The Glenn Beck Program - The Left’s Homophobic Attack on George Santos | 1/2/22

Episode Date: January 2, 2023

Filling in for Glenn, Pat and Stu look at the controversy surrounding New York Representative-elect George Santos and the embellishments he made during his campaign. But what about the lies coming from President Biden and his son? With the Democrats protecting their own controversial politicians, do they even have a leg to stand on? After another individual on their watch list committed a horrendous act, Pat and Stu discuss the distrust Republicans have for the FBI. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked America for the billions of dollars of aid, then asked for the support to keep flowing. The World Boxing Council is creating a league specifically for transsexual fighters. Why is there a shortage of children’s medicine? Pat and Stu examine the good that came from "Avatar 2." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

60% of the vans on Amazon Provinn't DeVander Independent Like SACMagic Hello, here Camille of Sack Magic Our compraise chode-fraud are Fabriced in Quebec

And our presence on Amazon Elarge our clientele to world Ante Trouvey to puttee Like on OnoCa

Yes, here we are We're doing it Thanks, it's us Hillary It's not going to be a repeat It's going to be worse That's all I remember going back

To like 2000 I want to say it was 2016 The first time I was Oh gosh, I hope it's not 2015 And every year since I've said that. Yeah.

Now it's just like, oh gosh, that's the worst. I guess the 2020 does stand out as pretty bad year. That one, it's hard to top that. That was really, yeah. Think about just 2020. You had COVID. Then you had the George Floyd stuff. Oh, then you had the election.

And the rioting. And the rioting. Yeah. The George Floyd stuff, I was meeting. Yeah, okay. You were including the rioting. The incident to the riots, yeah. And multiple other riots and, you know, it wasn't just George Floyd.

Every time an African-American would be shot for any reason, we'd be wielding a knife, there were riots afterward. Yeah. And then you had the election and then all that aftermath that leads up to January 6th of 2021. That's a bad period. That's a crack period. Yeah. That's one to delete.

That's one, that's, you know, that's, you know, that's, That's like the Godfather three of years. You just, you didn't need it. It's Pat and Stu for Glenn. Coming up. That's Pat and Stu for Glenn today. Triple-8-727-B-E-C-K if you'd like to get in touch with this. We're going to talk about this big story of this high-profile congressman.

George Santos. Man, how many times did we talk about George San? Santos. I mean, if we had a nickel for every time. Well, I know before we left for Christmas vacation, we described 2023 as the beginning of the Santos era. Right. And now, man, little did we know. Little did we know. We'll get into that story.

I mean, it's earth shattering. And a lot more coming up in 60 seconds. Pat and Stu, AAA 727 B-E-C-K out. We mentioned that the big, gigantic George Santos story was on the way. Maybe you should explain even who George Santos is. You think there's someone out there who doesn't know about the Santos mania that has been sweeping the country? As crazy it is as it is, I think there might be a few.

That's shocking. A couple. I know. That's shocking to me. If you are not engaged enough in the news to understand the vital importance of what George Santos has brought. to this nation. You have to question your own existence. Yeah, you really do.

At this point. I mean, how ignorant are you if you haven't been paying attention to the entire life story of George Santos? This is the real state of affairs on the George Santos story. Okay. I, for a living, work on elections and analyze elections on this program. I host another show, Studez America. Pat, hosts Pat Gray Unleashed, both on The Blaze. we talk about Congress, elections, all the time.

Yeah. Congress people. All the time. Literally never heard of George Santos. Until this broke. Yeah. Now, this is a person who apparently won a congressional seat in New York. Yeah.

He lost the first time in 2020. He came back and tried again and won this time. In 2022. So it's his first election victory ever. Ever. he has been the focus of more reporting from the New York Times than literally any story in the entire history of the newspaper. I've never seen them more obsessed with a story.

They don't care at all what Hunter Biden did. They don't care at all what Joe Biden did. He's the current president of the United States. They don't care at all. They care about George Santos. exaggerating a few elements of his life. Yeah. Like working in a bank or I don't know.

Seriously. It's like the man, he said he worked at Morgan. What was it? Is it Chase Morgan? Chase Morgan? Yeah, I can't remember. It was one of the banks. Morgan Chase?

I don't remember. But this is what I mean. I don't know. But it's crazy. So this is what they say. This story came out late December. His campaign biography amplified his storybook journey. He was a, you know, he was his kid of son of immigrants.

and blah, blah, blah, blah. He is the son of Brazilian immigrants, the first openly gay Republican to win a house seat as a non-incumbent. And it's like, when you're stretching to, it's like, this is the first player to have three hits on a Tuesday night between the sixth and eighth innings.

It's like, all right, like, okay, we're getting to a point where we're stretching the glass ceiling a tad here. But he was the first openly gay Republican to win a house seat as a non-incumbent. So there's been other non-Republicans that have been openly. gay and other non-incumbents.

Or incumbents. That were Republican, but this guy was the first to win a house seat as a non-incumbent. By his account, he catapulted himself from a New York City Public College to become a seasoned Wall Street financier and investor with a family-owned real estate portfolio of 13 properties and, Pat, an animal-rescued charity that saved more than two. thousand, five hundred dogs and cats. But a New York Times review of public documents and court filings from the United States and Brazil, they went down to Brazilian courtrooms and read Brazilian court documents to figure this stuff out. I mean, how ridiculous is it?

How much, I mean, how exaggerated was it? Did he not work at J.P. Morgan Chase at all? It was a city group in Goldman Sachs. Oh, okay, Goldman Sachs. That's right. They were on his, they were on his resume. He said he worked there, and apparently he did not work there, according to the times. Okay. Also.

What about the charity, the dogs and cats? No, I don't know the dog and cat one came out. All right. We need to look into that. Yeah. And I'll go to Brazil if I have to. Now, would you take that as he saved 2,500 dogs and 2,500 cats? a combination of dogs and cats that made up the 2,500 saved animals.

How would you read that? We have to pin it down. I don't know. We're going to. Whichever one he meant, we could just say the opposite one was a lie. Yeah. That's how this works. He talked about, you know, his resume was a little bit inflated.

He said that he was managing a family firm that was overblown. He won by eight points. Long Island. That's where this district is. And a lot of it has to do with the way the Democratic Party completely blew the, really the reason why the Republicans are in power right now, as far as the House goes, is because of the Democratic Party in New York, who broke the law when it came to redistricting and screwed up so badly that the courts redrew the districts in a fair way, because they went so far to try to scam the electorate that it blew up in their faces in the courts, so they lost something like five seats that would have gone probably to Democrats with the old map.

Instead went to Republicans, one of those George Santos. And really the reason why the Republicans control the House today, arguably, are these New York seats. So, I mean, you could see why it's important. And you can kind of see why the New York Times would want to take out George Santos. because he's a part of a very small majority for Republicans. If you take out one of these people, you've taken out 20% of the majority. Right. Like, there's only a five-seat majority here.

If you can get all five people out, you might be able to switch the House. I mean, this is going to be a two-year project for the Democrats and the media. But like, they've acted as if this is the most important. They went to Brazil to see if as a team. teenager, he committed a crime. As a teenager. And meanwhile, Biden can lie about every aspect of his life and has. And the media couldn't care less.

It's absolutely amazing. Biden has lied about his entire career. He claimed he earned multiple degrees. Nope. He claimed he was in the top of his class. Nope. He claimed he was offered a job at Boise Cascade. as a lumberjack.

Nope. He claimed he was a truck driver. No. He marched for civil rights. No. He was arrested with Nelson Mandela in South Africa. No. He visited synagogue in Pittsburgh after a shooting there.

No. He confronted a gang leader named Corn Pop. No. I think that one happened, but that's just me. I don't have any evidence of it, but that one I think happened. Traveled 17,000 miles was Xi Jinping? No. No, he didn't.

Grew up in a Puerto Rican community. No. While at the same time growing up in a black church, no. I mean, on and on and on Biden has told lies about his life and his resume. And they couldn't care less. They don't care at all. don't care. But this is this is an

absolute catastrophe. They're armed guards waiting for him at the entrance of the Capitol building so he can't, or the so that he can't get into the House of Representatives. I mean they're really trying to stop him from being seated. Yeah.

Oh, it's incredible. Of course, this all has to do with this very small majority, right? There's five seats there. This is what they're going to try to do. They're going to do this. The scandal police are going to be out looking for everybody they can throw out of Congress. Because if they can do this, they can get control and wrestle it away from Republicans.

But I've noticed you've just, you've skipped over, you know, some of the big details of the Santos story, you know? Have I? For example. You got me, I guess. Sorry.

In 2008, when George Santos, a person, none of us had ever heard about until, like, probably for most of the audience, 10 minutes ago, when he was 19, he stole the checkbook of a man, his mother was caring for, according to Brazilian court records uncovered by the Times.

I just think about the effort. So they were looking for the checkbook when they went to Brazil? Yes. Police and court records show that Mr. Santos used the checkbook to make fraudulent purchases, including a pair of shoes. That's a direct quote from the New York Times. He bought a pair of shoes. With a stolen checkbook. Yes.

I mean, should we consider throwing him in prison for the rest of his life? That's the question I ask. Yes. All of America today. I think what's interesting about this is not this, you know, this George Santos part of it. Because I have no reason to root for or against George Santos. I don't know anything about the guy. And, you know, if he embellished his resume, he shouldn't have done that.

I mean, normally in normal circumstances, there's a chance maybe this guy would resign. And maybe he will. They're really trying to get him to just resign. That's what they're trying to do. Put so much pressure on him that he steps down. I got to believe the Republicans behind the scenes, a lot of them are saying publicly, yes, you should respond. Absolutely, he should resign.

This was wrong. Behind the scenes, the majority is so small. I'm sure they don't want this to happen. But, like, I'm more amazed by just the effort. This is a news organization that has designated seemingly all of its resources over a month or two against this guy that no one had ever heard of and no one had any opinion on and no one seemed to even know existed

up until a few weeks ago. And the New York Times and its global reach and its massive resources and all of this is going to prove to you that George Santos at 19 years old stole a pair of shoes. It's just like, It's incomprehensible with all the other stuff going on. This is what they're spending their time on.

Yeah. This is it. Yeah. It's fascinating and entertaining if it wasn't so serious. It really would be funny. Yeah. It really would. Because honestly, we came in here today.

If I told you right now, the George Santos story, we just told you, was a lie. We're just kidding. There isn't a congressman named George Santos. No one would know the difference. No one would know. Turnful 8-27-B-B-E-C-C. K more in one minute. It's Pat and Stufer Glenn today.

There is one other aspect of this is kind of interesting with the New York Times. I'm very disturbed by this, Pat. Why would the New York Times target the first openly gay Republican to win as a non-incumbent? Why?

What a good question. Why, Pat? And there's only one answer. Homophobia. That's it. That's exactly what it is. There's the only reason they would do this. Bigots.

They're bigots. They don't want, yep, they don't want gay people to have jobs, especially jobs in Congress. I've never seen a more blatant example of it than this with the New York Times, smearing this openly gay congressman. We all know that gay people are not properly represented within the Republican Party.

It should be 85% gay people. That's the only, In fact, only gay people should be allowed in the Republican Party. And the other 15% should be made up of trans. Exactly. Thank you for, I thought that was, I didn't need, I think that needed to be said. But I appreciate you just clarifying for anyone who might not know. I felt anything to do.

No, it's good. 85% gay, 15% trans, the makeup of our public. And, but it is interesting because they are the ones always saying there's no gay people that are Republicans. They found the one guy who won. as a non-incumbent to target for this incredible investigation to take this guy down, looking back to him as a teenager, to find out which shoes he stole. Right? Like, we had a guy running our nuclear waste facility who was stealing luggage, apparently,

at every airport in America. They don't even mention it. They don't care. They don't care. They don't mention it. It's not notable at all. It was just notable that he cracked. the glass ceiling of wearing high heels to work or something.

And we were supposed to care about that. Yeah. But here they target the one guy in the entire Republican Party who won as a non-incumbent. And they find that person as the target of this investigation. It is incredible. I will say, if this came from a right-wing institution and it was going after someone on the left who was the only X, Y, or Z in Congress to. win as a non-incumbent, I guarantee you

that would be said that was the reason. The New York Times would write column after column after column that told you that the reason why the Republicans were going after this person is because they were gay or trans or whatever the other 5,000 other genders or whatever group we're supposed to be talking about

today. That's what works. But as with blacks, who aren't really black, if they're conservative. Or if they don't vote for Joe Biden. Right. They ain't black. I guess the same applies now to gay people really aren't gay if they're Republicans. So it's interesting.

I think you can make a case. The reason George Santos is being targeted here is because they can't have, they can't have this be the case. They can't have gay Republicans winning, maybe persuading gay voters to come to the Republican side, maybe showing, you know, that not all Republicans are evil white people, evil white males, evil white straight males, the worst combination of all attributes imaginable. They can't have that. So maybe that is part of the reason he's being targeted.

I mean, I don't think it's out of the question to say that it is. But still, it's completely ridiculous that this has been the focus of the entire time you were on Christmas vacation, the entire time you were going to New Year's parties, the entire time you're watching bowl games, all of that time, the new. New York Times was talking about George Santos. Not George Soros. I mean, it's intense. It's an intense amount of coverage this guy is getting.

It's really outrageous. So your guess in the end, will he be, I mean, he'll be seated, but will he be forced out? That's interesting. The typical way Republicans do things is this guy folds and leaves. Yeah. Right? Like that is the way the Republican Party has typically operated.

They give in, you know, they, and, Look, I don't have any affinity for, again, I don't even know he was. I have no affinity for George Santos. If he did something really terrible, should he step down? I mean, you know, look, I don't, I don't even know who he is. I don't know if he's done these things. I don't know. He's admitted to some of the embellishments of his resume.

But, like, you can't give into these people. You can't give into these people because it's never, even when you have a real apology, we've all done things we want to apologize for. We've all done things wrong in our own. lives that we think, oh, crap, I should have done that better. I should have handled that differently. But like, we are at a point in our society and our culture where that apology is not taken honestly. It's not taken as intended. It's just used as a weapon against you. But you compare this to Eric Swalwell, sleeping with a Chinese spy for two years and is still in, not just

still in Congress, still on the intelligence committee. Yeah, they never give it. And you compare it to a guy who embellished his resume? Okay. Wow. I mean, aside from everything, is that even an offense worthy of stepping down from? I mean, I know he lied a little bit. He embellished his resume.

Probably not. It seems to me to be one of those things where, look, if the New York voters next time think it was a big deal, they'll throw about. Right. Right. Like, I mean, I know. Right. That seems to be to be the level of this. Especially from a guy that I literally never heard of. It's hard to get worked up about it, isn't it?

It is. Very. AAA 727 pet. The Glenn Beck program. Doing our best to protect free speech and truth from constant attack. More Glenn Beck after the break. It's Pat and Stu for Glenn, AAA 727, BECK. unbelievable how fast vacation went. Yeah.

Seems like it just started. Now here we are. Right back. Right back again. Although I'm very excited to be back. Very excited. Of course. Of course.

But yes, it goes very quickly. There's a lot going on during that two-week period. Yeah. The Christmas stuff, which parties. A parent of two smaller kids, you've got a lot of stuff going on. There's a lot of festivals. A lot of light-s. seeing a lot of everything.

And then you have Christmas and you have the aftermath and you're flown to New Year's. And, you know, you've got to gain your 5 to 10 pounds. Sure. Which... That was not a problem for me. I successfully did it. It was probably the easiest thing I accomplished during the holidays. My New Year's resolution was to put on that 5 to 10 pounds.

And I did it. Good. I did it immediately. Congratulations. You've already fulfilled and achieved your New Year's resolution. So now I can lay back a little bit. I don't have to be so intense, you know, on my goal. oriented life. Yeah, when you get that done in the first day of the calendar year. That's pretty

impressive. Really nice, yeah. Also, football's just about over, which kills me. I know. It's stressful. It's stressful. It's stressful. Very stressful. Very stressful. As we are, we are fans of the Eagles and Packers. So we have two teams, one ascending in the Packers. The Eagles have now lost two in a row with all sorts of injuries hitting the team. So now it's just constant. And those college football games on New Year's Eve were incredible. Man. Two great games.

TCU in the finals, which is pretty exciting to me. That's really fun. Yeah. A cool, you know, and that's part of the reason why vacation goes so quickly. There's so much football to watch. There's so much football to watch. And it's why I maybe didn't follow the George Santos story as closely as I should have. Because I was watching, you know, football, which is much better.

It was interesting when I turned the, I mean, there's so many bowl games, it doesn't matter when you turn on. I woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't sleep. It was about 3 o'clock in the morning. Turned on the TV and the George Santos Bowl was on. Is that what it was? I missed. That was the one bowl I missed. George Santos Bowl, I don't like to miss.

And so I was fortunate that I got up. Actually, we have an update. He fabricated that bowl. Oh, wow. Yeah. He didn't really have his own bowl. He actually hired those players to come out and act. like two colleges were playing in the George Santos Bowl.

Did you also hear about there? There was a terrorist attack against three police officers in Times Square on New Year's Eve, I think right at midnight, this 19-year-old from Maine, who just, they say he just recently became radicalized to jihadism and happened online like you hear so often. And at midnight, he just took out of a shabism. and started attacking police officers with it. Fortunately, none of the police officers were killed, and it looks like they're all going to be okay.

And he was just shot in the shoulder, so he's also alive. But what a weird thing, because once again, he was on the FBI's Terror Watch List. And I think I've just now realized that the FBI Terror Watch List means that they just sit back and watch you commit crimes. Right. Well, it's not the terror stop list. No, it's not.

It was a watch list. They would try to stop the terrorist. I realized, I wasn't taking it literal enough. It's more of a viewing party, you know. They get together. That's what they should call it. Yeah. The terror viewing party list.

Because they don't, they don't ever do it. I don't know what you do before they commit a crime anyway. Maybe you intervene in some way to try to at least let him know that we're on to you. We know you're a radical. You can monitor. Yeah. You can, I mean, look, they are free to sit out in front of the guy's house if they believe he's going to do something. And they do that to people often when they believe their suspects in some crime, right?

You'd think anyone on the terror watch list would at least get that treatment. Some sort of, you know. You would think. We should know where this guy is all the time. Some kind of scrutiny. Some precautions to make sure that things like just happened don't happen. I mean, in a free society, it's really hard to do. And when you need probable cause, it's really tough to prevent crime like that.

We talk about this often with things like mass shootings, right? You get some weirdo teenager who has no friends and decides they're going to go shoot a bunch of people in a grocery store. and people go back and like look at their social media postings and they're really weird and they seem they seem like the type of person who would do this and maybe they've even made some outlandish you know mildly violent comments or threatened other classmates and blah blah blah and you're like well why didn't they stop it well we don't live in china that's one of the reasons if we lived in china anyone who was suspected of a crime they just arrest and disappear and you never hear from them again and that does help your crime rate it really does unless you count you know, the government disappearing people as crimes. But if you don't do that and you say it's okay for the government to do that, you can control a lot of your crime problem. You, anytime, you know, anytime anyone does anything or you're suspected of doing something, if you speak out against the government, if you have a different religion,

if you throw all those people in prison camps, I mean, look, your crime rate does fall. It's just like we don't live in a country where that's allowed yet. Yeah. And what kind of society do you want to have? I mean, we want the freedom that we enjoy. So, yes, it's really difficult and maybe even impossible to stop everything before it happens. But you would think there'd be a better track record than just about everybody that we've heard about lately, whether it's a shooting or this machete attack, they're all on the FBI terror watch list. It's amazing.

It is especially considering the FBI has not had the greatest few years. for the reputation, right? Like, you know, these are the things that at some level, the tradeoff for Republicans and conservatives, largely over the past 30 or 40 years, has been, look, we know at times the FBI bends the rules, we're not comfortable with that, but like we also don't want to explode, right?

So, hey, you know, maybe we're willing to put up with some, excesses if they're going to, generally speaking, help stop, you know, mass violence, right? Like, you know, terrorism, things like that. And that's always been an uncomfortable sort of dance, especially for conservatives who are skeptical of government generally, right? Like, you know, you know, centralized government power, not something we're different, we're for. So it's always been, I think, a piece of the overall position package for conservatives that has made people uncomfortable.

I mean, you know, it's been sort of one of the libertarian critiques of conservatism over the years. Hey, you guys say you're so skeptical of government. Why are you so pro police and pro-FBI and pro-military and all these things? Which, you know, has always had some credibility, but also has been taken to. excess by the other side as well. Here we have a situation though where it's really seemingly spun out of control. So much of this now, the reputation

has been soiled to an extent that I don't know that you are ever getting conservatives back. I don't know the FBI is ever going to have supporters on the Republican side like they once did. I mean, I feel like that bond has been broken if it existed before. Sure. Yeah. It's going to be tough to, you know, to heal that wound because

they've been so bad for the last several years and maybe much longer than that, we just didn't know it. I don't know, but the FBI doesn't have very many friends on the right right now because, you know, there's just too many things that we've seen lately that show us they're not trustworthy, that they're not performing in the best interest of the American people.

They found a diary on this guy, on this guy's person. He was obviously a cop hater and he wrote extensively about that. He had a handwritten manifesto and what terrorists worth their salt don't have, doesn't have a manifesto on their, on their, you know, in or on them at all times. And don't, don't type it. No, it's got to be handwritten. He got to be handwritten so that people can understand it.

But, you know, you got to handwrite your manifesto. So he had that in his backpack. And he urged his family in this diary to please repent to Allah and accept Islam. So. Does that work? Was that a successful tactic? You know, you go and you stab a bunch of people, but then say, hey, you guys should listen to me on religious purposes, religious teachings. It doesn't really work for me, but maybe on his family.

I don't know. Maybe they'll be swayed by that. Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. I'm going to repent and turn to Allah now because he did attack three police officers with the mission. Chetty. He must feel strongly about it. He shows he really does mean it. So I guess that's what you're supposed to take from that. You know, I don't know. There's something about the mass violent attack that makes me less likely

to consider whatever you're pitching. Well, you're pretty picky. You know, if you're like, for example, if you're a vacuum salesman going door to door and you've got a great deal on a new vacuum, it's got to pick up almost everything that gets spilled, you know, maybe even cleans the carpet in a very deep fashion that you, normally you'd get only from a professional cleaning. You're selling me so far on this vacuum cleaner. Also, I murdered 45 people.

Would you still want to buy that vacuum? I feel like I'd be less likely. Does it come? Any attachments does it come with them? 46. Okay, then I'm so. I'm still going to buy the vacuum cleaner. Here's the thing.

I murdered one person for each attachment to draw attention to my vacuum. The only problem is I've only done 45. I've got to get to 46 and you're right here. So terrible news after you buy this vacuum. That is bad news. This vacuum will be used. to clean the blood out of the carpet of the murder I'm about to commit. 2,8-727, Beck.

And formed. Sign up for the free newsletter today at glenbeck.com. Pat and Stu, uh, welcome. Happy New Year. Looks like there's going to be a little bit of a battle for the, uh, for House Speaker. And it involves Kevin McCarthy, of course, who is the frontrunner, I would say at this point. And Andy Biggs. and I don't know that much about Andy Biggs,

but you and Glenn had him on the show? Yeah, we had him on when he announced where he'm going to kind of give his case on it. I think it's going to be an uphill battle for Andy here, although McCarthy has a difficult path as well. There's really no one who would have anything but a difficult path to win this. It's very difficult because with a five-seat majority, you've got to get to 218.

You got to get to 218. To get to 218, you need pretty much everybody. Now, every, you know, if, you think about if the squad actually had principles, right? You're at 218s. This is what happened with Pelosi last time. She had, what, 223, maybe it was 7 or 8 seat. I can't remember what the number was back right after the 2020 election, but a very small minority. And people like the squad could have easily thrown her out and made it so she didn't win.

They didn't do that because they never do it, right? The left has progressives and people who are supposedly principled, but when it comes down to it, they always vote for the thing. Yeah. Right? Like they always come along for a watered down version of Obama camp, right? And that usually includes Joe Manchin. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

They always cave. They always cave. I mean, you know, they got both of their 50-vote bills through last year through reconciliation. They spent their multiple trillions and trillions of dollars, despite only having. having 50 senators. That's because at the end of the day, they always come around, right? They always, they'll put up a stink here and there.

They'll try to woo their voters in West Virginia or New York by saying they're holding the line. But in the end, they always vote for the thing. That's how this works. Republicans aren't exactly like that. Republicans, you know, you get like freedom caucus guys.

They'll just at times just say no and stop whatever thing. the establishment wants. Sometimes that's a really good thing. Sometimes it can create sometimes unnecessary hassles, I guess the establishment would argue, where like these things are going to go forward eventually anyway and you're just making us all look bad.

You know, again, I don't have too much sympathy for that side of it, but I do get it. I understand what they're saying. Here, still McCarthy is the most likely guy. But it's not going to be easy. They can blow it up. Why can't we get a solid conservative? ever in the Speaker of the House seat.

Why can't Republicans do that? It's amazing, isn't it? They just, they, they won't seem to get behind real conservatism. If somebody's an establishment Republican, you know, like a Kevin McCarthy, yeah, we can get behind that. But you can't get behind a true conservative for some reason. Yeah, and it's true. The thing here, though, is a true conservative.

It's not like when you have, let's say you have 250 seats, you should be able to come up with a representative of the core movement in the party, right? The core movement of the party is conservatism, theoretically. You should get somebody who's really conservative to head it up. You know, Nancy Pelosi, while she's not arguably as liberal as, you know, Alexandria Acosio-Cortez, she's a good representative of the movement behind the party. She's a really big progressive that wants to spend trillions of dollars. And you know the policy prescription there. And she pulls it off and she does it. And she was there and she did a job that was, I don't know, in the center to the center left of the Democratic Party even. With Republicans, like, you do have moderate members. You know, George Santos, I don't know if he's a moderate or a conservative. I do know he was the first openly gay Republican ever elected as a non-incumbent.

Right. and that's important to know. But like, I don't know, let's just say George Santos maybe not the most conservative member. Well, when you have a five-seat majority, you've got to get those people too. Yeah. So you put a real conservative in there.

You're probably not going to get them the same way you're not going to get the Freedom Caucus for Andy McCarthy. Or not Andy McCarthy. Andy Biggs? Andy Biggs, yeah, Biggs. Biggs or Kevin McCarthy. So you have this, it's difficult both ways.

I don't know who can get through. The only way, they're going to. to try with McCarthy to go right down the middle and get both. And that's, that's not easy to do either. We've got, we've got, we've got some great stuff coming up here. And I, it's funny because you go through, this happens to be every time I have a long vacation like this, we've been off the last couple weeks. I come back and I'm like, gosh, I didn't follow anything in the news. I didn't even read news stories. I got nothing. I don't know. What are we going to talk about? And then as soon as we get in here, we start talking about something as important as George Santos.

I'm immediately back in the mode where, you know, what would we do without these shows? I don't know. What do normal people do? If you can't rant and rave about this stuff, I don't know. What do you do with your life? I mean, that is really true. You do probably important things with your life instead of this, but I will say it does. It is cathartic.

Yes. I don't know what I would do without it. Me neither. It's true. You've got to be able to comment on the madness. And there's plenty of it to comment on. We'll do that. But come on up here in just a few seconds on the radio show.

Today with Pat and Stu, great to have you with us. Volatimir Zelenskyy thanked America for, you know, giving everything we've got to the cause in Ukraine against Russia. And then made more demands. So we'll get into some of that. And much more coming up in about 60 seconds. Pat and Stu for Glenn. Glenn is actually preparing to be at the big swearing-in, the second swearing-in for Ron DeSantis.

Oh, yeah? Yeah. So that'll be kind of cool. Be able to see him sworn in for his second term. Hard to believe he's only been around for one term so far. He's come a long way in four years. Yeah. A really long way.

He won his first election by 0.4%, I believe it was. Wow. And his second by 19? I think it was. Yeah. 19% which is pretty, pretty amazing. People forget that he was a congressman before this.

And a pretty good one. It was a conservative then too. I guess it shouldn't be a shock. But now he is, by some polling, the leader for the Republican nomination in 2024. I mean, polling, I will say, is all over the board between him and Trump. Really, you could find whatever you want to find in that polling at this point.

I don't know that it tells you all that much. But he's certainly a serious competitive. for that nomination. Yeah, no question. Meanwhile, Volatimir Zelensky, the leader of Ukraine, thanked Americans for all the cash and military equipment and what is it, maybe $100 billion so far. I mean, I see estimates from as low as $18 billion to as high as about $110 billion. So somewhere in between, no doubt, but they're throwing billions at them every single week, it seems. Almost every week, there's new proposal to send more money to Ukraine.

Yeah. And so, Zolensky thanked us for that and then basically said, keep it coming. And we need a lot more. And you're not doing enough. And this is not charity. It's an investment. This sort of weird.

Did you need a visit from Zelensky? I didn't. Okay. I wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one. I did not need it. Yeah, I didn't. And like, I'm not even saying that is because, oh, he's, you know, some terrible guy are like I want Vladimir Putin to win.

Well, that's what you're accused of. If you say the least little thing about, hey, can we slow down on Ukraine? Right. It's like, but even if you're 100% behind every dime of spending, shouldn't you want him to stay there and like manage the situation? Like, we don't need to see you in person. We've got Zoom. There is no reason for it that I can see. Now, that was very, that was odd.

But, you know, look, this money's going over there. and we know a lot of it's not going to meet its intended purpose. Yeah, and there's no way we can track it. I mean, we're not even trying to track it. No, there is literally no way to track it. I mean, think about this. The vast majority of this money is being utilized for items that are designed to explode. Right?

In its best case scenario, what we do is we send, let's say, a missile, a drone over, to the Ukrainian army. They fire it and it takes out really bad Russian soldiers who are doing terrible things, right? Like, legend, that's the best case scenario of what happens. Yeah. There's no way to track that. It exploded. Yeah.

Right? Like, there's no, it's not like we can say, well, where is it? It's over there. It's that, where that hole is over there. It's the remnants are there. And so there's no way to track this. Of course, every, every coronavirus, person in Ukraine knows this.

And this is the problem. We all know. In fact, even if you support this entirely, you have to go into it and say, we know half this money is going to be wasted. Or worse, you know, the arms may be delivered, right? And some corrupt person may take them and sell them to someone else who does something terrible with them. We have no idea what's going to happen here. I think there's been some effect from this, obviously, as they pushed back on the Russian army.

It's had a huge effect on this thing. It hasn't been unsuccessful for the goal of pushing Russia back, which is certainly positive. I didn't even no fan of Russia and do believe that Russia was the aggressor here. And, you know, look, Vladimir Putin is an appropriate bad guy. That doesn't mean Zelensky is God. No, but that's how he's treated. That's how he's treated, though. By a lot of people in this country.

And, you know, they've taken to flying the Ukrainian flag. They've taken to vocally supporting Zelensky and what a tremendous man he is. And he's treated like at least a saint. Yeah. And he's not. No, he's not. It was well known before this conflict began that the Ukrainian government is one of the most corrupt in the world. Yep.

So did they just stop all of a sudden being corrupt? I don't think so, and thus I'm a little leery about all the money we're sending. Well, it's funny. One of the reasons we kind of have, one of the, look, people don't. People know enough before this war, people knew as much about Ukraine as they know about George Santos, which is nothing. Okay? They don't know anything about it.

They didn't know anything about Ukraine. The only thing that most people knew about Ukraine was that the Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, was taking phone calls from our president in which the media was telling us, It was an entirely corrupt transaction where Donald Trump was harassing Zelensky, who seemingly was going along with it into investigating his political enemies. That's the only thing we knew about the guy other than he was a comedian, supposedly. And now we're supposed to be like, oh, this guy's an incredible war hero. Look, I think it was really brave to stay there when the missiles start falling, right? And they start marching towards the Capitol.

He could have left. I think a lot of leaders would have left in that situation. And probably him staying there was a big factor to the way that the Ukrainian people responded. That's just not to say that he's some incredible saint. He's not God. He's not someone you should be on your knees worshipping. Yet most of our media seems to be there. They seem to be willing to change to the church of Zelensky and give him an unlimited amount of our money.

and that is where you get to like it's not as if we're in a great financial position here it's not as if we're everything's going perfectly in our economy not a money to burn right and that's again legitimately what we're hoping for

our best case scenario is this money buys things that burn buys weapons that hit something and explode that's our best case scenario so it's really hard to track and really difficult to believe that anything other than mass corruption is going to be involved with so much of this money. Of course it is.

Mildest son was, I mean, this is a minor issue, but, you know, speaking of his visit, my son said, should we expect him to at least, I don't know, put on a collared shirt when he comes and addresses Congress? Don't we expect, I don't know, something more than a T-shirt or a sweatshirt when you come here and, say hat in hand, hey, I need another hundred billion dollars. And this is your son of Vladimir? Because I was going to say, is he pro-

pro-Russia? He's got to be pro-Russia. He's got to be pro-Russia. If he really wanted the collared shirt for Zelensky, that proves he's pro-Russian. Maybe even a tie. I don't know. Wow. How about that? Like a collared shirt buttoned all the way up and a tie.

He's got a schick, though. He does. Yeah, he does. Now that's how he dresses all time. It's like if, if, you know, John Fetterman's shtick, though. It is. Yeah, right. John Fetterman can wear hoodies wherever he wants. You know, Kim Jong-un can wear members-only jackets wherever he wants. And Zelensky gets to wear the military garb wherever he goes. Yes. Even though, again, he was a comedian. A comedian. It's not a former general. A comedian, one of his famous bits is playing the piano with his man unit. Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's really classy.

Oh, just so funny. I laughed until I cried. Just brilliant stuff. You imagine the presidents of your nation and you've got clips, you know, viral clips like that. Sad. And, but it's going

to get worse before it gets any better because we're just going to continue to pump money and nobody's even hitting the brakes on it at all. We don't even have a caution light up. Nothing. We're just full speed ahead, green light, as much money as you want, we're going to keep pumping it in. Incredible.

Do you think the, because I think we're not going to change anything. We're going to keep doing what we're doing for a very long time, at least until the net, until 2024. I don't think there's any question that, well, actually, until 2025. I mean, Biden has said it. Yeah. We're just going to keep giving it until, well, until as long as this last. As long as this last. And even if it ends tomorrow, we're still going to be pumping in billions of dollars, at least until Biden is out of office at the very minimum. Do you think, though, that Europe continues with us? Because, you know, we're at that point, as we're heading into winter right now, these are going to get very difficult for... Really tough.

For Europe. Mm-hmm. And, you know, and like, I don't... They don't exactly have the steel spine on these matters all the time. Though they do feel more intensely threatened, I think, by Russia and their actions. I mean, look, you know, if you're sitting there in Europe and you're seeing them go into Ukraine, it's pretty reasonable to think, crap, will they come here next? Yeah. If you're Poland, you're really concerned.

You're nervous right now. So I can understand that, but I don't know how long does France hold out as a supporter of this? Not as long as we do, I bet. Right. No way. And of course, that just means we're going to pay for more of it. We'll pay for the rebuilding to. Yeah.

We'll do all this. Right. That's because that's what's going to happen too. We're going to rebuild all the buildings that we're blown up by us or them or us retaliating at them at Russia. It's such a mess. This is why you do try to avoid these things if at all possible. If possible, try not to get in giant wars between countries with tens of millions of people. It's a really good safety tip, actually.

AAA 727, BECK, more in one minute. I'm just going to bring a billion, a trillion, seven. $700 billion billion off the sidelines, investment. Right. In the investment into Ukraine. A million billion, $700 million trillion,000 billion trillion dollars. It's about how much we have invested, invested so far in Ukraine. I don't think anybody even knows the exact figure.

I mean, they're all over the place with the estimates. And they're asking for the biggest donation yet. I'm sorry, investment yet. which is what, $45 billion, I believe? They just promised to put in a bill to send over to Zelensky in the Ukrainian effort. Really something. We'll see. We'll see how this goes.

They are in a standoff in the east, they say. And this is taking a toll on both countries. Both countries have supposedly lost over 100,000 soldiers and civilians in the case of Ukraine. a hundred thousand and a hundred thousand Russian troops during the during the conflict with Afghanistan I think Russia lost is it 15,000 troops. So they've lost more in what 10 months than they did in 10 years in Afghanistan by a lot. I mean a factor of five at least. So this war is not helping anybody.

and it would be nice to see it come to a conclusion. Wouldn't it? It would really be great. And Europe, like you just mentioned, Stu, moments ago, is really nervous because, you know, it's cold in Europe and they could be cut off at any time by Russia. Fortunately, we weren't cut off by anybody around Christmas time because, man, did it get cold here? You were in town, right? Yeah. When the cold snap hit?

Yes. Oh, my gosh. Now, again, keeping things in pretty cold. perspective, obviously, our friends up north, not feeling bad for us. It was actually, but it was the wind chill factor on, I don't know, I think it was the Thursday before Christmas was four below zero. Four below. That's pretty cold for anywhere.

That's not just Texas cold. That's cool. Now, today it's going to be, you know, 80. 80. I was going to say, it was about 70 coming in. Yeah. So it's true. It was very, very.

Our stresses on weather are not the stresses. I mean, good God, what happened in Buffalo and the surrounding areas there is one of the most tragic situations. Was it the snow bomb or whatever? The cyclone snow bomb? I mean, dozens of people died. Yeah, that's really sad. Really sad. I mean, that's incredible.

And so we've seen some real, but I mean, think about that type of activity, you know, in Europe where they decided to cut off. of heating. People will die. Oh my gosh. It's just an instant tragedy of thousands. So that's, you know, it really is incredible to watch all that play out because it's easy to talk about these international issues as, you know, as analysts, right? Like a lot of the hawks out there that, that, that, that were pushing for a lot of the,

the policies that led up to this, both on the Russian side and, um, the western side. You talk about holding that line, and it's understandable you want to hold a line. But when this stuff goes down, you realize that maybe this isn't good for anybody. You know, it's like, it seems obvious in retrospect. But before this, it wasn't. You know, I mean, Zelensky was on television saying they weren't going to invade. Oh, you're right.

You know, for a guy who's the hero of the world. And that was just shortly before they invaded. Right. days before they invaded. He was still saying they're not going to do it. Wow. Well, they did it. They did it. Yeah. And here we are. And here we are. So I don't know if it's, you know, you still have, it's interesting how the sides have flipped a little bit on this and that like the hawkish party was supposed to be the Republicans, you know, and Republicans were the ones who were always trying to stop Russia. Republicans were the ones who wanted the Soviet Union, you know, back in the

day to go away. Democrats were visiting it. You know, they, you know, They were taking honeymoons at the Soviet Union. They were going to communist countries for vacations. And now, I guess because we were supposed to believe that Donald Trump was working for the Russians or something, now we're supposed to be on the Russian side. And the left is supposed to be the hawkish ones pushing back. It's like, what is going on? I am not on the Russian side. Right.

Not by a long stretch. By any means. You know, I don't want them to win as we are accused of all the time. but I also do think we have a responsibility, number one, to act in the best interests of America. And it is appropriate and necessary to make sure we are constantly thinking about whether sending billions of dollars to Ukraine is in the best interest of America. If it is, you can make an argument for it. If you haven't thought about it as part of your calculation, then you should not be making these decisions. Yeah, and the other thing is, this is how Vietnam started, you know, with pledges that we would never send troops, but we would just lend support, oh, and advisors, which, you know, it's exactly what we're doing right now.

We're advising and we're sending tons and tons of money and equipment. So can we guarantee that we're not going to send military troops over there? I don't think you can guarantee that. they keep saying that there's no plan to, but they said that about Vietnam as well. And that's my ultimate concern here is that we don't get involved directly in a conflict with Russia. Because first of all, it's not our fight. It is in our fight. I will say one thing that's interesting about this is that from my perspective, what I want is I want it over.

Because it's creating so many problems, not just there. And I care. Like, I care that there are innocent people in Ukraine dying. I care that there are innocent people in Russia who will probably die as well. All of this is a problem, and I don't want it to happen. I want it over for that reason and tons of other reasons that are affecting all of us here and Europe and all around the world. There's a million problems that stem from this. But like, if you're Ukraine, would you be, would you be, look, I want to get to negotiate,

but you guys, sure you guys can have Crimea and sure you can have these reasons. regions. No big deal. We want it over too. I got, I don't know. I mean, I if they just came in and we're like, ah, we just wanted New Mexico, you know, let him. We're like, okay, just take it. We want this over. So go ahead. You can have New Mexico. I don't think that would be our stance. No, it would not. And I'm sure it's not theirs. The people of Ukraine have got to be saying, we're not going to negotiate this right now. Forget it. The Glenn back. It's Pat and Stufer Glenn. Triple-8-27B-E-C. Normally January 2nd, like the worst time of the year. You know, you got Christmas behind you, got New Year's behind you.

The only thing that saves is that there's still just a little bit of football left. You got that to look forward to. But you can take a little bit of the edge off the misery for this time of year by going to kexie.com and just order yourself some cookies to drown your sorrow. We brought back a bunch of the quick cookies that people have been talking about for a while. the hot chocolate cookie. Really good. Black Forest was just a cherry chocolate cookie made with real cherries. Butter beer based, you know, on the Harry Potter thing. That one was good.

I remember that one. Vanilla and butterscotch cookie with a butterscotch cream. And then the M&M cookie that I hear a lot about. That's back. That was my initial one. That was my original. You brought that in. Your original favorite?

Yeah, this is, of course, Pat's wife has all these recipes. Jackie and she makes incredible cookies, the best I've ever had. and that was the one you'd bring it in every year. I was like, gosh, yeah, that, it is good. America needs these. It does, especially right now. Yeah. So you can order it at kexie.com.

Use the promo code the Jeffie to get 18% off. All right, triple eight 900 or 727 BECK, AAA 727 BECK. A little bit of common sense coming from the World Boxing Council. which is not necessarily a place I would figure you would find a lot of common sense. But the head of the WBC has announced a new policy that they're creating a transgender category. So if you're transgender, you fight other people who are also transgender. And right now they're doing a sort of a research project on it to find out,

how many there are who would be interested in a boxing league. The number I would get limited is the number that I would estimate it. I would estimate it as limited. But what he's concerned about and so am I. And we've talked about this is he said biological men will never fight women in our league. And I think that's brilliant because you could get some seriously injured women. women who are fighting against guys who identify as women, right? I mean, and it has happened.

It's just not fair. It has happened. It's not pretty. I think it was a UFC or some MMA fight. A biological man fought a woman because he identified as a woman and broke her face, essentially. Just busted out her, you know, that bone that's right below your eye. orbital bone and you just I mean you hate that kind of stuff

somebody could get seriously there's already injuries in boxing but you increase the risk exponentially even death absolutely on the table in this sort of situation if a man is saying he's a woman is fighting another woman you could

literally have death as a consequence to that it's interesting because I and I maybe I'm a was I cannot watch even female versus female boxing. Like I have literally no interest in it.

What a sexist. Oh my gosh. 100%. It's really what it is. It's legitimate sexism that I admit to fully. I have no interest in watching... And we should all have that kind of sexism, I think. I think so too. Let's protect women. Let's protect them.

I do not want to see a woman hit. I don't want to see it. I don't care if it's another woman. I do not want to see. a woman get hit. And I don't know. And if that's wrong, I don't want to be right. Right.

On it. I'm 100% there. You know, I wasn't, who was the, she was in, Gina, what's her name? She was a former MMA fighter. She was in the Star Wars series. She got canceled. I can't think of her name for some reason.

But she was in this. And people knew her, I guess, from fighting. And like, look, this has been a tradition. There was women's, wrestling, you know, the women's boxing thing became a big thing over the past few years. But like, I have no interest in it. I mean, none because I just, like, fundamentally, you just don't want to see violence against a woman.

I mean, watch dudes beat up on each other. I'll watch that all day. Yeah, I mean, watch the NFL. These guys are getting cracked like crazy. I mean, it's, but even that's hard to watch when you see a really brutal hit in the NFL. Yeah, you wits, right? I mean, no interest in that. I will say, is it concerning at all that they're saying they want to do,

did they use a like a singular transgender division? Because I'm, we'd be worried about a transgender woman and a transgender man doing battle. I think they match up, they match up the biological sex. Okay, so that's two extra. I mean, this is going to get ridiculous. You're going to have 914 bathrooms and you're going to have all these different divisions. I don't know how you're supposed to handle it. But.

But at least he's. trying to make some concessions here and trying to take some precautionary steps to prevent, you know, women getting really badly hurt or killed in the ring. And I think it's great. And where are the women's rights groups applauding this? Where are the women's groups saying, hey, thank you. Thank you for protecting women. That's great. We appreciate that. Instead, what he's going to face, I'm sure is a bunch of transphobia claims. You're a bigot. All of that kind of stuff.

You can't write parody like this. You can't. It's just we're all going to sit here for women's rights and argue that women should be punched by men. That's really like this is really where we're going to get. That's a pretty bad argument. That is really. When you think about it. It is.

Wait, you want women to be hit in the face by a big burly man. He's not a man. That's a she. Okay. All right. All right, dear. All right. But I will say at least this seems to be, because the solutions are going to be messy to these problems, but at least this is clearing the lowest hurdle possible, which is we should not let men beat the crap out of women on stage.

I feel like a low hurdle to clear. Yeah. It's like an inch off the ground, not even that. That's like the lowest hurdle I can think of. And I do think it's one we should make sure that we clear, regardless of how ridiculous this becomes. Me too. But it is. it's just a, it's like, we have to sit here and like say these things.

How can it be possible that we have to sit here and make a coherent argument? I don't know. About how men should not be being paid to punch women in the face for our entertainment. How is it possible that we have to make that argument? And we're on the hateful side of it somehow. Right. Somehow we're the ones that are the haters. We're the bad guys for saying, you know, maybe Bill shouldn't be.

beat up on Julia, you know, in front of a cheering audience. Yeah. Even if Bill changed his name to Jill. Right. It still, that doesn't take away the bone structure in his body. No. And the muscle structure. WBC president, Mauricio Suleiman, said,

we're creating a set of rules and structures so that transgender boxing can take place, as they fully deserve to if they want a box. We do not know yet. numbers that are out there. But we're opening a universal registration in 2023 so that we can understand the boxers that are out there. And we'll start from there. Makes perfect sense. He said, in boxing, a man fighting a woman must never be accepted regardless of gender change. There should be no gray area around this. And we want to go into it with transparency and correct decisions. Woman to man or man to woman transgender change will never be allowed to fight a different

gender by birth. That's great. I mean, that takes some giblets to be able to make that that statement now. Yeah, agreed. It does. And which it shouldn't, but it does. Right. I will say the word never is always an interesting one to use. I don't know that I have the same level of confidence in anybody these days. I don't either. Because he's going to get all kinds of flack for this. You know he is. I mean, maybe there's a line. I mean, just because I think, you know, this is interesting.

I think society has this line still. I think society holds these lines. Society. Where men shouldn't hit women? Really, they still believe this. Yes, there are a few insane people that are on the news all the time that will say, of course, they should be. That's actually a woman.

But like, we all know that's not reality. Yeah. We all know it's not reality. And I do think people on the left also know it. Like, some of them say they don't know it. Some of them act as if they think, oh, this is actually a woman. But they all know what's going on here. And the test of it is not swimming competitions.

The test of it is boxing. Yeah. Right? Like, if you really believe this, you'd say they should fight each other. And you know what? A lot of people are not going to say that. You know, most people are still going to be sane and say, of course not. Obviously, this guy who is very hairy and weighs 265 pounds should not be going up against a woman in a boxing ring.

And I think violence might hold that line for a while. I think sports generally have done a good job at holding that line because of how absurd it feels. I mean, even the swimming competition stuff, I don't think that worked for the left. I think that worked against them. You know, the whole situation where you have a guy going into a women's swim meet and winning by, you know, 12 laps or whatever it was, that really, I think, hit a lot of parents squarely in the face. Wait a minute. I can entertain this stuff. I can come up with my nice liberal viewpoints.

I can be accepted at all my little, you know, cocktail parties. and all of this. But at the end, like my daughter is the one who gets screwed over this, and we all realize that's wrong.

And I think that that has gone a long way. Violence is a whole different line. If you start okaying violence against women, and they will. These organizations, some of them will do it.

But I don't think that people go along with that. And there was even a little, you know, you mentioned the swimmer, Leah Thomas. Yes. Or, yeah,

Leah Thomas. And there was a little bit of pushback there because the competitor to Leah Thomas. We're upset with it. They're like, okay, you're taking scholarships away from us. You're taking Olympic opportunities away from us,

and we fought our whole lives for this. So I think there was a little bit of pushback there, but yeah, the violence, in boxing, you've got to draw the line there. AAA 727, Beck. This is the Glenn Back. Triple-8-727-B-E-C-K is the number. Patents do.

for Glenn. The New York Times did an interesting poll, which I have to imagine they thought would turn out a different way. Basically, would you use the following terms? We were talking about this a minute ago about things like Leah Thomas the swimmer and how I don't think Americans really have supported that, even though the left has pushed for it. I don't think they support this stuff. I don't think they believe it. I don't think they use it in their real lives. Well, the New York Times decided to, I guess, kind of test this in a way. what if we ask Americans, do they use these words or not? And the words are words you've heard of like latinx, like chest feeding, like bi-pac, right? Uh-huh. Do you use those terms or not? Or do you use breastfeeding? Hispanic. The numbers are pretty amazing.

So Hispanic was the one used most often. 87% people said they would use Hispanic. 86% said they would use pregnant women. 85% said breastfeeding. Now, again, all these are supposed to be hateful terms. 84% said they would use the term master bedroom. Oh, God, and ridiculous. 81% said they would use Asian.

77% said African American, but 75% said black. Wait, Asian? What is the alternative now? You're not supposed to say Asian? What? Yeah. AAPI. Asian island. Asian-American Pacific Islander.

That's ridiculous. Who's going to say that? Right. So now go down the list. Now, again, it was 87% said African-American was okay. Black, 75%. Would you say person of color? That's only 49%.

I think that that's okay? 49% would say that. Primary bedroom. Neighbor ambassador bedroom was 84%. Primary bedroom only 49%. um birthing parent 34%

Bipak that's a what BIPA is A person of color is the end No black indigenous person of color Okay that's only 30% Wow

AAPI is on the list as well Now remember Asian was 81% would say that AAPI 27% Latinks is on the list. Now remember Hispanic was number one on the entire list. 87% said they would use the term Hispanic. Is it latinx or is it Latinx? I don't know.

I don't know either. I like Biden's pronunciation, which is Latinx. That is what he calls. I love that. And the Latinx people. Well, no matter which way you pronounce that, only 22% said they would use the term Latinx. and how about chest feeding

chest feeding finished dead last breastfeeding breastfeeding was 85% said yes we'll use breastfeeding chest feeding was 10% 85 to 10 but look at these pairs I'd like to see you chest feed

with a biological man body tell me your chest feeding you can milk anything with a nipple I believe I learned that from meet the parents look at these pairs though Pat Hispanic 87% Latin Thanks, 22%.

Pregnant women, 86%, birthing parent, 34%. Breastfeeding 85%, chest feeding 10%. Master bedroom, 84%, primary bedroom 49%. Over and over and over again, that story's told. And I think it tells us the truth, which is people aren't actually buying into this. This is more a creation of the media than anything else.

People are not going to use the term chest feeding. They're saying no to it in reality. That's positive. Yeah, it is. It should be 100%. It should be 100. This is the Glenn Back program. By the way, we were told that if Joe Biden won the election, he would cured cancer.

Yeah. And if you want to know if Joe Biden has cured cancer yet, you can go to has Joe Biden cured cancer.com. If you go to has Joe Biden cured cancer.com, you will get the answer. at any moment during the day, down to the second. So far, I mean, as of right now, right now? The answer is... Hold on, let me check. The answer is...

Cancer.com. No. No. Cancer still exists as of Monday, January 2nd, 2020, 23, 11.4 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Wow. Well, yeah, he did promise. He did promise. So I guess he's got two more years. Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, that should shock you. He's got two more years, at least of this. Maybe six.

We're only halfway through. How can we make it through the other half? Radio show starts in just a few seconds. New York Times did kind of an interesting interview with Anthony Fauci over the Christmas season, and we'll show you some of the things that were revealed from that. Also, there's another shortage to take note of. We'll get into that and more in about 60 seconds. Pat and Stu for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

Pharmacists and parents across the country are contending with empty shelves as they search for children's pain relief medications amid the spread of RSV, flu, and COVID. I am just, this is the first time hearing of the children's medicine shortage. The surge of respiratory viruses has overwhelmed hospitals in doctors' offices. 76% of pediatric hospital beds were full nationally. As of today, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, CVS, and Walgreens announced that they're limiting the number of children's pain relief medications customers can buy. I mean, we've had big outbreaks of flu and RSVO and whatever in the past. And I don't remember this ever happening before. Why is this happening now?

Yeah, I don't remember it happening either. Really weird. Yeah, and it doesn't seem like the pitch that we've had over the past couple. years, which has been the supply chain stuff. It doesn't seem like that should be the case anymore. There's a lot of medications they're having problems with. We also remember the baby formula shortage that was going on and it seems to still be going on at some level.

Yeah. It doesn't seem like we as a country are able to solve basic issues anymore. It's a really fundamental problem. But like it does, when we have these issues that I feel like America used to be able to handle very easily. It doesn't seem like we're able to do that anymore. Part of that, I think, is they say part of this is sort of China-based because China went through this whole thing where they try to do zero COVID for all this time. And now they're finally saying, okay, we can't do this.

This isn't going to work, which of course is true. But because they've locked down their population so tightly for multiple years, many of them have not had COVID yet. They haven't had kind of what we've come through, which is everybody sort of got it. and you have everybody at this point, almost every soul in America has some level of protection against COVID. Yeah. Almost everybody has something. Whether you've had some medication,

whether you, you know, there might be a medication you prefer, maybe you like the vaccine, maybe you don't like it, you just got it naturally, you know, you got it to,

you know, through someone sneezing in your face or whatever. Everybody's got something now that protects them at some level. That's not the case in. China, including a lot of their old people, who if they got anything at all, likely got the really crappy Chinese vaccines. So don't do much of anything. Almost don't work at all.

I mean, those are almost worthless. Ours are pretty bad. There's a virtually worthless. So there's nothing really there, right? So they are now going to a place where they're taking the sort of scary part of COVID on for the first time because they, suppose. They locked their country down. They didn't really only have a few thousand deaths.

That's obviously a lie. It's been much worse there than they've disclosed. But still, there's a much larger chunk of people who have been unaffected by it than in other areas of the world. And they're about to be. So that long story to be said that they are now, you know, trying to figure out how to produce all the things they produce for our country. in the middle of that crisis, which is not easy. I guess that might be a component in this. A longtime doctor says this is something that's just always been available.

And now it's not. He said, I've been practicing for 34 years. This is the first time I've ever had to worry about being able to recommend Tylenol, Advil, or Motrin. Because they're not available. Incredible. That's a... Should not be the case. This is not a third world nation.

Why are we having these third world problems? very bizarre. Meanwhile. I blame George Santos, by the way, for this. They're going to uncover it eventually. The highly sought after, highly respected representative from New York. Yeah. Exaggerated his resume.

Yeah, the first openly gay Republican elected as a non-incumbent. That's, so I pretty much just will blame him for anything. All right. Well, and I think that's, uh, it's all proven. Yeah. I mean, it makes sense. Anthony Fauci had the New York Times come over to his home, do some interviews with him. And there were some revealing things at his house, like the fact that he's got portraits of himself all over his house. I mean, what's wrong with that?

Who does that? Who's got giant portraits of themselves in their office? Kim Jong-un. Okay, yes, yes. If your mouth's a tongue, you probably do as well. But he hasn't been around in a while. This isn't him like posing with his family, for example. No, no, it's him.

Just him by himself. Yes. He's got bobbleheads of him. He's got massive portraits hanging all over the place in his home of him. Anthony Fauci loves Anthony Fauci. Nobody loves Anthony Fauci more than Anthony Fauci. It's impossible. You can't. You can't.

It's interesting because, I mean, you know, like, I don't think I would want, I don't even like to look in the mirror, let alone have a painting of myself up. I know. I'm revolted when I pass by a piece of reflective glass. I would definitely not want, you know, portraits of myself, especially by myself. Like, you know, you have a picture of your family up. I can understand that. Yes, if it's you and your wife or you and your wife.

kids, grandkids, whatever. That's understandable. And like, you know, and we have some, we've obviously been in,

you know, the media for too long. And, you know, like, we have studiosmerch.com right now. That has a bunch of merchandise that we sell,

right, for, for, you know, for fans of the show. And over the years, I don't think there's any up there right now,

but over the years, there have been many items that have had our stupid faces on them. They're never on display at my home. No. Like,

Right? No. I have a box somewhere where I stick old merchandise that I keep, you know, for the archives, I guess. I mean, there's a box with a bunch of stuff like that in there, but I'm not going to. No way. No way would you frame it and put it up on the wall? Right. No way.

There's just no way. So New York Times, Cheryl Stolbert, said the walls in Dr. Anthony Fauci's home and his home office are adorned with portraits of him. And embarrassed Fauci is uncomfortable with her being there and witnesses. all of these bobble heads and portraits in his house, she writes, because he believes the far right will now attack him as an egomaniac. Well, yeah, only because you are an egomaniac. And we've known that forever. He also referred to himself in third person like multiple times throughout this article.

The guy is just so in love with himself. It should be embarrassing to him. I would be worried about him if he weren't embarrassed by this. But you know what? You wouldn't have to be embarrassed if you didn't have the portraits of yourself all over the place. I mean, who does that? Yeah. Really?

It's usually dictators. It is. It's usually people have missile parades. Right. That's usually the way that goes. Yeah. You got your big fat face up on buildings, billboards, statues, if you're the leader of North Korea. But not normally the head of the NIH here in America would have that.

it just shows what kind of guy this is. He also claimed that under-vaccinated red states did much worse than the blue states during COVID times. Is that even true? I mean, I don't think that's true. I'd have to do some research on that. But did we have more deaths in red states than they did in blue? Like, did Texas have more deaths in California or New York? I don't think so.

Yeah, I mean, you know, there's Per capita. People will find whatever they want to find in this data at this point. I mean, you know, it's so, it's on both sides. People will find whatever, whatever they want. The bottom line, though, to this entire situation is we all recognize that things like this are a tradeoff, right? You know, the old saying, Thomas Sol, you know, there's no such thing as solutions.

There's only tradeoffs. If you want to lock your population down, if we want to, want to put everybody into their own little sealed phone booth so that they can't interact with any other people and we deliver their their nutrients by tube you could probably create you could probably stop a lot of COVID cases right like you could probably do it would that be worth it you know fundamentally you can look at data and find um you know the you're like you know i think it was Mississippi that did particularly poorly when it comes to a per capita death toll. You can find data like that.

And you can find, you can look at it both ways. You can find, obviously, New York is the primary example of a death rate that was incredibly high, right? You can find that data. You can do it. But again, it has to be a decision made with the entire scope of life. and if you're looking at it as an entire scope of life, did you lock down your entire population far too long,

but make them wear masks, make their kids not be educated, learning loss, loss of relatives, you know, connection with relatives, not being able to go to the funeral of your loved ones. Well,

of course, the people in Washington got to go to John Lewis's funeral. Of course, they got to do that, but you didn't get to do it. You didn't get to visit your loved ones as they were dying in the hospital. You didn't get to go help.

a needy friend or relative who needed your support at a trying time. You didn't get to see your relatives for all of this. And like at the end of the day, isn't the right balance for people to be able to make these choices themselves. To be able to weigh these risks themselves and decide how much of life am I willing to give up to avoid this illness? You know, for some people who are particularly vulnerable, it might have been a lot.

For some people who are particularly vulnerable, Well, it is a lot. It was a lot. And maybe that was the right choice for them. But to do it to an entire population, to do it to children who had almost no risk of negative effects associated. That's borderline criminal to me. Yeah. And, you know, we just mentioned China.

Look how they're faring right now. I mean, nobody locked down more and had harsher restrictions. I think during COVID-19 than China. And now they've got this massive outbreak again. And we don't even know because they lie. We don't even know how bad their situation is. I mean, there are people that have said there's 100,000 infections per day in China right now.

Two years later? Over two years later. Triple-8-7-27-B-E-C-K. More coming up. Pat and Stufer Glenn on the Glenn Beck program, AAA-27-B-E-C-K. President Biden claims the Secret Service agent, according to a new book, they claim that Biden said the, remember the agent, the Secret Service agent who got bitten by a dog like, I don't know, eight days in a row. Remember that?

Yeah. And once it was kind of like severe. Yeah. It was a bad guy. Sort of like sideshow Bob. It was he was walking around and the Simpsons and hitting a rake and they just kept hitting him in the face. He's a poor guy. Like that.

Every place he stepped, he got bit by another dog. Well, the same dog. So Biden says he was lying, according to this new book. That's a lie. Wait, what? Yeah, the Secret Service agent lie. He said, look, the Secret Service are never up here. It didn't happen.

Oh. Okay. Well, wasn't he treated by a nurse? This should be pretty easy to track down. Although, I'll bet the Secret Service won't do that. They won't look into it. They won't cause any waves because the president is denied it. but they should.

They should. Biden thought somebody was lying about the way the incident had gone down. Well, the whole thing is, I remember during this situation, it was like, okay, you can't even be honest about your stupid dog. We have to do, like, intelligence operations to discover whether or not your dog bit one of the Secret Service agents. apparently the dog was a little bit out of control at one time. And I don't know if it was eight days in a row with the same agent or other agents were bitten. Yeah. But he suspect the president suspected that MAGA sympathizers were embedded in the Secret Service because the agency, the agency is full of white ex cops from the south who tend to be deeply conservative.

Wow. I mean, the paranoia of this guy and his obsession with MAGA-related issues, just unbelievable to me. The problem with it is it's been paid off. It's been rewarded. His obsession has been rewarded. He became president in the United States largely based on a campaign of I'm not Donald Trump. That was really his only argument as we went into the campaign. He stayed in his basement and said, I'm not Donald Trump a bunch of times.

and then had, quote-unquote, better-than-expected results in the midterm, once again saying, ultra-maga, ultra-maga. So this behavior has been rewarded. And just pitting Americans against each other. It's just, it's despicable. Oh, yeah. Start to finish. Oh, it's definitely despicable.

The question is, does it work? There's no part of the calculation as to whether despicable is acceptable for the Biden family. They're already very comfortable with that part of things. They are. The question is, does it work? If it failed miserably here, you may have seen a different change of tone. But he's not going to change tone if it works. And that's what calls me.

Because they, you know, they didn't absorb the beating they were supposed to absorb in November. And they still lost the house. There's still any worse position than they were. True. But they act like it was just a massive overwhelming victory for him. And it really wasn't. No, it wasn't. Look, it's spin.

I mean, the bottom line is back in the summer, they were all predicting they were going to win the House and the Senate. And they didn't. They lost the House. Look, it was a disappointment for us because we were hoping for more control over what they were doing. More barriers to be put in place of terrible policy. Didn't get all of them. Didn't get everything that you wanted, of course. Got something.

Yeah, you got something there. And I think, you know, look, in some ways, this might be positive for, 2024. The way this turned out, there's an argument to be made. This might be the best possible way. Why? Well, you know, Republicans still cleared the hurdle they had to clear, which was come up with a way to stop two more policies that only needed 50 votes, right? They were able to stop those. Now, they weren't able to get the, you know, the ability to stop the Supreme Court and justices and all that stuff. That's going to be a problem. There's a lot of, there's a lot of problems here. But they got the the lowest hurdle cleared.

And I think the message sent to Democrats, despite the fact that they were supposedly going to do much better in the summer, they did better than expected in their minds, and the message sent to them is, hey, maybe we don't need a change. You know, maybe Biden is fine as our candidate. You know, maybe we keep saying chest feeding over and over again. Maybe this is working. Maybe, you know, we start saying that anyone who thinks a guy dressed in a women's swimsuit shouldn't be able to swim is a bad person.

Maybe we keep saying that. You know, maybe we keep going with the CRT thing. And they are. And they are. And you know what? Honestly, like, I think there are a lot of factors as to why Republicans did worse than expected. And Democrats outperformed their last minute expectations. But I will say, like, I don't think it's because they said chest feeding so much.

I don't think it's because they went super, you know, super CRT in their, in their racial breakdown of America. I don't think that was the reason they did better than they expected. And so if they do, if they do, that's probably good. Yeah. It's probably good that they come into the 2024 election, not only with CRT and gender stuff and all, you know, all of this other crazy nonsense.

But in addition, with Joe Biden as the guy who's the candidate, and that is much, much more likely than it was if Republicans blew them out. But the real question is, will Republicans go with superstar George Santos in 2024? He's the only guy on my mind. I'll say that. I say Santos 2024. You know, if he were, he's my guy. If he were getting elected in 2024, he'd be the first as a non-incumbent, openly gay Republican to win the presidency.

Wow. Wouldn't that be great? The Glenn Back Program. Pat Gray's Super Gear for Glenn. for Glenn on the Glenn Beck program. You can listen to my show immediately preceding this one every weekday from 6 to 8 central time. That's 7 to 9 Eastern. Packray unleashed immediately preceding this show or anytime you want on podcast.

Yep. And Studio's America available on YouTube podcast as well, 8 p.m. Eastern on Blaze TV. It was join up at blazTV.com slash Glenn. promo code is Glenn if you'd like to save 10 bucks. So while we were on vacation, Avatar, the way of water came out. What an enticing title.

A way of water. Which way will it go? I've got a seat. I must know. Which way will the water flow? It's just a dump of a franchise. I don't get it. I didn't get it in 2009 or whatever.

It came out the first time. I don't get it now. I haven't seen this one. But it's made 400. 140 million since it came out, which is, you know. It's a lot of money. That's a lot. Although their ad budget was, what, a quarter of a billion dollars?

So I don't know that. I mean, like, it, it, I know for a fact that underperformed its initial. Here it did. Here it did. It was very big. Worldwide, it's very big. Worldwide, it's interesting. Worldwide.

Why do people worldwide like Avatar? I don't know. I don't know. I will say it does come off as quite anti-American. Could that be part of it? I mean, maybe if you're in China, it does seem to be a great movie. I don't know. Yeah.

It's very anti-capitalist. Yeah. You know, it's very anti-humans. Humans. It's super pro-environmentalist. These aren't necessarily cores of the American culture. But, you know, for whatever reason, it does perform much better overseas than it does here, which is to be expected. Here, though, it did underperform.

The reason I know this is because of this bet that I made months ago with a friend who we were all together and we were. we're talking about somehow Avatar came out and we were just talking about it and we made this point that I think is obviously rational that any huge movie that made $1.4 billion, every other example of it has meaning

memorable characters, memorable story arcs, memorable lines, memorable sequences. It makes a cultural impact. Makes some sort of cultural impact, right? Like, you know, if I tell you, toy story, like you're going to be able to come with several things from Toy Story. Star Wars.

Titanic, another James Cameron movie. Jurassic Park. Jurassic Park. People will remember all sorts of things from this. No one remembers anything from Avatar. Not one character name. Not one significant plot point other than just like, wasn't the blue people in the ocean? Like, that's it.

Couldn't have really told you who starred in it? No. No one knows who starred in it. I mean, even one of the actresses in this latest one forgot she was in it or forgot it didn't come out yet. Oh, yeah. Did you see that? She thought it already had been released and flopped. Yeah.

Yeah, I saw that story. And then it came out. She's like, oh, that movie hadn't even come out yet. That's how long it's been since they filmed this thing. Incredible. So I was talking to my friends, and this is right around the time Top Gun Maverick is out. And it's, you know, lighting the box office on fire. And I'm like, you know, it just made no impact.

Like, you know, something like Top Gun Maverick made a big impact. Well, I have this one friend who starts defending Avatar. And he's like, no, actually, David's, you know, I guarantee Avatar 2 does more box office business than Top Gun Maverick. And I thought to myself, that's completely insane. This is at the peak of Maverick Mania. Avatar 2, who's even mentioned it in 10 years, right? Like, no one, no one.

No one. Not a single living human being. A few people who had died since mentioned it. Right. Once. But then they died shortly after. Yes. And was it the reason?

I don't know. I don't want to blame it. I don't want to, you know, I don't have scientific information necessarily to back that up. But I'm going to say yes. But it's possible. But it's possible. So we go back and forth. An endless negotiation goes on.

And we eventually come to the point where we're going to bet on the opening weekend of Avatar. This is like four months ago. And so we go to the opening weekend of Top Gun Maverick. And I say, there's no one. way it outdoes that. I think it was $126 million was the number for Top Gun Maverick. However, it's a weird weekend because it was a Memorial Day weekend. So a lot of people who might have normally gone on the weekend go on Monday. They don't jam it all into the weekend like normal. So we have a little bit of a negotiation. We come up with a number 134.45 million.

134.134.45 million. I am supremely confident of this bet. At this moment, this is the most, this is the best investment I've ever made in my life. Now, as, as I will say maybe the effects of a couple of beers fade away, I start to realize the person I've made this bet with is a former movie executive. Oh, boy. Now, oh, no, you lost. This is somebody who knows approximately 100 times the amount that I do about this industry and how it works. He's thought this out. And he has, uh, really put more intellectual power into this, along with much more institutional knowledge.

And very soon after this, I start to realize I'm in real trouble in this bet because they are going to put $150 million into advertising this movie before it even comes out. Not to mention, they re-released the original avatar in theaters leading up to it to build up. They had a plan to make some money off of this movie.

Anyway, the initial weekend, projections come out. This is on like Wednesday of the release of the movie. $175 million. Now again, our number is over or under 134.45 million. Okay. Well, now I'm... Well, hold on.

All right. The first day comes out. Yeah? First day comes out and it is... They say, actually, we now see it in a range between 150 and 175 million. I see that. The next night comes out. They say, we now think it's going to be.

be toward the bottom of the range of 150 to 175 million. Saturday night's results come out Sunday morning. This is the day before we're going to find out the final result. They say, new estimate for Avatar 2, 134 million. Right? Now all of a sudden we're back in the game. 134.45, the estimate is 134 million. Now, my friend, so my friend is for the first time a little panicked, but still I think he thinks

they're going to get across the finish line. The global numbers come out early, and they exceed expectations for the last day. But was it a global bet or a domestic? It was not. It was only domestic. Okay. So the, the,

you would have been killed on the global take. On the global take. But I knew that. I wasn't going to make that bet. I mean, they make amusement parks for this crap in other parts of the world, even while they make it here too, but that's the other.

So anyway, 134 million. The next day comes out, my friend actually, emails the lead entertainment reporter from a major newspaper to get the number early, just so we can find out who won this bet. The number comes out, 134.10226 million. That's great. We won the bet by $330,000.

That's amazing. Again, a projection made after several beers four months ago, and we won. tell you getting that Venmo was the greatest. I bet. The greatest feeling of all time just to rub it in his face until the end of time. No right to win that bet, but we did. It's awesome. So something good came out of Avatar too. I know you thought it wasn't possible, but something good came out of it. But I mean, it really is amazing that there's no cultural impact. And again, I think it extends to this one. It's going to make another billion dollars here in the United States. And so, still, I have not heard anyone talking about it.

I haven't either. No one is like, oh, this amazing. The reviews, which were generally speaking numbers-wise positive, still basically are saying the same thing from the first one, which was the technology is amazing, the scenery is really cool. Yeah. But not much of a story, not much there as far as dialogue, nothing really memorable. Just like, hey, what a clear picture.

Right. Okay. It's an HD. Oh, wow. You don't know how many pixels I saw up there. There's lots of pixels. There was over two trillion colors involved in the making of that film. It's stuff like that.

So? How many do we need? I need eight. Give me the primaries plus a couple. That's all I need. All right, AAA 727 B-E-C-K. Let's go to Michael in Utah. Hey, Michael, you're on the Glimbeck program with Pat and Stu. Hey, how's it going?

Good. I've been doing the program since I was eight years old, 24 now. And for the past 16 years, I've had no idea what this program's been about. Let me tell you something. Avatar 2. I think I know why you guys don't quite get it, because it's not a franchise meant for the older generation. It's meant more to the younger generation. So what you got here is a cool-looking movie with a storyline.

that is just there because I know a lot of younger guys are really just there for the effects. Right. That's totally what it is. It's what the older people are there for too, by the way. It's an incoherent storyline, which fits great with millennials. Exactly. And it's got that 1980 sort of like hippie environmental message too. Because in this one, they hunt whales and you don't want to hunt the whales. You know what I'm saying?

There you go. Thanks Michael. I guess that's where you go. I guess so. That's where we had to end up. It's amazing, though, that that is, I think, generally true. But it's like, I guess it is targeted towards younger people because what adults would want to consume this drivel. But, like, I don't know.

Toy Story was also aimed at kids. And that has a lot of moments that are very iconic, right? Monsters Inc. was aimed at kids. All those cartoons are aimed at kids. And, man, it seems like adults can remember them. but yeah it's so vapid these movies it's just there's nothing to hang on to and it's not just us i i looked this up after i think we talked about it before the break and uh so i i googled avatar and there's a lot of people who feel like that yeah there's just no cultural impact to it that it's just

i don't know it's cotton candy it's in your mouth one for one second and then it's melted away and it's gone. And you don't even remember it. Bazaar. AAA 727 B-E-C-K. Stay informed. Sign up for the free newsletter today at glenbeck.com. AAA 727 B-E-C-K. It's Pat and Stufer Glenn on the Glenn Beck program.

We're just talking about streaming obsessions or any shows that we're watching right now that you're being. There's not really one right now that I just must see every day. or two or three or four episodes or 12 episodes a day. But in the past, I remember people talking about lost year after year after year before I finally broke down and watched that and was obsessed with it. Then for years I heard Stu babbling about suits year after year after. I finally broke down and watched it. It just became obsessed with it. That's so funny.

People say that a lot about that. suits. They didn't necessarily, or it was about lost. They didn't say it a lot about suits. But it is? It's a great series. Yeah, I didn't watch it initially because it was on USA and I was like, I can't watch a show on USA. I just feel like it wasn't going to be good. Right. It was really

good. I loved it. And it's honestly part of the reason why I can't get on board with all the Megan Markle bashing. Me neither. Because she was on suits. She was so great in suits and I liked her then and so I'm just giving her a pass for all, whatever she's doing now. I don't know. Me too.

She may have run over a bunch of school children last week. Yeah, but she was on suits. She was really good in suits. It's funny, everyone seems to hate her now. Maybe with really good reason. I just because I knew her from that, I can't feel the passion. I don't know if it's with good reason or not because I don't follow the royals. Yeah, I don't care.

Followed suits, but I don't follow the royals. I had the same thing with Breaking Bad where everyone said, oh, this is amazing. You have to watch it. You love it. It's incredible. and then I eventually broke down and watched it and absolutely loved it. And this has happened to me now several times

and I don't have time for more. I don't have time for more shows. I can't get into anything else. And I will say, I now will not even start a show unless it's five seasons in. If they can't get to five seasons, I don't want to get in the middle of something

and then two seasons in. They're like, oh, by the way, no one was watching this, even though you like it, it sucks for everybody else. I hate that. I hate that. It screws you over because you commit all of these resources to watching. And then you get the rug pulled out from under you.

If it's not five seasons, I won't even start it now. That's a new policy. A good policy. I think it is. I think it's pretty solid. But it means I always miss the new shows. It's got to run.

Like, everyone's on me for Yellowstone right now. You got to watch Yellowstone. It's incredible. You got to watch. Have you watched 1883 yet? Have you watched 1219 yet? Have you watched the year six yet? It's incredible. The year six is the best one. It's so good. It's so good. But I can't, I don't know. How long is Yellowstone been going on?

If it hasn't in five seasons, I can't start it. It's, I think it's in its fifth season. It's in its fifth season. Yeah, I think so. So I guess this year I can start to consider watching Yellowstone. Glenn loves it. You love it too, right? I mean, everyone seems to love it. I mean, there's, there's, I think there's only one season each so far of 1883 because, you know, how long can you carry out one year? Because I think the next season would have to be 1884. You would think so. Seems that way.

And then 1923, I don't know how long that's going to last. That's another one. There's 1883, 1923, 1923, and Yellowstone, which is set in the current day. Yes. Because I have a... Yellowstone's current, the other two are from the years of the same name. I do have another longstanding rule, which is I don't really like movies or TV shows that take place before World War II.

Like, that's my line. Yeah, I knew that. That was a rule of yours. So again, you take out all shows pre-World War II and all shows less than five seasons. Then you start to narrow this thing down a little bit. Quite a bit. You don't have as many shows to choose from. See, I couldn't watch 1883 or 1923, but I could watch Yellow Sun, I suppose.

All right. Well, you can't watch it. Well, you can watch it and listen to 2023, at least on this program again tomorrow. See you then. This is the Glenn Back program.