The Glenn Beck Program - 'When Delusion Becomes a Reality'? - 7/23/18

Episode Date: July 23, 2018

Hour 1 Bullied by anti-bullying people?...Democrat gets hell for condemning Maxine Waters?...when delusion becomes a reality? ...Poor Mark Duplass?...backlash from Ben Shapiro praise continues... Glenn Beck vs. Twitter World?...standing with our enemy's ...It's over, when we start policing comedy?   Hour 2 Apocalypse 'for real' this time?...Net Neutrality and the ultimate irony?...The New York Times vs. Facebook?...Facebook's plan to police the 'truth'...'preventing' hoaxes and conspiracies?...fighting against 'classic' liberalism...what about David Hogg? ...Terribly Tragic: Duck boat capsizes in Missouri...survivor, Tia Coleman lost 9 family members...please pray for them ...Stu's visit to the '9/11 Memorial' in NYC...amazing and emotional ...Why Glenn love 'The Rock'?   Hour 3 Audit the FBI and DOJ, why? for trying to deceive the FISA courts...how many Americans are being spied on right now for their politics...no evidence of specific collusion? ...PR drills and Papa John's pizza; a slice of eugenics anyone? ...Church shooting in Utah, 1 dead? ...War drums over Iran?...Trump Tweets ...Glenn's new book 'Addicted To Outrage', goes on sale September 18 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand. Glenn Beck. Nobody likes a bully. I mean, even bullies dislike bullies. They dislike themselves. And that is the reason why they're bullies to begin with. They dislike themselves.

They don't feel anything. They want other people to feel the same. The leftist especially made it their mission to eradicate bullies, which is noble but I haven't bought it from them and I don't agree with their tactics of eliminating it but they tend to be blind or unaware of their own habitual bullying that is the real problem ideologically speaking they're trying to get rid of bullies

by being a bully they will bully anyone who even remotely disagrees with their rigorous code of conduct even their fellow leftists. They are eating themselves now. As if we need more examples. Here's one coming out of Arizona. Arizona congressional candidate.

Her name is Anna Kirkpatrick. She is a Democrat. She was booed repeatedly. You could say, I guess, bullied for condemning Maxine Waters' recent call for people to bully Trump administration officials. Yes, she was bullied by the president. the anti-bullie people for stating that bullying is wrong. You do the math.

She was heckled and booed again when she raised her hand in support of Immigrations and Custom Enforcement. ICE, listen. So I just want to be really clear, if you would have declared your support for ICE agents without any increased oversight. Okay. Would you have supported? supported Democratic leadership in condemning Ms. Waters' comments.

She's the only one on this panel of Democrats that raises her hand. What explains this, this cognitive dissidents? Well, it is this one word, and we all need to learn it, and it is called postmodernism. Obviously, the issue is incredibly complex, but incidents like the one in Arizona will only continue to perplex and annoy us until we get to the root of the problem, which, as I said, is exceedingly complicated, but it is important to understand. This is the new progressivism. Progressivism now has been eclipsed.

And just like when I said years ago, that Woodrow Wilson, you have to understand what happened to Woodrow Wilson and what he did to be able to understand today. You need to now understand postmodernism because it is what is being fought in our universities and in our media and on the streets. It is the foundation of modern leftism. It was designed by leftist radicals and nearly every single one of its followers is radically left-leaning. It's what allows for the nonsensical world that they have created around them. Stephen Hicks, he wrote this great book called Explaining Postmodernism that everybody should read. Quote, postmodernism is not a leap of faith for the academic left, but instead a clear-eyed political strategy that uses relativism but doesn't believe it.

This relativism is what they, what allows them to get away with the contradictions that we all see. And we're like, wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense. They know that. Hicks again, quote, contradiction is a psychological form of destruction, but contradictions sometimes do not matter psychologically to those who live them, because for them ultimately nothing matters, end quote. Postmodernists have developed a system without any logic or any reason, and it is what your children are being taught.

it is the political and cultural equivalent of a boxer putting razor blades in his boxing gloves. Much of what allows them to get away with this rhetoric is this part of what Hicks describes as Machavilian postmodernism. He says maccavalion postmodernists say they want equal respect for all cultures, but that's not what they want. What they really want in the long run is to suppress the classic liberal capitalist one, end quote. That's it. That's what's behind all of this. So now are we going to engage in the same kind of postmodernist hypocrisy, where there is no truth, there is no right or wrong? Leftists want to take down capitalism and the Western world and conservatives and classic liberal principles.

They're going to do whatever they have to do to accomplish this delusional goal. But if we're not careful, that delusion becomes a reality. Bullying becomes the norm. And the real bullies don't stop until the world as we know it is smoldering. in a pile of ashes. It's Monday, July 23rd. This is the Glenn Beck program. Well, welcome back to Mr. Stubergear.

Hello, Steve. Very happy to be back. How are you? Thank you. Good. Right out of the pile of ashes. Right back into it. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So it's been an interesting weekend for me. And I don't know. Do you follow me on Twitter? I do. Yeah. So I don't know if you,

I felt very alone this weekend. Stu, very alone. Because I begin to question myself and then I have to go back and read everything and I'm like, nope, nope, I think I'm right. I think I'm right. Is this on the James Gunn situation? Yes. You follow that? I did, yes.

Where do you stand on that? I would just stand actually completely with you on this. Because, you know, I'm amazed by it. You know, this idea that, you know, that, and this goes back along. way. He's a moron, by the way, James Gunn. I mean, in many ways. He came out and was critical

of Ben Shapiro on... Well, let me start at the very beginning. Yeah. Let me start at the very beginning. Last week, what happened was what's his name, a friend of ours, Mark Duplas. Mark Teplas is a Hollywood

lefty, a very good filmmaker, but he's a lefty. But he's at least an honest lefty. He's trying to understand. Okay. And he was doing a documentary on guns. And so he said, I really want to understand. He's not a gun person. He said, I really want to understand why the Second Amendment people are, why they really believe what they believe. And he said, I could have gone just to the old tropes. And I could have just, I could have asked the left, why is it these gun nuts or gun nuts because they're nuts. Okay.

Instead, Problem solved. Right. Instead, he lives down the street from Ben Shapiro and he said, Ben, can I come over and talk to you? So Ben spent like two hours with him and they had a great conversation and he explained the Second Amendment to a guy who's never heard the explanation of the Second Amendment from somebody who actually believes in it. Really good. Right. Supposed to be what conservatives are doing, right?

Trying to convince others that their opinions are right. And what we're all wanting to happen, be open enough to have somebody that's making a documentary, not go to the standard, just open up the file of nuts and just pull some stuff out. Alex Jones out as the gun rights advocate. Want to find out what the truth is. So he does. So then Ben doesn't say anything on the air And Mark just tweets

Hey, I've been I've been working on something And this guy who had no reason to be nice to me Was very nice. I think he's a really nice and sincere guy. If you really lefties, If you want to open up your mind, you should follow Ben Shapiro. Hello, celebrate, right?

Victory. that is opening up both worlds to new ideas. That should be celebrated. Okay, well, it wasn't celebrated by the left. The left came out last week and started hammering Ben Shapiro. And what did they do? They took out old tweets, something one of them was from like when he was 17 years old, okay?

17. And Ben even has said years ago, this was a huge mistake and, you know, I was 17 and I was stupid. But didn't bother the left. They took out all this old stuff. They took stuff out of context. They painted him into a monster. Now, it took courage for Mark Deplos to suggest to his followers that you listen to Ben Shapiro.

It would have been heroic for him then to actually stand against the mob. But he didn't. He folded. And one of the guys he folded to was James Gunn. Now, James Gunn is a guy who did the Guardians of the Galaxy movies. He was working on the third one for Disney now. I don't know anything at all about James Gunn. Nothing.

I like his Guardians of the Galaxy movies, but... Keep that singular, will you? Let's be honest about it. The second one was terrible. I liked him. I liked him both. But anyway. So, but that's not a reason to support somebody.

No, I mean, you can like their work. Yeah, I like their work and despise them. You know what I mean? So we don't agree on anything. Now, James Gunn is the guy who really kind of whipped everybody up into a frenzy. He's the guy, very good at smearing, apparently. And he's the guy who took the old Ben Shapiro stuff and he put it out. And he said, look, look, he's crazy.

He's a racist. Okay, out of context and wrong. So now what does the right decide to do? The right decides something that everybody's been saying for a long time. You got to hit back. But I believe you hit back with rules. Glenn, that never works. Well, okay.

All right. So what happened? The Wright took his stuff, old stuff, and intentionally took it out of context. First of all, he wrote some really disgusting stuff. They were jokes. He's not posting pedophilia videos and he's not a pedophile that I know of. And he's just, he's writing some bad jokes. he's a joke writer.

He also, admittedly, is a very dark joke writer, okay? So he writes these jokes, this is like in 2009. He comes out after, not recently. Years and years ago, 2012. 2012, he comes out and he says, you know, I've had this awakening and these jokes, I've made these for years, and they're just not funny, and I don't want to be this way. And I think I'll be a better person if I don't do these kinds of things.

Okay. These write these kinds of jokes. And this was not under pressure, by the way. This was just him coming to a pivot point. Life change, right? Correct. And he states it on the record. I think I'll be a better person for not doing this.

So the right takes these, forgets the pivot point, and they go after him. and he loses his job at Disney. Okay, so how, I mean, are we, are we officially on witch hunts now? Is this our, is this our deal? Is this what we want to happen now? Do we want to start getting people fired? Because we've always hated that.

We've always thought that was wrong. But is that what we're going to do? Now, some people will say, yes, until they learn their lesson. Okay, well, that's going to be, you know, let's just dip our toe into fascism, but let's make sure we don't get into the pool. Is that what that is? Good luck on stopping that once you feel, feel the power.

Once you feel the power of the dark side, good luck on pulling yourself out. So that I can understand, not endorse, but I can understand. But that's not what happened. the Wright publishes this. I think it came from the Daily Caller. And people go crazy. They go crazy. By Saturday night, people are tweeting this guy should be in jail.

This guy is a child molester. No, no. He's not a child molester that we know of. There's no reason to believe he is. There's no reason to believe that. Now, if a victim stands up and says, yes, that's what. When we can look and say he's been accused, but we are not even taking innocent until proven guilty. He's not even innocent before there's a victim.

There's no even accusing them. There's nobody accusing him. Correct. All right. All right. So that's where it was left on Saturday night when I started to get a little pissy about it. I want to share that journey and find out where you stand when we come back. First, I want to thank our sponsor. It's Liberty Safe. Liberty Safe, been here for a long, long time.

They're just a great sponsor. If you have firearms and valuables, you need to own a Liberty Safe. It's where you're going to be able to protect all of your valuables. Liberty Safe is the number one selling brand in protecting guns and valuables, more than any other brand of Safe. They are made with the highest quality materials and they last a lifetime. They're easy to use. They have quick, secure access. The smash and grab burglaries that are on the rise, they ain't happening with a Liberty Safe. It's never been more important than it is now.

And right now, Cabela's and Bass Pro are having their big sale today through Sunday the 29th. You can save big money on Cabella branded safes and handgun vaults. Now, if it says Cabellas on it, you can open it up and you can see the tag inside. All of the Cabela safes are made by Liberty. They just put the name Cabellas on it. You can get that now. Plus, Liberty is also offering 12 months interest-free on any purchase over $850. They will be delivered and installed in your home.

So do what I have done. Liberty Safe. Have one installed in your home. They're simple. They're easy and they're secure. Go now to LibertySafe.com. That's LibertySafe.com. Okay, so Mark DePlass last week tweets, hey, people on the left, you follow me, you should follow Ben Shapiro.

He gets mugged by his own mob and he, you know, no deed goes unpunished, no good deed goes unpunished. He is, he's mugged, he relents. And one of the guys who was chief among the Shapiro muggers was a guy named James Gunn. James Gunn is then mugged by the right and he loses his job. Ben Shapiro then writes an article about James Gunn and says, this guy should not have been fired. So he's defending the guy who mugged him. So I write, I tweet, James Gunn, I'll stand with you.

We all make mistakes, but we have to come together as each of us grow and change. Forgive others in hopes that they will. will forgive themselves and others as well. Reach beyond your comfort zone and be kind. You don't need my forgiveness, but I offer friendship. Well, then I'm, then I start to become a child molester, apparently. There you go again, Beck, and I respond, if you mean standing up for justice only to have my head kicked in, yep, it is what I do, apparently. You should try it sometime. It's not fun, but it is what people who actually mean the words of the Bill of Rights do. Have you read through all of this petto and rape tweets?

It's pretty sick and messed up. Yes. Yes, I have. Somebody else writes, Glenn, you should have set this one out. You're trying too hard. I refuse to sit when others are wrongly accused and destroyed. First they came for the trade unionist. Do you remember?

No, Glenn, saying two plus two equals five is a mistake, saying red plus blue equals orange is a mistake. What gun did was no mistake. Not totally sure what it was. You're not totally sure what it was, but it was no mistake. They were jokes. That's what they were. Yeah. That's what they were.

Great. I love this stance. I'm not sure what it was, but off with his head. It was a number of very dark jokes followed by an apology in 2012, years of not joking like that only to be fired because of a mob. I know he started it, but must we become that which we despise?

Justice is justice, Glenn. Glenn, you're consistently on the wrong side of things. It's the reason you're irrelevant. I am. I'm shocked that you have any audience more considering how long you've been, how many times you've been wrong. Yep, I respond. Me too.

Fortunately, there are more people like me than you. Mob. and bullies often show up. We saw them in grade schools, but it only takes a few that are willing to stand up to change the world. All right, welcome to the program.

All right. Now look, we need to have actual conversations, not knee-jerk conversations. But if, you know, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, was written for a serious people.

It's not written for, you know, people who are just in an argument at a bar going, oh, you know, right. That's not what this is about. So many of the arguments that formed it were actually made in bars. Oddly. Correct.

Most of them were made in churches. Yes. However, from the pulpit. So this is a serious conversation. And it revolves around who do you want to be? what are we what do you want the future to be now i know it feels good to win feels good to win but you can't dip your toe into fascism and i mean i i hate to keep going back to star wars but you can't feel the power of the dark side and then go i'm only going to use this on weekends

you will eventually be consumed by the dark side. So once you feel the power, you are not going to let it go. Because it's fun to destroy, apparently. And is it a win? I mean, is this a win? No. It's not for the Constitution.

You're getting a guy fired from a movie that made jokes. I mean, I guess you're punishing him for some wrong that he's done, which I think is he, I think it's legitimate. He was completely wrong on the Ben Shapiro thing. And, but I mean, is that the win that you feel? Because it didn't do anything for you. It didn't do anything for, quote, unquote, our side. It just punished someone for doing something that we don't like.

So now people will say, well, where were you on Roseanne Barr? Same place. I don't think, I'm glad that she is no longer around. But it's a selfish reason. Honestly, here's my reason. I'm glad Roseanne's not around. Because I'm afraid that too many people, and this is really wrong of me, and I know this, I'm afraid too many people would have started liking what she said and then and thinking,

well, she speaks for me. She's a crazy person. She is a crazy communist who has called for the guillotine on bankers. and she wasn't joking. Okay, she's crazy. She should not have been anywhere near a television room in the first place. And my selfish reasoning for that is I'm glad she's not around because her association was became with the right. That's what I mean.

Like, it's frustrating to see her out there as a spokesperson of conservatism. She's not. This person who ran as a socialist for president of the United States in 2012. Right. She's not helping. No. She's not helping. So that was my selfish reason.

But my, if I had to make the decision, if I'm Ben Sherwood and I'm sitting at ABC, I don't hire her in the first place. Right. But he did. Okay. Now, what are you going to do? Well, now you have to answer your shareholders. Disney doesn't allow anything to hurt the mouse. So of course Disney fires her.

Of course. And they have every right to fire her. The same thing with James Gunn. What is he going to do? They don't want another hassle. They don't want to be saying that they've got somebody who's a pedophile and blah, blah, blah. Because that's what the right is saying. So they fire him.

Well, you know, first they come for the trade unionist. Then they come for somebody else that you're not a part of group of. And then somebody else. By the time they come for you, there's nobody left. That's what that poem means. You have to stand for the person you are not with. And you better do it early. I tend to agree with what you're saying here.

You know, this idea, this is, I think, the most interesting conversation that we should be having on the right right now, which is this. And this is all from our perspective. The left introduces a ridiculous new standard, a standard of behavior. Okay, they, whether it's, let's, this was the easiest example since we're talking about it, that old jokes should be, or, an old comments that are taken out of context,

some of which you've already apologized for, should be brought up multiple years later to get you fired from your current job. Okay, there's that standard. The left brought that up with Ben Shapiro, right? So you should, Ben Shapiro should be targeted because of these old comments.

And we all agree, and we get defensive of Ben Shapiro and say, that standard is ridiculous. We shouldn't use that standard. It's a dumb standard. And Ben should not have these problems. And we all agree on the right that that is a dumb way of doing business. Okay.

The question is we have a part in the road at that time. Do we say and try to make the point that you can use this against anybody? And you can, and it's wrong to use, and we should stand up for James Gunn, even though we don't like James Gunn. he's a bad guy. He tried to take down Ben Shapiro. He was the guy who led that. So should we stand up for him and say, look, we think this standard is bad and therefore

we should not apply it to James Gunn. And here's the point. Liberals understand this. It shouldn't be applied here because we can apply this to everybody. And we should make a stance here on principle. The standard you've tried to implement is wrong and I'm standing up against it. Okay. Or do we go the other way and codify the standard and say,

you have set this standard. Liberals, we're letting you control the way this is all going to be litigated. You have set the standard, therefore we're using that standard and we're going to attack everyone on the left with the same crappy standard we say we don't like. And that is a real argument in... Okay, so here's a conservative media right now. Here is the argument. I would be more open to that argument if everyone knew that that's what we were doing. but that's not what happened. No.

You know, if everybody on the right said, look, this is a ridiculous standard and you said these things about Ben Shapiro, so look what we can do. You said these things, well, you said this in 2008. What a bad person you are. Okay?

Except what happened was the Wright started this and then it just spiraled out of control. I would bet most people, if they even know about the James gun thing, most people think that this has nothing to do with Ben Shapiro and Mark Deplos. Remember, this started with Mark Deplos trying to do the right thing by saying, hey, we should open up our minds and listen to each other.

That's what started this. Most people don't even know that. they just see this guy who is working for Disney he's making all these pedophile jokes and nobody makes pedophile jokes those are you got to be a pedophile to make pedophile jokes yeah and first of all that's a completely ridiculous point

this idea and the right embraces this even more than the left there are not areas there aren't areas that you have to avoid with comedy there are no exceptions to this the producers is a is a comedy about glorifying the legacy of the Holocaust.

Is there any darker thing than that? Glorifying the rounding up of Jews and Hitler. And Hitler. And murdering them. It's a comedy about that. If you can cross that line, you can cross any line. Well, that's only because Mel Brooks

hates Jews. And he was just doing this. He was just doing this because he secretly hates Jews and loves Hitler. Yeah. I mean, it's absurd. We all know that's not true. Yes. And we all what his motivation is, because in the darkest parts

of life, it lives the best comedy many times. And the idea that you can't go to certain areas for comedy is something that unfunny people say. And who are you to judge? You judge for you. Right. If you want to

listen to that stuff, fine, if not, fine. I mean, two shows, huge hits on the air right now, two of the longest running comedies on television right now. Right now. It's always sunny in Philadelphia and Family Guy. Both of them feature prominent characters that run throughout the entire series that are clearly pedophiles. And they constantly are making pedophile jokes. They are constantly...

Herbert and Family Guy is constantly creeping up on Peter's son. And it's clear his intent constantly is to molest children. That is his entire role in the series is to make pedophile jokes all the time. And by the way, he's one of the most beloved characters on the show and is hilarious. Jack Kelly, Charlie Kelly's uncle. He's known for two things. One, having very abnormally small hands. And two, clearly has at some point either molested Charlie or really wanted to molest Charlie and has molested many other children.

Now, that does not mean. Does not mean we think child molestation, the actual act. is funny. The joke is about how ridiculous these people and characters are. It's mocking these things. Was Mel Brooks, for example,

was Mel Brooks glorifying the Holocaust? No, he was mocking it, and he was mocking more than that. The lengths a desperate person and desperate need of money would go to to Linus Pockets. This bad person

who would make a play glorified Hitler to try to come up with the worst place. But he was also taking the power away from Hitler. By making pedophile jokes, it takes the power away from the pedophile. Now, you can say that it, it normalizes it. And you know what? You're probably right. I don't.

If, if it wasn't creepy. It is. If the characters are creepy, it doesn't. normalize it. Right. If they're fun and you love them because they're funny and you don't find what they're doing or talking about when they're talking about wanting to molest a kid creepy, then it normalizes. Right.

And we've talked about this with plural marriage, right? There have been shows that have glorified it and made it seem normal and has tried to normalize the behavior, right? That is not what is happening with these characters or the jokes that have been made. They're creepy. They make you feel internally awful, which is what's kind of funny. It's cringe humor, right? It makes you immediately repel from it.

And there is nothing wrong with that. How many times have you heard a comedian make a joke? And then the audience groans and they say, oh, really? Too far? That one was too far. That's what these are. Now, you don't have to listen to them. You don't have to like them.

I don't like them. I don't like them. but I'm a guy with a very dark sense of humor. Yes. I, only my friends and my family know how dark my humor is. It used to come out on the air a lot, but it doesn't anymore because no one has a freaking sense of humor.

Nobody can handle it. And it's not the right that can handle it. It's the left. It's the left. These are all left-wing tactics. Correct. Again, that's, I think, the central point is, these are all left-wing tactics. That used to be something we weren't proud of.

As conservatives, we wouldn't want to use the left-wing tactics. We wouldn't want to embrace them because it's one of the things we don't like about progressivism. Media matter. People are like, oh, well, James Gunn, I can't believe he's being targeted. It's just media matters. They're just doing what Media Matters has done for years and years and years and years. It's the exact same, I believe, crappy tactic. Yeah.

Taking things out of context intentionally, using things in ways that we know they weren't intended. And that is something that we for years and years have looked down upon is what a pathetic use of your time. Yes, but Stu, it works and we're losing. Well, I will tell you this. You will train yourself to think that way. You will train yourself to think. If you win by using those tactics, then you will have to become a. fascist to hold on to your power.

The only reason, they have nothing. They have nothing. They're not convincing. They're not winning the hearts over people. They are indoctrinating and they are bullying. We have the right message. We are bringing people over from the left. They are coming, not from the far left.

Democrats are coming. The people from the, that consider themselves classic liberals who have always found a with the Democrats are coming. They're not coming to the, to the Republicans. They are coming and saying, I can't live this way. It doesn't make any sense. We must show them there is a different way. And that way is the Bill of Rights. And if you don't stand for someone's right to say things that are horrible, to believe things that you disagree with,

then the Bill of Rights mean nothing. Well, the government, Bill rights only for the government. The Bill of Rights is a principle that we all hold. Bill of Rights should be what we look to and say, yes, that is our governmental manifestation of what we believe. if we don't practice it in our own homes and in our own lives, they are certainly never going to enforce it in government. All right, our sponsor this half hour is Mercury Real Estate.

You want to sell your home? You want to sell your home for the most amount of money, and you want to sell it fast. Real estate agents, I trust.com. Now, real estate agentsitrust.com means that, you're going to be working with the right agent that will make significant differences in the outcome of buying or selling a home. We have well over a thousand agents all over America who are just like you. Their word is their bond. They're fans of the show. They share your sensibilities

of right and wrong and being fair and having a square deal. Our agents are fully vetted. They're handpicked for my team for their knowledge, their skill, and their track record in thousands of families all across America. Have already put real estate agents. I trust.com. And The test results are remarkable. Look, you need to sell your home. Sell it fast and for the most amount of money by going to real estate agents. I trust.com. Go there now and sell your home.

Real estate agents. I trust.com. I'm not sure who you root for in this. A case between Facebook and the New York Times. One is calling for more regulation. The other is saying no. Which one is on the right side when we come back. Okay, we are still on the air.

We don't know if our transmitters are still on. We're not sure. We've been in our fallout shelter for over a month now. America, if you can still hear us, hello, there are humans alive. We are in a bunker. I don't want to give you our location. We don't know if anyone, especially the enemy, might be listening. Have planes fallen from the sky? We don't know. We're still in our underground. Have skyscrapers fallen like dead trees? We're sure of it. People are probably above, just above us, in the cities above us, are resorting to cannibalism, or even worse, capitalism. Now, if I would have listened to the left, that's probably the broadcast I'd be giving today. Because the apocalypse,

happened on December 14th, 2017. Where were you? Do you remember? Do you remember where you were December 17th when the apocalypse happened? And they repealed net neutrality? I'll never forget. Or I'll always forget because I didn't remember. People didn't realize that the apocalypse, in fact, did not happen.

Mainly because some of them have to have been bunkered, you know, in a safe room. and pulled their women's March beanies over their eyes. I'm only slightly joking. If you use the internet in November or December last year, especially social media platforms of Twitter and Reddit, you were inundated with alarmist rhetoric about how appealing,

repealing net neutrality is going to be a death blow, a modern civilization. For a solid month, the entirety of Reddit was full of the appeals. ACLU warned the repeal could lead to the erosion of the biggest free speech platform the world has ever known. My gosh, look at it. Net neutrality is supposed to be Obama's biggest achievement, crowning jewel, right there next to health care. It would ensure that the internet remained free and opened by being regulated by a bloated government.

Makes sense to me. when net neutrality was repealed, it was as if Trump was being elected all over again. Oh my God. It's the end of the world. There was Kavanaugh and tax cuts. Net neutrality.

It's been a tough year. They can't handle this much. The left can't. So we have to go easy on them. Or at least, wait. I mean, don't ask them to start acting like adults until after the daily nap time and their apple juice in a sippy cup. Then we can expect them to have an adult conversation. But it looks like net neutrality didn't really end the world.

The ultimate irony is that people on the left can complain about the internet censorship on the internet. Their voices aren't being silenced online. Strangely, it seems conservative voices are. Ask Dave Rubin, who regularly has videos demonetized by YouTube or Google for expressing controversial content. Here's Dave Rubin's on point take on the matter. For those of you just catching up about six weeks ago, YouTube lost about $750 million in ad sales after a bunch of stories ran across mainstream media about how ads were being played on offensive content. on the YouTube platform. Putting aside what's actually offensive

or that you rarely associate the ad playing before the video with the content itself, YouTube found itself in a tough spot. 750 million isn't chump change, even to a company like Google, and suddenly there were less ads to go around the entire platform. I should pause here and say that as a private company, of course, YouTube absolutely has the right to do whatever they want with their business,

and in this case, if there aren't ads, to go around on all the content, well, nobody's forcing me or anyone else to create videos here. At the same time this demonization was happening, there was also another problem unfolding for channels such as this one. Some of our videos, which deal with certain controversial topics, aren't getting served ads at all. So for example, videos we've done with people from Lauren Southern to Bishop Barron to

Yasmin Mohammed, there's some real diversity in that group, aren't being served ads due to the nature of their content. Again, that is within YouTube's right to do, and it isn't censorship because they aren't stopping us from putting up those interviews. But eventually every creator has to make a dime. Creators will eventually self-censor if they know that certain topics won't make them any money.

Now imagine what would happen if YouTube did the same to the young Turks or Linda Sarsor. Actually, I know what the left would have to say about it. they'd see it as the end of all mankind, the apocalypse, for real this time. It's Monday, July 23rd. This is the Glenbeck program. Does it feel like you can't keep track of arguments anymore? Because nobody seems to really actually believe what they're saying.

It is because of something called postmodernism. Postmodernism is really quite diabolical. Anybody who believes in postmodernism or buys into this or is teaching this at universities, I can't come up with another word for you. I mean synonyms, evil, destructive anarchist. It is this idea that there is no. truth. There is no truth. It's all subjective. And so the only truth that is true is the truth that takes apart capitalism, the Western world, the patriarchy, whatever it is. Now, this is a very leftist idea. And so it is anything that challenges or destroys the

power structures is true. Anything that doesn't is not true. However, remember, there is no truth. Sound a little chaotic? Let me show this to you. Let me show you how crazy things have become. The New York Times and Mark Zuckerberg, where do you think the New York Times would stand traditionally?

speaking about Mark Zuckerberg. Usually aligned with him, you'd think, right? And the charge against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook from the right is they're censoring conservative content. And the left

says they're not doing that. Right. Right? Okay. So have you ever listened to The Daily? A couple times, I think. Okay. So the Daily is a podcast from the New York Times. And if I get up early enough, I listen to a few minutes of the daily once once in a while.

This one I listened to because it was about policing at Facebook. And the New York Times was talking to one of their experts at the New York Times on the internet. And they were talking about going out and meeting with Zuckerberg about fake news. So here's a room full of journalists. and they discuss how they are going to go get rid of fake news and how difficult this was. Now, there was this like nine-minute film that they apparently played, and in it, they basically said, we can't judge what's fake and what's not fake. It's not our position to do that.

It's subjective and it's also global. Now, this is exactly what Mark Zon. Zuckerberg told me when he was telling the conservatives, we're not targeting you. We don't want to be in that business. It's not our business. And it would cut our business in half in America if we did that. So we don't want to do that. And nobody believed him.

Now here comes the left, the mainstream media. And he says the same thing to them. And they don't believe him. Now listen to this conversation. This is from the Daily, the podcast, the New York Times, the interviewer you're going to hear in the studio is the male voice is the New York Times reporter. The female is another New York Times reporter from an earlier interview with Mark Zuckerberg at the New York Times. Now listen to what they're saying. Someone was saying to me, you can't just pass power along.

You have an enormous amount of power. Do you understand that, or do you think about that, or you don't think you have? No, I think we have a big responsibility. But I'm not sure what you mean by pass power along. But I actually think one of the things that we should be trying to do is figure out how to empower and build other institutions around us that are. important and can help figure out these new issues on the internet. And he keeps saying, I think about it as a responsibility.

He says he's very uncomfortable with the idea that he is the most powerful, one of the most powerful people in the world. And he keeps insisting, you know, I want to empower other people. I don't want to be the emperor on the throne. I want to give other people the ability to govern their own communities and lives. Let's talk about Info War. Let's use them as the example. Sure.

make the case for keeping them and make the case for not keeping, not allowing them to be distributed by you. Kara and Mark start talking about InfoWars. We feel like our responsibility is to prevent hoaxes from going viral and being widely distributed. Okay.

So the approach that we've taken to false news is not that, not to say you can't say something wrong on the internet, right? I think that that would be too extreme. everyone gets things wrong. And if we were taking down people's accounts when they got a few things wrong,

then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that. But at the same time, I think that we have a responsibility to when you look at, if you look at the top 100 things that are going viral or getting distribution on Facebook within any given day, I do think we have a responsibility to make sure that those aren't hoaxes

and blatant misinformation. Kara asked Zuckerberg about Sandy Hook and the massacre that happened there. Okay, Sandy Hook didn't happen is not a debate. It is false. You can't just take that down. I agree that it is false. And this was really sort of Info Wars flagship issue for years.

What they were known for was their promoting of a conspiracy theory that Sandy Hook had been a hoax. And I also think that going to someone who is a victim of Sandy Hook and telling them, hey, no, you're a liar. that is harassment, and we actually will take that down. But overall, let's take this a little closer to home, right? So I'm Jewish. And then he unprompted or brings up this example of the Holocaust.

And there's a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened. Yes, that's a lot. I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think that there are things that different people get wrong. either, I don't think that they're intentionally getting wrong, but I think that they... In case of a Holocaust deniers, they might be, but go ahead. It's hard to impugn intent and to understand the intent.

But I just think for as abhorrent as some of those examples are, I think the reality is also that I get things wrong when I speak publicly. I'm sure you do. I'm sure a lot of leaders and public figures who we respect do too. And I just don't think that it is the right thing. to say we are going to take someone off the platform if they get things wrong, even multiple times. He's essentially appealing to ideas that we've developed in our democracy over hundreds of years. I mean, he's saying that's the way we think about free speech is the way the U.S. government thinks about free speech.

There's no rule that that has to be the case. There's no reason he has to say, we're going to draw the line on free speech here as opposed to somewhere else. house. That's a choice that he's making. And I think that's sort of a way of avoiding the choice altogether is just to say, well, free speech is protected in the public sphere. So we're going to protect it in largely the same way on Facebook. Okay. So, um, wow, there's a lot to unpack here, but I want to start at the end. Here's the New York Times, chastising him for saying, you know, he's essentially appealing to the notions that we've developed over the past several hundred years through our democracy. No, actually, this happened before our democracy.

It was called the Enlightenment, okay? Case for reason. It was called the Enlightenment. It's what liberals claim they are. classic liberals. Liberalism means I, I believe I need to manage my life. You need to manage your life. I'm not going to impose my feelings onto you.

It's, of course, changed over the years into something completely different. Liberalism means something totally different today. This is classic liberal. Classic liberalism. So here's the New York Times fighting against classic liberalism. fighting against the things that the ACLU always said they stood for. But we all knew that that was a sham. Now here's the New York Times fighting against it

and saying that there's no reason why he has to do that. I mean, say, well, I don't think about it the way the U.S. government thinks about it. No, I don't even think the U.S. government thinks it that way. but people who believe in what brought us into the modern world, the Enlightenment, yes, yes, they do think that way. And notice they say, you know, he just doesn't want to make a decision. No, he is making a decision. He's making the decision that Facebook has a responsibility for things that are not truth

to make sure that they don't go viral. But it is not their job to silence people because of, of the truth. If I may quote the left, whose truth? We would respond, the truth. There's only one truth.

You want to have that argument with a postmodernist? Because the only truth to a postmodernist is the one that destroys the system. Here's our response to this half hour. It is Casper.

If you're tossing and turning and you're not sleeping, drenched, covered in sweat, you have the wrong mattress. You could, run the AC or fan all night and try to keep cool. Or you could get rid of that heat-trapping mattress and sleep cool and comfortable like I do on my Casper mattress. Casper mattress.

They use premium foams that help relieve the pressure and help align your body so you fall asleep feeling comfortable and waking up feeling refreshed. Thanks to the breathable material, you're guaranteed sleep cool all summer long. It has been so hot here in Texas. so hot. I can't even imagine when I had an old foam mattress how I don't think I'd sleep at all. You'd be, you'd wake, you'd have to ring the mattress out. It's just so hot. Not with a Casper. And it ships free in a box so small. You're not going to believe that it actually holds the mattress. It's easy to get from your front door to your bedroom. Open the box into the bedroom. Remember that. Casper, uh, ships it to you. And it's also risk free. You can try it out 100 nights in

your own home. If you don't love it. They will come and pick it up and refund everything. No questions asked. So sleep cool. Try yours for 100 nights and get $50 off the purchase of your select mattress at casper.com promo code Beck. That's casper.com promo code back. Terms and conditions do apply. You know, I'm wondering what the New York Times has to say about David Hogg.

Should Facebook ban David Hogg? Now, I know the knee jerk feel good reaction is yes. I wonder if the New York Times is going to out David Hogg. You know, they spend so much time building him. I mean, CNN's got to be mighty proud. They gave birth to this little baby, and now he's all grown up to be a conspiratorial man. David Hogg has come out over the weekend and said,

Well, I just want you to be aware. Just want you to be aware. looks like Donald Trump is going to probably cancel the midterm elections. This might be the last time you're able to vote. If the vote happens, it might be the last time you ever get the chance to vote. So, David, hang on just a second. If you, A, actually believe that, thanks for expressing it. But if you believe that, why would you be forgiving that government all of the guns?

That one? and and and CNN I mean I'm just thinking you know doesn't this make him Alex Jones

because that's the kind of stuff Alex Jones was saying yeah he was saying Barack Obama is going to cancel the elections yeah I don't know if Trump is a secret Muslim

but you know I'm just throwing that one out there he was born in Saskatchewan we know that we do know that Donald Trump was born in Saskatchewan or something

thing, which is north someplace. Yeah, in a scary northern place. Scary northern place. Way up by, in the dark, where all the spooky things come from. You're not allowed to question anything, David Hugg says, Glenn. You know that. No, I know, I know. America knows it.

I'm wondering why CNN's not covering that cute little quote. In Missouri, there was this horrible accident with this duck boat and almost an entire family died. Tia Coleman was the lone survivor, if you will, of the Coleman family. Here's her describing what happened. I had my son right next to me. But when the water filled up the boat, I could no longer see. When I got out into the water, it was ice cold. And I remember as we were going into the water, they said that the lake stays pretty warm like in the 80s.

so I knew since it was being so cold that I'm close to a bottom I'm not close to the top and I just remember kicking and swimming up to the top and as I was swimming up I was praying I said Lord please let me get to my babies I got to get to my babies I got to get to my babies and I was kicking and the harder I fought to get up to the top I was getting pulled down and I kept fighting and I kept fighting and then I said Lord if I can't make it there's no use to keeping me here. And so I just let go and I started floating. And as I started floating, I felt the water temperature change and it got warmer. And as it got warmer, I knew I was to the top. So I stuck my hand out and I kept swallowing tons of water. The waves were crashing over my face. And every time

I get my head a little bit of water, I scream, help, help. And finally I came up to the surface. And I saw, it was a great big boat out, like a riverboat. And they were, oh, my God, they were jumping in, saving people. They were throwing life raps out to everybody. But I couldn't reach it. I couldn't get there in time. And so somehow I managed to get to the boat. These beautiful people, angels, I don't know who they were.

They pulled me up. And when they pulled me up from the boat, I didn't see any of my family. but I believe I survived by God and by Good Samarit. She lost three children, nine family members. I pray for her. You saw the footage, I assume, of this incident happening. It's impossible to believe that these boats were out there in this. I mean, it was

these little duck boats, which are basically, if I understand right, just basically trucks, right? They're floating trucks rather than boats. I mean, they're, you know, and, you know, normal calm waters. They're completely fine. But in that sort of environment,

I mean, they shouldn't have been out there in the first place. And I don't know. I mean, I can't even imagine the terror of that. It was really difficult to watch. honestly and I mean to go through obviously that much worse and basically her entire family wiped out. I mean you get a, you think of that. You get a gathering of everyone 11 family members together.

We just had a, you know, this past weekend had a couple of relatives in town that we hadn't seen in a while. And it's like, you know, those are moments. Like you take pictures. You have that moment of like, hey, when's the last time we were all together? It's been a while. And then you have that moment. And then most of your family gets wiped out in some, you know, ridiculous. incident like this. I mean, really terrible, really terrible.

You were up in New York, you went up to see the World Trade Center, the museum. I have not been in. I saw the first museum where it was just a makeshift across the street. Okay.

But I haven't seen the new completed museum. Yeah, I mean, there's been a lot of criticism, I feel like, of that, because the process was so ridiculous and it took so long to, you know,

kind of come together. We talked about this back in the day. I mean, one of the first people who was saying like Donald Trump was like, well, we should build the towers twice as high. It was something we could kind of all cheer about.

This is back long before. Obviously, he was a presidential candidate. And it was, but like the process took forever. You know, the building took a long time to be put up. The memorial took forever to put together.

I got to say, it was pretty impressive. I mean, they did a good job with it. They have, you may have seen the water, falls that fall into each other where the actual footprints of the towers. But underneath that is where the museum is. So the entire museum is underground. And you go all the way down to a sort of bedrock

level. And under that, you can see they built the outlines of where the towers were. So you can kind of get a sense of how big they were in exactly where they are. So the entire time you're in the museum, you're walking in between the two towers and where they stood. And you can see that, you know, there's an exposed slurry wall there, which is the wall that separates. the Hudson River to where you're standing. I mean, that's how crazy this thing was. And they show, you know, they have, of course, all the bent steel and the fire trucks that were, you know,

partially crushed. And, you know, I mean, really, it's just awful. There's an entire room of just, you know, the minute by minute ticker of what happened that day. The first thing you see as you walk into the museum is a picture from, I'm 8.30 in the morning from Jersey of the tower six minutes before they're hit of what it was like that morning. It's this beautiful morning. We all kind of remember that. There's not a cloud in the

sky. Towers are still standing. Everything's fine. And then six minutes later, all this happens. But you go through this one path where they walk you through minute by minute. And the NBC coverage, which now even more bizarre, was Matt Lauer, right? Matt Lauer on the Today Show. And they actually got the news about the World Trade Center being hit and thought they had covered. pictures of it and actually went to commercial. When you think about how strange that is, Matt Lauer's like, oh,

well, we got a picture. Something's happened at the World Trisoner. Do we have the, we don't have a minute. We're going to go to commercial. We'll be back in a minute. And then they came back for the part that you've probably seen,

you know, because MSNBC reruns that coverage over and over again or used to. Where are we on the phone? We were on the phone. Yeah. So I read the show. Yeah. So I remember I was in the bathroom and I heard Katie Couric say,

and a, a plane just hit the World Trade Center. And we don't know what kind of plane it was, probably a Cessna. I mean, you know, because you could avoid that, blah, blah, blah. And I remember I'm pressure my teeth and I'm listening to it. And I go into the living room and I look at the hole and I'm like, that's not a Cessna. And they're not saying that yet. And I think I called you and I said something big is happening here.

And we were talking about, okay, well, let's not jump to conclusions. let's not freak out and wham! The second one hit. Yeah. Yep. And that, I mean, amazing. I mean, they had all the footage. You know, some views that I had never seen of some of it.

They had, you know, the phone, the voicemails from the people on the planes. I mean, it was really, a lot of it was really tough to get through. Maybe the craziest thing actually wasn't about 9-11, though, that they had there. Because it's the World Trade Center. It's a World Trade Center memorial. It's not really a 9-11 memorial as much as it's a World Trade Center memorial. And there were two terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center in the 1993 bombing, which is one that kind of gets forgotten for obvious reasons. But the craziest thing they had, maybe the craziest thing they had on display was the guy who was responsible for the World Trade Center bombing.

If you remember, he had a rented truck. He pulled it in. And the idea was he was going to blow up the parking garage. It was going to make one of the towers fall and knock over the other one. It was like an attempt at dominoes, essentially, in a really large scale. Obviously, that didn't wind up happening. But they didn't know who did it. And it wasn't because it was because the guy who was responsible kept going back to the rental truck place to get his deposit back.

Oh my gosh. He kept going back to get the deposit back, $400 deposit on a rental truck. And kept going back and trying to get it and arguing with them saying he argued that his van was stolen and he was angry about it. And he kept trying to get his $400 back in the rubble. They found the VIN number on the vehicle. and they were able to tie it to the rental truck and figure out that this guy was responsible. It's how they kind of took the whole thing down. In the museum, they have the VIN number they found in the rubble on display.

Wow. Which is pretty incredible. But, I mean, a $400 deposit. This guy may have been able to get away. We may have never been able to, you know, give him the justice he deserved. Did they, by any chance, find the Dick Cheney fingerprints or anything like that? No, no. They didn't.

No. Huh. Oddly enough. You know, it's weird because I've just, you know, we just played that thing from the New York Times where they said, you know, Info Wars really made their mark, their flagship. Oh, I know. Was Sandy Hook? No, no, it wasn't. No, it wasn't.

The flagship really was the World Trade Center and that it was a hoax and that 9-11 was an inside job and Dick Cheney blew it up, as well as Katrina and the levees. those were also blown up by Dick Cheney and George Bush, I don't know, in Frogman gear or something like that. So they didn't have that. I was kind of wondering if they might address some of that because there's so many pieces of evidence that just prove that narrative there, right? But again, they didn't. I think that was the right thing to do.

It's too classy a joint, you know. Too classy a joint. There's a classy joint you got down here on the ground. But again, Remember that more than half, more than half of Democrats believed in the Alex Jones conspiracy theory that George W. Bush was behind the 9-11 attacks. More than half of them in that period did. And it shows the power of partisanship, right? We act as if this is some new thing.

And the left is like now trying to say, well, look at this. You know, they're spreading all this fake news around and all these dumb conservatives and Republicans are believing it because they love Donald Trump. more than half, not 10%, more than half of Democrats in a neutral survey said they believed that Bush was complicit in the 9-11 terror attacks. I mean, that is an incredible thing and that was, it was one of the problems I had with that clip

because they bring up multiple people and they say, well, look at these, and they give them as examples of right-wing fake news people. All of those people are left-wing people. They're all big government people. They're all people who believed the exact opposite when it was convenient for them to do so. When it was George W. Bush, they were absolutely against him.

They were snuggling up to Cynthia McKinney, who ran as a Green Party presidential candidate, who is at least a socialist. I mean, to the left of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to the left of Bernie Sanders, and he was snuggling up to them. So, I mean, this is not a, you know, believing in crazy conspiracy theories, is believing in fake news that that supports your worldview is not something that has anything to do with, it's not fresh on the shelf. You see what James Colleen did this weekend?

He came out and said, Democrats, don't, don't, don't, what are you doing? Stop running to the extreme. Stop running to the Democratic Socialists. That's odd. That's an odd moment. And a lot of the people on the left are like, yeah, James, we don't really want your help. We've seen what you do. And we're not really, we don't really want your help.

This is a good thing. Republicans. You know, every once in a while I get, you know, the news cycle hits you and you're like, gosh, this, it doesn't seem like it's going well. And then you remember how bad the Democrats are at this. I mean, the idea that they're running on a... They're imploding. Yeah, their answer to Donald Trump and the things that they don't like on the right is to say eliminate ice. Like, that is such a bonkers idea that the American people will never support to have no border security, to have no, no way to process. illegal immigrants or legal immigrants, honestly. They're moving so far to the left that there's no place for them to go. I mean, they have, we knew under Obama that they had betted the radicals. But, you know, you couldn't point, well, that was just fringe. I don't know. No, they have fully embraced that now.

They've fully embraced the fringe and the Democratic Socialists. You have to remember, there were, what, 45,000 registered Democratic. socialist. 45,000, it seems like a lot until you remember 330 million when you think that, you know, that won't even fill the average football arena. 35, 45,000. I mean, that's where you're banking on that message? We're healthy. Blinds.com is our sponsor this half hour, and we want to thank them. They're really remarkable.

Blinds.com has made changes to Stu's house and my house over the years. Yeah, we had visitors in town over this past week, and they were asking, like, when did you do this? This is amazing. When did this happen? And they're like, that's blinds.com. It was actually super easy. It was, you know, you go on a website, you order it, you talk to them, if you wish, and you get an amazing change to your home. It's not just ordering blinds. Yeah, and amazing advice. The thing I like about blinds.com is that they give you advice.

And in Stu's case, they said, you don't want, you don't want those. It's like, why? These are the best. Yeah, well, that's what the price would indicate. But actually, these blinds are much better. They're shutters or plantation shutters. Yeah. And they want to saving a bunch of money because of that.

Yeah. So blinds.com, they're looking out for you. Brand new custom blinds from blinds.com can make you feel like you've changed your entire home without a big expense. It's blinds.com. A whole bunch of things for free. The entire measure and install process is free. The samples free. Shipping is free.

You get online design consultation free. Now through July 24th, you're going to save up to 40% plus an additional 5% off site wide when you use promo code back. That it's 40% plus an additional 5% site wide at blinds.com. Blinds.com. promo code back rules and restrictions to apply Glenn Beck So I saw the movie with the rock Basically the towering inferno times 10

You know I don't know what it is about the rock But I just like him I just like him Yeah I saw this movie skyscraper Yeah did you like it? Yeah I mean it's really ridiculous There's no way this guy would have been dead like a hundred times

Oh yeah I mean it's so absurd Like just the climbing that he does in that it would have taken six times the length of the movie and it is physically impossible for human to do. But it's the rock. So it's okay. And it really physically impossible for him to climb that tower? Well,

certainly the amount of time it took him. Yeah. And you know what? I was just thinking because he was, but didn't the fire start on like 91? 90? Yeah. Yeah.

So he would have had to climb a hundred stories. No, that would. You're right. You're right. It took him like six minutes. No, it took him like three minutes to get to the top.

Yeah. So you're right. That probably would work. It was completely ridiculous, but really funny. Yeah, he's halfway up and they start on the elevator, and he still beats them. I don't know how that works. But anyway, did you see the physics? People, you know, people did the physics of him jumping from, you know, the crane into the window.

No matter what speed he's running at, he does not make the building. But it's a fun movie. Yeah. All right. Back in just the second. FISA, the FISA report when we come back. All right. So when you look at the news, you can look at it and say, I want to be outraged about something. I want to be proven right about something or whatever. Or you can look at the news and say, okay, what do we do about this? And I'd like to address this FISA story with that attitude. First of all, let me give you the update. Remember the House Intelligence Committee? They had a game of dueling partisan. memos. The Republicans claimed that FISA, the FISA

warrant to surveil Carter Page, Trump's former advisor was obtained using unverified information, the steel dossier. And immediately, the Democrats said, that is ridiculous. We would never do that.

He was endangering national security. And they said that the FISA application that they had was based on several things, not just the steel dossier. Okay. At the time, I said, okay, well, if that's true, then we have to see the actual FISA warrants.

That's the only way to know the truth until we get our hands on the original FISA documents. You can't know. Well, that seemed like a pipe dream when I said it. But that all changed Saturday after the Trump administration released 400-plus page application with heavy redactions. Now, it's the first time in 40 years, we've been given access to the justification to authorize surveillance on an American citizen.

And only one word can describe it, and it is this. Terrifying. We're supposed to be living under a system of checks and balances. For example, if a high-ranking member of the DOJ or FBI has it in for you, they're supposed to be a check and doubleances. balance in place to protect you. That's where, you know, the court comes in. Well, after reading the

Carter Page FISA application, the only thing I can see is an out-of-control FBI and DOJ and a sham of a court system greenlighting whatever comes across their desk. The Republican memo appears to be exactly correct. This warrant was based almost entirely on the steel dossier. Now, besides the dossier, there were two other instances referenced as part of the FBI's case. The first one was a five-year-old dead case where two Russian intelligence agents looked into using Page as a source. But they literally, literally called him an idiot and moved on. And the case went out. The FBI didn't see Page as a threat. But suddenly, this old case, which they threw out, was brought up again in a fight. FISA court years later.

The second thing used was a Yahoo News article. But guess who sourced the information to Yahoo News? As we pointed out then and now verified Christopher Steele using the information from the unverified dossier was the one who confirmed it for Yahoo News. Oh yeah. And one more thing. Steele was now working for and getting paid by the FBI. Why, if you want to talk about, you know, running an evidence circle, this is it.

The wording of the entire application appears to be built to deceive. For instance, the words opposition research never used. Well, that's what that is. Why is opposition research so important? Well, because that means it's raw data, the worst you, can find on a candidate that you oppose. Candidate one is used quite a bit, and candidate one is obviously Donald Trump, but you never see the words candidate two or anything else that identifies Hillary Clinton or the

DNC as having anything at all having to do with the commissioning of this information. Well, now that seems kind of important, doesn't it? Now, keep in mind, this is October and the election is just weeks away. Admitting information and writing words that make material seem softer has only one purpose, and that is to deceive. The FBI and DOJ were trying to deceive the FISA court. There's no other way to explain it, but I don't really even know if it made a difference. The court looks like they just rubber stamp these cases anyway.

We've heard rumors that FISA warrants are overwhelmingly approved rather than denied. But this is ridiculous and unconstitutional. How many other Americans are being spied on right now based off of a political motivation? Or screw it, maybe even a grudge from some pissed off FBI or DOJ employee. FISA. FISA needs an audit. You want to know why this story matters. and what you can do about it besides just yelling back and forth,

it's the Democrats, it's the Republicans, it's the Democrats, it's the Democrats, it's the Republicans. Let's all stand up and demand a FISA audit now. It's Monday, July 23rd. This is the Glenn Beck program. So I would say, I would ask Jason Matrill how his weekend was, but I know he spent it reading the FISA document. 400 plus pages. Nerd, nerd. It's like every other week.

I'm reading several hundred page indictment. This is getting out of control. That's right. That's right. So you've been following this story for a long time. Tell me what you found. Well, I was hoping to find that there was something in there that we were missing from the Republican memo. Basically, no, it seemed like it was pretty much all correct.

Everything in there. there was a whole lot of back and forth over the weekend about, no, the Democrat memo was correct. See, they did name, you know, they didn't mention that it was opposition to research. Well, my, and you just mentioned this. The words opposition and research were never put, thrown in there. Now, I thought that was kind of an important designation there because the way it was written, and it was written in a little footnote at the bottom of one of the pages was, and it's just, I don't have it in front of me, but it was something along the lines of, um, law firm A, you know, contacted, you know, U.S. person, or no, source number one, all these like very vague, you know,

like terms. Never once like candidate one or party two. Yeah, here's that quote. A U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding candidate one, Trump's, ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Trump's campaign. Okay, right there.

Speculates. Speculates. My rear. You knew where this came from. You knew this came from steel, hired by Fusion GPS, hired by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. How can you speculate? Yeah, the FBI, the FBI knew every step of the way. In fact, one of the people from Fusion GPS was feeding the FBI information.

Do you remember? Feeding the DOJ information through Bruce Orr and his wife who was an employee of Fusion GPS. So they knew. They absolutely knew. So why use the word speculate? And why not just say this is this is, this is, if they were hiding it, wouldn't they just not include it? Well, why would they bother going through the, the,

so you could have this argument? Because you could say, look, we speculate, we don't know, we, we speculate that this was hired, you know, somebody was hiring somebody to find out about, uh, Donald Trump. Well, okay. Uh, who? Why are you, why are you pushing this? If it's the Republicans, you know, that started this with Fusion GPS.

Okay, well, we now know it's politically motivated. Okay, so we'll take that into consideration. If you say this is the information that the person running against who's neck and neck right now with Donald Trump, they are currently running, we're a month away. Oh, and by the way, the F. B.I. answers to Barack Obama, who also is in bed with the Clintons and the DOJ is in bed with the Clintons. By not saying that it's the Clinton campaign, I think it changes context entirely.

And the way they phrased that there, they said, U.S. law firm or something like that, contracted source one, all this stuff, or U.S. person one. So even the way they did that. So just compare and contrast. when it was very obvious that they were talking about the Republican Party and Trump, they said candidate one, Trump, and political party Republican. Now, they should have said if they were being fully forthright and trustworthy here, they would have said candidate two and political party two contacted U.S. citizen one. Now, that's what they're working around there, talking around,

but the law, U.S. law firm is the law firm that was hired by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. The U.S. person was Glenn Simpson head of Fusion GPS. Now, if they would have worded it the other way, that would have been pretty dang obvious to all the judges there going, wait a minute. So what you're telling us here is that opposition research from this, from Donald Trump's rival, rival, paid for this. and you're using this as your justification for surveillance warrant. Um, no. Right.

Yeah, no, there's, you disagree with that? Okay, there's not, there's not, there. I just like,

they did say that the information was used, being used to discredit one's campaign. We speculate. We speculate, right. But I mean, maybe at that, well, I don't know,

did the, I don't know, maybe they knew, maybe they didn't at that point. But the, I guess the argument, though, is if you are going to a court,

right if I'm going to a court as a prosecuting attorney or I'm going to a court as you know I'm putting my best case forward to the court right the court it's the court's job to look at that and say okay here you know they're not going to they're going to look at that and it's the court's job to catch that right is it as the court's job to look at that and say okay they're saying this is opposition research I should factor that in and again what their point is my understanding and you went through this whole thing I haven't read all 400 pages and honestly of course neither of you because like a lot of it's redacted yeah and And you don't even really don't.

And we still don't know what's in this fully. We could. Donald Trump could release all of it. Yeah. And I mean, his prerogative. We don't know because they do. What is in there that is redacted seems to be by the intro that is not redacted to be other sources of information. So we don't necessarily think for sure that that the dossier was the only source of what, you know, of why they decided to do this.

However, they also seem to think that Steele was a legitimate source previous. So, and I think this is a... But they didn't, though. They didn't. They just missed it. They closed it. It only showed, the FBI threw this case out, and they actually said that we don't think, they actually pulled the transcripts from the Russian agents who said this guy just wants

money. He's a moron. And the FBI concluded that in 2015 and said, yes, we, we declared this guy, did not know that these people were Russian agents. On this particular matter, because I know they had referred to it in here, which I had read only excerpts of it. But that's what was odd is they. brought it back as going towards justification that made this steel dossier thing seem legit.

It was like, oh yeah, and he was approached by these Russian agents back in 2013. Well, that makes no sense because you already said in your own declaration that he was not guilty there. So why are you using it? If you declared him not guilty there, why are you using it all of a sudden as evidence that he's guilty now? Right. Yeah, it's really, you know, what I kind of found myself, as I was reading through this over the weekend, it really puts a question mark as to

why we had these discussions. I kept coming back to the idea that there was this lengthy discussion that you mentioned and we talked about about how, okay, well, did they use the steel stuff? Is it one of those things? Did they classify it as opposition research? And there was a multiple weak battle about this with both sides saying

they did, they didn't, and then the memos came out and we had that whole discussion. And we all say, when the FISA things comes out, we'll be able to see which side it is. The Pfizer report comes out and both sides are still saying this supports exactly what we believed before. Because nobody is actually, nobody's actually searching for the truth. That's the problem. Very few. I mean, I know.

Jason read the whole thing and is actually trying to decipher it. No, I know. But there's very few. Yeah. When you talk about the people in Washington and the mainstream media, I don't think that they're actually looking for the truth. No. They're looking to do, look, let's just boil it down to the evil capital. The evil capitalist is looking to tell their fans and their readers or their viewers exactly what they want to hear.

Because people are now in a world where they don't want to hear things and they will punish you for it. Okay. So what is the New York Times doing? The New York Times and CNN, they're telling this story that fits the narrative that their viewers have come to expect. And so is everybody else. we're looking for the truth. Just let the chips fall where they may. I will tell you that I, you know, I can appreciate the benefit of the doubt here,

but I don't think these actors have earned that right to have benefit of the doubt on any side. I don't give the benefit of the doubt to any side on this. It just strikes me as the way this plays out is at some point in the future. Robert Mueller is going to release this report. And we're going to get a lot more information that we don't currently have.

And we're going to be able to look at it and we're going to be able to say this part's BS, this part's real. But until that happens, we're just all speculating on unknowns. The parts and the dossier that supposedly got this greenlit, that is very easily verifiable.

Did he or did he not meet with this person? You would think they would be able to somehow get other witnesses to say, yeah, we saw Carter Page and this other guy meet. And so now this goes towards collusion, he lied. But Carter Page has been,

hasn't been convicted of a single thing. No. In that time, we've had a couple people convicted of lying to the FBI. No. That's the extent of their charges. And then Manafort,

who probably has been guilty since the 60s of similar stuff. Have you, either of you seen anything that disproves either one of these two points? One, Russia tried to influence our elections. Two.

And yes. Tried to, yes. And you can read it in the indictment. It's very damning. And two, I don't think Donald Trump had anything to do with colluding with Russians

to try to win the election. neither one of those points. I think he might have if they had something. Right. Like he, yeah, they had that meeting. They had that meeting.

They tried to get information. They didn't get it though. Right. Right. Like I have not seen anything that. No. You know, yeah,

they tried. So they tried it all different ways. I don't think Donald Trump was involved in a specific collusion thing. And until I see other, I have not seen evidence that just was either one of those two points. This is why we did the chalkboard last, I think it was last Thursday or Wednesday, where I laid out the seven,

the seven things. this case revolves around. And we've solved all of the big ones that answer about Trump. We haven't even attempted to look at the questions where it involves the Democrats. Yeah. Well, so what are we doing? Until we're serious and we're not just looking to kill Donald Trump, this means nothing. I want to know what are we doing to stop Russia from doing it again in the midterms

and God forbid in 2020. All right, let me tell you about Simply Safe. Simply Safe is a guardian for your gate. It's a, it is the, it's a thing that's going to keep your castle and your children safe at night. Simply Safe. It's a really great alarm system that has gone through all kinds of testing to make sure that they are the best. Simply Safe doesn't want to just put something in that, you know, somebody else invented and somebody else. else is, you know,

uh, pioneered unless it's absolutely the best that even they can do. They want to make sure that they are putting together the best with the latest stable technology. They have run tens of thousands of simulated, uh, uh, break-ins in their, in their,

um, workshop. And they've, they've protected, the glass break, uh, technology, uh,

the cameras and making sure that the camera has a lens. that comes down a shutter on that lens so you know nobody's watching you. It's never been better. It's never been easier and it's never been more inexpensive. 24-7 monitoring, police, fire dispatch is $15 a month with no contract. So have it. Don't have it. You own the system.

Protect your home. Visit simply safebeck.com and get 10% off your SimplySafehome security system at SimplySafebec.com. percent right now simply safe beck.com. Hey, starting today, the news and why it matters is up on iTunes. This is something we do around, I think around 5.30 Eastern time every day. So on your drive home, now you can listen to it on podcast. It's free.

You can also listen to this program on podcast as well. Just look for the Glenn Beck program. But they are free on iTunes, and we would like you to subscribe and also rate us, please. give us a five-star rating. It helps more people discover the podcast. Did you, while I was gone on vacation, talk about the Papa John's guy at all? Yes.

What was your take on that? That he's dumb as a box of rocks. Okay. That seems accurate. Yeah. I was interested in that it was the first time I could ever remember someone being fired specifically because they didn't say N-word. Where like it wasn't that he said something that was racist.

My understanding of, and correct me if I'm wrong here, what he said basically was, you know, they were talking about controversy around race, and he said, look, I mean, you know, the guy from Kentucky Fried Chicken, Colonel Sanders was famous for using the N-word, except he said the actual word. Now, that point, as I just said,

it is not offensive at all, right? Like to say that, you know, someone else said something and he wasn't fired and he said the N-word, the issue is actually saying the N-word. Well, it goes a little deeper than that, I think. We'll touch on that. And also the rest of the news of the day, coming up in just a second.

So let me just recap for Stu real quick because he was gone when the Papa Johns thing happened. I think what happened with Papa Johns is there was somebody who was out to get him in the company. Now, it may have been with good reason. Right. Because, you know, why are you having a PR, you know, drill? Well, you've had PR drills before. Yeah, but only when. drills that's on me.

Yeah, only when you're expected to be like attacked. And he had mixed it up on the NFL issue. So I think that's why. But then it had kind of blown over. So they obviously thought we're in trouble with this guy. He's going to say something again or do something again. And so in that, he said, well, I don't understand a problem. When I was growing up in Indiana, they were dragging them behind trucks.

Okay. Probably not the thing you should say. That seems like a really bad thing to say. Yeah, probably, you know, you're in, you're trying, you're trying to do your best, you know, the first time you say that and you're like, okay, that's something you don't say. No, no, don't say that. And then the second time, he said, you know, Colonel Sanders, he called them. And that's not good.

So at that point, I as a, as a PR person go, okay, all right. We just had to get this guy out of the company. I can't. You can't work with this guy. Because there was that, that was the thought of like either someone's out to get him or there is a well-known record of things more serious than that. behind closed doors, perhaps, which is always something you can't factor in

if you're not in the building. So it could easily have been that. Do you think it had anything to do with the idea that their slogan is essentially eugenics? Better ingredients, better pizza, Papa Johns. So they're saying basically the genetics... Well, if pizza were people, but, you know... It's a subtle eugenics message.

But it's clearly what they're going for there. It's so subtle, no one's ever picked up on it. No, I know. That's not a subtle of the fuck. Pat, welcome to the program. A couple of other things. There was in church news, there was Reverend Jeffers, who came out this weekend and said, yeah, you know, I mean, Donald Trump is just like Ronald Reagan. I mean, you know, we went, you know, we supported in the Christian community, Ronald Reagan,

you know, even though he was having affairs. He was a known womanizer. Wait, except for no. He wasn't a known woman. I've never even heard that before. Not ever. He loved Nancy. Alleged before. No, he loved Nancy. In fact,

the, I think it was the National Review, reached out to a lot of people that worked with Ronald and they were all like, no. No. Even the left never said that about him to my knowledge. No, I've never heard that. But thank you.

Yeah. Pastor Jeffers. Brilliant as always. He had another wonderful thing. There was a church shooting also this weekend. An LDS church. Somebody came in. Do we have the facts on that one? Yeah, one

dead. One person was killed. What was the motivation? Gunman killed a resident. They said it wasn't church related. They said it was personal. Yeah. An individual. So he went in there looking specifically for somebody.

But I don't know what the deal was with the individual. Does it say that yet? as of last night they didn't know. And the other news that we haven't talked about today that I think is pretty big is Iran. The only language that is understood in the Middle East is the language of strength. That's the only thing they understand. And it's clearly documented.

I mean, look at all of the heroes. Look at Mohammed. But Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah because he didn't bring destruction and death. He wasn't a strong arm. He came in and his kingdom was one of peace. So he didn't even connect back then with people. Muhammad, on the other hand, was a warrior. And everybody who is admired over in the Middle East is a warrior.

They see a strong man as something to be desired and something good. The only thing that you can do is speak power to that power. Donald Trump just wrote a text message back to Iran. He actually screamed it all. He screamed all of it. It's all caps to Iranian presidential Rouhani and then capital levers. Never, never ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer the consequences, the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before.

We are no longer a country that will stand for your demented words of violence and death. Be cautious. That's strong. Pretty strong. Really strong. And Rwani, of course, has warned him back that. The warning of a warning of a warning. Yeah.

That they could bring about the mother of all wars. Well, last time we heard that. about the mother of all wars. It wasn't even the second cousin twice removed of all wars. I don't, it wasn't even related to anybody. That was the mother of all wars in Iraq. That was actually the thing he was responding to, right?

Yes. Reportedly, this is what caused the Trump tweet, this statement. America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace and war with Iran is the mother of all wars. You are not in a position to incite the Iranian nation against Iran's security and interests. So I don't know. is the all-cap threat. Is that the way to go with these guys?

I don't know. Maybe. It's really hard to, you know, it seemed like it worked for a while with North Korea. Now I'm not so sure because North Korea seems to be back on track doing whatever they please. And maybe it'll work with Iran. Well, we know we've tried it the other way. Oh, for sure. We had eight years of the other way.

Well, we've had 30 years of the other way. Yeah. I mean, it's been going on and on and on and on. and we're not getting any better with them. And we've tried, you know, we've tried shunning them. We have tried blocking them from the rest of the world. That seemed to be working. Now what we are doing is we have put people, from my understanding, we've put boots on the ground.

I mean, I don't mean military boots, sneakers on the ground. And we're helping, you know, the protesters. We're helping the people on the street organize and get their word out. So they can bring pressure from the street. Now, should we be doing that? Well, that's what we called for with Obama, right? Isn't that what we wanted him to do and he didn't do anything? No, I didn't necessarily put people on the streets, but I do, I wouldn't mind a, a well-crafted speech that says Iranian people, we stand with you.

You're living under an oppressor. You threw off the chains of one impressor just to take on the shackles of a new one. But if you tell them that and it sparks insurrection, you kind of have. have to be there for him. Oh, no, no, we never do that. No. Oh, no, they're on their own when that happened. Yeah, they're on their own.

You didn't think we're going to help, did you? I didn't mean to imply that. Yeah, we're just saying, you want to, you should go get it. It's amazing, though, all this stuff, right? Like the tweet today, and we haven't talked that much about it. I mean, look, that is a really important thing. We've spent years of the show talking about the inner workings of Iran and why they're so important.

And then this happens today and we're like, yeah. Whatever. And I think it's honestly like, there's so much talk now. There's so much of this every day. You know, I was driving, I was I guess late in the week last week. And someone on the radio said it had been one month since the North Korea summit. That seems like it was 1885 to me right now. Like that seems like ancient, ancient history.

And every day, everyone gets worked up over, you know, some tweet that Donald Trump sends or something that somebody in the media does or some boycott. we're all supposed to be involved in and in some some cards whatever that controversy of the moment are and it's like they're so fleeting and so meaningless just a week or two later i mean the north korea things are really big deal and it feels old with these little disagreements and you know issues about uh you know whatever the controversy of the day is it just seems like so such such a big nothing burger it's almost like we're addicted to outrage is it yeah that was what i was going for going to let a promotion of your new book coming out soon

Coming out September 18th, the addiction to outrage. But it is. It is. We line up every day to have somebody tell us something that outrages us. And then we get on Twitter and Facebook and we read more and write even more. And we spend the day outraged by something. And then the next week, we don't even remember what it was. Isn't that weird?

Isn't that a weird trait? It's a strange thing. thing we're going through that I don't feel like we've gone through before. Well, I know that our kids go through it. I mean, I went through it as a kid and I just said to my kids just this weekend, Rafe, she's always going to be your sister. And trust me, there's going to be times that you look back at this time and you won't even remember what you were mad at.

Yeah. Okay. We've done that with our kids. Yeah. Our parents. Except it's now happening not in a lifetime. It's happening tomorrow. Yeah.

You won't know what you were mad about. Yeah. It's a day-to-day thing. I was thinking about this a little bit over vacation as well, and that, like, we, as people who've been in radio for a long time and got into this industry, for some reason, by choice, one of the jokes among radio people, broadcasters in general, are the people that decide to go into this industry are all insane, right?

Like, it's just a bunch of crazy people and lots of big egos and people who are unstable. And, you know, it's kind of like a joke. And then us. And us, we're obviously perfect. But I think you have to have to be a little nuts to go into this industry, right? And it's weird because I think with social media, everyone is doing their own show every day, right? Everybody is a broadcaster now. And I know this.

And we've done this for many years. You're constantly mining your own life for these moments. You walk by a sign and it makes you think of something and you think about bringing it back on the show the next day. you're constantly prepping your own show. It's what we do all the time. And in addition to that, you're also looking for the most interesting way to present that information.

Like, what's the best way to tell that story? What's the way that's going to get most people interested in listening to? And as a society, that's not necessarily bad when 0.5% of your society is in that business. But when 95% are, it makes everybody crazy. And I think maybe it's a reverse of where the way we used to think about it in radio in which everyone who gets into radio is insane, maybe radio makes you insane. Maybe broadcasting applies a bunch of really weird treatments of your life to your existence,

and it doesn't have good outcomes a lot of the time. And now everybody's doing it, and many people who are doing it without maybe doing the research of a radio host or whatever, it winds up really putting a lot of really strange material out there. and people act in really weird ways. When I first got into radio, I had to work really hard to gain an audience. And the idea was,

if I could get their audience, just the audience, just to say to their friend, you have to listen to this guy, I could gather a bigger audience. Now my audience has an audience. Everybody in the audience has an audience if you're in social media

should make our jobs easier it's actually made our jobs more difficult and it's exactly the point that you were making and it ended up on the editing room floor because it wasn't good enough for the book Wow! Comes out September 18th Seems like you had a lot of thoughts on your vacation though

Yeah, no, it's... You should have just enjoyed your vacation. That's true. It's a good point. Stop thinking. That's a good point. That's what I was. Did you try to get away from all of it?

Oh, yeah, I did. And you're really missing that day to day back and forth. You come back off of vacation and realize you didn't miss anything. It's the same people in the same spots making the same arguments as when you left. And that's why, like, I feel like we try here to get to something that's a little bit more lasting, a little bit deeper. I'm not saying we ever succeed on it. But you try to at least think about these things from a larger perspective because that day to day really means, nothing. And if anything, that's a gift from Donald Trump.

Right? Like, I think because the media is so, hates him so much, they get so infuriated over everything that you realize how nonsensical it actually is. Thank you, Pat, for stopping by. Stu, good to have you back. Our sponsor this half hour, it's LifeLock. Asking your, you know, your smartphone for the weather is one thing. but how about asking it to send money to a friend? Soon you might be able to send money instantly by telling your smartphone to do it. Now that includes some cyber concerns. Cyber criminals have been able to hack into a lot of devices that could access this kind of transaction remotely.

And there are many threats out there. In today's connected world, it takes one. And your privacy and your bank accounts, everything. It's over. One weak link. That's why the new life. Lock identity theft protection adds the power of Norton security to help protect you against the threats to your identity as well as your devices that you can't easily see or fix on your

own. And if you have a problem, they've got somebody there to fix it for you. Now, nobody can stop every cyber threat or prevental identity thefts or monitor transactions at all businesses. But the new life lock with Norton security is able to uncover threats that you might otherwise miss. So go to lifelock.com or call 1-800 life lock. Lifelock.com or 1-800.com or 1-8.com. 800 life lock. Use the promo code back and get an extra 10% off your first year. It's 1,800 life lock promo code back. So, by the way, we want to thank our new sponsor for this portion of the program, Poop-A-Roney.

There we go. Thank you. Now, what did I miss? You missed a lot. You haven't heard about the poop in the streets? Well, I experienced it when we were there for the Super Bowl. It's much worse. Oh, my God.

Now they don't know what to do. People are shooting up and pooping on the streets of San Francisco like there's no tomorrow. And there may not be a tomorrow. So maybe that's what you... Well, it's true. You've already outlined partially the end of civilization as we know. I mean, I don't know if we're going to be back tomorrow. We could all die, you know, from being vaporized by Iran.

They may attack. I don't know what else. you know, the FISA courts could put us all in prison. Donald Trump could do a pack with Putin and we could all be in Siberia. You know, the global warming could really kick in. They said it would pause for a while today, maybe the day that it unpauses and catch up. And I mean, seems to have unpaused all over Texas over the past couple weeks. James Gunn could rape all of us.

We don't know. We don't know. We just happening. We just don't know. So are you excited. I'm just at that point where if it comes to tweeting what you've tweeted in the past, no one should get fired. And occasionally there'll be someone who tweeted something really offensive.

I don't know. I kind of like the spirit of the McCarthy era. You know? Mob justice? You're in? I like mob justice an awful lot. I think a lot of good things happen. Look, it made Salem what it is today.

That's true. We know. We remember it all. That's right. Glenn, back. Mercury.