Glenn Beck: 2 out of 3 ain't bad




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


GLENN: Well, let's take a look at what happened yesterday. I have heard some unbelievable spin on television and ‑‑

PAT: Like what?

GLENN: Hmmm?

PAT: Like what? That the Democrats were running uphill in New Jersey?

GLENN: No.

PAT: I mean, New Jersey, the most liberal, one of the most liberal Democrat states.

GLENN: No, forget about the liberal states.

PAT: An incumbent running uphill?

GLENN: And how much more did he spend?

PAT: Two to one.

STU: Yeah, if you've got double the money, you are a self, self‑finance, you can spend pretty much whatever you want.

PAT: Whatever you want.

STU: You are in a liberal state, you are a liberal guy.

PAT: Obama showed up in the last, what, week to support and still lost by five.

GLENN: May I just play word association game. New Jersey.

PAT: Corruption.

GLENN: New Jersey?

PAT: Corruption.

GLENN: New Jersey.

PAT: Corruption.

GLENN: It's corruption, unions, mob, ACORN. I mean, if you want to talk about a state where you can throw the election. I mean, I just, I kept thinking last night with New Jersey, please just don't let it be close enough for a recount because if it's a recount, I mean, it's over.

STU: The great, great stat out of the exit polls last night.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Of you've got, you want to know how bad the taxes are in New Jersey. You have a state that just fired 40 officials for corruption, and corruption was still behind property taxes.

GLENN: That's amazing.

PAT: Look, stop asking Jon Corzine to mop a certain way, all right? He's just picking up a mop and he's mopping.

GLENN: All he's doing.

PAT: It's not a corrupt mop, it's not a socialist mop.

GLENN: It's a mop.

PAT: It's standing on the sidelines and telling him how to mop.

STU: That one's surprising, though.

GLENN: New Jersey is surprising.

STU: I have to apologize, New Jersey. I called you out and I said you would not be able to do it. I would not have believed it. That's amazing.

GLENN: Well, so we have New Jersey. And again remember only outspent 2‑1 and had, what, 115,000 votes for an independent?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And still one. Then you have Virginia. Now look, you can hear all you want about, well, it's always, it goes the opposite way. Really? By 20 points? By 20 points?

PAT: A landslide. That was a mandate.

GLENN: Then you have New York 23, and I love the propaganda on this one. First of all, this just shows ‑‑ I mean, when you've lost Virginia by 20 points, Corzine loses in the most corrupt state in the union. No, my apologies to Massachusetts. You may actually be ‑‑

PAT: And Louisiana.

STU: And Illinois.

PAT: And Illinois.

GLENN: Isn't that weird where all these policies are coming from. It's weird. But anyway, when you lose that, when you've got the Democrats coming out and saying, yeah, but the congressional district 23. And here's their case: Well, you know, this just shows the failure of the tea party. Okay. Let's just go through this. Let's just go through this. If I heard that one more time last night, I was going to blow my head off. Here it is. This is the failure, okay? That a guy who is not electric ‑‑

PAT: A total unknown.

STU: An accountant.

PAT: Start with that.

GLENN: Could I make the case?

STU: You are making a good, so far ‑‑

PAT: You are making it wrong. So we're trying to help.

GLENN: He is not electric at all. He is ‑‑ I mean, God bless him.

STU: Admittedly.

GLENN: Yeah. I like him, but he is not, he's not flashy. He's an accountant eight weeks ago that nobody even knew, a complete unknown. He's a third party guy. The Republicans spent with what's her face, Scuzzia, they gave her, I believe it was $800,000? Is that right?

STU: It's about a million.

PAT: They had $4 million in the coffers.

GLENN: To destroy him. To destroy him. Then she drops out of the race and then she unites with the Democrats who are also spending money hand over fist to destroy the accountant! And you win by 3 points? That's a victory? You've double‑teamed an accountant and you only won by three points. Boy, you guys are good.

PAT: Yeah, what a failure that tea party was.

GLENN: That's like the Yankees playing a high school team and winning by three runs. Oh, wow!

STU: Yeah. And I think even Doug Hoffman would admit that he had no right to be against the political machine and be that close.

GLENN: Right. And here's what the ‑‑ forget about the Democrats. Here's what the Republicans should learn. The tea party movement, if you think you're going to run people that are going to be, you know, ACORN wannabes and they're just part of the corruption, part of the system, if you're going to run those people, you can expect a tea party guy to come out, and the tea parties, they'll help you lose every single election. Every single election. Because I for one am not ‑‑ if I believe in the Republican, I'll vote for the Republican. But if you're running somebody who's like part of the system, I'm not interested. I'm not interested. And I think that a lot of Americans are like that. So the Republicans have a choice to make. You can either spend a million dollars trying to destroy a third party accountant, or you could say, wow, this accountant probably would come in within three points of beating the Democrat if we combined our efforts, Republicans and Democrats, spent a fortune, had our candidate then drop out and campaign for the Democrats, we might be able to come in with about a 3‑point margin. You might want to just say, "Maybe we should go with the accountants. Maybe we should go with the regular people."

STU: It's so funny the way they spin the blame on this. The current thing was two close candidates and someone who got about 5%, the Republican in this case got 5%. So who ‑‑ and in a close race. So who's at fault? In this one, of course, it's still the conservative. If it was reverse and it was a Democrat and Republican that were close and the conservative third party only got 5% but it was this close, who else would be blamed? Of course the conservative would be blamed in that case, too.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It doesn't even matter. Just, it's the conservative fault.

GLENN: I don't hear anybody, I don't hear anybody talking about in the news, did you hear anybody talking about how Scuzzia goes and campaigns for the other party? That's outrageous. That is out, just absolutely outrageous.

STU: Yeah, it's one thing to zip your mouth and not get involved and I think, you know, that ‑‑

GLENN: Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton would have campaigned for John McCain?

STU: That's a great point. Can you even imagine?

GLENN: Can you even imagine what would be said? The press is like, "No big deal; she's a Republican. Of course she wants to..." stand up for what? The system, the two‑party system that is clearly now colluding with each other? Oh, wow. Yeah, that's going to hurt the tea party movement. I mean, jeez.

STU: And I love this, too. They are trying to make this out to be some dramatic thing: Look how bad this hurt the Republicans. Okay, so let me get this straight. We've sent them a great message about how you actually have to stand for something. And for the next year, not even two years, but one year the Democrats will have an 80‑seat advantage instead of a 79‑seat advantage? I think that's a price I'm willing to pay here.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: To send them a message of, hey, run some candidates that actually believe in something.

GLENN: This is setting the stage for ‑‑ it's going to dwarf 1994, dwarf it. Dwarf it. What's coming next year, dwarf.

STU: You mean a dwarf candidate? Are you saying that you believe ‑‑

GLENN: Yes, we're going to go for accountant ‑‑

STU: To be a mini candidate?

GLENN: Yeah, accountant mini me's. Yes.

STU: That's what you're predicting?

GLENN: No, I really think that this is going to make what happened in 1994 look small. Look, here's the message to me that was sent. Do you know how much money Mayor Bloomberg spent to become mayor?

PAT: $100 million.

GLENN: $100, come on, mini me, million dollars.

PAT: Million dollars.

STU: Million dollars.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: On a mayoral race.

GLENN: I couldn't tell you ‑‑ Sarah, what's the name of the guy that he was running against? Do you even know?

SARAH: Bill Thompson.

STU: She knows because I asked her to pull an ad this morning.

GLENN: Really?

STU: To make a point on this race.

GLENN: I thought it was Robinson. I had no idea. Okay? $100 million. New Yorkers generally ‑‑ I thought New Yorkers really liked him. I think the guy ‑‑ anybody who says, "You know what, we're going to make this, we're going to make this the safest city in the country, or in the world, and we're going to put as many cameras up that are in London, the most surveilled population on planet Earth because..." and if I may quote: We can't just have people walking around thinking they can just go anywhere they want. What?

STU: Who couldn't ‑‑ what's not to love?

GLENN: What's not to love about Mayor Bloomberg? He spends $100 million to become the mayor of New York City. I thought it was a giant waste of money because I just thought everybody just loved Michael Bloom ‑‑ it's New York. Of course they're like, yes, yes, surveillance is good and we shouldn't have any guns, either, and the government is great.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He won by, what, 4 points?

PAT: Five, five points.

GLENN: Five points.

PAT: Five points after a $100 million campaign.

GLENN: I can't even name the other guy.

STU: Yeah. The only reason I knew who the other guy was was because Bloomberg mentioned him so much in his ads.

PAT: Because he mentioned him. That's the only reason.

GLENN: That is the only reason why I know him because there was something about, same old policies, big tax. That's the only reason why I know that guy.

PAT: I've been here for three months. I have never once seen a Bill Thompson commercial on New York television. Not one.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I have seen thousands of Michael Bloomberg commercials.

GLENN: Oh, they were running ‑‑

PAT: Thousands.

GLENN: In New York they were running like two ads per breaks.

STU: Two per break.

PAT: Per break.

STU: In the exit polls it showed that he had about a 70% approval rating. So it wasn't that they necessarily didn't like Bloomberg but they said ‑‑

GLENN: But listen. Go ahead. What did they say?

STU: They said ‑‑ one of the main things that they said they didn't like was this guy changing laws so that he could rerun.

GLENN: Exactly, right.

STU: The power.

GLENN: Listen to that. Listen to that.

PAT: Which he fought with Giuliani.

GLENN: He fought with Giuliani. Giuliani after 9/11 said let me ‑‑ I can stay just a little longer.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Just a few more months. Absolutely not. Nobody is that special that they have to stay in office. This is an American principle; the law is clear. What does he do? He gets the city council to change the law so he can run for a third term.

PAT: Which he does.

STU: That's amazing.

GLENN: And he wins. This is exactly what Americans are sick of. And somebody in New York, a mayoral candidate that isn't bad. Look, New York, I mean, look, New York always sucks. But it doesn't ‑‑ I mean, it's ‑‑ okay, people ‑‑ it is hard to get across the bridges and through the tunnels because of all the moving vans from anybody who has any money whatsoever. They're fleeing this city like crazy. Okay, and he did, because he couldn't get his little green thingy, threw a temper tantrum and he decided to relieve New York traffic by making Broadway into a park, which, I don't know anyone that can explain how that eased traffic. But he's not a horrible mayor. He's not a horrible mayor and yet he spends $100 million and only wins by five points. You better look out. Incumbents, you better look ‑‑ you better have the Obama war chest because an accountant with no name or a guy who nobody even knows. Who is this guy that's running against Bloomberg? You might as well say "That guy" or just put on the other line "The other guy for mayor." I mean, it was that shocking to me.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?

No political bias. That's the catchphrase you're likely to see blasted all over the news today. The Office of the Inspector General found no evidence that political bias played any role, either with former director Comey or other FBI agents, during the Hillary Clinton email investigation. So is it "all good now"... "carry on"... "nothing to see here"? Hardly. Here are a few of the highlights from the 568 page report.

The report makes it clear that there's no evidence that political bias influenced this investigation, but why did they take five hundred and sixty eight pages to make that point? Well, after reading it, I kind of think they want us to understand how difficult it is to prove political bias. I think the Inspector General wants us to read this report in its entirety, and read between the lines. Here are a few of the highlights.

RELATED: Day of reckoning? Inspector General's report is here.

First and foremost, this report straight eviscerated James Comey. You know one of the most controversial decisions of President Trump's tenure - so far - has been his decision to fire the former FBI director. Let's imagine for a second that Trump never did that and Comey was sitting at his desk at the Hoover Building yesterday. I can almost guarantee you that after the release of this report yesterday, Comey would have been fired by this morning anyway. Here are just a few quotes describing his behavior:

"Extraordinary and insubordinate"... not "reasonable"... "engaged in ad hoc decision making"... "serious error in judgement"

So the Hillary train keeps on rolling. She'll escape a courtroom for the fourteen thousandth time.

It goes on and on. This report just destroys Comey's behavior. There's no way he could have remained FBI Director.

The report goes on to analyze the behavior of several FBI agents that were involved in the Clinton investigation. Strzok and Page were but two of five employees that showed questionable behavior, either through text messages or instant messaging. If you read the texts and transcripts, they're pretty damning. In Strzok's case, his bias could have caused a delay in analyzing the contents of Anthony Weiner's laptop. I say again, it could have, but as the OIG alludes… political bias is hard to prove. Another agent that had been caught saying questionable things on an instant messaging service, was actually one of the agents that conducted Hillary Clinton's interview. In that interview, the OIG seems to acknowledge that the FBI had caught Hillary in a lie, and still they let her go. But… political bias is hard to prove.

See the theme here?

So the Hillary train keeps on rolling. She'll escape a courtroom for the fourteen thousandth time. But, as is the common theme for the entire Clinton family, it is those around them that suffer the most. The FBI has been tarnished. People have lost their jobs. Agents have been humiliated. All this for an arrogant and corrupt politician.

Attention earthlings: a "climate emergency" exists. It's official now, because the Berkeley City Council declared it. So, it must be true.

Frankly, you must be living under a rock if you didn't already know that a state of climate emergency exists. And if you don't do something about it, like now, you could be living under a rock very soon. Because according to the foremost authority on climate doom — the Berkeley City Council — this emergency is as dire as World War II.

RELATED: Americans Aren't Having Kids – and Some Say Climate Change Is a Big Reason Why

Council Member Cheryl Davila warns that global warming is driving us toward, "…the sixth mass extinction of species, which could devastate much of life on earth for the next 10 million years."

The city council resolution says:

During World War II, the Bay Area came together across race, age, class, gender and other differences in an extraordinary regional mobilization, building and repairing Liberty ships, converting car assembly plants into tank manufacturing facilities…

The Berkeley City Council says the only way to avert World War II-level disaster is if Americans mobilize in the same way now to confront climate change as we did in 1942 to confront Nazism. Because climate change and Nazism are definitely the same.

It gets worse. The resolution calls our current climate emergency "the greatest crisis in history."

Seriously, their resolution sounds straight out of the Galactic Empire handbook — "mobilizing workers" to build and install "renewable energy infrastructure."

Technically, that means Berkeley will have to completely transform into an Amish community in 12 years.

Berkeley committed itself to becoming a "carbon sink" by 2030. For the uninitiated, that means they want the city's greenhouse gas emissions to be in the negative. Technically, that means Berkeley will have to completely transform into an Amish community in 12 years. Except they won't be able to use any farm animals, because you know, too much methane.

Becoming a carbon sink is not their only strategy. Their resolution also mentions that earth has too many people screwing up the atmosphere, so we must "humanely stabilize population." Interesting — there were some World War II-era figures also interested in "stabilizing" population. They just forgot the "humane" part.

This weekend, June 15-17, Glenn Beck and Mercury One will be hosting the "Rights & Responsibilities" pop-up museum at Mercury Studios. Private tours through the museum will be led by Glenn Beck, David Barton, Doc Thompson, Stu Burguiere, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs, each providing their own unique perspective on our rights and responsibilities.

Find out more about this special Father's Day weekend event or purchase tickets here.

Watch the video below to get a behind-the-scenes sneak peek at just a few of the amazing historic treasures you'll find at this weekend's "Rights & Responsibilities" museum.

Take a look behind the scenes

Glenn Beck and Mercury One will be hosting the "Rights & Responsibilities" pop-up museum at Mercury Studios.