If Bruce Was Never a He and Always a She, Who Won the Men's Olympic Gold in 1976?

ESPN has gone all in on diversity and the insanity is at a fever pitch. In a recent 30 for 30 documentary podcast on the 1992 Olympics, Dan and Dave, the stars of a massive Reebok advertising push, were interviewed about their experience. In the interview, the two dared to call Bruce Jenner a he even though he was still calling himself a he at the time.

This prompted ESPN to add this disclaimer to the podcast:

One note, this episode features references to legendary decathlete Caitlyn Jenner. First to be referred to as Bruce in regards to her decathlete career.

Wait a second, is there a legendary athlete named Caitlyn Jenner in the record books?

"They put a disclaimer at the beginning of this podcast to tell you that they're calling him Bruce when he was Bruce. However, even when Bruce or Caitlyn now says he wants to be referred to as Bruce, they still feel the need to tell you that it's Caitlyn and Caitlyn was the famous decathlete from the 1970s," Stu said on radio Friday.

"If Caitlyn Jenner --- if Bruce Jenner was a woman in 1976, which is what we're supposed to believe, we should strip the medals away from Bruce Jenner because Caitlyn was performing in the wrong decision... If Caitlyn Jenner was actually Bruce at the time and was a woman, that would be against Olympic rules to compete in that division."

This really should be a non-issue or at least not a complicated one, but somehow diversity has made everyone second guess everything.

"ESPN has gone --- and it's the Disney mentality. They've just gone nuts. They've just gone nuts," Glenn said.

"But it's not that complex. You're saying she is wrong. She was always a she and never a him, no matter what he says. By the way, don't you ever call him a him when it's her because of his choice to be her."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

STU: And since we're coming off bathroom talk, maybe we should start with the 30 for 30 documentary on the decathlon that just came out. ESPN just launched a podcast for the documentaries on that topic, and they tell great stories from sports history. They're really well done. Pat and I both love them. But I listened to the first one, which was about Dan and Dave. Do you remember Dan and Dave in the '90s? It was a huge --

PAT: Athletes. Expected to win the gold and silver for the Olympics.

STU: In 1992 in Barcelona. So Reebok, at the time at the time were competitors with Nike trying to raise their profile dumped $25 million into this ad campaign for these two guys that no one had ever heard of and built a rivalry leading up to the Olympics. Well, the whole story is -- I mean, it's a great story because they dumped all of this money in it, and it really didn't work out. Although, there are parts of it that did, and the documentary covers all the ins and outs of it. But when you're talking the decathlon and the Olympics, you're talking about Bruce Jenner, though. Bruce Jenner is the guy when you're talking about American history. 1976, he's the guy.

PAT: He was on Wheaties boxes. He was a household name. He was a major brand in and of himself. I mean, he was an American Moore.

STU: And I don't care --

GLENN: Notice the way we're even talking about this. We are discussing Bruce Jenner as if he's dead.

JEFFY: Was. Yeah. Was.

GLENN: He was a household name.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So the Bruce Jenner that we grew up with is dead.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: He has been reborn as Caitlyn, and in order to talk about him as a man, it has to be past tense.

STU: Right. So but when you're talking about him in that past tense, even if you are a person who says I'm calling them -- I'm calling her Caitlyn now, and you're fully onboard with that, you still refer to him as Bruce when you're talking about 1976; right?

GLENN: Yes, you have to.

PAT: And here's what they did. This is either Dan or Dave. I'm not sure.

>> I remember eating lunch with Bruce Jenner and Bruce kept telling me. Only thing people are going to remember is the Olympic games. And I thought to myself, man, this guy's crazy.

PAT: This guy is called Bruce. This man.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Are you saying that he's in trouble for this?

STU: Well, listen. There's another clip. I think we have Dave as well talking about this, Pat.

Well, it's interesting. Jackie Joyner-Kersey made the comment that I could be the next Bruce Jenner. And that is what I was striving to do, you know, most of my career. He was the hero that we all wanted to be in 1976, and he was the golden boy.

GLENN: This is all accurate.

PAT: Golden boy, hero.

STU: That's how you would do it; right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if you were completely onboard.

GLENN: Now here comes ESPN.

>> It's the story of a 1992 Reebok ad campaign 25 years ago this summer unlike anything anyone had seen before. Reebok spent some $25 million on the campaign featuring two top decathletes. A sum equal to their prior year's marketing budget. Those who remember the story remember it as a bust. But there are many more twists and turns along the way for Reebok, the two athletes, and the sport of track and field.

STU: All right. I'm ready.

>> One note, this episode features references to legendary decathlete Caitlyn Jenner.

PAT: Wait. What? Legendary athlete? There is no legendary decathlete Caitlyn Jenner. Look it up.

STU: You're not going to see it.

PAT: You're not going to see it.

>> First to be referred to as Bruce in regards to her decathlete career.

PAT: In regards to her decathlete.

>> So she prefers to be referred to as Bruce.

STU: They put a disclaimer at the beginning of this podcast to tell you that they're calling him Bruce when he was Bruce. However, even when Bruce or Caitlyn now says he wants to be referred to as Bruce, they still feel the need to tell you that it's Caitlyn and Caitlyn was the famous decathlete from the 1970s.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: We're rewriting history.

STU: We're rewriting history. Caitlyn is not in the record books.

PAT: There's no legendary decathlete named Caitlyn Jenner. There just isn't one.

STU: If Caitlyn Jenner -- if Bruce Jenner was a woman in 1976, which is what we're supposed to believe, we should strip the medals away from Bruce Jenner because Caitlyn was performing in the wrong decision. This is absolutely false advertising by her; right? If Caitlyn Jenner was actually Bruce at the time and was a woman, that would be against Olympic rules to compete in that division.

PAT: ESPN is ludicrous. They're ludicrous.

GLENN: ESPN has gone -- and it's the Disney mentality. They've just gone nuts. They've just gone nuts.

STU: I mean, I can understand. If you want to be onboard and say, hey, it's Caitlyn now, and I'm going to call her a her. Whatever she wants, we're going to do. But to change history and say there was a legendary decathlete named Caitlyn Jenner is just ridiculous.

GLENN: I don't have a problem with the disclaimer just because of all the people who can be it upon themselves to say I'm going to be the sentinel and the guardian for Caitlyn. I have no problem with the deal saying, hey, this story involves now Caitlyn Jenner who prefers to be called Bruce for this time period of his life. And then leave it at that. But what they did is they're being the guardians and basically saying, hey, we all have to accept him as her now because that's what he prefers. But he also prefers -- she also prefers to be called him for this time period, but we're not going to listen to that because we know better.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That's crazy.

STU: They're saying Bruce is wrong.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: That's how it comes off.

GLENN: Their bigotry is showing here.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They are not about "Oh, let's celebrate our diversity, and let's celebrate how each of us can make our own way and decide who we are. No. She just asked for you to call her him for this time period. Now it's complex.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: But it's not that complex. You're saying she is wrong. She was always a she and never a him, no matter what he says.

By the way, don't you ever call him a him when it's her because of his choice to be her.

STU: Because I think you can take it they put the disclaimer in to push aside liberal complaints about it.

GLENN: Yes, I agree.

STU: You can say that. However, the way they phrase it.

GLENN: The disclaimer is fine. But he starts with this includes Caitlyn.

STU: Legendary decathlete.

GLENN: That's in violation of what he just asked you to do.

PAT: Right. Right. So what -- I think they're covering their butts for other transgendered persons who don't feel the way Caitlyn Jenner does.

GLENN: Aren't we supposed to celebrate diversity?

STU: No. Absolutely not. Not in this circumstance.

GLENN: Aren't we supposed to celebrate what you want to do as an individual?

PAT: No.

GLENN: It exposes that as an absolute lie, and it exposes ESPN as nothing but cowards. Just cowards. This is not the only one, though. Have you seen the ad -- I don't even know. Who is running it?

PAT: NCAA is running it.

GLENN: NCAA. The one. Are we talking about the same ad where they're saying --

PAT: The gender thing?

GLENN: Yeah. Gender doesn't play sports?

PAT: Yeah, listen to this. By the way, these are a whole bunch of different women playing sports here.

>> Enough.

GLENN: Uh-oh.

>> Yeah, I'm over it.

>> We shouldn't need commercials to tell you we're powerful.

>> No thanks.

>> Genders don't play sports.

>> Athletes do.

GLENN: Then why do we have title 9?

PAT: Right. We don't need it anymore. If there's no gender in sports.

GLENN: Why do we have the WNBA? I would really like to suggest to the NBA that they start to draft women.

STU: The NBA subsidizes the WNBA. There would be no Ws in the WNBA if that was the case.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.