The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program with Heather Mac Donald | 9/24/18

Episode Date: September 24, 2018

Ep #187- The Daily Best of GB Podcast: 9/24/18  -#MeTooMartyr to testify?. -Adams vs. Jefferson, Learning from Histories Past? -'Outrage Culture' (w/ Heather Mac Donald)  -Ted Cruz vs. The Anti-Texan? -Alyssa Milano vs. Glenn Beck? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Blaze Radio Network On Demand Everybody, it's Monday back in the studios in Dallas, Texas. We're so glad you're listening to the podcast. Today's episode, we begin with the new allegation released by the New Yorker magazine. But I kind of started a different place than usual. I started doing some research this weekend on how does this end?

Have we ever done this before in politics? And the answer is yes, we have. And it takes us to a story that many of us know already, but we don't really know how it happened. It's an amazing tie that I don't think you're going to get anywhere else on the Kavanaugh debate. Also, we have Heather McDonald on with us. Heather McDonald is a former professor who was into postmodernism, and she really kind of outlines what we really have to. to do when it comes to our colleges and our civilization as it begins to melt down.

What should you do about your kids? And postmodern social justice continues to change our world. Ted Cruz, the anti-Texan Beto, who won the debate. Also, the amazing ad that has six siblings out of, I think, nine siblings, that are saying, this Republican brother of ours, he's not helping. I think it's actually going to backfire. I'll tell you why and so much more on today's podcast. You're listening to The Best of the Glen Beck program.

It's Monday, September 24th. Glenn Beck. Another allocation was lobbed at Kavanaugh last night. This one comes from Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, who told the New York, the New Yorker, that Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face, causing her to touch it. She claims that both of them were highly intoxicated. No.

All right. First of all, the story should have never made it to print. It is telling that the New Yorker ran it while the New York Times and Washington Post have stayed away. Ramirez admits that she had spent six days, quote, assessing her memories before really truly recalling what had happened. She also admits that there are, quote, significant gaps in her memories of the evening. Like the Ford allegation, no one can collaborate, and Kavanaugh has flat out denied it has ever happened, as has many people that she said were there, they have all come out now since and said,

I have no recollection of this even happening. It's totally out of character. So how did this make it into a national publication? Have the rules of journalism changed or suddenly spontaneously combust? No. It's just that there are no real rules of journalism anymore. The real journalists have left. Advocates and torchbearers have taken their places.

And in the digital world where you can assassinate someone's character in 0.7 seconds, Go ahead, try it. Google Kavanaugh. It'll take you point seven seconds for Google to come back with 128 million results. That's how fast it happens now. If someone can make a false claim on Twitter,

it'll be retweeted 10,000 times plus the correction if he even comes from the original poster will only get what, 10 or 20 tweets, maybe? That's what Democrats are doing to Kavanaugh now. and they know it and sadly so does Kavanaugh. It's amazing what we're seeing in our country right now. Is this the country that you want your kids to grow up in? Is this fairness?

No, this is social justice. Social justice in the postmodern world means that it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh did it. Somebody like Kavanaugh did do it. It doesn't matter if it happened to these victims because it has happened or something like it has happened to other victims. And it all balances out in the end, or so they think. I just ask any of anybody who is so sure of themselves today, on one side or the other,

if this were happening to you, would you think this was a fair process? The left has taken this hearing and completely turned the rules upside down. The term reasonable doubt has always meant that if it exists, you have to assume the person is innocent. Reasonable doubt. Well, I can't find any reason to believe. These people on Twitter yesterday were all absolutely positively sure Kavanaugh was guilty. Well, I'm not absolutely positively sure he's not. How could you possibly, based on two people, that their stories fall apart once it leaves them?

The left is now rewritten the definition. There's no evidence, not one single corroborating witness to any of these claims. Not one. Now that's enough to get you laughed out of a courtroom. But for some reason, the, quote, resistance wants reasonable damage. out now to shift toward the accuser. Keep in mind, these are the same people, the very same people, who are supposedly for criminal justice and prison reform. Isn't it exactly the problem? Haven't we been in a society that will believe the white woman instead of Emmett Till? Wasn't that the

problem? This one white woman's testimony who claimed he touched her. He grabbed her and he made lewd comments to her. That's why nobody went to jail. Because the reasonable doubt went to her. If reasonable doubt shifts towards the accuser, can you imagine how full our prisons will be? Can you imagine living under a government where reasonable doubt always sides towards the prosecution?

If there is no evidence, if there are no witnesses to any of these claims, I'm sorry. But Kavanaugh must get confirmed. Now, if they have witnesses and we have reasonable doubt, he probably should be concerned. But if we can get to a point to where it's clear to all of us who are honest, then he should go away. Senate Democrats know the game they're playing.

Their ultimate goal here? It's the midterms 2020. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing is just a tool of the left used to influence another court. And that is the court of public opinion. You know, this has been coming for a long time. It's just that we have to get off this train. We've accepted it from each of our parties for a while.

Do you remember when, oh, who was it from Arizona? the Mormon from Arizona, Pat, or Nevada, Nevada. What's his name? Harry Reid. Harry Reid. When Harry Reid stands up and says, you know, Romney, I got a call. Romney. Romney didn't, he didn't pay his taxes.

Now it's out there. That was a lie. He knew it was a lie. But he knew that the press would take it and run with it. And it would get out there and it would poison the well. Our president, Raphael Cruz. was involved in the plot to assassinate Kennedy. What?

It was a lie. He knew that it was a lie. But it got into the press and poisons the well. Kavanaugh, now, Stormy Daniels attorney is now saying that he was part of a rape gang. Now it's to a rape gang. He's part of a rape gang. It's a lie. But it'll get out.

And it'll destroy him. This is not the first time that this has happened. But I wanted to go back into history and see how does this play out? Eventually, how does this play out? Well, if you go back in time, especially if you go back to the party politics, looking for the third president of the United States, who is going to be, who's going to be president? Is it going to be Adams or is it going to be Jefferson?

Now Adams had already seen what the press can do and what pamphleteers could do, and so he comes up with the Sedition Act, which is absolutely against everything that we ever said we were for in America when it comes to the press and freedom of speech. But he had enough of people just lying in the press. So there was a big turmoil. And Jefferson thought that Adams had betrayed the report, and also because he thought he was going to go to war with France and he was going to start

he was going to start a foreign war and he wanted nothing to do with it so they they become enemies these friends become enemies and during the election the two of them start to lob charges against each other Jefferson or at least the people around Jefferson, he never said this because he was above it. But his campaign accused President Adams of having, quote, a hideous, haemaphroditeical character, which neither has the force or firmness of a man nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman. So he calls Adams a haemaphrodite.

So what happens? Adams, his team, responds, well, Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw sired by a Virginia mulatto father. So his mom is an Indian squaw, and his dad is half white and half black. It went down from the, it ended with those guys. I think Adams made the claim that if Jefferson was going to be president, all of your daughters would be raped,

and there would be heads on pikes all the way down the streets, right? Right, Pat? Yep. That's where the story usually ends, right? Even Martha Washington got involved in this. She told a clergyman of Jefferson that Jefferson was one of the most detestable of all mankind. So this is going back and forth. And that's where we think the story ends.

But in trying to find out, How does this end? How have we corrected this course before? Let me tell you a story you probably haven't heard. There was a pamphleteer. His name was James Callender. James Callender was a guy he was Scottish and he came in and he was on the side of Jefferson and he was a pamphleteer and he would pretty much say pretty much anything like Adams is a,

himaphrodite. And he would print these things and pass them out. Jefferson, of course, was far too good of a fellow to be involved in anything like that. He wouldn't, I don't know, James Callender. Oh, that's outrageous that you would say that. The thought was at the time that Jefferson had hired Callender to say these things, but of course, absolutely not. 1801, the Sedition Act, Calendar's thrown in jail. He gets the stiffest penalty of any of the players of the press under John Adams. He's fined $200 and he has to go to jail for six months.

So he goes and he serves his jail time. He pays his $200. And when Jefferson becomes president, he pardons Calendar. Well, Callender wants to see him right away. Because what about my $200? And you, you know, I think you might owe me some money, too. I mean, I haven't been able to work. What about the $200 and, you know, some of,

so what do you say about combat pay? Jefferson pretends he doesn't know him. Jefferson says, I, look, I pardon the guy. That's all he gets. So then what happens? Well, he says, look, Jefferson paid me to tell these stories. He paid me. Jefferson says, I didn't pay him.

He said, she said. I didn't pay him. Yes, he did. No, I didn't. Yes, he did. No, I didn't. Yes, he did. Unfortunately for Jefferson, calendar had letters from Jefferson, including payments for the things he wanted him to say. So all of a sudden, now Jefferson is exposed as this liar. He releases the letter.

So what happens then? Well, the people who support Jefferson, they won't have any of it. And so they decide that they're going to start a new rumor. And so the supporters of Jefferson, who are just trying to protect the president, the supporters start circulating the rumor that Calendar actually is such a bad guy. He's such bad character. You can't believe a thing he says. How do we even know those letters are true?

because Callender is the kind of guy who abandoned his wife while she was dying of venereal disease. Calendar is outraged. How dare you say that? Well, is your wife alive? No, didn't she die? Yes. Didn't she die of some horrible disease?

Yes. But not venereal disease. And I was with her every step of the way, unless I had to work. She died of typhus. Not venereal disease. But because the supporters of Jefferson were so intent on making sure they protected their political guy, Calendar does something else.

Calendar releases a rumor that Thomas Jefferson had been making babies with Sally Hemings. Now, when that failed, when that failed to catch on at the time, He immediately switched the story and said, oh, he's been making babies. He's been making passes. He's been having an affair with his neighbor's wife. So how does this end? This ends in history being changed. This ends in some lies coming back to haunt, sometimes up to a century or two later,

to continue to destroy and smear. Now people will say, well, the DNA evidence. No, no. No. The DNA evidence did not prove that. The DNA evidence proved that it was someone in the Jefferson family. But where did Kavanaugh get that rumor? He didn't make it up.

That rumor was published in a new, newspaper in an op-ed. But it wasn't saying that Jefferson did it. It was actually a smear to get people to not vote for Thomas Jefferson. But the smear originally was something that apparently people knew in the area. That Thomas Jefferson's brother was a sot. Thomas Jefferson's brother was not a good guy. And Thomas Jefferson's brother was. was using the slaves as breeders. The original rumor was not about Thomas Jefferson. It was about his brother. But perhaps that wasn't good enough for Callender. He needed to build on that.

And that smear continues today. So before we all jump to our team jerseys, before we all say, I am absolutely positive, let's just remember that how we behave and what we say and what we do can last centuries and have ramifications that we have no idea are coming.

Maybe more importantly, remember that whatever we create, whatever this system of justice is, our children are going to have to live under it. The best of the Glenn Beck program. Heather McDonald was on with us a couple of weeks ago, and I was running really late, and we ran out of time, and I was really bummed because she is, she's an amazing, amazing woman. She has the bestselling book, War on Cops. She is also with the Manhattan Institute, contributing editor for the City Journal.

She also has her roots in deconstruction and postmodernism. She's the author of the book, The Diversity Delusion. Heather McDonald, welcome back to the program. How are you? Well, thank you so much for having me on again, Glenn. It's a real pleasure to talk to you. So we were just getting into some good conversation, and we had to cut our conversation short last time.

Let me pick it up because you've written some really fascinating things about Brett Kavanaugh. Bring me up to speed and the audience up to speed on what your thoughts are on this whole mess. Well, so far, Glenn, the conservative response has been a completely legitimate one, which is to say that the timing of the charges brought against Kavanaugh are completely spurious, shows that this is simply intended to scuttle the nomination as opposed to getting to the truth. There have also been legitimate questions about the credibility of his accuser, Professor Ford, pointing out that for somebody who's allegedly traumatized by this allegedly searing event, she can't even remember what year it occurred, where the house was, that this party was

where she was allegedly assaulted by Kavana. Those are very legitimate points to make. But I think it ducks a more fundamental question, which is that even if it were true, what she alleged, should that outweigh Kavanaugh's clear record in public service and the three and a half decades of life in which he has participated in the public sphere? And I argue that it shouldn't. And again, I'm just putting aside for a moment all the questions of credibility. I think what we're seeing here is the fruition of the feminine,

mentality that reverses the order of the realm of public action, public ideas, a civilization that is seen as two male, and putting that below issues of eros and personal involvement. As far as I'm concerned, let's take this out of the current Kavanaugh situation. And imagine a hypothetical from a liberal perspective. One of the most liberal lions of the Supreme Court was William Brennan. He massively expanded the welfare state, the offenses for criminal defendants. If he had, as a 17-year-old, engaged in some boorish, adolescent, aggressive, alcohol-fueled male behavior, would a liberal really say that that one unprecedented and unrepeated incident should undercut a lifetime of contributions to the liberal exposition of the Constitution?

And I would imagine they would say that it shouldn't. So, Heather, isn't it, haven't we already decided this as a society, though? because we've already decided that if you are, if you are tried and convicted of even murder, your records are sealed. Because as long as you don't repeat it, what you do under, you know, 18 doesn't, it should not be held against you for the rest of your life. So I'm not saying that he's innocent or guilty. I have no idea.

I don't know why we're even discussing it with the, with the amount of evidence that we have. But even if he is guilty of this, societal laws come from us. Society has already said, look, if you're underage, we're not going to hold that against you as long as you've reformed.

Well, you know, there's some, if you've committed murder, I think, that you are going to be tried as an adult. But if you're clearly right, Glenn, we do have different standards for juveniles. And we are not, obviously, obeying the law here. You know, the Senate Judiciary Committee is twisting itself into knots to try and accommodate these last-minute accusations that are being brought forward clearly to torpedo. But even if that were not the case,

if juvenile records were not sealed, to me it is simply preposterous to think that a one-time incident as a 17-year-old of aggressive sexual behavior counts more in the life of a public figure, a public intellectual who is involved in the world of ideas, that that counts more than what his contributions have been as a federal judge. And certainly, again, if we want to bring it back into a feminist perspective, which I don't think is particularly relevant. But if we want to say that a public figure's treatment of females should be influential in how we evaluate his public career, he has been a leader in the treatment of females as clerks. He was the first judge to have an all-female class of clerks. He's had a majority of

clerks. His female clerks have been unanimous in testifying to his character. And when you're a clerk for a judge, that's not an easy gig. I mean, it's pressure, you're working together late at night. I mean, if you are a dirtbag, that's the kind of scenario where it comes out, is it not? Absolutely. You're working late nights. This is the very domain where Eros comes into play. There's plenty of room for sexual harassment, if not actual sexual involvement.

And we have heard absolutely nothing. There had been any hint of this it would have come out. But again, Glenn, you seem to be moving towards conceding that in some situations this might be relevant. If it turned out, let's say that James Madison, one of our most important founding fathers, who was one of the prime architects of the theory of the separation of powers, one of the most important contributors to the Federalist papers, understanding how to try to restrain government power, which was the big accomplishment of the slow-patient evolution of constitutional thinking in Europe.

If it turned out that he was a skirt-chaser, that he had patted the butts of his domestics, again, I argue that is not relevant to his contribution. to public life and to say that it is, to say that we should actually reconsider James Madison's contributions. And this is a pure hypothetical. Right. I don't, I don't agree. I do not agree that, that takes away from his accomplishments. However, we're looking at somebody in history, and I don't think we can have revisionist history. I mean, you know, okay, if that's who he was, it's like Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill, was he a good guy or bad guy? Well, if you lived in India, he was a really bad guy.

He lived in Europe. He was a good guy. So which is he? He's both. He's both. We are both flawed and great at times as human beings. So you just have to look at it on the balance. You know, if Kavanaugh, let's say Kavanaugh has did this, I would look at this as something that happened in 1982, and the next thing that I'd have to do is, is there any evidence that he didn't?

learn from this. If he is still doing it, if he was still doing it, it would matter. But there is no evidence, not only at the two times now that they say, because another one came out last night, the two times, there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all, but it also happened 35 years ago with nothing else. The guy has lived in an exemplatory life. Well, yeah, and I guess I'm taking a very absolute out-there position. You're absolutely right.

I mean, this needs to be stated. He has led an exemplary life. He has been a champion for women's rights. There is, apart from this completely groundless charge that came out of the New Yorker, which all of the people that were allegedly at the party deny, where he was engaged in the typical drunken boorish hookup culture of, you know, sexual drunken brawling. Even so, I just think that we are, the feminists are trying to take our civilization down, Glenn. They are denying the realm of ideas in public action, which has been male in the past,

and saying that the realm of eros, which is a different realm which drives men and women insane, is the realm of catholic desire, that that and women's sort of grudge matches about that should have priority, that we're reversing what I think is the order for how civilization goes forward. And if they win on this, if they win on this, the feminist war on. what is perceived as male civilization is going to become all the more extreme. So, Heather, I want you to go, we're going to take a quick break. And then when you come back, I want you to go and talk about something that I read in one of your articles, I think in the City Journal, about how this event, if it did indeed happen,

this event, this kind of thing, is actually, you know, something that was in a way spurred on by the, the women's rights movement by these extreme death of chivalry and, you know, death of all kind of moral standards. I'd like you to go into that because I think that's fascinating. We're talking to Heather McDonald about Brett Kavanaugh. And Heather, you wrote in the city journal, you wrote an article called The Feminist Narcissism. And you right in the middle of it, you said something remarkable that, the most salient fact about this alleged episode is not going to be discussed. And you go in to say, this is kind of what society was pushing, wasn't it?

Well, absolutely. Sexual liberation was based on a complete lie, which is that the male and female libidos are identical, that we could strip away the traditional methods that civilization has developed to tame and civilize the male libido, the ideas of male chivalry, respect for women, gentlemanliness, and on the female side, the norms of female modesty, prudence, and ladylike behavior, we could strip away those norms, we could say that they're oppressive, patriarchal, sexist, and women and men could meet mono-a-mano on the sexual battlefield, and everything would be great. And it turns out that's not the case. What we have on college campuses today is not an epidemic of rape, Pache the feminist. What we have is a drunken hookup culture where males are now.

now allowed to act as borsally as they want. Females try to catch up. They drink themselves blotto precisely in order to reduce their sexual inhibitions. And there's a lot of drunken one-night stands. Males are biologically wired to want as much sex with as many different females as possible. Females have very different responses to sexual intercourse, biologically horrid, hormonally, they develop feelings of intimacy and yearning for connectedness afterwards. And what happens on these college campuses after these drunken hookups, sometimes the females

feel abandoned, or they can keep up having sex with a guy and trying to seduce him for months and then decide, after having fallen into the grips of the Title IX bureaucracy and the campus rape, massive administrative industry on a college campus, they retrospectively reclassify their experience as rape, even though they don't even usually report it, and it was largely voluntary. But what's going on now on college campuses and the New Yorker's story about the party that Yale, Kavanaugh was allegedly at is a perfect demonstration of what's going on. Is sexual liberation having a nervous breakdown? And now you have this bizarre situation on college campuses where virtually the same students who 30, 40 years ago, said to the adults, get out of our bedrooms,

no more oversight from the college administrators, no more in loco-parentis rules. We can handle this ourselves. Now you have students asking the adult administrators to write rules for sex. Are you kidding me? Then these rules, these affirmative consent rules look like something you'd see for buying a used car or a mortgage contract for something that is the very realm of the inarticulate, the ambiguous, the fraught, the catholic. And it is a very, very strange turn of events. And it results from the fact that we have denied the natural differences between the sexes. But the feminists are not willing to say sexual revolution was a mistake.

They want to preserve the prerogative of maximal promiscuity for girls. And so they're responding with this bizarre legalist. response. And the next step clearly is having a college dean present for every drunken, coital coupling that goes on in a student dorm so that afterwards, when this comes before the extraordinarily inadequate but bizarrely complicated sexual assault tribunal situations, that there can be more third-party evidence. But this is, we are reaping what we sowed in the 1960s. I find it amazing that, you know, what you just outlined was the death of the chaperone

because we know human nature is human nature. And so get rid of the chaperone, get rid of everybody. Then things, you know, take the course of human nature. And now we're back to more of a legalistic chaperone. I mean, it's insane. We've made a return journey, except now it's really oppressive and quite frightening for everybody involved. That's absolutely right. And the other thing that we did, Glenn, we used to have the default for premarital sex at no.

And it was not ironclad. Obviously, there were plenty of females who opted out of that default in college or elsewhere. But that no gave them power. It meant that when they were forced with an importuning male with surging hormones, that a no did not have to be negotiated in media race. It was assumed, and the male had to persuade the female to opt out of the no. The sexual liberation reversed that default. Now the default for premarital sex on college and elsewhere is yes. and females have to negotiate a no.

And what they find, you have even the New York Times' newly formed gender editor. The Times is so far into pursuing the left-wing feminist revolution that they now have an entire bureau devoted to covering alleged gender and patriarch issues. She wrote an op-ed describing sex she had as a 19-year-old with an older man that she admits was actually not coercive, but she didn't really want to have sex. Okay, all right. She went along with it.

She went along with it because it was too hard to bargain and know out of the situation. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Hi, it's Glenn. If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do a favor and rate us on iTunes? If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time. You can subscribe on iTunes. Thanks. So tell me about the

Beto debate. It happened on Friday. Yeah. Beto and Ted Cruz were debating. Give me some of the highlights. Some of the highlights to me were Cruz hitting Beto on his stance on police because he's so supportive of the kneeling at the NFL football games and what that supposedly represents.

Yeah. So Cruz was kind of hitting him on those. because that, there's not too many things more anti-Texan than going after police or the military. And Beto seems to do that on a pretty regular basis. So this clip is Cruz talking about how offensive Beto has been with his police comments. Let me say right now, I think it is offensive

to call police officers modern day Jim Crow. That is not Texas. That's your time, Senator. Please, please, audience, please. No applause. What Senator Cruz said is simply untrue. I did not call police officers modern-day Jim Crow. And I, as well as Senator Cruz and everyone here,

mourn the passing of Officer Hall in Fort Worth. My uncle Raymond was a sheriff's deputy in El Paso. In fact, he was the captain of the El Paso County Jail. He's the one who, with the tragic shooting death of Botham Jeanne, you have another unarmed black man killed in this country, by law enforcement. Now no member of law enforcement wants that to happen. No member of this community wants that to happen, but we've got to do something better than what we've been doing so far. If African Americans represent 13% of the population in this country, that they represent

one-third of those who are shot by law enforcement, we have something wrong. If we have the largest prison population on the face of the planet and it is disproportionately comprised of people of color, we have something wrong in this country. Republicans and Democrats should be able to work together with how would you fix it? Notice he doesn't say blacks in prison. He says people of color. Yeah. Because a new study came out and showed this weekend

that our prisons are made up a great deal by illegal immigrants. Yes. Hispanic illegal immigrants. Right. Not Irish. Like Beto. Not Irish.

So, yeah. So you have to say people of color. If you want your, if you want to comment, like that to be anywhere close to accurate. So did he say? He said he, in the context of what he was saying, he kind of said that. But of course he denies that he was talking about the police.

But everybody knows when you look at his statement in context, yeah, he kind of did compare the police to Jim Crow laws and talked about how we're still going through Jim Crow today. It's just as bad today as it was back in the Jim Crow day. That is so offensive. to say to police, but also to the African-American community. That is not true. Not at all. To compare what people are going through today, even in the worst sections,

to compare it to today to the 1940s or 30s, Jim Crow laws. It's not even close to that. It's not even close. Yeah. And that's kind of what Cruz was saying, told Beto in this clip how irresponsible it is, he's saying that about police. I believe everyone's rights should be protected, regardless of your race, regardless of your ethnicity. But I'll tell you something, I've been to too many police funerals.

I was here in Dallas when five police officers were gunned down because of irresponsible and hateful rhetoric. I was at the funeral in Houston at Second Baptist Church where Deputy Gowforth had been shot in the back of the head at a service station because of irresponsible and hateful rhetoric. Just now, Congressman O'Rourke repeated things he knows aren't true. He stated, for example, white police officers are shooting unarmed African-American children. The Washington Post fact-checked that claim and conclude Congressman O'Rourke was wrong, but I'll tell you something, that rhetoric does damage. That rhetoric divides us on race.

It inflames hatred. We should be bringing people together. So here's the problem. You can hear it between the two of them. if you're just looking for a guy you like, that is likable. He just seems likable. When you listen to Ted, he sounds like he's a politician.

That's the problem with Ted Cruz has been the problem with Ted Cruz for a while. I hope to God we are not the society in Texas at least that is doing a personality. Well, I just like him. I don't know. He just sounds like me. I don't care if they're. sound like me. I know. I know. We're looking for somebody who will get things done in Washington that we want them to do. We're looking for people who share our principles and values.

I'm looking for somebody to stand by the Constitution. Yeah, please. It's all I want. That would be nice. And Ted Cruz does that. And we all know it. Even the Houston Chronicle, though, said that Cruz won this debate. Now, they kind of claim that Beto was more likable, just as you just said. But Cruz drew more blood, as they put it. In the United States, this knife fight, Cruz drew more blood. And there's a, we've got one other clip here about Beto talking about the unarmed black men. The tragic shooting death of Botham John, you have another unarmed black man killed in this country by law enforcement. Now, no member of law enforcement wants that to happen. No member of this community wants that to happen, but we've got

to do something better than what we've been doing so far. If African Americans represent 13% of the population in this country that they represent one third of those who are shot by law enforcement, we have something wrong. If we have the largest prison population on the face of the... So here's the amazing thing. That wasn't an act of law enforcement. It wasn't.

That was a woman who happened to work as a police officer coming home, being in the wrong place and shooting somebody. It's a strange story. It is a strange story. It's a bad story. I don't think it looks good for her. She's also been charged with manslaughter. Right. So it's not... She's getting away with it.

She's not getting away with it. Right. And it was not in her daily job. I don't know what happened to her. I don't know what was going on in her mind at that time. She walks into an apartment. She thinks is her. There's some guy.

She says, you know, stop talking, stop moving around. What are you doing? She pulls out her gun and shoots him. That's horrible. Horrible for anybody. but she wasn't acting as a police officer. She was acting as a citizen at that point. And she was wrong.

And she should go to jail. I mean, just based on what I hear, it does sound like manslaughter. So she's being charged with manslaughter. What else should we be doing? That's exactly what should be happening. The Best of the Glenn Beck program. You know, over the weekend,

you tweeted out a legitimate question to Alyssa Milano. You asked her a genuine question. Yeah. And she came back with nothing but snarkiness. They just, it can't. Well, here's what. So she had posted something along the lines that, let me see, here it is.

Let me see if I can go back to her original tweet. Because wasn't she, it was about the Kavanaugh thing, right? Yeah. And she said, you know. She fully believes him. I fully believe him. The accuser. Right.

I fully believe her. I fully believe her. Yeah. And so I tweeted, Why? I asked this with all sincerity and do not wish to fight as I do want the bad guys to go to jail and my daughter's never to face this. But I don't want my son or my daughters to live in a world without reason or evidence. That world is why many innocent blacks have gone to prison.

That's great. Reasonable. It's wrong with that. Yeah. So she writes, So Glenn Beck, you want prison reform and an FBI investigative. of Kavanaugh starting to sound like a progressive welcome to the resistance no no that's not what I said and you didn't answer the question so I wrote back why respond to a

sincere inquiry with a red meat response I do think prison reform is needed and I have for many years please respond sincerely I am for I should say I am neither for or against Kavanaugh I am for truth justice and decency. If the rolls would reverse, would your position reverse as well? The rolls have reversed. We've got a clear indication of that already with Keith Ellison.

They don't believe anything that the accuser says. 5% of Democrats believe the accuser in the case of Keith Ellison. Why? Because he's a Democrat. Brett Kavanaugh is a Republican, so they wholeheartedly believe his accuser. But she has, when it comes to Keith Ellison, she has evidence. Yeah. She has witnesses. She has people that have corroborated what she has said.

Correct. She has her, I think it's her son that has corroborated it. She has text messages. She has emails. She has a video. She has all of it. But they don't believe her at all. They don't believe her.

And these two accusers have nothing. I mean, it's just, it's amazing. It's really hard to stay calm. Mm-hmm. But we have to, we have to be the reasonable ones. where the others who are starting to wake up say, I don't want to be with those people because those people are jerks. Those people don't make any sense.

They're mean. They're angry. I want to be over with these people. And I don't know how many people we can get. But if you don't, if we don't start to develop a group where decent people can gather, be safe from all of this insanity, not slash each other's throat, not be about vindictiveness and venom, but be about reason and truth and science.

If we can be those people, we're the ones remaining standing because the other two sides will kill each other. They'll kill each other. And we will be the place that everyone will run to. The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand.