Glenn Beck: Caller makes huge mistake

Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

GLENN: Let's go to Raj in Philadelphia, hello, Raj.

CALLER: How in the world does being a progressive, a reactionary, a person who reacts to the climate of their times, how in the world does that make you antifreedom when most every social and political battle that took place in this country and was one was spearheaded by progressive and progressive organizations and groups? How does that make you antifreedom?

GLENN: Explain early as Hillary Clinton calls it, early 20th Century American progressivism. What does it believe?

CALLER: I'm not sure. I don't want to get into trying to explain it. I'm not too familiar with it.

GLENN: Explain progressive. Explain progressivism as understand it.

CALLER: How will you answer my question with a question?

GLENN: I cannot answer your question, sir, if I don't know how you define progressivism.

CALLER: I'll let you know. I look at progressivism as reactionaries.

GLENN: What does that mean?

CALLER: A person who reacts and changes along with the climate of our times. People who are willing to move forward and get things done according to the climate of our times. There were years centuries ago when homosexuals were not being looked as they are looked at now in our country. But because progressives, because this happened to be whatever you call it, this is just a trend, a culture of part of our culture of this country of homosexuals getting their rights and doing the things they want to do, we, progressives, are those who went to fight for laws and freedoms for homosexuals to be able to do the things that they are able to do now that they weren't able to do 40 or 50, 60 years ago in this country. Do you understand that?

GLENN: First of all, yeah, you don't have to talk down to me, Raj. First of all, I never heard reactionary ‑‑

CALLER: I'm just not as articulate as you are, that's all, Glenn.

GLENN: First of all, I've never heard the word reactionary used as a positive before. And I can understand why you now don't understand progressivism as anything other than freedom because you have one part of it actually right. The one part that you do understand, unfortunately you don't apparently know the history or you've chosen to dismiss it because you didn't include it, and that's the important part, the one part that you do have is the evolutionary idea of the progressive movement. The progressive movement really grew out of the same time that Darwinism did. That's why the progressive movement were the ones that came up with ‑‑ what do you call it? Eugenics. Because they have this idea that man progresses. Man changes. Man evolves. And so the best idea, the eugenics came from the progressive idea of evolution, came from the idea of we can make a better society by not allowing those people that are not as whole, not as people, not a quality of life, inferior in some way or another, including African‑Americans, those were included in the early 20th Century American progressives. What they decided to do is either not let them mate or ex terminate. That's what it turned into over in Europe when it left our shores. Promoted by doctors, it left our shores and became "let's ex terminate those and we can have a master race." That was a progressive idea.

The other way that they took evolutionary ideas is they said "there is no truth. It evolves. So we hold these truths to be self‑evident, the early 20th Century progressives said" those truths were self‑evident then. But there is no self‑evident now that relates back then. All truth is up to the individual in his time period. There is no self‑truth.

So you have that part down. You have the "let's just evolve." but what you don't have down is the idea that there is no God. There is nature's God and nature's laws do not exist. There is the idea that the progressives have ‑‑ and that is: God doesn't exist, therefore the state must exist. The state is the one that gives you the rights. It tells you ‑‑ it, you, man, is not born with rights given or endowed unto him by his creator. He is not born with rights. The state issues those rights and the state can take those rights away at any time if it is deemed in the self‑interest for the collective. That's the part you're missing is you want to look at the collective as a happy thing. But if the collective is run by people that don't necessarily agree with you, well, then you're out. What would happen, Raj, if you didn't like the new truth?

CALLER: But that is not really considered the new truth. That's someone else's understanding of what they want to consider the new truth.

GLENN: Let's just say, Raj, let's just say, because the Republicans have been progressives, as well. George Bush is a progressive.

CALLER: Right.

GLENN: You agree with that, Raj?


GLENN: Did you agree with George Bush in all of his truths?


GLENN: So the stronger the government gets, Raj, under a progressive, the stronger it gets, the more rights it takes from the people that they don't agree with. That's why you don't want to get into bed with progressives, on Republicans or Democrats, because you have the rights; they don't see it that way. The state does for the good of the collective. But if you happen to be on the opposing side, well then you've just lost everything. So if you didn't like George Bush and you thought he was taking away freedoms, then you should understand the progressive movement.

Avenatti arrested: The lawyer now needs a lawyer

David McNew/Getty Images

At this point, I think there are about - oh - four thousand potential Democrats that may try and run for president in 2020. But we can probably take one off the list. "The creepy porn lawyer", also known by some as Michael Avenatti, was arrested yesterday afternoon in Los Angeles. And the reason why he was arrested kind of makes you think there's some kind of invisible force out there that's making sure either irony or maybe even karma is receiving it's daily offering. Michael Avenatti was just arrested for… Domestic Violence.

The alleged victim filed the complaint on Wednesday, but the incidents began on Tuesday. The woman involved is said to have bruising and swelling on her face and was kicked out of Avenatti's Los Angeles area apartment. Avenatti could be heard screaming, "This is BS, this is effing BS! She hit me first!"

RELATED: THIS spotlight hound masquerading as an attorney just got laughed out of court

Yeah, I don't think the whole "she hit me first" line is going to be a good strategy to use in court. He might want to revise that… I'm just saying.

You know, I wonder if the media - specifically CNN and MSNBC - are going to be doing any mea culpa's over the next 12 to 24 hours? They basically became Avenatti's PR wing over the past 8 months. From March to May, the two networks had Avenatti on the air over 100 times. He gave 147 interviews on both cable and network TV. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell actually said quote, "Michael Avenatti is becoming my co-host. I've got to say."

And this was actually before he dragged Julie Swetnick into the limelight to attack Kavanaugh. You know I wonder, will this teach networks like CNN and MSNBC to maybe take a step back on over hyping and exposing every crazy, and even salacious, person or claim that comes out simply because it may be anti-Trump or GOP? Could this be a learning moment? Yeah… probably not, but one can dream.

And speaking of Kavanaugh, I've got to read this twitter exchange between one user and Avenatti on October 5th that said:

Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and it's Michael Avenatti's fault. Seriously.

And then Avenatti replied:

You are right. I should have turned my back on my client. Told her to "shut up" and stay quiet because people like you apparently believe assault victims are to blame. This line of thinking is disgusting and offensive to all survivors.

Well that was then and this is today. Here is Avenatti's statement last night.

Michael Avenatti: 'I Have Never Struck A Woman' | NBC News

Umm, in the court of Avenatti, #metoo and public opinion now a days - by the standard that he helped create - is this statement not "disgusting and offensive to all survivors" as he tweeted back in October? Is he not immediately guilty as accused? I wonder if all the men and women screaming at Kavanaugh and GOP Senators in elevators can now see the pandora's box that they wanted opened.

The answer is no… he's NOT guilty as accused. Avenatti is innocent of this crime… UNTIL he's found guilty. We have to presume he's innocent until all evidence comes out proving he's not. That's how this works. Let's lead by example and do something radical here… let's actually wait for all the information and evidence to come out before we convict someone of a crime.

And that right there is the real irony here. Avenatti will get the due process that he deserves, but I doubt neither he - nor anyone screaming for Kavanaugh's head - will realize what happened.

It's been a busy week for former First Ladies, and for current First Lady Melania Trump. It has also been busy for one woman who, twenty-odd years ago, while working at the White House for then-President at the age of 21, shot to fame in the most embarrassing way possible.

Monica Lewinsky has released "The Clinton Affair," a docuseries that premieres this weekend on A&E;, a six-part series examining those cringe-inducing days and months surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton.

RELATED: The #MeToo movement proves to be too strong for the Clinton apologists

In an article for Vanity Fair early this year, she wrote:

Some closest to me asked why would I want to revisit the most painful and traumatic parts of my life — again. Publicly. On-camera. With no control of how it would be used. A bit of a head-scratcher, as my brother is fond of saying. Do I wish I could erase my years in D.C. from memory, 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' style? Well, is the sky blue? But I can't. And in order to move forward in the life I have, I must take risks — both professional and emotional…. An important part of moving forward is excavating, often painfully, what has gone before. When politicians are asked uncomfortable questions, they often duck and dodge by saying, 'That's old news. It's from the past.' Yes. That's exactly where we need to start to heal — with the past. But it's not easy.

She added:

Filming the documentary forced me to acknowledge to myself past behavior that I still regret and feel ashamed of," she explained. "There were many, many moments when I questioned not just the decision to participate, but my sanity itself. Despite all the ways I tried to protect my mental health, it was still challenging. During one therapy session, I told my therapist I was feeling especially depressed. She suggested that sometimes what we experience as depression is actually grief… Yes, it was grief. The process of this docuseries led me to new rooms of shame that I still needed to explore.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton—a man who has been accused of all sorts of terrible things, a close friend of Harvey Weinstein—recently admitted that he didn't feel the need to apologize to Lewinsky. Lewinsky disagrees.

I'm less disappointed by him, and more disappointed for him. He would be a better man for it… and we, in turn, a better society.

The #MeToo movement has been a wrecking ball to so many men, yet Bill Clinton, perhaps the most prolific of them all, has escaped unscathed.

One man undoes shocking climate change study because... math

Pierre Leverrier/Unsplash

The left cries "science" about anything they want to consider a settled matter. Those who disagree with the left's climate change narrative question this "science." So, the climate change crowd are branded hysterical tree-huggers, and the anti-climate change crowd are naïve hicks.

The truth about climate change, like the truth when it comes to many issues, probably falls somewhere between the two extremes. But when it comes to climate change, it's hard to have a conversation about the "science" when the scientists running the show are already convinced they're absolutely correct and they have the unquestioning major media to back them up.

RELATED: 🤣😂🤣: WaPo claims climate change is the real reason for migrant invasion

Just two weeks ago, a study published in the scientific journal Nature claimed that the oceans are warming much faster than anyone previously thought. Cue the panic and blame the President! It was a high-profile story splashed across major media outlets who were eager to promote more science that confirms one of the left's fundamental doctrines.

The study claimed ocean temperatures have risen around 60% higher than the estimate by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But Nicholas Lewis, a British mathematician and climate-change critic quickly found a "major problem" with the study's conclusion.

Then yesterday, the two scientists who wrote the study admitted Lewis is right about the mistakes they made in their calculations. Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported. Climate scientist Ralph Keeling, who co-authored the report, says they miscalculated their margin of error – which is 10 to 70% – much larger than they originally thought.

Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported.

A 10 to 70 percent margin of error? I thought this climate change science was absolute. Imagine if your job had a margin of error that generous.

Keeling said:

Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.

The whole incident is being laughed off as a minor error. But if it wasn't for some British dude poring over this research in his basement and willing to cry foul, this latest climate change "science" would continue to be broadcast as absolute truth. Just like it always is.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Ocean Warming Research “Mistake"

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, from California, is doing everything she can to make sure she is re-elected in January to her spot as House Speaker.

Reasons Nancy Pelosi could give: Because she led the Democratic caucus for 16 years, and under her the House shifted hands. In fact, she was House Speaker for four years under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

RELATED: Sorry Nancy Pelosi, Apple's record-shattering buyback program is proof positive tax breaks work

Reason she actually gave: Because she's a woman.

During an interview on CBS Sunday, Pelosi said:

You cannot have the four leaders of Congress [and] the president of the United States, these five people, and not have the voice of women. Especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers in campaigns, and now part of this glorious victory.

The pink wave, they're calling it. A rise in women politicians, supposedly in reaction to Donald Trump.

Here's the general argument, as described by Politico:

Push her out, and men may take over the party at a time when more than 100 women are heading to Capitol Hill and after female voters have been thoroughly alienated by President Donald Trump. Embrace her, and she'll prioritize legislation empowering women on issues ranging from equal pay to anti-harassment legislation.

Of course, she has a reason to use identity politics instead of merit: There's a concerted effort to have her un-seated.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out. Filemon Vela said:

I am 100% confident we can forge new leadership.

Led by, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), these are the representatives who have openly called for Pelosi's outing: Reps. Bill Foster (D-IL), Seth Moulton (DMA), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Conor Lamb (D-PA), and Filemon Vela (D-TX). Campaign staff for incoming Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Jason Crow (D-CO) have said they won't vote for Pelosi.

If they have a single ounce of dignity left, they won't, at least not just because she is a woman.