor, I want to do my final paper on the art of Rockefeller Center.

And

he said, oh, great.

Glad you'll pick that up.

She said, can you recommend any books or any sources?

And he said, there's only one source that's credible.

It is the authoritative book on Rockefeller Center.

She came home.

And she said, Dad,

what book?

Because I had told her, there's only one book, only one book.

What book?

And I went to my bookshelf and I pulled it out.

And she's like, oh, thank you, Dad.

It was the same.

Same book.

He hadn't even read it.

Of course.

He hadn't even read it.

It was, it's all in there.

And this was the source that he was using to ridicule me.

But if you had read the book,

you would know.

You were right.

That was such a great, because it was not just a professor, the media was beating you up like crazy over that and what was so great about it was

they thought you were wrong on that solely because Glenn Beck couldn't be right on it it had nothing no one was trying to say like your facts were wrong or your sources were bad it was just that you couldn't possibly be making a coherent point on this topic then when we released the source of the information

people just stopped talking about it right if i'm correct glenn if i remember this story right i think you bought the book at rockefeller Center.

I may have.

Probably.

I think so.

It's the only credible book on Rockefeller Center, on the art of Rockefeller Center.

It's like, I don't know, a thousand pages, and it's the only credible book.

And it is, and it tells the whole story.

It tells the whole story.

It's all there.

I have 17 books on the art of Rockefeller Center, just not that one.

All mine are not credible.

Yeah.

No.

Yours are all written by Infowars.

That is a weird place.

Yeah.

Okay, can I change the subject here?

I want to go to CNN and then we're going to take a quick break.

Let me show you something.

This is why nobody is paying attention to the news.

Why they will.

The president will be able to kill somebody on Fifth Avenue, and everyone will support him that has supported him already because of this.

CNN,

what are you doing?

If you're trying trying to be fair and you're trying to get people to listen to you,

then why do you have this as a story today?

Headline.

Trump's casino was a money laundering concern shortly after it opened.

Jose Pagleri, CNN, investigates.

So they have an investigator, investigative journalist, looking into Donald Trump's

1990s tax records at his casino.

Now, the story is, is that they didn't alert authorities to people who came in and cashed in $10,000 or more of chips.

You cash them in, then they need to know who is that so they can check if anything's being money laundered.

Well, the IRS already caught that years ago in the 90s.

It already caught that.

They already exposed exposed it.

It was already investigated.

It was already in the news.

He paid a fine.

They moved on.

How is this an investigative story today?

27

years later.

How is that a story?

That is a story of, well, he's not making any news today where he looks bad.

Let's go with this.

It is absolutely.

This is is what they do, though, isn't it?

I mean,

there was a story over the weekend about a study done by Harvard.

They did an extensive study on all the major networks, news coverage, and the cable news networks and

the major newspapers that cover Trump.

80%

of all stories were negative spin on Trump.

So it's 80-20.

And

I think it's the most negative coverage of all time.

And they said even Fox News was more negative than positive, which is hard to believe, but it was 5248 negative to positive with Fox.

Well, they will say it's because he's done so many negative things.

Yeah.

And I agree with you that he's done a lot of negative things, but it's this kind of stuff.

That adds fuel to the fire.

That just shows you have an axe to grind.

So it makes me not listen and believe you when you say he really has real problems.

And it's saying he's a hypocrite because he bowed to the Saudi prince when he did nothing of the kind.

He did not bow.

And here's what's happening: the Forgotten Man.

Have you heard what happened in Flint, Michigan, and what the water company was doing in Flint, Michigan?

They were going to take people's homes.

Again, they're not paying their water bill.

Now,

I'll give you this story here in just a second.

Glennbach program.

Triple-8-727 back.

Mercury.

The Glend Back Program.

What's happening in Flint, Michigan is really, truly obscene.

Up until four days ago, if you didn't pay your water bill, they were going to foreclose on your house.

8,000 people were going to lose their house.

Now, in case you don't know, it might be because, oh, the news media is focusing on Donald Trump's casino from 30 years ago.

What's happening in Flint, Michigan is an outrage.

Here's this water company that still has not fixed the poison water.

It's poison.

Poison.

So people stop paying their bill because I'm not paying for poisoned water.

Wouldn't you be that way?

Yes.

That would absolutely be that way.

Yeah, my hair falls out.

My children have been poisoned from it.

Yeah.

I'm not paying you.

Not paying you.

So they're going to take 8,000 people's homes from them until they voted last week to do a moratorium for a year.

So they're going to take them next year.

Yeah.

I don't know about you, but I think this is an American outrage.

It is.

Where we should all be standing with the people of Flint, Michigan, and saying they should not have to pay for poison water.

The Glenbeck program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Sign up for the newsletter and get all the info you need to know at Glenbeck.com.

So I think we have

we've decided not to put our kids back into school.

You know, if anybody's been following this, it's been a remarkable journey trying to get our kids into a school here in Texas.

Just like you, school's not good enough.

No, school's good enough for your kids.

No, that's actually not the way it is.

My school was good enough.

All right,

we're not good enough for the schools, apparently, because of our faith.

We've been turned down by the two schools.

One of them I really wanted to go to, one of the kids to go to.

I think it's just an outstanding school.

And I don't hold this against them because it is against their charter.

They have to agree with

all of the principles of the church that they have the kids coming into.

And so

they are relentless on that.

And they reject other faiths, not just mine.

And it's a private thing.

So I don't think that's bigoted.

I think they are following their charter.

And they really spent time

with us and, you know, time with their board of directors and everything else.

And then this other school,

I mean, it was incredible.

We went in, we met with the founder.

First thing I said was, okay, we're Mormon.

Is this going to be a problem?

No, no, of course not.

Blah, blah, blah.

We talk about it.

Then when it comes to registering the kids, we get a call.

Ah, you know, we can't guarantee that the kids are going to not going to be made fun of, you know, because of the, I'm crazy, crazy, right?

Crazy.

And we're like, well,

I mean, this is a Christian school.

Shouldn't you be able to say to the kids, hey, don't make fun of people for what they believe?

Or, I mean, we don't do that.

Well, we can't really, you know, guarantee.

Well, I'm not asking you for a guarantee.

Kids will be kids, but are you going to allow that?

Well, that's why we just think it would be better if you just didn't come.

Oh, okay.

All right.

So apparently, there is liberty going to allow it.

Yeah, there is liberty and there is Christian in their name, and they don't seem to understand either of those.

But it's a private school, and they make their own decisions.

So,

Tanya and I talked about it this

weekend, and I want to put a call out for a teacher.

I want to hire

an unbelievable teacher, somebody that will teach the kids.

And I mean,

I want somebody really great and rigorous.

And I want my kids to learn, you know,

almost the catechism from the 1800s.

I want my kids to

be really engaged and being able to defend.

any point of view, learn it and defend it.

Yeah, they just watch Bill and I Saves the World on Netflix?

No,

No, no.

That's not rigorous?

No, that's not rigorous.

No?

No.

And I hate the word rigorous.

After going to school after school after school, they all say rigorous standards.

This is a big thing in the school world right now.

Yeah.

That's what they all say about Common Core, too.

These are rigorous.

Shut up.

Shut up.

That is their

key.

That is an absolute buzzword among schools in that education world right now.

We have friends who are taking their kids out of school.

One of the the good schools, we live in this town that has supposedly one of the best schools.

You know, oh my gosh, their children are going to leave here at 13 and they're going to already have three years of Harvard under their belt.

That's because of those rigorous standards.

Yeah.

And it's one of those international baccalaureate.

I went there.

I mean, my head almost exploded.

And if A, you want to talk about rinsing the kid right out of your kid?

It's that.

Immediately, it's,

you know, college,

you know, they, they kept saying, your kids will be doing a lot of homework.

And, you know, sometimes they'll be doing homework till, you know, sometimes one in the morning.

No, I don't think so.

I don't think my kids are going to come home at four or five in the afternoon and then do homework until one o'clock in the morning.

No, no, I don't think.

No.

I don't care.

If that's what it takes for them to be successful, they're going to be miserable their whole life.

No.

And

so we have a friend who goes, send their kids there, and they said, they've just sent their kids there a year.

And they said their kids are all headed for a nervous breakdown.

And they've seen a change in their kids, and they just don't want anything to do with it.

Wow.

So you're going to homeschool with a professional teacher at your house?

Is that what you're thinking about doing?

I'd like to.

I'd like to, because they're, you know, they're, you know,

13 and 11, almost 13 and 11.

And

I just, I want, I want somebody who is

a really good generalist.

And then maybe we'll augment with, you know,

other things.

But I want, I, I really, especially, I wish David Barton is around the building someplace.

Um, but I wanted to talk to him about it because there's these, this catechism that we used to use.

Have you ever tried to, do you guys ever seen the test that we have over at Mercury 1, the eighth grade catechism test

you it's impossible first of all in eighth grade you had to have memorized the constitution the declaration of independence and george washington's farewell address those three things had to be recited by the eighth grade by every student not the constitution in its entirety right i mean that would i

I'll have to ask David.

I don't know.

I think so.

I know the Declaration of Independence and the other, and he told me the Constitution.

So maybe it was just the Bill of Rights, but I don't think so.

And then you had to have this, what's called a catechism test, which is

you would have to defend everything that you learned.

So

I'm trying to think of some of the questions.

But

it was an oral test and you had to stand there and the teacher would ask you questions and you had to to defend everything that you learned.

I went through this eighth grade test.

There's no way I would have passed that.

I think there's no way most people could pass it.

No, no, not even.

You've read it.

I remember seeing it a while ago.

It's crazy.

Yeah, there's no way.

You don't even understand the questions.

Right.

The words are so complicated.

And I mean, you don't even understand.

And we think that we're so smart and we've done such a great job of education.

We've wrecked it.

If that's really what an eighth grader could have done 120 years ago,

there's nothing to compare to it now.

And this is what we've talked about this before, but it's really now intelligence is who is better at Googling.

That is how you are intelligent today.

It is not about knowing the information.

It is about how to actually be able to manipulate the system of the internet to be able to get the knowledge when you need it.

Which is really, really good.

But then, again,

do we actually know anything?

I don't think you need to, right?

This is the, and again, I don't agree with that idea, but I mean, that's what the argument is.

You don't need to know it anymore.

It's going to be that.

But see, that's why I want catechism, because you have to be able to

be able to argue what you know.

It's, you're right.

It doesn't matter what you know.

I can Google what I don't know, but you have to be able to understand how that fits inside of you, inside of your values, your principles,

what else you believe.

We were talking off the air about Alex Jones because he's had to apologize yet again to another person who's suing him because he was telling is this the yogurt

people

another one of his big storylines that he just has this what was the deal with shibani yogurt they were bringing in refugees or something that were terrorists and rapists

and the the yogurt people for some reason the yogurt people took took exception to that.

Can you imagine that?

Who are you to say you're not bringing refused to do?

There's no fruit at the bottom.

There's no fruit at the bottom.

That's all we care about.

Yeah, totally unreasonable by Shabani to have a ton of people.

And he defended it.

At one point, and now all of us.

Not only did he defend it at one point at the beginning, he also, after his trial, came out and talked to the press after the trial.

This is after he had already apologized to the Pizza Place in the Pizzagate thing for being wrong about that.

He came out out to the press and said he was right on the yogurt story, even then, and now again has had to apologize for it.

The only thing that ever happened to Alex Jones was Donald Trump.

Yeah.

Because Trump lent him credibility because he's now the president, and he appears on Alex's show.

And Alex is almost an advisor to the president now.

And so people are paying attention to what he said when they never did before.

Right.

They just agreed.

He would have been apologizing and being sued out of existence if this had happened years ago.

But my point is.

Because virtually nothing he says is true.

Yeah.

Very little.

And my point on that, to bringing him up.

Your opinion.

In my humble opinion.

And you think, you think, allegedly.

You think the pizza place

that doesn't have a basement isn't running children.

That, by the way, was featured on Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives.

Right.

They're in it.

A lot of years ago.

They're in it.

CIT front.

Right.

The pizza looks actually really cool.

And you think the yogurt place isn't bringing in rapists.

I do think that.

Right.

Okay.

Whatever, Pat.

You'd have to believe it.

Anyway, so why did you bring this?

So

my point was

that mindset, the Alex Jones thing, can't work in a world where people understand what was in that catechism test, right?

It's only a place where people are searching for information on a whim whenever they hear about it, and they believe the first thing that shows up in search results, that that can flourish.

The social media world is, it helps

ridiculous conspiracy theorists like Jones because people, how many times have you heard this from people that you might even respect and know who just hear about a story?

It's in the back of their head.

They're not like, they're not journalists.

They're not sleuths on the internet.

They just Google it.

They see a story like, oh, wow, do you believe that Hillary Clinton had an earpiece in during that debate?

And it's like, well, that's the end of their

understanding.

They don't look it back up.

It's just in their head as true from then forward.

Headlines.

usually just the headline.

Yeah.

Okay.

David actually is just walked into the studio.

David, come in here.

We're going to take a break and talk to him.

See if he knows any of those eighth-grade tests off the top of his head.

Because the questions,

you'll never, I mean,

you'll never get them.

No eighth grader would get them today.

We have one.

The Glenn Beck Program.

Mercury.

This is the Glad Bet Program.

David Barton happens to be in.

He's on the board of directors of Mercury One.

And

we're working on some really amazing projects that

we'll tell you about as the days go forward.

But David, real quick, we were just talking about,

I'm going to put a post up today on Facebook about a teacher.

And if you know a great, and I mean a great teacher, I'm looking to hire a teacher.

I don't care where you are in the country.

I would look for a great teacher for my kids.

You know, you'd obviously have to work here.

But

I want somebody especially that knows

the classic way of teaching.

And I don't know, do people even know?

Do teachers, do any teachers teach with rhetoric anymore?

Or I mean not rhetoric anymore?

There are some.

There are some.

There are classical schools, but what's even called classical education now?

This is the classical way that was done for three centuries.

But there are those that do know.

They know the catechisms.

They know the rhetoric.

They know the classics, et cetera.

so we were talking about did they have to memorize the constitution and

no for the first eight years of school and remember back then eight years is all you went through eight years at eight years you went to college eight years let me tell you something after eight years of of that if that is your

that's beyond a 12th grade exam well we will start the interns out this summer by giving them all an eighth grade X exam from 1920s we have yet in eight years to have one kid pass that test and so it's an eighth grade X exam from the 1820s, and that's as far as they went.

Excuse me, 1920s.

It said 1820.

Progressives changed it in 1920s.

Until 1920s, you went only through the eighth grade.

You usually only went two to three months a year for the first eight years of school.

And we have yet to have a single person pass the 1920 eighth grade X exam.

And these are college students.

These are college kids.

So they didn't have to memorize.

No, what they did, for the first eight years of school, you took a written exam on the Declaration, the Constitution, Washington's farewell address, and the state Constitution.

So you had to master it, but eight years,

you touched it every year for eight years.

So that's called spiraling.

That's called spiraling.

Spiraling is what you do with math.

You learn addition, but you don't say, well, I learned it in first grade, I'll never again touch it.

You learn it in second grade, but you add subtraction.

Then in third grade, you have addition, subtraction, and now let's add multiplication, then division.

So you keep touching it, but you blow it up each time.

What we do now in history is called tri-division, where then in fifth grade you get from Columbus through 1765, you'll never again touch that part of history.

In eighth grade, you're going to get from 1765 through Reconstruction, 1876, but you never again touch that part.

You can teach history that way.

I mean,

that's why nobody knows it today.

When I teach history, I'm teaching somebody now.

I'm teaching somebody, I'm trying to teach the Bible to somebody who has zero reference to the Bible, does not even know what Adam and Eve is.

Doesn't know any.

And so we started with the book of Genesis, and I only got

this.

Okay, so this is written by Moses.

Now I have to tell you who Moses is.

He has no idea who Moses is.

So I have to tell him about Moses and had to talk to him about all of that before I could go back.

I mean, you can't,

on history, so many times, you just can't compartmentalize because somebody has been inspired by something that happened 100 years ago, you know, a thousand years ago.

They pick it up.

It's important to connect all that together.

Yeah.

David is with us.

Mike Lee is joining us in just a second after the top of the hour.

By the way, please get involved and help us out on some of the projects we're working on at mercury1.org.

Make a donation now, mercury1.org, and help us teach the next generation of kids.

Mercury.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.

I say this with all the love and respect due.

We have super nerd Senator Mike Lee with us, the guy who gets excited about clauses in the Constitution.

And that is something that you really want on Capitol Hill.

Truly, one of the good guys, one of the few that we

can truly trust and would leave our children alone with them, which I don't know if I leave anybody alone with my children nowadays.

Mike Lee is here.

Talk a little bit about the news of the day and also a new book that he has written that everybody should have on their shelf, written out of history: The Lost Stories of the Founding of Our Country.

Mike Lee joins us right now.

I will make a stand.

I will raise my voice.

I will hold your hand.

Cause we are one.

I will be my drum.

I have made my choice.

We will overcome.

Cause we are one.

The fusion of entertainment and enlightenment.

This is the Glenn Beck.

Program.

Senator Mike Lee.

How are you, sir?

Doing great.

Thank you very much.

It is always good to have you here.

Good to be here.

You're really one of the good guys in one of the worst times

in the Senate and in the House, I think, in American history.

I mean, this is probably one of the top three worst times, wouldn't you say?

It's a tough time, to be sure.

I tend to think it's a time of great opportunity.

There are a lot of good things that we can do with it.

That we could do it, and I hope we will do.

We do have to do them, and I hope that we will.

Have you noticed that Congress hasn't been doing any of them?

Look, Congress has done some good things.

I mean, we passed 13 resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act undoing 13 late-breaking Obama-era regulations.

Those have been passed by both Congresses, signed into law by the President.

That is 13 times more than the number of previous iterations of an exercise of this power.

that has ever taken place in the past.

We confirmed Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

That was a good thing.

We still have to deliver on a whole lot of things.

We need to repeal Obamacare.

We need to reform the tax code, among other things.

And I'm pushing to make sure that happens.

Are you worried at all?

I mean, you know, we read stories about how

people's town hall meetings for Congress are going.

And they're not going to be.

They're getting threatened with their...

with their very lives by some of their constituents.

They were just talking about how there's so much anger now that they're actually afraid and beefing up security.

And I think some of that probably comes from Democrats showing up at these events, but some of it is just sheer frustration, I think, on the part of Republicans.

Do you sense any of that?

Yes.

There is a lot of frustration.

Because they were elected to do all of these things and the really substantive things that they haven't done yet.

Yeah, that's right.

This is one of the things that happens when you consolidate this much power in Washington.

When you take just about everything government in general could conceivably do and you shift it to a federal government whose purpose was always supposed to be limited.

And you end up with these huge regional divisions.

You know, there's a lot of political diversity in this country, and you can, state by state, track

a people's level of progressivism or conservatism or libertarianism according to region.

When you tell everybody they have to live under the rules that everybody else makes, fewer people are getting the government they want.

And this is what produces that kind of frustration.

So

I know,

at least I do,

I'm frustrated because,

you know, first we had to have the Senate, then we had to have the House.

We had to have the House and the Senate.

Then we had to have the House and the Senate and the White House.

We have all three of those.

And

everyone was promised.

I mean, I went kicking and screaming with Donald Trump, but he's our president.

And, you know, I'm going to back him when I can.

And I'd like some of the things that he's done or that he said to be done.

And

they're not going to, you guys are not going to repeal Obamacare.

It's just not going to happen.

The Republicans weren't serious about it at all.

That part remains to be seen, Glund.

I mean, what the House did with Obamacare was grossly inadequate.

The biggest single problem with Obamacare, the epicenter of all the problems around Obamacare, have to do with these Title Title I health insurance regulations.

They're what's making everything else in health insurance, in health care, more expensive.

They're also the reason why the Democrats knew when they wrote the darn law that they were going to have to subsidize health care extensively.

For that, they were going to have to raise taxes to pay for those subsidies, and they were going to have to have this individual mandate to try to mitigate further against the effects of these oppressive health care regulations.

That's what we've got to repeal.

What is Title I?

Title I consists of regulations that most people don't know by name.

They go by names like community rating, guaranteed issue, age rating, and so forth.

The essential health benefits are also part of that package.

If we would get the federal government out of the business of saying, here's what you absolutely have to provide if you're going to be in the health insurance business at all, you could have more competition.

And with more competition, you bring down prices and you improve quality.

Okay, but that includes

preexisting conditions?

Sure, but there are ways of dealing with the pre-existing condition issue without keeping Obamacare.

There were holes in the pre-Obamacare status quo that prevented people from going,

for example, from a group-sponsored health insurance plan to an independent plan or an independent individual plan to another independent individual plan.

As long as somebody has coverage already, they ought to be able to transfer from one plan to another.

Are there ways of filling those gaps without requiring us to keep Obamacare?

Can you remove the individual mandate?

Not only can we remove it, we have to remove it.

This is

still Obamacare if you don't, right?

Yeah, yeah.

And this is understandably and appropriately

one of the most unpopular provisions of the entire law, telling people that you've got to buy something.

Health insurance, not just any health insurance, but that kind of insurance that Congress decided they had to buy.

It has to go.

I mean, standard thinking on this is that you, as the Senate generally, are not going to improve what the House did.

You're going to make it worse for conservatives because the House got at least some of that stuff worked in with the Freedom Caucus, like their late demands.

They didn't do all of it.

But I mean, everyone's saying you guys are going to make it much worse.

That is the fear, and that sometimes happens.

It happens.

I am determined to not let that happen here.

We can't mess this up.

And we have to make sure that whatever we pass repeals more of Obamacare, most most of Obamacare, certainly more than what the House repealed in its version.

Okay, so you look optimistic, Mike.

I am optimistic.

Why?

Because

great question.

Enough of my colleagues, at least among my Republican colleagues in the Senate, understand this.

They're hearing from constituents who say, look, this is killing us.

We have health insurance, but we can't afford it.

We can't afford to use it.

It does us no good.

Everything is made more expensive by this law.

You've got to give us relief.

And there's enough of an understanding that really what's behind all this are the oppressive federal regulations.

You know, if you took any other industry, if you told everybody they had to buy a car, and then you said, but you can only buy that kind of car that the government says is appropriate.

And then the government said, by the way, you have to buy something at least as nice and as expensive as a Cadillac.

It's going to create some problems.

We've created a problem.

with health care by federalizing it, by making a national standard.

Even though there are vast differences nationally on what people want their government doing with healthcare, vast differences nationally in terms of how health care is delivered and how much it costs.

It makes no sense to centralize all these decisions in Washington unless you're a progressive or unless you're a really big insurance company.

Their argument, though, is that people are going to get this insurance if you repeal all the Title I stuff.

And they're going to think they're insured, then they're going to have a health problem and they're not going to be insured for that thing.

They're going to wind up paying for insurance and then when they need it, it's not going to be there.

What I could point to is the continuity of coverage provisions that existed in federal law prior to Obamacare.

There were some holes in that series of laws, but those are holes we can fill without having to keep Obamacare.

So what would they do?

What they would do is say, if you get health insurance, you can't be declined health insurance if you choose to continue to purchase health insurance simply because you've had a health condition that arose.

Right, but

if you buy a cheaper plan that covers less things,

the average person isn't going to know all the details of it.

And then they're going to go and have one of these issues, think they have coverage, get all the stuff done, submit it to insurance, and it's not going to pay for it.

No, that's part of the process they'll have to undertake when they buy that insurance plan.

But if you buy an insurance plan, you're buying insurance.

You're buying something, which means you've at least got catastrophic coverage.

If something really bad happens, you're covered for that thing.

Mike, what gives you the belief that you have more spines in

the Senate than in the House?

And will this bill have to go back to the House afterwards?

The answer to the second question is yes.

The answer to the first question is

whether you call it

I'm not going to say that we necessarily have differences in our spinal columns between the House and the Senate.

But the Senate was designed.

George Washington described the Senate as he conceived it as the cooling saucer, the place where the hot tea would spill out and it would be given a chance to cool.

We are a smaller body and because we are smaller we're able to go about things a little bit differently with more deliberation.

And we are undertaking an aggressive review process of the Affordable Care Act and figuring out how to repeal it

and how to move forward.

Who's part of your team?

There are 13 or 14 Republican senators who have been actively engaged in the process.

A handful of others frequently join us for meetings.

And we have an aggressive

discussion.

Well, yeah, there are 13 or 14 voices that are actively working on it right now.

But there are a lot of others who are also actively involved.

And we're trying to figure out how we can come to consensus on something that actually works.

My point to this group, and I haven't gotten a lot of pushback on this, is that our central focus has to be coming up with something that brings down the cost of health care.

And that we have to recognize you cannot bring down the cost of health care.

With the Obamacare regulations in place.

It cannot happen.

And is there somebody appointed to maybe do some pushback against people like Bernie Sanders who say thousands of Americans are going to die as a result of this?

Yes.

I rarely hear that pushback.

There is somebody appointed to do that and is the President of the United States and all Republican members of Congress.

Look,

we're under no delusion here.

We understand this is going to be a partisan vote.

Sadly, we will not get the support of a single Democrat, not in the House, not in the Senate.

No matter what you do.

No matter what we do.

If it involves repealing any portion of Obamacare, we will not get their support.

We will have their overwhelming opposition, which is why we have the support of the president.

Yes.

Yes, we will have the support of the president because the president wants to repeal Obamacare.

I mean, he said, I don't think he necessarily cares about the details of how it's happening, right?

Like, I mean, he supported the House plan very, very strongly.

And as you point out, there are a lot of weaknesses in that.

I think he wants that win.

So I think he would approve anything.

But, I mean, if you need all 52, you need 50 senators,

as you said,

the 48 are completely off the board right to start.

So you're going to have to please the Susan Collins of the world, right, to get this done.

And that's why I think a lot of people are pessimistic.

That is reason for people to be skeptical.

It is not reason for people to lose hope.

And there is a big difference between those two things.

No, history is reason for people to lose hope.

I haven't had hope since like about 2006.

I've long been inspired by something that Winston Churchill said, that the American people can always be counted on to do the right thing after they have exhausted every other alternative.

It's true.

And you know, look, we've given this Obamacare thing.

We've given this whole progressive thing a nice long college try, a much longer try than it deserved.

And all other alternatives are pretty much off the table now.

So we're going to return to what works.

Is there an argument to say, look, we can get rid of, this might not be perfect, we might not get rid of all the Title I stuff, but we can get rid of some of the taxes, we can get rid of the mandate, we can get rid of some of the really bad things from Obamacare.

Let's take what we can get.

Sure.

I mean, look, who's going to disagree with an argument that says, take what you can get?

And one of the things that you hear over and over again in Congress, Sue, is that don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And all that's true.

But you also shouldn't let the adequate be the enemy of the good or of the better.

What we're trying to do is say we can do better than the House bill did.

The House bill,

as much as I commend my efforts, who worked really, the efforts of my friends who worked really hard on that issue, it didn't do enough.

It didn't do nearly enough to bring down the cost of health care.

And that's why the big fight is going to be about that in the Senate.

It's a fight I intend to win.

Talking to Mike Lee, senator from

Utah, one of the good guys in Congress.

We're talking to him about his new book, Written Out of History.

He's going to be joining me for a full hour on television as well.

It's a great new book about the founders and the forgotten founders, the ones that have been written out of history.

We'll talk to him about that coming up.

Also, about impeachment and the things that are being kicked around now in Washington.

What is his point of view on

what has been happening with the president since Mike is such a constitutional scholar?

He'll be able to put it into perspective for us.

This is the Glenbeck program.

Sign up for the newsletter and get all the info you need to know at Glenbeck.com.

Mercury.

The Glenn Bank program.

888-727-BEC.

Yeah, yeah.

We're just talking about how the press is, we're with Senator Mike Lee, how the press

and the left, you know, they didn't understand how we felt about Barack Obama and thought we were completely unreasonable.

And now they are so obsessed with Donald Trump and impeachment when they don't even really, I mean, does impeachment fit?

I mean, what would the crime be?

That's a good question, and nobody has answered that.

Some have suggested, oh, obstruction of justice.

Well, if you can make that charge, you're going to have to come up with evidence.

You're going to have to have a- So you're a

constitutionalist and an attorney.

Does obstruction of justice, if these Comey letters are true and they do show show a pattern of him saying, hey,

leave this guy alone, is that enough?

Okay, let's take it a bite at a time.

Obstruction of justice, of course,

could be, in the abstract, grounds for removing a president.

If we're looking at this situation here,

we don't have evidence of action amounting to obstruction of justice.

What we have is that the FBI director got fired.

Well, guess what?

The FBI director serves at the pleasure of of the president, can be removed for any reason or no reason at all.

There was here very good reason provided by the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who came up with all sorts of reasons and briefed us as senators on them the other day, including the fact that who holds a lengthy press conference as FBI director?

Who makes the decision on whether to prosecute

anyone as FBI director?

There are all kinds of things that Jim Comey did as Attorney General that were way outside the norm, way beyond the standard of care for anyone acting as FBI director.

So there are good reasons to fire him.

If, in fact, somebody alleges that there were other reasons, let's bring those reasons forward.

Let's see evidence on that.

So far, I haven't seen evidence.

Again, though, if the letters turn out to be true, is that enough?

By the letters.

By the letters.

Do you mean that the memoranda in which Jim Comey supposedly said there was a conversation I had with the president about

relying on me to get, you know, to stop this investigation?

Sure.

It's always possible you bring forward, that's the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

You bring forward evidence showing intent to obstruct justice.

That could change the conversation.

But there are a thousand things that memo could say.

We haven't seen the memo.

Right.

And shouldn't he have reported if he thought there was

a he was the FBI director, and if something like that happened, he should have brought brought it forward.

If he couldn't continue to serve, he should have resigned.

Moreover, on the hearing we held just a couple of weeks ago in the Senate Judiciary Committee on which I serve, one of my colleagues asked if political pressure had been brought to bear in an investigation.

And he said, no, that's not something I've seen, not something I've experienced.

I said, no.

Senator Mike Lee, we're going to talk about Written Out of History, new book by Mike.

It is The Forgotten Founders.

Just a great, great book that really goes into some of the guys who've kind of got the shaft from history, a woman who you've never heard of.

Some great stories of Forgotten Founders.

It's available in bookstores everywhere.

We talk about it with Mike Lee next.

You're listening to the Glen Beck Program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Welcome back to the program.

Mike Lee, senator from Utah, is with us.

He's got a new book, a book that everybody should have on their shelf, especially if you are looking to teach your kids American history.

This is written out of history by Mike Lee.

These are all the heroes of the American Revolution that have been written out of history because it just didn't jive with what the story everybody wants to tell.

Where do you want to start?

You know, my interest in writing this book, it came about in part part as a result of my work on my last book called Our Lost Constitution.

I told some stories about the formation of the Republican.

It came out about the same time as this certain Broadway play, a certain Broadway play that kind of lit a match.

Hamilton.

Some very dry tender.

Hamilton, exactly.

Have you seen it?

I haven't seen it.

I know the soundtrack well.

I've listened to it over and over again.

I hope to see it at some point,

but have not been able to get in so far.

That kindled something in the American people.

It got them excited.

It made them realize there's a lot to learn from our founding generation.

And if we study our founding generation, we can discover some things about ourselves.

So what did you discover about us?

What I discovered about us is that we didn't start out exactly the way a lot of people assume we started out.

Wait, rich white people that are just interested in slavery and business?

That's the narrative.

That's the narrative.

Those were the only people.

Everyone else in America was silent or silenced, had nothing to say, no contribution to make to public discourse.

And in this book, I outline the stories of a number of Americans who were neither rich nor white nor male in some cases.

People who made a profound contribution to the early days of the American Republic.

But their narrative, their story didn't fit with our modern narrative of what happened at the American founding.

Give me a couple of your favorite examples.

Mumbette.

Mumbette was a slave in early America, in Massachusetts.

She discovered that with the revolution and with the Massachusetts state constitution

as it came out, guaranteed individuals with certain rights, that all men, and including women, were protected by these rights.

And she fought for and won her slavery in court.

as a result of that.

She made an early contribution to the abolition movement in America.

The discussion of slavery was not something that just sort of bubbled up right around or in the immediate

lead-in to the Civil War.

This was something that was actively debated and discussed at the time of the Revolution.

And what year was this?

This was in the late 1700s.

So about the time we became our own country, but

long before, long before anything close to the Civil War happened.

So as a result of that, she fought for and won her freedom.

She had a very significant role in an understanding in this country that we as individuals have certain rights given to us by God.

But she was a black woman.

She was a black woman who won her freedom.

She didn't fit that narrative.

She's been written out of history.

When did you find that

Was she ever prominent in history in America?

Did we ever learn about her?

Or has she always been written out?

There were times when she was well known.

She was relatively well known at the time of the revolution.

And she continued to be well known throughout

the abolition effort.

But over time, her memory faded because people assumed, you know,

we've got a lot of rich white guys to talk about.

That's all we're going to talk about.

We also have this belief that...

And it's so wrong that women didn't, you know, they didn't have the vote.

That's not exactly right.

You had to own property.

So if you were a woman and your husband died and you had property, you got the vote.

And it was more of a family kind of vote.

It wasn't against a woman.

It was about who's the owner of property, correct?

Yes.

And a lot of women played a very important role in the American founding.

Including Mercy Otis Warren.

another American who was very prominent at the time of the Revolution, but who we've written out, who's been been forgotten.

She was well-educated.

She was an author.

She was constantly involved in public discourse.

She had some grave concerns about what our federal government might become under the new Constitution.

She was good friends with John Adams, but it became sort of a love-hate relationship.

They had this back-and-forth exchange of letters over the course of many years in which she would raise concerns about the new government.

And

these discussions became increasingly heated.

She ended up having a real voice in speaking speaking out for freedom, speaking out about the fact that, you know, when government acts, it does so at the expense of individual liberty.

We have to constrain government power.

But that, too, conflicts with the modern narrative.

And so what I've tried to do in assembling these stories is remember some of the comments that I received in connection with my last book, on our lost constitution.

I've gone through and read the reviews on Amazon and elsewhere.

Over and over and over again, some different themes developed.

People would say in that story, these are great stories, but these are stories I've never heard.

These are stories that are not discussed in

civics class or in history class, even in AP or college-level history classes.

Some of these stories have been left out.

So I've tried in this book, Written Out of History, to find more of those stories, more of the people who contributed to our founding.

I tell you, you can go to George Washington University now and study history, and you don't have to take more than one semester of American history.

So there's a good chance that you go to George Washington University and you're never taught about George Washington.

I mean, we're leaving

George Washington out of our history now.

And my guess is, Glenn, if you did study George Washington, it might not be the more noble aspects of George Washington's life that would be first place.

Well, he was a rich white slave owner.

He was indeed that.

He was indeed that.

He was also many other things.

You know, one of the...

Yeah, he's a guy with white privilege.

We didn't establish that.

That's for sure.

Thank you, Pat.

Thank you for that.

And yet, with respect to George Washington, one of my favorite things to show people in the Capitol

is the portrait of one of the many paintings that hangs in the Capitol Rotunda, is one of George Washington surrendering his commission to the Continental Congress after winning the Revolutionary War.

It sends chills down my spine every time I see it, every time I think about it, every time I talk about it.

You don't have to name him, but do you see anyone that is or could be the next George Washington?

Oh, sure.

Look, I see a lot of people who have liberty in their veins, who long for liberty, who yearn for it.

Anyone who yearns for liberty has the ability to be that person.

And all they have to do is speak about it, do something about it, talk about it, push back against the narrative that says that anything we do that's important has to be through government, and anything that we do through government that's important must be done through the federal government and never through states and localities.

Push back against that narrative and you will help restore the spirit of America's founding.

You talk about George Mason.

You tell the story of George Mason

as being kind of a forgotten founder.

Tell the story that you have in the book.

George Mason was a remarkable human being.

He was a reluctant statesman, one who was a man of business.

He just wanted to live his own life without undue interference.

He got involved in government.

He ended up going to the Constitutional Convention.

He ended up having some grave concerns with the Constitution, which he ultimately couldn't support, in part because he could see that the powers created by it would one day be abused.

That's one of the things that we have to remember and one of the understandings we have to restore in this country.

We talk a lot in our U.S.

history courses in school about the Federalists, about the fact that those pushing the Constitution

pointed out there were all these protections in place.

We don't talk as much about the anti-Federalists, those who warned

about how this government power could be abused, those who understood that based on human nature, human beings are by nature redeemable but flawed.

And when they get power, they tend to abuse it unless that power is kept in check.

George Mason was one who really understood that.

And he fought hard to make sure that his fellow beings, his fellow patriots, would be protected.

And he didn't want them being subject to.

Wasn't he against the Constitution as written?

I mean, he

stood.

But didn't

he

help write it, didn't he?

Yes.

Yes.

One of his, he was very concerned that unless it outlined more areas that were out of bounds for the government, and unless there were more protections like those ultimately provided through the Bill of Rights.

And those weren't included at the beginning.

In fact, every state voted against them.

Those were not included at the beginning.

But the Bill of Rights came about in part because of the efforts of men like George Mason, who said, we've got to constrain this government.

We've got to identify a number of things that government just cannot do.

Otherwise, government will do those things because people will come forward and say, look, this is important.

Therefore, it must be done.

And it must be done in the most efficient manner possible.

Mike, I was talking to somebody the other day, and I said, with an exception of maybe a couple, you know, like the vice president and removal of office of the president and the taxes and prohibition,

pretty much everything else in there

past the first 10,

I feel like are covered by the first 10.

And it's just Congress going, no, dummy, what part didn't you understand?

Black people

are

men who are born to be free.

Women are, you know, when we said men, we meant everybody.

Men, women, we meant everybody.

And so it's just kind of a reiteration of the first 10 because they're so well written.

In many respects, yes.

And that's one of the things I love about the first 10 amendments is that they're written so carefully, elegantly, and with this simplicity.

that allows them to stand the test of time.

Right.

Except for the quartering of soldiers.

I I mean, that's the only one.

Hey, you never know when that could come in handy.

True.

The day may come, Glenn, when you want to.

What do you think of the idea that

in some ways they have quarter soldiers in our home through

NSA being able to listen and snoop and record everything that we have?

Our government is in our home all the time.

Yes.

And in that respect,

I've got several chapters in my book that that would interest you about that issue.

James Otis, for example, would have been very concerned about that.

He pushed back on the abuse of writs of assistance, which were these roving warrants, roving commissions that could be used by the king's officers to kick down doors, to go after any contraband goods.

pursuant to efforts to enforce laws that were themselves put in place to protect the British subjects in America from counterfeit non-British approved goods.

This is not really a quartering of troops problem that you're describing.

It's a Fourth Amendment problem.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, in their papers, in their homes, from unreasonable, intrusive searches and seizures is what protects us, both in letter and in spirit, from the NSA undertaking surveillance on the American people without a warrant.

It amazes me.

There is a new study out that shows that I think it's 49% of conservative millennials say that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, yada yada, it's all absolute, except the government has to decide

what speech is okay.

49% of conservatives think the government has to put limits on speech and press and everything else.

Yeah, and if you understand freedom of speech that way, what you're really saying is there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

That's what freedom of speech is there for, is to say government must stay out.

Mike Lee, he'll be joining me soon on

the television program at 5 o'clock, The Blaze.

You don't want to miss that.

Mike Lee, the author of the book, Written Out of History, The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government, Written Out of History, something that should be on everybody's bookshelf.

If you're trying to teach history to your kids, it's a great read, easy to read, and stories you've never heard before.

Written out of history by Mike Lee.

It's available everywhere right now.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

So I just don't understand this.

So

Donald Trump

You know has said Muslim extremists Muslim extremists blah blah blah.

He didn't say it all weekend

and now he's just said it in Saudi Arabia.

He said it before he left in a speech about Muslim extremists.

And now the subtle change or slip, as the White House called it, could mean the difference between offending Middle Eastern allies or not.

Using the word Islamic referring to the religion in the same breath as terrorism could be seen by Muslims as an effort and an affront to their faith and to play into the terrorist clash of civilizations narrative.

So

the president said this

as well as Islamic terror.

He was getting heaped by his supporters.

Now the White House is saying that was a slip.

He was just really super, super tired.

What?

Which is it?

Why?

Which is it?

Oh man.

Either own it or not.

This is the Glenn Beck program.

Mercury.