Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Events
Restoring the Covenant
More
AboutBooksCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2020 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Stu and Pat: Where's the oil?

August 06, 2010
 Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program




Pat & Stu are seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

PAT: Now the oil spill. We're getting some mixed coverage on this. First of all, we're hearing that a lot of it's missing. A lot of the oil spill has apparently been cleaned naturally.

STU: That's impossible, Pat!

PAT: I know.

STU: The evil oil company, irresponsible oil company just put all this oil into the ocean.

PAT: On purpose I'm sure.

STU: On purpose, I mean, why else? Because they wanted to hurt the planet and make children eat dirty fish.

PAT: Well, that's what oil companies do, Stu.

STU: Oh, they are so evil. They are almost as evil as whitey which we learned last hour is also evil.

PAT: Some of them are white.

STU: Oh, my.

PAT: Let's not forget that.

STU: Wow.

PAT: Which makes them double evil. White oil executives.

STU: They could be the most evil people on the planet

PAT: Oh, yeah.

STU: And there's been this weird thing that there's another side of this issue, although the consensus is clear here. There's another side of this issue that maybe companies try to do what's in their best interest, and what's in their best interest is not spilling millions of gallons of oil into water.

PAT: What? Nice Republican spin, Stu.

STU: I know. We all know what's true here.

PAT: You are such a shill.

STU: But there is the thought that perhaps people would act in their own best interest and in the interest of the people who are purchasing their products and do the right thing based on that.

PAT: You think they would rather put the oil in the water or in the gas tank of somebody driving around who had to pay for it? I love that.

STU: Because they would rather have they would rather be so lackadaisical that they would just let the oil seep into the water instead of getting it into your gas tank where they could make money off of it. Instead they would rather spend $30 billion to clean up the product they could have been profiting off of.

PAT: That's how evil they are.

STU: That's

PAT: They are willing to waste billions of dollars on their evilness, evilocity.

STU: Right.

PAT: Anyway, here's a statement by Carol Browner who is our energy czar and she said something I found pretty interesting.

BROWNER: But in the meantime what the scientists are telling us is that the vast majority of the oil has cleaned, it's been captured, it's been skimmed, it's been burned, Mother Nature has done its part.

PAT: What?

STU: Who?

BROWNER: And I think, you know, this is the testament to the response that we want. It's the largest environmental response in the history of our country.

PAT: But wait, Mother Nature has done her job?

STU: I thought she had nothing to do with these things.

PAT: As a matter of fact, I just saw a pie chart either yesterday or the day before that said Mother Nature has cleaned up by herself like 26 to 30% of this oil spill. So about a third of it you credit to Mother Nature and then man's efforts are for, 25% and then some of it's just ended up on shore and then, they don't know what's happened to some of it. So if Mother Nature can clean up hundreds of millions of gallons of oil.

STU: In a very short period of time.

PAT: Very short amount of time, but it can't clean up some CO2 in the atmosphere?

STU: No. Pat?

PAT: Is that what I'm

STU: I can't believe you are going into the denier.

PAT: I'm sorry. I've gone too far.

STU: Because just pointing out the fact that the planet has been around----

PAT: And the planet has taken care of itself through millennia of time.

STU: Right. Before humans were even around with their SUVs.

PAT: It was cleaning up CO2 right and left and then, you know, CO2 would come back and then it would go and then it would retreat and it comes back.

STU: And CO2 levels were much, much, much, much higher in the past.

PAT: Much higher.

STU: And many times didn't move at the same direction as the temperature.

PAT: But it's foolish to think that could happen now.

STU: That can't happen now.

PAT: I'm sorry.

STU: Look, if you want to point out the fact that the temperature has risen at the same pace two previous times in record just in the past 120 years at the same pace as it's been rising recently before man had really any impact on it, you could point that out and it would be true, but it would hurt the argument of the left. So we're just going to ignore that.

PAT: We'll ignore that. Shhh, you didn't say anything. Disregard that.

[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

'I don't want to change one word of it': Alan Dershowitz on why the Second Amendment MUST be preserved

Legal scholar and famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz has a message for partisans dividing America: "A plague on both your houses." He voted for Hillary Clinton. He endorsed Joe Biden. He's a man who is basically the Forrest Gump of American judicial history.

Look up a big court case over the past few decades, and you'll probably see him standing in the background. He's represented notorious clients like Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, Harry Reems, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and yes, Donald Trump. It's made him a target for both the left and right.

Alan also describes himself as a "civil libertarian," and that's probably why he and Glenn Beck get along despite their opposing political views. His story is like a history lesson, spanning half a century, and it just might be the key to bridging the political divide.

On this week's podcast, Alan explained that while he's a strong defender of the Constitution, he's never been a big fan of the Second Amendment. In the past he's called it absurd and outdated, and even today, he admits that he wouldn't have ingrained it into our Constitution if he was a framer. However, with the whole Bill of Rights under attack, he's now fully in defense of our right to bear arms. Because if the Second Amendment changes, any amendment could be next.

"I'm now a supporter of the Second Amendment. I don't want to change it. I don't want to change one word of it, because I'm afraid that if I get to change the Second Amendment, other people will get to change the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment," Alan said. "So, I am committed to preserving the Bill of Rights, every single word, every comma, and every space between the words."

Watch a clip from the full interview with Alan Dershowitz below:

Watch the full podcast below, on Glenn's YouTube channel, or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

STUNNING: New Project Veritas video alleges ballot harvesting, cash-for-ballots operations in Ilhan Omar's district

Investigative reporter David Steinberg joined the radio program Monday, to explain how a new video may provide enough evidence to begin a FBI investigation into alleged illegal practices by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's campaign.

In the video, which was produced and released by Project Veritas, residents of Omar's community describe campaign teams that not only conduct illegal ballot harvesting practices but also pay people for their blank absentee ballots.

Steinberg told Glenn that, if these charges prove to be true, the federal government could bypass Omar's friend and protector, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. Could 2020 be the beginning of the end for Omar's political career?

Watch the video below to catch Glenn's conversation with David Steinberg:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'We surrendered, and now EVERYTHING is infected': Business owner pens powerful letter on COVID-19 shutdowns

Photo by Noam Galai/Getty Images

Mike Fratantuono is the manager of Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland. He wrote in the Washington Post's COVID-19 series about the recent, heartbreaking loss of his business, a restaurant that has been in his family for "four generations and counting."

"I know this virus is real, okay? It's real and it's awful. I'm not disputing any of that," Mike wrote. "But our national hysteria is worse. We allowed the virus to take over our economy, our small businesses, our schools, our social lives, our whole quality of life. We surrendered, and now everything is infected."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck reacted to Mike's letter, which he shared in full, adding his hope that those in government are ultimately held responsible for what he called the biggest theft of the Western world.

"This is the biggest theft of, not only money, but of heritage and of hope," Glenn said. "The United States government and many of the states are responsible for this, not you. And hopefully someday soon, we'll return to some semblance of sanity, and those responsible for this theft, this rape of the Western world, will be held responsible."

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

HERE are the allegations Democrats are likely to make against Amy Coney Barrett

Wikimedia Commons

We did our homework over the weekend; we did the research so we can tell you what is likely coming from Senate Democrats regarding President Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett. Based on our research and the anonymous people who have already come forward to talk about Coney Barrett's youth, these are the main shocking things you can expect Senate Democrats to seize on during the confirmation process…

A man has come forward under the banner of "#MenToo," to say that in second grade, Amy Coney Barrett and her best friend at the time, cornered him at a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese and "injected him with a full dose of cooties." Which, if true, would obviously be disqualifying for serving on the highest court in the land.

Then there's a woman who says when she was nine-years-old, she lived on the same street as Amy Coney Barrett. She alleges that Coney-Barrett borrowed her VHS tape of Herbie Goes Bananas and did not return it for at least six months. And then when she did finally get the tape back, the woman says Coney Barrett did not even bother to rewind it. The FBI has interviewed at least two witnesses so far who say the tape was indeed not rewound and that it was very upsetting to the owner of the tape. Again, if true, this is troubling – clearly not the kind of integrity you want to see in a Supreme Court justice.

Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it.

The same neighbor also dropped a bombshell allegation about the drinking problem of Amy Coney Barrett and her closest friends. Apparently, in their elementary school days, they liked to drink milk – and lots of it. The neighbor says she "frequently" witnessed Coney-Barrett and her friends chugging entire cartons of milk – often Whole Milk, sometimes Chocolate Milk, occasionally both at the same time through a funnel.

Unfortunately, shooting-up cooties, injurious rewinding, and potential calcium-abuse are not even the worst of it.

A third person has now come forward, another man, and this is just reprehensible, it's hard to even fathom. But he alleges that in fourth grade, when they were around ten-years-old, Amy Coney Barrett and a group of "four or five of her friends" gang-GRAPED him on the playground during recess. He alleges the group of friends snuck uneaten grapes out of the cafeteria and gang-GRAPED him repeatedly in broad daylight. In other words, and I hate to have to spell this out because it's kind of graphic, but the group led by ten-year-old Amy Coney Barrett pelted this poor defenseless boy with whole grapes. He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

He recalls them "laughing the whole time" as they were gang-GRAPING him.

Obviously, even if just one of these allegations is half-true, no Senator with a conscience could possibly vote to confirm Coney Barrett. When there is a clear pattern of destructive childhood behavior, it always continues into adulthood. Because people do not change. Ever.

Fortunately, for the sake of the Republic, Democrats plan to subpoena Coney Barrett's childhood diary, to see what, if any, insights it may provide into her calcium habits, as well as her abuse of illicit cooties and the gang-GRAPING incident.

We will keep you posted on the latest, but for now, it looks like Democrats will find plenty in the reckless pre-teen life of Amy Coney Barrett to cast doubt on her nomination. And if not, they can always fall back on her deranged preference for letting babies be born.

[NOTE: The preceding was a parody written by MRA writer Nathan Nipper.]