Glenn Beck: More Van Jones lunacy



Free audio, click here to listen

GLENN: Okay, so here's the thing. This is back way back in '09, February of '09. And this is in Berkeley, California?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. So it's got to be good. Now, somebody in Berkeley I understand asked him a question that I'd like to ask him. Here it is.

(Audio plays).

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You can barely hear it. She says some people are saying, and what I'd like an answer to is are you a Marxist and some of the policies that you are advocating sound Marxist. Here it is.

(Audio plays)

GLENN: Stop. Stop, stop. University of California‑Berkeley. Sounds kind of Marxist. Why do you suppose they're laughing? Are they laughing because that's a ridiculous question or are they laughing ‑‑

PAT: No.

GLENN: Of course it is. Of course it is. You decide. But here's his answer.



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


(Audio plays)

VOICE: How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year?

GLENN: Stop. His response, are these Marxist policies, how's that capitalism working out for you. Not just once. Three times. How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year? This is February '09. Okay. So then he says, look, I'm the best friend of capitalists. Listen to this.


in this page of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this page of the struggle.

GLENN: Stop. This is important. We want to make sure it's in context. At this stage of the struggle, and I want to stress that it is only at this stage of the struggle. Stu, you watch the entire speech. What are the ‑‑ what does that mean?

STU: Well, he's talking about the fight to bring back what's right obviously, the justice and democracy and all the things that hope and change is supposed to provide for us.

GLENN: Democracy is code, Democratic elections, et cetera, et cetera. Because remember we're not a democracy. If you want to look at it through the progressive eyes, they changed us in language from a republic to a democracy. The reason why they did that is because the same reason why Chavez ‑‑ they even make this case with Iran. Iran, those were Democratic elections. Really? The people want to be stoned to death in the square? Really, that's what that is? They were elected through the Democratic process. Hugo Chavez, he campaigned not as a communist, not as a dictator. He just did the things he didn't want to do. He just had to do because, well, there were some evil forces out there and there were some emergencies. He didn't campaign as a communist or a dictator. He became one because he had to. And he was elected through the Democratic process.

STU: And this is part of his answer to the previous thing that we heard about Marxism. And he's explaining that, you know, he's working within the system. He's working with businesses and he's trying to make things green through the system at the moment and then he ‑‑

GLENN: At the moment.

PAT: But we heard yesterday or we heard this morning, too, what he wants to do with the system.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's working through the system now. But the system has to change.

GLENN: Play it again. Play it again, the system has to change. Remember ‑‑

VAN JONES: This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system. We're going to change the whole thing.

GLENN: Stop. Okay, now, here is his ‑‑ here is his statement on how he's the best friend of capitalists at this stage in code language, the struggle.

VAN JONES: In this stage of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best (inaudible) capitalist ever had. Thank you very much.

(Applause).

GLENN: What do you think that means? What do you think that means? I mean, America ‑‑

PAT: You are taking that out of context. That's just one thing he said, at that moment. That's one thing he said.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: I notice you didn't play the entire hour and a half. Why?

GLENN: It's available. It's available.

STU: It's the only thing he said at that moment, Pat, that's correct.

PAT: That's the only thing I'm saying at that moment, you took it out of context.

GLENN: Listen to how insidious this is. Listen to him again the way he says, "And I will only tell you about this stage of the struggle." This has areas in it that we're going to highlight here in a second that get extraordinarily dark. Listen to what he said here.

VAN JONES: In this stage of the struggle.

GLENN: Listen to what he said.

VAN JONES: And I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best (inaudible) capitalist ever had. Thank you very much.

GLENN: Okay. Now, let me just hit one more. This will be Cut 7. One more on the game that we're playing. They have to be very careful with their language because they can't come out and say, "I'm a communist." I mean, he has. And he seems to be getting away with it, which is weird. You have to be a detective. Why? Well, let Van Jones himself explain why.

VAN JONES: And this won't ‑‑ we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have to prepare ourselves. We can't just push the people. We can push for (inaudible), but the people ‑‑ it must be a dance, you know. We have to listen, listen, listen, listen. And then learn. And then co‑lead, try to coauthor a different future with folks. And we have to assume that's going to take a long time, but sometimes what should have taken another 20 years, Barack Hussein Obama, can take a season.

GLENN: I mean, America, am I wrong? Where is the press? We have listened to how insidious that was. We have to listen, listen and learn and maybe coauthor. And what should have taken 20 years, sometimes it only takes a season. Listen again to the very beginning of Cut 7. I want you to listen because he doesn't say "Will take." He says "Won't." Listen carefully.

VAN JONES: And this won't ‑‑ we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have ‑‑

GLENN: Stop. We have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. I'm telling you something wicked this way comes. I pray every night for more time. I don't know what anyone has in mind, but they are very well aware of an event. An event is coming and they will use that event to seize power. You are looking at the administration of Chavez. Stu is looking at me like, how do you ‑‑ how am I not saying? Listen to Cut, listen to Cut 2 and you tell me. You tell ‑‑ Stu, help me out here.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Tell me how someone can say these things. This is the game plan of Chavez. And unless the president comes out and says, "Hey, hey, hey, I didn't know any of these things," get out, get away. I disavow all of these things. You have to assume ‑‑ isn't it reasonable ‑‑ if it's not, help me out. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the president knows about it and is with it?

STU: Well, I mean, it's ‑‑ you can certainly make the argument, I'm sure they would, this is one guy in his administration, he's working on one specific task, he's ‑‑ you know, he may or may not have known about this speech. I don't know. But he is one of the ‑‑ it doesn't mean that ‑‑ I think you can make a legitimate case, a very obvious case that Van Jones wants that. I mean, Van Jones clearly and seemingly outwardly is pushing for ‑‑

GLENN: America must stand up. Then America must stand up. You are looking ‑‑ then let me rephrase. You are looking at a man who I truly believe could be a member of the Chavez administration, and America must stand up and ask this administration: Are you a Chavez administration or are you an American administration. Are you ‑‑ do you believe in capitalism, do you believe in the Constitution, do you believe in the founding of our country or do you believe in a strongman. And here's why I say a strongman. And I'm telling you, you know when people say that Barack Obama ‑‑ play the place where he says, you know, we need to have a civilian military that is as well funded, et cetera, et cetera. People are saying, no, he just wants a ‑‑ you know, he just wants a diplomatic corps. A diplomatic corps? You don't call that a civilian security force. That's not what that's called. That's called a diplomatic corps, not a civilian security force. Here's what he said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

GLENN: Okay, stop. I'm telling you I am putting some pieces together of Van Jones and some other events that are going on that are terrifying. And I am not going to bring them to you until I have all of the pieces and make sure that all of them have been vetted six ways to Sunday. But here I will give you a piece in his own words. If you're looking for a leader that is the guy who's going to put the boots on the ground, who knows how to, knows how to engage people in fear and scare tactics and bullying and revolutionary tactics, it's Van Jones. Now, here's one piece. Play just the beginning of this. This is what has been heard before. I'm not going to, quote, selectively edit because this is not about the Republicans. There is so much more. This has just come out. Listen to this.

VOICE: How were the Republicans able to push things through when they had less than 60 senators but somehow we can't?

VAN JONES: Well, the answer to that is they're [ BLEEP ].

GLENN: Okay, stop. The Republicans are A‑holes. That's his answer and that's the one that's going around on the Internet right now. I have to take a break because of the network restrictions here, but when I come back I'm going to play the rest of it and... friends, Americans, countrymen, you tell me this is about the Republicans and you tell me this man isn't just a communist, a revolutionary, in his own words. I believe this man is a danger to the republic, a real danger.

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 youtu.be

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" youtu.be


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.