Hey, Biden: STOP sharing your ‘feelings’ with the WORLD!

It's been gaffe after gaffe after gaffe for President Biden, especially since suggesting over the weekend that a regime change in Russia was needed. Earlier this week Biden tried to walk back his statements about Putin and even told reporters he was just sharing his 'personal feelings.' But Glenn and Stu explain why that should be FAR from any American president's strategy when communicating with the WHOLE WORLD: 'He doesn't understand the difference between his inside voice and his outside voice...but your inside voice is REALLY important if you're president.'


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Huh. That is -- that is incredible. Did you see the president's press conference yesterday? Oh. It was -- hmm. Here he is. Talking about, what a. Complex situation Russia is. Cut one, please.

BIDEN: What was the second part?

VOICE: Do you hate the diplomacy of this moment?

BIDEN: No. I don't think it does. The fact is, we're in a situation, where it complicates the situation in the moment. Is the exploratory efforts of Putin, to continue an engaging carnage. The kind of behavior that makes the whole world say, my God, what is this man doing? That's what complicates things.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: What?

BIDEN: But I don't think it complicates it at all.

GLENN: Wait.

STU: It complicates it.

BIDEN: Doesn't really complicate it at all. Yeah, his actions don't complicate it at all. At all.

STU: No.

BIDEN: People is not saying that. Here he is, cut three.

VOICE: Are you worried that other leaders in the world are going to start to doubt that America is back, if some of these big things that you say on the world stage, keep getting walked back?

BIDEN: What's getting walked back?

VOICE: It sounded like you told U.S. troops, they were going to Ukraine. It sounded shrike you said, it was possible the U.S. would use a chemical weapon. And it sounded like, you were calling for a regime change in Russia. And we know --

BIDEN: None of the three occurred.

GLENN: So they all occurred?

VOICE: You were going to see when you were there. You were not in charge --

BIDEN: I was referring with being with and talking with the Ukrainian troops in Poland.

VOICE: And when you said a chemical weapon use in Russia would trigger a response in kind.

BIDEN: It will trigger a significant response.

VOICE: What does that mean?

BIDEN: I'm not going to tell you. Why would I tell you?

You have to be silly.

VOICE: The world wants to know.

BIDEN: The world wants to know a lot of things, I'm not telling them what the response would be, then Russia knows what the response would be.

STU: You did tell them what the response would be. You said "in kind." It's not just a -- a collection of words. They mean things. That's what words do!

GLENN: "In kind."

No. Words are violent.

STU: And I want to know where in Poland are we seeing women and children standing up to tanks? Where is that happening in Poland?

GLENN: No. He said -- He was referring to -- here, please play cut two, please.

BIDEN: I was talking to the troops. We were talking about helping train the troops, that are the Ukrainian troops, that are in Poland.

GLENN: Okay. Got you. Stop. Stop.

He was training the Ukrainian troops.

STU: Was he talking --

GLENN: That were in Poland. Which is not something anyone knew, until this press conference.

STU: Another massive gaffe.

GLENN: Well, they're walking it back. They're walking it back.

STU: They're not walking it back. They walk it back --

GLENN: They're not?

STU: He says something. The media spends multiple days, going through a cycle, with the press office where they tell the media, hey, we got to walk this back. Here's what we needed to come out. They dutifully go along with it. And then they ask the president about it. He says, I'm not walking anything back. Whenever this stuff happened with Trump, they complained about it constantly, said it was the most unprofessional thing you could possibly imagine, and it happens every day with Biden, and no one cares.

GLENN: And it's kind of big things. Here he is, cut four.

VOICE: Do you believe what you said, that Putin can't remain in power? Or do you now regret saying that, because your government has been trying to walk that back, because your words complicate matters?

BIDEN: Well, you asked three different questions. I'll answer them all.

Number one, I'm not walking anything back. The fact of the matter is, I was expressing the more outrage I felt toward the way Putin is --

STU: That's not how the presidency works.

BIDEN: Just -- just brutality, happening in Ukraine. I just comfort being with those families. And -- and so -- but I want to make it clear, I wasn't then, nor am I now articulating a policy change. I was expressing more outrage that I feel, and I make --

STU: That's not okay as president of the United States.

VOICE: Personal feelings?

BIDEN: Oh, okay. His personal feelings.

STU: When has that become an okay thing to do? You're president of the United States, you don't just blurt out your personal feelings? Almost all of your job is to not say your personal feelings and instead articulate policy change?

GLENN: Well, what do you mean almost all your job?

STU: That's your responsibility. When you're making a speech on foreign soil, about a foreign conflict that you keep saying that you are more involved in, than your official policy. Then you make statements about what could be -- I mean, certainly everyone in the world remembers, previous wars, where we've had regime change as our goal.

GLENN: Libya.

STU: They cannot stay in power. Iraq. There's a lot of examples.

GLENN: Afghanistan. Other than that. Other than that. We have to go way back.

STU: Like, the job of the president would be a lot easier, if you could just blurt out whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted with no consequences. You know who does here you, when you say things like that? The guy that has 6,000 nuclear weapons hears you.

GLENN: No. No, no, no, no.

STU: No?

GLENN: Listen. Let's get some perspective from -- from Don Lemon, who strangely is still on the air. Listen to this.

VOICE: The president is saying exactly what most of the world feels about Vladimir Putin.

STU: So what?

VOICE: Now, he did not in that speech, say that Vladimir Putin should be removed, and we need to take him out of power. He said, this man should not remain in power. What person in their right mind, thinks that someone who bombs innocent people, children, a country that is in an unprovoked war, should remain in power.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: This is not --

VOICE: So I think we should do something to take him out of office, that would be a different thing. The general said the same thing.

GLENN: Yeah.

VOICE: Quite honestly, I think this is a media-manufactured story.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. This is the media just saying this is a big deal. That Russia isn't taking that in this way. They're just expressing their feelings. Let me give you this, from the Kremlin. Retaliatory Visa measures are being developed from Russia, for citizens from unfriendly nations, according to Sergei Lavrov, who said on March 28th, as another top Kremlin official said U.S. President Joe Biden's recent comments are cause for concern. During his public comments, Lavrov did not provide details about the countries that would be targeted, although he did single out the United States and its allies. Additionally, a draft -- a draft presidential decree is currently being developed on retaliatory Visa measures in connection with the unfriendly actions of a number of foreign states. This act will introduce a number of restrictions on entry to the territory of Russia. Some measures are being developed to respond to the unfriendly actions by the United States and its satellites. It comes as the Kremlin issued more statements, following Biden's speech last week in Poland, where he said this man cannot stay in power. These statements are certainly causing us grave concern, said the Kremlin spokesperson. We continue to closely monitor the statements of the U.S. president. He carefully note them, and will continue to do so. Now, I'm not sure if anybody at CNN or anyone in the White House know. But when you talk to your intelligence people, they will come in with a briefing. And you're going up against war. Or you're going into a meeting. And you'll have all the experts on let's say, that president. That you don't know for sure, they're experts, because they've listened to every word. They have looked at every action. And they say, this is what he's thinking. This is what he may mean. This is what you have to we're about. This is who the guy is. So when the president of the United States speaks here, there's a group of people, all around the world, that are not on our side. That look and evaluate everything he's saying. So when, you know, Putin goes, so is this, like, old lady actually threatening me?

Mr. President, we don't know for sure. But he was talking about possibly the troops going in to Ukraine? We're not sure what that meant. He's now talking about what could be perceived as regime change. He also admitted that they were training Ukrainian troops. Yeah. I would say that he's on a different wavelength. That's what happens!

STU: Yeah. I mean, think of the things that Vladimir Putin says that we keep quoting. The war will be with ones and zeros. Right? That's not an official statement of policy.


STU: But we take it damn seriously. And when he wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. The fall was the greatest tragedy of history in the past century. We take that seriously and look at that as motivation. They're doing the same thing over there, with every one of these gaffes. This guy is going to gaffe us into World War III. He's literally in the middle of gaffing us into if we go to nuked.

GLENN: I really don't think these are gaffes.

STU: No.

GLENN: No. Listen what he just said. What he just said. No, that was my personal feeling. Okay. Well, personal feelings become policies.

STU: Yeah. When you are the commander-in-chief of the military, yes.

GLENN: Right. So when he says things like -- I mean, it's only reasonable. This may not be what he's doing. But it's only reasonable if you are assessing someone. You look at what they say. Look at what they do. Look at the sanctions, that we've just put on. They're unlike any other sanctions ever. Ever. Then he says, we're in a long war, people should brace for years of war. Okay. What does that mean? Then he says, all of these things out loud. These -- I was just thinking. No, you read it wrong. Well, there's going to be a lot of people that read it wrong. And they might have nuclear weapons.

STU: You now, can we imagine if we had -- look at this, Vladimir Putin comes out and says, hey, you know what, this Joe Biden guy cannot stay in power.

Can you imagine what a serious moment that would be? We found like four Facebook ads, that said, they wanted to screw with our elections. And it was an international incident, that lasted multiple years in an impeachment.

GLENN: Exactly right. And look what Putin said, in response to this speech. Putin came out yesterday, and started talking about how the United States is trying to erase all history and culture. Russian culture, from the West. Okay? Well, that -- can you imagine, reverse this situation. Imagine if that was happening to us. And our president said, they're trying to erase us, from history. All of our accomplishments. All of our cultural -- you know, we're getting rid of Gershwin. Weaver getting rid of Uncle Tom's cabin. We're getting rid of all of American culture. I don't know. I would think the people would rally around that president who said, we got to fight this. Because they're erasing us. Of course, we would. That's what we just handed him. Oh, and by the way, they're also trying to take me out. There's a coup against me. I'm not worried about that. I'm just staying focused on what we have to do. Because I'm here for the America that has changed the world. You think? You think the people are going to support -- which one? Which one? Tell me. They're going to support the president against the enemy that is saying crap like we're saying. And I'm telling you, the president has feelings. And his feelings, he doesn't understand the difference between his inside voice, and his outside voice. But your inside voice, is really important, if you're president. But if you express that on your outside voice. It's very logical to assume, that your inside voice, is what you're telling others, inside of secret rooms with secret meetings.


Are risk-reluctant parents actually HARMING their kids?

Some parents have decided it’s time to cancel sleepovers. In this clip, Pat and Stu discuss all the reasons why sending your kid away for the night contains too many risks for some families. But, does a lack of risk in children’s lives actually HARM their development into able and free-thinking adults…?


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

PAT: There's an interesting situation, I would like to know your thoughts on this, Stu. Because you still have young kids. My kids are grown now. So they don't do a lot of sleepovers. But I'm guessing that you -- yeah. They don't.

As adults, they don't sleep over friends' houses that often. It's weird.

But there is a thing apparently now, where a lot of parents are kind of giving second thoughts to sleepovers and not allowing them. For any number of reasons, one of which, I guess they're afraid of abuse.

STU: Is that --

PAT: I think that's one of the reasons. Because do you ever know for sure what's going on in somebody else's house?

STU: No. You never know for sure. But, again, this ties into the fact that despite the world being aimed statistically a much safer place from crime.

PAT: Then it was when we were young. Yeah. That's true.

STU: You know, this is -- Lenore Skenazy talks about this a lot, where we kind of put this bubble wrap around our kids. I'm totally guilty of this at some level.

PAT: Me too.

STU: Where my kids are young. And I remember when I was their age, you know, I would just wander out. The summer, my mom would go to work, and I would walk to my friends house, a mile away. And we would hang out and play all day. You know, this typical story, you come back when it gets dark. And maybe have dinner.

And people kind of new around the neighborhood. And people kind of kept an eye on you, a little bit.

But basically, we did whatever we wanted, which was most of the time eating Hostess products and playing Wiffle Ball.

You came back, and that was it. My kids don't do that. I'm not letting my kid walk around for a mile by himself with his friends. I don't do that at all.

PAT: No.

STU: I know. Because we think this way a lot. I'm a guy who likes numbers. I can look at them and say, hey. I know intellectually, this viewpoint makes no sense. I know it.

I live in a safe area. We are in a low crime period. While we've seen it tick up. The 2020 period was a little bit different.

PAT: Murder rate has gone up in some cities.

STU: There are some problems. Obviously, some drug abuse issues have risen over the years. But generally speaking, we are in a low crime period.

We are -- the most profound example of this, is I was more than double -- or twice as likely to be killed, in a mass shooting, at my school, when I was a kid.

PAT: Than kids are now?

STU: Than kids are now.

PAT: It's double?

STU: And that blows people's minds. It's more than double.

PAT: Oh, wow. Really?

STU: When I was in high school, it was in the '90s. And crime rates reason higher. And the difference between mass shootings. School shootings, I should say, back then and now, is what we see now, are very disturbed kids who get guns and try to essentially out-- take the leader board on their video game. Right?

They come in, and they decide, they're going to try to kill as many people as possible.

So we see mass shootings. What we saw in the '90s, were two or three people being shot in a fight.

We saw people get gangs, bring guns to school. You know, like -- but it wasn't as much -- it wasn't 20 or 30 people dying. But people were shot, at school, all the time, back in the '90s. It just wasn't noticed as much. And I find it hard to believe, that a mom in the '90s, who loses their kid. Because one person is shot at school. Feels better about it, than someone today, who loses their kid in a mass shooting. But what this also means is more schools go without any shootings at all. Far more schools, when you look at the percentage of schools, go without mass shootings, because when we do see a shooting, it's usually one of these larger spectacle shootings. People looking for attention. And look, that's a whole different problem hard to solve.

But the bottom line is, when you send your kids to school, in today's era, they're much more likely to survive and not be shot.

PAT: It's safe.

Yeah, and they've taken a lot of precautions too, the schools. They're usually locked. It's usually much, much harder to get in.

STU: Yeah, that wasn't the case back in the day.

PAT: It used to be, you just walked into a school, if you needed to give a note to your child. Or bring them something that they needed medication, or whatever.

And you were not stopped or asked, or frisked or --

STU: No. No security guards.

PAT: No security at all. It's a much different situation now. So --

STU: If there was a fight that broke out in a school, the gym teachers are coming down the hallway to help break that it up. That's how it worked. That's not how it works now.

PAT: No.

STU: So it is -- in some ways, it's so much better. And the sleepover thing I think is part of this.

We hear these terrible stories, and they do happen.

But generally speaking, these rates are a lot lower than they used to be. And that's positive.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We don't need to bubble wrap our kids as much as we need to.

PAT: One of the concerns, apparently, in addition to the abuse. If you don't know the parents really well. And do you really know anyone well enough to trust your kids to be there over night?

I don't know. Because you just never know.

STU: It's so funny. We just talked about this. And it's not logical. It's not logical.

PAT: It's not. It's not. But here's how illogical I am.

My daughter -- my youngest daughter was 16. So this was a few years ago, because she's 22 now. When she was 16. She wanted to walk down -- my wife wasn't home. So she came to me and said, I'm going down to the pond. We have a pond like half a block from the house, she just wanted to go down there and hang out.

I don't know. Throw rocks, or whatever she was going to do with the pond. I'm like no. No, you can't.

STU: Wait. Wait.

Sixteen. She couldn't go to the pond, a half a block away?

PAT: Sixteen.

Half a block away.

No, I don't want you at the pond. Because who knows?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: So I'm illogical that way.

STU: I am too.

PAT: And I'm not sure why. Because logically, I do know that the crime rate is much lower. And what are the chances of being kidnapped or whatever, at 16? It's low. Really, really low.

STU: Very low. Very low. I think part of this is -- I can only speak for myself here. Part of it is I just don't want to be the one who approves the thing that goes wrong. It's almost selfish in a way. I know I would beat myself up until the end of time if I was like, yeah, sure, go down to the pond, and God forbid, something terrible happens. And so you just decide, no. Just eliminate every bit of risk from their lives. That's not how to build, you know, a healthy adult. Right?

PAT: It's not.

STU: I think we're seeing the effects of that. So I do try. When I realize this instinct in myself, I try to cure it. My kids do sleepovers.

PAT: They do?

STU: They do. However, I've noticed, there is their hesitance among parents now.

You know, I'm not in the parents group as much as my wife. But occasionally she talks to me about this, when she's talking to one of her friends. They don't really like to do sleepovers with their kids. Again, these are people that are friends.

And, you know, a lot of times, that they know. And I would think trust. But there is -- there is a hesitance. And I just -- I just think we jump to the worst-case scenario, a lot.

PAT: Yeah. We do. And according to this article, it's pretty prevalent now, where parents say no to sleepovers like this.

Yeah, they're worried about -- not only are they worried about crime. But they're worried about whether or not people have guns in their home, and whether they're locked away safe or whatever. So there's a gun fear.

STU: So let's say I'm a liberal. And my kid wants to sleep over at Pat Gray's house. Pat Gray probably has them all over the place.

PAT: I used to, of course. Yes. I leave them out on the kitchen counter. Yeah. AR-15s out there. A couple of 9 millimeters.

STU: Just hang out.

If you about it to the dog toy basket. There's an AR-15. And I don't want my kid in that environment. That's kind of the stuff you're talking about?

What else? Are there any other concerns?

PAT: COVID exposure.

STU: So I'm a COVID zero guy. I'm wearing a mask. Three masks to the gym.

PAT: Yep. I'm coming home. And I don't want my kid -- because you, as an evil conservative.

PAT: Not only do I have guns. I have the COVID virus, that's in petri dishes all over the house. All over the house. And they spill it a lot of the time.

STU: Instead of salt, you're sprinkling on COVID.

PAT: Yes. Also, are there alcohol or drugs in the home?

STU: Okay. Because, I mean, that's -- there's a -- some people have alcohol in their house.

Some people have it, and make sure that it's protected from their kids. And others, might just have an open liquor cabinet.

PAT: Might, yeah.

STU: I remember this back in the day. There were kids, that their parents would drink. Drank alcohol.

And they would -- they would have their ways of drinking some while the parents were at work. And filling the bottle with water. And trying to cover it. And like that stuff happened. That was a real thing.

PAT: Yep. What about older siblings? Is that a consideration? Did they have older siblings, where something could happen?

STU: Yeah, right. I could see that. Oh, my God. I'm never letting my kids go anywhere. Why are you scaring me like this?

Again, I think there are appropriate -- you have to think about these things as a parent. I think one of the big things is, do you trust that other parent? Is the parent going to be home?

PAT: Can they keep you safe?

STU: Are they going to make sure that things don't go awry in the middle of the night? You know, you don't want your kids sneaking out and vandalizing the neighborhood, right?

You want to make sure that they actually stay in the house. Maybe -- especially when they're younger. Do they actually go to bed at a decent hour?

We've had our kids sleep over their friend's houses a couple times, and they come back. And like, you said up until 2:00 a.m. I can tell. Because you're a different person today, and you look like you went on a bender for six weeks.

So you have to get that sense of not every parent has the same standards as you. You know, my kid, they will go to bed, basically at the same time every night. It's not going to be too late.

PAT: And speaking of that, some parents apparently, have come to a compromise, where you can stay there until, you know, late. Like 10:00. Or midnight.

STU: Yeah. And then go pick them up.

PAT: Yeah. They call that a halfover.

STU: A halfover.

PAT: Or a lateover. Stupid. Stupid.

STU: We are a weird group of people, aren't we?

PAT: Oh, man. It's amazing.

But I just find it interesting, because apparently a lot of people have just decided, it's not worth it. And so they just say no. Just because they don't want to mess with any of the risk. Who knows what could happen? Maybe nothing.

But I'm not going to take the chance. Which kind of makes sense to me. Being the -- probably oversensitive parent to those kinds of things as I am. So...


Al Gore’s CRAZED rant, Greta’s ‘fake’ arrest, & HARMFUL electric cars?

It’s been an interesting week for the environmentalist crazies. During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum yesterday, Al Gore went on an unhinged rant, saying that we’re ‘boiling the oceans,’ causing ‘rain bombs,’ and spreading xenophobia due to climate-related refugees. Plus, was Greta Thunberg’s recent arrest in Germany FAKE? And does the production process for electric cars actually HARM the earth more than gas-engine ones? Pat and Stu discuss all this, plus more…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

PAT: How much have you missed Al Gore? I mean, he hasn't been around it seems like, in a while, right?

STU: There's one, and only one reason that I miss Al Gore. Which is your impersonation of Al Gore. Because without Al Gore not being in the news. There's no reason to do it.

STU: Right. There's no reason to do it.

He's almost like your other impersonation. People that are already dead. Most of the people you impersonate passed away a decade ago.

PAT: We lost them. We lost them.

STU: There's been no new impersonations, necessarily added to the repertoire for a while.

PAT: It's been a while. It's been a while.

STU: This is why I always -- if Al Gore needs a medical fund. And if he ever gets sick. I will be there to help him. Because I want to make sure that one person --

PAT: We have a living person that I can impersonate here. You want to keep that going. You definitely want to keep that going.

STU: Yes! Excited about it.

PAT: This is him on climate activists. Cut eight. He's very impassioned.

VOICE: There's another divide, increasingly between those who are old enough to be in positions of power, and the young people of this world.

Greta Thunberg was just arrested in Germany. I agree with her efforts to stop that coal mine in Germany. Young people around the world are looking at what we're doing.

They look at the world, and they say, oh, you have a climate denier in charge of the world bank.

So why are you surprised that the world bank is completely failing to do its job?

What do I say to these young activists that they train around the world when they come to me and they say, are you okay with putting the CEO of one of the largest oil companies in the world, in as the president of the COP? There's a lot of blah, blah, blah, as Greta says. There are some meaningful commitments, but we are still failing badly.

STU: We haven't heard the gravel-y Al Gore thing for years.

PAT: Yeah. Since probably: He betrayed this country. He played on our fears. I love that one.

STU: Right. I forgot about that.

PAT: Yeah. It's been a while since we've seen that.

STU: So he's jumping on the Greta bandwagon now?

Isn't it over? Because you saw her carefully orchestrated arrest, didn't you?

STU: I did. That was incredible.

There's a new angle on it. Cut six. Here's Greta being arrested. Yesterday, we showed a clip of one of the angles.

Well, they did a second take on it.

STU: Good. Good. That's how all arrests happen. Standings there -- she's just laughing.

PAT: They're just milling around. She's having fun. Because this is all orchestrated. This is all planned. And they're --

STU: They're literally posing for photos with Greta. The police. We think. I mean, I would not be surprised if --

PAT: I don't even know if they're actual police.

STU: Right. Yeah, it's possible. Although, I did hear she was briefly detained for this incident, in which she is standing in the middle of the field.

PAT: Well, that's where she was detained, is right there.

And then they walked through the mud. And then they eventually just let her go. And she walks off.

And I don't think she even was taken anywhere by police. I mean, it was such a hoax. And then Al Gore trying to say, she was arrested, because of her actions. Get out of here.

STU: Oh, stop it.

PAT: It was all planned. It was all choreographed. It was a pathetic display of an arrest. But Al was pretty angry. He's mad at climate deniers. This is cut nine.

VOICE: Enough already. Enough. And I don't want to get sidetracked on to what needs to happen. But we need to scale up climate finance. But we need desperately to scale down anti-climate finance.

PAT: Thank you.

STU: Of course. Yeah.

VOICE: And we are still subsidizing the burning of fossil fuels, globally, at a rate 42 times larger than the subsidies for renewables --

PAT: That's a flatout lie.

VOICE: We need leadership at the World Bank. We need them to scale up the leverage and vastly increase the amounts that are committed. And we need to rein in the anti-climate activities of the fossil industry.

STU: I love this. Even the psychopaths of the World Economic Forum are sick of him.

PAT: Yeah. They need new leadership at the World Bank, because I guess the World Bank isn't doing enough for climate change.

Is that what he seems to be saying to you? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

What do you want the World Bank to do about climate change? Bizarre. Bizarre.

STU: And could we possibly be spending more money on climate research and finance? I mean, these companies get -- we were just throwing trillions -- we just passed a giant bill where there's trillions of dollars going to these countries. We're constantly doing this. And no money, going to actually look for energy sources that work, and are inexpensive and reliable. None of that happens at all. This is such a bizarre stance.

Al Gore, I think, at this point in his life I think is looking for relevance more than anything else. The screamy voice only comes out, when that's what he's doing.

But the idea that they're not getting enough money for this crap. What are you talking about?

I mean, think about Solyndra. We -- like, oh, we've got circular solar panels.

Oh, here's $20 billion. How much do you need? Circular solar panels, here they are.

Here you go. Let me just throw a bunch of money at you. Oh, you're out of business. Oh, that sucks.

PAT: Oh, well.

STU: Every electric car purchased in this country, they receive $7,500 off. And, again, there's been some restrictions on models over the year. But generally speaking, this has been true. And the average person who buys one of these cars, is a six-figure earner.

Why on earth will we subsidize people who make six figures to buy fancy cars? It makes no sense.

PAT: And nobody ever talks about that either.

STU: No. And, of course, nobody talks about what goes into the production of the electric vehicle. Which is so not friendly to the earth. It's way worse than the combustion engine vehicles that are produced. And it's going to take decades and decades to catch up to all the -- all the problems with -- with -- with the electric cars to offset those with any kind of environmental relief, that they're looking for.

It's just -- it's impact. There's nowhere -- what are you going to do with all these batteries, at the end of this vehicle's life. Where are you going to pile those up?

STU: So many problems here. And of course, a lot of the research shows that, yes, during production, electric cars, much, much worse than internal combustion engines.

PAT: Much worse. Yeah.

STU: And the number of miles you need to drive for this to equal out, when it comes to environmental effect. Again, is in the six figures. You have to go over 100,000 miles in the electric car, before it even comes close to paying itself off.

PAT: Amazing.

STU: And, again, I have nothing against electric cars.

PAT: I don't either. We have talked about this so many times.

STU: Some of these Teslas are great. Obviously, Elon Musk is not an enemy of the right. I cheer with them to do well.

PAT: They look great. They drive great. They have incredible acceleration.

STU: Yeah. The Corvette e- ray is out now. Or just been introduced.

I just talked about this for tomorrow's Stu Does America. We'll do a segment on it. And it is zero to 60 in 2.5 seconds.

PAT: 2.5.

STU: 2.5 seconds.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

STU: And it is basically in a way, a hybrid. They put an electric motor on the front wheels. They're using the same 600-horsepower on the back wheels. It's All-wheel drive. First Corvette ever.

And to me, I like the internal combustion engine, I like the sound it makes. That's just my thing. I like the electric cars. They're cool. But they're not my daily driver. That's not what I want as a daily driver.

This thing, again, is using that technology, and making a ridiculously fast car. But, again, it's a 100,000-dollar car. And it's certainly not environmentally friendly. It's still a Corvette.

You know, it's not getting you good gas mileage.

PAT: Right. And you still have to plug it in the wall outlet of your house every night, right?

STU: This one is more of a hybrid design. So it's not like that.

PAT: All right. But the full electric, like the Teslas and stuff. You have to plug in. And that's costing us energy.

STU: Yeah. And it's also thousands of dollars potentially in retrofitting your house for the right type of plug. If you drive it enough, you have to have the faster charger.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You know, I have a friend who has a Tesla, and he doesn't drive it a lot. So he's able to plug in the normal plug and it's fine.

But if you drive it as your normal everyday car, you have to -- you know, look into between 600 and $2,000 of retrofitting your house to get the right -- the electrical outlets to make this thing charge. Either that, or you'll be waiting days.

The Porsche electric, if you plug it into the normal plug. This is the Porsche Taycan. Which is a beautiful car. It's a great-looking car. But if you plug it into a normal outlet, and it's very low on battery, it could take about three days to charge.

PAT: Oh, that's not bad.

STU: Just the three days though.

PAT: Just so you don't have anywhere to go in three days. You're fine.

STU: Again, we all work from home. Do Zoom calls.

PAT: They're just not practical. That's why I don't have one. It's just not -- I really -- when we test-drove that Tesla that they brought here, several years ago. And we experienced that, I really wanted one.

I really did.

STU: Really fast.

PAT: But it's just not -- it's just not practical. Because especially then. There was nowhere to -- I mean, there are very few places, that I knew of, at least, to go charge it. And when you did go charge it. Like if you have one -- and we do have some movie theaters, where you can park your car, at one of the charging stations. And then you're -- you know, you're at the movie for two hours or whatever. And then you come out. And it's mostly charged.

STU: And look, that's cool.

PAT: That's great.

STU: I like movies. But I can't stop to see one every day.

PAT: Exactly. Exactly. Now, if I drive from here to Houston, I will have to, first of all, find the specialty places where they have these charging stations. And then sit there for, I don't know. An hour. Forty-five minutes, at least?

STU: Yeah. And some of the fast chargers now are doing a better job. And, look, it is improving. And I find it fascinating that the left has now come to a position to where -- and I don't know if you noticed this, places like the movie theater.

Where they do give you these nice parking spaces with the charging thing.

And I think they're closer than the handicapped spots.

I think they would rather have people who can't walk. They're actually preferring and spoiling the people in their electric cars.

PAT: Yeah, they are.

STU: Over the people who don't have legs. We are at that point now in our society.

Oh, yeah. Look, sure. You don't -- you're in a wheelchair. It's very difficult. But I will say, you're killing the climate in your minivan there. So screw you.

PAT: So the Tesla park is closer than you.

STU: The rich person in the Tesla, who spent $130,000 in their plaid. They will walk very comfortably three steps to get into the movie that's right. You on the other hand, we're putting you on the bottom of the hill. I hope your arms are strong to get up it.

Because that's on the other side of the lot.

We put you on the other side of gravel.
There's some boulders in the way. You'll get there eventually. We have faith in you. You're handicapable.

PAT: You know, maybe you brought some people that can carry you over all that. All the obstacles, they'll just lift up you, in the wheelchair. And carry into the building. That would be perfect.

STU: Exactly.


Why Oscar Winner Richard Dreyfuss Is Grateful Glenn 'Outed' Him | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 170

Even as an Oscar-winning A-list actor, Richard Dreyfuss never really fit in with the Hollywood crowd. “There are people who now think that opposing views are un-American,” he tells Glenn. Today, that toxic belief has been spread across the country, and he couldn’t stay silent. Having grown up communist, he’s seen this before, and he believes the root issue is simple: Our schools no longer teach civics. To fight back, he founded the Dreyfuss Civics Initiative and wrote his new book, “One Thought Scares Me.” His hope is to save America by encouraging conversations between people with opposing views. He lives by this. In his own words, he’s a “Lib-o-Conserve-o-Rad-o-Middle of the road-o,” and has been for years. And of course, he’s gathered plenty of stories over those years: Activism, drugs, James Dean, the 1960s, the consequences of celebrity feuds, the power of a good teacher … Oh, and a story about how his great-grandaunt may have assassinated a Russian Emperor.


What Everyone Is MISSING in Biden’s Classified Documents Scandal | Ep 246

The Biden classified documents story is not just a story of hypocrisy by the media and the DOJ. It’s about time and TIMING. Why did the Biden classified documents story get leaked to the press THE SAME WEEK the New York Times wrote a story on Hunter Biden ADMITTING that his business deals with Ukraine and China were shady — but that Joe Biden was apparently in the clear? And why are we hearing about Biden’s classified documents, allegedly first discovered days before the midterm election, only NOW? When you put the entire story up on a timeline, it reveals something deeper, bigger, and more nefarious. It tells you a story the mainstream media and the White House DON’T want you to know and opens up new questions of corruption, cover-up, and potential election interference. BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere fills in for Glenn and is joined by founder and award-winning journalist John Solomon. They discuss John’s latest report on Biden family business deals that paid off for the Chinese in big ways. Plus, in a bizarre twist, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department has kept the FBI away from the classified documents evidence and has trusted Biden’s lawyers to “self-report” anything amiss. Solomon explains why the two-tiered approach to President Trump and Biden is important: “This means Biden’s lawyers could be witnesses in a criminal case.”