The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Gina Carano | 2/8/24

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

The European Union is calling for sanctions and travel bans for Tucker Carlson in retaliation for interviewing Vladimir Putin. Glenn and Pat listen to the arguments before the Supreme Court regarding Trump’s eligibility for the 2024 presidential ballot. How can Trump be removed from ballots, using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, if he hasn’t been charged with insurrection?  Actress Gina Carano joins to discuss her lawsuit against Disney, funded by X owner Elon Musk.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Want to go electric without sacrificing fun? That's the Volkswagen ID4. All-electric and thoughtfully designed to elevate your modern lifestyle. The Volkswagen ID4 is fun to drive with instant acceleration that makes city streets feel like open roads. Plus a refined interior with innovative technology always at your fingertips. The all-electric ID4, you deserve more fun. Visit vw.ca to learn more. SUVW, German engineered for all.

All right, great podcast today. We cover the trial that was going on in front of the Supreme Court about whether you can keep Trump off the ballot in states like Colorado, but also we had Alan Dershowitz join us. He talked about it. Gina Carrano is on with us today talking about her battle in court, backed up by Elon Musk. I mean, I think the guy's turning into a real superhero, quite honestly.

and so much more, all the news you need on today's podcast coming up in 60 seconds. Look, if you're living with pain, I want you to try. I know you probably think I tried everything because I did. I tried everything. How can we break this? I'll do anything, Doc. How do I make this pain go away? Well, thankfully, I found relief factor, and I really didn't think it would work for me.

And it changed my world. I got my life back. So if you're dealing with what I was dealing with pain every day, maybe today's the day. it a try. Relief Factor is a daily supplement and helps your body fight that pain, 100% drug-free, developed by doctors to help reduce or eliminate pain. Over a million people have tried Relief Factor's Quick Start Kit. 70% of them have gone on to order it again and again. I happen to be one of them. Relief Factor. Get your three-week Quick Start Kit. Comes with Relief factors feel better or your money-back guarantee. So visit Relieffactor.com or call 1-800-4 relief. That's 1-800-4-Rleafactor.com.

Here's a podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Those people that just hate fascism so much that if a reporter goes in and gets the other side, you'll put on a kill list. Don't you? Hmm. Don't you? I mean, I think it's great. Nobody's even seen the interview yet.

They don't even know what the questions were to Putin. It's not posted until what? Five o'clock tonight, I think. Yeah, but wait, wait, wait. But does it matter, Pat? Does it matter what the questions are? No, it doesn't. And does it matter to you?

I mean, he still has a right to go. Oh, of course he does. I mean, it matters to me personally. I mean, I'm hopeful that he's going to ask some tough questions of Putin. But should he be able to as a journalist go over there and interview him? Yes, a million have done that. Why is it okay for Mike Wallace and Barbara Walters and all the rest to have done it? But now all of a sudden it's off limits to Tucker Carlson.

It's unbelievable. Members of the European Parliament are calling for sanctioned. against Tucker Carlson. Man, I mean, that's real accomplishment there. You know what I mean? Yeah. And the European Parliament's coming after you. Carlson posted a video on X announcing that he was going to do the Moscow interview with Putin.

And the former prime minister of Belgium said the block should consider imposing a travel ban for serving as a mouthpiece for Putin. He doesn't know that. They don't know that yet. You haven't heard the interview. and he's a journalist. My gosh, where were you when everybody was hyping up Hitler? So it drops tonight and here's how I'm going to watch it. And I would like to get your opinion, Pat, on what to look for in this interview.

First of all, we know Megan Kelly has talked about. And you know this going in and Tucker's smart enough to know this. Putin is very good at propaganda. And he's a KGB guy. Okay, so he knows how to manipulate people. And he knows that there are people looking for an American dictator in America. They're tired of, I told you this. This is how communists take over.

They infiltrate the government, and then they activate the people that are on the streets, grassroots, to cause all kinds of problems until the people in the middle are like, somebody has got to stop this and that's when the top comes down. So there are people that are looking for a dictator just to make all this stop. I am not one of them. I think this is the worst possible scenario. But Dugan would be pushing, Alexander Dugan, if you don't know who he is, listen to some of the old shows or just look him up.

Very dangerous guy, very, very dangerous. He would be pushing Putin to talk about our. immorality, transgenderism, our loss of faith. Tucker has got to keep this on the rails. This is not about America. We could talk about that all day long, but I don't want to hear that from Vladimir Putin. We're here to talk to you about the American involvement in this war in Ukraine,

not our internal policy. But Tucker will have lost control of the interview if he allows Putin to go on about America's immorality more than once. You can let him say that once, and then you've got to say, Mr. Putin, this is not about America. We have our own problems. But I don't think it's appropriate to talk to you about our internal policy. I'm here to talk to you about NATO,

even the American War Machine, if you want to call it that. I want to hear why you're in Ukraine. Are you willing to look for peace? What would that look like? So look for Putin to spin this whole thing into transgenderism and what's happening in our schools. Because that then is propaganda. We know who Putin is.

We know how he stops drugs on the streets. We know how he treats media members who speak out about him in a negative way. they usually fall from their apartment window, or they go up to a higher floor and then jump from that, or I'm sorry, fall out of that window. Happens all the time. He has to talk about a peace deal, even the drones that have come from Ukraine, from us, NATO, all of that.

Tucker also says, we've been lied to. I want to know about what. We know our problems. now let's hear solutions to the war and what the truth is on war. That's what I'm looking for tonight from Tucker. I hope that's what he does. If he keeps it on track like that, it'd be a great interview. It'd be a great interview.

Because nobody's ever heard from Putin why the invasion took place in the first place. why did you invade at this time? What are you talking about, the Nazis that are involved in Ukraine? Explain that to me. Who's a Nazi in Ukraine? Are you saying Volatimir Zelensky is a Nazi? No. There is, you know, because we did this, when Trump was being impeached, and remember that huge chalkboard I did, Pat, it had all of this in it.

There are Nazis. and the Ukrainian government has been funding them on the border for security. There are some really, really bad guys. There's nobody that's good in this. I mean, nobody. Nobody that's a good guy in this. Either side, Zelensky or Putin. I personally just, they should work it out.

The reason why I think Putin did this is because we refuse to say, no, we've made a promise from the very beginning. It wasn't written down, but we're people of honor. We will not allow Ukraine into NATO. We won't let Ukraine be overrun by you, but we're also not going to let them into NATO. That's all that Putin was asking for at first. And that was violated.

I mean, that's just a fact. That's just a fact. And so they went back on that promise that we weren't going to allow them into or invite them into NATO. And we did that. So that was a problem of our making. So there's an article out by me,

an op-ed out by me on Blaze Media about being a fascist. If you're on the side of freedom, you cannot be a fascist. Let me explain this. Fascist is the label of choice from the left to silence any and everybody. You're a fascist. You're a fascist. And when you hear fascist, you think of concentration

camps, as you should, because those are usually a product of fascism in the end, because you have to get rid of your political opponents because they are standing in the way of progress. So, unless you're in a free state, you can't have people who disagree with you. That's really important. What's happening with Tucker Carlson in the EU? What's happening? What do they want to do to Tucker Carlson, you're in a free state. You have a First Amendment right to be able to have unfettered access to press, and the press can ask whatever it is they want. The first definition of freedom is being able to speak your mind. So the first thing that you'll notice about fascism is it has to silence the voices that disagree. Okay. I will invite,

and have invited anybody and everybody on this program. They're choosing not to. That's fine. That's up to them. But don't try to silence me. I'm not trying to silence you. If there is fascism in the country, it is coming from the left. And you should not throw the word fascist around.

It's never really fit in the United States up until recently, maybe in the last 15 years we've started moving towards that. First, I thought we were moving towards communism, but we're not moving towards communism. The difference between communism and fascism, communism is collective. So it's, we're all in this together and the individual doesn't matter. We have to do its right for the collective. But communism takes that a step further and says, Therefore, the state shall own and run everything. And they'll tell you where you're going to work, what you're going to do, all of it. Fascism is different.

Fascism allows the people to own their own property, own their own things, with the illusion of running them. Okay. And so the state gets involved every step of the way. And this is why fascism eventually falls apart because you start to get into price controls and everything else. And you start just telling these companies what they can and cannot make. And the government can't central – centralized power never works. You can't have central command for some sort of capitalism, if you could even call that. Now, the reason why I'm bringing this up is because yesterday, Janet Yellen was asked by –

Ayanna Presley, she asked Janet Yellen's Secretary of the Treasury if racism posed a threat to the American financial system. Well, yes, of course, said Secretary Yellen. Financial institutions perpetuate and benefit from racism, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So, Yellen said it could be, and it is one of the factors that Dodd Frank told us to take into account. count considering designations. So what her point was, why Presley brought this up, was because is racism a problem that the Treasury is looking at? The Treasury should not be looking at racism. The Treasury should be looking at basic laws for finance. So Presley said there's a drugstore in Walgreens. And Walgreens in Roxbury, Massachusetts, they closed.

and they said it was because of crime. But that's life-threatening, and it's based on racial discrimination and economic grounds. Okay? So what she's saying is Walgreens, even though they said they cannot open their doors because they're robbed every day and no one can have business, Presley says the government should consider, that racism and therefore tell Walmart or Walgreens exactly what to do.

I'm sorry, you're not closing down there. You have to keep it open. That's fascism, gang. That is fascism. One more story. The feds now want to card you to use the Internet. U.S. lawmakers' motivation for online ID and age verification and tech CEO support for these measures. is a significant shift in privacy and your anonymity online.

What they're talking about now, and it was suggested first by Mark Zuckerberg, it would be great, wouldn't it? That you have to perform, you have to have a digital ID that will allow you on the Internet. So whenever you do that, now positively absolutely everything is monosurricular. monitored on what you do. You do have a right to privacy. You know, if everybody is tracking what you do, what you look at, AI can put together, well, for instance, if you're looking up a bunch of different drugs, AI can put together and go, oh, he's making crack cocaine, or, oh, he's trying to find out where he can buy this to kill his wife and barrier in the backyard. And you'd say,

that's good. But if you're in fascism and you have giant overlords that are watching over you on everything, you can't come up with a better mouse trap. You can't have government watching your every move. This is fascistic. Again, the government in bed with big tech. All right, back to the podcast in just a second. Sadly, our economy has become dominated by businesses that cater to the woke mob. I love people who say we're fascist. If we're fascists, we want the government to co-opt the corporations. Uh, which side has done that? There is one company that is fighting the fight on our side. For the past 10 years, they have offered nationwide coverage with access to all three of the major networks, equipping you with the same coverage you've always

had, but without sending your money to leftist causes. You like free speech, religious freedom, life, Second Amendment, then you should switch now to Patriot mobile and send a loud message. Do you hear us now? Go to patriotmobile.com slash Beck or call 972 Patriot, 972 Patriot. Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. Use the offer code Beck and you'll get free activation when you switch today. Patriotmobile.com slash Beck. Back to the podcast. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Mr. Pack Ray joins me again for. the vacationing Stubergear, who seems to be on some sort of, I don't know, French schedule or something, but glad to have you here, Pat.

Good to be here. Yeah. Very excited. So we're just, I was just talking Pat off the ledge during the break. He was, I mean, I thought, I thought, you know, if Putin was behind him, he could push him right out the window right now, and Pat would be dead because he was on the ledge. I was. And saying there's no hope.

Well, we were just watching Molly Hemingway to speak about the things in her book rigged, how the media, big tech, and the Democrats seized our elections. Right. And here's what we were listening to for Blaze News at the top of the hour. Listen. Instead of having election administration that is rigorously nonpartisan and impartial under the law, we have allowed the private takeover of government election offices, by partisan oligarchs and their armies of activists

who use those offices and their authorities to tilt the election toward favored candidates. Instead of voters being able to vote for the candidate of their choice, powerful interests backed by wealthy oligarchs are working to remove the most popular candidate and the ruling party's chief opponent from the ballot in a move reminiscent of Soviet Russia. And if that weren't enough,

Instead of the top candidates chosen by the people being able to fully engage in a vigorous campaign heading into an election, we have one side actively attempting to throw its opponent in prison and bankrupt his family, again reminiscent of Soviet Russia. Hmm. Mm-hmm. So Pat wasn't feeling real optimistic after that. No. No, because what she said is true. True.

That is happening. Yeah, it is. That is happening. But here is the thing. First of all, it hasn't happened. If the election is close, you can throw it. One way or the other, you could throw it. If the election is, you know, five to ten points out, you can't throw that without being very, very obvious.

This is this. What we're looking at is an election. We don't even know if this is going to be the election. We don't know if Joe Biden is even going to be the candidate. I think there's growing evidence that he's not. And the oral arguments that are being heard right now in the Supreme Court. In fact, can we bring this up? By altering the Constitution's qualifications for federal office.

This is live in the Supreme Court. The trial of the Supreme Court is no different from a state residency law that requires members of Congress to inhabit the state prior to election day when the Constitution requires only that members of Congress inhabit the state that they represent when elected. In both situations, a state is accelerating the deadline to meet a constitutionally imposed qualification and is thereby violating the holding of term limits. And in this situation, a ruling from this court that affirms the decision below would not only violate term limits, but take away the votes of potentially tens of millions of Americans. I welcome the court's questions.

This is the president's attorney, President Trump. You didn't spend much time. Clarence Thomas' voice. With respect to whether or not Section 3 is self-executing. So would you address that? And in doing that, your argument is that it's not self-executing, but then in that case, what would the role of the state be, or is it entirely up to Congress to implement the disqualification

in Section 3. It is entirely up to Congress, Justice Thomas, and our argument goes beyond actually saying that Section 3 is non-self-executing. We need to say something more than that, because a non-self-executing treaty or a non-self-executing constitutional provision normally can still be enforced by a state if it chooses to enact legislation. The holding of Griffin's case goes beyond even that by saying that a state is not allowed to implement or enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, unless and until a Congress. Congress enacts implementing legislation allowing it to do so.

So under Griffin's case, which we believe is correctly decided, the Anderson litigants disagree with us on that point. But if this court were to adhere to the holding of Griffin's case, there would not be any role for the states in enforcing Section 3 unless Congress were to enact a statute that gives them that authority. Counsel. Okay. So let me explain what they're talking about.

They're talking about, and by the way, I want to get back to Pat's hope. First of all, there's hope here. second of all more importantly i do know the one thing i know about god is that there is no waste in his uh doings okay there's nothing wasted i wasted most of my life but he took all the bad things that i did and turned them around on me to where it's actually helped me now that i'm on the right track. So there's no waste. Every loss is another step closer to his vision being executed. And you have to remember that because at the end, you'll look at this and go, how did that happen? How did that happen? And the answer will be God. Okay. Now, Section 3, this is the 14th Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution. No person shall be a senator, representative of Congress, or elector of president and vice president or hold any office civil or military under the United States or under any state who has previously taken an oath as a member to Congress or as an officer in the United States or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial offer of any state to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such a disability. So the Constitution says, if you have given aid and comfort or you've engaged in an

insurrection. And they're saying that Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection. However, nowhere, nowhere in any law in the United States, are you guilty until proven innocent. You have, you can make the charge, but that doesn't make it true. And of all of the litigations, everything that is being filed in court, how many of them? Seven thousand different court cases coming against him. Not one is charging him with insurrection. Not one, or rebellion, or giving aid and comfort. Not one. Why? Because they know they can't win that. So the One of the arguments is the state can't say this.

First of all, it has to be charged. And then the Constitution says that if that's who he is, if that's what they did, then he can't serve. But Congress can vote to remove that, should they care to. This was all because of the Civil War. This is an old-timey law that has never applied since the Civil War. Just want you to know. It was set up for the Confederacy. Yes.

So they wouldn't retake power in the United States. And they're trying to use it against Donald Trump. A guy who they just throw out the word insurrection about, and then that's supposed to scare all the states to take him off the ballot. But it's not to scare the states. This is all coordinated. There's a billion dollars at least behind all of. of this stuff and it's very well coordinated. They're trying to cause chaos.

That's the first thing. They're trying to challenge everything to make it impossible to be a supporter of Trump or to be Donald Trump or to ever want to be like Donald Trump and stand against the machine. They're trying to make it absolutely impossible and teach everyone, we are going to tie you in court until you're either in jail, dead, or broke. but we'll break you. That's what the state is trying to do right now. And when I say the state, I actually mean the leftist organizations and Molly had it right,

the oligarchs that are part of this cabal to change the way America works. And this is going to have far-reaching ramifications. This is not good. Not good. That's why. It's why the Supreme Court, needs to rule correctly on this for a change. I know. It's been tough.

Even with the so-called conservative court, some of the decisions they've made are far from conservative. Right. So they're arguing now Trump should be removed from the ballot because of his alleged role in recruiting, inciting, and encouraging a violent mob. Wow. Wow.

Then they told the Supreme Court in the brief, the former president fails to even acknowledge the most damning evidence against him. Take me into a court of law. So Trump, his counter is officer of the United States. He did not engage in insurrection. Only Congress can enforce Section 3. That's what he was saying, just making that case a minute ago. The amendment only prohibits holding office rather than appearing on the ballot.

and that the ruling violates Colorado's election code. So it says he can't serve. It doesn't say he can't run. No prosecutor has attempted to charge President Trump with insurrection under the U.S. code in the three years since January 6, 2021. They don't think that this is going to be the strongest case. I think it is, but I'm not an attorney. but they think that it will be on the Section 3

the Amendment only prohibits holding office not running and being on a ballot. They think that that's the one that they're going to do because they want to make it very, very narrow so it doesn't affect anything but this case. Can we listen in a little bit more? It did away with it later. But that has nothing to say with respect to what Section 3 is.

So do to my or. Can we get to the issue? which is, I think, one that I go back to that I started with, and very briefly, what sense does it say that states can't enforce Section 3 against their own officials? I mean, I think logically those are two separate issues in my mind. Can states enforce the insurrection clause against their own office holders, or can they enforce it against federal officials,

or can they enforce it against the president? Those are all three different questions in my mind. And the answer to all three of those questions turns on whether this court agrees with the holding of Griffin's case. If Griffin's case is the proper enunciation of the law, then a state cannot do any of the things Your Honor suggested unless Congress gives it authority to do so. So a non-precedential decision that relies on policy doesn't look at the language, doesn't look at the history, doesn't analyze anything than the disruption that such a suit would bring, you want us to credit as presidential.

Because Congress relied on Griffin's case when it enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870 and established... So Mr. Mitchell, if I may interrupt, but just to clarify, I mean, this sounds like your reply brief. where it sounds like you're not making a constitutional argument, you're really making a statutory preemption argument. And is that what you're doing here? You're not saying that the Constitution gives you this rule. It's the kind of combination of Griffin's case plus the way Congress acted after Griffin's case

that gives you the rule? That's exactly right, Justice Kagan. Because we have implementing legislation, Congress took up the invitation provided by Griffin's case and established Ritz of Quaranto in the 18th,000. 1970 Enforcement Act later repealed them. The only enforcement legislation that's currently on the books is the insurrection criminal statute, Section 2383. And when Congress made all of these decisions, the initial enactment of the Enforcement Act in 1870, the repeal of the

Quaranto provisions in 1948, all of those were made with Griffin's case as the backdrop. Please. Well, the understanding was that these Congressually established remedies would be exclusive of state court remedies. So there's not an express statement of preemption in these statutes, but there didn't need to be, because Griffin's case provided the back. And if I could just understand the argument a little bit better, suppose that we took all of that away. You know, suppose there were no Griffin's case and there were no subsequent congressional enactment. What do you then think the rule would be?

So in just as a matter of first principles without Griffin's case, it's a much harder argument for us to make. Because normally, I mean, every other provision of the 14th Amendment has been treated as self-executing. What we would argue in that's hypothetical that Your Honor has suggested is that there are practical considerations unique to Section 3 that counsel, in favor of a rule similar to what Chief Justice Chase spelled out in Griffin's case. And it goes to, I think, the policy concerns he talks about where this was a case, Griffin's case involved. So they really seem to be pressing. Now, again, we've heard the two liberal judges, but they are pressing the Trump lawyers quite hard. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

I don't think I need to really do a long introduction, so I'm not going to. actress, former MMA fighter, Gina Carrano. How are you? I'm good. Thank you so much for having me. You bet. I have to tell you, I am so glad to see that you are standing up and fighting back against Disney and Lucasfilm for what happened to you. Can you just describe quickly that whole scene?

Well, quickly. I know. I'm sorry. No, it's okay. I actually, it was really interesting because for the longest time, for the last couple years, I was just, you know, just distraught, you know, trying to rebuild my life, running into all sorts of, you know, problems of trying to, you know, recreate my career. And finally, you know, I was like, you know, I had to just like give it to God and say, all right, you know, you've got me in life. I'm going to keep going and I have to let this go and give it to you. And, you know, whatever justice I get, you know, I know you're working behind the scenes for me. And then it was almost as soon as I did that, I got a email from a lawyer that was hired by Elon Musk and X to inquire about my case. And then I was just so excited and I emailed him back like immediately. And, you know, we started going through all of, you know, I just educated them and I sent them everything.

I have to date and I have a lot more to send them. And they are, they're wonderful and they are just excited and they couldn't believe. They were kind of like dumbfounded about how this happened. So that's the quick version. So you, I mean, you've worked with everybody, Michael Douglas, Fastbentered, Chenney Tatum, Bill Paxton, Antonio Banderas, Robert De Niro, Ryan Reynolds, Have you had any support from these people, or are they afraid to come out? Or how would you describe what you, your friend circle?

Well, that's not my friends. They're not my friends. You're co-worker. They're incredible people that I've worked with. You know, I've never had an issue with anybody, with anyone whatsoever, you know, as far as actors go, or crew goes. or for that matter, I've just not had an issue on set ever. I get along with everybody. But yes, to answer your question, there has been many people who I have worked with

and who I haven't worked with that I've run into, not only just very well-known actors, but also very well-known producers. And actually, people who are still working in Disney and Lucasfilm actively, you know, have, you know, they all have shown so much support everything the time I've seen any of them. And to be very honest, I've not had one person from this industry come up to me and say, you know, I deserved that. They're all saying the complete opposite. So it's just been kind of mind-bending that Lucas Filman and Disney couldn't see that as well.

When they contacted you, I assume they contacted you with this, maybe they just said, no, it's over for other reasons. But when you found out that you were being cut out of everything and your career was over because of a tweet, that was exactly the same that your co-star tweeted, except toward the other side. Did you point that? I mean, you had to have gone, guys, wait a minute. Hold it. I mean.

Well, they didn't contact me. This is very interesting. And I think it just shows what the company was at the time a couple years ago. They didn't even contact me to let me know they were letting me go. They didn't contact me to let me know that there was about to be paparazzi stalkers and people flooding outside my house. I found all of that out just like everybody else did over the Internet. Oh, my gosh.

The fact that, you know, and it did, it was awful. It was, you know, I've been trying to put on a really brave face for the last couple years. But, I mean, I cannot begin to even describe. I couldn't leave my house for seven days. I was being stalked. I was being harassed. They were coming up to my, I had to keep all of my blinds closed. And I had actually lost all hearing.

I don't know. It's a very interesting, random thing. I lost all of the hearing. As soon as I was canceled, my hearing, like, got clogged. And I could only hear, like, 5%. Was that kind of like, I mean, this is a horrible name for it, but hysterical blindness where you are in so much trauma. It felt like, yeah, it really felt like that.

Like, it felt like, you know, either that or God just put earmuffs on me. Wow. And I just was like, you know, and so I really had to sit there in my head. And I really had to sit there in my head and just go over things. And it was, it was quite, it was torturous until I finally was just like, okay, I just gave it to God. sudden, you know, I just, it's just, it was just such an intense time. And, you know, for them not to even warn me, you know, I didn't have, I didn't live in a gated community. So I was out there. And, and that wasn't, you know, you think that somebody would have, you know, just call me and tell me,

hey, thank you for all your work and everything. And we're just no longer going to work with you. And then they put out the statement about the denigrating people off of their religious and cultural beliefs and being abhorrent. And I was just like, this is, I just, it was just at the worst time possible, they really kind of, you know, they definitely put my life in danger at that moment. So what do you hope happens with this lawsuit? I mean, I'd love to see the discovery on all of the emails going back and forth. That'll be nice.

Yes, yeah. I hope that, I hope that this makes a change. I hope that it makes a change in this industry, and it makes a change in people's heart. You know, the post that I got fired for originally, or what they said I got fired for, was never supposed to be what the media and all of them twisted into. It was supposed to be, you know, do not demonize your neighbor. You know, we need to look at each other as human beings because the internet is one thing. But when you get outside and you get around people, there's so much love and there's so much, you know, it's not the Internet.

The Internet is false. It's a lot of people hiding behind, you know, brave ideas and false accounts. And when you get to be around people, there is, you know, we all bleed, you know, red. We're all just kind of on this earth together. And so I hope that the outcome for this case is just to make. you know, everybody kind of be a truly, truly inclusive industry in Hollywood and make it that much difficult to do what would happen to me to happen to the next person. Yeah, you know, it's people, I don't think people understand that, you know, it's happening

to people like you and, you know, people all over the country who are in visible places. And I don't think people really understand if they do it to people like you, why would they hesitate to do it to a nobody? And that's the scariest thing is they're not coming after the nobody's alone. They're coming after names like Elon Musk, who I think they're trying to do the same thing, too. Oh, yeah. Yeah, we definitely, when they try to smear him as anti-Semitic, I was like, that's exactly what they did to me. They try to smear you as all of these key words, racist, anti-Semitic, transphobic, transphobe.

And, you know, it's just any, it's really, they're just trying to, you know, squash down anybody who has, you know, the ability to reach people to just tell them, yeah, let's communicate, let's think, you know, critically. Let's, you know, not just listen to what the news is telling us. And let's, you know, let's communicate with each other because we have to because everything is, everything is, everything is. owned now by people who want to just grab more control. It's really crazy. It is, I've never seen, especially with Disney, I've never seen such a wrecking ball taken, you know, to their own corporation like Disney has taken the wrecking ball to everything that they own and everything that they touch.

I mean, this is just horrible. It's truly a shame, right? It's truly a shame because we grew up with Disney and it doesn't seem like it would be that hard of a fix. You know, it doesn't seem like, hey, you know what, we messed up here. You know, they're so good at telling everybody how to apologize and get on their knees and say, sorry. It's like, you know, lead by example in this case. It wouldn't be hard to be like, to look at my case and say, hey, you know what, we did wrong there. Let's make it right. And, you know, and then let's start reaching out to, you know, really inclusive, like all,

all people. It doesn't mean that they have to follow any type of political side. They could just really include and appreciate the fan base that they had that has just been completely betrayed by them. So I don't understand in those meetings how it's just not like, you know what, we did wrong. Let's face up to it. Let's do something right here.

And let's get, you know, let's get our, you know, our conservative viewers back. It seems like it would just be no-brainer. I don't know if they could at this point. I mean, once you've violated my family, I mean, beyond what they did to you, they're trying to teach my children principles that I don't agree with at all. And they've lost that trust that parents had, oh, it's Disney, it's safe. It's not safe. And that's going to take them a long time to recover that.

And a good step forward would be to correct this with you and others that they have wronged. So, you know, when this happened to you... Nothing's impossible, though, you know, like... I know. If they keep going down this route, they're just going to be considered evil. You know, I have a massive ball to, you know, rock to push back up a mountain to get back a career. But I'm not looking at that thing, okay, I'm at the bottom again. I'm not going to do it.

You know, we have to constantly rebuild ourselves, and so do companies. So if they started now, you know, they could, you know, start pushing that rock back up instead of it just tumbling. It's just tumbling down the hill. Yeah, well, you are going to be, you are going to be, you're going to be fine in the end, especially since, you know, when this happened, we weren't really ready as conservatives. And I don't want a bunch of conservative films or, you know, films. but I just want good films, you know what I mean? And can we have them say decent things about society and try to help us be better people? But if you look at the films now, Angel is really, I think, leading the way on this.

If you see some of the stuff that's coming, and I think we're right on the cusp, I started the blaze, you know, before Amazon and HBO were online, we were doing digital streaming at the blaze. And it was a nightmare. Now, 12 years later, things are happening to where there is a community. You give it another five years, and we're not going to have to worry about Hollywood. You know, and it really just breaks your heart. You know, I feel like so many people have come before me and fought this battle, and nobody was paying attention.

So I really am honored to be in a position where people are paying attention right now and to give respect to those people that came before me, those actors and everybody that was trying to break down the barriers for so long. You know, it breaks my heart that, you know, they didn't get justice. And so, you know, yeah, I feel pretty fortunate, you know, to be in the situation to help with that because, yes, in five years, it's. going to be even better and I'm excited to have just been at the beginning of this. Just how I was at the beginning of women's mixed martial arts.

I feel like I get to be, you know, part of breaking ground here. And so I really hope this case is, I hope, I hope people pay attention to it and blow it out of the water and just make sure that, you know, we're going to make it easier for the next generation and the people, the younger people behind me. I have such great respect for you. Thank you so much for coming on. You're welcome here anytime. Best of luck to you.

You bet. Thank you so much, Glenn. You bet. Gina Carrano. When you were little, you had braced in course of recreat, always in trying to negotiate,

to exchange these cards of hockey, these bonhom, these bracelets, even of the collation. You know, that each thing has a value,

well, to have been before the things have not really changed. Negoti to citre TD you can't

to renewing with your instinct of negotiation. With without operation gratuite, no amount minimum and

no free mensual, you are made for negotiate, and the appellee Negoti-tit-T Tritre T-D is made

to you help. Telecharger it right now.