©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about why the GOP won't resurrect the Obamacare repeal bill passed in 2015, his wild curiosity about evidence the administration might have about wiretapping, and why Republicans are suddenly in love with infrastructure spending.
Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.
GLENN: Senator Mike Lee who is at an airport getting ready to board a plane. We're glad you would take the time to hop on the phone with us. How are you, sir?
MIKE: Doing great. Thanks so much, Glenn.
GLENN: Good. Let's get to Obamacare repeal and replace. This thing is nothing like what the Republicans were promising us they would do. Nowhere even close.
Do we have a chance of getting something good out of this?
MIKE: Sure. Something good can come out of it. What happens, whether something good comes out of it, the extent to which it might be good depends entirely on how members of Congress handle this in the next few days, on how they choose to cast their votes.
Now, look, you're right. What we promised was to repeal Obamacare, as much of Obamacare as we possibly could, and then to start trying to find new ways to put the American people back in charge of their own health care.
Well, what this bill does is it doesn't repeal nearly as much of Obamacare as we could. It leaves all kinds of things intact. It leaves most of the Obamacare regulations in place. Most of -- many of the Obamacare taxes remain in place, at least for a time. It leaves expanded Medicaid intact for a period of time. And then doesn't make as many adjustments to it long-term.
Meanwhile, it comes up with a new refundable tax credit, which we don't know the cost of yet. We don't know how many people are going to take it.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, which begs the question: Why are we not just repealing? Why are we not just passing the same repeal bill that Republicans in the House and in the Senate voted for in December of 2015? That's what I'd like to see.
STU: Mike, is it true that you can't just repeal it unless you have 60 votes? You can't do it through reconciliation with just a full repeal?
MIKE: There is some ambiguity as to how many of the insurance regulations of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation. So there's an open question on that. But we do that know we could repeal all the taxes and all of the subsidies and possibly some of the regs through reconciliation. We know that because the reconciliation bill we passed in 2015 repealed all of the taxes and all the subsidies.
GLENN: So why aren't we doing it?
MIKE: That's a very good question. That's what I believed we were going to do. That's what many of us were told -- otherwise led to believe.
GLENN: Why aren't we doing it?
STU: He said it was a good question.
MIKE: There are those in Congress who chose to take a different path. Now, I can't speak for them. I can't speak to what their intentions are. I think the easiest, simplest way of explaining it is, they had other priorities that they wanted to attach to this. Priorities that were perhaps higher than simply achieving repeal, at least to the degree that --
GLENN: Can you give me an example of what might be more important than what you promised the American people?
MIKE: Okay. So here's how I think they would explain it, and I want to be clear, I'm always careful not to try to speak for somebody else. But I think if they were here with us, they would probably say, look, we don't want people to be in a state of too much uncertainty and doubt. We don't want them to be afraid. We want them to have a degree of confidence about what comes next after Obamacare repeal. And so we want to provide a soft landing spot for them. And that is so important. It's important enough to them, apparently, that they're willing to go a little softer on some of the repeal and provide more programs through this bill right now.
The problem with that is, it's -- it's not going to pass. And it probably shouldn't pass until they can answer more of these questions, more of these questions about why we can't repeal more of Obamacare than this bill does.
PAT: And the other problem with that, Mike, is that that's not what they promised us. That's not what they said they were going to do. They didn't say, well, we're going to think about this and provide a safe landing spot for people. It's going to take a really long time. We're going to not repeal -- it was repeal and replace. That's what they ran on. That's what they were elected to do. And now, again, as so often happens with the Republican Party, they're not doing it. Frustrating.
MIKE: Yeah, that's right. By the way, I love the Kermit the Frog imitation that both you and Glenn do.
GLENN: Thank you so much. Thank you. That's what happens when your best friend since 1980 --
PAT: Yeah.
MIKE: Well, he has, in fact, been the spokesman for the AHCA, so it's appropriate that we use his voice when doing this. But, no, you're exactly right, this is what we ran on, this is what we promised. Now, to my great dismay, to my great surprise, on many instances over the last week or so, we've had legislators from the House and the Senate somehow saying that this bill, the AHCA is somehow what we campaigned on, what we ran on. Well, that's news to me. That's news to me because we've had this bill for only a few days.
PAT: Me too.
MIKE: That's news to me if we somehow ran on this specific bill, a bill the score of which we still don't know. We still don't know how much this thing is going to cost. We still don't have any idea how many people will take this refundable tax credit. And, therefore, how much it's going to cost. So that's news to me, that that's somehow what we ran on.
What I remember that we ran on was that we would repeal every scrap of Obamacare that we possibly could, the whole thing, if we could get away with it under our procedural rules in the Senate. And that's what we should be doing.
STU: We're talking to Senator Mike Lee. And every time you're on, Mike, I like to ask you the nerdiest, most boring, uninteresting question to see --
GLENN: So please keep this answer short. Please, for the love of Pete.
STU: So I apologize in advance for this.
But when the Bush tax cuts were passed, they were passed under reconciliation. And because of that, they expired after ten years. Would the same thing happen here? If we repeal all these Obamacare taxes, in ten years, are we going to be talking about the expiration of the Obamacare repeal, and then it's going to be back into effect again?
MIKE: No, not necessarily. In fact, almost certainly not.
GLENN: Good end to that.
MIKE: Because of the fact that we were dealing with taxes in that circumstance, rather than something else. So that wouldn't be it.
STU: I thought it was a tax, which is the only reason it was constitutional. Wasn't that -- tax versus fee. Wasn't that a big conversation with Roberts?
MIKE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question. Can you say that again?
GLENN: Good. No, no, let's move on.
STU: Let's move on.
GLENN: So, Senator, let me ask you about the intelligence committee has given the president until this afternoon, they say they can't find any evidence that Barack Obama was spying on Donald Trump. And to present some evidence -- and we'll go pursue that. Any indication that he's going to present that evidence? And is there any reason to believe that he couldn't present the evidence if he had it?
MIKE: Okay. That's a good question. I'll answer the first question, I have no idea. I would love to see what the evidence is. I'm wildly curious about it. As to whether he could present it, that depends on what the "it" is.
I will tell you, my first reaction to this, when I very first learned about the tweet, my first reaction was, he's probably not talking about a traditional wiretap, where somebody actually goes to a judge and the judge orders a phone line to be tapped. Perhaps he's talking about a foreign intelligence surveillance court order issued pursuant to Section 702 of the FISA amendments, which would say, you know, here is an identified agent of a foreign government. Let's monitor this person's communications. And that there might have been some incidental communications with some US citizens, perhaps including people who were involved in one way or another with the campaign. That incidentally got pulled into that. That was my first reaction is that seemed the most plausible possibility. If, in fact, it's that, there might be some reasons why we might be reluctant to share that. Or --
GLENN: No, but he could share it with the intelligence committee, could he not -- or committee?
MIKE: Yes, yes, they've got the clearance to do that. So there's no reason why he couldn't share something like that with them. They've got clearance to see pretty much all of that. But as far as his ability to share that publicly, that would seem less likely if my theory is correct.
GLENN: And there's nothing that the president can't get, right? If he said, I want to show it, but, you know, this agency won't let me, you know, have access to this. There's -- everybody in in the Senate, would be like, okay. We need to see this. Behind closed doors. But you will open these books or whatever it is that he's saying the evidence is -- there's nothing the president couldn't get to, is there?
MIKE: I assume so. Because -- and, look, he's the commander-in-chief. There's nothing that he doesn't have access to. And so if he can -- if he can back this up, if he knows what it is that he's referring to, there's no reason that I'm aware of why he couldn't come up with something that he could produce to these Intel Committees. Now, whether he will choose to do so or not is a different question. Perhaps there are those close to him advising him, hey, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. But that --
GLENN: Why wouldn't you?
MIKE: -- that requires rank speculation.
GLENN: Why wouldn't you?
MIKE: I don't know. If perhaps he didn't want to set a precedent that he could just be required to answer questions every time the Intel Committee wanted to hear something. But I would think in this instance, he would want to, particularly because these questions are going to be raised from time to time.
GLENN: Right. And we're talking about national security. I mean, we're talking about something that he's accused another president of doing. And if that president was doing that, that needs to be stopped.
MIKE: Yes. Yes. Exactly. And that's -- that's -- all the more reason why I suspect he'll provide them with what they want to know because you're right. Look, this is one of the things I've been worried about for years. And I've expressed this concern on your show previously. But if you remember the Church Committee, the Frank Church Committee back in the '70s --
GLENN: Yep.
MIKE: -- conducted a series of hearings to look into abuses by our intelligence-gathering agencies, and what they concluded was startling, which was that in every administration from Ford -- from FDR through Ford and Nixon, who was in power at about the time they concluded their research, that the US government's intelligence gathering apparatus had been used to engage in political espionage. Now, look at what's happened since then. Our technology has improved dramatically. Our technological means of gathering intelligence have grown by leaps and bounds. And our laws haven't always kept up with that.
And so to me, it would be almost surprising if some of this were not occurring. That's why we need to be watchful of this. That's why I was concerned, immediately, when I saw the president's tweet was because I considered it plausible, if not likely that this kind of thing would be going on.
GLENN: One last question, let's go to infrastructure. The G.O.P. went out of their gourd -- and I believe rightly so -- for a stimulus package for roads and bridges and tunnels and everything else for $787 billion. I remember that number. It's burned -- seared into my memory of $787 billion. Now the president is proposing a trillion dollar stimulus package, and the Republicans are very excited about it. Can you tell me what made the 787 billion-dollar stimulus package an affront on the Constitution and this one a dream come true?
MIKE: Well, I can't point to any distinguishing characteristic between the two, as to why this one would be good and that one bad.
In fact, look, when I look at the Constitution, I see the powers of Congress being limited. They're enumerated powers, most of them in Article I, Section 8. And they talk about things like the power to provide for our national defense, to declare war, to regulate trade between the states with foreign nations and with Indian tribes. I don't see anything in there that says that it's the prerogative of Congress to create all infrastructure.
Now, look, it's one thing if we're talking about an interstate corridor here or there. But it's another thing entirely if we're talking about wholesale, top to bottom, soup to nuts transportation infrastructure, even intrastate projects.
I think whether we're talking about under the Obama administration or any subsequent administration, headed by a Republican or a Democrat, I think we've got to look carefully at what we're doing there. Not every transportation infrastructure is necessarily outside of Congress' authority. Because some of them do involve a distinctly interstate function. But where they don't, we have constitutional problems.
GLENN: Mike Lee, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.
MIKE: Thank you very much, sir. It's good to be with you.
STU: So positive.
GLENN: Yeah. He is. Boring as snot.
STU: Thank you very much.
Oh, I love him. He is saving my hope in the entire country right about now.
GLENN: He is so good and so smart. And, you know, he's just tickled pink by, you know -- I love -- I love because you know he's accurate. But when you're talking to him -- because he's like this all the time, well, I mean, in section 508, subsection B, paragraph four --
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: -- you'll see -- and he did that like four times during this. You just have to get used to, that's the way he is.
STU: He's that guy.
GLENN: And that's why he is so good and so needed in the Senate. Want to give you this from the New York Post today. Bank fees rise to an all-time high. The average customer now pays $666 a year in banking fees.
STU: Satan.
GLENN: Right. Right.
STU: This is how it happens.
GLENN: The overdraft revenue from the top three banks has surged from 5.1 billion to $5.4 billion. That's what they make if you overdraft.
$5.4 billion. Does anybody remember that we're providing them? It's a service that we're providing them as well. We're giving them our money.
JEFFY: No. No.
GLENN: So they can loan it out to other people. No, they don't care anymore.
JEFFY: No, they do not.
New York City is likely to elect either Zohran Mamdani, a communist, or Andrew Cuomo, a failed governor, as mayor. Either way, it could destroy the city. So, how will this affect the rest of America? Former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore joins Glenn to explain why he believes another mass migration out of New York is coming…
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: Stephen Moore is with us now. Stephen, how much time do you have with me today?
STEPHEN: As much as you want, Glenn. Great to hear your voice. Great to be with you.
I disagree with you on something you just said.
GLENN: Okay. All right. Let's start there.
STEPHEN: You know, I do think -- look, New York has lost two and a half million people on net over the last ten years, to other states. Almost two and a half million people.
Which is, what? Four congressional seats right there.
So there's a mass. The big story in America, Glenn. Right now. And people should go on our website. Vote With Your Feet. And you can see, just click on any two states. You can click on New York. And you can click on Texas. And it will show you the -- where the moving vans are going to and from. And also, how much money they're taking with them because we know the income of these people as well.
So New York has lost two and a half million people. And, by the way, half of those people came from New York City. So if -- did they elect a socialist and they raised the taxes, again, New York City already has the highest taxes in the United States in North America. So if they raise them again, on, quote, the rich, they won't be there any longer. And I'll make another prediction to you, Glenn.
Are you in Texas? Where are you now?
(laughter)
GLENN: It's like a shell game.
I never really know. I just moved last week. I left my business in Texas.
Because I am never going to sever myself from Texas. I left my business in Texas. I promised my wife about 400 years ago, that some take we would live by the beach. So we moved to Florida. Business in Texas.
STEPHEN: You moved from no income tax state. To another no income tax state.
GLENN: Yeah. Are you crazy? I'm not doing anything else?
I would have dug a canal from the Atlantic, all the way to Dallas, if they forced me to move to a tax state. Anyway...
STEPHEN: So anyway, I'm in Dallas today.
GLENN: I know.
STEPHEN: Where are you in Florida?
GLENN: I'm not saying that on the air. But I will tell you that we're going to have dinner, Stephen. When you get back into dinner, Stephen, we'll have dinner.
STEPHEN: So, anyway, now I lost my train of concentration.
GLENN: So we were talking about the people that are moving and the tax base.
STEPHEN: Yeah. So basically, that's why I believe -- look, 1 million is probably a long shot.
But I think you're going to see a lot of wealth move out of New York. Now, here's the thing. You probably are aware of this. But about two months ago, the -- Texas has their own stock exchange. So we had the New York Stock Exchange for 150 years. Now you've got the Texas Stock Exchange, which I believe is in Dallas.
GLENN: I know.
STEPHEN: I believe, if they raise these taxes again, you pay 17 percent income tax in New York City.
GLENN: Jeez.
STEPHEN: Who is going to do that?
GLENN: My gosh.
STEPHEN: After 40 percent federal tax. So people will move. And I'll give you one -- one example.
Do you know Ken Griffin? He's the billionaire who created Citadel.
GLENN: Yeah.
STEPHEN: He's a big guy. Free market guy. And he was the single, biggest charitable giving in the city of Chicago. He gave to the Art Institute. He gave to the homeless shelters. He gave to the food kitchens and the museums and so on.
I mean, he was -- he was by far the biggest donor to all of the charities.
Well, finally, they kept raising, raising taxes in Chicago. And as you probably know, he moved out of Chicago. And he moved to Palm Beach.
Florida. And so then the interesting part of this story is, it put a 50 million-dollar hold in the Illinois budget.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STEPHEN: And all the -- there's a funny story in the Chicago business. That all of a sudden, charities like, why isn't he donating to us anymore?
Why isn't he living there anymore?
So my point is, you chase the evil rich out of your city and your state. You pay a high price for that. By the way, he took several thousand, you know, jobs with him. So when you -- when you hear stoke the rich -- you know, the rich are -- as the old saying goes, "The rich aren't rich because they're stupid."
GLENN: Right.
So let me ask you this, Stephen. Because it used to be that New York was -- I mean, was the capital of the whole world.
STEPHEN: Yeah. Yeah. Financial capital.
GLENN: And because of the stock exchange. How real is the loss of the New York Stock Exchange. As something like the Texas stock exchange?
Is that something that really could actually happen?
STEPHEN: Yeah. It could happen. And look, the truth is that the New York Stock Exchange, even today, isn't anything like it was '60s, '70s, '80s, just like I mentioned I'm from Chicago. Remember the movie Trading Places, they're trading. It doesn't really exist anymore. Because that's all done by computers and electronically. So the trading floors aren't the same as they were. So Wall Street is just a shadow of what it once was. But what I'm saying is, today in America, in Dallas, Texas, there are more financial services jobs than there are in New York City.
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
STEPHEN: That's amazing!
GLENN: Oh, my gosh.
So --
STEPHEN: It's happening.
GLENN: So how long -- how much more, Stephen, how much more can New York take before it's -- it's no longer the financial capital?
How much more -- how many people have to move?
What has to happen, for it to really understand, wow. We made a huge mistake here?
STEPHEN: You would think they would have gotten that message already.
GLENN: No.
STEPHEN: And one of the things that you first did your show, many, many years ago. You were in New York.
So you're familiar with New York. And when was that? In the '90s when were you --
GLENN: In the 2000 -- 2000s. Mid-2000, you know, 2005. 2010.
STEPHEN: Yeah. Because I remember when Rudy -- this is an important point because I know you have a lot of listeners all over the country in New York and New Jersey. In the New York area.
So when Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor, New York was a mess. And you could see every week, because I was working at the Wall Street Journal at the time. Every week, you could see the improvement in the city. He got rid of the crime. He got rid of the graffiti. He got rid of the drug dealers. He got rid of -- he lowered the taxes. It wasn't complicated, Glenn. I mean, this wasn't rocket surgery.
GLENN: I know.
STEPHEN: This was obvious stuff.
And New York was New York again. And it was booming. And what's sad about this election that's happening today, is if Mamdani wins, they will reverse every single thing that Rudy did. And they will be back in the ditch. How stupid would people be to fall for that!
And part of the problem, Glenn, quite frankly, something you and I have talked about for years. Is our education system. You have 24-year-olds are voting, they think socialism works. Where? Show me. Where?
GLENN: Yeah. So what happens if he is elected? I mean, how -- what does it mean to people who have never gone to New York City?
Is -- is the loss of New York City to a Mamdani, is that going to affect everybody else's life?
STEPHEN: That's a good question. you're there in Florida.
Florida has gained. I really want people to go to this website.
Because it's amazing.
So Florida, under a great, great, great governor, Ron DeSantis. And you had a great governor, Rick Scott, before him. Florida, are you ready? Are you sitting down, Glenn? Florida has imported over the ten-year period, one trillion dollars of income from people coming in from other states. $1 trillion. It's the biggest mass migration ever in the history of this country.
GLENN: Unbelievable.
STEPHEN: And, by the way, people are not just living in New York. What you know other states they're leaving?
California.
GLENN: I think New York is moving to Florida, and California is moving to Texas.
STEPHEN: Moving to Texas, exactly.
And so you're just bleeding these blue states. That's why I don't get it.
So the thing that worries me. I was thinking about this, a lot over the past couple of days. If these states vote the wrong way, the only way that New York even survives, fiscally is with another massive federal bailout.
GLENN: Bailout. I know.
STEPHEN: How are you they going to pay their bills?
GLENN: They're not. They're not. And, you know, that's -- this is what I've said for a long time.
You know, the Constitution is not a suicide PAC. And California and New York and Chicago are going to eventually need giant bailouts.
And why should I pay for that know. I didn't live in those places. I didn't live there for a reason.
STEPHEN: Right.
GLENN: Right. That's taxation without representation.
I don't want to bail them out.
It was -- it's their fault, they did this. I've always wanted to live in California.
I never have, because it was insane. I knew that it was not going to work. So why do I have to pay for it?
STEPHEN: Exactly. Bingo. And incidentally, you're right. You can understand why people might leave New York for Florida. You know, in Florida, it's beautiful weather. In Florida, and rains a lot. And probably in New York. But how do you screw up California?
I mean, California is one of the probably most idyllic places in the planet. And people are living. This is the first time in 250 years people have been -- more people are leaving California than going to California. That's never happened before!
STU: That's unbelievable. Unbelievable.
STEPHEN: Yeah.
GLENN: Okay. So can you spend some time with me --
STEPHEN: Can I make one more point about this?
GLENN: Yeah.
STEPHEN: The governor of California is now the lead candidate to run on the Democratic ticket for president: Gavin Newsom. The guy who is -- what's he going to run on? "I'll do for America what I did for California?"
GLENN: Yes.
And so many people will buy into it!
I mean, I don't know what's wrong. It's so frustrating, because you try to apply logic. And you're like, but none of this makes sense! None of it. What are you doing?
I would love to be able to sit down and have a conversation, but none of this makes sense.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has passed away at the age of 84. Glenn Beck reviews some of the biggest lessons from Cheney’s life that America should have learned, from the Gulf War and 9/11 to the PATRIOT Act and even gain-of-function research.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
GLENN: So let me start here with Dick Cheney. You know, there was a time not long ago, where America was not sure of itself.
Like we are now.
The Berlin Wall had fallen. We had gone through the '80s, which was a big boost to our confidence. But we had done so much damage to ourselves in the '60s and the '70s, it took more than one president in eight years. Vietnam still you haunted us. The headlines were all about peace dividends. You remember that?
Berlin wall comes down. Now, we should have peace dividends. Downsizing. Doubt. We didn't know. We were arrogant, and yet doubtful.
The idea of a military, powerful military had been almost embarrassing to say out loud since Vietnam. Reagan had rebuilt us, but it was peace through strength. We never went to war. Thank God, we never went to war. But our perceived strength did all our work for us.
But we didn't know. Because the last time we had tanks rolling anywhere, was Vietnam. And we thought that was a really bad thing.
Well, George H.W. Bush came into office. And he brought with him a man who had five deferments in Vietnam. He had never served in uniform. And he picks that guy. A guy from Wyoming. Not loud. Not flashy. To step into the role of Secretary of Defense. That was pretty controversial.
Wait a minute. What?
Hold it.
The guy didn't look like a warrior. He looked honestly like an accountant that balanced books after the battle. He was quiet, soft-spoken.
But he was firm. He was very clear on what he believed, and he believed perhaps more than -- more deeply than almost anybody else in Washington, that a nation that can't defend itself isn't going to remain free.
And so Reagan had really built the military up.
And Dick Cheney kind of finished that off, with George H.W. Bush.
By restoring the faith in our military.
Faith in America's strength was not the problem. America's strength was the protector of liberty.
I'm old enough to remember the -- the opening night of the Gulf War.
CNN was the only news network at the time.
And on my living room screen. I was living in Baltimore at the time, there was this eerie green grain of night vision footage. Which we really hadn't seen before.
And missile strikes through the darkness. We had never seen war like this before. Not only in night vision, but not live in our living rooms. We had never seen anything like it.
And I remember we all kind of held our breath. And we watched this new kind of war, unfold.
And it was swift, it was surgical. It was divisive.
There was no draft -- or decisive. There was no draft. There was no chaos. There was no quagmire. For the first time in decades, Americans felt pride without apology when it came to our military.
And we still wondered, is it going to be a quagmire?
But it wasn't. It was very clear. The mission was clear. We liberated Kuwait. That was the mission, and then we left. There was, you know, no oil fields. No spoils. No empire building. Just a message to the world, we could be proud of! This is what moral strength looks like. Free a nation, and go home.
Now, when George W. Bush ran for president, I don't think anybody was really comfortable handing the nuclear codes over to this guy who had been the governor of Texas and really kind of, yeah, let me tell you. Yeah. Right.
I mean, I wasn't comfortable. He was the guy we barely knew. He seemed like somebody who was more comfortable in the stands of a baseball stadium, than even, you know, in the main offices of the baseball stadium, that he owned. You know.
And everything changed in 2000, in the election, when he chose Dick Cheney as his running mate. The reaction was instant.
And I think it was the sound of America kind of exhaling a bit. He announced Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. They were the ones who brought us the Gulf War. It was quick, decisive, and over.
And America said, okay. Okay. Okay.
He's got Dick Cheney behind him.
All right. The adults are back. Then came that blue September morning.
And the skies were clear, and the markets were opened.
And in an instant, absolutely everything changed. The world stopped! The New York skyline was filled with smoke, and fear filled the air, all over the world. Not just here in America. No one knew what was going on. And our president was reading stories to children in Florida, and Dick Cheney became the acting president for a while, until we could get the president to safety!
He was the one that was rushed down to the emergency bunker in the White House. He took over for a while!
He was steady. Emotionless. And firm!
He didn't tremble. He didn't panic. And in those hours, those first few hours, America needed that!
But fear, once it's tasted, it's -- it's hard to let go. And so we started a war. And it just stretched on and on and on.
And the mission became blurry. Freedom became a slogan, instead of a strategy. And freedom started to take a different meaning here in America. We passed the Patriot Act. We built the Department of Homeland Security. None of those things had anything to do with freedom. We created the FISA court. And airport lines that never seemed to end. And for a while, we told ourselves, all of this is worth it, it's the price we have to pay in a dangerous, dangerous world.
But when you give more to one God, the other gods will demand payment later. And something in those days, a seed that was far more darker was planted. The anthrax attacks, most people don't even remember them now. They rattled the nation.
Cheney, who was always the realist and the adult in the room. Always the sentinel told the nation's stop scientists, we can't wait for the next attack. We have to study it. We have to anticipate it.
And so it was Dick Cheney that urged Dr. Anthony Fauci. To push research further, faster. Into what we now call gain of function. And I'm sure it was born out of good intent to protect us. As history often teaches us, good intent can be dangerous as a companion to unchecked power. Or as my grandmother always used to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And so bee beneath all of that calculation and control, there was a the different side to Dick Cheney. He was quiet. When his daughter Mary came out as gay, he didn't blink. Long before Clinton evolved, before Obama changed his mind, Cheney, the hawk, Darth Vader, the architect of war, said plainly, "My daughter deserves the same rights as everybody else." It was personal, it was brave, it was human, and as a politician, he stood almost entirely alone. Nobody gives him credit for that.
And he -- he belonged to a different time. A Cold War man in a post modern world. A deep believer in the chain of command. In America's dominance. In doing what has to be done, even if the world didn't approve!
He died last night. He had five heart attacks in his life. I think it was 2012, he had a heart transplant, doctor said it would give him another decade of life.
13 years later. Dick Cheney's life offers both a chance to give medals and lessons. The virtue of strength and the peril of excess. And he should have learned from the first Gulf War. He was the iron for many years in America's spine. After decades of doubt. But he was also a reminder that iron rusts, if it is left unexamined.
We needed his resolve when the towers fell. And raps, in the years that follow, we needed more in his -- more of his restraint from 1991, in the years that followed that. But we didn't get that.
So he leaves behind a really complicated legacy. Which I think is appropriate today, as I try to talk to you today about, what does it mean to be a conservative?
On all fronts. What does it mean?
Dick Cheney was a conservative for a man of his time. But he lost one of the main principles, and that is conservatives believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. He's a patriot, yes. But he's also a warning to us. He helped America find its courage. But he also taught us how easily courage can drift into control.
And he left us some lessons that we should learn. The Patriot Act. That has given our government tools to spy on its own citizens. On Capitol Hill, nobody is talking about this. But this is the biggest scandal probably in American intelligence and American corruption of all time.
The Patriot Act made all of it possible. The government -- government-wide scandal of a president spying on its opponent party, including senators and congressmen. And donors. And average citizens.
That's still being revealed. Nobody is talking about it. But that came from the patriot ability. That came him the power to do it. The FISA court as we know in a completely other scandal. The FISA courts were lied to. The FBI physically changed documents to falsify testimony to secure wire taps that they said they needed, that we now know were unwarranted and illegal. What else should we learn today? We paid a heavy price for never-ending wars in blood, in treasure, and faith.
We failed to learn the right lessons from the Gulf War. Define the mission narrowly. Execute it efficiently. And then get the hell out of there, and come home!
Enhanced interrogation. That's Dick Cheney. We called torture "enhanced interrogation." And we still refuse as a people, to have this debate. We either torture or we do not. And it's the people that should make the decision.
No one in the world looks to a nation who says one thing, but then farms out the torture to another dictator or authoritarian someplace else.
They don't look at that and go, you know what. There's a great nation.
We should also learn the lesson.
I mean, think of what we just learned. Enhanced interrogation. It's torture.
You believe so change the name. You can't change the meaning of words. Okay?
Enhanced interrogation is still torture. No matter what you do to a man surgically.
He's still a man. You can't just say, oh, no. That's a woman. Changing the words, does not change reality.
And the heaviest lesson, we have not learned a bit from is gain of function. It may be illegal, but it is still happening. Because there are those in the government, on both sides of the aisle, that think it's important.
It is not.
It has killed hills. And it's changed our world.
In that crisis, we saw blue states give new dictatorial powers that still haven't been corrected.
So Dick Cheney, believe it or not, I actually liked Dick Cheney, but I've changed. The times have changed, and I would like to salute his service to a nation for what he did, and he actually believed he was doing the right thing. And he did do the right thing, in his day. But things have changed. And his passing marks not just the end of his life, but close of that age.
An age of secrecy and steel and certainty. Honor Dick Cheney's service today. But can we learn from the mistakes? And can we remember one thing?
The strength of a nation is not measured just by its power to strike. But its wisdom to stop!
New York City is on the brink and Glenn Beck says the choice between Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani isn’t about who’s good for the city, but who’s less destructive. Glenn and Stu Burguiere break down why Cuomo’s notorious corruption may actually look mild compared to Mamdani’s open socialism. From “communist grocery stores” to Obama’s fading influence, Beck exposes how the Democratic Party is spiraling into radicalism and why every Republican should be paying attention.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
STU: There was one poll that kind of showed up and was somewhat positive for Cuomo, if you think Cuomo being mayor of a major city is a positive in any way.
GLENN: It doesn't matter.
STU: Honestly, I don't even know. I get why people think that Mamdani will be worse. He probably will be worse.
But I don't think it's a sure thing. I honestly, don't even think it's a sure thing. These people forget how bad Andrew Comey is.
I think there's this coping mechanism that's going on.
GLENN: Does he want communist grocery stores?
STU: He probably doesn't want -- at least, outwardly saying he wants communist grocery stores. I guess if that's your line as to how --
GLENN: Does he believe -- well, it's not my line.
Does he believe that the 34,000 cops or less.
That's the lowest it's ever been.
STU: Uh-huh.
GLENN: 34,000 cops or less. Because he says, it's really not about a number.
Is it -- does Cuomo believe in fewer cops on the street?
STU: It doesn't matter. He's terrible on that issue. And has been terrible on that issue the entire time.
It's possible. It's possible. And this is the one thing you get from Cuomo.
This is the upside case if you're in New York, and you really want Cuomo to win.
He's so incredibly corrupt. Some of his corruption will align with good policy. That is the only thing you get out of Andrew Cuomo. He is no better than Mamdani on most of these issues. But, for example, will have a guy who is in some form of corruption, will be helping him out, that will also help out the business sector. Right?
There's things like that, that align with -- with something that you might say is helpful to New York City.
GLENN: But see, this is -- this is why Mamdani is winning. Mamdani is -- is winning right now, I believe because it's not about the Islamic thing, it's not about the -- you know, socialist thing.
That's probably half of his support.
Maybe -- maybe three-quarters. But that's not what pushes him over the top.
What pushes him over the top is the -- the other Democrat.
They're not going to vote for a Republican.
The other Democrat is just so horrible, and -- and so traditional corrupt, that they're tired of that. They're tired of the corrupt democratic politician.
They're tired of it. They're not tired of Democrats. They're tired of the cronyism and all of that.
And so here comes a fresh face, nobody really knows who he is.
I mean, it is the Obama thing. Where, you know, hope and change.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: You know, they -- they said that Obama -- do we have that clip?
They were saying that -- that Obama is very much, you know, the new -- or, the old school Mamdani.
No!
No. He's really not. And Obama pledged his support from Mamdani. And I would think that Mamdani would be like, no. Thank you. No, thank you.
Not because they don't agree on things, but because I think that Mamdani's voters will look at Obama and say, "You had your turn, buddy. You believe in the same things, the communist grocery stores. You know, the no cops thing. You know, hate Israel. You believe all of those things. You believe -- but you didn't do any of them."
Now, Obama looks at it and says, "Yes, but I moved the ball forward. That's as far as I could go. Progress. You know, progressive. That's as far as I could go."
But he's not accepted by the real, you know, zealots.
The real changers of the universe.
He was too progressive.
Where now, it's time for the real -- the hard-liners to come in. And that's what I think Mamdani is.
And I think Barack Obama is viewed by the Mamdani supporters, the real Mamdani supporters, as a real sellout. Would you agree with that, or not?
STU: Some. I think that's true.
I think generally speaking, Democrats are not like that.
I think generally speaking, tells me like Obama.
GLENN: I'm not talking about Democrats.
STU: You're talking about Mamdani-type supporters. Like real Mamdani-ites. Yeah, those people do see.
They saw -- they saw the result of 2016 as a part result of not going far enough.
They were -- they complained about Joe Biden for not going far enough.
Of course, that's what they want. And that -- that's the big thing, Glenn. Really? The difference when you look at this election in New York, is if Mamdani gets elected. You go one of two ways. We've seen this happen before.
He could be the communist we know he is in his heart. Right?
He could do all of these things that he's promising. And really descry up the city to no end.
Probably the best-case scenario for him, is he gets in there. He gets thwarted at times, bit corrupt Democrats that are around him, that can stop him.
He does is not have unlimited power as the mayor.
At least not yet.
We saw this with Bill de Blasio. Bill de Blasio was just as dedicated and communist as Zohran Mamdani is.
And his rein as mayor was really bad. It did not destroy the country. It was really bad for the city. It was a really bad time for the city. And they paid a lot for the things that he did. And this is a guy who went on vacation to the Soviet Union.
Right? This is not a guy who was not deck dedicated to the cause.
GLENN: Right.
STU: Mamdani, my suspicion on Mamdani is he will go even farther than de Blasio did. Because he's, you know, young and aspirational. Right?
I think de Blasio had been knocked down for a while, and felt he had to moderate some of those views to get elected. It's not really what the case is here, with Mamdani. I would be very terrified of him, if I were in the city. I would probably begrudgingly be hoping that Cuomo won this.
Because you would at least have an idea of what you're getting.
GLENN: Yeah. The devil you know.
STU: He's going to be terrible. He will be incredibly corrupt.
He will probably commit two to three crimes a day.
That is probably -- possibly much better than what you'll get out of Mamdani. You know, and be whatever reason, this city has moved now to a place where they won't even consider a guy who will do a good job. That's not even part of their consideration.
They're not even looking at Curtis Sliwa, who would actually be fine as mayor. And do a good job for the city.
GLENN: No. I find it interesting.
How do you think Mamdani is going to internally take the suggestion that, hey. I would love to be part of your counsel. I would love to be a sounding board for you.
I mean, he might like it, outwardly. But I don't think that went with his real supporters and his real team that, you know, want the communist grocery stores and everything.
I can't imagine that went over well.
STU: Yeah. I think --
GLENN: Like, making fun of it kind of bad, internally, I think.
STU: Yeah. Behind the closed doors. Yes. I think there's two ways to look at it. And I think probably people in his inner orbit looked at it both ways. Which is, one, you believe this guy.
You know, he wasn't early with us.
GLENN: I know. He let us down as president. He didn't go far enough. This is pathetic. And now he's trying to get into our good graces.
I do think a smarter analysis of this however, on their side is if we can get them to embrace us. It moves us to the mainstream of the party.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: You know, it's funny. I think both Mamdani and the entire Republican Party are going to be rooting for Mamdani to be the face of the democratic party.
That's going to happen real soon. The Democrats don't want that. The Chuck Schumer of the world don't want that. But every Republican should be doing everything they can, to make sure that people understand the future of the democratic party is Mamdani.
GLENN: It's interesting to me that you would say, because I think you're right. That he would say, hey. This would mainstream us a little bit more. Make us look a little bit more acceptable for the party.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: Although, I think -- I think Barack Obama's legacy is not as solid as it would have been. I think he's going to age like Bill Clinton aged. Where Bill Clinton was popular for a while. And then as we got farther and farther away from it, we're like, that guy was corrupt and really bad. He's really not good. I can't believe people still like him.
And not really in with the Democratic Party. And I think -- I think Barack Obama, because the Democratic Party is becoming so radical, I think he's going to even be worse. Because he's going to look like a total sellout. A guy who at least his wife believed it. And he said that he believed it. But he never really got down and did it.
And they will not accept the, hey, he moved the ball as far as he could. They won't accept that.
And I think they will look at him, at least internally, just like we would look at George W. Bush coming in, you know -- you know, in late 2024.
And saying, you know what, I would love to be an adviser for Donald Trump.
You would be like, I don't think.
I don't think.
And there might be some that would argue. Hey. Bring him in.
Just bring him in. Let's go ahead. It will help bring the rest of the party in.
And it will widen the tent. But don't listen to him.
For the love of Pete. Don't listen to him.
And the hard-core Trump supporters, I would have -- would be like, don't. Don't. Don't.
Don't bring him in.
And I just have that feeling, that that's what's coming.
But we'll see.
President Trump gave a master class on negotiation in his recent “60 Minutes” interview with Norah O’Donnell. Glenn and Stu review Trump’s best comments on China and Taiwan, ICE raids, and the government shutdown.
Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors
VOICE: I know you have said that Xi Jinping wouldn't dare move militarily on Taiwan while you're in office. But what if he does?
Would you order US forces to defend Taiwan?
DONALD: You'll find out if it happens. And he understands the answer to that.
VOICE: Why not say it?
DONALD: This never even came up yesterday.
STU: Why not say it? I don't know. Tough question!
DONALD: He never brought it up, because he understands it, and he understands it very well.
VOICE: Do you mind when I ask, he understands, why not communicate that publicly to the rest of us? What does he understand?
DONALD: I can't give away my secrets. I don't want to be one of these guys that tells you exactly what is going to happen, if something happens. The other side knows, but I'm not somebody that tells you everything, because you're asking me a question. But they understand what's going to happen, and he has openly said it, and his people have openly said it. He said, we will never do anything, while President Trump is president. Because they know the consequences.
GLENN: And they do.
Now, what's her name? Norah McDonald?
Or that Norah O'Donnell. I can't remember.
STU: It's Norah O'Donnell.
GLENN: One is a comedian, and one claims to be a journalist. I don't know remember the difference. But, you know, here she is. Why won't you just say it? I don't know!
Strategery!
I mean, why wouldn't you just say it?
Presidents never say that. They never say that. Can you imagine?
What a stupid question that is.
And if you think -- go ahead.
STU: I was going to say, you know, I think Trump sometimes does say stuff like that. Right? Like he does -- for example, with North Korea. Right?
He was like, hey. We're going to blow you up. And the fires of hell are going to rain down upon you.
GLENN: Because North Korea is not China.
STU: Right. He's making decisions based on strategy with different countries. And there's different decisions to make with each nation.
GLENN: Correct.
STU: And when you look at something like this.
What he's trying to, I think communicate is he has communicated to China that they will be involved.
But he does not want to escalate it publicly.
And honestly, all of that being said, I don't know what his actual answer is. My suspicion is, we won't be involved if that happens. Honestly, like I know we promised it. But my suspicion is, if China actually goes in there, there's a good chance, we are -- we come up a reason to not be involved in it.
GLENN: We can't. We can't.
We can't be involved in that.
We will be involved in covert ways.
My guess is, we blow up all those chip factories. That's my guess. And my guess is, we have given the ability to Taiwan to do that. Long ago. I don't know.
But that's what -- that's what I would do. Because we don't have -- we cannot -- we cannot support a supply line, that far away. We just tonight. We're not capable of it.
So we don't have the supply lines. We couldn't get things there, fast enough. And they're going to overwhelm with drones. That's what -- this is going to be the fastest war ever. If they go into Taiwan. It will be over, by the time we ever get a ship or an airplane there. It will be over. They will just overwhelm the island with swarms of drones, period. So here's what the president is actually doing.
He announced a deal on economic and trade relations with China.
So here's what he -- here's the Chinese actions. You ready?
Suspend new rare earth export controls. Issue general license for exports of rare earth. Listen to what he got: Take significant measures to end the flow of fentanyl to the US. Suspend all retaliatory tariffs since March 4th. Suspend all retaliatory nontariff measures since March 4th. Purchase at least 12 million metric tons of US soybeans, and we lowered our tariffs by ten points and extended the expiration of Section 301 tariff exclusions until November 2026. Do you see what we've got? See what we gave up?
Let me just say that again. Do you see what we got and what they gave up?
The president -- it's genius how he got us here. He didn't just engage with China directly. He embarked on a massive, massive campaign, securing the rare earth minerals in all of their allies. Multiple countries.
He built an -- an alternate system that cuts China out, entirely.
Then went after Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. All the three of their major allies.
This was the equivalent of the American president, putting his foot down on the neck of China and saying, you want up?
You want up?
And China blinked because at this point, they had no choice.
China is not used to being handled like this. And he just handled them.
This is a good win for America!
So when the president is has done negotiation. Why would he go on 60 Minutes?
And insult them even more.
Why would he go and say, what you know we'll do?
We'll vaporize Beijing. And I have on good authority, that's exactly what the president said. You know, you want to do that, and I'll make Beijing disappear.
And Xi laughed at first. And what? What?
The president didn't laugh and blink. And Xi left going, he might just do it!
That's how you negotiate. That's how get all of the rare earth minerals. That's how you get this giant concession with from China. The guy -- I have to tell you, I mean, we've known this forever. How long has everyone on the planet, you know, now, of course, the left won't say it. You know, the Democrats won't say it. But everybody has always said, I wish we just had a good negotiator on our side. Wouldn't it be nice if we had somebody that looked at the country like a business. And could just run it like a business. And knew how to negotiate?
We have the best negotiator, I think we've ever had.
I can't think of anybody who is better than that.
Here's what he said, yesterday on 60 Minutes on the ICE raids. Cut ten.
VOICE: More recently, Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood. And the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raise gone too far?
DONALD: No. I don't think they've gone far enough. Because we've been held back by the judges, by the liberal judges, that were put in by Biden and by Obama.
VOICE: You're okay with those tactics?
DONALD: Yeah, because you have to get those people out. You have to look at the people. Many of them are murderers. Many of them are people that were thrown out of their countries because they were criminal.
GLENN: What do you think of that, Stu?
STU: Again, he's not going to back down from that policy, not a surprise.
GLENN: Uh-uh.
STU: Criminals, you know -- it is such a popular issue to get rid of people who are violent criminals in this country.
That he's going to lock into that, no matter what the tactics look like. As long as they don't look cruel to people who are innocent.
GLENN: Yes.
STU: Right? That's the type of stuff he would get beat up.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: These are people here illegally.
And it's not -- like, you know. He's beating a mom to -- these people are beating moms to death in the streets. Of course, it's going to be something different.
What we're seeing is, what? They're getting arrested on their way to work?
I don't think that's going to be controversial at all to the American people.
GLENN: Seventy percent of the American people agree with the ICE raids.
Seventy percent. No matter what the mainstream media makes it look. That's the latest poll. Have you read another poll? Stu, you're looking at me --
STU: I have seen more negative polling on the issue, generally.
It is -- I think --
GLENN: I just saw one yesterday or today, 70 percent.
STU: I'll have to --
GLENN: Is it in the show prep today?
STU: I did see that poll somewhere.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: I wouldn't say -- his border policy is among his most popular policy. There have been some more negative reactions. Not on the right. But on the left. And the -- and the -- and independent voters, who are concerned about these tactics generally.
Now, of course, what they've received about this is basically, this is the gestapo. So you would understand, that their analysis of what they're hearing in the media, is that it's a negative.
I think though, when you look at these individual cases. People wind up realizing, okay. That's not what's actually going on.
You know, I do think that generally speaking, this is a positive issue from him.
Certainly, it's one of the issues that he cares about the most. And he's not going to back off of it. I think there's this idea that the media can try to corner him. And he will try to back down. When does this occur?
This is not -- the only time Trump has ever really backed down on anything is when, occasionally you'll get a situation where his base says no. We can remember cases of this, with the Second Amendment. He said something to the effect of, well, we'll go in there. We'll take the guns first, and then we'll have a trial. His base said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's not the way it should work.
And he backed off of that. That does sort of happen occasionally. And you'll see occasionally, when it comes to economic consequences.
This is the -- you could argue, that, you know, he backs off on some of those stuff, when he sees the market crash or some of that sort. Really, with stuff like this. There's no sign of him backing down. He believes the policy is correct.
He believes these people should leave. And I think, at this point, most people who are border hawks, if they have any complaint about what's going on at the border, it's more than at that it's not enough. It's not been widespread enough.
It has been a situation where it's been focused on. You know, we have a lot of attention on the Maryland father who went to El Salvador.
When I think the issue is larger than a few of these cases. So that is probably the only complaint you would have from people who agree with him.
GLENN: One minute, ten seconds, and we're back to the show. Sometimes, sleep feels like a puzzle, you just can't solve, no matter how hard you try. You lay there, replaying the day. Your mind on a never-ending loop. And all of a sudden, morning is here. Comes too fast. Z Factor is a sleep supplement, designed to help you turn off that noise. Not with harsh sedation, but with a gentle, purposeful push toward real rest. It was created by the same team behind Relief Factor. And people understand how the body and the brain need different kinds of support. And Z Factor helps you quiet the rumbling thoughts so you fall asleep more easily, stay asleep more often, and awake feeling less fragile and more like yourself again.
Imagine going to bed without chasing sleep. Waking without that heavy fog, and having your day run, you know, on just fumes. This is about rest, that resets you, night after night. So tomorrow, is not a compromise. Because you just couldn't sleep last night. Z Factor, rest like you mean it.
First-time Z Factor buyers are going to enjoy 46 percent savings. 19.95 for a 30-day supply. Visit ReliefFactor.com. Or call 800-4-Relief.
(music)
Ten seconds, back to the show.
So let me take on now what happened with the shutdown. Here's cut 11. Trump on 60 Minutes last night.
VOICE: And the shutdown.
DONALD: Well, what we're doing is we keep voting. The Republicans are voting almost unanimously to end it. And the Democrats keep voting against any -- you know, they've never had this.
This has happened like 18 times before. The Democrats always voted for an extension.
Always saying, give us an extension. We'll work it out. They've lost their way. They've become crazed lunatics. And all they have to do, nor a,is say, let's vote!
VOICE: Senate Democrats say, they will vote to reopen the government if Republicans agree to extend subsidies for over 20 million Americans who use Obamacare for their health insurance.
DONALD: Obamacare is terrible.
It's bad health care at far too high a price.
We should fix that! We should fix it. And we can fix it with the Democrats. All they have to do is let the country open, and we will fix it. We have to let the country open, and I will sit down with the Democrats, and we'll fix it. But they have to let the country -- and you know what they have to do? All they have to do is raise five hands. We don't need all of them.
GLENN: Notice, I mean, he is pissed about this.
He wants to fix this.
He wants -- I mean, he does not like Obamacare. But he also is probably -- leans more. See if you agree with this, Stu.
Leans more towards the Democrat kind of fixing of health care than where I would lean. I would lean, shut it all off. Shut it all off. Get all of the government regulation out of insurance and everything else.
Let all of this stuff just be a free market again. And I think you would fix a lot of this.
I don't think that's Donald Trump's point of view. Do you?
STU: No. I don't think so.
Again, we talked about how the border say real passion issue for him. I don't think the health care thing is.
I just don't think that's central to his -- you know, his belief structure long-term.
You saw what happened. He tried to -- he did try, I think, at the beginning to get rid of Obamacare. I think there was a legitimate effort made. It did not work.
DONALD: Yeah. I don't think the Republicans did.
STU: Certainly, many did. Many did. Obviously, it failed. John McCain, famously.
GLENN: Yeah. Right.
STU: Although, that's a little bit blown out of proportion, as the moment where it failed. If it had actually failed before that, regardless, it was something that he promised voters that he would try to do. It didn't work. And I think he's moved on from those sorts of real solutions, that I wouldn't favor. That you would favor.
GLENN: Right. Let me play one more. Cut 12, please.
VOICE: Government shutdowns in the past. And you did it by -- members of Congress, into the White House.
DONALD: I'm not going to do it by extortion. I'm not going to do it by being extorted by the Democrats who have lost their way. There's something wrong with these people.
VOICE: So then what happens on November 5th, when the troops --
DONALD: Schumer is a basket case, and he has nothing to lose. He's become -- I just like Japan. He's become a kamikaze pilot.
VOICE: Sounds like it's not going to get solved the shutdown.
DONALD: It's going to get solved. Oh, it will get solved.
VOICE: How?
DONALD: We'll get it solved. Eventually, they will have to vote.
GLENN: How?
Because I'm on the completely reasonable side, and you seem completely unreasonable.
How? How is this ever going to stop?
Because you won't give the Democrats what they want.
She is so -- she's so mainstream old-fashioned media. Just sickening.
