The Glenn Beck Program - 8/7/17 - Who do liberals trust in the media? (Mat Staver & Dr. Everett Piper join Glenn)

Episode Date: August 7, 2017

Common sense has left the building ...Google's 10-page memo drama ...'Protectionist Diversity' at Google? ...Are men and women different?...Word of caution to Glenn as he tackles a mother's fight for custody ...By what grounds is the state of Oregon keeping a mother from her children? ...Who in the media do liberals trust? ...The president just launched a news network? ...Quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer sets people off now? ...Facebook...no place for meaningful discussion The Glenn Beck Program with Glenn Beck, Pat Gray, Stu Burguiere and Jeff Fisher, Weekdays 9a–12pm ET on TheBlaze Radio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Blaze Radio Network On Demand. Hello, America. Welcome to Monday. There's a couple of really important things we have in store for you today. First of all, the latest on the Amy Fabrini story, the woman who has lost her children in Oregon. Fascinating story. We really, I mean, we crossed all the T's and dotted all the eyes this weekend.

and had a meeting with my staff on Friday and said, look, I got to know what the real story is on this. We have to make sure we're completely buttoned up. We were, I mean, we pushed ourselves real hard. In fact, we got several people, one wrote to Jeffie this weekend, and said, you guys don't know what you're talking about. There's no way this could happen. And then he said, you got to ask this, this, this, this.

It's funny because last night I received that email, and those are exactly the questions we did ask and we have the answer and it is it's truly frightening we'll give you that coming up uh in about an hour from now also the latest on fox news there is more trouble there we we better be careful on the society that we're being that we're building right now because everything is being redesigned and there is a disturbing a disturbing a disturbing story coming out of Google about an employee that wrote a memo and said this diversity stuff at Google is killing us. If you read that story, you most likely think, well, let me ask, Jeffrey, did you read that story?

You know, I saw the headline. It's only like one guy, right? Right? What? It's just one guy. One guy, what do you mean by that? So it's just not a problem because it's only one guy. I was one guy writing a letter. It's actually very true, and that's the way most people are reading the story. They're just doing what Jeffie did and reads the headlines. It's a 10-page memo. I wish it weren't just one guy.

When you hear the case he's making, I'm going to try to summarize it for you, and show you what Google's response is and why this should wake people up. We begin there right now. Entertainment and Enlightenment. This is the Glen. America, I want you to know that common sense has left the building. It was escorted out by HR, and actually it's not HR. It was the director of diversity, integrity, and governance that took common sense and escorted it to the door.

It has been in the process of leaving America for a very long time, but it just cleared out its desk. All of its pictures are gone. If you walk by common sense desk today, you'll buy common sense desk today. might notice no one is sitting in that desk anymore around that desk. Put all of its stuff in a box. And it was really surprised at the clutter. Lots of things that weren't on its desk when it first started working here. You know, stuff like what marriage is, babies right to live, gender differences, religious

freedom, capitalism, socialism, you know, the basic First Amendment rights, those things. those things have been taken off the desk of common sense for a long time. As a society, we have now reached a place that is dangerous and absurd. But there are people who are standing up. There is common sense left in many corners of the country, but not in some of our biggest institutions, not in some of our most powerful companies. And that's why I need to start the program today with the,

with the Google memo drama. It actually matters. I'm going to summarize. It is a 10-page memo, and I'm going to try to just summarize the highlights, but everyone should read this, and everyone should ponder deeply. Because remember, Google Home is in your home.

All of the Google AI is coming your way. So Google is redesigning our culture. And here's what happened. Late last week, a male senior software engineer, we don't know his name. He wrote a lengthy memo that he shared with colleagues, and it was titled Google's ideological echo chamber. In it, he basically criticized the company's diversity policies that he says actually result in reverse discrimination and suppress conservative political views. Now, this kind of progressive insanity has become the default norm in many of these places,

but his memo is thoughtful, it is well written, it's 10 pages long, so let me give you some of the highlights. He starts out in the memo by saying, people generally have good intentions, but we all have biases that are invisible to us. I agree so far. Only an open and honest discussion with those who disagree will highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I felt the need

to write this document. Google has several biases and only honest discussion about these biases will help, and yet it's being silenced by the dominant ideology. Google's left bias. has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. Later in the memo, this guy actually has the audacity to point out that,

brace yourself, men and women are biologically different. And that men and women also have personality differences. I know. Like men are from Mars and women are from Mars too. I think that was the name of the book. When common sense leaves the building, you have to find yourself getting back to the basics of the birds and bees or Mars and Venus. He says we have to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Let me say that again. We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism. Now, what does that mean? Well, he points out some, quote, non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap, which is a section that many of his critics apparently missed, like, unfortunately, quoting, as long as tech and leadership remains high status and lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. allowing and truly endorsing as part of our culture, part-time work, though, can keep more women intact.

What he does is he says, he makes a really good case. Men want the status. Men are much more likely to be allured by the status and the high lucrative jobs. Women, for the most part, are not attracted to those things. They're more attracted to changing the world for the better. more attracted to family, to flexible work hours, et cetera, et cetera. They're just different. He lists some of the harms of Google's biases like, quote, programs, mentoring, and classes

only for people with a certain gender or race and a high priority cue in special treatment for diversity candidates. Did you know that you could go to this wonderfully equal place? and if you are a white male, you can't take some of the mentoring or some of the classes for jobs at Google because you're a white male? He goes on, in highly progressive

environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. I can't believe we're actually, there are the people who say that they are for fairness,

their for diversity, that they have been shoved in a closet for forever, I can't believe we have to tell them. Don't shove other people into the closet that you hated. Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence. None of this is backed up by evidence. Quote, once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems. Let me tell you something.

This guy standing up, even though he didn't put his name on it, and writing this, you don't think Google can find out who's writing what on their computer. This took guts. A conservative of hero, right? No. He describes himself the way I like to describe myself, but nobody understands it, and so I don't say it very often, a classic liberal. A classic liberal is what our founders were. Now, if you read this 10-page memo, it is inspiring. It is finally somebody saying, with evidence to back it up. This is killing us, guys. This is going to lead us to authoritarianism.

So what is Google's reaction to this classic liberal? One of their own who dared speak his mind in this very diverse culture of Google. He says, quote, despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these important issues, which they agree, but would never have the courage to say

or defend because of the shaming culture at Google and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change, end quote. So, after reading the memo, one livid female coworker tweeted, I'm still shaking in anger. if HR does not do something about this case, I will consider leaving this company for real for the first time in five years. Any resistance to ideas like this protectionist diversity stuff at Google is read clearly as nothing more than hate speech and worthy of firing.

How do we stop this huge leap in flawed logic? Sunday evening, Google finally released an official response to the viral memo. Danielle Brown, she is their new VP of Diversity, Integrity, and Governance. Oh my gosh, does that sound spooky? She wrote, many of you, many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google.

And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I'm not going to link it here as I'm not going to have a viewpoint. This viewpoint, or one that I or this company, would be perceived as endorsing, promoting, or encouraging. So the head of diversity says what this guy's point of view is, which has no hate in it at all. It's so shameful. I won't even print it here. Let me just translate. This company does not allow any reasoned argument that questions are vacuum-sealed progressive agenda, so shut the hell up and get in line.

She continues, quote, part of building a. open and inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which one that, in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe in sharing their opinions. But that discord needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our code of conduct policies and anti-discrimination laws. So you can have a different opinion, if I may translate. If your alternative view includes some of the something like conservative or classic liberal politics, you know, or believing that men and women are indeed different, you're totally cool to do that.

Just perhaps you'll feel safer outside of a 200-mile radius of our campus. Google should thank this guy. Google should promote this guy. Google should have a civil conversation. Not one where they're shouting each other down, but a civil conversation about this. This is the kind of dialogue a common sense company would want, especially one that is going into AI where they're going to take and teach machines the difference between right and wrong. You would think a respectful, intelligent, well-thought-out memo wouldn't be hard to defend.

We're hard to write. It will be a miracle if this Google guy survives the week without being fired. You watch. This diversity governance culture is a way for overcompensating for the mistakes of America's past. How long will this country flog itself for its past sins? Where is the grace to say, I'm sorry, and move on? And now that we've overcompensated to the point that a memo, asserting that men and women are made differently and might perform differently

or want different things in the work environment is considered radical. Google needs to hear one thing. Diversity is not a virtue. Diversity is not a principle. Although progressives are hell-bent in trying to, to make it one. Saying diversity is not a virtue or a principle. It's not racist or sexist or homophobic.

We need more brave people like this guy at Google on both sides of the argument. To stand up for common sense because that battle is only going to intensify. But we also need to be able to sit down and reason together, left and right, while we still can. while there's still enough freedom of speech left in the tank. Why don't we sit down and instead of calling people names, listen to each other and talk to each other because I have a feeling, as I have found in the last year or so, we both might be surprised at what the other side has to say.

Back in a minute, sponsor this half hour is blinds.com. It's a part of the house that people really kind of over, overlook, but your guests don't. And you may not even know what's wrong with the room. You may not even know why the room just doesn't look good. But if your blinds are crooked, they're busted, they're old, or even out of date, you might have curtains that are taking so much sunlight away, it changes the room entirely when you change the window treatments. Blinds.com is going to help you solve this problem. They have the blind shade, shutters, drapes, anything that you might want to use as a window covering, they have a very, dare I say,

diverse selection at blinds.com. And if you accidentally mismeasure or pick the wrong color, they'll remake your blinds for free. They're even going to send you the free color samples to make sure everything looks just as good in person as it does on the website. And every order gets free shipping. I want you to check out the deals now through August 21st, huge sitewide savings plus an additional 5% off if you use the promo code back at blinds.com. Save an additional 5% off their huge sitewide sale right now at blinds.com. Promocode back rules and restrictions do apply. The Glenn Beck program.

Mercury. 28727 back. This is the Glenn Beck program. Some really stunning information coming up in about a half an hour. I don't want to get too far down the road before we even talk about North Korea. North Korea went up against UN sanctions. They tried to make the case to the world that the world is finally waking up to all this nationalism of Donald Trump. And how dangerous that is, they voted, the Security Council voted what, 5-0.

Really harsh sanctions on North Korea. They can't sell fuel. They can't sell any, I think, steel. They can't sell any fish or food. Nothing can be sold to other countries. It's going to starve the people even more. North Korea has responded and said, we're going to respond tenfold.

They are again threatening nuclear war. I don't know where this goes, but the world is on our side today. And good job to the Trump administration on getting this done in the National Security Council, or the, not national, but the UN Security Council, and getting China finally on board. What happens from here? I don't know. More on the Google memo and identity politics. And Procter & Gamble is now into diversity for all of their products.

And what are they going to be spoon-feeding us in ads? coming up. Program. Mercury. The Glenn Beck Program. We are entering a surreal world, and things are changing under our feet, and they're changing for several reasons.

One, because social justice warriors, progressives, have taken the power seats of our universities, and they are taking the power seats of many big corporations, things like Google, to share that Google memo with you. You have to read the whole thing. You can find it at glenbeck.com. It's quite an amazing memo

that you will see most likely coming from the left how they are eviscerating this guy for saying absolute common sense. Men and women are different. We should stop pandering to people and start helping all people to be the best that they can be.

Well, that's just, too far for Google. Now Procter & Gamble is starting in. They're not happy just to sell products because remember you know, Irish Spring strong enough for a man, but I like it

too. That's racist, sexist, horrible. And nobody buys in any of that crap anymore. They know Iris Spring has nothing to do with Ireland. So now they're getting into social justice and they are helping these giant corporations become social justice warriors.

Procter & Gamble's My Black is Beautiful campaign last week issued a video called The Talk. It, quote, depicts the inevitable conversations many black parents have with their children about racial bias to protect and prepare and encourage them. Some of the things in the video that little progress has been made since the days of Jim Christ, Isn't that the truth? We're exactly the same. I mean, look at Barack Obama. He'll tell you that. Racial discrimination against black America is inevitable,

but police officers are the enemies. One offensive scene depicts a suburban black mom preparing her bubbly teenage daughter, a new driver for when you get pulled over, not if, but when the daughter laughs it off. Mom gravely warns, this is not about you getting a ticket. this is about you not coming home.

So now Procter & Gamble is now spoon-feeding our society that around every corner, in every cop car, someone is planning on kidnapping and killing black girls just for trying to get to the mall. That's it. Procter & Gamble doesn't have a problem alienating all of the families of police officers. See, the problem is with all of this stuff is there is no diversity at all.

It is one-sided. Michelle Malkin points out, when Procter & Gamble, when will they begin airing bold videos about the brutal treatment Asian American high school students have suffered at the hands of bigoted black students in Philadelphia? or the targeting of young female Asian Americans and elderly Asian American crime victims by black gang members in New York and San Francisco. This is Michelle Malkin writing this. Or the long simmering tensions between blacks and Latinos or blacks and Koreans in Los Angeles. How about decrying the prejudice against multiracial children who are mocked for looking too white?

Try talking to black baseball star Mike Connolly who was forced to fend off haters this week who attacked his white wife. and their biracial one-year-old baby? How about the monstrous race-based hate crimes, such as kidnapping and assault of a mentally disabled white teenage boy by black thugs in Chicago who tortured him and forced to declare on video, I love black people and F. White people? How about all the things that are happening on campus?

I mean, you see this, I saw the movie The Big Sick this weekend, which is a great movie, if you feel, if you're... Never even heard of it. Yeah, it's a great movie. But the left has real problems with it, because here they are portraying a Pakistani guy dating a white woman. I'm so sick of seeing these people of color dating white women. It's an actual complaint from several left-wing websites who complain about this movie, which it is the picture of what they theoretically want. Well, can I tell you something?

I remember my grandfather gave me one speech on race, and that was. was no matter what anybody tells you, black people and white people are no different. They're no different from one another. And somehow or another, I don't know if it was that same talk, but the only other thing I remember is my grandfather being against biracial marriage at the time.

And I remember that feeling wrong at the time. And my mom and my dad were like, Dad. And he said, kids, it is only wrong because of the treatment that the children will have to endure. And I'm not sure that it is fair to do that to the children. He was only saying that people are going to be brutal because your mom is white or your dad is white and your mom or dad is black.

And people are going to be brutal. Now, it's not a problem to see people of different races married. Nobody thinks anything of it, except the social justice warriors who say, I'm so sick and tired of seeing this. That's how far we've come. The people who are saying, we're for this, are now saying, I'm so sick of this. It's incredible. Can we just let people be people? It would be amazing, but no. The answer to that is no. Listen to this. Think about it because you watch TV and you say, oh, well, they have an agenda. There's some agenda here

because there was pushing these things and you know it's there, but you don't necessarily know what it is or how it's happening. What is the job of a TV network? Like, theoretically. To entertain and sell products. Exactly, right? Like, they're supposed to put on the best show possible.

Hire the best people possible to do that and attract large audiences. So CBS is the number one network in the country by, you know, good 15, 20%. I mean, they have a big lead on everybody else. Listen to this. This is from a media newsletter thing from the last week.

Another year, another awkward panel at which CBS gets grilled about its lack of diversity. This year, CBS execs Tom Sherman and Kelly Call placed a flurry of questions about the departure of two Hawaii 5-0 stars who quit after a pay equity battle, the lack of new shows led by females, and the slow pace in which the network has become more inclusive. Now, okay, all right, fine. Call, Kelly Call, by the way, a man. Kelly Call took particular issue with the latter, saying there is change happening on CBS.

The answer is not, well, we're putting on the shows that people want to watch. Or we're putting on the shows with the best people, whether they're black, white or not. No, there's change happening in CBS. He pointed to two new shows that are led by actors of Congress. and their mid-season series centered on a lead character who is gay. Carl also said the number of diverse series regulars on the network is up almost 60%. So we are absolutely moving in the right direction. What is the right direction?

Is the direction to have 70 or 80% increase in... Or is it to put on good shows? If you watch the BBC, you are absolutely convinced that it is the population of bisexual or homosexual people is 80% of the population. I mean literally, the BBC is almost every show is either homosexual or

bisexual or questioning at some point there is a lead character in every show. And again, look at the way they thought. For a guy, an executive to be able to rattle off that 60% of series regulars are

Yes. They were prepared for it. They are prepared for. This is something they're thinking about all the time. They pretty much walked this line, the entire panel, going back to the story. From my view, the only crack in their armor came when one journalist pointed out that CBS's casting department on both coasts is staffed entirely by white employees, which might be lending to the problem. The question led to some uncomfortable shifting in the back of the room where CBS staffers were situated. Call at first defended it, saying the team has been together a long time and has contributed. to the progress the network has seen so far. So again, not saying

contributing to the fact that we're the number one freaking network on TV and the results are obvious that we're doing successful programming that people want to watch. No, it's the success of increasing the series regulars by 60% of diversity. He ends it with this. Later, in question again, he relented. We are

cognizant of the issue and we hear you and we will be looking to expand the casting department. They are literally saying they're going to make the casting department larger than it needs to be to make these people feel good. And if you were the person that was hired for that job, would you want that job? Right. They created it for you because of your skin color or your sexuality or whatever it is. I mean, you got to be kidding me. And you know, the casting department, you know those are

deeply progressive people. There's not a conservative among them. Oh, no, no, no. So this is the progressives eating progressive Hollywood. Right. In some ways, it makes me happy. And it's like these media people, the people who are critiquing this, who are worried about this, it's so, it's so incredibly strange. It's like why

that is not the goal of a network. The goal of a network is not to increase your percentage of people who look different. That's not supposed to. to be what any of this is about. Right? But that is the way this is thought about all the time. And how about the Miami Dolphins getting flack? Because their starting quarterback

went down late last week, Ryan Tannahill. And so they needed somebody to take over this season. And they hired Jay Cutler, who was let go by the Chicago Bears. But he's white. He's white. And they didn't go with Colin Kaepernick. So that

obviously means, racist. They're racists. Oh, yeah. Never mind, one has a much better arm and is a better quarterback than the other. Of course not. Never mind that one doesn't come with the baggage of the other one. It's just plain racist that they didn't hire Colin Kaepernick. I mean, unbelievable. This is not going to stand. It's unbelievable.

It's not going to stand. If the people begin to push back, if people don't push back, like the guy at Google, he was the only one. He was the only one. And next hour, we're going to share some things that are happening in Oregon. to Amy Fabrini, she is the woman who has lost her children because she's, quote, too stupid. Her IQ is too low. We have done some investigation. We have seen documents. We know what the state has. People are afraid to stand up.

And if you don't stand up and you let bullies do this, it won't be. much different than the days of Jim Crow. It'll just be reversed. Because there are too many people that, A, think they can socially engineer everything. That's the progressive promise of the 1930s, Germany. We can engineer anything. Too many people believe that. And then there's also those who want revenge. That's not an open and diverse community. That is certainly not an America that has a future at all. That is a communist North Korea-style state. You cross the state

and what the state or is politically correct at the time and you go away, you're disappeared. That's not America. That's not who we are. And that's not what Democrats and it's not what Republicans want. It's what the fringes want. I'm going to shut the other side up. That's not America.

Sponsor, this half hour, is lifelike. Everybody uses free Wi-Fi, but it just came out. 92% of Americans that are using Wi-Fi put their potential personal information at risk. Now, it depends on, you know, what you're doing, but if you are using public Wi-Fi to stay connected, it's really great, but it's unsecure. And it's easier than you think to hack in to public Wi-Fi. Somebody's identity is stolen every two seconds, and LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats. You can get somebody to watch your credit, but that tells you what happened, not what is happening. And that's only one small slice of identity threats.

If there is a problem with somebody trying to steal your identity, a U.S.-based agent, an identity restoration specialist will work to fix it. Nobody can prevent all identity theft and, you know, monitor all transactions at all businesses. But if you act now, you get the added protection of Norton security for free for the first year when you bundle Norton and LifeLock memberships. Plus, for a limited time, you'll also get a special 15% discount off the first year of your LifeLock membership. It's 1-800 LifeLock or LifeLock.com. Use the promo code Beck 15. That's Beck 15. Terms and conditions do apply.

AAA 727 back. Mercury. The Glenn Beck program. Hey, Chicago, Los Angeles, possibly even Dallas. I doubt we're on the list, though. You'd be vaporized any time from North Korea, but no big deal. North Korea, I have no idea what their response is going to be. But he cannot, Kim Jong-un cannot back down.

He is blaming the sanctions on the American. American people and the American government. You know, we are still technically at war with North Korea. We have an armistress, an armistice, not a, not peace talks, not a treaty. We have an armist. So the war is still going on and it's just a cold war. Now that they can vaporize an American city, the United Nations got together. and at the Security Council this weekend voted 5-0

for some of the toughest sanctions I've ever seen. They can't sell any of their raw materials. They can't sell coal. They can't sell any energy products. They can't sell their iron. They can't sell raw minerals or any of their seafood products. That's a lot. And will cost, I think, is it a billion dollars just in the first month?

That's going to shut down every restaurant in America to not be able to buy North Korean seafood. I don't think that they're selling it. When I see North Korean crab on the menu, I got to tell you. Makes me want to run out and buy another iron, too. So the people are already starving. He's going

to blame it on America. They threatened us thousands fold revenge. Yes. So what does that mean? I don't know. But if it is in the anywhere from the book of insanity,

our lives could change in any 18-minute period. And the world would change forever because of this. This is the Glenn Beck program. Mercury. The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand. The new chief of staff, General Kelly, has moved quickly.

It was a good week for Donald Trump at the White House because of General Kelly and the way things are moving. We could be on a very good path with Donald Trump's White House right now. We'll see there was big news coming out of New York City and the UN where sanctions, really hard sanctions, voted against North Korea. China even joined us. The launching of that ICBM really has changed the entire world.

They are united against North Korea now. North Korea, I don't know what they're going to do. They are saying that they're going to answer America's aggression 10,000-fold. That sounds like a nuclear threat. We will get into that a little later. Also, there's more trouble at Fox News. how do you even know what's true anymore?

How do you know what's true? Before we all jump to conclusions, we might want to just take a breath and wait until we see all the evidence of whatever is going on. Two more people now lost at Fox News. And it may be, it's exactly the right thing to do. I don't know.

But maybe we should douse the torches of the witch hunt just for a little while and start to use some reason. And speaking of reason, I got a very reasonable letter from a guy who works for child protective services in a state out west, very large city. He didn't say which one. He said, but I have to warn you about this case in Oregon. Glenn, you're jumping on a bandway. and I wanted him to know my response because I'm not jumping on a bandwagon. And I want to start there right now. And enlightenment.

This is the Glen. There is a story out of Oregon. We've been telling you about all last week of Amy Fabrini and her children. They have been taken away from a girl who we have been told the state says has too low of an IQ. to be able to take care of our own children. The more we get into this case, the more we're like, something is just not right here.

And last Friday, I had a meeting with Jason Betrill, who's with me now, and he's our lead researcher on the Glenn Beck program. And we had kind of a come-to-Jesus meeting on Friday, because we all had concerns. And we're like, okay, we have to get down to the absolute nuts and bolts

on this. We need to go up. We need to see everything. We need to meet everybody. We need to know for sure before we go any further on this. Because it's just so outrageous what is happening. So they were working on that over the weekend and I get this forwarded to me from Jeffie. Do you know this guy, Jeffie, or is he just reaching out to you? No, he was just reaching out. So he's a guy who he wrote like five or six pages. I'm just going to give you a couple of highlights, but he wrote five or six pages. He said, look, I work for, you know, child protective services and another state. He's an attorney for them. Yeah, and he said, I've seen this from the inside.

And, you know, don't jump on any bandwagons. So here is word of caution. I want to just take you through this because these, what he points out were exactly my questions on Friday. And we have an update for you. And it's a pretty stunning update. He says, word of caution, Glenn, I understand your gut reaction is defend, parental rights and be wary of the state, and this is wise. However, the statements you make, the overgeneralizations, and your assumptions are alienated to a whole group of people that have

a horrible job. First of all, I want you to know. If you work for CPS, I don't think you're a horrible person. I think you have a horrible job. I really do. I don't know how I would do it, but if, I want you to know, I would bet 95, I'm being, probably over generous in the other direction. 95% of cases that CPS deal with, they probably get right. But when they get those 5% wrong, we should all be concerned. This is like death penalty stuff. You know, you're just like, hey, you know, the electric chair works.

95% of the time, 95% of the people, they, you know, they were rightly accused and rightly judged and rightly killed. Yeah, it's that 5% that is concerned. because this is a death sentence for a family, but I don't think that CPS, the people are bad. I've worked in both rural and metropolitan areas as an attorney in child welfare cases. With all the sexual abuse, physical abuse, drug abuse, domestic violence, blah, blah, blah, myriad of other evils. We do not have time, now listen to this because he underlined it.

We do not have time to worry if someone has a low IQ or wants to teach their children at home. We deal with parents who are the worst of the worst. We try to save those children from terrible circumstances, including sex trafficking, as you do. There are thousands of us who get up every day to save children in horrible situations. Please stop overgeneralizing. Well, I don't believe I have overgeneralized. I do not like CPS because of the 5% of cases that we have dealt with. When there is a problem, it is devastating.

Most of us aren't out to get your kids. I don't think you are either. Just like most people are not out to take my guns. But there are those with that agenda, and that is disturbing. We work with parents to get their kids back. We're overworked and have two little resources. We know this is a system that is only a band aid against greater moral and social problems. Two, I'm sure that there are state workers who are everything you expect them to be.

The Fabini situation may be the one where you're right. and if you are, I stand beside you and denouncing it. However, there are a few red flags that I noticed. Now, I want you to listen to these carefully. One, this story relies on a conspiracy. The CPS, the state, the court, the parents, attorneys, possibly the children's attorneys, if they were appointed, all know that Ms. Fabini can care for the children but simply think she's not smart enough.

Is this possible? Yes, however, highly suspicious, even in a small town. Maybe this town is rotten to the core and completely corrupt, which again, I don't think so. being skeptical, I would ask, how do you know all the individuals in the system are corrupt, then Ms. Fabrini is not being dishonest. Two, remember Ms. Fabini and her friend who previously worked for the state and was fired

are the ones telling you the state took the children away because of her IQ. My guess is you have never seen the complaint filed against her or heard the evidence the state provided. I would imagine that you have no proof that the state worker was fired for simply standing up for Ms. Fabriini. Unless you have, you're only getting one side of the story.

She may be totally honest in this matter, and the complaint may state she has a low IQ, but the state has no evidence that it affects her ability to parent. I have never heard of such a case. I have had many cases where parents lie about the abuse and neglect, and I must remain silent as to what the true allegations are and the evidence I have against them. I have doubts, three, that Ms. Fabrini does sound completely coherent. Ms. Fabini claims the state won't let her have her kids because of low IQ. She is clearly coherent and articulate.

So the premise of her story is that there was never any danger to her children, but the state got a hold of her IQ and claimed that based on her IQ alone, she could not care for the children. The court, CPS, the state, and her attorney then ignored that fact that she is intelligent, articulate, and coherent. Every time she brought forward proof just by showing up, they'd go back to the IQ. Glenn, this is either absolute evil or ridiculous. You may hate CPS, but this story is absurd.

I may be wrong. I can tell you that in general there must be more to this story. I would ask you another question. This for Brini's story is absolutely true. Why has she not sued the state? Can you imagine the lawsuit? State takes baby because fully capable mom has IQ of 70. Civil rights attorneys would salivate over this if it was the motive of self-interest. Please know that I'm just simply being skeptical.

I do not deny this could be happened. We should be wary of a state having too much power. I'm just asking you not to demonize all of us, blah, blah, blah. This case makes all of us who try to protect children look bad. So I sent that right to Jason yesterday. It's a great email, by the way. That's a great email to get a great listener who's looking out for the show and trying to give us a broader picture. And it's exactly what we were talking about on Friday.

Because I said the same thing. Guys, that just doesn't happen. until I see it with my own eyes. I need to see what's going on. And I need to talk to everybody going on. Jason, I have now seen the documents. Can I read this?

Summarize this? I would paraphrase this. They are, There are four conditions the state of Oregon is going after these child. This is their case. This is their case. This is the documents that we have seen from the court. One, the dad has limited cognitive abilities.

Two, the mother is unwilling or unable to be a custodial resource. Three, the mother has limited. cognitive abilities. Four, the mother doesn't understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the skills necessary to be a safe parent. That's the case.

That's the case. So what this guy just said, you know, he's never seen, well, you have now, we have seen all of the documents. That is the case. And I'm going to go a step further in a minute. But first, can you

go through those four things with us, Jason? Yeah, and I, just like you said, I had the same reservations. I was like, there's got to be something we're missing. You know, what's being reported is obviously not the story. So I want to go in to see the actual court documents that basically say, no, this is what happened. I was like, I'm assuming that as soon as we see that, we're going to see some kind of crazy incident that happened. And that's the real basis of the case. Well, we did some digging around after that meeting. We had a source come forward. And we've seen everything. I mean, everything. We've seen everything from their IQ levels. We've seen transcripts of past educational facilities. We've seen everything. So you know, they graduated, both of them graduated in the middle

of their class. With average grades. Yeah. Average grades, middle of the class. So if you're too stupid, then why did they get a diploma in the middle? What does that say about all the other kids that will eventually be parents? Okay. So the limited cognitive abilities right off the That's two of their main cases, and actually their main case on this, is completely out the window. If you're basing it off of their IQ, which some psychologist that tested them just gave them this number, I mean, I don't even see how that's admissible in the court. And I also see that it's completely refuted because they graduate the middle of class, just like, I think I graduated from the middle of my class.

You know, am I what a caseworker at this place is alleged to have said, am I retarded? Can I not care for my children? So imagine a caseworker, and we have the actual caseworker. quotes. Imagine the caseworker saying this person is lazy. This person is a mess. What was the second

one? Lazy? Dirty. Dirty and an retarded. Effin retard. Now imagine that's the caseworker who's writing this up and followed it up with, quote, I will never, I,

will never let this the this person have their child I will never allow them to have their child okay after calling somebody an effin retard I will never allow them and by the way when when that was said Jason what else was happening with the caseworker what was he doing um he was outlining for the parents setting up yeah so yeah so yeah So I just want to add in that this, what this was said is potentially very explosive. It's an alleged statement, and we're actually following up to get more background on this specific person and his statements. But at the same time, this allegedly was said, he or she is putting out a plan like he's supposed to do by the state to give them their kids back. So the statement is, I will never let this person have their kids, have let Eric have his kids.

But at the same time, he's saying, well, look, complete this class. complete this class, have these visits, and we will reunify your children with you. Now, the reason why he says that's explosive is because this person has allegedly, we have, this isn't allegedly, but we have not gone into their cases yet, but we have had others step up

who happened to have the same caseworker, who are saying, I am not willing to go on the record unless you guys are seriously going to finish this because this guy will never let us have our children. We have the same kinds of problems

with this caseworker. Several parents, several people going through it, same exact caseworker. They didn't know who the caseworker was. We do. They don't. So that's points. Those are the biggest points. One and two. So basically your worst fears about this case

and it couldn't just be about IQ. No, they're real. We're looking at the documents basically right now. We can tell you that that is their case. Now, point three, which, Stu, I noticed you give me a look on one of them where it said that she's unwilling or unable to... Unable to have custodial resource. So yeah, so I thought that was odd too, so I made a follow-up call on that.

So basically, that stems from an interview that one of the caseworkers said that Amy wanted to put the kids up for adoption. But that is refuted. And it's very obviously now that she is not willing to put the kids up for adoption. She's not willing. She's fighting through the nail. So then there's this. The mother does not understand the basic needs of her child

and lacks the parenting skills necessary to safely parent the child. Now this is marked new allegation. Yes. Can we talk about this? Yes. Okay, go ahead. This is the most frightening thing in the case, in my opinion. Terrifying.

So I think that this was added in as a new allegation. And it says in the official documents, new allegation in parentheses. I think this was added in because they know that they have no case to stand on at this point. So now they're just prolonging this out. It's been for over four years Christopher's been with this foster care parent. I think that now they're just grasping for straws to keep this going. So this goes to, they've had some doctor say that the kid, and I think this is brand new information, that he might be diagnosed with autism.

Might. Might. Might. They're not sure because he's still so young, they won't be able to really tell for another couple of years. So they don't really know, but he might. So in that case, because of the means of the family, they're not the richest family. Because of that, they think that, well, he'll be better off with a family with more means. That has the means to send them to, you know, to a special school. Special school. So he can develop at a faster rate. It's an allegation. It's alleged. None of this is, I cannot believe. this is even in a court duck. And since when have we turned into a country that says a parent has to give up their child, even if they do have autism and give that child with autism to a wealthier family because they'll be able to provide. I feel horrible for the foster parents. I feel horrible for the foster parents because they've done the right thing and now they've bonded with this child.

I feel horrible for the child. But this cannot stand. The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future. Much more in a second. Our sponsor this half hour is Goldline. Last time we saw this, it was just before the collapse of 2008. And here's what it is.

And it's a really disturbing thing that was out last week. and people are not paying attention to it. U.S. household savings ratio has fallen to 3.8% that's on a net basis. The monthly ratio of savings as a percentage of disposable income. Why? What's happening? This happened right before the crash. People just stop saving and they're spending everything.

There's a report out now on the five things. it could really impact the stock market and our economy, please, I ask you to get it. It's free. It's written by David Stockman. He was Reagan's budget director. Five threats to the economy. You can get it right now just for asking. 866-465-35-46.

1-866-35-46. Also, their gold line is extending their price protection program for as little as $2,500. You'll get three months of price protection. And for $25,000, you get a year of price protection. protection. Read their risk information, 1866 Goldline or Goldline.com. This is the Glenn Beck program. Mercury. This is the Glenn Beck program. There's so much happening in the world and so much of it beyond our control.

There are a few things that we can do together that actually make a difference. Amy's fight may be something that you want to join in. on because it's not just happening here. It's happening around the country. And again, child protective services, I don't want your job. I don't know how you do it. 95, 99% of the time you probably get it right. But when you get it wrong, you need to be the first to stand up.

Sign up for the newsletter and get all the info you need to know at glenbeck.com. We have some additional information coming out in the next few days, once we can get more than one source on it, that make this story up in Oregon. Truly, truly frightening, and not about just this one family. But we wanted to get Matt Staver in. And Matt is from the Liberty Council. If you remember, this is a nonprofit organization. litigation, education, policy organization

dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the family. He is the guy we immediately called with Justine Pellantir up in Massachusetts and it was the Liberty Council that got Justine back eventually to her

family. Matt, welcome to the program. How are you? Thank you, Glenn. Good to be with you. I hate talking to you because the only time we ever talk to you is about bad stuff. like this. I know. We've got to talk about some other things, but you know, I was listening to you and Jason, and you did exactly in this case what we did in the Justina Pellateer case out of Boston, Massachusetts. Our first reaction was, it's got to be something else. There's something else lurking,

and therefore we need to do our due diligence to find out if there's something else out there that we just don't know about. Right. And we did that in Justina Pellateer, and we found there's nothing else there. This was an abuse of power by the Child Protection Services to take Justina and bring her, frankly, to her deathbed nearly if we hadn't intervened. And it's the same thing that I see happening here in this case with Amy and Eric and their children. It's the same exact thing. And, you know, I've read thousands of thousands and thousands of pages of transcripts, of depositions, of oral arguments, even before the United States Supreme Court, of skilled attorneys who can articulate. I've read them of people who have lots of different doctorates, and I've read them

with people with low IQs. I read the transcript that you did with the interview with Amy last week, and I can tell you that there is not one place in this transcript, not one that would give me any pause that she is functioning at a low IQ or that she would be an incompetent parent. She is articulate. If you can't speak well or carry on a sentence, it's exaggerated when you put it in print. And this is an excellent transcript verbatim of what she said on your radio program when you were talking to her. It is mind-boggling of somebody who can articulate like she can and be also commended by Shireen, the lady who said she's a loving parent, she and Eric, and still have this happen to her. So, Matt, as we're trying to figure this out, and we think we could be wrong, but we think that there is a bad apple. not child protective services of Oregon.

We think it's one bad apple. And we also, I tend to believe that a lot of these cases happen because it's already so far down the road and now, you know, CPS cannot admit a mistake. I mean, it's like what happened with Charlie Guard. They just couldn't let that child go because it unwrable. their authority and everything else. And so they're kind of between a rock and a hard place, and now they don't know what to do. Yeah, I think you're right.

Obviously, there's a lot of good people in the various child protection services. I wouldn't want their job. It's a very difficult job. But there are people in those services in every place around the country, and we found this in Justina Pellatee here. There was a particular person who made some egregious decisions in CPS, backed them up, The court system was not competent enough to do its own independent analysis and rubber stamped it. And it went on and on and on.

Weeks turned into months and months turned into years. And they were afraid to backtrack because it would question their entire authority. And apparently that's what you have here. You have this one caseworker who says, as you mentioned in the earlier part of this interview today, that it was her decision not to ever allow these parents to have these children, her decision. On the other hand, you have Shireen. She is a professional mediator by trade. She was appointed as a caseworker.

She has over 20 years experience. Her undergraduate is in psychology. She's got a ton of certificates on safety and health and abuse regarding children. And she has spent significant time with the family, and she ultimately said there's nothing wrong with this family. They ought to have their children. And what happens to her? CPS apparently later removes her from the case,

because it's not consistent with the narrative by this original caseworker who says it's her decision to make sure that these children are never with the family. So, Matt, let's let me take you here because we all think that there has to be something else because the government does not have a right unless the child is in danger. Jason, can you summarize what the state itself has admitted to in the documents? Yeah, so the state has actually admitted in court that there is no immediate harm or threat to a child. They whatever, everything that they have, the course that they've put them on so that they make their home safe, that they take their right type of parenting classes, all that stuff. They admit that they have done everything asked of them. They've done everything.

They have the certificates to prove it. They've stayed on the plan. They're still on the plan and still being supervised. But they've admitted that they've done everything, completely the program, and they've admitted that, yeah, there's no more threat and there's no more harm to a child in the home. So we have this coupled with the fact that their first child may be diagnosed with autism at some point, and they may not be the best parent for a child with that diagnosis at some point. Well, look, if that's the criteria, there's a lot of families that are at risk because there's a lot of families that are caring for a child that has autism or some other kind of disability, mental or physical. And they may not feel like they're at the competent level to be able to handle it, but you know what? Parents do best for their children, and the state has no right to intervene and say, we've got a better home, a better idea for this child to be taken from you. In fact, in this case here, Hunter, the second child that was born was not even allowed to leave the hospital.

This little child was taken after she gave birth and it never spent a moment, not even a minute, at home with mom and dad. There was no evidence in that case at all. None, zero. There's no abuse that they've documented. There's no neglect or abandonment that they've documented. And as you've just mentioned, Jason and Glenn, there's no immediate harm. And by the way, they've actually complied with every request. They've gone through parenting classes.

They have someone with over 20 years' experience in this very field that say they're a loving family. The mom loves the children. And you have two parents that just love the child, Christopher and now, of course, Hunter, that was born and taken in the hospital. You know, there is, this thing cries out as being outrageous. And again, the average listener is going to think there's got to be something else there. So I'm glad you did some additional research and analysis, as you did in the beginning of this program, to look at all the other aspects. And there's nothing there.

And when we were in the Justina Pellitier case, we did the same thing. And the amazing and frankly shocking, disturbing thing we found was we started to get calls like that from other places around the country. It's not unfortunately as isolated as we think it is. But in this case, if IQ and Amy's in the 72 range, that's not, I mean, that may be lower than some, but that's not in the incompetent range at all by any means. And if we're going to look at an arbitrary IQ, it sounds like this whole Darwinian evolutionary idea that if you don't reach a certain IQ level, And unfortunately, this even reached the U.S. Supreme Court. If you don't reach a certain IQ level, then the state has the authority to sterilize you,

so you're not going to give birth to other people of low IQ. I thought we had gone so far beyond that idiocy, but obviously it's back with some people, at least with this situation involving this family, where the state thinks it knows better, and it's going to use IQ as a measurement, even though there's no issue. evidence of low IQ in this transcript as she speaks or there's no evidence of abandonment, abuse or neglect. So Matt, I mean, let me ask you to be Solomon here for a second. We have one child who has been out of her care now for four years they've been battling this. That family is about to adopt. They're about to terminate Amy's rights. That's why she's

fighting so hard. They're fast-tracking things to get things moving and get this old. over with. That child doesn't even know Amy at this point. I feel horrible for the foster parents because the foster parents, you know, to have your child ripped away from you is bad, but then to be given a child and then you're going to be the adoptive parent in the final hour after four years, it's bad for the, it's bad for the foster parents or the adoptive parents, and it's horrible for the adoptive parents. and it's horrible for the child,

what could possibly be done in that case to make it right? Well, you know, as difficult of a decision this is, and this is kind of almost like Solomon splitting the baby in two, but what you have here is the state caused a huge disservice and abuse to the child and to the foster family and to the birth parents. But at the end of the day, the state never had the authority to intervene. if you allow the state to say, well, we made a mistake here, we apologize, but you never get your child back anyway.

That's a terrible precedent. You know, at the end of the day, it is better for the child to be with the birth parents, as difficult as that is for the foster parents since they've lived with this child for several years. But this is the family, and there was no reason to take the child from the family. there is no documented basis for the child protective services to have intervened, let alone to remove them from the family, any more than there was for Hunter, who was just born, and there's absolutely zero evidence there. And yet they did the same thing to Hunter, taking Hunter from the hospital. I think the state needs to reverse course. The state needs to own up to its horrible problem that it created,

and the state needs to bring this child back to the parents. That's where this child belongs, and it's going to be traumatic either way, whether the child never comes back to the parents. And it's going to be traumatic if the child comes back to the parents. Unfortunately, for the child and for the people involved, there's going to be a lot of healing that has to take place over the next years. So, Matt, let me ask you the same thing I asked you with Justine when that happened. You know, I don't know what you're, you know, doing and working on. I don't know if this particular case even fits you guys. But are you willing to look into this as an organization and help write this wrong?

Well, we're definitely going to look into it more, just like we did with Justina, and we're going to do the due diligence like you've already done. But like I said, even just looking at this from a surface level, they don't have the evidence. And again, I put, when I'm reading this transcript, and I encourage people to go to your website to read the transcript. I believe it was an August 1 interview that you did with Amy. read her responses in writing. You know, when people have taken my verbal and put it into writing, sometimes you think, oh, I couldn't carry a good sentence.

Even people who are very articulate look kind of odd when they're in writing. The sentences aren't as perfect as you would normally write them. I'm telling you, Amy's statements verbatim. In your communication with her are cogent, they're clear. They show emotion when emotion is appropriate. They show knowledge, they show compassion, they show love, they show concern, everything that you would want about a good parent. Read her statements compared to mine. She's better in that than I am. Real quick, man, I've only got about 45 seconds. Can you give us a Justina an update on her plight? Yeah, there is a separate law firm that after we got her back home that has filed a malpractice lawsuits against those that are involved in the medical facility, and that still is ongoing.

But in terms of her medical health, it never bounced back to the way it was before CPS took her. And the problem is they literally took her away from the necessary medical treatment that was helping her, even to be a ice skater, to nothing. And I think it unfortunately has had long-term debilitating consequences because of the state. And whether that can ultimately ever be reversed is unclear at this point. Thank you. I would not want your job. Thank you so much for talking to us. again. Matt Staver from

Libertycouncil.org if you're looking for some group to support these guys are quite amazing. Libertycouncil.org. Now this, surprise somebody in your life. Not because you have something to make up for

or there's a special occasion, just because you can. They're special in your life. Surprise them right now. Proflowers make it easy with a special offer. Proflowers, farm stand flowers. You get 20% off the collection or any of their exclusive bouquets of $29 or more. You get 20% off. The flowers are guaranteed to stay fresh for seven days or your money back.

And you get to pick the exact date. It could be today. It could be next week. Could be, you know, a month from now. Just because it'll surprise both of you. Send them right now. Get 20% off your farm fresh flowers or any other bouquet of $29 or more at proflowers. com. Use the promo code Glenn at

checkout. It's proflowers.com, promo code Glenn. Make somebody's day. Do it today. Proflowers.com, promo code Glenn. You're listening to the Glenn Beck program. Mercury. The Glenn Beck Program. Welcome to the program. So glad that you're here. Yesterday, yesterday was at

I had an interesting. weekend. Saturday I'm driving by and I drive by Gateway which is a big church here and my wife and I start talking about Gateway and start talking about the leadership of that church and you know how you know the really good people in the community and the next day we're at church and I'm sitting in the pew and surrounded by these amazing amazing people and sitting next to a guy with who's just battling cancer and just one of the most incredible men I've ever I've ever met. And I'm sitting here and I'm looking all of these incredible men in different churches, different faiths around town. And I realize, you know, that's what's really important.

We keep hearing about all these bad news stories, all the bad people. There are millions of really good people, really good men and women who are standing and making a difference in their own community. We should concentrate on them from time to time. The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand. Hello, America. Welcome to the program, North Korea. Ready to teach the U.S. a severe lesson. The U.N. it says, has abused its authority. We'll get to that here in just a second. Also, devastating consequences of abandoning the truth. Dr. Everett Piper joins us.

He is an incredible, incredible university dean. He's a guy who wrote, this is not a daycare. Get over yourself. Do you remember that paper that came out, circulated, became a really big deal. He's written a book based on that paper showing this is what happens to universities when they abandon the truth. This is what's going to happen to society. He's going to be joining us here in just a second. Also, the media, a complete lack of trust of the media. Some thoughts on that beginning right now. Entertainment and Enlightenment.

This is the Glenn. glad that you're here today there's a couple of things that we want to that we want to talk about there's a new story out about you know if we trust the media or not

you know where do we where do we stand on the media which organizations do we trust it's not going to fill you with a lot of hope this is from Market Watch

the the media source that is the least trusted. This will feel good. Occupy Democrats. Number two is BuzzFeed. Really? Least trusted? Yeah.

Wow. I mean, it's all Kardashians all the time. It's all. But it's not. I mean, it really is. That's what it feels like. That's how they started. So, you know, a little listicals and such. And it is also like, we publish anything, you know, with that list for the, you know, with the dossier from Russia.

It should not have been published. That's, I will say, and I know many people in the audience will not agree with this, I believe that's unfair to them. They did a lot of really good journalism throughout the election. Why are we defending BuzzFeed? Why? I will, because I think people who do good work deserve to be defended. Well, it wasn't that whole team scooped up by CNN?

Some of the people were, but they're still, I mean. Their political team, yeah. There's still a lot of good people. I would, you know, again, they have not, I have not agreed with every one of their decisions or every one of the reports by any means. But, I mean, to put them as low as some of these other organizations you're mentioning here is ridiculous. Is this amazing? If you look at this, here are the top five.

Occupy Democrats, the least trusted. Number two is BuzzFeed, second least. I mean, three, Breitbart. I mean, that's accurate. That's accurate. You know, Occupy and Brightbark, kind of the same thing. They're just kind of a political organ. sort of groups. Then

social media, then Trump, then Info Wars. I mean, come on. Then Trump, anything out of Trump? He's not a, is he a news source? Yes, he is now. Info Wars is more trusted than Trump?

Yep. That's amazing. That's quite amazing. Quite a statement. The blaze is between the Huffington Post, which is less credible to the American people. Huffington Post, Then the Blaze, then Fox. Sandwiched in between. Now, here's where it's really going to fall apart on you.

This is interesting because usually in these, and I don't know who's conducting this survey, but Fox shows up as the most trusted often in like Reuters or Gallup polls. I don't know who did this one, but it seems more comprehensive than. This is University of Missouri's Reynolds Journalism Institute. No wonder. So here are the top ones. this is most trusted the economist nobody reads it

nobody nobody's even heard of the economist except us that's not true yes it is if you're taking a if you were taking a survey of the average American nobody reads the economist that's fair okay

number two public television nobody's watching news on public television when you say hey tell us This is all, well, the economists, that's smart. I've seen that someplace.

I don't even know where the average American even sees the economist. But they don't know what they're talking about on that. They most likely have never read it. Public television, nobody's getting their daily news from PBS TV. Is the McNeil-Lare report still on? Because that's the last time I watched it. Reuters, number three, Reuters. Do they even know what Reuters is?

No. As a rule, no. The BBC. Right. You're getting your news from the BBC. Yes. Is it BBC one, two, three, or four? The accents make them more credible. Yes. This is, though, again, it's a good study on people's impressions. Yes. Right. Like, their impression is BuzzFeed does stories about listicles and how to the 40 things.

And they do all that. They do all that, but they also do journalism. Correct. 48 things you never say to your plumber. where they see NPR as some trusted government source. And that's what's amazing here. That's what's amazing. Public television, BBC, NPR, PBS.

Those are all government sources. So you trust the government to give you the news. That's incredible. Ridiculous. First of all, the first one I think that is credible. The economist, nobody reads that. Public television, nobody's watching the 6 o'clock news on public television. Reuters, come on.

They don't even know what Reuters is. BBC, uh-huh, NPR, that's the first credible one. The ratings of NPR in markets across the country are high. And I think, but again, do they separate the news of NPR from the programming of NPR? Right. And of course, you know, it's nice to get ratings when you get the best signal in every market. Yeah, it's a nice. Yeah. Yeah. So, but, you know, you don't, the best signal can. still be the worst rated in the market.

Yeah, and that's not. Your statement isn't universally true either. But still, that is, you know, there are definitely people who listen to NPR. Honestly, they do much better in podcasts. Stop defending these douchebags. Stop it. No, I'm just trying to, I'm not defending, I'm just telling the truth. I'm just telling the truth.

That doesn't mean that I agree with them or you think they're unbiased. They're government sources. They are absolutely biased. Of course they are. Absolutely biased. Of course they are. Then there's the Guardian. Uh-huh. Yeah. No, I know people who are picking up the guardian all the time. Yeah. So that's how far down the

trust is? One, two, three, that's seven. Oh my gosh. Eight is the Wall Street Journal. Nine is the LA Times. Ten is the Dallas Morning News. Oh, that's, please. That's pathetic. That's a garbage can. Wow. Then 11 is just your local news.

And I trust my local news more than I trust really anything else. Then Politico, then Associated Press. The Denver Post, the Washington Post, Time, Seattle Times, Seattle Times. Seattle Times. Come on. The Kansas City Star, New York Times, USA Today, The Atlantic, CNN, CBS, NBC, NBC,

Limbaugh, Fox, Blaze, Huffington Post, the Internet. That's not a news source, guys. Yahoo? What did Yahoo do besides hire Katie Couric? Is that enough? I think that's enough to discredit them completely, yes. Maybe also just be one of the things where your name, they're just like, they're just like, Yahoo, no, I don't trust them as a news source. I don't know. It just seems so goofy.

It does. That's why, like, you put, I mean, Huffington Post was never, you know, a news source. It's a blogging source, right? They have news articles there, but it's a left-wing, left-leaning blogs or something started, but you put a post after her name and it sounds so official. Right. You should have done that. I think glenbeck post.com, maybe people would be

wow, look incredible that glenbeck is. No, they wouldn't have, strangely, because I don't think we look at Ariana Huffington is credible either. She is less the Huffington Post, remind you, is less credible than the Blaze. So, you know, you look at that, and

then you see, this is what the president is playing against and he's accurate. that there is no credibility, but did you see what launched this weekend from Trump Tower? Yeah, the real news or whatever he's calling it. Trump News, yeah, real news. Not any of this fake stuff.

And he's hired an anchor to give the news about Donald Trump. Now, I don't really care. As long as you really know what it is, I don't really care. Because we're going that way anyway. I fought against it with Barack Obama. Yeah, and if he would have released a news source with somebody anchoring all news about him, the right would have gone apoplectic over it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

They would have gone crazy over it. Here's because he would have done it in where I was fearing. What Barack Obama did was he took over the West Wing. He made the White House press room and press secretary. And remember, they started doing their own news and cutting people out, journalists weren't allowed to come in to the events. And they said, no, the White House is just covering it. That I have a problem with.

If he wants to do his own news from, you know, Trump Tower and he's paying for it or his reelection campaign is paying for it, I don't think it's healthy for America. But I don't care. Do you? Not really. I mean, he has a right to do it. I'm glad he's not doing it in the White House. That bothers me to use the White House as the backdrop for it.

That's what really bothered me with Barack Obama doing it. But I can't, you know, anybody on the left who has a real problem with the president tampering with the news, let's just recall what Barack Obama was doing to you by cutting you out of the loop. And anybody on the right who is like, this is the greatest thing ever. Remember what you were feeling when this was happening with Barack Obama. we just have to stop playing these musical chairs. That would be helpful, I think. It would be helpful.

Yeah, either the principle is right or it's wrong, no matter who's in office, right? There's a principle that guides your feelings on these things, or there should be. And so if it violates that principle, it violates it both from the left and the right. I wish you could just eliminate feelings from the equation completely. This shouldn't be about feelings. What group are we now freaking liberal public? Oh, it's living in a commune? Everyone's talking about feelings all the time.

Stop with the feelings. Just look at the story and analyze it. So this again goes back to something that I shared last week that, oh, wow, really got some really nasty comments. Just quoting Dietrich Bonhofer, now sets people off. Dietrich Bonhofer, the, like, hero from Nazi Germany. Yes, yes. Okay, because that's a very controversial figure.

Very controversial, yeah. Sets everybody off. Okay, this is what he wrote while he was in prison waiting to be executed for trying to stop Hitler. Okay. So he's a very controversial. I could see why you would disagree with him. I just want you to listen to this and see if this applies to both sides. Now, anybody who hears this is only going to hear...

See if this applies to anybody. And you're going to think, oh, Glenn Beck is just hating all liberals. Clem Beck is just hating Donald Trump. No, not hating anyone. I'm quoting Dietrich Bonhofer on how societies go to hell. Listen to this. Stupidity is more dangerous of an enemy than good of the good than malice. One can protest against evil.

Evil can be exposed. And if need be, evil can be prevented through the use of force. and evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings some sense of unease against stupidity were defenseless neither protest nor the use of force accomplish anything against stupidity reason falls on deaf ears. Facts that contradict one's pre-judgment simply need not be believed. In such moments, the stupid person even becomes critical. And when facts are irrefutable, they're just pushed aside as inconsequential or incidental.

In all of this, the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied, being easily irritated, then becomes dangerous by going on the attack. Is this not today? So what were people railing about? Hang on. How dare you be upset with stupidity? Hang on, hang up, hang on. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with

the malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reason because it is senseless and dangerous. So what is he saying? Can you summarize that for me? Don't get in Facebook battles. That's how I would summarize that. Because that's every time, you're gone Twitter,

you know, tweeting against some person you've never met before, bringing up their stupid arguments. Like, what's the point of that? There is no point to try to win that battle with logic. Okay, so here are the comments underneath this on Facebook. Oh, no. All right. Susan writes, frightening, isn't it?

Robert Smith writes, So you're the stupid one in this, trying to persuade you is senseless and dangerous, according to your hero. Like, I don't even know what that means. I don't even know what that means. I don't even know what that means.

It's amazing that you quote discredited newspapers, the Washington Compost. No, I was quoting Dietrich Bonhoffer. Wow. Thanks to the two of you, your proving Glenn's point. That's a comment on there. Next one.

Ha-ha, quoting discredited sources, due to your hate of, Donald Trump, you're becoming them. It's bad when O'Reilly has to set you straight. By the way, I was interested to read Donald Trump's tweet from the weekend in which he linked to the Washington Post. Which, again, if it's such fake news, are you attacking him in the same way? Oh, and by the way, our Attorney General is now a good guy again. Oh, good.

Yeah, we can like him again. It's the next one from Shirley Croft. It's truly amazing to watch so many people jump to prove you right, Glenn. Not prove me right. all I did was quote Dietrich Bonhoffer. Scott, also stupidity is incredibly frustrating. I generally believe most people I encounter are intelligent, but so many will willfully ignore reason.

What, says Charles, because they don't agree with you 100%. Have you looked in the mirror lately, Glenn? That's the next one. I mean, it's crazy. It doesn't even make sense. It's crazy. It doesn't make sense. When you're quoting something from 70 years ago and say, hey, maybe we should look at ourselves in the mirror, all of us.

And what he's saying is, stupid people are going to jump defensive and they will dismiss absolutely everything and just rip you apart. With their preconceived notion, they will just rip you apart. They will just rip you apart and they will discredit the facts and just dismiss them. That's exactly what we did. That is the entire internet in a nutshell. It's basically everything that occurs on Twitter and Facebook when it comes to political discussion. And we are not paying attention really to anything anymore. We read headlines and then we move on with our life.

We don't even understand the story. anymore. What is the point of the blaze? When we don't even read the stories. Now this, you've gone through the stress of finding that home that meets all of your needs, the right price, the right location, the right school district, the right place to raise your family. The thing you have to nail down now is the mortgage. Well, you can get the right mortgage for you and not the mortgage company. The salary-based mortgage consultants at American Finance, American financing are dedicated to helping you make the smart mortgage decision that align with your unique financial goals. With American financing, you're going to get the straight talk. You're going to get

something where they are going out and trying to find the right mortgage for you, but they're not getting any kickbacks from the banks or the people who are the lenders. They're going out and they work solely for you. That's the difference. And now American financing is also offering reverse mortgages. Reverse mortgages are a good way to increase monthly cash flow with no mortgage payment while still retaining the ownership of your home. Please do your own homework. Call their number 800-906-2440, or Americanfinancing.net. If you have a mortgage and it's adjustable, may I suggest you lock it down right now? If you need a mortgage, lock it down right now. Americanfinancing.net.

American financing, NMLS-182334, www. nmLS consumer access.org. Then Beck Program. Mercury. Another... 888727 Beck. Yeah, another thrilling and exciting broadcast day. We have a look at the political correct culture of... universities and university campuses.

On an interview you do not want to miss next. I'm about to reintroduce you to a friend of ours and a guy who I absolutely love. I love his intellect and I love his bravery. It was two years ago on Thanksgiving that he wrote these words. This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt victimized by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears this young scholar felt offended because of a homily on love that made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him and his peers feel uncomfortable.

I'm not making this up. Our culture has actually taught our kids to be this self-absorbed and narcissistic. Anytime their feelings are hurt, there are victims. anyone who dares challenge them and thus make them feel bad about themselves is a hater, a bigot, an oppressor, a victimizer. I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It's supposed to make you feel guilty.

The goal of many a good sermon is to make you confess your sins, not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization. So here's my advice. If you want the chaplain to tell you you're a victim rather than tell you need virtue, this may not be the university you're looking for. And he goes on. His name is Dr. Everett Piper. He is the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University and our guest. How are you, sir?

I'm doing well. Thank you for having me. What happened when you published that? Well, first of all, I need to remind you. and those listening that I owe you a note of thanks. Thank you for posting that article. It was Thanksgiving morning two years ago. Somebody gave that to you.

I don't know who to this day. I wonder who was. And it caught your attention and you posted it. As the result of that, three and a half million people viewed it within the course of about a week or two. The response was interesting. 97% of the comments were positive.

Three percent were negative when we did our internal statistical analysis of that. analysis of that. It was interesting. The secular world was more interested and complimentary than the Christian world, the church. Here's a poster child, for example. I received a hard copied letter from a Fulbright scholar of a university in the South, and he essentially said, I read your daycare piece. I went to your website and read more about you. I'm an atheist and I disagree with your religion and I disagree with your politics. But on this issue, thank you, kudos to you. Carry on. It needed to be sad. Signed, Fulbright Scholar

University of XYZ. So the reaction has been quite interesting. And I do believe what this says is that the secularist, the humanist, if you will, the average college and university faculty member out there is recognizing that this monster he's created is turning around to bite him. Oh my gosh. Yes, they are.

By the way, the name of the book is not a daycare. Not a daycare. The original op-ed pretty much relentlessly pounded that. This university is not a daycare. You're here for a reason. I was just out in L.A.

I was with people who do not have my political bent by any stretch of the imagination. We had great conversations. Several of them told me they were concerned about what was happening in universities and the way dissent is being shut down. They said that is absolutely anti-everything. You know, the left is supposed to stand for.

They said, two of them in this meeting openly said, they are more concerned about what's happening on the left than they are that's happening on the right because they don't think the people on the left have really woken up to the monster that they're sleeping with. And they should be frightened. I would call it ideological fascism. Is this intellectual freedom, or is this ideological fascism?

Do we believe in a free and robust and open exchange of ideas? The idea of the classical liberal arts academy. If you want to go back a thousand years to Oxford, the founding of the liberal arts institution, what was it established to do? It was established to educate a free man, a free people, a free culture, to educate people in what it meant to be, liberated. It was an education in liberty and thus the classical definition of liberal.

Ironically, today it's the conservative such as myself who is more classically liberal than my left of center counterpart because I believe in a debate. I believe in a robust exchange of ideas because I can trust the truth to judge the debate, not politics and power, not people, not the pundit, but the principles of truth. G.K. Chesterton told us, when you get rid of the big laws of God, you don't get liberty, but rather thousands upon thousands. of little laws that rush in to fill the vacuum. We have a vacuous situation today where we actually have been teaching students for decades, that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as it works for you, and that vacuum is being filled by fascism, ideological fascism,

rather than intellectual freedom. So you are writing this, the devastating consequences of abandoning the truth, the book is not a daycare. What are the consequences? The consequences are ultimately the loss of human dignity, human identity, and human. human freedom. If you can't even define the human being any longer, if we don't know the definition of simple words such as male and female, if we can't define what it means to be human, the Omago Day, we're going to dumb down the definition of the human being to the Amago dog. Now, what do I mean by that? I am more than the animal. I'm the Omago Day. I'm created in the image of God, and so are you. I have moral culpability, moral understanding. I can engage in a debate. I care about the answer. When you

drive through the cattle ranches in Texas or me in Oklahoma, you don't see the cows arguing with one another. There's a reason for that. They don't care. They're not the Amago Day. They're the Amago Dog, if you will. They follow their base inclinations and appetites and instincts, and that's how they're defined. Today, in post-modernity, we've dumbed down the human being to nothing but the sum total of his or her inclinations. That's our identity. And therefore, we have insulted the Amago Day by suggesting he's the Amago dog. The result of the... of that is the total collapse of freedom and liberty within a culture because there's no longer any boundaries, as Chesterton said, in which we can live freely. So I read, have you read the 10-page

memo from the Google software guy? I'm trying to remember what he, what his job was. He wrote, he, he, he, this was just released last week. He won't put his name on it. But it was about the lies of Google diversity. And he's like, you're telling us that there is no difference between a man and a woman, and you want to get more women into, you know, software design, et cetera, et cetera. But that is a job that mainly men are interested in because of X, Y, and Z, has nothing to do with sexism. And he goes through 10 pages.

He just takes apart everything that they're talking about. Google finally responded to this unnamed memo with their head of, I can't even remember what it is, it's not the head of diversity, it's some ridiculous clown title. And she writes, I won't even dignify that, what was being said by re-quoting it here

because it has nothing to do with reality and who we are as Google. While at the same time saying that we have to have a very, vigorous debate on the Google campus. They're shutting all debate down. How does a society, in the old world, it doesn't survive. But in a society where Google is working on AI and teaching computers, the artificial intelligence, the difference between right and wrong,

when we can't define it, what happens to that society? Your question goes back to what's going on in the academy right now. What's taught today in the classroom is going to be practiced tomorrow in our culture, in our courtrooms and our living rooms. What's taught today in the classroom will be practiced tomorrow. Ideas have consequences. If you go back to Richard Weaver, 1948, his seminal work title, Ideas Have Consequences.

What was his point? Ideas have consequences. You hardly even need to read the book to understand his point. Bad ideas will breed bad culture, bad people, bad community, bad government. and good ideas will bring the opposite. Good culture, good community, good kids, good behavior, and good government. Ideas have consequences. Why is the timing of his book, 1948, important?

Because he was writing it as a response to World War II. And he was looking backward just a few short years to Hitler, who said, let me control the textbooks and I will control the state. And at the same time, we've got Orwell and Huxley writing of dystopias that use education as a means of total power and total control. Ideas have consequences. And we have to attend to what we're teaching our students today because it will bear itself out tomorrow.

And when you teach narcissism and self-absorption, you shouldn't be surprised to find narcissist and self-absorbed students protesting in the campus green. So how do we, you know, Tanya and I have this conversation a lot. My kids are 11 and 13. My older kids are already out of college. and I keep saying, I don't want to send them to college hunting. First of all, I don't know if college is going to be all that.

Because, you know, show me the teacher that is as smart as Google on the facts. I can just look up the facts. I want to find somebody who is more of a guide that will help me apply these things that I can find. And I said, you know, but even if we're not even at that place yet, I don't want my kids going and being indoctrinated. What is going to happen to the university? What is going to happen in the next five years, as 10 years, as these things are getting worse and worse,

and people know it. I think you should let your pocketbook speak, okay? If moms and dads, if parents will actually start recognizing that they're paying the bill, you're going to drop 30 grand, 35 grand, 40 grand on the barrelhead and send your kid off to an institution. You spend 18 years of your life, training up your child in the way he should go.

And then in the first 18 minutes, as you drop them off at the university, and you drive away, they take pride and start to start taking his soul and his mind and ridiculing everything you've tried to instill in him and in it. Why would you want to pay for that? Ask yourself, is education about integrity or is it about information? Is education just to learn how to make more money, or is it about how to learn to be a moral person? Is education about character or is it about just getting a career?

There was a day when education was about the big ideas, the first things, not the small ideas and the second things. I'm a student of Chuck Colson, and he was fond of telling us over and over again that if you get the big ideas, the first ideas, the first question wrong. Everything thereafter will suffer. You've got to provide an education to your kids

that focuses on the big ideas. So what's a pushback on you from academia? You must not be very popular. Well, it depends on who you're talking to. Interesting, this is the right answer. I've had lots of people, my peers, other presidents and whatnot, pull me aside privately and say, I agree with you. I agree with what you're saying.

I just can't say it publicly for fear of losing my job. That's the reaction. And that's sad. That's sad, but that is true. Let's out them now. Who are these guys? You know, it's funny Everett because

I think there's a lot of that and not just in universities. There's a lot and we're dealing with a situation now in Oregon where the CPS I think has gone way over the edge and out of control because of one particular person. I think this is what's happening.

And we have people now starting to come out and saying, okay, if you guys think you can act actually expose it and win, I have some information for you, but I'm not in unless you can win. I mean, it's Valkyry. It's really amazing. You don't win. A society doesn't survive if people stand on the sidelines. Well, I know you're a fan of Bonhoeffer, as am I, and one of his famous quotes that we all know in this room, and that is not to speak, is to speak, is to act, is to act. Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not hold us, gildless. That's worth

the price of admission. Not to speak is to speak. And not to act is to act. Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. God will not hold us gildless. Do we believe in our truths? Do we believe that teaching those things that are right and just and real and permanent and enduring those self-evident truths endowed to us by our creator? Do we believe in them enough to speak and to act? Because if we don't, We're actually acting and speaking for the opposite. We have to have courage and some conviction. The academy, presidents and professors need to get a spine and start teaching truth rather than just opinions.

Is it hard? I've got to take a quick break, but is it hard to find those professors and teachers that still will? Yes, but you can. There are a handful. And if parents who are paying the money do the research necessary, you can find those institutions that actually say, we believe that truth is a revelation, okay, as opposed to a construction. That's the answer you need to hear. Is truth self-evident? Is it given by somebody bigger and better

than you and me? Or is it just constructed by the populace? If it's constructed by the populace, it's dangerous. If it's given by God, if it's given by revelation, then it's enduring, immutable, and true. Dr. Everett Piper, I think you're joining me for the think tank today. The name of the book is Not a Daycare. the devastating consequences of abandoning the truth. Well worth your time and read. And we'll have more conversation with him a little later on this afternoon on the Blaze TV. Thanks, Dr. Appreciate it.

Now this, your home's empty. There's no cars in the driveway. There's no lights on. I mean, it's an invitation because you're telling people, I'm on vacation, come rob me. Burglars are looking for the signs that you're not home because, you know, they're not actually robbing you at night. even when you're home. They're not robbing you at night. Most robberies happen during the day. They don't want to run into you, especially if you're in Texas.

That's why Simply Save Home Security has extended their biggest ever summer sale until August 13th, because this is when the crime rate goes through the roof. A whopping $100 off Simply Save special summer package happening right now, has everything you need to keep your home safe from intruders. Simply Saves around the clock monitoring is $15 a month. There's no long-term contract, nothing to lock you in. is truly protection done right. Don't miss out. Sale ends August 13th at Simplysafbeck.com. Save $100 right now at simply safebeck.com.

You're listening to the Glenn Beck program. Mercury. The Glenn Beck program. Sitting here on my set are a lot of military medals, including the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Bronze Star. but today is the anniversary of the oldest military award, started by George Washington, the first one to go to the common man,

the Purple Heart, or as it was known at the time, the badge of merit, not for being shot or killed as it is now, but doing something that would be seen in the eyes of God as having merit, so he would bless us and help us win. This is the gladness. The Glenn Beck program. Mercury.