Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

BLOGFebruary 08, 2018

‘Social Media Doesn’t Reward That’: Why Can’t Conservatives, Liberals Listen to Each Other?

How do we heal division in our country when we can’t even have conversations?

“I really feel one of the biggest problems is nobody’s listening at all,” Glenn said on today’s show while sitting down with Eric Liu. “Nobody feels heard right now.”

Liu, founder and CEO of Citizen University, leans liberal in his political views but has the same passion for bringing people together. He pointed out that we’ll have to be better than our political leaders if we want to reach across the aisle. We’re learning terrible habits from our political leaders and the way social media encourages extreme views.

“That’s a set of habits that nobody’s modeling for us in national politics,” Liu said. “Nothing in our daily lives rewards that. Social media doesn’t reward that.”

Listen to their full conversation on today’s show here:

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So much to the, I think, chagrin of my friends and chagrin of his friends, we are friends, Eric Liu. He is the founder and CEO Of Citizen University. Also, the executive director of the Aspen Institute. Citizenship and American Identity Program.

He's -- he's from Seattle. I don't think I need to say anything else. He's from Seattle.

(laughter)

GLENN: So we don't necessarily agree on everything. But we have become friends because we both are trying to find sane ways to have conversations with each other and other people. Or we're doomed. We're doomed.

Welcome. How are you?

ERIC: Glenn, it's great to be back. It's great to see you.

GLENN: How is Seattle?

ERIC: It's beautiful. It's thriving. It's booming. You know, you grew up in the area.

GLENN: I know. I love it. I love it. I love it.

I don't think I would be welcomed there anymore. I don't think I was welcomed there ten years ago, let alone today.

ERIC: Well, we'll follow-up and bring you back together, and we'll do something in Seattle.

GLENN: Yeah, good. I would love to.

So would you agree with me that both sides, to one degree or another, have become unhinged on the extreme edges?

ERIC: Yeah. I think our politics today, and especially if you spend more than ten minutes on social media, it is about voices on the unhinged extremes.

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: And it's about this pattern that plays out over and over, where each extreme has to gin it up in order to feed the rage and the anger about the other side's extreme.

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: You know, that is our politics as it's mediated, you know, especially through social media. But I think -- you were talking about this before we went on-air. There is a broad swath of, you know, sane people. You know, interested bystanders. People who aren't super active in politics, super active in commenting on politics, who just want to understand each other, and who just want to fix stuff.

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: And some of them are as progressive as I am. And some of them are as Libertarian as you are. And many of them are all points in between. But they're not interested in the game-playing and the posturing that so much of national politics is about today.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, I -- we're making everything about politics now. Absolutely everything is about politics.

And we're not going to survive. That's nuts.

The story today came out on sports -- sports illustrated. They just did a swimsuit issue, that doesn't have any swimsuits. All of the women are completely naked. And they're beautiful women. One is lying down naked, face up with the word "truth" painted on her rib cage. Another one is naked with "feminist" emblazoned on her arm. The other is the daughter of Christie Brinkley that is staring at the camera, laying on her side with the word "progress" written across her back. And they've put this -- this is -- I don't understand this. This is Sports Illustrated, a magazine for men, trying to say, see, we shouldn't objectify women. I don't understand that.

ERIC: Yeah. There's a lot that is great fundamentally about the Me Too movement and the fact that our society is waking up to shifting norms on what's okay when it comes to actually treating women with respect.

GLENN: I agree. I agree. I agree. Yes.

ERIC: But I do not look to Sports Illustrated as my moral guide on the objectification of women. Okay?

GLENN: How do we find a way -- and tell me what your feelings are on the people that, you know, on the -- on the dangers -- even Margaret at wood brought this up, the dangers of just these kangaroo courts, who are not even a kangaroo court. Just, you're guilty, and you're done if anybody accuses you.

ERIC: The danger is there. But I think actually as a society, we're navigate it right now. I mean, this is somewhat uncharted. Right? It's not like the society has tried before to have deep equity between men and women, on what -- who gets to harass whom. We've never done that before. We're having a society-wide reckoning.

Are there going to be cases where people abuse that -- the power that comes with that?

Sure. But are our institutions and are the leaders in our institutions fundamentally trying to reckon with that in good-faith? I actually think we are.

And even this kind of absurd Sports Illustrated cover is a sign that -- you know, one thing you can say about Sports Illustrated is they're trying to tune into the zeitgeist. They are aware of the market place, right? And they know the zeitgeist is, you got to be on the right side of the speech. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

But if I did photos of naked women and put #metoo, I don't think I would get the pass that --

ERIC: Well, exactly.

GLENN: -- from either side, in my case. From either side.

STU: Yeah.

ERIC: The question is one of -- you know, in the law, they talk about standing. Do you have standing to make a case? Right?

During the Super Bowl, we all watched the ads and stuff. I didn't think Dodge Ram trucks had the moral standing to use an MLK speech about the dangers of commercialism to sell trucks. To me, that was -- and to lots of Americans, that was, you know what, message and messenger not aligned here.

GLENN: You mean the MLK message?

ERIC: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: So the MLK message -- may I present an opposite point of view. That's a sermon that most Americans have not heard, was really good. I agree with you that the images of the truck coming in, halfway in. You're like, okay. That's really -- you don't need that.

Just a simple Dodge at the end would have been perfect.

ERIC: Yeah. Yes. Would have been great.

GLENN: However, I have had more email on a monologue that I did on forgiveness, and I used that sermon the very next day. I've had more email on that from people who woke up. So, I mean, you can't necessarily reject it as universally bad that they did it. Because it did affect people.

ERIC: Well, look, I mean, Sports Illustrated was trying to do something like the right thing. But the equivalent would have been, had they had a cover -- if they said, this year's swimsuit issue, here's what it looks like. And it was a black cover that just said, we're taking some responsibility for feeding this culture in which women are treated like objects and which men feel they have permission to treat women like objects. We own a piece of that.

GLENN: And it would be the lowest selling Sports Illustrated.

STU: But that would be a powerful statement. Writing it on naked women's bodies doesn't seem quite as --

ERIC: It would be low-selling as a swimsuit issue. But the whole country would be talking about it. Would be talking about Sports Illustrated.

GLENN: Yeah, that's true. That's true.

So who have you found, Eric, I have been looking for a while, people like you, that we don't necessarily agree, but we can have really good conversations. And we can move things forward together.

ERIC: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Who have you found on the -- on the left or in the media that is really willing to do that?

ERIC: Hmm. You know, and I'm not sure if she's been a guest on your show, but my friend Neera Tanden --

GLENN: Nope.

ERIC: -- who runs the Center for American Progress.

Big, big progressive think tank, that I know you cross swords with. Right? But Neera is both able and willing to have conversations with anybody. And to have them in ways that aren't just the made for TV food fight, that are really trying to say, what's your deal? Right.

What are you getting at here?

GLENN: I really feel one of the biggest problems is nobody is listening at all.

ERIC: Yeah.

GLENN: Nobody feels heard right now.

Somehow or another, the left still controls most of the media. Doesn't feel heard. And the right now that they control the House and the Senate, they don't feel heard. And it's because nobody is -- nobody is actually -- I guess emoting what the average person is feeling right now. You know, we're all scared. It's amazing. I saw a YouTube video of a liberal talking about how afraid she was that Donald Trump was going to build concentration camps. And it was in a room -- probably had 1,000 people in it. And they were all like, yeah, yeah. And I remember, I debunked the lie about Obama making concentration camps. Because that was a big deal.

STU: A big conspiracy theory at the time.

GLENN: Big conspiracy. I was called a conspiracy theorist for debunking that conspiracy theory. And now the other side is feeling the same kind of fear that so many Americans did when they didn't trust the president. And I think this is a moment where we can wake up and say, see, this is why the president should never have this much power. The president should not be able to affect our lives, to the point to where we're afraid of him.

STU: Yeah.

ERIC: I actually agree with that. I think there's one lesson that people on the left are learning today, and that is the dangers of this imperial presidency. Right?

Which is not a Trump phenomenon or even an Obama phenomenon. It's been going back half a century at least, right?

GLENN: Been going for a long time, yeah, yeah.

ERIC: At least since World War II. Right? Concentration, power in the executive, right?

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: But I think you're -- I want to go back to something you were saying about listening and being heard, right?

We live in this time right now where there is -- and we've talked about this. There's so much pain. There's so much pain.

The segment you were doing right before the break, in which you were just speaking to a human, an individual about the pain they were feeling in their journey. And you were tying it to the pain that you have felt at various points in your journey, right?

That kind of conversation which is both about listening -- but it's about, I'm not just listening to the words you're saying and the points you're making. I'm trying to listen underneath, to the emotional currents there. That's a set of habits that nobody is modeling for us in national politics. And that we as citizens, frankly, it's gotten easier for us to shed those habits. Because nothing in our daily lives rewards that, right? Social media doesn't reward that.

GLENN: The media doesn't reward --

ERIC: The media doesn't reward that.

So we've actually got to build experiences where we see each other face-to-face again. You know, if we were having this conversation by phone, this would be different. But I'm looking you in the eye right now, Glenn. And I'm looking at you as you've spoken about these questions. And there's a human connection here. That I can't now just call you a nutjob and call you a this and call you a that. Like, we've connected on some level, right? It doesn't mean we're going to agree on the issues.

But it means I'm not going to demonize. And I think the deepest ill in our politics is how we've forgotten how to rehumanize each other.

GLENN: That's -- I just wrote a member of the press morning, a private conversation, that dealt with that. I said, we are -- we are calling each other subhumans, exactly the way the early, you know, 1920s Nazis were starting to. Train people that you're subhuman. If you don't agree with me, you're subhuman. And we're training each other that way.

But it doesn't -- social media is not the only one that doesn't reward it. Media doesn't reward it either. I mean, if you're not going to call somebody a nutjob or a Nazi. You don't win. And they don't put you on. And you, Stu -- was it you yesterday that said that you had seen somebody say, no, well, on the surface, this means X and X. And the guy was like, no. But that's -- can you tell the story?

STU: Yeah. It was an interview about some controversial comment that had gone on media. And they had brought someone on to kind of answer for it. And the typical kind of cable news back and forth. And that's essentially, when the person was pushing back against it. To say, yeah, but you got to admit on the service, it's an insult.

It's like, well, isn't the point here as human beings, that we go beyond the surface, that we think a little deeper about these things?

Because we can all get frustrated at the surface of it. We can all find the worst possible intent of a comment and turn it into something that is going to enrage our side. But that shouldn't be our goal.

GLENN: So, Eric, how do we do that?

ERIC: Well, it starts with something I actually want to give you guys credit for, which is, you got to put something at risk. Right?

When you started a couple years ago saying, I own my piece of how our politics and our political culture have gotten toxic. And I've decided I want to be part of the solution. I want to start reaching out and having conversations across certain divides, right? You put a bunch of stuff at risk.

You feel it acutely, right? You feel it every day. You put -- I don't have to name it. Right? It's not just about the business side of things and the listeners and the sponsors or whatever. I'm talking about reputational power and so forth, right? You put stuff at risk.

And I often ask myself and I ask my friends who are left of center, what are we willing to put at risk in order to change this politics? In order to go a little deeper, beyond the surface and beyond just this throwing of flames at each other? Right.

So number one, it's being willing -- and I want to name the fact that you all have started something and set in motion a different cycle of responsibility, taking rather than responsibility shirking with, right?

GLENN: Thank you.

ERIC: There is only one way to break the cycle of dehumanization and responsibility shirking, and that is to break it.

GLENN: Yeah.

ERIC: That is to say, you know what, I didn't start it. I'm not the one to blame. But darn it, I'm actually just going to say, I'm stopping right now, and I'm trying to change direction here. Go a little deeper. And rehumanize. And, yeah, I may pay some price for that. But this is a question of purpose.

STU: One of -- a famous poet said, we didn't start the fire.

GLENN: It was Billy Joel. Stop it.

ERIC: A poet. Yes, indeed.

(laughter)

GLENN: So what do your friends say to you, when you say, what are we willing to lose? What chip are we willing to put up?

ERIC: Let me tell you about something we've been doing at Citizen University. For the last year plus now, a year and a quarter, we've been doing these regular gatherings that we call civic Saturday. And these are basically a civic analogue to church. It's not church. It's not synagogue or mosque. But it's about American civic religion. Right? The stuff that you and I, civic nerds, are steeped in. Right? Understanding the language and the texts and what you might think of as civic scripture, whether that's from the declaration of the preamble or King speeches or Susan B. Anthony or whatever it might be, and understanding that we have all inherited this body of values and text and idea. And we do these gatherings with the Ark of the Faith gathering.

We sing together. You turn to the stranger next to you. You talk about a common question. There are readings of these texts.

There's a sermon that I've been giving. And then afterwards, there's more song. And then there's an hour afterwards where people kind of form up in circles and talk about, what are we going to do together? Right?

And I go to length to tell you about this, because number one, it's been amazing how people have responded to this. There is this need, across the left and the right, whether you are traditionally religious or not, there is this need in our political life for a space where we can come together and rehumanize, right?

Number one. Number two, when in that space, I've said to folks in these sermons what I've said here, which is, we've got to be willing to take risks. We've got to be willing to ask ourselves, what are we willing to put on the line?

And people are -- people sit there for a minute because they haven't been asked/challenged to do that in a long time, right? All of our political leadership is about, let me indulge you. Let me indulge your worst instincts. Let me indulge you. Not what can you do? And maybe even give up a little bit, in order to start solving the problem, right? And that leads to different kinds of conversations.

And, frankly, not all of them are about Trump or national politics. A lot of these conversations then come to life in our city, which is changing dramatically right now.

GLENN: That's what it should come down to in the first place.

ERIC: Yeah.

GLENN: Eric, we're going to continue our conversation at 5 o'clock tonight on the Glenn Beck Program. He has written a book, You're More Powerful than You Think. His name is Eric Liu. And we'll have more tonight at 5 o'clock. Make sure you join us on TheBlaze.com/TV.

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream
RADIO

3 Signs that Anti-Jewish ATROCITIES are Becoming Mainstream

The pro-Palestine, anti-Israel protests are getting out of hand. Glenn reviews 3 stories that prove just how mainstream these often-times anti-Jewish, demonstrations and beliefs are becoming: The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights advertised "5 ways to take action for Tax Day" if people don't want their tax dollars to "fund genocide"; a group called Palestine Action has called on activists to surveil and violently vandalize businesses connected to the "Israeli weapons industry"; and a cop in London threatened to arrest a man for crossing a road during a pro-Palestine protest because his "openly Jewish" appearance could "antagonize" the crowd. In the name of "tolerance," we're "tolerating the REAL problem," Glenn says. So, is anyone looking into these acts of hate? Or are they still too focused on Trump supporters?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, Stu, I've been thinking. Now, hear me out on this theory.

I'm thinking that maybe Americans. Now, this has never been said before, that I know of.

Do you think Americans just have an unusual fear, a heightened unusual fear of Tiki torches. Hear me out.

STU: This is a theory I've never heard before.

GLENN: Right. It's a first year.

Hear me out. When you have a gathering of Nazis, and they're screaming, death to the Jews.

STU: Jews will not replace us, I believe was the big --

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

So you have the Tiki torches. We freak out.

But when you have the Palestinians say, kill all the Jews, and nobody freaks out.

They don't have Tiki torches.

STU: Oh!

That's -- that is an interesting difference.

GLENN: It might just be, I don't know. Because I've always go to of Tiki torches, as something you brought, that parents would have brought around the pool for a luau or something. You know, they got like, hey, we have a fresh pineapple. Let's have a luau. And so they would have a luau around the pool. I would like to do an experiment at your house, Stu. Let's see if we can get a bunch of Nazis to go with Tiki torches, and stand around your pool. Just to say, you know, if you like pineapple.

STU: Because then you wouldn't know if it was a racist protest or a luau. You wouldn't know. That's interesting.

GLENN: Yeah. You wouldn't know. You wouldn't know. So I think, is it the Tiki torches that are the difference here between the Nazis?

STU: We have some citronella situations, where they're supposed to help chase the mosquitoes away.

Maybe the American people are just sensitive to those same types of issues. Maybe they're scared away by the Tiki Torches.

GLENN: Maybe. Because I don't understand what's going on.

STU: But you didn't like the, every day should be October 7th chance this weekend?

GLENN: No, I didn't, I didn't.

STU: It didn't say necessarily, it was that thing on October 7th. They could have --

GLENN: It could have been the convert.

STU: Things that occurred on October 7th, you know.

GLENN: Sure. Should have been. Don't think it was. A little Nazi for my taste. A little too Nazi for my taste, but they didn't have Tiki torches.

Hey, by the way, we were just talking about the surveillance that the government is doing with foreigners and Americans getting scooped up. I'll bet you, none of that is going to happen to any of those proud, proud Palestinian protesters. They're not going to get scooped up. No!

Not at all.

By the way, I find it fascinating that the UN, the United Nations, the division for Palestinian rights and geoaction news, reportedly has given an update on the Civil Society Organization's concerning the Palestinian issues. So they're just putting out this information, and they're pointing to the US campaign for Palestinian rights. Lists ways to take action for tax day. So the United Nations put out a little flier there. Just you know Palestinian rights. And put together a little helpful list, if you wanted to take action.

Let me just show you what was in this. Instructions on how some protesters who didn't want their tax dollars to fund genocide. This is from the UN, could disrupt a free Palestine.

Second item on the list, pointed to a user hyperlink for protesters who wanted to engage in a coordinated multi-city economic blockade, to free Palestine.

You know what is not under investigation by our FBI?

These people.

The state laid -- the site laid out specifically how participants could be most effective with their disruptions. The proposal states that in each city, quote, will identify and blockade major choke points on the economy. Focusing on points of production and circulation, with the aim of causing the most economic impact as the port shutdowns did in recent months in Oakland, California, and Melbourne, Australia, just a few examples.

There's this need, quoting, from a shift of symbolic actions to those that cause pain to the economy.

Still quoting, as Yemen is bombed to secure global trade, and billions of dollars are sent to the Zionist war machine, we must recognize that the global economy is complicit in genocide, and together, we will coordinate to disrupt and blockade economic, logistical hubs, and the flow of Capitol.

So I think this is great. Hey. Justice Department.

Nothing to see. I don't need to say this to you. You know, nothing to see there.

Nothing to see there. Whatsoever. By the way, new document, also has -- has been given to the investigative journalist up in Canada. You know, we saw the breakdown of society.

You know, the UN. This is another one. This is an underground manual, created by Palestinian action.

It's a network of groups, that use what they call direct action against individuals and organizations who are believed to support Israel.

The manual, this is another manual, urges the sales to pick your target.

Anyone who enables and profits from the Israeli's weapons industry. Palestinian action then calls on some members to prepare for action. And do what it refers to as recce. R-E-C-C-E. Reconnaissance, is that what you mean? Even advising borrowing someone's dog for a walk, to avoid looking suspicious.

STU: Well, you don't want to look suspicious, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Can I borrow your dog for a walk? Hey, free dog walking!

STU: That wouldn't be suspicious?

GLENN: No. No. Extremists are counseled to map out where closed-circuit cameras are located, as well as fencing, barbed wire, access points, alarms, and how far the police are from the target. Next, the pamphlet describes to sell -- to be advised to plan action, among the suggestion action. Smashing windows. Exterior equipment. Blocking company's internal pipes. Including using concrete. As anti-Israel protesters did on the railroad tracks in Toronto.

Last week, that was great. This will cause disruptions for the target. Break-ins are also advised by Palestinian action, because breaking in to your target, and damaging the contents inside, is obviously a very effective tactic. This thing goes on and on and on.

It says, at the end, in all caps. Palestinian action warns, taking action, never leave anything behind.

Absolutely nothing. Apart from the paint and the destruction.

The police may try to forensically analyze any items which are left. So don't leave anything. By the way, you should have untraceable burner phones. Oh.

If caught, Palestinian action members are give up the names of lawyers to represent them. Apparently at no cost. And the assistance of, quote, our dedicated support team throughout your entire legal process. End quote.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: So I'm -- I'm wondering. I'm wondering, if there's any -- anybody at all, thinking about this?

STU: I think that came from the Toronto star, which is obviously the -- when you're thinking about this type of thing.

You think, I don't know.

Maybe the New York Times. The Washington Post.

GLENN: No. No.

STU: The LA Times would be really interested, in uncovering a document like this, that is advocating this type of things.

GLENN: No. They won't. I just gave you two. One from the Toronto star. Another from the UN.

Hello. Hello.

Nobody. Nobody is interested in this. So please don't talk to me about, oh, my gosh, the United States is in such danger.

Yes. When you close the border. And make sure we don't have, you know, half a million people coming in every 90 days. You let me know. Then I'll take you seriously.

When you start investigating people that are -- that are organizing paying for, and encouraging these kinds of Nazi rallies. When you -- you know what, once you start calling them Nazi rallies, I'll take you seriously.

Otherwise, I think you're actually part of the rob. And here. I want you to listen. What British police said to this Jewish man. It's Saturday. The Sabbath. He's coming back.

He does this every Saturday. He walks.

And here's what the British police said to him, because there were Palestinians around.

He's trying to -- I -- I don't want to stay here. I want to lease as a Jewish man. When the crowd is gone. He can go.

I'll escort you.

No, sir. You're not. I don't want to antagonize anyone. I just don't want to walk across the street. And at the moment, sir, you're quite openly Jewish. This is a pro-Palestinian march.

I'm not accusing you. But I'm worried about the reaction to your presence.

I just want to make sure you're safe. So that no one attacks you.

That's all. I would like that too. But your sergeant told me, because I'm Jewish, it's antagonistic to the crowd. And dangerous.

I'm not saying that. He just said that.
(music)

VOICE: On every Saturday, you probably know it. Your colleagues know it.

VOICE: It changes every single week. (inaudible).

VOICE: And now, look at the number of police around him. Look around.

GLENN: Probably 20 policeman around him. And he's like, I'm -- I'm told that it's completely safe for the Jews to walk around. I should have nothing to worry about. And yet, here I am. They're shouting me. Shoving me. And I'm surrounded by cops.

So they're going to escort him out.

He doesn't want any of that to happen.

He says, you're -- the cop says, you're causing a breach of peace. Because you're standing here.

Your presence here is antagonizing a large group of people. So we're going to arrest you. Because your presence is antagonizing them.

STU: Huh?

GLENN: Now. They didn't do anything to the people that were surrounding him. Calling him vermin.

Calling for the death of Jews.

They did nothing.

But he's the problem. Again, this is tolerating!

You're tolerating the real problem!

You're tolerating the views of Nazis! Now, I just -- I'm not going to have time here. But tomorrow, I'm going to go through the history of Columbia university. You know, Columbia university. They were welcoming Nazis in. They had a cap on how many Jews we could have in the college. They have a history of this. Does anybody really care? America, it is so easy to know, if you're on the right side of history, right now.

You do not want to tell your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren, yeah. Your grandma and I did nothing.

When this all came down. We were just too afraid to say anything.

You know, my job was really important.

Yeah. I get that grandpa. But look what that led to, your silence.

The INFURIATING Truth About New York's 34 Counts Against Trump
RADIO

The INFURIATING Truth About New York's 34 Counts Against Trump

New York’s hush money trial against former president Donald Trump has begun and the media suggests there’s a “mountain of evidence” against him. But Glenn and Stu reveal the truth: Trump may have 34 counts of falsifying business records against him. But they’re all for ONE payment. So, how can one payment turn into 34 charges? And why is the prosecution relying on known-liar Michael Cohen?! Glenn and Stu break it down and also play a clip of a Democratic congresswoman revealing the real reason why Trump is on trial.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, here's -- here's what you need to say to yourself. When you start listening to, you know, politicians or newscasters. Say, hey. This is really important that you pay attention to this. Because this is what I think. And you'll know who you can trust. Especially in Washington, DC.

If they -- if they're not talking about the government spending, then they're not serious about inflation. Period.

If -- with the border. If they're talking about dangerous things are in America, and we've -- we've got to -- we've got to make sure that we are buttoned up. And things are bad.

And blah, blah, blah. And we have terror. All the red lights are flashing.

But they don't talk about stopping the hemorrhaging at the border. They're not serious.

You talk about FISA. Oh, we have to have extra. Extra super-duper, you know, warrantless searches on Americans. Because it's so dangerous, and you never know if Americans are involved.

But they are not saying anything about the Palestinian Nazis on our streets. That are organized and well-funded.

They're not serious about your security. Period. If the New York Times writes a story that says, yeah. You know what, this Trump trial, well, that's -- it's got a mountain of facts to it. Really? But they don't seem to care that the statute of limitations, is passed.

STU: No mountain of evidence could overwhelm that fact. We're past the statute of limitations.

GLENN: Yeah. Right.

The fact that the DOJ passed on -- I don't know if you know this.

DOJ doesn't like Donald Trump.

STU: What?

GLENN: Yeah. The fact that the federal elections committee also passed on this. And said, there's no crime here.

There's nothing.

He -- even Alvin brag, the prosecutor, passed on this originally.

There's nothing here.

There is no mountain of evidence, that could -- that is standing in the way, of -- of anything, other than a mistrial.

STU: I love how it's like presented as this uphill battle too. It's like, oh, is a mountain of evidence, even enough for this very difficult task they have to do of convicting Donald Trump in Manhattan? Yeah. That's --

GLENN: Did you hear what Jayapal said? What's her name?

STU: Jayapal.

GLENN: Yeah. Jayapal. She came out and said this weekend. Do we have it? Yeah, listen to this.

STU: Oh, good.

VOICE: You know, I go back to the responsibility of Congress here because had the Senate actually gone through with the impeachment of Donald Trump. We would not be in the situation.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: Wait a minute. What?

I don't understand.

GLENN: We wouldn't be in this situation. Now, she's telling the truth. She's telling the truth.

GLENN: Yes, she is.

Not even under oath. If she's under oath, she will lie. In this case, she's telling the truth.

STU: She is. If they had convicted Trump, and he is eligible to become president of the United States, they would be doing anything of this.

Because they don't actually care. These aren't real. They're just trying to win this election.

GLENN: Give me the New York Times mountain of evidence.

STU: Well, Glenn, as you know, they have 34 counts.

GLENN: Thirty-four counts.

STU: I've forgotten this. This is incredible, going over this stuff, as we're preparing this.

Thirty-four false records accusations here.

GLENN: Wow. So he's forged or put lies in 34 different places, 34 different times.
STU: That's a lot.
GLENN: That's a lot.

STU: Now, when you think about this case, we kind of know the basic structure of it, right? Like, Michael Cohen made payments to these women, to shut them up before the election. Again, this is the accusation. And Trump, now, that's not illegal, by the way.

They're not even saying. They're not even accusing him of being illegal.

GLENN: No. Hush money. It's just hush money. No. But it's not illegal.

STU: You might have problems with that. You might think that's not a good feature for the president of the United States to have.

But you can make that decision at the ballot box. Because they're not even saying that. What they're saying it's false records. What they did was Cohen made these payments to shut up Stormy Daniels and the group.

And then to pay Cohen back, they basically make a -- a BS line in the records, which says, it's additional legal expenses. Or something like that. They market as like a retainer for legal services. Which it was.

It was paying him back for these payments.

Okay. So this is how they get to 34 counts.

Remember, that was paid back over a year. So how do you get to 34 counts when it's basically one payment? Well, first of all, you bring that up. They made 12 payments. So that's 12 counts. Okay?

This is legitimately how they're doing it. Obviously, they're paying him back for one thing. But he separated it into monthly payments, so 12 counts.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

So I would like to hear the jury argument.
You know, I don't think he meant it in June and July.

But the other ten counts, they'll stand, so you have 12 counts. That already sounds horrible.

STU: Right. But it's all it is.

GLENN: Because you wouldn't pick one month, he didn't really mean it. You would have to pick all 12.

He's convicted just there.

12 counts.

STU: Now, technically it was 11.

If I remember right, one of his payments were skipped.

11. So 11 checks. Eleven of the 34 counts.

GLENN: Okay. 11.

STU: You might say, wait a minute. That's totally stretching. Right? It's one payment, broken into 11 times. Okay. That's BS. Secondarily, it's 11 monthly voices Mr. Cohen submitted.

GLENN: So now we're up to 22.
STU: Twenty-two counts. So the 22 counts are eleven times he paid him a check, and the 11 times he invoiced him for those same payments.

So, again, it's still just one payment. They've now worked it into 22 different charges. Okay? You might say. Well, that's completely ridiculous.

They couldn't get more ridiculous than that. Well, when the payments went through in the general ledger for Mr. Trump's trust, they used 12 entries to signify this. So that's the other 12. So it's 11 checks, eleven invoices, and 12 entries into the general ledger. Those are the 34 charges. Come on!

Yeah. Thirty-four. Come on. I mean, anyone could recognize, they're trying to blow this number up to make it look more like it was a real series of criminal activity, rather than just one thing.

This is one payment.

Now, you can absolutely have a problem with that one payment. That is totally fine.

GLENN: But that's not 32.

STU: It is not -- 34.

And that's not how the legal system is supposed to work. There are very clear warnings against prosecutors, throughout our legal history, that say, hey.

Don't inflate cases like this.

Don't try to get the number up there, just so it looks overwhelming to the general public.

Of course, that's what they're doing here.

This is all about the general public. It has nothing to do with him, and his business records.

Come on!

There is no way you can justify this.

Especially after the statute of limitations has already expired.

GLENN: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

32 counts.

STU: Thirty-four.

GLENN: No. Thirty-two counts.

I don't count -- I don't count one of the checks. And one of the entries on a different month.

STU: So the April -- July payment.

GLENN: Yes. I thought the entry was -- I thought he meant it, at that point.

STU: That particular one.

GLENN: Yeah. That particular one. So I'm convicting on 32 counts.

I mean --

STU: And then you have Michael Cohen. The guy who will come in here.

And they say, this is an interesting one. That they also frame it, in the New York Times story.

So they say, that aids and friends who lied on Mr. Trump's behalf, will take the withstand to testify against him.

They include David Pecker, the tabloid publisher, who bought and buried damaging stories about Mr. Trump.

Now, Pecker, I don't think he is -- I will say, maybe he will testify against Donald Trump.

Or he will just tell the truth, that they probably did catch and kill these stories. Like it seems like --

GLENN: That's what he did.

STU: There's an incredible amount of evidence. That, again, is not what he's being charged with.

Right? Like, the payments and the ledger entries are what he's being charged with. Not the fact that he wanted to minimize publicity about negative instances right before an election, which, of course, he was trying to do.

GLENN: Stu. Stu.

He was -- he made a mistake. And he was only trying to save his marriage. A man can't lie to save his marriage.

STU: Look.

GLENN: I can --

STU: They're going to -- to try to push all of these angles. Hope Hicks is another one.

Now, hope Hicks is a spokesperson who tried to spin reporters, is her description here.

Now, Hope Hicks. Again, I don't think is going to come out and testify against Donald Trump. In air quotes.

I think she's going to tell the truth about what happened, right?

I don't think anyone is saying that he she has this vendetta against Trump.

Now, Cohen does. Cohen clearly does. Cohen will go farther.

My guess is either than those two by a lot.

He will say anything.

This is what he was known for. When he worked for Trump.

GLENN: This is how he gets a job at MSNBC.

STU: Yeah. And how he got a job with Donald Trump.

Like, he wasn't qualified for that job. He was a nobody. And he was constantly lying about everything when he worked for Donald Trump.

Now he's constantly lying about everything that will please MSNBC. He's been a constant liar, every day he's been alive, since I've been aware of it.

That's been who he has been. He's always done this. In my opinion.

And so he's one of those people, of course that is -- I mean, they're saying, Trump is basically saying, this guy has no credibility.

And it's try. You can name 500 things. From when he worked for Donald Trump. When he had no credibility. A lot of the lies, they know are lies, are because he was lying on behalf of Donald Trump for so many years. And now he's coming out, no. Now I totally change my mind, and all of the things I said before, I can admit are lies.

And, suddenly, the media embraces him for that. It's so transparent.

Like, he should be the type of person that you don't even allow in the courtroom, unless you're convicting him of something.

GLENN: And here's the real problem: Again, all of this is past the statute of limitations.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The reason why you can't go after Hunter Biden on some of the drug charges. Was it the drug charges?

No, no. Tax charges. Is because it's past the statute of limitations. Which they intentionally have the Justice Department drag it out, so they couldn't charge him with that.

There's corruption. This one, they just didn't file charges. Because the government said there was problem. Even Alvin Bragg the prosecutor, said there was no problem.

So they just waited and waited. They had nothing else. I don't know. Try it.

So they concoct all of this.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: To get past the statute of limitations. There's a mountain, I would like to see them climb.

STU: Yeah, and they will try it. This is, again, to your point. The zombie case side of Bragg's office.

Because they were just waiting and hoping something would come up to make it real. But they knew it wasn't.

So now, how do they make it real?

Well, they say, if it's connected to another crime. If the business record falsification was connected to another crime, that was not past the statute of limitations, then we can turn it into a felony. And then we can --

GLENN: So what was the other --

STU: He wasn't charged with it. So Bragg is assuming a crime, that the DOJ didn't go after Trump for. He's saying, they should have gone after him for it.

Therefore, I can pass through the statute of limitations. Even though -- to bring the crime he's talking about.

GLENN: Let me bring this to simple terms.

Let's say, I want to get you on the same thing, Donald Trump is doing. Okay?

And I say, well, it's past the statute of limitations. But you murdered that woman.

You know, all those years ago.

STU: Right. The payments were connected to my murder. Right?

GLENN: Right. But you were never charged with murder. You were never convicted of murder.

I will not bring up the murder.

STU: No. Right. No.

GLENN: But that's how --

STU: It's connected to the murder.

GLENN: I can get you.

STU: Yeah. Huh. It's a great way. That's exactly what the people in the jury should --

GLENN: This is going to be. This is amazing.

What a magic trick, this will be. To pull off.

But not in New York. Because everyone there, for some strange reason, loved Donald Trump.

And now, that he was president, they hate him. This is the O.J. Simpson trial, in reverse. In reverse.

This guy didn't cut somebody's head off, but because they're so mad at him, they're going to convict him.

Where O.J. he did cut off somebody's head. But the jury was so pissed off at the system, they let him off. There's no difference.

Bill Maher Believes WHAT About Abortion?!
RADIO

Bill Maher Believes WHAT About Abortion?!

Bill Maher has admitted that he believes abortion is murder…but he also said he’s OKAY with that?! Glenn and Stu break down this unusual take: At least he’s honest, but is that a good thing? And why won’t the GOP be honest and take a real stand? Is being strongly pro-life REALLY an election-killer? Or is that a lie?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I would love to have a conversation with Bill Maher now. Okay? Bill Maher is -- he's changed.

And he has -- maybe not. He may not have changed any of positions. But I think he takes it more seriously.

And he's not going for -- he's -- I think he's had a change in -- you know, things are getting really serious here.

And we have to have honest conversations.

And for the first time, you know, I -- I look at Bill Maher. Can we play the clip we played last hour?

STU: The abortion one?

GLENN: Yeah. Listen to this, Bill Maher, just recently.

VOICE: The idea that you are fighting the election around this issue, seems to be, you know, just strange.

STU: Yeah. Really weird.

VOICE: Back to the 19th century.

VOICE: Well.

STU: Clap. Clap.

VOICE: None of you believe it's murder. That's why I don't believe --

GLENN: Nobody laughs. Nobody laughs.

VOICE: Or that Trump's plan is, let's leave it to the states. You mean, so killing babies is okay in some states? Like, I can respect the absolutist position. I really can. I -- I scold the left when they say, oh, you know what, they just hate women. People who aren't pro-life. They're pro-choice. They just -- they don't hate women. They just made that up. They think it's murder.

And it kind of is. I'm just okay with that. I am. I mean, there's 8 billion people in the year. I'm sorry. But we won't miss you. That's my position on it.

VOICE: Yeah, exactly.

VOICE: Not your position if you're pro-choice.

VOICE: Is that not your position because you don't like children?

VOICE: No, no, no.

You said you're pro-choice. That's your position too.

VOICE: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: That's totally true.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, by the way, I completely agree with him on his point, the absolutist positions are the only ones that make sense. It doesn't make any sense to ban it at 18 weeks. And say, okay. I guess we banned 1.6 percent of abortions. I think our hands are clean. None of that makes any sense to me. But that's another story.

GLENN: So the reason I bring this up. For the first time, I think I'm getting to where Ronald Reagan was. With "Tip" O'Neill.

You know, the old story was, well, they could just hash it out. And really come at each other.

And then really go have a beer.

Well, I don't want to have a beer with AOC. Or, you know, Joe Biden.

STU: Disbar the world.

GLENN: It would. And we would need --

STU: You think the Star Wars cantina was weird?

Imagine you walk into a bar, and just Glenn Beck and AOC just throwing it back.

GLENN: Yeah. And believe me, if I were in the bar with AOC. I would not be starting with beer. Okay?

Bring the Jack over -- leave the bottle here.

So, anyway, you know, but I -- but that's because they're not honest.

STU: They're fake, yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. He's at least saying the truth. He's saying, look, I don't have a problem with it.

It is murder. It is killing babies. Bit I don't have a problem with that. And nobody likes that point of view. But at least he's being honest.

STU: At least he's being honest.

GLENN: You know, and you can disagree with him, all you want.

But as long as somebody is honest on the other side of the table, I can get along with them forever. It's my problem is, the progressives, because it's built in their name. Progress. Little bit at a time.

And they will -- they will deny their end goal. And because they deny their end goal. You can't talk to them.

You can't -- you have -- you have nothing serious. Nothing serious.

STU: Female voice that starts that clip is a great example of it. Like, I don't understand why they would want to fight an election on this issue.

It's just strange.

Is it strange?

The ending of life of children?

Is that a weird thing for you, to think about? During the election. I mean, I kind of find it weird, that fighting for the right to end lives much children. Is something you want to fight the entire election. But that's why they're doing.

GLENN: That's why they used to say, safe, rare, and legal.

STU: Right. And then they said, screw rare.

GLENN: Right. Because they used to -- they were more honest. Look, it's bad. It's really bad.

STU: We think it's the best of two horrible choices. Right? That's a bad position, and wrong to be --

GLENN: Correct. Now they're saying, it's a great choice. In fact, maybe the choice more people should make.

STU: And in some wisdom, that's more intellectually defensible than the other position.

It's like, if you're going to be Bill Maher. And say, yeah. Killing people is fine.

At least that's consistent. It doesn't make sense to say, I think kill people are wrong. But also, women's rights are the way that I will make this decision on this fetus.

GLENN: But that is the way to win nope it is the way to win.

STU: Exactly. It's not honest.

GLENN: But it is the way to win.

STU: Frankly it's the same thing going on with the Republicans right now.

The idea of having some sort of ban that takes out one or 2 percent of abortions. It's great to put a ceiling on it. Every baby that can actually be born, instead of dying is something that I am going to be happy about.

But at the end of the day, these decisions are being made, because people want to win elections.

Which is a concern. Right?

It's a legitimate concern.

I know a lot of people who believe. You have to stay away from the abortion thing.

It's just. It's an election killer.

Maybe it is.

But at some point, you have to think. Like this is a very basic life-and-death issue.

At some point, you just need to be able to say, hey. Like, I'm not going to fold on that issue.

Like, I don't understand why every single -- every single Congress, there's not a Republican proposing a constitutional amendment, to ban abortion.

None!

What if we take three days off the end, and make it a 22-week and four-day ban. Or whatever they're proposing.

Like, how is there not -- at least -- you know, it may never pass.

STU: But it should be proposed every single Congress.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And should have a vote, every single Congress. It's not that serious of an issue.

GLENN: That's John Quincy Adams. He went back to Congress, to stop slavery. He was the president, and he went back to Congress to sit as a Congressman, and having to get votes every two years.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he sat there. Just to propose an end to all slavery.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he did it over and over and over again.

And it wasn't popular.

And he realized, at the end, you can't make -- you're going to have to have a war over this.

Because there is no progress.

Nobody is making progress on this.

They're all just talking a good game.

STU: And it was an issue that was so important, that that was --

GLENN: Yes, and you couldn't get people to talk about it for the same reason.

Nobody wants to think about this. Nobody wants to think about this.

STU: It's true.

GLENN: It's the slavery issue of our day.

STU: You know what, no one wants to think about it.

It's difficult issues you're talking about. Everything from sex, to all these impossible decisions.

And when Democrats have to think about what it really is, they have to face a lot of uncomfortable truths about their position. And what are the Republicans doing right now?

Well, what we should do is make sure no one can think about it. Because what if we lose this election, and I lose my seat.

The Republican response is to take the responsibility away from people on the left, who are advocating for this policy. And hopefully, making it so they don't to have think about it again. How does that change long-term?

Yeah, I got it! Maybe it gets you an extra couple hundred votes in your district. But how does that change things long-term?

How does this end, in children not dying?

Can you explain that? It doesn't seem to even be part of the plan for a lot of these people.

GLENN: It is the progressive way. That is the problem.

Republicans are progressives, as well.

RFK Jr.: America’s Economic Collapse Will Bring a REVOLUTION | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 217
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

RFK Jr.: America’s Economic Collapse Will Bring a REVOLUTION | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 217

“There’s going to be a revolution" if the economic destruction of America continues, warns Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The “billionaire boys club” at the World Economic Forum is “arranging the world to shift wealth upwards and to clamp down totalitarian controls on everybody else.” This episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast" is part of an ongoing series to introduce you to the 2024 presidential candidates. In a discussion ranging from Big Pharma and the Patriot Act to Iran and the Second Amendment, RFK Jr. explains what he would do if he defeated both President Biden and Donald Trump to become America's next president. After agreeing on the current conflict in Israel, Ukraine, COVID-19, the administrative state, and the First Amendment, Glenn presses RFK Jr. on guns, ESG, and some of his past statements on climate change ... including one that directly targeted Glenn. In the end, although they may not agree on everything, they do agree: Democrats, Republicans, and big corporations are ALL a “stage show” largely operating under control of mega investment firms like BlackRock. It's the elites vs. the rest of us.