The Glenn Beck Program - 'Is it "Ripped" or "Torn"?' - 7/5/18

Episode Date: July 5, 2018

Hour 1 Pat Gray and Stu in for Glenn...Recap on the 4th of July festivities...Who's going to be our next Justice of the Supreme Court?...What makes a Republican a Republican these days?...Was the American Revolution a mistake?...Nothing says 'America' more than a hot dog eating contest!...Are we falling apart at the seams?   Hour 2  Celebrities going on a hunger strike?...Break bread not families...Where was the outrage when Obama separated 25,000 children from their families?...Global warming, again? Here are some amazing facts!...Are we to pick the next Justice based on 'looks' and gender?...Cav's fan set himself on fire trying to burn his LeBron James jersey!    Hour 3 Is Facebook changing their ways and by 'ways' we mean their platform?...Al Qaeda backed terrorist group, Al Shabaab is banning the use of plastic bags...Nothing says 'America' like capatilism and ice cream trucks!...Saving the kids trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand...Alex Jones seems to have found his 'word' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Blaze Radio Network On demand. Glenn Beck. It's Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program. AAA 727BECA. Hope you had a great Independence Day. How was yours, Stu? Good? Wonderful. Thank you for asking, yes.

How was the fireworks display in your little town there? Did it turn out well? Yeah, it was good. You guys went, right? Wasn't that your plan on Wednesday? We did go to... Tuesday. Tuesday. You said you were going to watch it that night because it was an early one, right?

Yeah, and it was great. Very windy. And so they did about half of it. And really, things started catching on fire and they stopped. That was a deterrent? Yeah, I know. Really? Fire works.

It makes fire work. That's the way I always understood it. But no. So, hopefully you had a great Fourth of July. We've got a lot of what this country was founded to do happening right now, including the nomination of a Supreme Court justice right now. And based on what everybody keeps saying, it seems to be Judge Kavanaugh, that's the lead contender. Almost everybody thinks he's going to be the selection.

Yeah, I'm a little nervous. And that seems to be the one that we should be most concerned about. You know, it's arguable. I mean, there are people, really smart people who are conservatives that I believe he's going to be great. You know, he went through the same Federalist Society, you know, check. that all the other justices went through past those with flying colors which again is a great indication

he worked for the Bush administration he worked for Ken Starr's team back in the day so he has a long history of being on the Republican side he is kind of talked about as a establishment Republican sort of figure which seems problematic

seems problematic he has argued however in favor of expanded executive authority, which, you know, seems to be something that any president would like. Like if you're, you know, unless you're, you know, massively motivated by the Constitution, you're, you know, you're going to like having a little bit, a little bit more power. Plus, he's written, as everybody on the news will tell you today, he's written extensively about the problems that investigations can have for the country. So investigations of the president, which obviously Trump is not a fan of, as no president would be.

But, I mean, with him talking out so outwardly about that, people are speculating that that may influence his decision. He, you know, I'm nervous about it. He's, he wrote a Obamacare-related opinion that was not what I would want. I mean, he basically approved the individual mandate. So it's more Roberts-like? Very Roberts-like. I mean, they're very similar. People have talked about it as sort of laying out a pathway of where Roberts went up deciding that case.

So that's there. He's had a couple of those like that. A couple of decisions make you think, wait, what was he going for there? But again, he's gone through all these checks. He does not appear to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but will he be Kennedy? Will he be Roberts? That's not what I want. Yeah. I mean, there's a, there's a lot of space between what we're looking for and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

You've noticed some space there? Yeah. There's some space there in between. And I, it would just, everybody seems to, at least on the conservative side, favor Amy Barrett. And for some reason we have to say her, uh, Coney name to Amy Coney Barrett, which sounds very bizarre. I keep thinking Amy Coney Island every time I hear it. but her last name is not Island. It's not. No. And she's only been a judge for a year. That seems to be one of the slams against her. And a tougher confirmation battle. Right. Is what they're thinking.

And maybe Trump just doesn't want to go through it. I don't know. Maybe. I think he likes this. I think he likes this element of the presidency. I would like it. I mean, it's all you. You get to do it.

It's your own decision. Nobody can make you, you know, can stop you. You can name your. I mean, obviously the Senate is the only thing you have to fight through. You know, but you get to pick whoever it is that goes in front of the Senate. You could pick, you know, a homeless person who's, you know, screaming a language they invented last night. And you could put them up there. And it's all you.

And I kind of, you know, that's kind of a cool part of the presidency. It's not quite as cool as the pardon. Pardon's still number one, I think. Pardon is still the coolest part of the presidency. You can pardon anybody you want. That's pretty cool. It's pretty cool. I would say, too, you can also bomb anybody you want, but that's actually not the way it's supposed to work.

So that's not actually It's kind of the way it works These days, the last few presidents But true, the pardon is 100% like he gets to do whatever you want Which is really cool But so far Trump has obviously

Actually spoken to some of them Brett Kavanaugh, of course Raymond Kethledge I like I think Kethledge might be a Would be a great pick If they went that direction He's from University of Michigan

in law school, I think. So outside of the Ivy League, which I think would be nice. And he is, you know, they attempt to do these little breakdowns ideologically. And Kethledge is equal with Gorsuch in between Alito and Thomas. So he's about as conservative. The only person listed on here that is more conservative

on the ideological scale, and these things are imperfect honestly. But still is Mike Lee and Clarence Thomas. So one justice, one potential justice and then everyone else there. That's a good list to be involved in. Mortha Parr is also pretty well

ranked on this if you're looking for a conservative justice. He's just to the left of Catholic. And the president has spoken to him. He's another one in the list. Interviewed him. Thomas Hardiman interviewed him. Where does he stand on the? Hardiman is the most to the left of all of them listed. Yes. So Hardiman

the one that was added as a, reportedly, as a favor to Rick Santorum during the campaign when Trump wanted Santorum's endorsement. And Santorum, concerned with the court, said, look, you know, I want to see your list. I want you to release the list and I want Hardiman to be on it. And then if you do that, and I like the list, I'll endorse you. And that's supposedly, reportedly, what happened with how Hardiman got on there. However, he's also friends with Trump's sister, serves with Trump's sister on the court, and interviewed very well, apparently, like even better than Gorsuch. And the fact that they almost picked Hardiman over Gorsuch because he was so well prepared

and did such a good job in the presentation. Yeah, he's the one they say was runner up last time. Yes. Now, has Trump also spoken to Mike Lee? I think they've interviewed him, haven't they? Yes, I believe. So at least they did that courtesy. They threw a bone to conservatives and at least talked to him.

Yeah, the president spoke by phone with Mike Lee. Mike Lee on Monday. He's the only lawmaker on Trump's list. Also, Brett Kavanaugh, we discussed, Raymond Catholic, Amortha Parr, Amy Coney-Barrett, and Thomas Hardiman. That's the sixth that, again, like Lee, I don't know if Lee's really being considered or not. I mean, it may very well be. Probably not. That he's not.

However, I'm glad they made the phone call. You know, hopefully, hopefully he is the guy. Because if Mike Lee gets in there, you know, you're getting someone really strong. wrong. And you know someone who has a real record. You know, it's interesting. One of the stories I think was from the New York Times talking about these justices and what people think about them and kind of laid it out the way we

just did, which was, you know, you have a Kavanaugh who is, Kavanaugh and Barrett being the top two. Kavanaugh being the one from Bush administration, executive power, a couple questionable decisions on Obamacare and a couple of other things. But, you know, he's very well respected

in the legal community. Amy Coney-Barratt, not as well known, only been a judge for a year, was a law professor. There's obviously the thing we talked about on Tuesday with her faith. And that became an issue with Diane Feinstein, who said, you know, the dogma lives loudly within you or whatever. And the point, people are talking about this as she probably isn't this high level of a pick if it's not for that moment.

It's making Supreme Court or conservatives and faith-based people. people saying like I love the fact that we have somebody who stood up and said yeah what are you talking about you know like there's an exchange there and she's become a little bit of a billboard right for the for the movement um the one thing that they pointed out and most of it was written as you expect the new york times to write a story like this essentially saying eh you know she's kind of one of these religious wackos is kind of how it feels but at one point when they're not discussing that they said the only thing she's really written extensively on is making sure that we continue to accept precedence.

And that makes me super nervous. Yeah, that's not a good thing. Now, maybe the Times is designing the story to make me nervous. It's not impossible. They include that to dissuade religious conservatives from, you know, for seeing something in there that maybe isn't there. Yeah. I don't have any, there's no reason to believe per se that she would be someone who would

think Roe versus Wade is a good idea. But, you know, again, it's not about legal precedent. It's about the Constitution. There's a precedent you need to look at. And it was, you know, 1791 is about the time you need to kind of look back to. And then you see how it's developed over time with amendments, not how it's developed over time with case law. Yeah. You want someone who's an originalist, a textualist.

And that is the, that's the concern here is if you don't find that right person and it's not easy. And people make it seem like, oh, well, look, you know, don't screw it up. I feel that way as well. It's difficult, though. These guys get in the court and they get that same sort of. un-checked power. You know, no one says they did something, you know, we can all talk about them doing something wrong,

but we can't do anything about it. With the exception of, of course, impeaching, which is pretty darn rare in our history. It's happened once. It's happened once in our entire history. It wasn't so... Thomas Jefferson, so it's been a few years. We should point out it wasn't supposed to only happen once

in the country's history. It was meant to be utilized. As many times as necessary is how many times you should utilize it. But nobody even considers it anymore. Yeah. I'll bet it hasn't even been talked about in the last hundred 50 years. In any serious way.

There was one candidate. Was it Cruz? It might have been Cruz that was talking about this as we need to bring this. This is part of our system and it needs to be thought about more seriously. Because if you get a justice that goes in there and it's terrible, I mean, we have we justices who are falling asleep. Yeah. You know, legitimately.

Fallen asleep and just discount the U.S. Constitution. It's too old. The clip that we played earlier this week from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is also a justice that falls asleep a lot. Yeah. Is, to me, legitimately impeachment material for a justice. She's saying that we should look at other countries' constitutions.

You know, we shouldn't look at ours. You know, she tried to explain this away later on, but with very little success, the bottom line is she's there and no one does anything about it. Right. But that's not the way the system was supposed to work. Again, it's not about making liberal decisions.

It's about someone outwardly advocating against our constitution. one of the people who's supposed to protect it. Yeah. Her really, her only job. That's all she's supposed to do. Yeah. You should pay no attention to anybody else's constitution and your decisions. Also yesterday at a parade, at a Fourth of July parade,

Senator Susan Collins said, I think I've made it pretty clear if a nominee has demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade and has said they're not going to abide by that longstanding precedent that I could not support that nominee. So, again, she's reinforced the fact that if you're pro-life, she's not going to vote for you. Well, they're all, again, they're supposed to all be in that bandwagon, right? Everybody who clears the Federalist Society, I mean, again,

they're looking for the Constitution. It's not a Roe versus Wade test, but everybody, everybody that would pass the test the way the Federalist Society believes it should be passed should be casting the vote the correct way on Roe versus Wade. I think if you want to read that the best way possible, the best way possible is Susan Collins is, you know, pro-choice sort of light. She's never been a huge activist for pro-choice things per se, but she's voted that way and she's pro-choice.

Maybe she's saying, look, don't put up somebody who makes this hard for me. You know what I mean? For example, Mike Lee would make it hard for her. way to make it hard for her because Mike Lee has spoken eloquently about how horrible decision Rovers's way it is. So is she just coming out and saying, look, don't put Mike Lee up there. Don't put, you know, Bill Pryor up there. Put up somebody who has not outwardly taken large stances on this and make it so I can vote for

them. That's the best reading of what she says. Yes. I don't know that I subscribe to that theory. I'm trying to be an optimist. I think she's essentially a no vote. She's a no. She's just a no.

on anybody that we would like. Well, we know the list, though. I mean, if he's picking off that list, she has said there's people on the list. Well, it's going to be Kavanaugh for her, I think. She'd probably vote for Kavanaugh because he seems to be the okay mainstream choice, the establishment Republican, and that's what she is. Although, I don't know what makes anybody a Republican anymore because they don't have any principles or values. They just have an R after their name.

So this whole process is pretty difficult now. So you do know what makes in the Republican. You just said it. The R after that. You just did the whole mystery. You solved it. Thank you for noticing that. It's amazing.

Done. All right. Triple 8-27-B-E-C-K. Pat and Stu for Glenn. On the Glenn Beck program, AAA 727 Beck. Found this article written by Vox a couple of years ago. Was this 2015 on the 4th of July?

The headline is, three reasons the American revolution was a mistake. This July 4th, let's not mince words. American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.

Now, at this point, it crosses your mind of they're trying to make maybe some interesting observations about this era. Maybe you could have gone about it a different way or made a few mistakes here and there. And you're thinking, thinking maybe they're just trying to illustrate this in the most explosive way possible to get clicks, right?

Yeah. Then you realize. You pretty quickly realize. No, they just hate America. Yeah, it's just not a fan. Not fans of the revolution, of our founders, of any of it. Legitimately don't like the country. It's, who was it yesterday that had to delete their tweet?

Oh, it was Britt Hume. He tweeted out that Democrats hate America, or at least that they don't. love it. America, Democratic, Democratic Americans don't love America. And, you know, then you read articles like this and you got to think, well, there's something to that. Some of them really don't. Some of them really, and we just had that poll the other day of how many Americans are extremely proud to be American. It was 32% of Democrats. 32%. Wow. That's high. You might think, okay, that's, yeah. It's a lot higher than I'm a guest. 74% of Republicans.

So you think, well, Trump, you know, they're not proud because of Trump, but it was only 46% when Obama was in office. And that does not surprise me. Again, the entire philosophy was basically written around how America went the wrong direction at some point in our history. Right. And we've never been able to be progressive enough to get it back on track. I mean, look at Barack Obama with a fundamental transformation. of America. How many times do we make the point that you don't fundamentally transform something you love? Yeah. I would tell your wife, I really love you, honey, but I just really want

to fundamentally transform you. I just want you to be completely different in every way. Right. That's it. That's it. Whatever is at the base of your soul is wrong, and I just want to change that. So yeah, you don't, I mean, obviously, you don't love it if you want to fundamentally transform it. But doesn't that make sense? Right. Like, I, you could say, if you, let's say you have a that has a massive drug problem. You might love them, but you want to fundamentally transform them, right? But that's how serious they look at this.

But see, that's not even fundamental transformation. That's just altering one flaw, one character flaw. At the foundation, at the fundamental level, that really says something. Yeah, it's even more serious, I guess. It's real serious. Anyway, in the Vox article, he continues, of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals.

As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can't be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer. But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be a better one than the one we live in now for three main reasons. Slavery would have been abolished earlier. I don't see how you draw that conclusion at all. Look at the first draft of the Declaration of Independence that we had at the Mercury Museum a couple weeks ago where Thomas Jefferson lays into the king for allowing slavery to continue and for stopping for stopping the legislative efforts in the United States to stop it,

which was not the United States at that point. Right. But they were trying to stop it legislatively and the king kept blocking the efforts. We'll deal with this a little bit more coming up here on the Glenback. program. I love how it's Pat and Stu for Glenn this week, by the way. I love how one of the major events that everybody looks forward to on the 4th of July now is the hot dog eating contest where people just jam hot dogs into their mouths for 10 minutes. It's like a great way to celebrate our independence, I think. Don't you? I just see how many, if you can jam 74 hot dogs into your gullet in the first 10 minutes of the competition. That says America right there. It's like one of those, you know, it's like American flag with fireworks,

Times, an eagle, plus the White House. Like, it's just like every American thing jammed into one. Yeah. It is physically revolting to watch. I don't know how anyone watching it. I don't know why people show up and watch that thing because it is. It's nasty. I can't even watch it on television when the highlights come on.

And it's not even just that eat. Like watching someone eat is something you don't want to do. anyway. That's not something I want to do. In addition to that, they're eating these hot dogs really fast and they're drilling them all of those. But then that really is what... Bread in water. Wet bread

is one of the worst things that has ever happened to humanity. And you might say that's overstating it. No, it's not. They should ban dipping it in water. Just see how many regular hot dogs. Eat them like a person. Eat them like a person eats hot dogs. And obviously you're not going to get 74 down. But, you know, there'd still be a

substantial number if you have to have the competition. Joey Chestnut is the guy who's won this 11 straight years now. It used to be a Japanese guy. Yeah. Who won it. But now Joey Chestnut is apparently the state of the art in the eating world, in the competition eating world. And he did break his record yesterday.

The record before yesterday was 73 sent last year, spent set last year. and then he set a new one of 74 this year. They have a little bit of a history with eating multiple hot dogs in one city. I do, actually, yeah. But you did it not for a competition. No, I did it because I'm a glutton. And I really enjoyed the hot dogs. Glenn and I were at an event.

It was the Harvard Yale football game in New Haven, Connecticut one year. and we had this big listener get together and it was just awful weather. I mean, it was sleeting, it was cold, it was kind of, you know, it was a rain, snow mix, and it was just blowing sideways, and it was horrible.

So we had this tent setup. Nobody came to the game. Nobody showed up for the event. And we had like 5,000 hot dogs ready for people because we thought it was going to, you know, be a nice day and everybody was going to have a good time and come enjoy it. Oh, local radio.

Yeah, that's fun. So all I had to do was stand there. We did cut-ins during the course of the day because it was a Saturday, so it wasn't really doing our show. We were just doing the cut-ins. Can I guess us what they sound? I'm like, oh, it's amazing down here. You've got to come down and check this out.

People everywhere. We've got 5,000 hot dogs. Free hot dogs for you when you come down and say hi to us. Please, please come. Somebody please come, show up at this thing. And nobody did. So all there was to do, really, was eat hot dogs. and they were darn good hot dogs

and I ate 12 of them not in 10 minutes but over the course of the two hour event I put down 12 hot dogs and you were not trying to set a record it's what you wanted to do

and you did not restrain yourself not at all left to your own devices you will eat 12 hot dogs in my younger days yes I don't think I could do that today in fact I try to avoid hot dogs completely now but that was a very proud moment for me

and I think my family's really proud of that too and so you're basically thanking me for bringing it up yes thank you thank you you're welcome so we were talking about this Vox article because I guess they did this three years ago but it's it's amazing to me that on the 4th of July that's this is what you this is what you publish three reasons the American Revolution was a mistake

okay and those reasons are slavery would have been abolished earlier which I don't know where where do you get that how why would you even assume that the slave trade in England went on for 300 years it went on for 89 here

I mean people forget there was a time before the colonists revolted and it was all filled with slavery during that whole time too and they're the ones who instituted it here. Right. And they've tried to force it when

the Americans tried to, the founders tried to overcome it legislatively. It was blocked by the king. And you've said many times, and I can't remember the exact date, but talking about when the actual slave trade ended. 1807. 1807. So it was not long. I mean, again, we actually, we actually enacted it, but it didn't take, it didn't take effect until the following year. But we enacted before England did.

So we abolished our slave trade in 1807 shortly before, like a few months before England stopped their slave trade too. And then they abolished slavery in 1834 and it took us till 1865 and 600,000 deaths in order to stop it. But it was a tough because it was so ingrained in the colonies

it was a tough thing to extract ourselves from. and yeah, that took some time. And you see that again, I can come back to the same document, but it's a struggle where Thomas Jefferson's out there saying, like, this is the worst thing the king has ever done. He goes on for paragraph after paragraph after paragraph

or for paragraph bashing the king for slavery. And then in the end, the final document, that gets removed because of, you know, states, I think it was Georgia and South Carolina specifically. Yeah.

That decided they didn't, you know, they didn't want it in there. And we know how bad that was. But, I mean, there was a huge passion to, remove slavery. It's one of it really is one of our founding concepts. It was one of the things

actually motivated the founders to do this. And you'll get the pushback from, well, if Thomas Jefferson was such an abolitionist, why did he own slaves? Well, he couldn't stop owning slaves because it was illegal. He couldn't set him free. And I think, I really believe he would have, if he could have. But you could not free your slaves because first of all, in that day and age, they thought, well, what are they going to do? Where are they going to go? You didn't allow them education. You didn't really have anything set up for them. And so in Virginia, it was illegal. Even upon your death, you couldn't free your slaves, especially if you were in debt, which he was when he died in 1826. So there's a lot of explanations for the Thomas Jefferson thing,

but he was definitely against slavery and wrote really passionately about it. Really glad you guys found that section, because it's pretty amazing and very telling. So, first of all, they believe in Vox that slavery would have been abolished earlier. American Indians would have faced rampant persecution, but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated. And America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse. Oh, you got to read

There's the When you go into the parliamentary democracy Thing, which is something that, you know, a lot of people on the left say they want And as opposed to our presidential based system. Yeah. This is great. In the U.S. activists wanting to put a price on carbon emissions spent years trying to put together a coalition to make it happen,

mobilizing sympathetic businesses and philanthropists and attempting to make a bipartisan coalition. And they still failed to pass cap and trade. After millions of man hours. In the UK, the conservative government decided they wanted a carbon tax, so there was a carbon tax. Wow, that sounds like a lot better. Right.

So the government can just throw a lot of really big taxes on everyone whenever they want. Just because they want to. Wow. There's not even a system to be able to stop it. Right. I love that. It's absolutely an argument for the system we have.

Of course. Listen, passing big necessary legislation, in this case, legislation that's literally necessary to save the planet. Cap and trade is not going to save even under the most feverish of Al Gore dreams. Cap and trade does not save the planet. No. It's not what it does at all. I mean, it's just it, it establish, the only, it's, it's just, it's just, it's just, it's, it's, it's a carbon tax with a fake market mechanism in there to put a price on it. That's it. It's not a,

it would not at all. You know, it's just like, you know, the Oklahoma City Thunder are going to go into the luxury tax this year for in the NBA and spend up to, it looks like $300 million on their salaries this year. Because every dollar you go over a certain amount, it's like $450 in taxes. Right? So at some, you know, it's going to stop. a lot of people from going for going that way, but you can still, it's not going to save the world. It's ridiculous. You know, attacks like that can dissuade certain activities, but it's not going to save the world. In fact, if you turned off the United States completely and we didn't do any, there's no more

increases at all. No carbon in all. Forget even increasing it. Turning all the cars off, all the power plants off, people stop exhaling. So all of the things that create carbon dioxide goes down to zero. It goes down to zero. You would only cut, you know, emissions globally by about 20%. And then even then, you'd have other countries like China and India would replace that within a decade.

That's if you turn everything off. If you turn off just the transportation sector, you'd save about 4% of global emissions, most likely made up by increases in other nations in about two years. So think about that when you have a, someone telling you that you should take, you know, make sure to bike to work once a week. When they give you these little helpful tips that can help the planet, they don't do anything.

That's just something. It's like a psychiatrist tool to like create a habit so you support their larger policies. Like if you're at home and you're unplugging all of your appliances before you use them every day, you are much more likely because you've taken that physical step to walk in line with their actual policy goals. And you're much more likely to give in to their demands of power that they don't have constitutional right to. If you're at home, you know, sifting through garbage every day,

you have a physical statement of loyalty to them. That's what that's about. It's got literally nothing to do with saving the planet. it's about getting you in line. And once you take those steps, well, I've already gone to the point where I'm literally sifting through my own waist to try to please this planet, to please Mother Nature.

Well, of course I'm on board for cap and trade. Of course I want the president to be able to just institute a carbon tax whenever they want. Of course that's what I want. It's exactly why we have the process. We do because it's supposed to be hard to get things like that through and to make them law. It's supposed to be difficult. There's got to be that process so that you don't have carbon taxes just show up.

And ruin the economy almost overnight. I mean, can you imagine had we done all the carbon taxing that Al Gore and the rest wanted to do? What situation our energy sector would be in right now? Oh, my gosh. It'd be horrific. Our energy prices would necessarily skyrocket. Seems like I heard that from somebody. Oh, that's right.

I did. Barack Obama. who admitted that the things he wanted to do, like bankrupting coal, would make the energy prices skyrocket. Yeah. And by the way, isn't this a good way to pass a law? Like, they had to get a bunch of people together, right? They wanted to mobilize sympathetic businesses, put a coalition together,

get philanthropists on board, attempt to make a bipartisan coalition, and they still fail to pass cap and trade after millions of dollars in man hours. Well, that's just you failing. Right? Like that's not, this isn't some magical thing lined up in the government. You didn't get enough of those people together. If you got, I don't know, let's say 50, 55% of people to believe it was a really important cause, you would have been able to elect whoever you wanted and you would have been able to get it through. The problem is people don't like your bill.

This is, you know, going back, because as we've mentioned, this makes the rounds, I guess, every, every year around July 4th because it's such a ridiculous article. Again, the three reasons the American Revolution was a mistake. but if you look at that part of it, it's so it reminds you of the Obama era. It reminds you of that time where bipartisanship was just come to our side,

believe what I believe, or you're in the way. And certainly Trump gets criticized for that now, but man, the people criticizing him forget completely about those eight years. Oh, yeah, they loved it then. They loved it then. And remember when Barack Obama would always be like,

look, I'm willing to talk to any Republican who will come over but I'm not going to talk to someone who's just going to get in the way. They want the opposite thing. Of course they're going to get in the way. They want the opposite thing to happen. The Yankees get in the way of the Red Sox trying to win. That's their job. And when you're making the case for getting legislation done faster and cleaner than we currently do it,

wouldn't a king be even better? Because the monarch just decides, and that makes it so. I just decree and declare that there will be carbon taxes, and you're done. Yeah, they actually make the opposite argument. They say our system is more likely to lead to a dictatorship. Pathetic. I mean, that's ludicrous. Triple-8-7-27-B-E-C-K.

Pat and Stu for Glenn. Triple-8-7-27 back. We were... Stu, you mentioned earlier that there was some kind of problem, potential problem, And with Amy Coney Barrett's thoughts on precedent, that she's a big precedent person? Yeah, I mean, you know, the New York Times article writes this line. She also said several times that as an appeals court judge, she would follow Supreme Court precedent on abortion. Now, I think that that means that as a lower court, you have to honor what the Supreme Court says.

That doesn't necessarily mean how she's going to decide on the Supreme Court. I can't imagine. I mean, she's so highly praised by so many smart conservatives. I'm sure that she, you know, you get nervous. I get nervous. Yeah. This is a big one, guys. It's a big one.

Pat and Stu for Glenn, Triple 8, 727 Beck. I hope you had a great 4th of July Independence Day. Happy birthday to America, 242 years old yesterday. Yeah.

You got an issue here? I just don't like the way that you're, you're all positive and celebratory. Really? Was there something wrong? What we're going through? What are we going through? Well, first of all, what's going on at the border?

Okay. Where people, I don't know if you know this. They're ripped and torn. Sometimes they're torn, sometimes they're ripped. Sometimes they're ripped. And once in a while, but it's only those those particular situations that occur at the border. They're not carefully taken and placed nicely somewhere

as this thing is being adjudicated. That's not the case at all. Please don't mock what's happening here, especially with the sacrifices people are making. Oh, okay. Who's making? sacrifices now. Well, celebrities.

Really? Big time sacrifices. In fact, they're going on a hunger strike. No way. Yeah. Like, who? Who's going on a celebrity hunger strike? A celebrity hunger strike.

Don't act like you don't know about this. I don't know about this. This is a huge, huge deal. Who are these celebrities that are hunger striking? Alec Baldwin. Oh, wow. And Martin Sheen. So right now, we, so our top two celebrities, first of all.

Let's point that out. Right. Number one and number two. No question. I don't know what order you put them in, but we know they're number one and number two. So Alec could last, what, six, eight months on a hunger strike? Are you making a commentary on his appearance by any chance? No.

No. I'm just, that was just a guess that his constitution is such that he could last a while. Because he cares so much about the border. Right. Got it. Okay. Right. The hunger strike is incredibly dramatic.

This has been organized by the Kennedy family and the RFK Human Rights Center. And are they striking about the border? They are striking about the border. And people being rip torn? Rip torn from people, from their parents. Now, I don't want to... It's already stopped, hasn't it? I mean, we went back to catch and release.

I don't think we're rip tearing people away now. But now the case is, and I heard this on CNN this morning, They had a doctor on who saw one of the facilities, I want to say, and was saying how someone had, one of the kids hadn't been hugged in several weeks. Hadn't been hugged. The kid had gone with zero hugs for a hug shutout, as it were. Wow. Is he okay? Is he in critical condition?

I mean, obviously, I don't think you can survive without hugs. What's it, what's the maximum? Can you look this up? They'll call him WebMD. What's the maximum amount of time you can go out without a hug? It can't be more than three or four days. It can't be. I'm pretty sure.

Did they really say that? They did. I mean, he hadn't been hugged? He hadn't been hugged. I mean, look, as a little kid, you know, that's an important part of, you know, you're separated from your parent, supposedly. The judge, I think this is the same doctor that wrote about this earlier.

And it's, it's interesting because there's just an obvious, hatred for the Trump administration in her commentary. She's like, I talked to someone who claimed they were a clinician. I don't know. I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I mean, yes, I guess, I mean, I have no way of knowing that you're a doctor, right?

I mean, we all have no way of where there's some level of, you know, I guess we're trusting a little bit here. You're on TV saying you're a doctor. I wasn't at your graduation. I don't know if you're actually a doctor or not. but I'm assuming you are, right? Yep. A government representative comes to you and says they're a clinician,

and your reaction to that is, I'm suspicious of the background. It's like, all right. I mean, you're coming at this with an agenda. But that's, I can't talk about that doctor. I can only talk about celebrities. And we know celebrities mean what they say. If there's one thing we know.

Especially Alec Baldwin and Martin Shee. Oh my gosh. Our number one and number two celebrity. Above reproach. Above reproach. So this is why I bring this to you with a bit of hesitance, Pat, because I don't want to depress you. I don't want you to become so overturned emotionally that you can't function for the rest of the show or for the rest of your life.

Well, we are in danger of that right now. We are. My level of concern is high. It looks high. It's intense. Your concern looks elevated. Yes. So I want you to make sure as you hear this news and what they're going through.

So how long are they going to strike until that kid gets hugged? No. How long will this hunger strike last? Well, it's, I know. They could not, this kid will never get hugged. Let's be honest about it. Well, never again. That's never going to happen.

So they can do that because they would die. Well, Trump has probably ordered that. He did. Yes. He probably ordered that that kid not be touched or hugged. There's an executive order, the no hugging executive order. which is very real in some ways. And inhuman.

In that I said it. Okay. That's the way it's real. Okay. So this is the hunger strike for Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen is going to last for 24 hours. Whoa. 24 hours?

Now, I don't know if they have to be consecutive. Are you sure it wasn't? It could just be like one a day for 24 days. Are you sure it wasn't 24 minutes? Because I could see that. But 24 hours? Yeah. Seemingly in a row.

Wow. Are they going to be monitored? I hope their vital signs are going to be continually monitored because can you survive for an entire day? One full day? I don't think. Well, I do once a month. So maybe it's possible, but I don't know. these are celebrities.

They have different needs than I do. And to see them not have food for 24 full hours, scary. It's very scary. But once you know the real motivation behind it, you feel better about it. According to Carrie Kennedy, who is organizing the protest,

the hunger strike is designed to raise money for an organization called Break Bread, not families. Wow. That's powerful. That's powerful. I support that. No, you're saying that.

It doesn't seem like you think it's that powerful. No, just let that soak in for a second. Break bread, not families. Because this is the new thing. Now that the policy has been changed and we're back to catch and release, they can't really complain about the policy anymore. Now they're just complaining about the people who were caught up at the policy previously. So, like, you know, they haven't reunited all the families yet.

Right. And now there's reports of them trying to do DNA testing to make sure that you're not just handing it off to some human trafficker. But that's, of course, also being vilified as this, they're taking their DNA. The essence of their humanity, they're taking it, the Trump administration is. That was, this whole break bread, not families,

situation is going to agitate against Trump's family separation policy, but has since they've objected, there's a word there I'm trying to find that I'm not finding. Is it objected? No, since they've... Since they've acquired a new policy. Abdicated? Since they've come up with a new policy.

Yes. And that's what it doesn't really stand anymore, but the hunger strike did go on. Now, no one checked to see if Alec Baldwin actually ate a cheese steak in the middle of the hunger strike. Like, there's not like... You know, we do it. There's no hall monitors.

here. Like you know Alec Baldwin is jamming down croissants the entire day. But it's supposed to happen it happened I guess just a few days ago. Can we check to see Are they okay?

See if Albaughan is alive. Has he been hospitalized? Did they monitor his vital signs during that full 24 hour period of time? It's frightening. It's frightening what these, but it shows you the level of their

commitment to actually go without food for 24 hours is above and beyond what any other human could do. That's why they're celebrities, though, because they do extraordinary things. That's why you prepare your entire life for a hunger strike by storing fat cells. Because if you can do that in a large enough number, then you can barely squeak it through and survive a 24 hour fast. That's why I've been doing it. Just in case at some point in the future, I want to break bread and not families.

I can't imagine you because you're a hateful conservative, so that's probably not likely to ever happen. That's true. But if you're breaking bread and not families, it doesn't that indicate eating? Like, why is it a hunger strike if you're breaking bread? Well, right. Are you saying you want to break the families? Is that?

Because if you're, if your concept is, hey, we're going to all have dinner together, let's not break families apart. If you're fasting, does that mean you do want to break families apart? I would say yes. I think the answer to that is yes. The answer is yes. And there's nothing we can do other than assume that's what they mean. Well, there's nothing we can do other than assume the worst possible thing for their point. So amazing that nobody cared under Barack Obama. The 25,000 children were separated from their siblings. They were put into cages. They were covered. an aluminum foil or whatever.

You know, we, we poked them with pickle forks. Yeah, that's a big pickle fork initiative. Nobody cared. Nobody cared. Not one person raised their voice or raised it as an issue. Well, you happened to go to the border during this period with Glenn Beck and Ted Cruz. True.

That did happen. Actually delivered them supplies and Christmas gifts. But I don't remember seeing anybody else there from, let's say, Hollywood or one. Washington, D.C. You did not see Alec Baldwin while you were there. I did not see Alec while I was there. I didn't see Martin Sheen while I was there. Nor Nancy Pelosi.

Sean Penn. Chuck Schumer or Sean Penn. Danny Glover. No. Danny Glover there. No. I'm sure they were busy with Hugo at the time. Probably true.

Celebrating the wonder that was Venezuela. And this is what's so interesting about it because when the number was 25,000 kids in detention with the Obama administration, nobody cared. when the number was 10,000 during the Trump administration, nobody cared. It's only there's some magical line between 10 and 12,000 that set off like a bright red line that set off a media firestorm between the 10 and 12,000. And you know, it seems that started when the Trump administration did something Obama never did. And that's to check on the kids who were separated to find out how they're doing where they are. can we reunite them with their families?

Right. Which led to a bunch of op-eds and reports about how we've lost X amount of children, which wasn't true at all. It was just that they hadn't been able to contact them. But all the children, under this definition, all children were lost previously. So when that was, you're right. It's like, it's a ridiculous way of looking at it. But when that part was explained and then everybody understood, okay, well, this is only, I mean, they haven't really lost these kids, but oh my gosh, they did separate them from their family.

for the time. And that's how it started. And that's how it all started. It's interesting too. This 2000, this group of 2000, which is the whole focus of this entire controversy, is actually broke up into three different categories. Not just one. Everyone's saying, okay, well, they separated one of their families. Well, there's three categories there. You have criminals,

people who were criminals for other reasons other than the border. Okay? So they separate them every time. And that's never been a controversy. We've always done that. Secondly, there are a group in this 2000. that have crossed the border illegally multiple times.

When you do it more than once, it's a felony. So then you are a criminal and you are separated. That's what happens all the time. It's that third group that we're talking about. And even that group is broken into two categories. I was watching, I think it was CNN a couple of weeks ago, and I was fascinated by this, by this breakdown. They talked about how there are some of these kids

came in with their parent, and the parent was given an option. one, you can take your child home with you to your home country. Two, you can leave your child here and let them go through the immigration process and then be joined with someone else on the other side. And some, we don't know what the number is, some percentage of this 2000 decided to go home on their own and be, you know, not quite deported. It isn't the right word, but you get to leave, they're leaving the country going back to their home country. and left their children by themselves on purpose to go through the immigration process because they believe whatever's on the other side is better for them.

My gosh. But if you think about that, that's part of the parental separation. And we don't know what the numbers are. We don't know how many that. We don't know how it's broken down. So there's three groups of immigrants there. You know, the main group everyone's talking about plus multiple border crossers, which is a felony, and separate criminals.

Like if you happen to be a drug, trafficker and you cross. So those, really, two of the three groups are not even part of this conversation. Absolutely. You would almost always, you would always have the option of just taking your child and going home rather than being separated, right? In most cases, certainly not in the ones when there's criminal behavior. But if it's a normal first time we've caught you and you're with your child and you say,

okay, I'll just go back home. They're going to give you your child and let you go back home. I think not necessarily because of the idea that they're going to try to prosecute all these. The zero tolerance concept was to say, hey, if you crossed it, that's it. You know, we're not going to let you go back home so you can cross again in two months, which I think is an understandable situation. And by the way, that happens so often. Another part of this was they had a lot of reports.

They found a internal DHS report that said that there was a no decrease in border crossings after they implemented this. and they're like, it's not even a deterrent. It's not even working. And first of all, yes, that's the question. Either it's the worst thing that any government has ever done to a human being, or it's a deterrent. Like, if it's that, it has to be a deterrent. Like, you can't say, hey, the Nazis are gassing Jews.

And also, it's not a deterrent for Jews to enter the country. If you're going to make it into concentration camps, you have to also say it's a deterrent, right? That doesn't mean it's a good policy. It could be a terrible policy, as we've seen in the examples they are using. but if you say it has to also be a deterrent, right? They're trying to say like it's not even effective policy. Well, it is effective policy.

Now they are saying that because, you know, the media's been talking about it and people are becoming aware of it south of the border, that border crossings are decreasing. Now, my guess is that's going to reverse itself because they've ended the policy. Yeah. Right? I mean, it is a deterrent. That doesn't mean it's the right policy.

But, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're doing it the most effective way. Again, there was seemingly no preparation here. no planning. They didn't seem to have a way, an easy way to reunite these families, even after they decided to do it. Which again, just shows a lack of preparation. And this has happened multiple times with these sorts of things.

Even when the policy is the right policy, a lot of times it's not implemented correctly. But that's government. I guess we all understand that. 2-8-7-27-B-E-C-K. More Pat and Stufer Glenn coming up. It's Pat and Stufer Glenn. Yesterday I noticed an article on drudge

of what a scorcher it was through much of the country for the 4th of July yesterday. So I started researching a little bit on what is normal for a lot of cities this time of year. And what is because you know that this is going to be used as 75 records were broken all across the country yesterday. You're going to be hearing that stuff. And it's because of global warming. It's always global warming. So the average days in Dallas, Texas.

that hit 100 or more. You know what that average is every summer? No. 18. So last year, okay? Hottest, of course, every year is the hottest on record. And last year is no exception. Hottest on record.

So if the average is 18 days of 100 or more in Dallas, how many last year do you think hit 100 degrees or more? 12,000? It's a really good guess. Okay. Other than the fact that there aren't that many days. in the year. And my lower high.

You're just slightly high. Okay. It was 10. 1000? 10. Just 10. Just 10. So there's 18.

Yeah. 18 on average. It was under that. It was less than average. Like basically half of average. Yeah. Amazing. And I looked at multiple cities across the country and that seemed to be the case

everywhere in the hottest year in record. And then they, showed just general cities. We usually have more 100 degree days in the West, so they looked at Sacramento, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix. And they were all below average last year. You know Tampa has never had a day of 100 degrees or more? Tampa, Florida has never hit 100 degrees.

Really? Yeah, isn't it? Isn't it amazing? Feels that way. I live there. I would not have guessed that. You're listening to the Glenn Beck program. It's Pat and Stufer Glenn.

You know what's great about today? Feels like Monday. It isn't. It's actually Thursday. That's great. Doesn't it feel like it? Oh, that feels good. I keep thinking it's Monday and a...

Nope, wait a minute. No, we're almost through the week. On Monday, President Trump reveals his Supreme Court nominee. At least that's when it's supposed to happen. So we'll find out in just a matter of day, as we can speculate a ton. And I'm sure everybody will in the meantime. but we'll find out for sure just a few days from now. So we don't have a really long wait.

But most news outlets believe it to be Brett Kavanaugh. They think he's the most likely choice. And the other one that's mentioned most often is Amy Coney-Barrant. So she's only been a judge for a year. There's not a lot of track record for her, just a lot of academic writings. Yeah. And she has, you know, she's clerked for Scalia. I believe.

Yeah. And we were listening to a speech she made off the air. And, I mean, the praise and an understanding of Scalia and his legacy is pretty significant. I mean, this is not someone, you know, people are kind of throwing her out there. It's like, well, she's a woman. And Roe versus Wade's about the women parts. So you should pick her. And it's like, that's not really how you pick us in Brinkor, just as per se.

Although there's an element of, you know, we've talked about this idea of central. casting. Trump has always talked about this as a, as something he loves, right? You want to pick the person who kind of looks the part, right? You want some slovenly dolt like me as the Supreme Court justice. He wants someone who is, you know, that looks the part. And Gorsuch looks the part. Like Gorsuch looks like a guy who would be on the Supreme Court, you know? He does. He really does. We're, you know, and that's not necessarily the case. Like, you wouldn't say Scalia necessarily did at times. He was a little disheveled. at times, but, you know, who cares, right?

You don't, you don't care. So there is an element, though, with Barrett is she's 46 years old, an attractive woman. And the idea is you pick someone who is good looking and female and young. And they're going to have a hard time beating. And smart. A harder time beating her up than they would a man. Yeah. And she, I mean, you could, you know, she is, she's very well spoken, very reasonable.

and is not going to be shaking up. She doesn't come off like a kook of any kind, like an extremist. No, not at all. Because that's how they're going to paint whoever it is. Whoever it is, they're going to say that about them. I mean, anyone from the list is an extremist to them. You have to find someone. And the idea is we need this consensus pick is what I keep hearing from the Democrats.

You're never going to find a consensus pick. No, I'd never. I mean, of course not. Right. Their idea of a consensus pick was Merrick Garland. Oh, geez. You know, that was what they. thought was a consensus pick.

That's what they want. If they want someone on their side. It's interesting with Amy Coney-Barranted that I think you have somebody who the idea is you'd go to a Susan Collins, you'd go to Elisa Murkowski, and there'd be something pulling on them to say, I want, you know, a conservative female or a female in that position. You know, and I, you know, I, again, think picking Supreme Court justices, picking presidents, picking anyone based on their the type of their genitals is not typically

the best way to doing it. Like there's actually usually almost always a better way of picking. And I don't know why we get into this identity politics world where it's just like, well, it's just where we are. But the idea is, that's just where we are right now. It's going to play better if you have a woman overturning Roe versus Wade than a man.

And again, like I, is it, Roe versus Wade is a terribly disqual. cited case, whether a man or a woman overturns it. Still the same crappy case. Stole a case that led to the destruction of 60 million babies over the last 45 years.

On the morning cup of post them today, they were, Joe and Mika were kicking this around a little bit. And that's why we have these two favorites that we just saw there. The inside line is that Amy Barrett would be better for the base, but a tougher

confirmation fight. So that's the calculus aids are making, but Meek and Joe, this won't surprise you. People who are involved in the vetting tell us that for the president, it's going to be all about the personal connection, who he feels comfortable with in the moment. So you're saying he's going to pick the man, the white man? Oh, no, I totally don't think that. You disagree? So what's interesting about that to me is this is the guy, Joe Scarborough, claims, oh, I'm

conservative. I'm so conservative. I'm the guy with the 100% NRA reading. That's how conservative I am. I'm Mr. Conservative. He is now left of Mika. Who just said, oh, no, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Whoa, I can't go along with that. She's, he's offended Mika's conservative principles. That's great. I don't know. I don't know. The only reason I say that is, Katty K, if you look and see at least through the first year, 90% of Donald Trump's elections

for U.S. attorneys and federal judges were white men. Yeah, look, I guess the issue here would be Did Donald Trump spend a minute with any of them? Again, his theory here is who he's going to have a personal connection with. Is he spending more than maybe a passing meeting? I mean, I can't imagine he's meeting a lot of these justices.

There's been hundreds of them. Yeah. Is he be shuttling in judges? There's not time. No. It's do that. He's got people doing that for him. Yeah.

You know, he's delegated that responsibility. And that two weeks credit. I mean, now this one is different. This is high profile. He's very involved in this. This is his pick. He gets to choose. He is committed to staying on this list of 25.

And I'm looking through, I'm just flipping through the list of 25. Lots of people that are not white men. Lots of them. Lots of women. Lots of, Is Amul to par? He's not.

Is he white? He is not. He is. He is the first South Asian article 3 judge. And he's one of the four candidates who Trump interviewed this week. Looking at Robert Young, also, he is one of the, on the list of 25, went to Harvard, happens to be African American. You have Diane Sykes, who is Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals, seems to be a female. again, I don't know how she identifies.

So I'm hesitant to note that Joan Larson, Michigan. She's another one who actually, I think, is possible. There's not a report of her being interviewed yet, but these things trickle out. Like the Mike Lee thing that was not out when we talked about it on Tuesday, came out either, I think, yesterday that Mike Lee was talked to on the phone. Also, of course, Amy Coney-Barrid as well. also Allison

Ide She is from Colorado U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Another one who is on the list So again, you know, there is A pretty good set of diversity here Which by the way it means nothing On whether you're white and male

He's not going to be the basis That he decides this on It's ludicrous to say that And it's just interesting how to see the transformation of Joe Scarborough to just a complete pandering liberal now. Just pandering to the people who watch MSNBC now. And he had been that for a long time.

He is a member in good standing of particular Hall of Fame of note here. That is correct. That is correct. Right. So, you know, I think there is an element of that, you know, this is not a new thing. it does seem that since the romance started

with Mika that the move has been that the tone of his commentary has become more overtly left wing and now he's come to the point apparently where he's actually moved past Mika and it's like oh no whoa whoa whoa what are you talking about Joe

are you calling our president a racist misogynist sexist I'm not going there with you you, my friend. So, and are you telling me that if, if a Clarence Thomas type were presented to Donald Trump, he wouldn't consider him? Of course he would. Of course he would. There was a black judge who was along the lines of Clarence Thomas. You know, he's looking for ideology, I think. You're looking for somebody who's going to be a constitutionalist, someone who's going to be a traditionalist in interpreting the Constitution. And that's,

what you're looking for. You're not looking for some white guy or a rich guy or even a conservative guy. You want somebody who's a constitutionalist. And I think that's what he's going to look for. Yeah. I mean, look, that's what he did with Gorsuch. It's more outwardly done with the left. We know that. I mean,

you know, Obama picked Sotomayor and Kagan. Sotomayor was a good pick for Barack Obama. Like, I mean, that was a good pick if you're a left winger. Like, she is an absolute like leaves the Supreme court and goes to an

antifa rally. Like she's like, it's like she is, she is like going to code pink gatherings the second she leaves the office. She is as, by some measures, to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The most left on the court.

And you shouldn't miss, right? If you're, if you're progressive, you've got the presidency, you're getting someone through. I mean, remember, we had Republicans calling us up and saying, hey, well, look, you know, you got a seed to the president's wishes. He's the president. You know, in nominations, you let it go.

It's kind of what seems like it was Rand Paul that was saying that at the time, right? That he was just going to vote for him because that's the president's prerogative. Well, yeah, but the Senate's prerogative is to say no to the president. Yeah, and oddly, Paul seems to be against Kavanaugh. Like saying that he will not vote for Kavanaugh, which is bizarre to me because he was the guy who called up and I don't remember

if he voted for Sotomayor or Kagan or not. I don't remember if it was either about. the judges or if it was it was about the Supreme Court justice I think it was when he was saying that and I just I don't feel comfortable with that or was it about a Cass Sunstein or something like that it was something one big profile high profile

Obama cabinet person it was yeah and it it seemed like he was saying I'm I'm gonna vote because this constitutional is what he he does yeah so I don't know maybe maybe that wasn't maybe it was just cabinet and not Supreme Court bottom line though is that he's he's

come out and said probably he might not vote for Kavanaugh, which is a huge deal here because you can't lose anybody. That's why this is a really hard pick for the president. Because the last one, you're going from Scalia to, no matter where you go from Scalia, the court makeup isn't going to change if you pick. You can't pick someone too conservative, right? Like if you're a left wing person and you're worried about the balance of the court, going from Scalia to Gorsuch is not much of a difference. But this one, they're going to fight about it. But this one is, right? They're going to go hardcore here. Kennedy, who was the swing vote.

And this was one of the arguments, by the way, when the Gorsuch thing was happening. Everybody knew Gorsuch was a very talented, qualified jurist. Everyone knew that he could go on to the Supreme Court and do his job, and he's the right guy. He's not some crazy extremist. He's a great pick in the mold of Scalia. But he's a great pick. And the idea was maybe the Democrats shouldn't do their BS fight against it, because if they do that, The Republicans are going to go to the Supreme Court, the 50 vote nuclear option anyway,

and Gorsuch is going to get on the court. If they would have been honest and let Gorsuch go through, they could have had a legitimate argument to come to the people and say, hey, you know, we're fighting this one, but we let Gorsuch through. So they do have that argument now. But they can't do it because they fought Gorsuch and didn't let him get to 60 votes last time, so they already had to change the rule. So the rules already changed.

Now, everyone knows. But they'll claim, well, you got Gorsuch. But we're going to put up a fight this time. Yeah, but what they should have done. No, they will. I mean, you could argue very seriously that they should have just said, they knew they're going to change the rule. They should have just said, you know what, get them to 60.

Let him get over 60 votes. You know, whatever. We know this guy's, you know, he's a conservative. We don't agree with him, but he's legitimate. Let him get to 60. And then when this second one happens, whether it's Kennedy or, God forbid, from their perspective, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Breyer or somebody else,

leaves the court, then you would have an argument to go to the people and say, look, we we would absolutely allow someone sensible like Gorsuch. I mean, we all voted for Gorsuch. But this is crazy. And then they'd have to change the rule after they had already approved of somebody. Now they don't have that argument, which was it's a real blown opportunity. They got nothing out of it. At least they would have something to come to the people with here.

And they don't. They've got nothing. Except, you know, they'll still do it. They'll still try to use it. They'll still try it. I think it'll be less effective, though. I think the average, like, sure, you're going to get your liberal activist to get on board for this. But you actually probably could have won some people over with that. Wait a minute.

They put someone so extreme that they have to change the rules to get them through. You know, now, like, you know, they've already blown that opportunity. And it was, you know, they couldn't even make that point because everybody watched, everybody who watched the hearing knew that Gorsuch was completely reasonable. Totally. Was not anywhere near an extremist. Triple-8-9-37-P-E-C-K. More Pat and Stew for Glenn coming up.

That's Pat and Stu for Glenn. When LeBron James left Cleveland in 2010 to go to Miami, remember how angry Cavs fans were. Yeah. People in Cleveland were burning jerseys. It looks like there's some who were just as angry this time. A Cavs fan just set himself on fire trying to burn

a LeBron James jersey. You know what I say about that? Worth it. Absolutely worth it's worth it's worth catching on fire. It's worth catching on fire to make sure you send that message. Yeah. So there you are demonstrating again. You're incomprehensible hatred for LeBron James.

It's not incomprehensible. It's definitely not. I mean, I can't, I don't think I can get through it in 30 seconds. But I can spend the whole next hour on it if you wish. I don't think you could. I don't think it's, is there an explanation for why you dislike him so? Yes, I've explained it many times. But, I mean, the music's on.

Yeah, so now there's no time. We'll talk about it off the year and entertain ourselves. Glenn back. Pat Gray and Stubergear for Glenn this week. And you can also join me on my show immediately following this one on the Blaze Radio and TV network. How would I find something like that? Oh, okay. Yeah.

Yeah, so. Can I follow you at Pat Unleashed on Twitter? You can. You can? Yes, you can. Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure. Indeed, you can.

Because either that or someone's posing as you, which is obviously true, considering you don't really tweet yourself that much. But. Or at all. Yeah. But you've tweeted once in my life, I think. Actual tweet from me that I actually typed and hit send.

Send. I think one. So you actually did do it and didn't find like massive internal satisfaction? No, is that hard to believe? That's really, uh, no, I don't. didn't actually. So you're like everyone else?

I can, yes, pretty much live without Twitter. Wow. In my life. I can definitely live without it. I just still am on it for some reason. Yeah. And I don't know why. Well, I vowed to myself that I'm going to get more involved in it.

Although I have not yet. I think I remember that vowed in 2011. And I vowed it many times since. And so that day is coming sometime. That and more Facebook. involvement. You do not want to be on your deathbed, Pat Gray, and say, I've always said I would tweet more. And I never got around to it. Biggest regret of my life. Didn't tweet more. This is literally never occurred in human history. Not once.

No one's like, oh, if I had only posted that really important opinion of mine. Or if I'd only linked to that cat meme. Mm-hmm. If I'd only done 140 characters or less, a lot more than I did. Oh, damn it! Right now, too, speaking of Facebook, Facebook algorithm flags and removes the Declaration of Independence text as hate speech. This is going to be really good when they start trying to decide what's hate speech and what isn't. Of course, they're doing that now.

They're starting to decide. But when it really kicks in, I think it's going to be a disaster. They already said Facebook and Twitter and Apple. are all trying to figure out how to weed out fake news during this upcoming election cycle. And I don't know how you do that necessarily because who deems what's fake and what isn't? I mean, look, there are, fake news is a term started, you know, before the election last year. And it was not. I hate the term, by the way.

And it is not. And look, to Trump's credit, he was able to, this is one of the things he does well, which is take a term. kind of made it his. It was actually made, not even, people are like, oh,

well, the media started it because they wanted to say that Trump supporters were floating fake stories to support Trump. And they wanted to come up with a term to do that

and then Trump took it from them. That's kind of the popular narrative. In reality, that's not how it happened. No, it was more designed. Like there's a story that Jeffie sends me

approximately once a week, which is about a man who went to go see a prostitute and it was his wife. Now, this story has been replicated in every market. It's always like, man in Kentucky, man in Ohio, man in California.

And it's the same story. It's basically the Pena Colada song. It's similar to the Pia Colada song, you know, that kind of gives the story of this guy who goes out and he just can't, he's not getting anything from his wife anymore decides to go.

And he calls a prostitute. And that's the only difference from the Pena Colana song. It wasn't a prostitute. But then he goes and he meets up with her and it's her. And then I think also in the Pena Colada song, they just laugh about it for some reason. Yeah, can you imagine? I would have been really pissed. I was really annoyed.

Both of them should have been like, what the hell's wrong with you and left each other immediately? But instead, no, we just like the same fruity drink. So let's stay together. This case, there's no fruity drinks, but it was, it's like legitimately a story that didn't occur. Now, it may have occurred at some point in, in, in history, but it's not this particular story. And it's stuff like that all the time where, you know, it's just legitimately fake news. And if that's what you're removing, that's fine.

That's, in fact, that's great, I think. Yeah, I mean, at least I can understand it. You know, it's, I think the main problem here is Facebook and Twitter, I have taken responsibility. And people are like, well, they haven't taken enough responsibility. I think I have the opposite. Yeah. It's not their responsibility to tell us what we should share and what we shouldn't share.

It's not their responsibility to tell us what. we should post and what we shouldn't post, even if they're all lies, right? Like, even if we're writing stories that are completely false, it's a platform. And what they have decided is, and I do not believe that this is anything to do with them being like, well, we need to be upstanding members of the community that that's not it. They just realize that people are now kind of getting annoyed at spending time on their platform because, as we just said, no one gets to the end is like, oh, I wish I was on Facebook more. Yeah. And they want that to be the case. They want it to be more of a family connection device.

But I think their problem there is it's one thing to do that and try to emphasize those features. It's another thing to actually take responsibility for spreading of news that you don't think is real. I mean, you're right. Now we're getting to the point where if the Declaration of Independence is hate speech, I mean, what isn't? Yes. That's the problem. And if your definition of fake news is a story with a, negative spin on

Donald Trump that doesn't make it fake news it just means you know you don't share the opinion that's being expressed in the story now if you're printing things that are just blatantly

untrue about the president that's but it's up to us to figure that out right it has to be we have to take responsibility and do more to weed that stuff out ourselves. Yeah, and it's amazing how many conservatives like blame Facebook for this stuff.

It's like, I'm sorry. It's our responsibility. You know, it's your responsibility to click on an article and then see if it's real and follow it down those lines. And we obviously are upset when, because there's plenty of liberal nonsense like this too, where things that are completely fake about the president or about the senators or whatever Supreme Court justice is going to be named on Monday,

there will be tons of fake things that are printed to make those people look as bad as possible. But I mean, is it really Facebook's responsibility to go through each individual post and try to find the ones that aren't real? I say, no, it isn't. If you wanted to do anything on it, you could start banning certain sites that do this often. I mean, the problem is they just keep creating new ones, you know, but when you find a certain site that really is legitimately posting fake things, but again, you're going to get down this road, it's not your responsibility.

It's like if people want to go on that are conspiracy theorists and put all the stuff that Alex Jones says every day and keep posting it, should he be limited to that? Should they stop Alex Jones just because what he says isn't true? I mean, to me, the answer to that is no. No. It's like saying that the, you know, The phone company should step in and say, well, the conversation you're having right now isn't based on reality.

Well, so what? It's not a business. It's not the phone company. It's not their responsibility. Yeah. And I don't like the idea that they're coming in and doing this. And I think we're both in the same boat in that I don't really get a lot from social media. I mean, I do it for work, but I don't actually get anything out of it necessarily personally and personal enjoyment wise.

And because of that, I don't put a huge premium on the, you know, how wonderful the experience is on Facebook. I don't care. They obviously do. So I can understand why they think that making those improvements will be something good. But I think it's going to cause more problems than not. I mean, they really, do we have any idea, like how this turned out with the Declaration of Independence thing? It was, you know, now it's okay. And they figured it out.

Well, since June 24th, the Liberty County Vindicator of Lillard, Liberty County, Texas, has been sharing daily excerpts from the Declaration in the run-up to the fourth. The idea was to encourage historical literacy. So the first nine posts went up without incident, but part 10 did not appear. Instead, they received a notice from Facebook saying, the post goes against our standards on hate speech. The post in question contained paragraphs 27 through 31, the grievance section of the document, where the put-upon colonists detail their irreconcilable differences they have with King George. So they say that they can't be sure which exact grievance ran afoul of Facebook's policy,

but he assumes it's paragraph 31, which excoriates the king for inciting domestic insurrections amongst us and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages. so maybe the just the phrase Indian savages prompted them to to remove it so the automated

response from from Facebook was that they took it off sent a feedback message with the hopes of reaching a human being who could then exempt the declaration from its hate speech restrictions

fearful that sharing more of the text might trigger the deletion of its Facebook page they just stopped doing it. So that was kind of the resolution of the problem. They just stopped sharing portions of the Declaration of Independence because they weren't able to get a hold of a human being and say, hey, it's the Declaration of Independence. Right.

And that's the problem because they're going to be, an algorithm is not going to understand these nuances, at least not yet. I mean, listen to Glenn talk about it. Eventually AI will be able to do these things. Maybe. That's what he's, you know, that's definitely what he believes. and it seems like they have

a lot of ability to do things that are completely amazing and will be a lot more advanced in the future. Still though, these things are going to these problems are going to happen. And then there's no way to really just, you know, you realize like how far we've come

with these huge companies. There's no way to even get a hold of them. Like, I mean, and we're talking about like, you know, like the blaze. Media company, mid-size, right? Media company. When we have issues, like, it takes a long time. You have to develop.

relationships with individual people or you just don't have any way of addressing things that it's not like Facebook hates certain you know like they may very well I mean obviously we all know there's left leaning it's a left leaning company but I mean it's you know they also want money they're really just a company that you know

they want money and so they want to help their big media partners be able to get people to the platform and sometimes they can't even address those things and they have people but it's like think of how much is being posted and there's people that post 100 times a day. Yeah well you have two billion people posting stuff, there's no way you can cover everything.

No. There's just no way. So it has to be done by algorithm. Right? And so when the algorithm makes mistakes and it's going to a lot, what do you do? And this is, I think, one of those situations where it's most easily solved by just letting me decide. Right.

Let me decide. That's where I think it should go. Let me decide what I post. Let me decide what's fake. You can come up with an algorithm that, you know, so I'm going to see the stuff that I like, but if I like all fake news, you know, every single piece of it is a lie, then just keep giving me the lies.

That's not on it. Like, I know that sounds like, and you'll just believe lies. That's okay. Yeah. Some people are going to do it anyway. Yeah. They're all going to find this information anyway. It's not your job to manipulate what we think.

It's really not. And you know what? The people who are in, like if I start sharing all lies about, you know, If my entire feed are all lies about LeBron James, which is certainly possible that my feed might be that someday. If that were the case, the people who like LeBron James in my feed will not like me anymore or block my posts.

And over time, those things kind of have a way of working themselves out. I think Facebook's position is, no, they didn't. We tried it and no, they didn't. But again, like, you're telling your consumers what they want to consume is wrong. You know, you're telling them, hey, you know, we don't like it's like if people started uh you know when i was a kid they used to make those um

uh like coca cola uh popsicles like you put them in the little popsicle containers you put cocoa in there and then you freeze them up like if cocahola is like that is not what it was said we wanted you to drink our soda and they came out and started banning you know freezers so that people couldn't make popsicles anymore it's like well that's not your job don't worry about it don't worry about it i bought your product i do what uh what i want with it right? That's what you would tell Coca-Cola. There's an interesting story with McDonald's going back in the day. They had these little tiny spoons for stirers.

They were a little mini-stirers. And people were supposedly in media reports using them for drugs because they were a little tiny spoons and they were easy to like snort a little bit of whatever drug you were doing. I don't know if it was cocaine at the time or whatever. And they McDonald's had to come out and change their entire product line because people were accusing them of helping people who are doing drugs with their stirs. It's like, what the heck?

Come on. What are they supposed to do? But again, they just fold to it. Every time. They figure every long run it's better. No one has a spine on anything. Stand up for your drug paraphernalia that you make. That's what I'm saying.

It's Pat and Stufer Glenn. One of the most brutal terrorist groups on the planet, the Somali terrorist Al-Shabaab, they have announced a, ban on single-use plastic bags. Wow. You know, they're environmentally friendly. Thank God. This is it, you know, finally. Well, they're doing more than just that, though. They also are ending people's lives so they're not emitting any carbon dioxide.

Exactly. Because they've stopped breathing. They're not drains on the planet. Population control. The group's radio station, Radio Andalas, which, you know, who doesn't have that on their Oh, that wacky morning show is hilarious. Oh, my gosh. They are so good.

Abib and Mohammed, really good in the morning. Well, actually, Mohammed, I think, left. Oh, he did? Yeah, recently he had a... What happened? He got afternoons for Al-Qaeda. It's a good gig, though. Yeah, he got a good gig there.

Has Habib found a new partner? I can't remember. I think so. I think he's bringing somebody in from AQAP in Yemen, producer over there coming in doing afternoons with them. So they've announced that they will be banning single-use plastic bags

in the territories they control because the discarded bags, quote, this is unreal. Pose a serious threat to the well-being of humans and animals alike. So do you. Unquote. Yes. It's like, we don't, well, we don't,

I mean, I don't want to clog up our waterways with them, but I don't mind. blowing up a, you know, school bus full of children, apparently. What a bizarre. What a bizarre announcement for them to make. In addition, though, they're not stopping there. In addition to banning the plastic bags, this environmentally conscious group also issued an immediate ban on the logging of indigenous trees.

So... Thank you, Al-Shabaab. Thank you. How many times? times. Have we demanded indigenous trees are not logged? We have stood up for this cost for how long, Pat? Me were marching on this indigenous logging thing.

Late 40s, I think is when we started it. Yeah. Right. I mean, first march was probably early 50s, but yeah, we started the movement in the late 40s. Yeah, we started getting really angry about it in the late 40s. Yeah. And then we were only moderately perturbed in the 30s. Right.

About it. But we did get. We got a little bit further on that. A terrorist group is banning plastic bags and logging of indigenous trees. Pretty amazing. That is amazing. It's almost like an onion story. Yeah, it kind of is.

You know? And something you might expect the Facebook algorithm to flag because it's fake news. But apparently it's not. In fact, the story actually says, What do Coles Woolworth and Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Shabaab have in common? They're all currently in the middle of implementing plastic bag bans. Seattle, too. Seattle is in the process of banning plastic utensils and plastic straws.

So you can still use a paper straw, but the far superior plastic straw is being banned. Since July 1st, restaurants in Seattle are barred from providing customers plastic straws, cocktail picks, or utensils unless someone specifically requests one. So I guess you can actually ask for one still. In that case, the customer should be given a compostable option, according to the Seattle Public Utility. Where did I see this? Someone was sharing it maybe on Twitter or something of a person who went into a store. and

into a restaurant and the waiter suppose, I mean this is another dumb social network thing but they had the waiter said would you like a straw

or would you or would, can I bring you no straw or would you like to like kill the animals something like that like some sort of guilt trip and they're like you know I never thought of it like that

but that's true like I would have I would have stood out and immediately walked out of the restaurant me too that's too I would have grabbed a handful of straws on the way out.

This is the Glenn Beck program. With Pat and Stu. And joining us now, Jeffie. Hey, Jeffie. Hello. Hi. Thank you. Hi.

How you doing? So, anyway, I went to the fourth. Did you see the fireworks last night? Obviously, some cities had them on the third. But I went to the fireworks last night that the cities so graciously do every year. They spend a few dollars that they ask for donations for during. in the year. It's just charity is what they're doing. They're letting things, they're letting dollars

explode in the sky. I don't think that's how it works. They just take donations and then they do the fireworks. Based on the property tax bill that I'm assessed with every year. I don't think they're donations. Really? Maybe they just got tired of asking and they knew you were going to say yes. We'll just take it.

That's nice. That is nice. It's thoughtful. So we're at the park and it's packed. We're on a lake that's this lake grapevine that's close to this neck of the woods where we all live. And I mean, two and three to a mule they're coming into this place. It's amazing. And it's about an hour away.

Two and three to a mule? Yeah, it's packed. Talks like that. It's packed. Father time. It talks like that over here. And it's about an hour before the fireworks. Uh-huh.

Here comes an ice cream truck. I mean to tell you, they didn't even spend, they were sold out within an hour. of this. They didn't even make it all the way into the park. It was just two stops along this road and they were packed. Nothing says American. Like capitalism bringing in an ice cream truck to the fireworks place at the beach. I was amazed. Do you expect to bring that story up and expect us to believe that other people got ice cream

other than you out of that truck? Is that what you're asking us to believe? Of course. I didn't have a whole bunch of money with me. Okay. I mean, I set my daughter down to one truck. You went to another one? actually came up with a system to maximize the amount of ice cream you get.

Surprise. Let me tell you some names. Babe Ruth. Wayne Gretzky. Pele. Michael Jordan. Tom Brady. Joey Chestnut.

Joey the Jaws Chestnut. You're not really. Don't even try to put him in there. Oh, come on. Don't even try it. What's the... I mean... Joey's won an 11 straight hot dog tournaments.

Yeah. I mean, that's strong. Strong. That's an athletic performance almost unmatched in America. Athletic performance. I will say just a note on your list there. Tom Brady has won zero consecutive. It's because the Philadelphia Eagles beat him.

That's why. Just to note that. Just to put that on there. That's good. Yeah, well. Put that in your pipe as it were. The hot dog eating contest is, you know, as you know, I'm more of a distance eater.

Yes. Not really a sprinter. And the sprinters, man, they, those guys, I don't know how the heck they do it. It's kind of gross. Yeah, they do it in a nasty way by dipping it in water and then just suck it down your Yeah. It's revolting in every way. It is.

It's unwatchable. I don't know how anyone watches it. It's so disgusting. Like, you know, there's just a physical revulsion that happens to you over certain that thing. That is one of them. Just looking at the bread as it's like. falling back into the cup makes me want to die. It's gross.

I mean, I don't know, man. I know you talked about eating, what, 12? Yeah, and I can easily eat 12 hot dogs, just not in 10 minutes. Yeah, it wasn't in 10 minutes when I ate 12. Right. That was over a couple hours. Yeah, I mean, you can easily eat 12 hot dogs. Now, when we were doing the Pat and Stu show, I had, you know, a few peeps that I ate.

but that was more of a distance. A few peeps. I forgot about that. It was more of a distance either there. It was like for an hour or two, right? Was it both hours of the show or just one hour? It was both hours. Do you remember what the number was on that?

How many? It was over seven. Over seven. It was over seven. 73, I think. So I was going to do it. That's, you know, it'll say, you know, average 35 an hour. Again, that's marathon.

That's not sprint. That's correct. Right. Correct. Yeah. I just, I just find it amazing. And they were arguing over the count. you know, the TV count was off

because they were counting from one play to not two. And I'm like, okay, just give the guy the mustard belt and let's move on. Let's just stop this thing. And they did. Yeah, they did. And they did. They absolutely did. But he did break the record.

He ate 74. I mean, again, it's his own record. That's athletic ability beyond belief. I saw him interviewed. And I think it was ESPN that did the interview. And I'm like, this is not a sport. Oh, yes, to ESPN it is. I mean, they had the ESPN3 cam in the back.

If you were watching ESPN 3, you could watch him eat from a different angle, which even would be better for you to. But he was talking about how he felt really good, and he felt like he could maybe attack his own record, and his body was in great shape for it. And I'm like, you're acting. Come on now. This is not an athletic competition.

Well, you just don't do that. going to work up to it. Those guys practice. And he does. Yeah, he does. That's pretty amazing. Yeah. And he was, I think, pretty much not eating anything.

He was drinking liquids the day before, getting ready for it. Getting ready for it. Just spread it out, spread your gullet out a little bit and get it ready to just inhale those hot dogs. And he's not a fat guy at all. He's in decent shape. I don't know how he does it. I really don't know how he does it. How do you not get full after, I don't know, 10, 12, 15?

Well, you might get full much. You got to push on. You got to push through it. And he did. And he does. You don't get this by saying, no, that's enough. We've noticed. And then, by the way, ESPN does think it's a sport

because they're already dumping a bunch of money into the gaming arena. And they start broadcasting all those gaming shows, the guys competing against each other playing different games for the e-sports. I mean, it's amazing. Yeah, they broadcast the Madden Championships quite a bit now. Yeah. I've been to that event before. Have it?

I guess it's one of those Madden championships where actual players play against each other. Right. It's wildly entertaining to watch, oddly. Is it? Yeah, it's just like, I don't know why. Watching other players, other guys play video games is entertaining. I mean, it's some of the biggest gaming channels out there are guys playing games and talking their way through it. Well, and yeah, absolutely.

First of all, it's a huge business now. But they have some of the games I just don't know. You know, like World of Warcraft and all that other stuff. Like I have no interest in it because I don't do it. But like, you know, Madden, I've played my whole life. And like to watch. And then of course it's also like people you know, like actual NFL players who know stuff about the defense and the office.

I mean, there's been large stories written about how they come up with their player ratings and how they, the guy who comes up with him and he did for many years at, you know, Madden. and EA Sports would actually get lobbied from players. Like he's getting like, you know, getting harassing messages. How can I only be an 80 for speed? I mean, come on. What are you talking about?

I do this. Yeah. It's really, it's really strange, but it's a weird world. And I mean, they're going to start broadcasting all the drone races. They've got drone race contracts coming up. It's going to be. I've seen one of those two broadcasts. Yeah, I mean, that does not sound so uninteresting.

I just, why am I watching this? But I can't watch it for a while. Right. But I wondered why I was. Because the football season was over. And that's why. That's why I was. College football was not on.

Neither was the NFL. Okay, let's watch drone racing. When the most exciting story is like, hey, there's a bunch of people in a cave somewhere. And they're trying to figure out how to get out of the cave. Like when you think that. Drone racing. Are you saying you don't care about the kids in the cave? First of all, I do definitely care about them.

But secondly, you actually kind of sold me on the story as we were coming into the, in the commercial break. Well, look. Because obviously you have a heartfelt, you know, you want them to live. Absolutely. It's worldwide. People in the well or the people. 11-year-olds or whatever. 12 kids.

So you really care about it from that perspective. But, you know, outside of that, like, I'm not an engineer. I don't know how to rescue kids from caves. But you, I mean, they could be in there for a long time. Long time. Yeah, they're saying now they could be in there for at least a month maybe. If they don't get them out before the monsoon happens, it'll probably be a while. It'll be quite some time.

It might even be longer than that. It took a couple of divers, professional divers. It took them what? An hour and a half to get it? It took them 90 minutes to scuba dive into that cave. And they were thinking, well, maybe we can have the kids scuba dive out. Two professionals, it took them over an hour and a half. Well, it's going to take more than that to get them out now with the way the caves have flooded.

Because they're talking now that they've brought in full face diving masks and they're trying to train them to dive. Yeah, there's no way. They can't do that. A couple of them can't even swim. And it says now it's going to take a six-hour dive through the narrow underwater passages to get out. And some of those passages go black. You know, you just got to keep going with your hands on the wall. There's no way.

The kid survived that. And one kid, if one person, one kid freaks out, it's going to screw the rest of them up. You know they will. You know, they're all going to be dead. So now they're all going to be dead. So now they say that some kids believe that they heard other sounds, outdoor sounds, when they were in there the first time they were trapped. So they're looking around to see if there's some air hole or air vent that they can drill in

to get them out before the rains come. That'd be good. That'd be really good, right? But they've already removed 128 million liters of water. And I don't know how what that is. No, there's no way to tell. When it's in a metric measurement, there's no way to tell. It could be a drop of water or it could be a.

ocean full. I don't know. There's no way to tell. I don't know how much water that is, but they, somewhere between a drop in an ocean. But they keep pumping it out and now they're into the third cave pumping water out and that's full and they don't know how much more water is coming in just, you know, because it naturally comes in. So they're just trying to pump it out as fast as they can to try to get these kids out of there. Amazing. And it's just fascinating to me. I was at first, I was, why were they even, I mean, I get that you want to go through these caves and everything, but if you're a soccer team and you've got the coach there and play soccer and go home, you don't have a guide and you think, hey, let's go check out the caves.

No. You know, no, not today. How about we, we go back home? How about that? And then they started flooding and they didn't know what to do. So they just kept going back in trying to find their way out and you get farther and farther in. You imagine what that would have been like. You're in a cave.

and the water starts coming in you realize you can't go back out the way you came in and you just have to keep going deeper and deeper looking for dry ground I mean that is that is terrifying and then finally they found them and

they heard them hollering and so they brought them food and like you said they dove the divers the professional divers originally went in it took nine days though to find it in the first place yeah nine days what did they eat anything

Well, we don't know the full story yet on how they survived. It's incredible. They may have started with 15 kids. We don't know. It's a donner party situation. No, they don't know the full story yet. They're posting some videos saying hello to the family. Some of their classmates are outside now praying for them, letting them know they're there.

They're posting videos and the world is watching. But, man, think about having to, well, we're going to have to try to keep bringing this water out of here. And we'll hope that you're okay for the next. next three or four months. That's amazing. That's unbelievable. Be frightening. Frightening.

Do you think you could go nine days without food, Jeffrey? Oh, nine days? Yeah. I mean. Because, I mean, you've been able to, over time, fight off a situation in which you might not have access to food by storing cells of fat. I'm glad you asked me to come in. For your book.

Yeah, it's good to see. It's good to see you, too, Jeffrey can go nine minutes without food. Not fully nine minutes. He got to have a smoothie. I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what. If Alec Baldwin can go 24 hours, I can't. I'll take that bad.

All right? Too bad to Alec already. He already did the fast, right? I think so, yeah. Oh, so I left. Yeah, me too. Yeah. Did you?

Yeah, I already did. You're already done? Yeah, for the kids. Okay. Way to go. We didn't check in on you, though, the whole time. You're sure you didn't eat anything for, 24 straight hours?

24 hours. Have you ever gone 24 hours without eating in your entire life? 12 hours. I'd like to say yes. Have you ever gone 12 hours? Yeah, I've had a couple surgeries you can't eat before. Triple-8-7-27-B-E-C-K. It's Pat and Stufer, Glenn.

AAA-27-B-E-C-K. Hey, it looks like Alex Jones has learned a thing or two from the lawsuits that have come his way. Ever since his Trump support, you know, he gets some coverage now. And can't just say anything anymore. He can't. And so I think he's decided that there is one word he needs to use a lot. And he does. What's going on, whether it's hypothetical demons or space aliens doing this?

Some Martians hypothetically, you know, have these heads four times the size of ours. Taking barbecue kids on the White House lawn. Hypothetically, hypothetically what we're talking about. Little Jenny's been kidnapped by Alec Baldwin. He hasn't literally kidnapped a little girl named Jenny. doesn't have her in a basement, but let's just hypothetically. I just caught my wife, hypothetically, with 10 guys running a train on her ass.

I value a flower garden in my backyard more than I value a big diamond ring on my wife's finger, hypothetically. They got video cameras set up. They're filming it for porn hub, hypothetically. Release pictures of you with your gay boyfriends when you were out in, quote, Reno or whatever, hypothetically. Careless of Bush like me. You know, hypothetically, Bush did, did, did try to co-op me.

If aliens could infiltrate humanity. Bush tried to co-optive. Hypothetically. Hypothetically. I didn't say that. Hypothetically saying what would happen if we call for violence. Hypothetically, he could be looking to avoid some hypothetical lawsuits, I think, by using hypothetically all the time.

It's funny because some of them are obviously hypothetical situations. Like, you know, hey, if X happened, how would the media react? Like, you can use that as a tool. Yeah. And a lot of people do. But some of them are just like, the Bush administration tried to co-opt to me hypothetically. Wait, what?

It doesn't really work. No, no. Glenn, back. Mercury.