The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Michael Malice, Dan Ikenson & Ami Horowitz | 5/14/19

Episode Date: May 14, 2019

Best of the Programs | 5/14 - Warming To a Recession - h1  - Acts of Heroism are Now Criminal - h1  - The New Right (w/ Michael Malice) - h2 - China Tariff Talk (w/ Dan Ikenson) - h2 - First Time Ever (w/ Ami Horowitz) - h3  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, podcasters. We got a great show lined up for you today. We talk a little bit about the war in Iran, Bitcoin up, the Dow way down, gold way up. Also, the death of the old order and common sense. Stu kind of had an epic story today of somebody here in Texas who's a bartender who is now facing a year in jail because she overserved someone. but it was four drinks and two of them were beers in four hours. Wait until you hear this story coming up. Also, Michael Malice, he's got a new book out called The New Right. We talk about my favorite president, Woodrow Wilson. How much I hate him. He hates him too.

But he is defining the New Right. That's coming up. We also show you a clip of Mike Lee that I think you're going to want to hear. and also Ami Horowitz, a guy who is now running for president, he just needs 65,000 people to donate a dollar. 50 cents, it doesn't

matter, but donate to amyforamerica.org or dot com, and you can help him get on the Democratic stage. He's not your new kind of Democrat.

that. He's more like JFK, which today is more like Ronald Reagan. Ami Horowitz, all on the podcast today. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Triot Mobile is a phone service that will give you all of the great coverage that you want. They're just not going to take the money from you and then invest. that in causes that you don't believe in, like Planned Parenthood. Patriot Mobile actually is going to let you invest your money into the causes that you believe in. But most of these sales could sell companies, they give all kinds of money to crazy, crazy causes that you work hard against. It's true. Why to do that?

You can go with Patriot Mobile. They were created to solve that problem. They're the only conservative cell phone company in America. Go to patriotmobile.com slash blaze. Get started today. When you use the offer code Blaze, they're going to waive the activation fee. for up to two lines. Patriotmobil.com slash blaze or 1-800 a Patriot is the place to go.

So are we going to war with Iran? I don't think so. Because it would be not a good thing. It would be much better for them to collapse like the Soviet Union did. But Iran is in a box. We've trapped them in this box. and the Saudis yesterday said that they did hit those Saudi oil tankers. One of them was bringing oil to us.

So they're trying to disrupt the Middle East, and they're trying to disrupt the global economy and bring everybody down. Yesterday, looks like we have a plan now for 120,000 troops to go over to Iran for an invasion. But this is just a plan that they updated. it doesn't mean that it's actually going to happen. I'm hoping that it's not because it will not be easy, not that Iraq was easy, but it will not be in Iraq. It will be much bloodier and much worse.

Iran is just one step up, it would say, from Afghanistan and from Iraq. So I don't think we're going there. I think Donald Trump is the president, when it comes to foreign affairs, he's the president that I've always wanted to have. I've always said, you know, the president needs to have like a twitchy eye, not with our allies and not with us. I want to know whose side he's on. I want to know, no, he wouldn't do that. But the bad actors in the world should look at our president go, you know, he's just crazy.

You know, he just might do that. and I think that works to our favor. You want to be, you want to appear stable and yet just crazy enough to go, you know what, let's do it. And I think that's what he's doing, but I don't know. The tariffs are a good example of he does keep his word. You know, he has said, and this is one of the things that I was really concerned about, were these tariffs, because that is the one thing he has said for 40 years. He's four tariffs. The free market is what has changed the world. And whenever you get into a trade war,

it usually leads to a hot war. It's what happened in World War II. You just don't want to put tariffs up. World War II, we put the tariffs up, and that was really the catalyst. Now, we were in a different situation, but that was the catalyst for the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley Act. It was not good. They never work out to anyone's favor. Now, if the president is playing hardball, that's good. However, it needs to change pretty quickly. He's going to lose the farm vote, and that's very concerning to me. These farmers have been, you know, they have really been supportive of him, every step of the way. And when they were

you know, I mean, you want to talk about taking one for the team. You see the movie Chernobyl. Are you watching the miniseries? I've only seen the first episode. Don't spoil it for me. I won't. I won't. I won't. Is something go wrong with this plant? Is that what happens? Darn it, Glenn! Yes.

Unbelievable. Spoiler alert. Yeah. So, well, I mean, everybody knows what's happening in that. It's in the first episode and it's a part of history. Anyway, But last night they were looking for volunteers to do things. And one of the guys, one of the Soviets said, they're all like, you're crazy. We're not doing that.

And he said, that's what we do. That's what we've always done. And there is always a crisis in every generation. And this is our generation's crisis. And you will do it or millions will die. Who wants to volunteer? and they all knew they were volunteering for about 20 minutes of life. And it's an amazing scene.

It really were legitimate heroes in that story. Heroes. That were Soviet citizens that stepped up and did crazy stuff they never should have done. All of the people that are involved, all the people that are now involved in the second, they're all starting to realize, I'm dead soon. And it's amazing what they do. I only bring that up because I look at the farmers. The farmers, they've.

They voted for Donald Trump, and they were willing to put their money and their livelihood where their mouth was because they're the ones that were on the front line of these tariffs. They're being destroyed right now. Just destroyed. Intentionally by China. They're targeting red states and politically sensitive districts to target the tariffs because they know it will make a maximum impact. Right. And honestly, so far, you know, the Trump's administration has done two things. One is say, well, we'll just take this tax money and redistributed to those people.

I'm not sure what party that is. I thought that was a Democrat thing to do to take tax money and redistributed to their chosen. That's also central planning now. Yeah, that's very scary to me. It's bad. And secondarily, though, and this is one I think has more, I don't know, to me, credibility is, you know, the bottom line is where are they going to go? Where are they going? You're going to go vote for one of these people?

I mean, so, I mean, yes, this policy is hurting them, but I mean, what are they going to do? I don't know. I'm going to go for Elizabeth Warren? Yeah. I mean, where are you going? It's just bad. It's going to create a forgotten man again. Nobody's paying attention to the farmers who have taken one for the team.

They really have. We might have paid higher prices on this or that. They've taken one for the team. They're about to lose their farms. And we need to be grateful to the farmers and support our farmers. because they don't know what to do. Now, Donald Trump said yesterday, well, we'll see what happens.

We're going to meet in June. But I just want to point out, after he got his trade deal with Mexico and Canada, he did not remove the tariffs because he likes the tariffs. He thinks it's good policy. And he told us that 100,000 times, right? I mean, he does believe it. And he has been consistent on that for as long as he's been in the public eye.

Now, people are concerned that China is going to dump our treasuries. I don't think so because they've already done that and it hurt them. Remember it was about a year ago they came out and said we're getting out of the treasury business and they started dumping our treasuries. It didn't hurt us. It really hurt them. So there's a chance that they've already learned that lesson. I don't know if I want to do that because they were the victim of that scheme that they did. But this is why gold is up. I think gold is having its best week and I don't even know how many years. Bitcoin. They declared today Bitcoin the winter of...

Crypto winter is over. It's over. And that is because people are starting to say, what I want to talk to you about today, the new world order is being formed. The old world order is gone. And I don't think that it's coming back. And that goes all the way to the court system.

It goes to our school systems. I mean, look how much has changed. Do you even recognize your country anymore? Do you recognize is the old world order still there? It's been undermined at every step of the way. It's faltering. And it appears as though everyone is building something new. The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Like listening to this podcast? If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes. But while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show. Welcome to the program. There was a mass shooting, what, two years ago of people just watching a Dallas Cowboys game. And it turned out to be a, you know, a jilted ex-husband or estranged husband. Right. Now, he's gone to jail, right?

Or is he dead? He's dead. But now somebody else has gone to jail. somebody else is to blame, and that is the bartender who served him before he left to murder his family. Yes. And so my first case here is just basically like it's a ridiculous law. When I went through training at a restaurant, they trained us on this. You got to make sure that, you know, no one is drunk that you're serving drinks.

It's just a ridiculous expectation. Well, 19-year-old should know, right? The blood alcohol level of the patrons they're serving. Right. They should know that. Yeah, of course. They should be able to. Intuitively.

time, by the way. Obviously, you can't by law test them, but you should just look at them and know. Yeah. And even though you might be a server who's not even of age of drinking. So you would have legally no way to recognize what drunk even is. But that is the law. And the ones that you're really worried about

are the nice ones. You're not worried about saying, oh, I'm sorry, sir, but I think you've had enough. What the hell do you mean? That never, never. happens. Okay, so let me give you the rest of this. Now, Glenn, as an alcoholic, you're talking about in recovery issue. Yes. Finally, I'm an expert. Yeah, you're an expert on something. Talking about if you believe this to be a legitimate law, okay, the bartender, okay, this person's way over the

line, it's ridiculous. How many drinks would you have to serve them, would you say? I mean, it depends on 20? Like 12, 15? Depends on how you're mixing them, and it depends on their size, their weight, and their tolerance. So let me have tolerance changes for everybody. And you're expecting restaurant workers to judge that. Right. Of course. That's a complicated biological.

You could have served me in a restaurant. I could have ordered a Jack and Coke. And it probably wouldn't have touched me until I had maybe eight. Eight. Yeah. Okay. Wow. Because you're getting a little, you know, you're getting two fingers of Jack and that's

nothing. Nothing to someone like you. Correct. So let me give you the first piece of evidence here. beyond the fact that the law is ridiculous. The man who did this murder was served five drinks. Total. He was served five drinks.

Over the time period of? Great question. But first, let me give you this. Lindsay Glass. If it's a minute and a half, you might be on to something. Okay. But let me give you this. Lindsay Glass, the woman who was charged here,

she's not gone to prison yet, but she's been charged with this crime. She only served him four of the drinks. So now we're at a point where now we're charging this woman for essentially accessory to a mass shooting because she served a guy four drinks. What was she serving him? I will give you that here in one second. Okay.

Oh, the four drinks. Here we go. Two well gins and two beers. That's nothing. That's nothing. For even the generic average drinker that is nothing. Now let me give you more, though. This was over two visits.

What? Two visits to the bar. Like in the same night? Here are the details. The first visit was near 2.30 in the afternoon. The second visit was four hours later. Oh, this is ridiculous. So now we're talking about she served four drinks over the course of four hours,

which you could, if nothing else happened, you could drive and not be near the legal limit. Yeah, you're talking to four drinks and four hours. That's like nothing. Two beers is nothing. Nothing. Two beers. I mean, I'm operating the lawnmower and not yet thinking,

I can turn this thing over and clean the blaze while it's on. Right. Now, I, it may now, it may now not occur to me that that would be a bad idea, but when I was drinking, no problem. Now, she suspected that he may have gone to another bar in between, okay, because he did, to her, appear to be a little tipsy. Now, that's where it goes from there. she actually texted a co-worker, guy named Timothy Banks, from the bar about her concern over his behavior and asked him to come to talk to the guy.

So she's now taking an additional step. She's texted a co-worker, told him to come in and actually talk to the guy to make sure everything was okay. Did she serve the beers first or second? Second. So she's not even giving him hard liquor. It's, yeah. She's concerned and serving him beer.

Yeah. Okay. Now she says he's drunk and being weird and he keeps saying he has to put someone in his place. Now this is the big evidence against her. Now look, that is very, if you take out all tough talk by people who are buzzed at a bar, it will be like a library. There will be no speaking going on. Like a bartender will tell you they hear people say crap like that all the time. It's a bar. If you take out all tough talk and offensive talk, you have to. to get rid of almost everybody in the new Democratic Party. Exactly. Okay, so now, so now, again, four drinks, over four hours in two visits, the last two were beers. She does think he's drunk and she's a little worried. She texts a coworker, has him come in to actually talk to him to see if everything's okay. So then the guy tries to leave the bar. She tries to stop him from leaving the bar.

Now, I don't know if this 27-year-old... old woman is supposed to overpower him, tackle him, put him in a stranglehold, because she surely would have gone to prison for that if she had assaulted him. She tries to actually stop him from leaving the bar. These are not facts that are. How did she do that? How'd she do that? I mean, I guess they try to talk him out of it and say, no, you should stay. And there's only a certain amount you can do. We have free will in this country. You're allowed to leave places when you want to leave them. Okay. But again, if you say, all right, then she just gave up. Well, that's just terrible. And they went and shot all these people. No. She then let her. She then let her.

left the bar to try to find him. You've got to be kidding. Okay. So she leaves the bar and starts driving around trying to find this guy. She's so concerned about it. Oh, my God. Okay. So, all right. Okay, well, she, that's it.

Well, she actually does find him. She successfully locates this guy after he leaves the house and finds the guy at the house that we're talking about where the mass shooting eventually goes on. How did she know to go there? Did she know the guy personally? I guess he was a regular. So he had been in there and she knew him. Wow.

She actually called him at one point his, her friend. Okay. So what does she do then? Okay, if she finds the guy and then does nothing? No, she then calls 911. Oh my gosh. Calls 911 and reports that she has a friend in danger who is in possession of a gun and a knife. So she's gone like 10 steps past where she needs to go on this.

What was she supposed to do? Right. Then they go, they leave the house and banks, the friend, drives Glass back to the bar. Lindsay Glass is the person I'm talking about. Then he, the person she initially texted to see if the situation was going to go,

was going to go okay, goes back to the house again. Then, while he's on the way to the house, he flags down a uniformed county sheriff's deputy and tells him about the concerning behavior. At that point, they start getting ready to go over there,

and that's when the shooting happens and everyone, and everyone responds to go for the shooter. How are they responsible at all? Right. Did everything he possibly could except make a citizen's arrest on the guy. Exactly. I think legitimately,

I think legitimately, Lindsay Glass in this situation should be viewed as a hero. I mean, this is a person who went way above and beyond what a normal person would be thought of. She's trying to stop someone she believes is dangerous. Who she knows is armed and had too much to drink. And she's going out there trying to stop them at this house to make sure nothing bad happens.

I tell you something? She would be free today if she just didn't say anything and did nothing. Yep. If he just left and she said I didn't notice. He had four drinks. But because she alerted a coworker and then left the bar to go track him down to stop him. And expressed that she had concerns. Right. Because she was doing the right thing. Yeah. Trying to do the right thing. She's being penalized for it. She's being penalized for it. If this is, you know, this, when you look at the former Soviet Union in any places that have had dictatorial rule, your neighbors don't say anything. They don't report on anything. They never do anything. They look, they say they could see you being beaten to a bloody pulp and they turn their eyes and they move on because they don't want to get involved.

Why? Because it's always used against them. Here's this woman getting involved, trying to do the right thing as a human being. And what happens? Do you think the next bartender is going to do what she did? Oh, God. Not with this outcome. You just hope to look the other way and not notice. It was four drinks.

Yeah. Two beers. And over four hours. And his blood alcohol level was very high. However, four drinks over four hours almost doesn't change your blood alcohol level at all. You might have a 0.04, a 0.02. You're not above the legal limit. I mean, this is basic, you know,

I remember being in health class when I was a kid, and they said, you know, basically one drink per hour is what your body will burn off. So four drinks and four hours. To her, everything that she served them probably didn't change this guy's blood alcohol level at all. And let me give you this last piece. As this is all going on, this tragic shooting,

she is brought in by deputies the night, it's going on, in interviews with detectives, they commended her for her actions and the lives that she saved. Oh, my gosh. And now she might be going to jail for a year for this. It is a disgrace. So she hasn't been convicted yet? No.

No, and she shouldn't be. She's going to trial. The fact she's being charged at all is impossibly ridiculous. I can't believe a Texas jury would convict her. A year and a half after this happened. They're trying to bring her into jail for this. I mean, that is, I mean, this is, this is, this is, this is despicable. This is the death of common sense.

Yes. Just the death of common sense. You want a new world order? Here it is. Here it is. The death of personal responsibility. The death of common sense. I mean, looking at the facts here, what on earth do you expect a 25 year old bartender to do in

this situation? What is she supposed to do? She did 10 times more than I would even think of. doing in that situation. I would not, I'm not going to this guy's house. No, what he's drunk and armed.

A woman going there, you know, which you did have one guy with her, but still, I would not even think of doing that. That is like, it's so far above and beyond, it's like saying, like,

you know, you pass a homeless person in the street and you might give him, you know, some money. It's like the, it's like a Bill Murray and Groundhog Day. He like brings her into that,

brings the homeless guy in the house, gives him soup, tries to warm him up, gives him a place to stay and he keeps dying and he just can't do anything about it. Like, What the hell is she supposed to do?

She did way more than I think any citizen would normally do. I have to tell you, I would have just called 911. He walks out. We tried to get him a stage. At the most. And there you go. Yeah. There you go.

Good luck. I mean, same thing would have happened. I would have, if you would have said, we got to go find this guy. No. You know what? How?

If that was my girlfriend or my wife who told me that, I would say no way or no way, honey. Seriously, this could be something. Not in today's world. Right, exactly. Call the police. Yeah. And like, look, they're going to say that like that's what she maybe should have done earlier.

But I mean, you know, look, this is someone she knew was seemingly irregular. She tried to prevent. She did everything she could. And if she, let's just say she made. She tried to get somebody else. Hey, am I crazy? That's the first thing you do. The first thing you do because we have the normalcy bias.

And our, our brain is telling us it's fine. You're not sensing that. So the first thing. thing we do is go, hey, is there something wrong with a reactor, or is it just me, before Chernobyl blows? Right. Exactly. You don't go, this thing's going to blow.

You go, hey, I'm thinking, I mean, this sounds crazy because it's not supposed to blow, but do you think it might blow? Yeah, and she's going to the point where she's like pouring a pitcher of water over the core to try to cool it down. Yeah. I mean, she goes way beyond. Way beyond. I mean, I just cannot believe in Texas, of all places,

that they could look at that and use any level of common sense. It's despicable. Do say that she did anything other than her act heroically. Let's get her attorney on. I'd like to follow that case. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn, and you're listening to the Glenn Beck program. If you like what you're hearing on this show, make sure you check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

It's available wherever you download your favorite podcasts. Michael Malice, he is also. the author of, what is the Kim Jong-ill book that we always talk about? Dear Leader, and he's great, he's funny, and he's a friend of the program. Welcome, Michael Malice. How are you, sir? Good morning. It is not sunny here in Brooklyn. I can interview you that. I bet. I bet. Okay, so, Michael, I started reading. I haven't finished it, but I've started reading it, and I've kind of picked through it, and I'm not sure I agree with you. So I want you to set it out from the

beginning. Tell me what you are defining the new right as. Okay, I got very kind of technical with the definition. I defined the new right as a loosely connected group of individuals united by their opposition to progressivism, which they perceived to be a thinly veiled religion dedicated to egalitarian principles and intent on world domination via globalist hegemony. I mean, yeah, that makes sense. I think that's... That does capture, I think.

There's a lot of that. I mean, it's... The loosely connected part, I think, is really important there. Because there are a lot of different reasons why they oppose it. Correct. But, yeah, I think that's largely true. So that would include people like identitarians, which I think their solutions are not good, but I think their complaints are valid.

And that's the problem. A lot of these groups... Not all of them, obviously. of them. Not, no, no, no. Not all of them. Plus, not any blanket statements here. Yeah, we should probably.

I'm sorry, I was thinking we were living in a reasonable world still. When people feel like the nation, whatever nation they live in, I mean, this is happening all over the world, their nation is being destroyed by globalism and not a globalism of, hey, let's just buy products from each other. A globalism that says, your country is valueless. It doesn't. It's no different than anything else. I'm sorry, Italy. Stop talking about spaghetti. You know, you're not special. That is a driver for a lot of people that feel like we're losing the things that I'm proud of of my country. And what I talk about in the book is, how did we get to this point? So in a broader

sense the new right can be regarded as the unorthodox right wing. And these are the people and types who are basically driven out of the mainstream. How do we get to the point where this, what you and many other people are fighting is taking place all over the world? And it's not just Italy, you know, stop talking about spaghetti and Italy doesn't matter. It's that you individually don't matter anywhere you go. And not only that, which I discuss, if you talk about video games, if you talk about movies, if you talk about places that don't exist and escaping the earth, even there, these ideas have to be promulgated by what I call the evangelical left.

So what I criticize conservatives about, and let me just take a step back because a lot of people think, oh, if you criticize conservatives, you must be an AOC supporter. That's not how it works. Conservatives, I think, are a little naive about the nature of who they're opposing. They think there's room to reason with these people, that they're like journalists are sloppy or making mistakes. And the point I demonstrate is these so-called mistakes have been made the same exact way for over 100 years. So if you keep making the same mistake in the same exact way, at what point does it become a pattern and decision? So Michael, let me go a step deeper with the new right, because there is the alt right, which is an alternative to the right. And that is they are just as big government and socialists, many of them are just nationalists, but they don't believe in the Bill of Rights.

They don't believe in the Constitution. You know, these neo-Nazis, you know, you listen to Richard Spencer, and that's exactly. what he's saying. No, no, no, I don't believe in the Bill of Rights. No, I'm for universal health care. So he is a national socialist. So how do you divide those two? Yeah, I was in Charlottesville, and I talk about that in my book, and I'm Jewish, and I'm an immigrant, and, you know, I was not invited to some of the parties for obvious reasons. What the progressives would love to have is the idea that you and I and Stu, we're all neo-Nazis, simply because we disagree with them.

And it's a very useful technique for them, and here's how their logic works. Anyone, racism has no place in civilized society. Okay, we can get aboard with that. Anyone who disagrees with me is a racist. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me has no place in civilized society. One of the things I point out in this book, which will drive them crazy, is more white nationalists and white supremacists fought the Nazis. than urban feminists during World War II.

So to have everyone in this big, giant box is very convenient for them. And again, this happens at the university level, and it happens at the media level. And one of the things I discuss, which I don't think conservatives really have an answer for, how is it that they so dominate the media and the universities? And government becomes a consequence. Andrew Breitbart, who I'm sure you have very kind things to say about, made that realization that politics is definitely. downstream from culture. And when so much of conservative thought is about Washington, my point in

this book is, if you're dealing with it at the Washington level, you've already lost. Yes. That's the fourth quarter. Yes. Hmm. I mean, I totally agree with that analysis. I mean, that is a huge problem, I think, for whatever is left of the conservative movement or whatever part of it is real anymore. So are you saying, Michael, that you would, the new right is a replacement for, you. for the old right, or is it just a new branch of what we used to kind of look at as the conservative movement in general? I would think the new right is in many ways opposed to the conservative movement,

and I talk about the past conservative movement, and I talk about how Buckley and the National Review had for decades, you know, read people out of the movement, you know, driven them from a respectful society and are using tactics that, you know, very leftist tactics. And that's no surprise because they have their roots in literal like Trotskyist communist. James Burnham, you know, we're going old school here, was one of the original National Review people. He was friends with Trotsky and so on and so forth. So I discuss how, and it happens now, you have the Bill Crystal types and so on and so forth

who would love to drive everyone out of the movement and off the face of the other. He's something else. Go ahead. He's a progressive Republican. I mean, that's the thing that the right refuses to look at is that. that the progressive movement came from Theodore Roosevelt. I mean, you know, he didn't invent it, but he was the one that first really popularized it. And it was the progressive party that he started.

And both sides adopted it. Both sides were progressive. Glenn, you and I, last time, another time I was on, you and I were bonding over our hatred of Woodrow Wilson. Yeah. Right? Right. Conservatives at their best are about studying history and applying those lessons to today. Correct. So this conservative idea that it's only been recently that progressivism has

taken place in America. I debunk that in this book, because as you and I know, Woodrow Wilson is 100 years ago, and he was far more progressive than anyone out there today. He really was messianic and said explicitly that he was sent here by God to save the world and to save us from ourselves. It's a very disturbing approach. So the idea that it's only been since the 60s that this has been going on is false. And I especially talk about in context of universities. And I talk about how, you know, since the 1890s, people came over from Germany with the intent of creating an elite to control and dominate American culture. And it's been going on for over 100 years. This is not a recent phenomenon. I mean, that's why John Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins University was,

was founded. It was started. It was the first progress. progressive university meant to take what was being taught in Heidelberg and bring it here to the United States. I mean, it's been going on for a very long time. And the other key thing to understand is Wilson and many of these types have the roots in the social gospel. And this idea is that instead of saving an individual soul, it is a nation that has to be saved and purified from sin. And when that is your approach to a country, that means there is no room anywhere for people, to have sinful, i.e., incorrect, i.e., not progressive views. And that is why there's such, in a sense, jihadis when it comes to anyone that they don't like.

So how do you separate out on the new right? How do you separate those people who don't like progressive, you know, policies, but seem to accept it, you know, from themselves? I mean, where is the line, you know, because there's a lot of people right now on the right that are falling into the trap of progressivism and it's my way or the highway and they're not really basing anything in the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Sure. I mean, you could be a socialist or a Marxist or not be a progressive and so forth, and many of them are very, very pro big government in a sense that you and I would find anathema and horrible.

And I engaged with them in this book. I sat down with these identity, Jared Taylor, who's a big, you know, racialist and some Nazis I talk to. And I think it's important to air out these ideas and engage them and fight them because otherwise the accusations of, well, you're making your fellow traveling with these types. It's like, well, no, I'm showing you. I'm doing a better job of arguing with them than you are because I'm showing where their ideas are wrong instead of just this. missing them. And what happens is when you drive ideas underground, young kids who want to upset people and be trolls and be edgy and cool, they are drawn to it. It's like telling kids, don't smoke cigarettes. You know, that'll upset me. It's like, oh, yeah, where can I get some camels? So it's

happening in current culture, and they don't even realize what they're doing. And I'm in some way putting a stop. So, okay, so Michael, we're talking to Michael Malice, the author of the new book, the new right, a journey into the fringe of American politics. I'm going to take a one minute break, and then I want to come back, and I want you to kind of, can you cut up the right and tell me all of the little pieces that are involved and where the new right fits in all of this? So, Michael, how do you chop up the right and separate people who are, anarchists. I mean, I think you're an, aren't you, aren't you a self-described anarchist?

Absolutely. I wave that black flag proudly. So the ones that want to just have chaos, you don't want to have chaos in the streets. Chaos in the streets is a function of government because streets are owned by the government. Okay. There you go. You don't have chaos in your house. That's true. So how do you separate? Oh, you haven't seen my house, Michael.

Sometimes there is chaos. I have too small children. Wait until you have teenagers. Oh, it's fun. I'm glad to be in the riots in the street every night. But Michael, explain to me, like, where do we fit in the right? Are we part of the new right? I'm talking about me personally.

I understand. Do you agree with that definition? Do you regard progressive? as a thinly veiled religion dedicated to world domination? Yes. Then, yeah. Do you think that it's a problem that organizations like National Review have for decades been kicking people out of politics for the sake of, you know, people on the left?

Yes. Yeah. And if you regard, here's how the real litmus test for the new right, if you unambiguously regard Woodrow Wilson as by far the most evil man to be president. I think that's a good litmus test. Okay, so try this on Versaise. You know who agrees with you? Who?

Samantha B. When I talked to her about a year and a half ago, she went off, she was like, I know you hate Woodrow Wilson. Her and her producer, I know you hate Woodrow Wilson. He's a racist. What? She hates him because he's a racist. She doesn't hate him for his progressivism.

I'm not sure. talked a lot about, well, we did talk about a lot about eugenics, so I guess yeah, it's probably racism. Probably. Well, the other thing that's important about Woodrow Wilson is it's not a coincidence that he was a college university

professor. Oh, I know. President Princeton before he became president. And I talk in this book extensively about the universities and how they're the real problem. And this is something that conservatives are kind of aware of and they talk about, you know, things going on on campus. And my point is,

the root, the rot, goes far deeper than kids acting out. I mean, these kids are being trained in this way, and the chickens are coming home to roots. Well, I don't think a lot of conservatives do, because historically, and this is I talk in the book, is this was idea of my kids, the first one to go to college. It's this middle class aspiration, and it was a great, great thing. And now people are coming to realize, thankfully,

that you have this beautiful young 18-year-old girl going to school and four years later she comes home as a swamp walrus and you can't even have conversations with each other over dinner. I love you. But you know what, Michael? Even in my home, this is probably the biggest argument we have in my home with me and Tanya, my wife. She says kids have got to go to college and I'm like,

over my dead body and she's like I'm willing to kill you. But it is, it is, I mean, I cannot find a reason to fund the swamp walrus training for my kids. More with Michael in a minute. Right now we're talking to the author of the book, The New Right, Michael Malice. He's a friend of the program been on several times. Very funny, very, very insightful. But Michael, I want to go back to your dad. definition of who fits in the alt-right.

And the new right, sorry, the new right. Because the new right could include, well, it does include, I would imagine that that would include people like Alex Jones. And Alex and I disagree on 98% of things, I think. However, we do agree probably on your definition, but that is more. of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that's good to destroy, but a conservative conserves and doesn't want to destroy the good things that remain. And I'm more about building a new future than destroying.

Sure. I think the 2% you and Alex would agree upon is probably the most important 2% and which I discuss at length, which is we are being lied to, that we are being, have been, I've been being lied to for a very long time, and what is the nature of this narrative that's being constructed in front of us? But when we even get to that 2%, what we're being lied to, I mean, I'm not going, I don't think we're being, I don't think everything is a false flag. He does. I agree with you completely.

What I meant by that 2% is not what you're being lied to about, is that this mechanism is being done intentionally and systemically and pervasively, that this isn't a coincidence or an accident. And once people start looking, and that's the problem. And that's the problem I grapple with in the book, because once you take that one red pill, like in the Matrix, and you see, okay, I'm being lied to, you take one red pill, not the whole bottle. Because once you start thinking more and more things are lies, you get to the point to full-blown Holocaust denial, because everything is a lie. So that is something that I address and grapple with. What do you do once you realize that the media is manipulative and lying,

but there comes a point where you're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, now I've gone too far. I got it, I got it. That's very good. That's very good. Really interesting. I mean, the book is worth it just for, I think the creation of a potential TV series of Michael Malice talks to the Nazis,

which is something I would absolutely watch. I would do. That would be fantastic. But, I mean, I would just be riveting, riveting television. But I wanted to ask you, Michael, so when you, because it's interesting looking at the book and the way you talk about these groups,

and you're describing, I think, something real that is happening right now. Do you see this as an endorsement? Do you see this as a warning? Or do you just see this as, hey, everybody, wake up. This is what's happening right now. First of all, I wrote a book to be entertaining. I think if you're writing a book about politics

and you get people to laugh and be engaged and you could be on the beach or in the bathroom, you've accomplished something. That's number one. Sure. Number two is it's the kind of thing where, you know, if someone is having an affair and the wife looks the other way.

This book is, you can't pretend you don't know anymore. This book is exposing what is going on and forcing people to confront the very dark realities of our politics and our cultural war in a way that I think it's going to make some people uncomfortable because it's really scary to realize just how totalitarian the opposition is. And let me use you as an example.

The argument with, you know, they block people from Twitter, from PayPal, right? They say, go make your own network if you don't like it. It's fiber property. And Glenn Beck said, all right, I made the blaze. And now if they had their druthers, they would drive the blaze out of business. Yes. So they, it's not, it's a lie.

So I also talk about the techniques that the evangelical left uses to further their control of American and world domination. Because it's not about, you know, if you're arguing about, you know, transgender bathrooms or, you know, immigration from Muslim countries, this is distraction. As soon as that issue is done, they're going to find something else because it's always about furthering. their power. Yeah, it's, that's the, that's the biggest problem is people think that they're dealing with honest brokers and they're not. They're not honest brokers, you know. And because it is a barely disguised religion, once you think of yourself as saved, then you are allowed to do anything you want because you're doing it in the service of what you perceive to be the good. C.S. Lewis, who I'm sure you're a fan of, who's a great, great philosopher. I have a quote from him in the book where he said,

I'd rather be under the control of people who are corrupt than a moral busybody, because the corrupt person will at least sleep at night, whereas the busy body will never tire because he's fueled by his own self-righteous conscience. And that is something people need to understand. This is a totalitarian faith for these types, and they will never let you rest. Michael, thank you so much for your hard work and thank you for being on the program. We'll talk again. The name of the book is The New Right, A Journey into the Fringe of American Politics by Michael Malice, a great, great writer that you really do enjoy reading his books. Thank you, Michael.

Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Always a pleasure. You bet. God bless. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Dan Eikinson is with us. He's the director of Trade.

policy studies at the Cato Institute, and I wanted to bring him on because I'm very concerned about what this trade war is leading us to. And Dan is here to explain. Welcome to the program, Dan. How deep in the madness are we here with this trade war with China? Well, we are on the verge of tariffing each other's products out of existence. I mean, the Trump administration has announced that it will extend tariffs on all products by next month that the deal is not reached. The Chinese are already close to tariffing all of our products. And my concern is that this can spiral out of control without, even if there's some, some, sense to this. And even if there's some plan to try to pull back and reach some deal,

and this is all negotiating tactics, it could spiral out of control. There's a lot of politics at play. What does that, what does that mean spiral out of control? To what? So right now, the United States exports about $120, $130 billion a year, you know, U.S. exporters to China. But we have companies there that generate revenues with about $500 billion. And they are being compelled, I think, by the Trump administration to reconsider where they're investing. So they may shift their supply chains. They may try to bring them home. Ultimately, what's going to happen is that the costs of production for U.S.

businesses are going to rise dramatically. It's going to cause profits to shrink. Revenues for U.S. exporters are going to shrink. That's going to also put downward pressure on profits. If businesses don't have profits, they can't invest and they can't hire. So we'll likely see some economic contraction. And we will likely see the global economy kind of breaking up, bivocating into two segments, two blocks, those that fall within sort of China's ambit and those that we continue to woo. And, boy, it's hard to woo countries nowadays, considering how we've poked many of them in the eyes with respect to our trading policies.

So, you know, if you look at the cycle that leads to war, usually the last thing before. war, actual war happens, is, is a trade war. This is the worst one I think I've seen in my lifetime, at least the one that I can remember. And I'm torn on, I'm not torn on Mexico or Europe or Canada. Wrong. However, China has really bad practices. And they are, I think, are the biggest enemy of not America, but of freedom of mankind out there. And while I don't like the tariffs, I also don't like really doing a lot of business with China because they're just, they're very bad actors. Certainly the China of 2019 is very different than the China of say 2001. Right.

Or joined the global economy and joined the World Trade Organization. It was a poor country at the time that was trying to make amends for a lot of bad economic policies, bad social policies. And there was hope that China would become more like us and open up and capitalism would prevail. And now they have a president who's president for life. He has – he surveils his population. He exports surveillance equipment around the world. He's got concentration camps. And so, yes, we need to be a little bit more skeptical of China.

But at the same time, we don't want this to be a self-fulfilling. prophecy. I mean, the Chinese people, I think, will suffer from, you know, if we turn our backs on each other. And we, you know, it's, it's not them. It's a regime that might be under pressure from this trade war, which is likely to spark, you know, to inspire nationalism as the economy starts to go south in China. But ultimately, I think Chinese people are peace-loving and would like to have mutually beneficial relations. We all are that way. Generally speaking, I think we're all that way.

Sometimes politics and politicians are not that way, but I think generally speaking, the average person on earth is just like, I just want to be left alone, man. Right. Go ahead. I was just going to say that, you know, even if this trade war were to end and the Chinese were to accept all of the Trump administration's demands, and many of those demands, I think, are legitimate.

And China's doing certain things that it was, that it shouldn't be doing, They need to abide by the commitments that they have made in some areas where the president is pushing for the Chinese to buy more U.S. products. I don't think that that is necessary. China's not doing anything wrong there. But if they were to agree to everything, we would still have the problem that the United States is the technologically preeminent economy in the world, and China wants to get there. And there are first mover advantages to being dominant in a particular technology that has military and security applications. So there's going to be this, I'm concerned that there's going to be this sort of Cold War dynamic that plays out because we're going to want to prevent them from getting there. They're going to do it whatever it takes to get there to the technological four.

And that spells, you know, a lot of, that spells trouble for me. Dan, there's a couple of new studies out. One says that the washers and dryers that they put tariffs on added $200 of cost to a washer dryer set, plus has cost over $800,000. dollars per job that it created. Same as steel, $900,000 per job. Yeah, and it seems to be very consistent. Also, they're now saying that the tariffs, if implemented as threatened, would now overwhelm the entire benefit of the tax bill that was passed in 2017.

Are those line up with what you see going on? Are those accurate numbers? I've seen those studies, and I don't doubt them. The thing is so far, you know, up until the last weekend, when this thing was really erupted. There were tariffs in place, and certain sectors, certain, you know, steel using industries and certain manufacturers were complaining about the tariffs. But by and large, the economy wasn't, didn't seem to be so adversely affected by it. Except for the farmers. Farmers are dying. The farmers are in bad shape. They've been retaliated against. But interestingly,

you know, they're among the most patriotic Americans. And they agree. They seem to think, look, there's a bigger issue here. We're willing to take it on the charge. This is an existential battle. And so they're willing to take it. But Trump realizes that they can't take it for very long. And so he's directed subsidies to farmers who are in bad shape. But anyway, I think because the economy has generally been doing so well, it's masked some of the costs.

But we're running out of rope. We're past the peak of the business cycle. And we're going to start to feel this. U.S. businesses' costs are going to rise. U.S. cost of living for families is going to increase. And it's going to be hard to undo that. We have to reestablish all sorts of business relationships around the world in order to compensate for what is lost in this relationship. So can you tell me, you know, in a minute, are you worried at all about the Chinese selling our treasuries?

I mean, they've tried that, and it actually seemed to have backfired on them. Yeah. I don't worry about that at all. I mean, they own our debt. I mean, we have them over a barrel. We could always default on the debt, but that's not something I would recommend. Right. But they buy our debt because it's a good investment for them.

They need to, and particularly, since we're scrutinizing all of their investments, you know, their direct investments in the United States so rigorously now, they don't have many choices to buy a dollar-denominant assets other than to buy debt. I mean, they can buy equities, but I think it's a miss that, that were threatened by the fact that China owns all the U.S. debt. But the thing is, it speaks to a bigger problem. That is that we have this debt. And why do we have this debt?

Because Congress spends too much money. Right. We need to address that problem. And then we never have to worry about this fake concern. Dan Eikinson, thank you so much. I really appreciate the update. The Best of the Glenn Beck program. This is a first.

You'll tell your kids and your grandkids someday. I was listening to the Glenn Beck program the first day that they had a Democratic national candidate on. Somebody who was running for the presidency of the United States and the Democratic side. We have tried over and over and over again for 20 years. They do not want to ever come on. First time ever. A lesser-known candidate at this point. but I think a guy who could go all the way

and he might even get my support Tommy Horowitz. How are you? Oh, it's a pleasure to be here, Glenn. Yeah. It's been a long time, so I've been here in person, so I just want to drink it in. I want to take it in. Yeah.

Super excited. Yeah. So you're not the kind of guy that I would expect to be running for president of the, you know, under the Democratic ticket. Yeah, I get that a lot. I'll be totally honest.

Yeah. But look. the honest truth is I am always country over party. I mean, I never cared about an R or a D or an I next to my name. It's all about what are the important issues that Americans face, and those are the issues that animate me, and those are issues that drive me, and that's why I decided I needed a platform for those viewpoints,

and I think that the Democratic Party in particular is doing itself a great disservice by the radicalization, that is, the radical transformation, I should say, that's gone through over the past several years. And we've seen an inexorable move by the Democratic Party through the left over the last, you know, 15 years. But we've seen that in hyperdrive over the last couple of years. And I think it's destroying the party.

And I think they need somebody to write the ship. And I think I'm that captain. Okay. I think on the guy. So now you've registered, you filed the papers. It's all a done deal, man. Oh, yeah. And here's the interesting thing.

Here's the interesting thing. You're not for socialism. No. Yeah. No. Yeah. Right. Right.

Many people... So I don't really fit into the mold of who's running? Is that we going with this? But again, here's the interesting thing. If you get donations, even if it's a dollar per donation, right? 50 cents? If you get 65,000 individuals giving you even 50 cents, you are then guaranteed a spot on the debate stage.

It's a massive hack to get on the Democrat debate. Now, again, this is a serious run. Yeah. I have serious issues I want to address. I am a registered Democrat, just to be clear. But yes, 65,000. When, how long have you been a registered Democrat? Oh, God, man.

In my heart or on a filing? Well, really, the heart is what matters. The heart is what matters, right? You've been there for a long time. Longed, yeah, long time. a Jew. I mean, I think that you're born with a Democratic voter card. I believe you are. I think that's the way it works. Yeah. So, but the actual

filing. The actual, yeah, it's been about two months. About two months. I've been trying it on. It's like a new suit you get made to measure. To be clear, Bernie Sanders is not much longer than that. No, no, no. So Bernie Sanders does a very interesting thing. He always, he's an independent and he's independent as a senator and is for years and then he always switches several months before the election to a Democrat. No different than what I'm doing myself.

And you're actually not, because you're not a Republican either. You are an independent. I am an independent. Absolutely. So now what do you think they're going to do when you have 65,000 people donating to your campaign, and that qualifies you to be on that debate stage? There needs to be a lot of heart doctors available at the DNC. the moment that happens. I think they're,

listen, clearly they don't want me on the stage. And in fact, I can't get the details now, but there's been moves already to try to to abort this candidacy early on. And they're good at abortion. They are good in abortion. That's true. Yeah.

Late term. It can happen on stage. They can just let you die. Listen, I mean, I don't, in fact, I think the Republicans wanted to get Democrats on board with capital punishment, just very late-term abortion. Right, right. So, but because we talked about this, you know, just a few days before you did it.

And I said, they're never going to let you on the stage. And you said, no, the rules are they have to. The rules are very clear. If they decide, okay, they have, they're in a box. Okay, they've got two choices. So if I have 65,000 people send me a dollar, anything that gets me on that stage, their choices are either they can change their own rules, which would put them in a really tough situation

because they've, you know, Tom Perez, when they first announced what the requirements were, and they did it because they were so stung by the criticism that they got when Bernie Sanders essentially, you know, they conspired against him and the rules allowed for them to do that, that they wanted to make, in his own words, the most open process they've ever had.

And he said he wants a diversity of candidates. I'm not sure he meant intellectual diversity, but anyways, that's what he's getting. Now, if they do change that, he has to go back on everything he said, and there's going to be a lot of people, and I'm looking at your board right now, which, by the way, do I, is my name on this board? No, we're shocked to find out it was not on.

I don't know, who's responsible for that board? Some of these get fired. Not either of us. Do you? You look guilty, my man. So, therefore, a lot of these guys is bored, they'll take them off the board also, because they don't put me on and they change the rule.

They can't just keep me off. specifically. They're going to have the, you know, a lot of people are qualifying the same way I am. They'll be off the board also. Or they have me on and I'm going to make the Democrat debate stage a very unsafe space for them. Because I would imagine if they just decided to change the rules and say, we don't believe you're a real Democrat or whatever they tried to do. They would be opening themselves up to real legal problems. There's some First Amendment issues. There's some constitutional issues that I think have never actually been discussed about what a party is allowed or not to do, which I think would we hold other interesting rabbit hole for us to go down.

and you're not talking about anything necessarily radical. You're talking about things that the Democrats would find radical. Look, I think that had I done this 30 years ago, 25 years ago, I think I would find a very comfortable place in the American debate stage. I mean, I think my, you know, I look at myself and think I'm pretty ideologically aligned with a Scoop Jackson or Patrick Moynihan or JFK, to be honest. but those guys if they ran again today they'll be run off a rail Democratic Party they just don't fit

what the Democratic Party is and that's not a good thing we don't listen we need to have two strong parties we have to keep each party in check I don't think it's healthy to have one party that's that's that's dominating and one that's not but the issues that they it's really look it's amazing I would say a lot of their positions now

if you looked at like right wing conspiratorialists and what they would say Democrats really believed in and go, oh, you're insane. That's really what they believe in now. No, I know. Okay? Oh, I know. Oh, yeah, those Democrats believe in open borders. Yeah, that's actually what they, there's like Juan Castro.

I think his name's Juan Castro. Julian Castro? Julian Castro is like a short stop for the Astros, I think. But Julian Castro, he said he wants open borders. Okay. These are actual positions that they're taking. I mean, Joe Biden, who's what, the great, the great, the great. middle of the road, moderate.

He said, we want illegal aliens to have health coverage in this country. I mean, these are radical, insane positions that the majority of the country, vast majority, probably the majority of the Democratic Party, I feel pretty comfortable saying, do not feel comfortable with. You know, here's one of my theories.

If you look at the polling numbers, where Joe Biden is leading in some polls by 40 points, what's the lowest, 25 points, 21 points, something like that? take. He's way ahead of everybody else and I think that's because Americans know him and they don't feel as though he's a radical socialist. I don't think they

know him. I got to be honest. I mean, I think they knew him before. Right, right, right. I don't know what he is now. No, I agree with you on that. But I think the Democrats see him and they just go, oh, he's just Joe Biden and he's not crazy and he's not totally radical. I think he is, but

he doesn't have that perception. And with him being 20 points ahead of anybody else, it shows that the Democratic voter is not with the socialist stuff. They're way too radical. I mean, they just did a poll on some health care issues, and health care consistently comes for Democrats as the number one priority. They want that addressed.

They polled Medicare for All specifically, and only 47% of Democrats supported Medicare for All, which puts you in the majority position on the number one issue. If that doesn't qualify you as a valid candidate, I don't know what is. How do you know I don't want Medicare for All? Well, I mean. I just assumed. That's true.

Do you want Medicaid for all? I do not. I mean, here's the thing about our health care system, which is incredible to me, which I don't know if they know. I don't know if these Democrats even care. But we have the most innovative health care system the world does ever know. There's a reason why 50% of all innovation across health care that could be bioengineering, medical devices, pharmaceutical, all happens in this country.

It's because we have a robust profit system that allows people to invest money, take massive risks. You know how much money, how much billions of dollars it takes to investigate an avenue for a drug and, hey, there's no guarantee of success, but they take the risk to do that because there's a profit incentive. The question is not about that side of the equation. We've got to keep the cost down. There are other ways to do that and to overturn our entire healthcare system for essentially 10% of people who don't have coverage. Remember, 90% of people, when they introduced Obamacare, 90% of people had coverage, whether it be personal coverage or through their or through their jobs, but for 10%,

instead of finding a way to cover that 10%, which I want to do, they overturn our entire system. This is what we're talking about, the radicalism of the Democratic Party, where norms don't make a difference anymore. So did you see what happened in Ukraine? No.

So the Ukraine, a pretty open question. I mean, a lot of things happen to Ukraine. I'm assuming you're talking about Biden's kid? No, huh? No. We have talked about that quite a bit. That is an interesting story. I'm talking about the new Ukrainian president. Oh, the comedian.

Is a comedian? Yes, of course, of course. A number of things have happened in Ukraine since then. Yeah, I know that. But the world is at a place to where a disruptor, Donald Trump, you, could actually walk away with a nomination and possibly win a nomination. Look, if you had said to me, if you had asked me four years ago, is this possible? I would say, come on, of course not. But in the president of the United States, essentially won the nomination, the presidency on a troll.

Right. I think anything is possible. Yeah. Anything is possible. Look, there is a wide open lane for somebody like me. And I think that the challenge is trying to get the Democratic electorate to understand what I'm doing and who I am. and the fact that I don't think any of those guys in the board over here can beat Donald Trump. I think I can.

And I think if they want a Democrat in the White House, I'm their guy. And all it takes is what? That's a crazy thing about this. You don't have to send me $100,000, $1,000? If they go to ambi for America.com, for $1, they can see the greatest show on earth. And by the way, you know who wants me on more than anybody else? The network's holding the debates. I guarantee you that I will double or triple, if not larger,

what their audience was from the last time they had Democrat debate. Oh, I could guarantee that. Because everybody on the right would be watching. Oh my gosh. I'm totally. I would not miss that. Because I would like to, I would like you to see, I wouldn't want to see you just go up and mock it, which I don't think you're trying to do.

No, no, no, no, no. I would like you to go up and say, look, when did we start believing as Democrats? When did we go here? This is nuts. When did capitalism become a dirty word? When the greatest system ever demised by man, literally, I would say, I would literally say that, that has created more wealth for more people, brought more people out of poverty, and to run away from that system to a system that we see demonstrably does not work.

And we're seeing it today in Venezuela. Venezuela is a democratic socialist country. Let's make no mistake about it. It's not the Soviet Union. It's a democratic socialist country. And we're seeing it implode. And I'm saying they're not looking to model themselves after that. But that's the road they're going down.

So all I'm looking to do is- Well, they were modeling themselves after that until Maduro. Until it collapsed. And they did praise Hugo Chavez profusely. I mean, back in the day. You know what? I stand corrected. And by the way, there is this weird undercurrent

and Democratic Party that supports Maduro and has not been attacking him. It's a weird kind of thing. I don't know where- Code Pink took over... I was there in D.C. When Code Pink had rallies for... Maduro. What is going on? This is everybody.

This is the road they want to take us down. So this is not a joke. I'm not looking there to mock them, but I want to hold them accountable for their beliefs. Because let me tell you who's not going to hold them accountable, the mainstream media. Okay, they're not going to ask the tough questions about their beliefs and what that's going to do to this country.

I will. I promise you that. If I get on that stage, I'll make sure that every view they have, however radical it is, I will hold them accountable for it. I think that it is really, I think it's a service to the Democrats, to the voters. It really is. There's no diversity. This you give me a medal.

How about instead of a medal, a $1 donation to ami for America.com? This is a real campaign. AMI. AMI for America. Dot com. Any donation, 50 cents will do it. They just need 65,000 individual people. Oh, it's dot org.

Or dot com. Or dot net. Okay. Oh, come on, I cover my bases here. Come on. dealing with a rookie. Well, do you have it also Amy, AMY, just in case? I should have actually. Yeah, you should have. But I was going to say this is not my first rodeo, but this is definitely my first rodeo. Ami Horowitz. Ami for America.com.

The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand.