BLOG

'Accept Responsibility,' Find 'Vision': Jordan Peterson Defines a Good Man

Canadian author and psychology professor Jordan Peterson has inspired people around the world with his book “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos.” He’s found a special audience in young men who respond to his commonsense structure and encouragement.

On today’s show, Glenn asked Peterson a key question: As men, what should our specific goals be?

Being a good man starts with envisioning a better world while knowing that evil exists and that it’s up to you to take responsibility for your life and the lives you touch. A man should be someone other people can rely on, and he must realize that those burdens are a part of life.

“We all need a vision of the way that life and the world could be,” Peterson said. “The least amount of suffering … the most freedom for everyone and the best for everyone.”

Peterson shared some advice “particularly, but not only, to young men.” He called on men to “accept as much responsibility as they can tolerate and then build themselves into people who can tolerate even more responsibility and to accept that gratefully because that’s where the purpose and meaning in life is.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Dr. Jordan Peterson. Who would have thought that a -- a -- that common sense would come from a university professor from Canada? But he is probably the -- the biggest sensation out there now, with especially -- especially with the youth and young males. Because he is speaking common sense and he's speaking it peacefully. And he's talking about God.

And he's got a best-selling book out. Number one best-seller. Twelve Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Welcome to the program, Dr. Jordan Peterson. How are you?

JORDAN: I'm good. Yeah, no. A university profess- --

GLENN: You're breaking up. We had this problem last time.

I don't know where you were standing last time, but can you stand there because you're breaking up and we can't understand you.

JORDAN: Oh, can you hear me?

GLENN: I can hear you now. Yes.

JORDAN: Okay. Good.

Yes. I said, well, Canadian and a university professor, the end times must be near.

GLENN: Yes. It's the clippety-clop of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

I want to talk to you about a few things. Here -- and I don't want to get you into politics, just common sense.

I don't know if you've been following, for instance, the CNN town hall this week and this debate that we're having. But we have 16-year-olds that are demanding that America pretty much disregards the Second Amendment and the -- we're not having sensible arguments at all. There's no reason in -- in the debates that we're having. We're not listening to each other.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

JORDAN: Well, I think that can be -- that's true on a much wider scale than merely the debate about what's going on after Parkland. We're not listening to each other at all. We're polarized to a great degree.

GLENN: So how do we solve this?

JORDAN: Well, you know, I've been recommending -- first of all, let me say that in my book, in 12 Rules For Life, Rule 6, I outlined why such things as the Parkland school shooting occur. And it has very little to do specifically with guns. There's something much deeper and more horrible going on that -- that is rather dreadful to look at. I mean, people who are motivated to do the sorts of things that happened in Parkland, they're possessed by a kind of ill will. An evil ill will, whose magnitude is difficult to describe. And it's a problem of disorientation and meaninglessness. And it's expressing itself in gun violence. But it can express itself in all sorts of ways.

And the problem -- the deeper problem has to be solved, as far as I'm concerned. And that's the problem of nihilism in the face of the tragedy of life. And it's that kind of destructive nihilism that drives the actions of people like the school shooters.

So it's very difficult for us to have an intelligent conversation about that. Because nobody wants to look at the darkness enough to -- to actually understand what motivates people like the shooters. And it's not surprising, you know.

GLENN: But we --

JORDAN: What happens, of course, is that the discussion gets politicized. And it goes down the same rails that it's always gone down. Democrats say their thing. And the Republicans say their thing. And it never really ends up -- the discussion never really ends up being about the school shootings, for example. So...

GLENN: Well, you know, I've been saying all week -- you know, I started the -- the week with a monologue on, you know, nobody even wants to talk about seven out of the nine shooters that were under 30 came from fatherless homes.

JORDAN: Right.

GLENN: We have a breakdown --

JORDAN: Well, there's something there, I would say. Because these -- these men, these young men, they -- they lack purpose and direction. And that's really not a good thing. Because life is very difficult.

As the religious sages have always had it, life is suffering. And you need to set something positive against that suffering, or it corrupts you. And when it corrupts you, you become vengeful and vindictive and murderous and genocidal. Those are the stages. And the school shooters are two-thirds of the way towards genocidal, by the time they perform their actions. And it's because they turn against life because life is so difficult. And they have nothing to set -- nothing positive to set against it. It's a real catastrophe. And the fact that we're transforming ourselves into ideologues, both on the right and the left, is a reflection of the same problem. Is that because people lack genuine engaged meaning in their own personal lives, in large part because they don't understand how necessary it is to take responsibility, they turn to pseudosolutions. And ideology, right or left, is a pseudosolution to the problem of the meaning of life. And it's very dangerous. We saw that in the 21st century, as you pointed out, just before our talk.

GLENN: So how do we find -- how do we find meaning as a group, when -- I mean, especially with young men, there is a concerted effort, at least it seems, to eviscerate men. The new catchphrase is toxic masculinity.

JORDAN: I know. In my book 12 rules for life, which is rule 11, don't bother children when they're skateboarding. You know, it's kind of a tongue-in-cheek feel, but it's a very, very serious chapter. And it's about the confusion between masculine -- (cuts out) -- and masculine -- you know, the problem is --

GLENN: Oh. You know what, we're going to have to take a break. We're going to have take a break and see if we can get you to a better space so we can hear you. You're breaking up again. We got to send you a hard-wired phone. That's what we have to do. We'll come back in just a second.

More with Jordan Peterson.

(music)

GLENN: Just so frustrating when he's on with us. Because there's nobody I want to hear every single word of more than Jordan Peterson.

STU: One of the chapters is "Speak Precisely," and yet we can never hear what he's saying.

GLENN: It's like, "Yeah, and what -- and that -- and that's what really -- what really -- really need to remember."

GLENN: Jordan Peterson joining us now on a land line. Thank you, Jordan. I'm sorry for the hassle on that.

JORDAN: Oh, no. No problem.

GLENN: So. So let's pick the conversation up where we were. Where we left it off. And that's toxic masculinity and -- and how do we find meaning? How do -- how do young men find meaning in their life, when society is -- is tearing them down and saying, you know, you're -- you're bad. You're worthless. You're not needed.

JORDAN: Yeah. Well, it's part of an all-out assault as far as I can tell, in some sense, mostly from the radical left on the idea of competence itself. And there's a confusion between tyranny and power and confidence.

You know, in our society, which is a pretty free society. So let's say Western societies. Most of our hierarchies are mostly predicated on competence, which means that if you can do the job, you tend to rise in the organization.

Now, that's contaminated a little bit with tyranny and power, of course. Because no organization is perfect. And what we have is a claim, essentially from the radical left, that male competence is indistinguishable from male tyranny and power. And so that it should be all torn down. Not the hierarchies, but the spirit that generated the hierarchies. And that's fundamentally the masculine spirit, even symbolically and psychologically speaking.

So what we see is an all-out assault on the masculine spirit. That was actually -- that was actually formalized by Jack HEP. He called western culture HEP fellowgocentric. Fellow from HEP felas. And logo from logos. So it was male-dominated and driven by logos. And, of course, that's the Christian word and also the root -- idea behind the word "logic."

And so it is part of an all-out intellectual -- an all-out war of ideas and the people who are bearing the brunt of that at the moment are I would say young men. Yeah. It's really not good.

GLENN: So what is the -- what is the end goal? Is it -- I mean, is it as clear as it seems to be, that it is the end goal and the -- the -- the motivation is just to destroy the West? Can you -- with you find any logic in there that is -- that is more than that?

JORDAN: Look, if you buy the idea that the West is a corrupt patriarchy, then that's the logical -- that's the logical end goal. I mean, the more radical disciplines at the universities, women's studies and those sorts of disciplines have said for decades that their goal was the destruction of the patriarchy.

It's like, it's very often, you know, that people tell you what they're doing. You just to have listen to them. If you read the school shooter's documents, like the kids from Columbine High School. They told you exactly why they did what they did. If you go onto the websites and read the curricula and the dictates of women's studies, disciplines at universities, they tell you exactly what they're doing. If the West is a corrupt patriarchy, then the right thing to do is tear it down.

So it's not -- it's not a surprise. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just precisely what -- what -- that's the doctrine. That's the dogma. And the university, especially humanities departments, are overwhelmingly left and radical left. It's actually well-documented by people like Jonathan Haidt, with his hetero HEP dox academy. Jonathan is an extraordinarily reasonable person. He's no one's idea of a radical.

GLENN: Yeah. I greatly respect him.

Who is -- Jordan, who are the people that we should be reading? Besides you and your book, who are the people that inspire you or can inspire men to be -- to be men?

JORDAN: I think that Steven HEP Pinker is doing a fine job. He has a new book out now. It's in the top ten. So Pinker is a good person to read because Pinker is making a very powerful, pro-enlightenment, pro-reason, pro-science, pro-progress case. Well-documented empirically.

I mean, the empirical evidence is pretty clear. Although there is some evidence that inequality is increasing, first of all, no one knows what to do about that, right or left. There's a new book by Walter HEP Shidel called the Great Leveling, which I would also much recommend.

Because he analyzes the problem of inequality with dead seriousness. And traces it back to thousands of years. And points out quite clearly that it's a problem, but that it can't be led at the feet of capitalism. That's just foolish. It's a way deeper problem than that.

But despite the fact that there's increasing inequality, to some degree in the West, overall, the entire world is getting richer. And there are fewer poor people. There are way fewer people in absolute poverty than there were 15 years ago. Far fewer.

And so what's happening is our economic system is generating a lot of surplus. And it's being quite effectively distributed, even to the lowest end of the socioeconomic spectrum. But inequality still remains a problem.

And, you know, that drives a fair bit of theorizing on the left. But I would very much recommend HEP Shidel's book, The Great Leveling. It's very great.

And then there's Pinker. And then, you know, I'm very much a fan of -- of -- of great classic literature.

I'm a great admirer of Dosieski HEP. Dosieski's novels, in particular, are unbelievably profound explanations of the rule of human responsibility in the face of the tragedy and malevolence of existence.

And I have a reading list, that Jordan P. period of time son (?) some of them are psychological in nature. Others are littery. Some are philosophical.

GLENN: Let me take a quick break. (?) and I want to come back. And would you define whether a good man is? What is the goal to be a man? And what does a good man look like? When we come back with Jordan Peterson.

GLENN: Jordan Peterson is with us. He is the author of the number one New York Times best-seller, 12 rules for life. (?) an antidote to chaos. I can't recommend you (?) welcome, Jordan Peterson.

Can you describe what we all should be shooting for as a man?

JORDAN: Yes. Yes.

I was thinking about an image related to that. So there's a cathedral in Montreal called (?) and it's built on a hill. It's a very large cathedral. So it overlooks the hill. It's a beautiful building. And there are many, many, many steps leading up to it. Hundreds of steps. And pilgrims come there to trudge up the steps one at a time towards the cathedral. And there's something deeply symbolic about that. The idea that's being expressed is -- is profound and necessary. And that is that we all need a vision of the way that life and the world could be. We want to have a vision that that could be as good as it could be. The least amount of suffering and the most for everyone. And the most freedom for everyone. And the best for everyone.

And the question is, how do you approach an idea like that? And the answer to that is by carrying your burden one step at a time, up the hill.

And that's what you do in life. You're not a victim. Or if you are, you carry it. You know, and you take responsibility for it. And you're someone other people can rely on. You tell the truth. And that way, you make the world a little better instead of worse.

And that's the alternative to ideological possession and collective action and group hatred and tribalism and all those things that tear us apart. Is to accept that your life is tragic and that you'll suffer. And that there's evil in the world. And that it's your -- it's your responsibility to take that onto yourself and to carry it forward towards the good. That's meaning in life. And that's the antidote to chaos and to catastrophe. And the West knows this. This is why -- this is why we're an individualist culture. Because we know that the individual has to be set above the group. It's not the individual in all his rights, it's the individual in all his responsibility.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JORDAN: And that's the part of the dialogue that's missing from our culture currently. And I believe that's why my book has become so popular and the lectures as well. Because -- because I'm telling people, suggesting to people, and particularly -- but not only to young men. That they need to accept as much responsibility as they can tolerate. And then build themselves into people who can tolerate even more responsibility. And to be -- and to accept that gratefully. Because that's where the purpose and meaning in life is.

GLENN: Jordan, I -- I have -- I've gone from a man, you know -- for a while, I rejected that I had changed a great deal in the last couple of years. But I have. And I've gone from a guy that was very popular because I was certain of things, to a guy who now really appreciates doubt and is -- and I kind of view certitude as a -- as a dangerous thing. Because if I'm certain of what I believe, then I don't necessarily believe, you know, anybody else has -- has anything to teach me or --

JORDAN: Right.

GLENN: And yet, I find -- I think this is the message of Christ is humility. And yet, people --

JORDAN: Well, the humility -- if things aren't everything they should be for or around you, then clearly you don't know enough.

GLENN: Correct.

JORDAN: So then you better be looking for what you don't know, and that's the opposite of certainty.

GLENN: We are in a situation now that we -- it almost feels like we don't trust that the truth will eventually win, that God is on the side of truth. And so we have to engage in this warfare. And -- and we're engaging online. We're engaging in tribalism.

And the -- the answer seems to be in the opposite direction, of --

JORDAN: Yeah, well, we're trying to transform the political system into a tribal battlefield. That's what identity politics is. And that can be accepted on the right as well. The identity Arizona. (?) they just want to play it differently. It's division into tribes. And it's a catastrophe.

Division into tribes means that we'll fight. It's always been that way. Human tribes have always fought, and terribly. You know, there's an old idea that the hunter gatherer types, the pre-- the prematerialist. (?) hunter gatherers were peaceful. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

GLENN: Yeah.

JORDAN: They have incredibly high (?) tribal people are unbelievably murderous. And we're all tribal, except when we decide not to be. And to decide not to be tribal is to decide to be an individual. But that means to take all the weight, the things onto your shoulders. And who wants that? Right? It's a terrible responsibility. But the paradoxical truth of the matter is that the more you take on that terrible responsibility, the deeper your life becomes. And that justifies the suffering.

GLENN: But the more you take on, the bigger target -- I want to read -- I want to read this to you. This is an article out of the Mercury News in California. These men, particular Elon Musk, are not only (?) who can get their rocket into space first. But into colonizing Mars. To have unquestioned (?) unchallenged and automatic access to something, to any type of body, and use it as will is a patriarchal one. It is the same instinctively and culture (?) that everything and everyone in their line of vision is theirs for the taking.

They're destroying a guy --

JORDAN: Yep.

GLENN: -- like Elon Musk. (?) and I believe we can be better than this. And this gives me hope. Let's go here.

JORDAN: Right. Absolutely.

See, that's a great -- that's -- your reference hits the nail at the head. You see there, the confusion between male competence and desire to -- to move forward in the world. And tyranny. Those aren't the same thing.

They're not the same thing at all. And Musk is no tyrant. If you can't see that he's a hero, then there's something wrong with your vision.

And symbolically, the author of that article is equating Mars with the unspoiled virgin. You know, and Musk was the rapist.

It's an appalling vision of masculinity. There's no excuse for it. There's no excuse for it. It's all -- there's nothing in that, except destruction. Good men do things for themselves and for everyone else at the same time. That's the right balance. You want to do something that's good for you and good for your family and good for the community and good for the surrounding world, all at the same time. And you can do that, and that takes competence and clear vision and truth. And those aren't -- that's not tyranny. And those people, the people who wrote the article that you described, they're the people that think that emasculated weak men will be good, because they're harmless. And emasculated weak men will be the Parkland shooter. (?) that's the truth of the matter.

GLENN: When do we begin to see this for what -- let me ask you this question: Are we closer to the end of this kind of thinking and movement, or are we closer to the end of the beginning of it?

JORDAN: I don't know. There's been this funny idea. It's been circulating on the internet, about the kingdom (?) where everything is in chaos. And we're in chaos at the moment. Things could go very well. But they could go very badly. And I think we're in a situation now, where the decisions that each person makes, at each moment, are of crucial import, in a way that's not always true.

We're going to decide which way we're going to go, in the next three or four years. And there's lots of positive signs. All the economic growth, for example, that I referred to, that the fact that poverty is being pushed back. And it's about 300,000 people a day. (?) the power grid. And there are a lot of really good things happening.

But there is this terrible polarization and this demand to return to a destructive tribalism. And this ideological attempt led mostly by the universities, to my utter shame, to demolish the patriarchy. It's very, very dangerous. And corporations are playing that game too. They're letting the fifth column diversity equity and inexclusivety types in through the HR back door, (?) failing to see that generating an anti-capitalism fifth column within the confines of your own organization is self-destructive in the extreme.

GLENN: How do you -- I've watched interviews with you in mainstream media. And they always come with -- with an intent. With an agenda. It seems.

You approach these interviews without an agenda. And you're just trying to explain what you believe, based on their questions. And you always seem to win because you don't seem to have an agenda, truth doesn't have an agenda.

Would you say that --

JORDAN: I have an agenda, which is to not say something stupid.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

Do you believe the mainstream media has crossed the line from bias to activism? And if so, what does that mean for the media?

JORDAN: Well, I think one of the things that might be happening is that we're in a transition period from the mainstream media, print and television, let's say most particularly, to online forms of discussion. And that's happening very rapidly.

And so it's killing the mainstream media. And as they spiral towards their death, they become more polarized to draw attention to their remaining resources. And so they're driving polarization in the broader society, in an attempt to stave off their extinction, rather than adapting to the new media. That's what -- I'm not sure that's true. But that's what it looks like. It looks like it might be happening to me. Because we are in the midst of a technological revolution in communication.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

JORDAN: I mean, YouTube alone has something in the neighborhood of 2 billion people using it.

GLENN: Yeah.

JORDAN: So it's -- and YouTube allows the possibility of the spoken word to have the same distribution as the written word, which is something unparalleled in human history.

So I think that part of what's happening is a secondary consequence of a technological revolution. I don't think that the mainstream media's desperate attempts to use click bait, let's say, to attract additional viewership, to exaggerate, for example, the danger of violent crime and to pit the right against the left in a manor that's more combative (?) than the reality would indicate. I don't think that that will stave off their demise. I think it will accelerate. But there could be a lot of collateral damage, while that's occurring.

GLENN: Jordan Peterson, from Jordan Peterson.com. Also, (?) the book 12 rules for life. An antidote to chaos. Did you ever -- you have -- you're approaching a million YouTube subscribers. Number one New York Times best-seller. Did you ever see this --

JORDAN: I don't think I'm on the New York Times. They didn't list me.

GLENN: Shut up.

JORDAN: No, it's true.

GLENN: Well, you're number one.

JORDAN: Yes, I'm number one everywhere, but not on the New York Times best (?)

GLENN: Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

JORDAN: It is rather remarkable.

GLENN: Jordan, did you ever -- did you ever see anything like this coming your way?

JORDAN: Well, I knew when I wrote this first book, this book maps Of Meaning. (?) and their relationship to ideological dispute. And I knew that was important. And I knew that my students, in the course I taught in that book, were very, very receptive to the book. (?) both at Harvard and at university of Toronto, was that one of the few courses that completely changed of student's lives. And it's not surprising to me to some degree because it's the idea of themselves. Ancient archetypal religious ideas are of absolute necessity. People can't live without them.

And so I knew that I was talking about things that have always been of crucial importance to people. But there was no way of foreseeing the magnitude of -- of the effect of that.

I mean, it's -- I'm still in complete shock about it, on a moment to moment basis. It seems to be getting larger rather than smaller.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. You have a lot of (?) runway yet ahead of you. I pray for you. And I -- I know what it's like to have great success come quickly. And if there is anyone who can navigate those waters, I believe it is you. And we wish you all the best.

JORDAN: Well, thank you. Thank you. Well, like I said, I hope I can manage this without making any catastrophic mistakes. And so, so far so good, knock on wood and all that.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Jordan Peterson.

(music)

STU: You can get Jordan on Twitter at Jordan B. Petersen. (?), by the way, that reading list he mentioned earlier in the interview, you can find that there. And I would say probably at the top of that reading list would be 12 rules for life, antidote to chaos, by Jordan spirit son.

GLENN: (?), you know, it's amazing, I don't think I've ever interviewed a more careful man. One of his rules is speak with precisely. (?) and you can hear it. He speaks slowly, to not make any errors.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's Connections to Intel Agencies

Did Jeffrey Epstein and his criminal partner Ghislaine Maxwell "belong to the intel agencies?" Author and investigative researcher Whitney Webb joins Glenn Beck to share her findings about their shady connections and how it all may have tied in to their disturbing operation.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

RADIO

Will Medicaid cuts KILL Americans? Glenn reveals the FACTS!

Democrats claim that the Big, Beautiful Bill will take Medicaid and Medicare away from many Americans and even “kill” people. But is any of this true? Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere review just the facts and explain who’s actually affected by the changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can I address some of the hyperbole around the big, beautiful bill, just a little bit.

If there's anything in the big, beautiful bill to worry about, it's the increase in spending.

Because the spending ourself into oblivion is an actual threat.

To the country. But that's not what anybody is talking about. What everybody seems to be talking about is the tax cuts. Which were already there. Or the tax cuts like no tax for tips. Which you would think the party of the little people. You know, the Democrats. Would all be for. But they're not.

Because they're not party of the little people anymore. And those had to be offset.

Okay. Offset. By what?

Well, by cutting spending. But cutting what spending?

Not cutting spending. Let me just say this. If I said, you know, I made $250,000 a year. And this year, we were going to spend $300,000.
Okay?

And you would say, immediately, Glenn. You can't do that.

And I would say, I've been doing that for 30 years. Okay. You might say, the bank is not going to give a loan.

But then if I came to you and said, yeah. I'm spending $300,000 a year. And my wife and I make 250 or 200,000 a year. But, you know, next year, I was going to spend $500,000.

Did you get a raise? No. I didn't get a raise. I still make 250,000 dollars a year between my wife and I.

But I'm going to spend 500 and not 300. And then somebody came in, like an accountant with some muscle.

And they said, Glenn, you cannot spend $500,000 a year!

Would it make sense if I went back to spending 300, not 200, which I had.

But 300, which I had been spending every year, would it make sense to you to -- for me to say, my children are now going to starve? My children are now going to starve.

Look at the austerity program that I am on.


My gosh, they just -- no. They didn't cut anything. They must cut thinking.

They cut the increase inning spending.

That's what they cut.

And, Stu, could you please explain Medicare.

I mean, all of the people. I know they warned us.

I didn't believe the death squads would actually go out.

And, you know, they want these people off Medicare so badly.

Or Medicaid.

They just sent out death squads. Trump is not waiting for them to die, because he's not waiting for them to get their prescriptions now he just wants them slaughtered in the street.

STU: Yeah, that's the efficiency of the Trump administration. He wants these people dead so badly, he's just killing them in the streets. Actually, no, none of that is happening.

And the Medicaid cuts as you point out, are largely cuts to future increases that have not occurred.

The biggest chunk of this is the work requirements. You've heard this, Glenn.

And, you know, I went through this. And I was like, this can't possibly be what they mean.

I said, wait a minute. When they say work requirement cuts, what does that mean?

So I dove into it a little bit. Basically, what they're saying, you, if you're an able-bodied adult, so that does not include old people, does not include people who are sick and can't work. And it also does not include people who have small children, even if they are able-bodied.

And when I say small, I mean 12 and under. So if you have a 12-year-old. You're completely exempt from this.

But able-bodied adults.

GLENN: Okay. On people in wheelchairs.

STU: No. Gosh, again, I know this is tough. Yeah, this is where it gets difficult.

GLENN: Wait. I'm having a hard time following this. What now?.
 
STU: So you're an able-bodied adult, that does not have small children.

GLENN: No small children.

STU: You would be required to get Medicaid, to work 20 hours a week.

Now, you might --

GLENN: Twenty hours a week.

STU: Or 80 hours a month.

GLENN: Or 80 hours a month.

That's almost half a full-time job.

STU: Now, you might say to yourself. And this is actually true.

Some people can't get jobs. Right?

I'm sure, there are people trying to get part-time jobs. And maybe can't get them.

Those people will just lose their Medicaid. Well, as you may understand.

Of course not.

Because what you have to do then is go through a process, that you're basically telling them, you're attempting to get a job. Or you're volunteering somewhere, to meet that requirement.

So basically, you have to fill out -- yeah. It's like unemployment.

You have to at least fill out some paperwork here.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

Let me see if I have this right.

It's the exact opposite of unemployment which we've had forever.

Which if you're looking for a job, but can't get it. You can still have unemployment.

But it's the exact opposite. Right?

Especially if you're nursing sextuplets.

STU: Again, you're not very close to the truth.

You're a little bit off on this one.

GLENN: No. Huh!

STU: By the way, Glenn, you might say to yourself, wait. How is that a Medicaid cut?

Because they're not cutting anyone's eligibility here. Unless they don't want to meet the requirement.

Of course, there's always been requirements to all of these programs.

So meeting the requirements have always been part of getting on to Medicaid.

This requirement, if you decide basically not to do it. And not participate. And not fill out the paperwork.

Then, yes. You will lose your Medicaid coverage.

What they're saying, hold on. All right.

GLENN: No. I just want to make sure I have it right.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: If you are blind, you're deaf.

STU: No. Again, no.

GLENN: You have no friends, and you can't get out of the house, and you've been on Medicaid, somehow or another, you signed up for that. But now, you don't even know, because you can't hear the news. You certainly can't fill out a form. Because you have no eyes.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: They just come in and rip your Medicaid away?

STU: No. None of what you said is accurate.

Though, it is calm considering some of the accusations -- comparisons made bit left right now.

But, yeah.

So if you are an able-bodied adult that decides, you know what, I don't feel like filling out the paperwork, or I don't feel like going to job interviews, or I don't feel like volunteering, then yes. You could lose -- but that's what they're saying the cuts are.

They think 317 billion dollars worth of people will not bother doing those things. For whatever reason. Maybe because they had more money than they said. Maybe because they're lazy.

Maybe because -- I'm sure there's some case where some -- I don't know.

I can't think of the case.

GLENN: Blind person.

STU: Because the ailments are covered here.

But, yes. Maybe it's some particular skin color. Then they would reject you.

I don't know.

And it's not just that. There are other cuts. For example, some of the cuts are, they're eliminate duplicate Medicaid enrollment.

If you happen to have Medicaid.

GLENN: I can't double-dip.

STU: In two different states. They're going to try to stop you from having it in two states.

And instead, make you have it one state. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hold on just one second.

I have two legs. I have two arms. I have two eyes. I have two nostrils. I have two ears.

I can't have two Medicaid coverages. It's insane!

STU: I know.

It's really, really brutal.

GLENN: I have two kidneys. I can only have one kidney now, you know, repaired?

STU: Now --

GLENN: Is that what you're saying?

STU: That's not what I'm saying. But, yes. I'm sure that's what's being reported out there by Dana Bash.

Another one, I will give you here, Glenn. They talked about immigrants.

You know, immigrants getting on their Medicaid cut. Now, this is tough. What this bill does, I want you to hold on to your hat here, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: If you have green card holders and other certain immigrants, some will lose their coverage. Or actually, sorry, eligibility will -- retain for those people.

Certain other immigrants may lose their coverage. The current law says, all who are lawfully present.

That will kick in after a -- how many year waiting period?

Let me guess, it's a five-year waiting period.

So it will be the next president who has to deal with this, when future Congress will just put it right back in. And it's not a savings at all.

And then you have Medicaid death checks. They're going to require --

GLENN: They're checking on whether your debt? Look at this! It's crazy.

STU: It's brutal. It really is.

GLENN: You're going to kick all of the immigrants off in five years.

STU: No.

GLENN: And then you're checking to see if old people are dead!

When will you leave these people alone?

STU: I know. So, anyway, we can go through this stuff all day. But as you point out, most of this stuff is not at all, what the left is saying it is.

It's not the desperate Medicaid cuts that are going to ruin everybody's lives. A lot of them are just really common sense stuff, making sure you don't have them in two states. I don't know what the positive argument is for that. But they'll make it.

GLENN: Well, they don't have one. That's why they don't make it about that.

RADIO

Liz Wheeler BLASTS Pam Bondi’s Epstein deception

The Department of Justice and FBI are now claiming that there NEVER was any Epstein client list and nobody else needs to be charged. But what about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s previous claim that the list was on her desk?! BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who had been given one of Bondi’s ill-fated “Epstein Files” binders, joins Glenn Beck to discuss how the MAGA movement should react to the claims made by Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Liz Wheeler. Liz wrote to me early today. Let me see if I can -- may I quote you here, Liz?

LIZ: Yes, you may. Thanks for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay. Yeah. You bet. She said, give me one good reason why I shouldn't scream for Pam Bondi to be fired today? And this was at 5 o'clock in the morning. And I said, I'm sleepy. But I don't think I can.

I don't think I can give you a reason not to -- not to call for her firing today. But I want you to explain, why do you feel this way?

LIZ: It's not something that I say lightly. I didn't say it immediately after the White House, Epstein binder debacle. And I want to very prudently and judiciously make this case to you today and to make this case to President Trump too. Because Pam Bondi has become a liability to her administration, despite her loyalty in other areas. So let's start with the announcement from the Department of Justice last night.

A lot of us have a lot of questions about this announcement. It just doesn't ring true with a lot of us. We see a lot of evidence before our eyes that contradicts what we're being told without evidence to believe by the FBI and the Department of Justice. And it grates on us.

Because like you mentioned, we are friends with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino.

They're the good guys. We trust them.

And yet, we have to use our critical thinking faculties and look at the evidence before our eyes.

So it smells fishy. You'll notice it says nothing about whether Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset.

Which, as you mentioned, Alex Acosta, the attorney who cut the sweetheart deal originally with Epstein. Said he was, before Accosta's emails mysteriously disappeared. So we have questions about that.

There are also outstanding, important questions about Kash Patel and Dan Bongino's definitive pronouncement, that Epstein killed himself.

I'm sorry. I don't think the video that they released proves definitively that they were stating that case.

GLENN: Why?

LIZ: Because it does not show what's happening in the cell. It just shows the cell door. We don't actually see him kill himself.

GLENN: Right. But we know that nobody came in.

LIZ: Through that door.

GLENN: Where are they going to go true, the little bars? Little drag la? A little bat.

LIZ: I don't know what the internal cell looks like. I don't know what they have. I don't know if they have fire escape routes. I don't know if they have adjoining doors. I don't know if they have emergency exits. I don't know if that video was doctored or not.

I don't know enough about that, to simply take that one piece of evidence.

GLENN: Okay. So that's a good point.

Just show us the room. Show us what's inside the room.

LIZ: Yes. We need more evidence.

GLENN: That's reasonable.

LIZ: One piece of evidence.

It's not enough.

GLENN: Yeah.

LIZ: The other thing, I wonder with Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are relying too much on the FBI's prior investigation to the FBI of old is a reliable narrator. I don't know who conducted those investigations, or if it was done soundly. I doubt it was done soundly.

GLENN: So may I just interject here.

LIZ: Yes.

GLENN: I talked to Dan Bongino a few weeks ago about this off-air. And, Glenn, we are turning over every stone. We are going to get to the bottom of it.

We are -- so, I mean, he led me to believe that, and I believed him. And I still do.

That he was using new resources. Opening the investigation in -- in a new way. Following it closely.

And I do believe Dan Bongino is one of the good guys.

LIZ: I do too. And I've been told the same thing by high-ranking officials in the FBI. Who I trust. They're trustworthy people.

I do think, that it might not be possible at this point, to piece together everything, because we know there have been reports of evidence, destruction.

So my issue with that definitive statement was the definitive nature of it.

This 100 percent happened this way. Epstein killed himself. Instead of saving, we don't have enough evidence to piece this together, or the evidence we have points to this.

All that being said, though, I want to talk about what happened last night.

Because this brings to us attorney general Pam Bondi, who just months ago said she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

When I went back to look at that video, the clip of her on Fox News, again, this morning, to make sure that there was not context that I was lacking, that there was not bungled phraseology, maybe nerves being on the air.

I went back and listened to it. She said definitively, she had the Epstein client list on her desk.

Now, fast forward to yesterday, she says that it doesn't exist, that they don't have it.

That is a really big problem. If I'm president today --

GLENN: Okay. Let me play this, from Bondi. This is back in February. Here is the actual statement she made.

Listen.

VOICE: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?

VOICE: It's sitting on my desk right now, to review.

That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files. MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.

VOICE: So have you seen anything, that you said, oh, my gosh?

VOICE: Not yet.

VOICE: Okay. Well, we'll check back with you.

GLENN: Okay. So now let me take you back to Kash Patel. Because something similar was said to me. Here he is. Cut 12.

So who has Jeffrey Epstein's?

VOICE: Black book? FBI.

GLENN: But who?

VOICE: Oh, that's under direct control of the director of the FBI. Just like the manifesto from the Nashville school shooting. The Catholic school. We still haven't seen that, right?

It's not the Nashville police or PD saying, we don't want this out. The FBI airmailed into that operation and said, this is not getting out. Because they do that because this is another government gangster operation.

All these local law enforcement communities get funding from the DOJ and FBI from local programs. And if you don't cooperate, you're not getting your million dollars for this.

That's a lot of money from these local districts. That's how they play the game. That's why you don't have a black book.

GLENN: Because the black book, it's not just sitting. That's Hoover power times ten.

VOICE: And to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on. On day one, roll out the black book.

And not just that, on day one, all the text messages and communications we were told were deleted. On day one, play the rest of the video of the pipe bomber.

You know, he needs -- one of the reforms I talk about in government gangsters.

Is you need a central node to be continuously declassifying. This is another thing they do. They overclassify.

They are not telling you -- as a former number two in the IC, they overclassify 50 percent of the stuff there to protect the Deep State.

Oh, no.

You can't see that. Nothing to see here.

Gina was a master at it. Of doing it. And we haven't seen half of the Russiagate report we wrote. Still under lock and key.

On how the ICA was originally constructed. We went -- we put 10,000 man-hours against John Brennan's team that did it.

And we found out why they came up with their bogus conclusions. We couldn't sell it with the world.

Because we couldn't talk about it. And the government cancers came in and buried it.

All of these things, there needs to be a continuing central power whether it's the White House or off-site that says, every request that comes in.
Just right out the door. As long as it's not awe major threat to national security.

VOICE: Liz, they're both very clear.

It existed. But Pam Bondi did not say, she had any names in it.

She kind of made me feel like she hadn't really looked at it.

Kash Patel gave me the impression, he had seen it. Or at least he knew about it.

So how do we go from here?

VOICE: Yes. Listen.

People care deeply about the Epstein files because there was a grisly crime that we know for a fact that was committed.

Epstein was convicted of that.

It wasn't speculative. He was convicted of that. People feel that there's evidence of a cover-up. Not -- we're not inventing a conspiracy. There's evidence of a cover-up of this crime.

Pam Bondi as attorney general has exacerbated this trust. And it gives me no pleasure to say this. Because I like to give the benefit of the doubt to people that are on our side.

But going back to that day in the White House, this February. I haven't told this part of the story before.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, when we met with her. We weren't at the White House to meet with her. We just met with her while she was there.

Pam Bondi bragged to us about making that cover sheet on the binder, the one that read the most transparent administration in history.

She said, she had made it. She had printed it. She was proud of it. She placed it on that binder.

Glenn, to call that a severe lack of judgment would be the understatement of the year. There is no way, in my mind, and I've tried every way to Sunday, to square that behavior with the announcement that we got last night with the Department of Justice.

Pam Bondi told us at the time, she said, I've requested the Epstein files, the files in the binder, were the ones given to me. Nothing was in them, she told us at the time. Then a whistle-blower told her, she told us. And said the FDNY was hiding other files. That's the story she had told us, that there's been a Deep State cover-up. So at the time, after we were given these binders, we waited. Right? You give your side the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Pam Bondi will come up with the goods, even though the rollout was botched to say the least.

But she -- this is another thing I have not discussed publicly before. She said, she had not seen the FDNY documents at the time that she was telling us about them.

I asked her directly that day in the White House. When she said, a whistle-blower told us about these truckloads of FDNY documents. I said, have you seen them? She said no, she sent the request and they're brining them to her.

So contextualizing all of this, suddenly this seems like unforgivable behavior.

How could she give the American people -- not just me. I don't care about how this impacts me. How can she give the American people those binders that contain nothing, while at the same time, bragging about the cover sheet that she made.

The most transparent administration in history. And tell us that the FDNY had the real goods, that the binder was just proof of a Deep State cover-up. That was the real story she told us. Only now to say, sorry, there's actually nothing.

So it leaves us with this situation. What are the options? The options are, well, was she herself set up by some Deep State FBI officials trying to make a fool of her? It's possible, maybe even probable.

GLENN: Possible.

LIZ: But here's the thing, if you're smart, if you're savvy, if you're sharp enough to be Attorney General of the United States, you verify such information.

You don't assume its veracity and publicize it for clicks. And that's what she did.

So then we get to the point, that we think, okay. Well, what does this say about her judgment?

Is she just click thirsty? Is she wanting to be a Fox News star? Did she get out over her skis, trying to make news, being a mega champion with those binders, that maybe she had not verified the contents of, and she definitely hadn't verified the contents of the FDNY truckload. You can't square this announcement with the binders. With the binders in February, unless you allow for the idea that Pam Bondi could be operating in a way that is unacceptable, when on Fox News. Said she had a client list on her desk to review, when she hadn't looked at the documents.

And was just saying that to be a television star. I say this. In somewhat sorrowfully. If I'm President Trump, I would not tolerate this behavior anymore. She's become a liability to the administration. I think the administration is probably just now coming to the realization of how much goodwill this whole debacle has cost them with their voters.

And Pam Bondi is not worth it. She's a liability. It's time to move on.

RADIO

The INCREDIBLE TRUE Story of Benjamin Franklin

Was Benjamin Franklin the greatest and most modern Founding Father? This July 4th week, “The Greatest American” author Mark Skousen joins Glenn Beck to tell the incredible and true story of Benjamin Franklin.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Dr. Mark Skousen, friend of the program, friend of mine. America's economist.

He is -- he has written a new book on the greatest American and the greatest American, he says is Ben Franklin. And I tend to agree with him. He's at least in the top five greatest Americans. Welcome to the program, Mark. How are you?

MARK: I'm doing well. We're out here in the Mediterranean Sea right now on a cruise, but isn't it great technology that even Ben Franklin would love?

GLENN: You know, I don't think people really understand the genius of Ben Franklin. I mean, there's this great article in the times of London.

I don't remember when. But he was going back to London. He was going to challenge the king.

And he was going back. And they said, don't let his boat come in to dock.

Because he's been working with electricity, and he has a ray gun, and he will vaporize, you know, all of London.

I mean, he was -- he was the Elon Musk of his day, but he was almost more magical, because people didn't understand it.

Back then. What did you find in writing this book about Ben Franklin, that you think most people just don't know?

MARK: Well, this is the thing. So when I wrote the greatest American, I thought to myself, everybody -- lots of books have been written on his biography.

So what I did was I came up with 80 chapters on how he is the most modern of all the Founders. And how he could talk about the modern issues of today, whether it's trade or taxes or inflation or war. Discrimination. Inequality.

I have a chapter on each one of these, in the greatest American.

And, you know, he was a Jack-of-all-trades.
And the master of all, on top of it!

So one of the things I thought would be really cool, if you put my book, on every coffee table in America, and people came in to visit, they would look at this book. And there might be an argument, as you say, as to who is the greatest American. Whether it's George Washington or Elon Musk, or what have you.

GLENN: Whatever.

MARK: When they see the picture of Ben Franklin, they sit there and nod their head. And say, wow. This is the guy I want to sit down with and talk to.

And have a beer with.

Because if you sat with some of the other Founders, they would get in an argument with you. Or they would refuse to answer the question. Or what have you.

But Franklin was willing to talk to a janitor, as well as the king of France. And that's pretty unique.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He could.

He was an amazing guy. So tell me, in your research of him, you know, you always hear that, oh, Ben Franklin was a notorious womanizer, and everything else.

And he abandoned his wife. Deborah? Was that her name?

MARK: Yes. Deborah. That's correct.

GLENN: Did that -- what's true, or what's not true about that?

MARK: So he certainly was the most liberal-minded when it came to the sexual revolution.

That's why I say, he's the most modern of the Founders. Because he was not prudish like John and Abigail Adams, who thought he was a reprobate. And sinner. And not a churchgoer. And stuff like that.

GLENN: Right.

MARK: So, yes. He was -- the ladies loved him. And he loved the ladies.

There's no question about that, that he was a bit of a playboy. And, in fact, he even admits in his autobiography, of having an illegitimate child, William. But then he settled down. He married Deborah. And, yes, Deborah and him, they did separate because -- and it was really more her fault than his, because when he went to London as a London agent, she had extreme aversion to going out on this -- the seas. It was a dangerous time period.

So it's kind of like people don't like to fly on airplanes today. So they did grow apart. There's no question about that.

But they maintained their -- their love for each other.

And, as a matter of fact, when Franklin died, he's buried right next to Deborah. So I think that's an indication of their -- their love and so forth. But they were very different personalities. She was very focused on -- on more of the home issues. She was not a public intellectual.

She would not feel comfortable in the same conversations that Franklin would have with scientists.

And with public thinkers, and stuff like that. So they definitely differed in their personality.

GLENN: The -- the story about his son William is one of the saddest chapters.

I mean, you know, Thomas Paine kind of looked at him as a father figure. And he -- you know, Ben Franklin did have a son, William, as you said. And they -- they had a really bad falling out.

Can you quickly tell that story?

MARK: Yeah. So I have a chapter on that very issue. Because who were his enemies, and he did have a number of enemies, including John Adams, at one point. But in the case of William, he, Franklin, arranged for William to be the governor of New Jersey. And he maintained his loyalty. He was a loyalist. Billy was throughout the American Revolution!

And at the end of the American Revolution, or during the American Revolution, Franklin writes his son and he said, it's one thing to -- we can differ on various issues.

But when you actually raise money, raise armaments to attack me, this was beyond the pale.

This is not something that you should have done. And then at the end of his letter, he says, this is a disagreeable subject!

I drop it. So you can feel that emotion, that anger.

And, yes. He removed him from -- from his will.

So there -- there -- Franklin got along with almost everyone.

And I have a whole chapter on how to deal in the greatest American. How to deal with enemies and be how to make your enemies, your friends.

But this was one example where he just couldn't cross over and forgive him. For what the -- for what we had done.

GLENN: I don't think --

CHIP: Just like you are saying.

GLENN: I think I would have a hard time doing that too if my son was raising funds and military against me. It would be kind of hard to forgive.

Mark, thank you so much for your work. It's always good to talk to you.

The name of the book is by Mark Skousen. And it is called The Greatest American. It's all about Ben Franklin. If you don't know anything about Ben Franklin, you will fall in love with him. You will absolutely fall in love with him. Mark Skousen is the author. The name of the book again, The Greatest American.