The Glenn Beck Program - Best of The Program | Guests: Sen. Mike Lee, Drew Holden, & Bridget Phetasy | 9/23/20

Episode Date: September 23, 2020

Sen. Mike Lee joins to discuss the Supreme Court drama in the Senate and explains why he would prefer it if Trump nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Drew Holden of the Resurgent runs through his latest stunning Twitter thread on how Democrats have reversed their view on Supreme Court nominees in an election year. He also discusses whether Michael Bloomberg is bribing Florida felons by paying their debts so they can vote. “Walk-Ins Welcome” host Bridget Phetasy discusses how “microcancellations” are dividing American families and an ESPN host’s latest take on the “mostly peaceful” protests. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Hi, Mike, how are you? Doing great. It's so good to be back on your show. Thanks for your own. You're welcome. So seriously, I know we have to pick a woman for some unknown reason. Is the sex change out of the realm of possibility with you?

Well, not in the next 72 hours. That seems a little hasty. Okay, all right. So, Mike, I want to talk to you about the vacancy, what's going on. Ted said that he has concerns of anybody that is nominated because we always screw this up. Is there anybody on this short list that you feel is a real home run? Yeah, look, I think it's going to be Amy Coney-Barritt. I could be wrong.

I don't think I'm going to be. I think it's going to be her. And I think she would be a fantastic Supreme Court justice. I think she'll be a textualist and originalist. She'll be devoted to the cause of constitutionually limited government. That's what we need. So who would you compare her to? Who do you think she's going to be more like?

She will be in the mold of her former boss, Justice Scalia, and in the mold of Justice Alito, my former boss, and in the mold of Justice Thomas. She'll be somewhere in that number. Wait, wait, Justice Thomas. Oh, Clarence Thomas. I was thinking, Roberts. I thought you said Roberts there for a second.

Oh, no, no. Good time. That would be a very different story. It's going to be somewhere between. between Roberts and Scalia. She's right in the sweet spot where we would want her to be. Good. She's a Scalia, Alito

Thomas type of jurist, and that's exactly what we want. Now, the last time she was confirmed in front of the Senate, they just raked her across the coals for her religious beliefs. She's a strong Catholic, and

I mean, just really were, I thought, way out of line. They were. I was horrified. Glenn, as I sat through there, I was in the committee room, I served on the Judiciary Committee and as we were going through the process of confirming her, a couple of my Democratic colleagues started asking her these questions, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing at first. One of my colleagues said, you know, the dogma seems to live strong in you, or worse to that effect.

Another colleague asked her if she would describe herself as an Orthodox Catholic. Both of those questions came off to me as though they were saying, well, it's one thing if you're Catholic, but if you actually believe that stuff, then you're kind of crazy. It really bothers me. As a religious minority myself, I find that very offensive. As an American, I find it appalling. As a constitutional lawyer, I find it unacceptable. Imagine saying that to Ruth Bader Ginsburg about her religion. Exactly. I mean, that's outrageous, absolutely outrageous. So tell me about what you're expecting the Democrats to do. I mean, they are talking about burning the place down if this passes.

Tell me, is that rhetoric? Are they serious? What's happening, Mike? I don't know. It's 2020, and so I don't know whether to read anything just figuratively or literally because it could easily be both. Insofar as they're expressing outright. rage over this. That's really quite absurd. Look, this is not an historical aberration for us to be

confirming in this context. You know, in 2016, which they like to point out, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, and the Senate gave its advice and consent on that nominee by rejecting him. This year, President Trump will nominate a replacement. I think it's going to be Amy Coney-Barrant for Justice Ginsburg. And consistent with the Constitution, we'll again give our advice and consent. If we the nominee, we'll confirm her. If we don't, we won't. It's that simple. There have been Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years 29 times in the history of our republic. In 10 of those cases, the presidency was held by one party in the Senate by a different party. In nine of those 10 instances, the nominees were rejected by the Senate, just like Garland

was. On the other hand, there have been 19 times when a Supreme Court vacancy occurred in a presidential election year where both the presidency and the Senate were controlled by the same party. Only one of those 19 nominees, Abe Fortis, was rejected, and he was rejected on a bipartisan basis after an ethics scandal. Every other nominee, 18 out of those 19, was confirmed in an election year when the Senate and the presidency were under the control of the same party. There's nothing unusual about us doing this. There's no reason why they should threaten to burn the house down, whatever that meets. Mike, you know, for the last few years we've been talking about, we need to make sure we're watching Russia and any foreign actors on our elections. The, what the Democrats are doing

now with the mail-in ballots and how bad our systems are in every state, the Soros owning the many of the attorney generals or the district attorneys, I am really, really, really concerned that no one is going to believe the results of this election, no matter which way it happens. It is certainly concerning, and one of the many reasons why we need to resist any effort ever to centralize all voting authority because of the fact. that it would make it more subject to manipulation by nefarious actors either outside of our country, like Russia, or otherwise. By the way, that's exactly what a proposal advanced and passed

by the Democratic House of Representatives in this Congress, HR1 would have done, is centralized election authority, making it more vulnerable. Our system is far more vulnerable than I would like it to be, but much better than it would be if the reforms proposed by the Democratic, party were enacted into law. In the meantime, people can do their part by making sure that they vote by looking out for irregularities whenever they see them and praying to Almighty God with everything in them that he'll guide us through this particularly difficult election cycle and we'll make it through. Mike, are you concerned with the lack of record for Amy Coney-Barrant? I mean, all of them short. Hers is probably the best, but are you concerned that we don't know enough about these guys?

I'm nearly always concerned that we don't know enough. I wish we knew more. With Judge Barrett, we know more than we know with most. Yeah, we confirmed her about three years ago to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. And we also have her career long track record academically. We know that she's been involved in the federalist society. We know that she's a textualist originalist. We know that she clerked for Justice Scalia. So those are all good signs. All the indications we have from her are positive, and that's why I'm confident about this choice. Scalia is, this was his favorite assistant, or what did you call it a clerk? Yeah. His favorite clerk, right? Yeah, he loved her. And he was not overly emotional.

or attached to clerks. I have a friend, my friend, John Fee, who is a law professor now at BYUu clerk for Justice Scalia, and I believe it was John Fee, who told me that on the last day of his clerkship, Justice Scalia said something to him along the lines of, you know, you guys are all fungible to me, right? Oh, my gosh. He was sort of, you know, he was, you have joking in many, joking in many, in most respects. But his point was, I can't get emotionally attached to each Lockler, but he loved Judge Barrett, and I think it speaks well of her and of him that he felt that way.

Just because Donald Trump loves a show, and he likes these big surprises. Let me talk to you about Barbara Lagoa a bit. I like her story, born to Cuban immigrants, you know, and really seems to understand America, first Cuban-American woman selected for the court, but she was also nominated by Jeb Bush. So what do we know about her? Okay, so here's the thing. I'm sure she's a great person. I voted to confirm her to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the 11th Circuit. From what I can tell, she is a good judge there. I would not be comfortable confirming her to the Supreme Court of the United States the same way I would be with Amy Coney-Barritt for the

reason that we don't know that much about her history of commitment to textualism and originalism, at least not before just a few years ago. One of the standards I employes, I like to go back 20 years. I like to find out who someone was associating with, who they were working with 20 years ago. What were they doing to promote understanding of the Constitution of textualism, of originalism? You know, 20 years ago, Amy Coney-Barrant, was clerking or preparing to clerk for Justice Scalia. I know that she was involved heavily in the Federalist Society that entire time. I don't know that about Barbara Lagoa.

In fact, I haven't been able to find anybody who can confirm that to me. I could be wrong in having that concern, but because I don't know, that nominee would scare me, simply because I don't know enough about her. Wow, okay. Let me just switch topics and then I'll let you go, Mike. on the president came out with a ban on woke capital working with the U.S. government. He has tried to stop these woke, you know, hypnotist programs that are going on right now in critical race theory. And we have several branches of the administration that are ignoring his order to not do any of these critical race training meetings.

CDC was the first. They had, I think, a 12 or 13 week course. Another one's got a 21 week course that is going on. They're just ignoring. Aren't we? Should people be fired? I talked to somebody at the OMB yesterday, and he said, well, we really can't. We can't fire people who are directly going against a presidential directive?

And first of all, I'm very grateful to the Office of Management and Budget for putting out this memorandum. Last week I had Russ vote, the head of OMB, come and speak to the Senate Republicans and explained the need for this memorandum. Look, these people are hating America on America's dime, and it's time to cut off their allowance. This is absolutely ridiculous. Now, look, have we always lived up to the lofty ideals that we believe in? No, we're mortals. We're imperfect, but more than any other society that I know anything about in recorded human history. we have the ideals.

We do embrace them, and we gravitate over time toward them to shake America's foundations to their core, to suggest that we don't have those ideals is fundamentally un-American. It's not helpful. It's not what they should be doing. And in this case, it violates an executive branch directive. So, yeah, these people shouldn't be having those courses. By the way, Glenn, who does a 13-week course on anything within the government, let alone a 21-week? I know.

These people, if we're doing that much time in training on things that have nothing to do with anyone's job in the federal government, why do they have a job to begin with? I don't know. What job is that expendable? But if you don't fire these people, you're going to teach everyone else. You can get away with it. They'll slap you on the wrist. They'll make you stop doing it. But they're not going to fire you.

Examples need to be made that you respond. to the duly elected president of the United States. You're a part of his administration. That's exactly right. The one thing that the founders had in mind when they designed the executive branch of government is that the president of the United States would be the head of the executive branch of government. They didn't contemplate this Byzantine labyrinth, this impenetrable fortress in which people once inside could never be taken out.

Right. There are civil service laws need to be reformed such that, the American people can have a say in who operates their government. The president needs discretion to take out people who aren't willing to execute and enforce the laws according to his directives. We need to overall our laws in that area. Going to Washington seems like Hotel California. You can check in, but you can never leave.

Thank you so much. The Best of the Glenn Beck program. He's from the Resurgent. and the author of The Resurgeon. Welcome to the program, Drew. How are you? Thank you, sir. I'm doing well, Glenn. How about yourself? You know, I would be better if we didn't have our country on fire right now. A reasonable thing to be concerned.

Right. And it seems to me, Drew, and you're great at pointing this out, seems to me they are willing to do anything. They really, I think they mean, burn the whole thing down. Yeah, I mean, you know, Senator Schumer said the other day that all options are on the table, right? And they've floated all of the bad ideas, be it during the nominating process and since. And I can't help but agree with you. So you do what you do best. You took everybody's words now and then.

You want to give us some of the most stunning? Sure, yeah. I mean, I think up from the start, President Barack Obama was saying just four short years ago that it was be irresponsible for the Republicans to not consider a nominee before one has even announced. He has since four years later called on congressional Democrats and Senate Democrats to do the exact same thing. Senator Schumer, another one of our greatest hit, he was saying the same thing. He said, you know what? The Senate has confirmed 17 SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. The Senate should do their job, confirm a nominee back when it was a Democratic nominee, right?

When Merrick Garland was going to be the one. But this was all up and down the time. ticket. I mean, potential, you know, the presidential nominee, Joe Biden saying the same thing. It would be a genuine constitutional crisis to block a potential justice nominee on the court. All of those thoughts, all of that, all of that logic has gone entirely out the window in the span of four years. So I have to tell you, Drew, Stu and I are one of the only two that I know of. I know there are more, but the only two that I know of that actually said, give an up or down vote. I mean, we're consistent with garland even though with garland even though i don't think you need to be uh consistent on these two because there is a difference the senate is it was not controlled by the

democrats and that's usual for them not to you know honor the uh the the nominee exactly and it's not a rubber stamp right i mean i think that's the thing that's kind of lost on people is that the role of the senate isn't to vet a candidate and say yep okay here they go they're fine it'll let them through. It's to vote up or vote down. I agree with you. I think I was saying the same thing back when and said, hey, you know what? Fine. We don't like the guy. Vote them down. Get it over with it. Vote down to whoever you want, but have the vote and do it. And again, this is the old, this is, in a lot of ways, it's the old Harry Reid filibuster play. You think it's going to work for you. And the short term, it makes a lot of sense. But in the long term,

you look like you got a lot of egg on your face. So I find it interesting how the change in the left here on tone. Hillary Clinton, this is the tweet from ABC News at the time, calls for a full and fair hearing for Merrick Garland. In announcing Judge Merrick Garland as his nominee, President Obama has met his responsibility. Now it's up to the members of the Senate to meet their own, end quote. It seems respectable. Listen to this. Hillary Clinton says Senate Democrats will have to use every single possible maneuver to prevent Senator McConnell from enacting the greatest travesty and monumental hypocrisy in attempting to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat. I mean, the words that the left is using now, they are just so extreme. They are. And, you know, I think they would be

extreme, even if the Merrick Garland situation hadn't happened, right? I think to his credit, Senator Schumer pointed out, 17 times we filled a Supreme Court seat in an election year. So the idea in general of calling this a monumental hypocrisy, the greatest travesty, it's just, it's baldly ridiculous. But when they were saying the exact opposite just four years ago, it really does, I mean, for anyone sitting at home who may still kind of think that there are people on the left side of the aisle who are going in good faith to try and do things that are in the best interest of the American people rather than politicians who are going. for power. I hope this dashes that thinking. And this is why, it seems like, you know, there's a few conservatives out there who have, you know, a lot of them I like,

who are kind of trying to propose this, this idea that we would maybe make a deal with the Democrats and tell them, well, don't pack the court. And then if you don't pack the court, then we won't put up a nominee. And I mean, you know, I like, I like the sentiment. It feels good. I wish we had a country in which that was appropriate. I still push for a nominee. But I,

I wish we had a country in which the Democrat could be trusted in such a situation, but quite clearly we don't, right? Yeah, I mean, you're spot on. It's one of those things where I, you know, you talk about the David Frenches, the Jonah Goldbergs, who are just kind of waiting and hoping that the Dems will act in good faith. And particularly on something like the Supreme Court, I don't know where they've been for the last few years.

I don't know if maybe they haven't been paying attention, but I don't know how any conservative, you know, with any electricity going on between the years, could look at the Kavanaugh situation and say, yes, I trust these same people to now act. in good faith. It's like it's a school yard thing, right? Like this is the sort of thing that you usually learn as a five, six, seven year old when you ask someone not to do something and give something up for it.

And for some reason that message hasn't hit home for some of these folks. It hasn't hit home, though, I think for a lot of Democrats, too, that are, you know, there's a difference between a Marxist, a progressive, a liberal, and a Democrat. I've got a lot in common with Democrats, some things in common

with liberals, but they're important things on, you know, we both agree with the Bill of Rights. Once you get into Progressive and Marxist is a different story, but those are the people that are now in charge, and it appears as though they just despise America and will destroy it, if they have to, and destroy it because they want to, at least the ones that they're listening to and empowering on the streets. Yeah, and I think part of it is, you know, they,

they feel entirely compelled to have some measure of power and control. And they're used to, they're familiar with having a Supreme Court and having a justice system that by and large is going to, is willing to legislate from the bench, is willing to carry victories and willing to carry water when Democrats lose elections or can't get legislation through or whatever it is. And I think what you're seeing right now this kind of collective freak out on the streets is,

oh no, what happens if we lose that? What happens if that sort of power and authority goes out the way? window. And you're right. I think there's a lot of people who are willing to truly burn down anything, any, any institution, any value, right, you're hearing talk about packing the Supreme Court, abolishing the electoral college, doing way with a filibuster. It's anything that could be an impediment to that vision of what they think of as a better America can go out the window incredibly quickly. There's a great story on the blaze today. Mike Bloomberg helps pay court fines for 31,000 100 Florida felons so they can vote.

but they're all hand-picked. They're Democrats that they're doing, and they're Hispanic or blacks. They're not doing it for whites. How is Michael Bloomberg going to get away with this? Is he? You know, to be honest with you, I'm not confident he is. I think if there were another universe in which,

you know, I'm personally, I think I'm a pretty big fan of restoring voting rights to felon. Me too. They serve their time. But the idea of going through and selecting only the ones who you can confidently rely on to vote Dem. One, yes, I mean, I'm sure there's an enormous number of legal challenges. I'm sure he'll get sued. I would be relatively surprised, I think, if he were to get away with it, one.

And two, again, it just shows how obviously in bad faith what he's doing is, because if what he was really concerned about was restoring the rights of felons, there's been a lot of great work in Florida done, pushing on that issue. There's a lot of ways to do that rather than handpicked throughout the voting roles of people who you think are going to vote for your team. So, Drew, have you wargamed this out in your head? How does America come back together after this? Because we're seeing what the left is doing to the voting rolls and to, you know, mail out ballots and things like this in Florida.

We're seeing it. We know that they are going to be litigating everything. They keep claiming that we're trying to throw the election and we're trying to cheat with, I guess, Russia again. I don't know what it is. But they won't believe. a verdict of Trump is president. And I don't know, unless it's a blowout, I would believe that this was a fair election. How do we come together? Yeah, you know, I mean, my first thought, Glenn, is I think what we need to do is have a really rock-solid Supreme Court with nine justices that we can

count on. Whatever happens from the election, we're going to need to have a Supreme Court that is able to legislate the outcomes, right? We've got 50 separate state-based elections, all of which could end up at the Supreme Court. So I think we need to have an institution that people can trust and rely on that has probably as many justices as usually sit on it to be able to make that decision. One, two, I think what you're going to need to see, and on both sides, right, I don't think this is a uniquely Democrat problem. But what you're going to need to see is the more trusted, respected voices within the institution come back and say, oh, norms you have institutions you're going to need, if President Trump wins re-election, you're going to need Joe Biden and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to get up and say, we are accepting the results of this election.

Do you see that? Do you see that? No. I mean, I think the problem is I don't. I could see it from maybe Biden, probably Obama. But the idea of trusting someone like Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, who haven't accepted the result of the 2016 election to come out and say, yes, I trust that this was fair when we have so many more variables at play. I guess the short answer is, yes, I've war-gamed it out. No, I don't have a good answer for how we can walk back from the evisper start. All right. Thank you very much, Drew. I really appreciate it.

God bless. Such is mine, sir. You bet. And you as well, thank you. Thank you. Drew Holden from the research. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

Long time, no C. I know. It's been too long. I know. I mean, you're trapped in California. You're going to slide off in. to the sea at some point. I was just in Texas.

Pardon me? I was just in Texas, actually, doing that, you know, California thing of looking around and saying, maybe I should get out. Maybe. Maybe? You haven't been convinced yet? What is it? First of all, you are getting out?

Yeah. First of all, before we get into your spectator, which is an awesome column, what is it like right now? in California? You know, it seems like I was gone for two weeks, and I came back, and it seems like it's settled down a little bit. It feels, it's just strange. You know, I went down to the Third Street promenade to do some shopping, and it's just a reminder of everything still boarded up.

Lots of places are shut down. It was weird to be in Arizona and Texas where things are much more open. you can just go into restaurants and eat with masks. You know, everybody seemed to be respectful of wearing masks, but they also were still just going about their lives. And coming back here, it still feels very closed up. And people, it's more of the interactions with people that are upsetting. I feel like everybody's become very suspicious of each other.

And, you know, in the beginning of the pandemic, there was that kind of solidarity. We were all in this together, and it quickly shifted to, you know, crossing the street hurriedly and making sure that you're, it's just strange. It's a strange not,

it doesn't feel hospitable. And the homelessness is really just staggering. That's really the thing that is the most noticeable. It seems to just keep getting worse. So are Californians getting it? I mean, are they starting to see, wow, wait, these guys maybe not, maybe this isn't the best way to run a government for a state? I don't know, you know, as I've become someone who pays more attention to these things, there does seem to be a strange lack of awareness between the people you're voting for and the policies that you're complaining about.

I feel, and I think with California in particular, you'll see people just leave California. And I always say to California, you know, in my little YouTube show on Dumpsterfire, I did a whole rant about this. I was saying, don't take your crappy policies to these states where they don't have them because it's not, you know, it's a weird disconnect that I don't fully understand. So I'm curious to see what happens in these states. where they've received the California refugees. So you write in your column,

almost every Democrat who is voting for Trump has a personal story about being ostracized, shamed, or losing a close friend or family member over politics. I thought perhaps after Hillary's lost, the left would learn that bullying people, tone policing and punishing people for wrong think only turns people off, how wrong I was. Mm-hmm.

The evidence of me being very wrong is that, that I'm having conversation with you about this and not Jake Tapper. You would think they would want to hear from me, being that I'm somebody who is of the left and still lives in a very liberal place where people feel like because I'm so publicly open about my own independent politics, that they can confess their true feelings to me.

So I hear things just even on the ground and from friends that they would never publicly admit to say. I feel like every single person who wrote me who's voting for Trump, who was a former Democrat, which was a surprising number. The way the emails probably, I have a thousand at this point, leaned much more heavily in favor of Trump. Obviously, that could be self-selecting based on my audience. Anecdotal is what it is. but it's still of people who independent feel like vote for more policy, they seem to say, well, I can look aside from his character and I can look at what he's doing on paper.

With the Democrats, it was personal. Almost every single person writing me had a personal story of, I mean, people have gotten divorced over this, over the politics and the fights, and parents have had fallings out with their children, their kids aren't talking to them, they're not seeing their grandkids. These were exciting things to read.

This isn't happen, I don't think, since the Civil War, when, you know, the split in the family would happen. And it really divided the families. I mean, we've had arguments for a long time with family members, but we still got together. That's not happening. We're getting lots of, lots of people telling us, can't go see my grandkids anymore. Can't go see my son and daughter. Can't, you know, I mean, it's. nuts.

Yeah, it's upsetting. And I see it from the left to the right perspective as well. There are a lot of people whose parents have been kind of taken down the very far-right conspiracy theories that are extremely, you know, almost in the QAnon territory where they're a little bit unreachable. And then you see it on the left where the, you know, trumped arrangement syndrome or whatever you might want to call it. On the right, I call it Trump Devotion Syndrome.

On the left, the Trump derangement syndrome is very intense and they're unreachable. So there's just people are truly losing themselves into the tribal instincts. And there isn't much to, you know, unless you're pretty self-aware doing work, there isn't much to stop that process, I think, once it starts happening. And in fact, our media and our society is very supportive of that divide. And everywhere you'll hear on the left all the time, you know, break up. You'll see tweets like this all the time. I stopped talking to my parents.

I wrote them out. I mean, I come from a big, huge Irish Catholic family where everybody was, there were lots of different opinions all across the political spectrum. There were 10 kids in my dad's family. And it was drilled into us by my grandparents. rest in peace. They were amazing. You do not fight over money or politics. Blood comes before all of that. You just, you love each other and have disagreements. And yes, people would get drunk and the cops would come sometimes. But that's a normal Irish Catholic family. We still all love each other and we would still make up and we still all have great relationships, even if our politics are, you know, I have a very

far I have an extremely conservative uncle and I have aunts and uncles who were in the Portland protesting and we all still sit down and break bread and love each other. That is where I come from and I hate seeing this when people talk about the fabric of society starting to shred this is where I'm seeing it the most and I don't think people can understand what happens also when people feel rejected, that feeling of rejection is radical. It can be radicalizing to people if they suddenly feel ostracized or shamed. You know, there are just little stories about people at work being outed or being, it's very strange. It's such a strange, I don't understand that instinct, but it's strange for people to be doing that to one another,

as if that couldn't turn around and happen to them. I got to tell you, it is so bizarre, Stu, is there any doubt in your mind, as conservative as this company is, we've, we've had progressives, we've had people work for it. If we had somebody who was like a Joe Biden supporter, is there any doubt in your mind that we would all be cool with that person? Yeah, of course. I don't understand this. Outing stuff and the shame and the, that's awful. That's just an awful people.

That's a group of awful people. Let me go ahead. Oh, I just, I call it like microcancelations. You know, we talk a lot about cancel culture just in the discourse. And I think this evidence of microcancelations that I'm viewing, which is these little ones that are happening all over America in front groups and families. I don't think we can underestimate that effect.

The people I hear from who are generally Republican voting for Biden, almost across the board, it is a character, Trump's character, that they have the biggest issue with and some of the corruption, and some of the people surrounding him, et cetera. With the left voting for the right, almost every single person has two things. being kind of red-pilled by the mainstream media between COVID and riots and protests and now even with the left saying they're going to get rid of the filibuster and stack the courts and then personal experience of being quote-unquote canceled.

All right. I'm going to continue with Bridges Fettice here in just a second. I want to play an audio clip and ask you if you think people that, vote for Democrats actually believe this stuff or if they're just tolerating it. When he talks about like Black Lives Matter, 93% of the protests are peaceful. The vast overwhelming majority are peaceful. And by the way, the 7% that are not, they have a very broad definition of what's not, quote, unquote, peaceful.

For example, if you block traffic or something like that, or if you respond to police provocation. And even then, a big percentage of that, which we, that wasn't peaceful, is actually outside agitators, extremist right-wing agitators posing as protesters in order to make the protests look bad. That's the first thing. Bridget. I mean, we're hearing this. We're hearing this all the time from the media, that it's a peaceful. No, the protest when they started, they were peaceful. Now they're generally a bunch of white punks that are just destroying things because they can. So they're not peaceful, and it's certainly not right-wing agents coming in.

Do people believe that, or you just look at it and roll your eyes? I don't know. I think it depends on the individual, really, what you believe. So I've been thinking a lot about this because I'm hearing from so many people who were behind the idea, I think everybody was kind of on board of we need to really look at police brutality and then things. Everybody. I wonder how, do we know what percentage of people actually protested?

You know, how many people in America? Because that means a lot of other people were just observing this going down and still probably supporting, but not necessarily. Oh, yeah. I don't know. Do you know anybody? when that first killing happened, do you know

anybody that said no, police are always right? No, nobody. We were united. We were united and then somehow or another it was used to divide us. Yeah, I mean, I think probably if you look statistically at how many protests there were

even little ones, the majority of them probably were peaceful and they probably went off without a hitch for the most part. I think everything that happened during the day probably was peaceful. Is that a good metric, though? Like, so what if only 7% were violent?

Like, that's not acceptable. Like, if you would spend only 7% of your days murdering someone, you'd still be thought of generally as a murderer. I don't think people would be like, oh, well, that one day he went and he helped at the soup kitchen. No one cares. But I don't think necessarily the 7% are even voting. You know, this is something where I do think that a lot of the

people who are violent. And this is where I feel the left has done a very bad job, the Democratic Party in general, is that they have not divorced themselves from this extremism. And in fact, you know, for all to talk about carrying water and all this stuff, I don't see them pushing back hard enough against that violence. And if they have started to, it's only because they realize that it's polling that they need to. But for the most part, they've accepted it. and they've allowed it and I mean,

he's thought on CNN, encouraged it, even if it's out of the side of their mouth. So do you think the average person that doesn't pay attention to the news, that they know that the Democrats were like crazy on this? The problem is that the average person who doesn't pay attention to the news, what little they're getting, they can't separate the... Truth from fiction. They can't separate the...

Well, no, they can't separate the... Well, no, they can't separate. separate the 7% from the 93%. So they are going to look at the news and say, wow, the left is crazy. Even, I mean, to be fair, they are. But I don't think the majority,

I know lots of people who are kind of, I would call Biden liberals and my family, who are, I was laughing about this the other day because I was on the phone with a family member who's old school Biden liberal voting for Biden. And he was like, Bridget, I'm very worried about you in the aftermath of the election. If Trump wins, which I think he's going to, I think you need to get out of L.A.

And it was like, so the party that you're voting for is going to burn my city down if they lose. Like, how do I reconcile this? It's logic. What did he say? Did you say that to him? Yeah, of course. And he was kind of laughing. But he was saying, you know, that same thing is that those people aren't voting.

This is a pretty, but he pays more attention to the news, I would say, then. Because these Antifa people aren't voting. There are whoever it is that the agitate, the outside agitators. No, but you have the upper end of the Democrats actually supporting this stuff. And it's, it's really, it's a frightening time.