Glenn talks with 20/20's John Stossel




Don't miss Glenn Beck tonight on ABC's 20/20 at 10 PM ET. For a sneak preview click here...


Photo credit: ABC News



GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America and strangely we're proud of that. Hello and welcome. My name is Glenn Beck. John Stossel is on the phone with me. John is doing a piece on 20/20 where they followed me around for I believe 400 days and wow, what a I mean, you are going to look at this piece at the end and say what a colossal waste of time and money that was, really seriously. But he is doing a piece on me tonight and I'm going to speak in very nice tones to him because it hasn't aired yet. Too late either way.

STOSSEL: Too late. We are going to trash you, the dirt we have found on you.

GLENN: Let me ask you something, because you really did, you guys followed me I think for three solid days, two or three solid days. Did I say anything that is going to get me fired?

STOSSEL: No.

GLENN: Did I say anything that made you go, "Holy cow"?

STOSSEL: Yeah. When you said that you only became a Mormon because you wanted to have sex with your wife.

GLENN: Well, that

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Can I tell you something, John? Remember in the piece I said she hits me? I got so she hit me so hard after that, she's like, I can't believe you said that! I said, you should have said that then! Why are you hitting me now when you didn't do it on TV, make me look like a liar.

STOSSEL: Yeah, be better if she hit you right in front of the camera.

GLENN: I know. I would have had evidence. So John, we'll talk about that later. It's on tonight, 20/20. You don't want to miss it, or you may want to miss it. I'm not really sure at this point. Only John really knows, but that is on ABC 20/20 tonight where you kind of get a glimpse of my life, a little bit of the tour. I know you guys were there for the tour. I don't know what you included. And also me at home as well. So anyway

STOSSEL: We're still cutting it together. So some things are going in and other things are coming out.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

STOSSEL: It is frustrating in that we did follow you for several days and our story will be about eight minutes long. Heck, you're on TV for ten times that every day.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, John. Is this the story you expected to get?

STOSSEL: Yeah, I think it is. I mean, I

GLENN: I don't like the way you say that.

STOSSEL: I had never seen your comedy tour before. So I don't know all of what you do. I know you have a checkered past and I know you used to put away a lot of booze and you wrecked your career. So much of what we have on I already knew. I don't know that all your listeners do.

GLENN: Now, let me ask you this, John. When you said "I didn't know you did a comedy tour," I'm a little nervous just because, have you read the reviews from the New York Times, Newsweek?

STOSSEL: That was I just read them. I had never really met you before except briefly on the air and we do the interview and then I say, "Oh, the Times is covering the comedy tour, giving it great display. Maybe they got interested." And what a snarky, smarmy review. "Oh, there's no one in the theater with me here in New York. Oh, this lady came in and, oh, she was lost." I mean, it's like they felt they had to cover you because you're a big hit but then they couldn't even cover the content.

GLENN: Yeah, they couldn't cover it honestly. Let me switch gears and go to David Letterman because it's the same kind of thing. First of all, when it comes to people's children, I think your children are off limits. Let's leave politicians' children alone, let's leave families of anybody alone. Just leave them alone unless it's like Bernie Madoff's kids, you know what I mean, that are actually involved in it, or Chelsea Clinton when she was 25 and campaigning. Then, you know, you've got something they are bringing themselves into the story. But is it amazing to you on two stories, first the David Letterman, what the press has done to Sarah Palin, whether she is smart or dumb, this woman doesn't have a chance of survival with the media the way it is now, does she?

STOSSEL: It's a fatal conceit to predict what will happen, but

GLENN: Well, how do let me rephrase the question. How does somebody get a fair shake in the media, John? You've been in the media forever. How does somebody with a differing opinion from the elite view in New York, how do you survive?

STOSSEL: It's very, very tough because a lot of people believe time, Newsweek and the Washington Post and New York Times and they are powerful not because they have a big audience. Their audience is a fraction of yours, but the sense all over the media and local TV hosts all copy what they read in the New York Times. You really can get totally smeared. But at least now there are so many other choices. If it was ever possible, it's possible now.

GLENN: You've been following the shooting at the Holocaust museum?

STOSSEL: Only slightly. I mean, I was with you when you learned about it.

GLENN: Oh, that's right, you were.

STOSSEL: That you turned your show upside down for it because, I don't know. I mean, 20,000 people are killed by gunshot every day every year, sorry, and certain ones we consider much more important, a shot if it happens in a prominent place, if politicians were involved. I mean, this was one horrible, I also know why it's such a big story.

GLENN: Here is my angle on it because I forgot you guys were following me that day and you were in the office when that happened and I found out about it and we were working in a different, completely different way for the show and we flipped it all upside down and went in that direction and here's why. Because of what I believe is coming with the press. I think the press is I mean, have you noticed that this guy's rightwing? I mean, that's the way the press is he's a rightwing zealot. Since when is rightwing somebody who hates all the Jews? When is that rightwing? That's crazy. That's racist. That's not rightwing.

STOSSEL: Well, even crazy is that there are lots of people in the mainstream media who are hard right and far right, but nobody's ever hard left or far left.

GLENN: I just, I find it amazing that the media, when the abortion doctor was killed, immediately it was Bill O'Reilly's fault. When this guy goes and shoots, immediately, immediately it's, you know, it's the far right that's doing it. When the Muslim convert, the guys goes down in, where was it, Alabama and shoots our recruiters, he's just an isolated incident. It's so clear the bias in the media.

STOSSEL: What's remarkable is how so many of my colleagues would deny that. And not that they are lying. They genuinely don't see it. They are so surrounded by people who think just as they do and they read the New York Times that they just think that's the world, like asking a fish about water. What water?

GLENN: So this is why they just think we're stupid because we're just not readers or whatever it is. I can't tell you how many things my audience has been called, you know, that we're just not smart. I will put my audience against any audience. It is a very well read, very smart audience. And here we have these elitists whose numbers are dwindling in newspapers, magazines, television, everything. You would think somebody somewhere would say, you know what? Maybe we're wrong. Maybe we're wrong because nobody's reading our crap anymore. Nobody's doing this anymore, yet they just seem to get more and more embittered on their own point of view.

STOSSEL: But they can make a pretty good argument that they, or I should say we are losing audience not because we are saying the wrong things but because people have more choices.

GLENN: Yeah, but more choices, if you are providing what people want, they will go to it. I mean, my example is AM radio. You've got a lot of choices now, a ton of choices. AM radio is not easily accessible. It sounds like crap, it's staticy, go under a bridge, blah, blah blah, but this is the place offering this kind of content. People aren't going to go buy a magazine if you have the right content, they are not going to go buy a newspaper, but they will find they will seek out AM radio?

STOSSEL: Well, that's a good point and you're certainly proving your point with your ratings.

GLENN: John, I was thinking the other day, what I try to get across, and I you are probably the guy to make this point. The argument that we have about left/right in this country is so incredibly stupid because if the guy on the right is the guy who is a racist and a Nazi, a Nazi, then the guy on the left would have to be Stalin. Well, that is an argument between big government and big government. Well, I don't want either of those and I don't think most Americans want that, and they will say, well, I'm in the middle. Well, no, you're not. You're not in the middle of that. You don't want those to be your two ends. You want big government at one end and no government on the other end. What is how do you make the case to people now that we are arguing a ridiculous argument, we have been conned into a strawman argument here of big government versus big government. The best kind of government is the smallest. It doesn't matter. If Germany wouldn't have had a huge government, you know, and would have rejected framework, they could have had Hitler in, but he wouldn't have had any power to do anything, you know? It doesn't matter if Obama is in if he doesn't have the power to do anything. Doesn't matter if George Bush is in if he doesn't have the power to do anything. The smallest government is the one that is the best, but nobody seems to understand the small government idea anymore.

STOSSEL: Well, I certainly agree with you there and one of the things I'm happiest about our profile of you tonight is I got a number of lines where you make the point about the size of the state and freedom and how you don't you are accused of being a Republican shill, but you take on both parties. But I don't know that most Americans want that. I do. And I wish they did but it's not intuitive. It wasn't intuitive to me. Thomas Jefferson said it's the natural progress of things for government to grow and liberty to yield. And I think if you ask most Americans, do you want government to make sure you're safe, well, yeah. Do you want government to make sure that you have healthcare or you guaranteed a right to healthcare? I think most people would say, "Yes," I want government to make sure the poor are taken care of, that we had food, clothing, shelter.

GLENN: So make the case against that, John. Make the case against government healthcare.

STOSSEL: The case against government healthcare is that it would be like the motor vehicle's experience, it would be like the post office, that it might be okay at the beginning, the eager beavers come in like the peace corps and they might do an okay job. But government always atrophies, the quality always atrophies. It took 70 years for the Soviet Union to fail. The best car the planned economies could produce was the Trabant. It was so bad you had to put the oil and gas in separately and shake the car to mix them together and yet that was the best that the government could produce and yet people think of government as, yes, they will take care of me. But it won't get better. We won't have innovation and eventually you'll have horrible lines and lousy treatment.

GLENN: Yesterday the Senate approved taking over and regulating all tobacco, et cetera, et cetera, and they made this big case that this is so great because people are going to stop smoking and they are going to be able to regulate. Aren't they paying for children's healthcare through smokers?

STOSSEL: Well, first they don't like it, then they were going to punish it by taxing it. But I think Americans say, "Well, we're never going to get rid of smoking or beer. So let's just tax it and support wonderful government."

GLENN: Yeah, but if they're trying to also stomp it out. I mean, I think they should be running ads promoting smoking. If they are going to be getting rich off it, if they are going to be running all these government programs, they shouldn't be trying to stomp out what's giving them money. That's like me going in the radio business and then going on the radio and saying radio is bad.

STOSSEL: There's a good parallel in gambling. The Republicans have banned Internet gambling and put all kinds of restrictions on gambling in various forms but then they get elected and their states depend on the lottery for money which and they introduced the lottery because we have to get the numbers racket out of business. But the Mafia numbers runners were offering much better odds than the states do.

GLENN: How did you survive in television so long?

STOSSEL: I started as a consumer reporter bashing business and everybody liked that and so I had established my reputation, and once I woke up to the evil of regulation and big government and changed focus, I had to fight for it and it was touch and go for a while, but I had a reputation already and now ABC will often say, you know, "Well, we don't agree with you but these are ideas that deserve to be heard."

GLENN: Did you think about editing me out of the interview tonight where my wife is sitting next to her because next to me just because I look so horrible in comparison?

STOSSEL: She does look a lot better than you do.

GLENN: I mean, I don't I mean, you could have just said "No" to that, John. You could have

STOSSEL: No.

GLENN: (Laughing). I haven't seen the piece yet, you know, but I have to say in a time where the, you know, media never does its job, you guys did an awful lot of work and very in depth and I could regret saying giving you any kind of credibility on this, you know, come, well, come tonight. But as it stands right now, I'm going to kiss your butt and say that you guys did a great job and then I'll, of course, on Monday deny it and say these guys didn't even do their homework, how could they possibly say they had film of me saying that, huh? Oh, boy.

STOSSEL: I'm dreading that, but it is what it is.

GLENN: I know. Thank you very much, John, I appreciate it.

STOSSEL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet, bye bye. John Stossel tonight on 20/20.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.