Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 26, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:07:20

3632 True News: Week In Review - March 26th, 2017

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Alright, hello everyone.
	It's Michael DeMarco and Stefan Molyneux back for our second weekly True News Week in Review news-laden program, which thank you everyone so much for all the incredibly kind feedback you gave us.
	I mean, normally when we ask for feedback, we get some feedback.
	But this time, people seem to really, really enjoy the show and they let us know it.
	So we will be continuing this for the foreseeable future, trying it out, seeing what we think of it, and the audience seems to like it, and I enjoy doing it.
	And just because I enjoy tinkering and don't have any sense of marketing, we're going to try and do everything completely different than what people liked before, just to see how loyal they really are.
	Yes, you like the show, so now we're going to cancel it.
	No, just do it badly, differently.
	I'll be doing it in outrageous and poor British accents.
	Recently, I did a mild British accent, which was compared to about as insulting as the one Dick Van Dyke did in an old movie.
	So, good.
	We'll keep on with that.
	Alright, well, first up today is a subject that always gets people riled up.
	We're going to talk about Donald Trump signing a bill to secure NASA funding with plans to reach Mars.
	Steph is very strongly opinionated on NASA, as am I, and let's read what Breitbart wrote.
	They said President Donald Trump signed a bill on Tuesday securing funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, with the aim of sending a crew to Mars within 20 years.
	Bill S-442, named the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017, was co-sponsored by noted Canadian Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, providing NASA with $19.5 billion worth of funding.
	For the 2018 fiscal year with the aim of sending a crewed mission to Mars in the 2030s.
	So that's an annual budget we're talking of.
	$19.5 billion annually going to NASA, which if I remember correctly, that's more than the wall is projected to cost on an annual basis here for this NASA budget.
	What do you think so far, Steph?
	Oh, I hate NASA. Oh, don't even get me started.
	I hate NASA. NASA is like tech porn for people who are never going to have sex.
	NASA is like, hey, look at this.
	We're setting fire to massive amounts of government money and destroying your children's future so you can look at a rocket going, ooh, and ah, and you can see footprints on the moon.
	Do you get to go to the moon?
	Absolutely not.
	Completely not, because we're taking all your money, we're shoveling it into the government giant Soviet-style project of massive engineering so that no free market alternatives are going to arise.
	You never got to go to space, but you do get to watch entitled assholes who like to bang a lot of groupies go to space instead.
	Oh, it bothers me no end.
	The opportunity costs of people who could otherwise be producing goods for the free market being sucked into the high-status communist central planning nightmare of Of NASA is horrendous.
	And, you know, yeah, okay, they did cool things in the 60s.
	Why?
	Because they grabbed all of the engineers from the free market, where they developed all of this discipline and energy and enthusiasm in the free market, and jammed them in, and yes, managed to get people to the moon and back.
	And then what happened was the inevitable sclerosis set in, the slow calcification of the muscles, the musculature, the ligaments, and the very arteries of NASA, and it turned into just another giant bifurc.
	I really hate the fact that money is being taken from hardworking people, being stuffed into the pockets of highly educated people who could otherwise be of great service to the nation, so that you get some sort of space race spectacle with which you can lord it over other countries while you die early from depressive illnesses, which we're going to talk about in a bit.
	I think it's a terrible, terrible decision.
	Maybe it's what he needed to pay off the scientific community with for cutting some funding for Global warming research, I don't know.
	A terrible, terrible decision that money should stay in the pockets of Americans.
	And it's also not like they've got the money anyway.
	They don't have the money.
	No, it's coming from the unborn.
	It's going into the national debt, and we have a debt ceiling coming up in a very near future here.
	So the idea that we're going to be spending money on anything extracurricular, such as NASA in the near future, is pretty insane.
	But...
	Yeah, America's space program has been a blessing to our people and to the entire world.
	Fantastic, Donald Trump.
	I think that's a wonderful sentiment.
	So why don't you float some investments for it?
	Because, you know, people are usually aware of that, which is a great blessing to them.
	And so just ask them to pay for it voluntarily.
	You know, set up a GoFundMe.
	Feel like watching other people go to Mars in 20 years?
	Or would you like to have a job today?
	It's really up to you.
	And I love science.
	Don't get me wrong.
	Don't put me into this.
	Well, I don't think the government should run the schools.
	Therefore, I hate education.
	I love science.
	I love engineering.
	I'd love to go to space myself.
	But it's either government employees go to space or we do.
	You don't get both.
	Well, it seems I read every other week there's an article about how there's some asteroid floating out there that contains minerals that if captured will crash the world economy if it's brought back to Earth.
	So maybe you can make the economic case and get some venture capital and go do it in a free market sense.
	And there's companies out there trying to do it.
	I mean, I'm aware that NASA took us to the moon.
	I'm aware that we got Tang out of NASA, but...
	This is a significant amount of money to be directed at a non-essential program as the United States debt reaches $20 trillion.
	And this, my friends, is why it takes 12 minutes for Skype to open on your Android phone.
	Because everybody's out there dicking around.
	And the thing is, too, it's so retro.
	People think this is like supposedly new technology, certainly for a lot of time.
	Like in the old space launches, they used to have to swap in and out memory modules because it had been coded like decades ago and nobody wanted to recode it.
	And so you had machines with like tiny RAM and slow processors.
	But I mean, it was just, it was so retro.
	And here's my, you know, if I were king of the world, Okay, NASA, you can have a small amount of money so that you can scan for giant asteroids that are going to land on the Earth so that we can do something, you know, send up Ben Affleck to take them out or something.
	That, okay, I'm willing for that.
	But this, don't worry, in a couple of decades, you can watch people go to Mars while you live in a van down by the river on a steady diet of government.
	Geez, not a good deal.
	And I think it's, yeah, who knows what's going on behind the scenes.
	Or maybe there's just this tech porn, like this spaceship porn.
	I saw Star Wars as a kid, so I want to go to, I want to see people go to Mars.
	It's like, okay, well, that's your fetish.
	Don't ask everyone else to suffer for it.
	And So yeah, it's to me a terrible decision to spend money on slowing down your economy.
	So he says this is going to create a whole bunch of high-paying jobs.
	It's like, no, no.
	If you're borrowing to create high-paying jobs, those jobs are not really created.
	All you're doing is preventing people.
	From working in other fields.
	And also, let's say that the most competent engineers go into NASA. That means that everything else slows down.
	And it also means that they're probably going to have to bring in more workers to fill up the supposed gap from overseas.
	This gap, oh, well, you don't have enough STEM people because NASA hired them all.
	It's like, oh, man.
	Just serve the people.
	Serve the people.
	Don't serve the leaders.
	I don't know that people are going to be coming off of welfare and unemployment to fill jobs as NASA engineers.
	I don't know that that's necessarily the transition that's going to happen, which might save some money if you get people into the economy.
	And at least they're working if they're collecting government benefits, whether that's in the form of a NASA paycheck.
	These guys had jobs anyway, right?
	These guys had jobs anyway.
	These people are fine.
	Yeah, but what you are doing is taking money out of the economy that could hire lower class to middle class workers.
	And that's where the real problem is.
	I think Rubio, one of the reasons he sponsored it is probably because he just hopes that they will find water on Mars.
	Well, and who knows what kind of...
	Like, there was a bomber that was built many years ago in America, and they could never cancel the bill.
	Like, the bomber turned out to be, like, unnecessary or archaic or whatever.
	They couldn't cancel the bill because one part of the bomber was built in every one of the states, right?
	So, like, each of the governors wanted to keep that particular...
	I mean, if they spread this out, it is a giant boondoggle and a big mess.
	But anyway, that's all I have to say on it.
	Just please keep your Mars.
	Just give some poor people some jobs.
	But Steph, the bill also urges NASA to, quote, extend human presence, including potential human habitation on another celestial body and a thriving space economy in the 21st century.
	You know, I'll believe that they can create a thriving space economy when they can rescue Detroit from being ruled by rabid dogs running through the neighborhoods.
	They can bring down the crime rate in Washington, D.C. That would be nice to see before we start creating a thriving space economy.
	How How about you protect New Orleans from entirely predictable floods, and then I'll believe that you can build them all in space.
	Get dams that don't collapse at will and flood California.
	Don't step on that bridge!
	But it's okay, we've gone to Mars.
	All right, let's move on before everyone's alienated from our supposed prehistoric anti-science mentality.
	Chelsea Clinton, folks, is joining the board of directors of online travel booking site Expedia.
	So if you're doing any kind of travel planning and you're booking stuff online in the near future or even the far future, just remember that Chelsea Clinton is now on the board of directors of Expedia.
	Now, Expedia did not disclose how much Clinton would be paid, but non-employee directors each earned more than $250,000 in 2015, according to their most recent regulatory filings.
	But wait, what's her, does she have a lot of experience at the executive level in the travel industry?
	Does she know a lot about online commerce?
	I mean, what is her particular skill set, other than the two syllables of her last name, what is the skill set that she's bringing to bear on this exciting and challenging business problem?
	She came out of the right vagina and has the correct political connections?
	No, I don't think that's it.
	No, I don't think that's it.
	I don't know.
	Well, you know, maybe she just left it off her resume.
	Or maybe she ran, like, she was an executive in an online megalopolis in a past life, you know, in ancient Egypt or something, and maybe this is all just kind of rolling back into her brain.
	Ugh.
	So apparently, reports are she's going to be entitled to receive over $300,000 in a mix of stock and cash each year for serving as a director.
	It's great to see the Clintons finally getting some money.
	Those poor bastards.
	I mean, they have been living hand to mouth for so long because, you know, they're dedicated public servants.
	It's November 8th.
	Dedicated public servants.
	And as the president, Bill Clinton only made, you know, in the low to medium six figures.
	So it's great to see them finally getting a little bit of cash so they can keep body and soul together.
	What a relief for everyone.
	In other exciting Chelsea Clinton news, Penguin Young Readers announced Clinton will publish a children's book on May 30th.
	So everyone, you can pause this recording and you can go to Amazon.com and you can order the Chelsea Clinton book because I know you're so excited.
	The book will be called She Persisted and it will honor 13 American women, quote, who never take no for an answer, end quote.
	No word if it'll honor her father or not.
	Oh, I thought no meant no, but all right, go on.
	That's it.
	She's publishing a book.
	And if you look online, there's lots of fluff pieces and articles about Chelsea Clinton.
	She's receiving awards, lifetime achievement awards, actually, from various places.
	And she's being written up about it.
	You know, it almost seems like she's angling for something.
	It almost seems like the media is in collusion with the Clinton family.
	No, that can never happen to possibly manufacture a Some type of political candidacy for Chelsea Clinton.
	No, that couldn't be the case whatsoever.
	Now, in this book, she's going to honor 13 American women who never take no for an answer, also known as stalkers.
	Would you like to go out with me?
	No!
	You're going out with me?
	No!
	You're going out with me?
	No!
	Anyway, so there's some of these women so far, Harriet Tubman, Sonia Sotomayor, and Oprah Winfrey.
	Mike, I'm going to go out on a limb here.
	There are some extremely powerful and admirable American women who have staunchly stood up in the face of massive opposition for their most cherished beliefs and done a lot of good for society.
	Two of them to come to mind have both been on this show, the late Phyllis Schlafly and Ann Coulter.
	I'm going to go out on a limb here, Mike.
	I'm going to guess that Chelsea Clinton is not including anyone like that.
	Like Ayn Rand, who became an American citizen, which you can argue is, you know, if you move from Russia because you love America so much, it's even more patriotic in a way.
	I'm going to guess that no one from the right is going to be in Chelsea Clinton's book.
	So it's a celebration of leftist groups that the Democrats want to vote for them and something along those lines.
	Women who never took no for an answer when it comes to the taxpayer's wallet.
	More often than not, I imagine that will be the case amongst those that have been honored.
	Right.
	Alright, well, moving on, we have death rates rising for wide swaths of white adults, study finds.
	Increases in quote-unquote deaths of despair from drugs, alcohol-related liver diseases, and suicide.
	So this is from the Wall Street Journal, and PewDiePie did nothing wrong, by the way.
	They write, 2015, two Princeton University economists published a landmark paper showing that mortality was rising for white middle-aged Americans after decades of decline.
	Now, a new analysis called mortality and morbidity in the 21st century, released by the Brookings Institute, paints an even bleaker picture for the nation's largest population group.
	Ah, mortality has been rising since the turn of the century for an even broader swath of white adults, starting at age 25.
	Driven by troubles in a hard-hit working class, death rates for white non-Hispanics with a high school education or less now exceed those of blacks overall.
	And they're 30% higher for whites age 50 to 54 than for blacks overall at that age.
	Now, I'm sure this is all just a social construct.
	Maybe it's a privilege overdose.
	But these are pretty shocking statistics, given that mortality rates have been headed in the right direction for a long, long time.
	And whites are going in the other direction in the United States, which is really breaking a significant trend, not just in the United States, but worldwide.
	And the numbers are huge.
	Right, so in 1999, the death rate for high school educated whites aged 50 through 54 was 30% lower than the death rate for all African Americans in the same age group.
	By 2015, it was 30% higher.
	So it went from 30% lower to 30% higher.
	That is a massive, massive swing in only 16 years.
	Now, the increase in the mortality rate for working class whites can't be explained by declining income prospects.
	Because obviously everyone faces the declining income prospects.
	Blacks and Hispanics face many of the same income struggles.
	You know, manufacturing, leaving, all that kind of fun stuff.
	It doesn't seem to be about current income.
	It seems about accumulating despair.
	Accumulating despair amongst American white adults.
	That's not something you're going to hear about too often.
	It's not just in America.
	In terms of despair, I mean, we know, of course, that in Russia, there are a lot of alcohol-related deaths and drug-related deaths and this sort of despair overdoses.
	One in four Japanese people have thought of suicide.
	It is something that is happening to late capitalist economies.
	Because it's not just careers for these high school educated whites that have gone down the tubes.
	Marriage prospects are doomed.
	Ability to raise children is doomed.
	Lots of kids out of wedlock.
	Lots of kids out of wedlock, and divorce has increased, and it is a giant, giant mess.
	I think one of the things—and this is reaching, and I'm not going to say this is proven.
	This is very, very tentative hypothesis time— But I looked up some studies, Mike.
	Whites worry a lot.
	And they worry more than just about any other ethnic group.
	They worry a lot more than blacks, than Hispanics, than Asians.
	And this worry stuff, I think, of course, is really, you know, that level of worry and stress.
	Very, very bad for the health.
	There is, of course, it's a very, very tough life for less educated whites these days, and even for more educated whites if you're not educated in the right thing, like some sort of productive thing, and not being able to go to college if you're not quite as smart as other people or just don't feel like it or whatever.
	Well, you're facing a big problem because there's all of these affirmative action hiring policies to not hire whites.
	Scott Adams talked about this in his book, that he basically hit the diversity ceiling when he was in the corporate world, and they said, well, that's it for white males.
	You're not going to be able to get ahead.
	And, you know, when you're constantly being told, you know, you're racist and misogynist and sexist and the source of all the world's problems and you can't get a job and you can't get married and you can't have children, you are going to turn to self-medication, especially if the society that your ancestors built is unsustainable.
	You know, this concern for unsustainability, which we've talked about before, like the ice people, the people who evolved where there was brutal winters.
	You don't do well in a brutal winter if you're unsustainable.
	Like if you don't have enough food stored up for the winter, you don't have enough resources to survive winter.
	So being uneasy about an unsustainable situation I think is part and parcel of people from a European background.
	And I think when we have a system with, you know, ever-escalating debt, with more and more people not in the workforce, with more and more people dependent upon the state, with more and more...
	Tax-hungry immigration, you know, like the natives are paying for the immigrants in a lot of ways.
	I think that creates a lot of anxiety.
	And the feeling that your government isn't on your side anymore, like if you try to...
	How many of these...
	Whites wanted to go to college but were shut out because of affirmative action hiring policy or affirmative action entrance policies in colleges for non-whites and so on.
	We don't know, but certainly whites are more susceptible to anxiety, and I would assume it's to do with this unsustainability question, and the society is unsustainable.
	Donald Trump, of course, has come in trying to make it more sustainable, and maybe that will help turn things around if it works, but...
	I think they're worried about a lot of that kind of stuff, which is why you get these suicides, drug overdoses, alcohol-related deaths, liver failure, these deaths of despair.
	Unsustainable, nothing to live for, no kids, no marriage, no job, no family, no future.
	It's tough.
	Well, one of the factors that they included here is a rise in social isolation.
	So you have social isolation.
	There's no support system.
	You have communities breaking down.
	You see the studies, Robert Putnam's work on what diversity does when it comes to social cohesion and communities, less social trust, that kind of things.
	So you have community breakdown.
	You have people that are very worried, and now they have no support.
	And then on top of it, you throw in, let's say they can't find a job.
	Let's say there's economic problems.
	Let's say there's health challenges.
	Stuff just starts magnifying and just becomes even more of a problem than it would have been if there'd be some semblance of support for people in those difficult positions.
	Well, just try being, let's say if you're a black woman, go on Twitter and complain about being stressed and anxious about society.
	You'll probably get a lot of sympathy, but try being an identified sort of middle-aged or even young white man and go and say you're stressed about society and just see what the response is.
	I think everyone gets what the response is going to be.
	And there'll be some sympathy, but there'll be a lot of sort of heaping of abuse of, well, you know, payback's a bitch.
	This is what happens when you oppress the world and this is what happens when you oppress minorities.
	And, you know, now you're getting a taste of what it's like on the other side and there's an escalation of aggression and abuse.
	So you can't even reach out in a sense to the global community, to the general community online and get support and sympathy.
	Well, this comes during a period, too, where heaven forbid you talk about possibly decreasing the amount of funding for social safety nets in society, for welfare, that type of thing.
	There's people that need help that are looking for some kind of support.
	They're isolated, they're running into problems, and they reach out for support in any type of online fashion.
	The support probably isn't going to be to the degree that is necessary or warranted.
	But heaven forbid you talk about possibly changing anything when it comes to the welfare state or programs, because, you know, we really need to support people in need.
	And this poverty, of course, you know, we've talked a lot about does poverty breed crime or does crime breed poverty?
	All of this, right, these lost opportunities, lack of capacity to get ahead, lack of capacity to get traction in a career.
	Or in marriage, theoretically, this should have all caused an increase in crime, but it doesn't seem to have.
	It has caused an increase in depression and anxiety and self-destructive behaviors, but I don't think it's caused a concomitant increase in crime, which is another support to the argument that crime doesn't necessarily come out of poverty.
	And just to kind of put this in perspective regarding the significance of this, since non-Hispanic whites make up 62% of the U.S. population, The rising mortality rates have actually pushed the overall U.S. life expectancy down in 2015.
	It's actually going down overall.
	Now it's 78.8 years.
	It's having that much of an impact that it's actually taking the overall life expectancy of the United States population down, which had been steadily increasing for a long, long, long, long time.
	And if this was, I mean, this is part of the whole lack of support.
	I mean, we all know if this was occurring to any other ethnic or gender group, that people would be freaking out.
	And there would be massive studies and there'd be government programs and spending, which I'm not saying is the right answer, but there wouldn't need to be that social response.
	Hell, if this was happening to polar bears, people would be freaking out.
	Oh, yeah.
	Just think about if life expectancy for whites was increasing and then it was just decreasing suddenly for blacks like that.
	That would be front page news everywhere.
	And I mean, kudos to the Wall Street Journal for at least writing up this study and the results of this study.
	But I haven't seen this hardly anywhere.
	And it was any other group other than whites and white males in particular.
	It would be it would be covered a lot more broadly, you got to think.
	So, that's, yeah, that's rough stuff.
	You know, I urge people out there of every race and gender, if you are feeling this way, you know, try and reach out.
	I'm a big fan of talk therapy.
	Try and get some help.
	Try and get some support.
	You know, there is a lot that can be done to help fix and save the world.
	And you drinking yourself out or opioding yourself out or just Don't dangerously activity saying yourself out.
	That's not the way to go.
	Reach out.
	Try and get some support.
	Try and get some help.
	Don't face it alone.
	Don't struggle with it alone.
	Contact, connection, intimacy can all be restored if you're willing to take the necessary steps.
	Well, and I was just reading the other day, too.
	With a 10-day supply of opioids, apparently one in five become long-term users.
	Now, the longer you use opioids, clearly, the greater the risk for developing an addiction.
	So this is something that is spiking, the risk of opioid addiction, use, and deaths associated with it.
	This is something that's spiking across the United States, and it's not really getting nearly the airtime that it should.
	I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that one of the main advertisers on most of cable news shows happen to be pharmaceutical drug companies.
	I'm sure that has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
	But it would be really great to see more of a discussion about this issue and things that can be done in the very near future.
	Well, it is an old...
	It's an old Soviet response that when the system is dysfunctional, anybody who fails to adapt to it must be mentally ill and needs to be drugged.
	We do this with boys, in particular, in government schools.
	Rather than improving the quality and appealing more to boys, we just drug them.
	Here's some Ritalin.
	Yeah, here's some Ritalin.
	And this is...
	I mean, this is sort of an end-of-civilization kind of pattern.
	I think we can break it, right?
	We've got the internet, we've got these conversations, but we do need to be stern.
	And also, remember, of course, there's a huge underground economy.
	I mean, some of the people who get these prescriptions, you can either take these pills or you can go and sell them for enormous amounts of money on the street, which also fuels this kind of stuff.
	As well, of course, having an open border to the South fuels the spread of these kinds of drugs in some ways as well.
	Up next, we have an article from the New York Post titled, Controversial Child Sex Dolls Floated as Treatment for Pedophiles.
	Okay.
	Scandinavian experts are urging the use of childlike sex dolls in a bid to stop pedophiles from abusing real-life children.
	Norwegian cops reveal that they are increasingly seizing creepy child sex dolls, mostly made in Hong Kong.
	More than 20% have been impounded by custom officials in the last six months.
	Now, apparently these child sex dolls are banned in Norway.
	Norway's National Criminal Investigation Service says those who have ordered the dolls are men aged between 18 and 60, and some of the men have been convicted of sexual offenses against children in the past.
	Police fear that the purchasers may pose a significant risk of committing abuses against children in the future, which...
	I guess having a sex doll is better than committing abuses against children in the future.
	But it's not exactly going to the root cause of the problem now, is it?
	Now, there's an entire industry that's pushing the sex dolls.
	Finland's The Sexpo Foundation executive director.
	A, this is a foundation, and B, it has an executive director, says, both sexpo services and international studies have shown that the risk of a sexual offense against a child can be reduced by providing a pedophile with a channel for their desires.
	Sex dolls are one sex channel.
	A person who uses a lot of money in effort to purchase the doll has already made the decision that he wants to carry out the sexual tendency.
	Therefore, it is important that customs authorities and others concerned about the sex dolls do not hamper their availability.
	Steph, they've made the decision that they want to carry out their quote-unquote sexual tendency.
	It's, you know, it's, oh man, this is a horrible one on every conceivable level.
	Because obviously, if there's a pedophile, I'd rather him do horrible things to a doll than a child.
	If that's your choice...
	It's not a binary choice, though.
	I know.
	I'm just saying, if that's the choice, then I would much rather do that.
	And there have been studies that have shown that...
	Portography brings down the rate of rapes?
	Yes, that's correct.
	Which, you know, makes sense.
	If you lower the price of a good that...
	Is sort of a somewhat substitute for another good.
	Quantity of the second good should fall.
	So, I don't know.
	It's a horrible thing.
	I mean, obviously, I think, of course, a lot of pedophiles come out of themselves having been victims of sexual abuse as children.
	So, you know, we're in the prevention business, not the cure business.
	So, this is why, you know, peaceful parenting and keep your hands off children in inappropriate ways.
	I mean, that's going to lower the prevalence of this stuff overall.
	But given that there are people out there, oh man, it's just a horrible, horrible situation as a whole.
	I mean, it would be great for them to be able to reorient their sexual desires.
	I don't know that anyone's ever been able to achieve that in a sustainable way.
	I would rather them not act out outside their own little closet of deviance, but I don't know.
	There's no good answer to this particular question.
	In the moment, in the future, it's like, you know, better parenting, peaceful parenting, and And boundary-appropriate parenting and so on, I think, will solve these problems in the long run.
	But in the moment, yeah, I mean, it's horrible to be reminded.
	And, you know, we see this, you know, with all the arrests that Trump's been making and the child sex slavery and so on.
	There's a lot of this stuff floating around in society.
	And it's just one of these reminders of just how...
	Vile and icky this whole world is and seeing these sort of child sex dolls is gross.
	And you do need to see them.
	I mean, I'm sorry to subject this on everyone, but you do need to actually look at the photo of one of these dolls.
	It's very ornate and intricate and detailed.
	Details, we'll say.
	So, in January, The Sun revealed that almost two dozen people have been arrested on suspicion of owning the quote-unquote obscene child sex dolls, which are also being sold on the dark web, where websites are claiming to offer dolls modeled on quote-unquote real human children.
	Aged as young as five.
	I mean, I'm sorry for inflicting this topic, but it is something we need to be reminded about.
	You know, there are theories out there, and I'm not referring to Pizzagate here, but there are theories out there, and some of them seem to be more than theories, about that there are people in positions of significant power who have some pretty dark tendencies when it comes to sexuality.
	We're talking about former British Prime Minister, a head presenter at the BBC, other places and other people, that there is a dark and seedy aspect running through sexuality in society as a whole and for people who are in positions of power, and that one of the reasons why...
	The state seems to be so hard to dislodge is that there may be people in positions of power who have compromising desires, and maybe there's evidence of those compromising desires, and they're pushing back against exposure.
	And I know that's very speculative, and I put that out there merely as a speculation, but there certainly is evidence of significant numbers of deviants in positions of high power.
	And, of course, they can only do it because there are those around them willing to cover up and protect these particular tendencies.
	So, I sort of keep my eye on it.
	It's pretty stomach-turning to even look at and think about, but I do keep my eye on it.
	We'll sort of keep tracking the story as it progresses, but it is a dark aspect of power in particular that we need to be aware of.
	Well, for example, I mean, this is the kind of thing, like, you don't want to look at it, you don't want to read these stories, but once you start looking at and for these stories, you find them everywhere.
	Everyone remembers the Jerry Sandusky case, right?
	How many years did Jerry Sandusky go doing what he was doing and it wasn't reported on?
	Well, apparently, the adopted son of Jerry Sandusky was recently arrested for alleged sexual abuse of a child.
	So the adopted son of Jerry Sandusky, who did what he did for years and years and years without being reported, Is now arrested for the alleged sexual abuse of a child.
	This stuff is everywhere, unfortunately, and there's a few important articles that I think people should check out on it.
	We're not going to read them here, but they're worth your perusal.
	On the platform Medium, Lori Handredan has professors and staff accused of trading in child rape, and it is a long, detailed, incredibly meticulously sourced document detailing the number of academics And school professors that have been caught over the years and the number of years that they have continued such behavior before being caught.
	That's pretty eye-opening.
	And there's another important article in the Washington Post written by Friday Rice, who I'd like to get on the show at some point in the near future.
	She's pushing back against child marriages that are happening internationally and specifically the United States.
	The article is Why can 12-year-olds still get married in the United States?
	Yeah, this is from unchainedatlast.org, which is her website that breaks down a lot of this information.
	So approximately 248,000 children were married in America between 2000 and 2010.
	So a quarter of a million children married in America.
	Some 77% of children wed were minor girls married to adult men, often with significant age differences.
	Some children were wed at an age or with a spousal age different that constitutes statutory rape under their state's laws.
	But it was legal for them to get married because yay government!
	Here's some more examples.
	That's some old school numbers.
	That's like old school like thousands of years ago.
	3,499 children were married in New Jersey between 1995 and 2012.
	The youngest example they could find was 10 years old.
	A 10-year-old allowed to marry.
	I guess that's not a lot of Japanese marriages.
	I'm just gonna go again out on a limb.
	I don't have that data, but yeah, I'm gonna make some guesses.
	Shockingly, or not shockingly, 91% of the children were married to adults in New Jersey here, and many of them, again, at ages.
	That would be considered statutory rape.
	And 90% of these children were girls.
	So this is an issue that I would really like to hear feminists start talking about, because this is a situation where I think everyone can get behind it and say, hey, how about we...
	How about we don't allow statutory rapes slash marriages to Neil?
	Well, technically not everyone, because there are these creeps who want to marry these children.
	So most people, I think every reasonable person could get behind that this is a horrifying and horrible thing.
	I hope to God this crosses party lines.
	I hope this isn't something that divides along red and blue.
	It's just another feminist integrity test.
	Do you care about these child brides as a feminist, or are there cultural sensitivities that paralyze you?
	Ha!
	Let's find out.
	We've been talking about child maltreatment on the show for many, many years, and I recently dug into a US government report, the most recent one that was available on child maltreatment rates, and I found a few of these stats interesting, so I want to share them with everyone.
	Apparently, The government, and this doesn't include spanking or anything like that.
	This is what you'll get your child taken away from you, child maltreatment rates.
	So this is government definitions.
	And 27.7% of child maltreatment victims are under three years old.
	Where is the victimization the highest?
	Unfortunately, it's the highest for children under one year old.
	So the most vulnerable among us are also the most victimized, according to this data, which Isn't too surprising.
	It seems to go down, shockingly, as the children get larger.
	You know, maybe able to defend themselves or tell someone else far more easily.
	But yes, the most vulnerable among us are also the most victimized.
	And we have some raw numbers and data to back that up.
	I thought it was pretty important.
	And putting those stats in a different context, in 1970, working mothers with a young child under three years old It was only 34%.
	34% of mothers who had children under three years old were working.
	The latest data we have is 2008.
	And where is that now?
	Well, it's 60%.
	60%.
	So where are those children under three years old going?
	You know, those children who are making up the majority of the cases of child maltreatment?
	Well, where are they going when mom's working?
	Hopefully they can stay with a grandparent.
	Hopefully maybe they have a stay-at-home father.
	That would be nice.
	More often than not, they're going to daycare.
	They're going to daycare.
	So who's watching the kids?
	The most vulnerable population, who's watching them?
	I mean, everyone has seen videos of, you know, the daycare worker that pushes the kid down the stairs and that type of stuff.
	I mean, that's in the rare situation where people actually have a camera and are able to see something and then it makes it out.
	I'm sure there's all kinds of stuff that gets covered up because they don't want the lawsuits or don't want, you know, do you really want to send your kid to the The daycare that just had one of the workers fired for throwing kids down the stairs?
	Probably not.
	Imagine what gets covered up and imagine what's not seen.
	Imagine what's going on with, you know, maybe the kids from other cultures that come in that don't speak the language that might be a little more violent, potentially.
	Or may have been taught that you as not being part of their culture or belief system are somehow worth less and need to be less considered in feelings and thoughts.
	We were talking about how maybe early sexual experiences, child rape, would lead to someone later wanting to normalize that themselves when we're talking about pedophilia.
	Kids that are hit, kids that are assaulted, kids that are victimized themselves, and what are they going to do when they're in daycare?
	If hitting is normal, well, the other kids in daycare, hitting's okay.
	So that's the rule.
	So where are you sending your kids, everyone?
	Where are you sending your kids?
	So yes, unchainedatlast.org.
	Maybe share some of their articles.
	They're trying to do a lot of Political action-y type things to actually change the law, which, you know, not really my thing more often than not, but this is something I would certainly support.
	And just to throw a few numbers at what we talked about before, this is from Steven Landsberg.
	He's a writer, of course, and just very briefly, a 10% increase in Internet access yields about a 7.3% decrease in reported rapes.
	And this is fairly well established.
	Again, this stuff is hard to make.
	Perfect.
	States that adopted the Internet quickly in America saw the biggest declines.
	And these effects remain.
	You can control for, like, alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty, unemployment rate, population density.
	It remains valid.
	And the reason why it's not just people staying home and therefore not being out committing crimes but maybe sexually related is that there's no associated reduction in something like homicide.
	But for rape, which, of course, you know, if you've masturbated, then, of course, you're less likely, I guess, for the next 10 minutes to go rape someone – So there does seem to be a relationship between the spread of the internet and I would assume then pornography with a decrease in rape.
	And it's not because they have found the loves of their lives, these men or women, I guess, they haven't found the loves of their lives properly.
	On dating sites, because the effects are strongest among 15 to 19-year-olds.
	They don't really use a lot of dating services.
	Associated did some violent movies.
	When violent movies get released, violent crime rates fall, like instantly.
	And that's very...
	It's one of these counterintuitive things.
	And it's...
	It's a 2% drop for every million people watching violent movies, and that occurs between 6pm and midnight.
	And now that's partly because they're in the movie theaters, but even when the theaters close, the crime stays down by not quite as much.
	It's almost like we're making the case for the controversial child sex dolls.
	Well, that's – you know, this is what I'm saying.
	Like, it's – I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.
	I don't chicken out from a lot of decisions and I'm willing to go, like, you know, to the edge of social acceptability to bring truth to the masses.
	But I'm just glad I'm not in charge of any of these decisions but just provide arguments and data.
	So it is – I know seeing this story creeps the hell out of me.
	But, you know, the libertarian in me is going, well, you know, if someone wants to sell X to Y, well, then is that bad?
	Is that immoral?
	Well – Please, please harm the dolls.
	You know, you're never going to see a doll in a police station being shown a doll saying, show us where the creepy person touched you, right?
	That's the only thing I got to say about that, hideous though it is.
	Something from the New York Times up next, or at least some commentary from the New York Times, but this is a report from Breitbart.
	Texas law says voting when not eligible is a Class 2 felony.
	Rosa Marina Ortega, 34, of Grand Paris, Texas, was indicted in 2015 after attempting multiple times to register to vote after casting ballots as a Dallas resident in the years prior.
	So when she was told by election officials that she could not qualify for registration as a green card holder, she then claimed to be a citizen in a subsequent attempt, creating suspicion and thus a criminal investigation thereafter.
	She was convicted of illegally voting in 2012 and 2014 and ultimately sentenced to eight years in prison with deportation likely to follow.
	Eight years.
	Eight years in prison for one...
	I guess repeated attempt to vote illegally.
	Well, she did vote illegally in 2012 and 2014.
	That they do know.
	Right, right.
	But that's eight years.
	Well, that's what people are saying.
	Texas law, it's a class two felony.
	So, Texas takes this stuff seriously.
	I'm just, you know, really want to point out, since I can't do it enough times, that the people who planned an acid attack at Mike Cernovich is deplorable.
	Yeah.
	Which could be considered to be slightly more egregious than, you know, illegal voting.
	They got off with community service, and if they're nice boys and girls, then they don't even get a criminal record.
	Just won eight years.
	That seems...
	There was a rape in Sweden recently that got community service as well.
	It's like, oh god...
	Yeah, looking at the disparities in some sentences, same country, different offenses.
	Can you imagine if it was a man?
	No, I'm just kidding.
	Men tend to get longer sentences for the same crimes.
	The interesting part about this, other than, hey, look, it actually does happen.
	People do vote illegally.
	Wow, look at that.
	Yeah, sorry, mainstream media, it actually does happen.
	But the New York Times commented on this specific case, and, well, let's just get to it.
	Quote, Oh, Lord.
	End quote.
	No, go ahead.
	I'll save myself up.
	I need my venom sacks to fill before I expunge on this one.
	That's as much New York Times as I was going to include in this.
	But yes, she has a shaky grasp on the complexities of life.
	They're not sending their bests.
	I'll just shoehorn that in there.
	She didn't know she was violating the law.
	So she knew enough that when she couldn't register as a green card holder, she then claimed to be a citizen.
	So she knew enough.
	To change her claim because they wouldn't let her.
	And yeah, then she was found guilty.
	And I imagine there's lots of cases of this where there's suspicion and either it's not followed up on or they don't have people dead to rights and they don't prosecute, let alone convict.
	So the fact that she got eight years for this and then the New York Times is saying she has a shaky grasp on the complexities of her life.
	She has children, by the way.
	Let's also point that out.
	And her crime wasn't voting illegally, you know, subverting the election process, which I'm sure there's a way to possibly blame Russia for this.
	I don't know.
	But when it involves someone in the country who is going to vote for the left, the crime is being confused.
	If you're Russia, which, um, no evidence again that Russia leaked emails in any way, shape, or form to WikiLeaks, which then released emails providing the American populace with more information.
	That's a hack!
	How is it a hack?
	We're getting to the three IQ geniuses.
	Oh, yeah.
	We're getting there.
	Just be patient, everyone.
	Just be patient.
	But yeah, the crime of being confused.
	It's just interesting who we say, like, oh, you know, they didn't mean to do that.
	You know, they didn't really mean to do that.
	They're just confused.
	She doesn't know.
	Life is complex.
	Versus the people that they want to throw the book at in the media.
	It's an interesting deal.
	So the Times makes considerable effort to paint Ortega as a civically minded resident who wants to make her voice heard, but is sometimes confused by modern life in doing so.
	Sure.
	No, it's very easy to get confused when you're continually harassed, arrested, and rejected for trying to commit an illegal action.
	And if you're really, really confused by that basic fact...
	I'm sure you can really understand the complexities of Obamacare and vote for that.
	I'm so confused.
	I don't even know which way is north, but please let me vote on very complex sociopolitical systems.
	Voting is difficult.
	I get confused, but I understand foreign policy like nobody's business.
	Let me into that voting booth and I'll pull over and we'll be all set.
	I'm definitely confused by my own personal life, but the Constitution, I'm down pat with that.
	So, eight years for illegal voting.
	I mean, as you probably remember, actress Gina Rodriguez asked Obama about illegal voting.
	That's right.
	On November 3rd.
	And there are some interpretations which you can, you know, get behind that Barack Obama encouraged.
	Illegal aliens to vote without fear of being investigated or deported.
	Now, to incite another person to commit a crime or to encourage them to commit a crime, my understanding is that's not particularly legal.
	But, oh, it's okay, because he was the president, so the law doesn't apply if you're the president.
	At least that's what Richard Nixon taught us.
	So just on the subject of people in the country illegally or illegal voting, an Old Dominion slash George Mason study found that 14.8% of non-citizens admitted they were registered to vote in 2008 and 15.6% of non-citizens admitted they were registered in 2010.
	So, depending on what estimate you go by, obviously this is a smaller sample than the mainstream number of 11 million, which is probably likely 20, 30, who knows at this point how many people are non-citizens in the United States.
	When the numbers were adjusted to take into account additional factors such as non-citizens who said they were not registered, but then they looked it up and they actually were registered, The study's authors concluded that the true percentage was probably closer to 25%.
	So 25% of these non-citizens were registered to vote.
	So if the upside estimates of 40 million illegal immigrants in the US, right, we're talking 10 million illegal votes, more than enough to swing an election.
	What did Trump say?
	Millions and millions voted illegally.
	Which, there is data to suggest that that's possible.
	Especially with Trump.
	And no one wants to look at that data.
	Yeah.
	Because that was the election regarding...
	If it was ever going to happen, it would be in the election where you have the strongest anti-illegal immigration candidate that has come aboard in any...
	Good God, since how long?
	And you just have to look at the incentives.
	If illegal immigrants in America didn't vote, then Democrats wouldn't be so keen to import and protect them.
	Because they vote Democrat, for the most part.
	So Democrats aren't stupid.
	They want the free votes, so to speak.
	And so, for sure, if they weren't voting, Democrats wouldn't be out there protecting and encouraging them and offering sanctuary cities and all this.
	That's just simple follow the money or sort of follow the votes.
	I wonder if the 25% of those people are also confused with the complexities of life or if that's just the woman in Texas.
	There's another study in 2014 that estimated 6.4% of non-citizens voted illegally into 2008 presidential election and 2.2% voted into 2010 midterm congressional elections.
	And, you know, that's enough to swing an election without question.
	Right.
	I would like to see an investigation into voter fraud and that type of stuff.
	And I don't know why anyone would oppose an investigation into voter fraud.
	We have to hear about how Russia hacked the election and all that stuff.
	So obviously secure elections and fair elections are very important.
	Otherwise, we wouldn't be hearing about that.
	So what's wrong with the investigation to actually get to the bottom of this and look into other irregularities as well, including stuff uncovered by Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, and many people that have been very vigilant in addressing voter issues and voter fraud concerns.
	One of the reasons why it's a big challenge to have illegal immigrants voting in an election is it becomes like a one-issue vote for them.
	Can I get citizenship?
	Can I get amnesty?
	Can I get a path to citizenship?
	And whoever's going to offer me that, I'll just take the bundle deal because that's the only thing I really care about.
	I don't know.
	Well, that's why you've seen Republican candidates really backpedal when it comes to immigration stuff.
	I mean, they know what the Republican base wants.
	Trump showed that, you know, they want a secure border and they'd like to see enforcement of actual immigration law that's already on the books.
	But you get stuff like the Gang of Eight bill and other things which equate to amnesty and in elections.
	I mean, imagine the establishment Republicans wanted to run Jeb Bush, who said immigration, illegal immigration is an act of love.
	I mean...
	So that's the candidate the establishment really wanted to run.
	So they've taken the position that even touching this third rail is suicidal from a political standpoint.
	Trump has proved that to be incorrect, but, you know, that's Why it took someone like Trump that was funding his own campaign, for the most part, to come in and kind of break the paradigm because this issue was just off the table for discussion and consideration because they thought it was near political suicide.
	Well, and this is the one thing that's challenging about the legacy of Reagan, right?
	Reagan amnestied millions of illegals in California, thus within a generation, handing California permanently to the left And, you know, that's a huge number of electoral college votes.
	And people forget about that aspect of, you know, he did some pretty non-traditional things, right?
	The amnesty was one.
	Signed into law, no-fault divorce.
	No-fault divorce, which is the one thing he said he regretted the most.
	But if he was still alive, well, obviously, first he'd be clawing desperately at the inside of his coffin.
	But also, I think looking at what had shaken down and shaken out from the amnesty that he offered to California, I think he would regret that even more.
	up in conversations about Ronald Reagan, who is evoked as some type of conservative deity more often than not, which, OK, you know, I understand Cold War.
	You got the nice sounding speeches.
	There's some Reagan positives, but there's some stark negatives that don't seem to get nearly as much attention.
	And one of these days we've been asked so many times to do the truth about Ronald Reagan.
	Eventually we'll get there.
	Eventually we'll do it.
	But that's quite the story in and of itself.
	All right.
	All right.
	Moving on.
	Another story involving immigration in a way.
	One in five newborns in Denmark has a foreign heritage.
	So of the 61,614 children born in Denmark in 2016, over 20% were born to an immigrant or someone with an immigrant background.
	The influx of refugees from Syria is one of the biggest factors in the statistic, with Syrian mothers making up the second biggest nationality group in the statistic other than Danish, with Turkish the third largest.
	So a total of 18.5% of all newborns were born to foreign mothers, while 21.6% were born to either immigrants or descendants of immigrants.
	The figures, taken from Statistics Denmark, show a significant increase since 2007, when the proportion stood at 13.5%.
	Population researcher and professor Paul Christian Matheson said, the economic burden for society from non-Western immigrants and their descendants adds up to 15 to 20 billion kroner, which is the equivalent of 2.2 to 2.9 billion dollars US, per year.
	That is the equivalent of 1% of GDP. Matheson said that society was making a loss due to quote, the difference between what immigrants contribute to society and what they receive in the form of grants and education, end quote.
	So, Denmark is very quickly on the way to no longer being Danish.
	And that's just an interesting question, you know.
	There are some countries where the ethnicity and the country are somewhat synonymous.
	And they tend to be, I think, sort of Asian countries, right?
	So, if I... Go to Japan and have a child.
	Is my child Japanese?
	Well, of course they would be a citizen, but would we think of that person as Japanese?
	When we think of China and Chinese, do we think of a particular ethnic group, or do we think of just the country?
	And, you know, if somebody, if a pygmy goes to China and has children, like from the Amazon, is that child Chinese?
	And so there are some countries where the ethnicity and the country, and of course these are mono-ethnic Societies or cultures, like Japan is like in the high 90s in terms of percent of ethnic or racial homogeneity.
	Same thing with South Korea and China's pretty high that way as well.
	But there are other countries where, what does it mean to be Danish?
	Does it mean to be white?
	Is Danish an ethnicity?
	Or is Danish just a country and paperwork?
	And it's interesting when you think of the countries where you associate ethnicity with the geography and the countries where you don't.
	Because when they say non-Western and when they say foreign, what they mean is non-white.
	I mean, they won't say it, but that's kind of what they mean.
	And are you Danish if you are born in Denmark and you are from Syrian parents or sub-Saharan African parents or whatever?
	Well, of course, legally you are and you're a citizen and so on.
	But then how do we deal in our minds with the other countries where ethnicity and geography are united?
	I mean, that's an interesting question.
	I'll sort of leave listeners to ponder that.
	But it can lead you down some pretty challenging and exciting intellectual rabbit holes.
	Well, that came up this week with the London terrorist attack because the attacker was native-born British but had an immigrant background.
	So, you know, we've seen some very...
	Challenging statistics regarding second generation immigrants.
	And I encourage people to look into that kind of stuff.
	So if you have the second generation, you know, the people that are born in countries, and then you still have problems or you have more problems than even the first generation because of potentially regression to the mean with IQ, maybe other factors.
	That's not exactly encouraging for the concept or idea of multiculturalism and diversity.
	Well, and all we have to do is remember that the question of diversity, is diversity a strength?
	Well, you can't answer that it is a strength if you're bringing people in who themselves don't value diversity.
	You know, if they self-segregate into particular communities, if they refuse to sort of learn the larger values, the larger language, integrate into the larger society.
	I don't mean perfectly.
	Nobody's saying everyone's got to be a photocopy of each other.
	But...
	You know, if they drive cars into crowds of school children, that type of thing.
	Well, yeah, or even if they just, you know, very much self-sex.
	I mean, so if, you know, when Chinese people were sometimes brought and sometimes came to sort of North America to help build railroads and stuff, then often they would segregate into Chinatown, the elder generation.
	They might not even learn English.
	And so clearly that's not integrated.
	Now their kids are probably going to integrate a whole lot more.
	And, you know, there's a high IQ population, so it's much more likely to occur.
	But if you had a group of people who came from China, who did not learn English, who did not participate in the local economy, who did not subscribe to the values of society in any way, shape, or form, we would say that that's a failure to integrate.
	So diversity is fine, but there's already diversity in the world, right?
	I mean, if you want to go live in a Muslim country, you want to go live in a whatever, you can go live in a In various different countries, there already is diversity in the world, but if you take that kind of, quote, diversity and then try and bring it into one particular country, well, a country is defined by its laws, and the laws are supposedly a reflection of values that people share.
	If people don't share those values, you're going to have groups that come into conflict with the laws of their society, and that's not necessarily...
	We just saw this in the Netherlands.
	We saw this in the Netherlands with the Rajesh from the Turks.
	The Turks that live in the Netherlands, to the point where you have Turkey actually wanting to send ambassadors and such to campaign for the Turkey referendum.
	You have people waving Turkish flags in the streets.
	It's like, which country are you aligned with?
	And there are lots of Hispanics in California who still think that it should be Mexican, right?
	I just can't fathom going to Japan and waving an American flag or something.
	It's just the idea to me.
	It's just so ludicrous.
	Nonetheless, you seem to see it across the world in many different cultures.
	The next story we got up here is something that we talked a little bit about last week, but here's some actual data.
	I wanted to bring it up.
	Apparently, there's 30 countries that are refusing to take back illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes.
	Now, this is a story referencing the United States, and this is from The Daily Caller.
	Approximately 30 countries are refusing to accept the deportations of illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes in the U.S. And this is according to Texas Representative Harry Kuler.
	And he's a Democrat, so this crosses party lines.
	He says, while countries are refusing to accept the deportations of these criminals, the U.S. government is still issuing visas and student visas to citizens of those countries.
	So there's already a law on the books which allows the U.S. to hold visas from a country that's not taking back its criminals.
	But, yeah, like a lot of immigration related laws in the United States, the U.S. just isn't enforcing it.
	You know, there's this old saying, you know, it's not just a good idea.
	It's the law.
	You know, this is the way they used to be said when I was growing up.
	And now it's neither a good idea nor the law, a lot of immigration stuff in America.
	Yeah.
	So apparently the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity can only be held for a certain period of time before they must be released.
	So what happens if their home country won't take them back?
	They got to be released out into the streets.
	So he's quoted as saying, that means you're releasing criminals onto our streets because those countries refuse to take back those criminal aliens.
	That's wrong.
	Especially, I think it's even worse that this is already on the books and we are still issuing business tourist visas Again, this is the type of incompetence that I assume Jeff Sessions is very aware of this.
	I assume Donald Trump is very aware of this.
	This is the type of thing where the pick-and-choose nature of law enforcement It's got to be driving anyone that's rational or anyone that's concerned with any kind of application of the laws it stands.
	It's got to be driving them mental.
	Incompetence, Mike.
	Incompetence, really?
	Is that the blanket you're covering over these bodies with?
	Incompetence?
	Can we think of any reason why the United States, particularly under Obama, might not be pushing the expatriation of criminal aliens?
	Oh, they're more likely to vote for the Democrats than they are for the Republicans.
	And hey, maybe they can have a child in the country and then work their way to citizenship in some way, shape or form, or maybe be granted amnesty in the future.
	And use that boat hook to bring in every conceivable relative they can lay in the gene pool, right?
	With papers that are written out in crayon on the back of a napkin.
	And also, you know, if there's a country that's refusing to take back They're criminals, which I completely understand.
	What country would?
	Hey, this arsehole just committed a whole bunch of crimes.
	Why don't you take him home?
	And he hasn't paid any taxes really in your country because he's been living here for a long time.
	But you feel like housing him and paying for his incarceration?
	Of course the country doesn't want the criminals back.
	That's natural.
	You can get away with it.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It'd be foolish to take him back.
	Yeah, it'd be like saying, well, we're dropping your taxes 20%, but you can still pay the old rate if you want.
	I don't think they're going to get a lot of it.
	So I understand all of that.
	But also...
	The Democrats don't want to reveal that these countries' governments are kind of jerky, right?
	Because they want people to come in from those countries, right?
	So if there's, you know, some country, just call it X, some country X, they're sending a lot of people into America, but they won't take back any of their criminals.
	They don't want the Americans to get a negative perception of country X, because then people might not want quite as many immigrants from that country if that's the kind of culture, that's the kind of mindset that they're coming from.
	This is so far and away from anything that makes even remote sense that just blows your mind.
	All right.
	All right.
	Well, speaking of things which blow your mind, an Israeli Jew was arrested for a string of Jewish community center bomb threats.
	Wait, what?
	Wait, a hate crime hoax?
	I know, shockingly.
	Let it be sent forth on this day, the 24th of March 2017, that for the first time in human history, a hate crime turned out to be a self-generated hoax.
	Yeah, so Israeli police have arrested a 19-year-old Jewish-Israeli-American for his suspected role behind a slew of bomb threats made against Jewish community centers across the globe.
	So this wasn't like one.
	worldwide with bomb threats.
	The arrest comes after bomb threats were made against dozens of community centers in Australia, the U.S., Europe, and New Zealand over the last six months.
	Israeli investigators found that many of threats led back to Israel, though the suspect is not believed to be responsible for all of the threats, according to the Jerusalem Post.
	Now, Israeli officials withheld the suspect's name and offered few details on their background, but here's what we do know.
	The person is a dual Israeli-American citizen.
	He is not a member of the Israeli Defense Forces.
	He is not ultra-Orthodox, and at some point, the individual may—I like this— The individual may also have psychological and social problems.
	Gee, you don't say.
	You're calling in bomb threats.
	I don't care what you're calling in bomb threats to.
	If you're calling in bomb threats, yes, you may have psychological and social problems.
	We're going to go out on that limb and say that.
	So police do not know the suspect's motivation, but they believe he may have acted alone.
	The suspect's father was also detained for questioning.
	Israeli police are continuing the investigation on the suspect to determine if he had any connection to Jewish communities in the United States to determine if there is an American connection.
	Now, this story comes on the heels of, remember the Jewish cemetery damage?
	That was a storm, right?
	There was a couple examples of this, and...
	There was two that turned out to be just weather-related.
	They had really bad storms.
	You know, the cemeteries, it's not like everything was maintained perfectly.
	Well, sorry, Mike.
	I hate to interrupt you, but you are overstepping the obvious hypothesis that the weather is viciously anti-Semitic.
	Could be.
	The wind.
	Nazi winds!
	Sorry, go on.
	We need to do something about climate change because it's enforcing a Nazi ideology in some way, shape, or form.
	It seems...
	Just about every story that's getting reported as like a hate crime.
	You know, someone draws a swastika in like a bathroom or something, and then it comes out, oh, they found out who did it, and it's, you know, was a prank or something like that.
	Or just a group that's attempting to gain attention and sympathy by portraying themselves as victims, and they can't find enough people to make them victims, so they make themselves victims.
	I mean, when you elevate victimhood to a status symbol, This is the kind of stuff that you're gonna get.
	The consentives in society are completely backwards.
	So, not only do you get the people, I'm a victim, therefore, you know, I don't have the motivation and desire to possibly go out and change my situation, start a business, get a job, change my situation.
	No, they just, I'm a victim, and people just become rooted in that.
	And this is an offshoot.
	Well, and it is a way of avoiding, and we talked about this in the presentation on France and immigration.
	There is rising anti-Semitism in various areas in Europe.
	It just is among a demographic that people really don't want to talk about that much.
	No, Jews are fleeing France like nobody's business.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so, I mean, I don't want to, you know, I'm making jokes about Nazi winds and so on.
	I don't want people to think that I don't think anti-Semitism is a real issue.
	It certainly is.
	It's just...
	People don't really want to talk about some of the challenges going on in that situation, so...
	Well, no one wants to talk about the challenges for legitimate anti-Semitism and legitimate, you know, hate crimes.
	Stuff that winds up being real.
	People don't want to talk about groups involved in that type of stuff.
	And also, and this is the thing that drives me nuts, too, it also cheapens, like, whenever I see a hate crime now, in the back of my mind, I'm like, I just, this is false until proven otherwise.
	Because...
	We've seen so many hate crimes, so many crimes in general, so many things that have been blown up by the media wind up being complete hoaxes that, I mean, if there is a legitimate problem somewhere that should endear someone to sympathy, attention, support, it's really cheapening those experiences, and those people aren't going to get it to the degree that is probably warranted for some of this stuff because there's lots of people spreading around bullshit, counterfeit hate crimes.
	So now the value...
	the people will pay to someone who makes a claim.
	It's the same as the people that put out rape hoaxes. - Right. - False rape claims.
	All of a sudden now there's rape victims out there that aren't taken as seriously because there's lots of false rape accusations.
	So again, byproduct of the victim culture mentality.
	And there are, of course, you know, and there was just recently a horrifying actual hate crime, which is this white guy went and stabbed someone with a sword, this elderly black man, because he hated blacks, and particularly blacks who dated white women, and he Went to New York trying to kill as many black men as possible, and he saw this guy in the street, hacked him up with a sword, and killed him.
	And then he turned himself in, I think, the next day.
	A genuine, racist, horrible, horrifying, murderous hate crime.
	And I'm concerned that these genuine signals of massive social distress—this guy was ex-military— Some of the stuff might get lost in the shuffle, which is really, really tragic because we do need to pay attention to these kinds of horrifying situations.
	Well said.
	All right.
	Well, another news story that was making the rounds this week involved Tommy Lahren and her suspension from the Blaze.
	Thank you.
	gained a lot of attention for her short viral videos that she's been publishing on Facebook.
	She drew a lot of attention from that, was then hired to The Blaze, has been with The Blaze for a while, and she's been making the rounds on a lot of mainstream news shows, including liberal news shows such as The View, which coincidentally is where she made the comments which led to her suspension/vacation/call-it-what-you-will which coincidentally is where she made the comments which led to her suspension/vacation/call-it-what-you-will And she's young too.
	Crazy young.
	She is very young and has crossover appeal that is rare for a conservative.
	Most conservatives are pretty demonized by liberals.
	And she had a very reasonable discussion on The Daily Show, which doesn't happen too often.
	She's a valuable asset for the conservative movement for that reason alone.
	But these are the comments that she made on The View that got her in some trouble with conservatives.
	She said, I am pro-choice, and here's why.
	I'm a constitutional.
	You know, someone that loves the Constitution.
	She misspoke.
	That happens.
	I'm someone that's for limited government.
	So I can't sit here and be a hypocrite and say that I'm for limited government, but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies.
	I can sit here and say that as a Republican, and I can say that, you know what, I'm for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.
	So that statement led to lots of criticism.
	And one of the main critiques was, oh, she's pandering to the liberal audience.
	And there's people that I really respect that have made this claim.
	So I was curious, you know, has she ever talked about this before?
	Did she just go on The View and completely change her position and flip-flop to curry favor with Whoopi Goldberg?
	That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do that.
	So I was skeptical.
	And Oh, wouldn't you know it?
	She's actually held this position for quite a while and has talked about it.
	So I dug up something in the Harvard Political Review from September 21st of 2016.
	She says, the last thing I will ever do is be a puppet for something I don't believe in.
	That's why you don't hear me talk about pro-life abortion.
	I don't talk about it because I am socially moderate.
	I'm not going to sit here and bang the pro-life drum.
	That's not really my fight.
	Or same-sex marriage.
	I'm okay with same-sex marriage.
	I'm very tolerant of same-sex marriage.
	That's why I don't talk about it much, because it's not one of my core issues, and that's why you won't see me getting artificially angry about these things.
	Okay, so that's last September.
	Harvard Political Review, not exactly liberal bastion that she's trying to make a name for on.
	And socially moderate means that she's okay with abortion.
	A libertarian-ish position.
	Yeah.
	Which is, I mean, you cannot like it, and that's fine, but it's Not that out of the norm these days, especially amongst younger people.
	And as we mentioned, she's 24.
	Well, and if the charge is hypocrisy, it's weaker, right?
	So if you can call someone a hypocrite, then you have to show that they've changed their position.
	I don't think there's a strong case for that.
	Well, continue.
	She did an interview with The Daily Caller last year, October 23rd.
	She said, abortion is not one of those issues that is most important to me.
	I am not one of those pro-lifers that is so adamant in their beliefs.
	Socially, I'm far more moderate because I don't think it has many implications for the average American that's just working to stay afloat right now.
	So socially, I am more moderate and I do think most millennials tend to be.
	OK.
	Then the New York Times did a profile on her on December 4th, 2016, where it said she is pro-choice and does not object to gay.
	So again, this is not exactly a new position that was trotted out on the view for the first time, but this is when the controversy has erupted.
	So that in of itself is interesting, and we can get into the potential reasons why in the near future.
	So a lot of people that are saying she's changed her position or is hypocritical, one of the things that they're pointing to is something that was done for The Blaze on December 22nd, one of her final thoughts segments.
	On Lena Dunham.
	So this is what she said on Lena Dunham.
	This woman, and I use the term loosely, single-handedly kills legitimacy of the modern-day feminist movement every time she speaks.
	Does she realize how damaging she is to her own narrative?
	Think about it.
	The, quote, pro-choicers are supposed to be about rare and safe abortions.
	That's how they avoid sounding like straight-up baby killers.
	Then we have Lena freaking Dunham out there, wishing she could have murdered a fetus.
	Wishing for the option to kill your child doesn't exactly say much about the cause, her character, or the pro-choice movement.
	In here I thought the loving left were all about peace, love, and light, except when it comes to the unborn, I suppose.
	Then it's a different story, a story they write and rewrite to fit their narrative.
	in that, she's criticizing Lena Dunham's position for Being excited and wishing that she had had an abortion, which is terrible.
	Yeah, like babysital.
	Yeah, you can be against the government banning abortion while at the same time thinking abortion is terrible and thinking that social pressure, ostracism, economic ostracism and other things should be used to lessen the prevalence of abortion in society.
	So, again, this is not...
	Nowhere in the statement does she say that, hey, I am pro-life.
	This is my position.
	You can say, of course, that you believe that prostitution should be legal without praising it as a wonderful life choice.
	Yeah, you can be anti-drug war while at the same time thinking that people shouldn't use drugs and dissociate through nonstop drug use.
	I mean, there's lots of people that hold that position.
	So, Glenn Beck went to Twitter and said, rule another label out.
	I am not, that is in all caps, a, quote, constitutional.
	I believe in life, all caps, liberty and property.
	Just an old-fashioned, quote, constitutionalist.
	So, she's in hostile territory, giving an interview.
	She misspoke.
	And her employer...
	Well, listen, and also, I mean, given that I've done public speaking and misspeak from time to time, it's natural.
	And you can actually look up montages of Barack Obama doing this.
	It's actually fairly funny because he's considered to be a silver-tongued kind of guy.
	But, you know, I think she was going to use the word constitutionalist, and then she changed her mind.
	Maybe she thought, well, maybe the liberal audience wouldn't know it as much.
	So it could have just been she just decided to rephrase mid-word that that can certainly happen.
	Then Tommy responded on Twitter and said, So, then Glenn Beck responded to that.
	This is where you want to have your bats with, uh...
	This is, you know, when I became a manager, one of the first things I learned was you praise in public and chastise in private.
	And Twitter is not a private meeting in someone's office.
	So Glenn Beck says, wait, libertarian views, question mark.
	Help me out on Trumpcare, stimulus, and executive orders.
	Trump is anything but libertarian.
	Hashtag intellectual honesty.
	This is the point in the conversation where I'd just like to highlight the fact that, as we mentioned earlier, Ah, Tommy is 24 years old and Glenn Beck is 54 years old, getting into snipey Twitter fights with his employees.
	Stay classy, Glenn.
	The Blaze Company Twitter itself chimed in and said, Pro-lifers aren't the ones being hypocrites, Tommy.
	Now, if you want to be upset at the hypocritical claim, the idea that being small government and being pro-life Is a hypocritical position and the fact that she said she didn't want to be hypocritical and you want to extrapolate that to everyone that holds that position would be a hypocrite.
	I can understand being upset about that.
	She didn't explicitly say that all the people that hold that position are hypocrites, but again, I can understand why people would extrapolate it there.
	So if you want to criticize her for that, I think that's fair game.
	And she, I mean, she did put a tiny bit of a dig in.
	I will never apologize to anyone for being an independent thinker.
	Not everyone who criticizes someone else is not an independent thinker.
	I mean, so there's a little bit of escalation on both sides, but I would assume that Glenn Beck should be the bigger person, given his age, his prominence, his fame, his wealth, his establishment, and all that.
	Well, the fact that this is happening on Twitter at all, it's an escalation from every side, so...
	Then Tommy responded and said, funny, some of the self-appointed quote-unquote conservative police now attacking me are the same folks who hated Trump said he wouldn't win, which does seem to be true.
	It's the establishment conservative types that are most upset about this, the people that really are vociferously applying the not-a-true-conservative label to anyone who, these days, anyone that seems popular, anyone that actually has an audience, anyone that gets attention is not a true conservative.
	You don't pass my purity test.
	She did say something on Twitter that is my personal pet peeve, so I just want to point that out.
	Tommy said, I speak my truth.
	If you don't like it, tough.
	I will always be honest and stand in my truth.
	There is no my truth.
	There is not my truth.
	There is not your truth.
	There is the truth.
	You can have your perspectives.
	You can have your opinions.
	You can have your tastes.
	You just can't have your truth.
	Sorry.
	But, you know, she's 24.
	She's not studying philosophy.
	I mean, I understand.
	I understand where she's coming from, but...
	And lots of people use that term, the my truth thing.
	It drives me nuts.
	I think you've even said it in a show once in the middle of a rant.
	And, you know, sometimes it just comes out.
	But it is my own personal pet peeve.
	And just for everyone, when I say my truth, what I actually mean to say is, I am truth!
	Wait, hang on, sorry, that's not for public consumption.
	Sorry, private, private moment.
	And then I'll sign up for a Twitter account and we can go back and forth and I'll snipe at you.
	How about that?
	That sounds like a plan.
	So then Glenn Beck on the radio addressed this issue.
	Not on his actual show.
	So he said, first off, we have a whole bunch of different kinds of people that work here.
	If you're pro-choice, you can have a job at The Blaze.
	Remember that, everyone.
	If you're pro-choice, you can have a job at The Blaze.
	He continued and said, I don't hire people that are sycophants or who have my opinion.
	I try to hire people who have a different opinion because I believe in being intellectually rigorous.
	I don't want straw men.
	I want people to make a real argument on the other side so we can learn from each other and grow.
	You know, it's tough to squish a real argument into Twitter's character length restrictions.
	Just wanted to point that out.
	It is one of the most potential ways of escalating things to levels of stupidity formerly unseen outside of an asylum.
	If you want to have a real argument, a real debate, pick up the phone or write essays back and forth or have a public debate.
	But this Twitter, you know, all it is is for sniping as far as that goes.
	You get linked to something, but you cannot compress, especially something as complex as abortion.
	You can't compress anything into that character restriction that's going to have any particular depth or meaning at all.
	Well, my biggest frustration with this whole thing is there is a media platform called The Blaze.
	Glenn Beck works there.
	Tommy Lahren works there.
	You disagree on something.
	Why not have a public discussion about it?
	Tommy seems to hit a demographic which Glenn Beck doesn't hit.
	So, Glenn, if you want to get your opinion, want to get your arguments out to the demographic that Tommy reaches, why don't you discuss it on your platform instead of suspending her for a week?
	How's that for an idea, you know, if you want to be challenged?
	Maybe I don't really understand how this works, but if you are pro-life, and particularly if it's based upon religious convictions that the fetus has a soul, then it is kind of an act of murder.
	Now, saying, well, you can be, you know, pro-choice and have a job at the blaze, it seems to me kind of odd.
	Like, if you genuinely do, but like, if it's not something you're certain about, then don't argue about it.
	If you're...
	about it and you believe that it's murder, why would you hire people who advocate something so oppositional to your foundational moral beliefs to come and work with you?
	Like, that's not a difference in, would he hire Nazis?
	Would he hire, like, I don't quite understand that.
	Unless the argument is that you can fit in the same box that Tommy does, where I guess you're pro-choice in that you don't like abortion and you want to do things to reduce the prevalence of abortion, but you don't think the government getting involved is necessarily the best way to approach it.
	Sure, but then don't snipe at that person publicly and call them, you know, intellectually dishonest and so on.
	I mean, that doesn't make – if you're okay with it, then don't snipe at it.
	And if you're not okay with it, don't hire people.
	The running theme here is Glenn Beck makes no sense whatsoever.
	So then he ran through on the show the comments from America's founding documents and state laws from the colonial era that supports his view that early Americans were both aware and staunchly opposed to abortion.
	So, okay, that's fine.
	There is that argument.
	Then he continued and said, I would disagree that you're a hypocrite if you want limited government and yet you want the government to protect the life of the unborn.
	It's very, very clear, but it takes intellectual honesty and And it takes a willingness to actually think things through and do more than just read Twitter or Facebook to get your news and your political opinions.
	You actually have to study things, these things out in your mind, especially at a time period like today.
	There is so much douchebaggy passive aggression in that paragraph, it defies belief that a man that is one of the key components in running a major media conglomerate could actually say it without getting smacked upside his head.
	So Twitter is really bad for political opinions.
	So I'm going to get into arguments on Twitter about political opinions.
	You really need to think these things out in your mind, you know?
	Yeah.
	Think things out in your mind like going to Twitter to snipe at your employee about a disagreement that you have.
	Especially at a time period like today.
	Tomorrow, fuck it.
	Just go full retro.
	That's when I was rubbing my face in a bowl of Cheetos.
	No, I didn't have to figure stuff out then or think about it then.
	That was fine.
	But now, shit.
	Now is different.
	Then he said, this seems to be a relatively recent change.
	Okay, well, judging at the interviews that I was able to pull up very easily, no, no, it's really not.
	And her position seems to be consistent.
	Then he continued, and it didn't get better.
	He said, bomb throwing is, bomb throwing in today's world is dangerous.
	Freedom of speech is not free.
	Speech isn't free.
	It comes with a very high price tag.
	First, being intellectually honest and intellectually curious.
	Speech is not free.
	It comes with another cost, and usually to the other people at the other end of your argument.
	What?
	The pen is mightier than the sword, and it can destroy people if your aim is clicks, views, and ratings.
	Wow.
	End quote.
	Did you get croutons with that word salad?
	Bomb throwing in today's world is dangerous.
	Compared to yesterday's world where it wasn't, tomorrow's world where it explodes in flowers and scent, I don't...
	That sounds weird.
	It comes with a very high price tag.
	Being intellectually honest and intellectually curious?
	No, that's not the price tag of free speech.
	Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
	You don't have to be intellectually honest and intellectually curious to exercise your freedom of speech.
	Freedom of speech means you can be an idiot, too.
	Because who's going to determine objectively who's being an idiot and who isn't?
	You may lose points in the free market of ideas, but I don't quite understand what that means.
	You have to be intellectually honest and intellectually curious in order to exercise your right of free speech?
	Not according to the First Amendment.
	Well, again, was he being very curious when he was sniping at his employee on Twitter?
	It didn't strike me as curious.
	But yeah, the bomb throwing thing is pretty interesting considering, you know, Glenn Beck has been on the camp of, I don't know if he's explicitly called Donald Trump the next Hitler, but he's said brown shirts and, I mean, he's referred to Steve Bannon as he's a frightening, no, no, no.
	He's a terrifying man.
	Terrifying man.
	It speaks volumes.
	Bannon is a clear tie to white nationalists.
	A clear tie!
	He's built Breitbart as a platform for the alt-right.
	He's on record saying that.
	He's on record defining the alt-right.
	He knows what it is.
	He's a guy that wants to tear this system down and wants to replace it with a new system.
	He's a nightmare.
	And he's the chief advisor to the President of the United States now.
	Well, you know, he's done a little bit...
	More than orbit the mustachioed orange planet of comparing Donald Trump to Hitler, right?
	So this is when he was on George Stephanopoulos' show.
	This was 2016.
	He called Trump a dangerous man.
	And Beck said, we all look at Adolf Hitler in 1940.
	We should look at Adolf Hitler in 1929.
	He was a kind of...
	A funny kind of character that said the things people were thinking.
	Where Donald Trump takes it, I have absolutely no idea.
	But Donald Trump is a dangerous man.
	But the things that he's been saying.
	And yeah, it's...
	So yeah, he's invoked the Hitler thing.
	He has broken that rule.
	Well, look at this too.
	Here's a quote on Sarah Palin from last year.
	Sarah Palin has become a clown.
	I'm embarrassed I was once for Sarah Palin.
	Honestly, I'm embarrassed.
	Why would I say that about Sarah Palin?
	Because I don't know who she is anymore.
	I don't know what she stands for.
	I saw a clip of her talking to Donald Trump.
	What the hell is that?
	That is a clip of her talking to Donald Trump.
	Oh no, she's talking to the leading Republican candidate.
	The horror of it all.
	And then after Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump, Glenn Beck said, Sincerely, Has she had a brain aneurysm?
	Because I don't know what has happened to her.
	Wait, is that an example of intellectual curiosity and intellectual honesty?
	Or is that just a Z-O-M-G kind of response?
	Like, it's not who we are, people!
	You know, this is the thing when people say, oh, we should do this or that.
	That's not who we are!
	That's not an argument.
	It's current year bullshit.
	If you're going to call someone a clown, which is a personal attack, I put that in the category of bomb throwing.
	Which, Glenn Beck has told us, is not okay in today's world.
	It's very dangerous in today's world.
	Now, maybe it was okay, according to him, when he did it to Sarah Palin and did it regarding Steve Bannon and Donald Trump and other people.
	But, yeah, not exactly living the values here.
	All that you and I can do, Mike, is cross our fingers, click our heels three times, and desperately hope to have the kind of intellectual honesty and intellectual curiosity that has us rolling our fat face in a bowl of Cheetos.
	Spoiler, nobody loved Glenn Beck enough to tell him that that was a terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible idea.
	Or give him information that Tommy was not being hypocritical.
	Well, the end of the statement, too, and I hate to harp on this one, but this whole statement is so insane.
	So he says, the pen is mightier than the sword and it can destroy people if your aim is clicks, views, and ratings.
	Now, why was Tommy hired by the Blaze?
	She was hired by the Blaze after an anti-Obama rant she did went viral.
	So she was hired because she had an audience.
	She got lots of clicks, views, and ratings, thumbs up, all that kind of stuff on social media.
	So that's how she became popular, and that's why she was hired.
	She actually applied as an intern to the Blaze before she had a public face, and they turned her down.
	So then she went to another organization, became successful, and then the Blaze ended So the whole reason she's there is because she has an audience and people want to pay attention to the things that she says.
	So it's interesting that, oh no.
	If your aim is clicks, views, and ratings, that's bad if that's your aim.
	It's funny that the people that say that are hiring people that get clicks, views, and ratings, and they also seem to point out this view as their own personal clicks, views, and ratings and their media empire's clicks, views, and ratings.
	Are going through the floor.
	It's kind of funny how that works.
	Well, here's the thing, too.
	You know, if you're the boss of someone and they get a profile in the New York Times, you should damn well read it.
	You know, if they're a public-facing aspect of your organization and they get written up in the New York Times, you should read it.
	Now, assuming that Glenn Beck was doing the responsible thing and reading the write-up on her in the New York Times, he would have found out last year that she was pro-choice.
	Now, he didn't Have any problem with it then, assuming he knew and he should have.
	So what changed?
	Why didn't he say, oh my God, you're pro-choice.
	Well, then I'm going to criticize you and I'm going to suspend you and I'm going to this and I'm going to that.
	But then he says, well, no, it's fine if you're pro-choice and you work here, but I'm going to suspend you.
	It's like, oh my God, what rinse cycle are we currently spinning in?
	I think now we know why so many executives have left the blaze.
	I think we're figuring that out and getting a little glimpse into the reality of that whole situation.
	Anyway, the wind blows.
	Yeah.
	And even stuff, too, to harken back to one of the earlier paragraphs, when he says, it takes a willingness to actually think things through and do more than just read Twitter or Facebook to get your news and political opinions.
	You actually have to study things out in your mind, you know, all that kind of stuff, implying that Tommy doesn't.
	So if you accept that as true, if you accept a statement as true and Tommy doesn't do these things, well, he hired someone who doesn't think and gets her opinions from Facebook news and Twitter and stuff, so...
	Regardless of how you look at this, this is not a glowing positive thumbs up to Glenn Beck in any way, shape, or form, even if you accept what he's saying is true.
	If the sculptor hates his statue, it's not the statue's fault.
	All right, so to finish off his statement here, he said, The Blaze cannot be about me, me, me, me.
	It's no secret that Tommy and I don't agree on quite a lot, but that is about personalities.
	The ideas are important.
	If you can't defend the idea, that leads to a second part of the discussion, which is the people calling for Tommy to be fired.
	That's not appropriate to be discussed on the radio.
	That's in the privacy of the office of the blaze.
	It's not appropriate for it to be discussed on the radio.
	I'm discussing it on the radio to tell you that it's not appropriate for it to be discussed on the radio.
	So, Massive public disagreements about fundamental issues with employees, that's the province of Twitter.
	Any repercussions of that must be completely private.
	What?
	We don't agree on quite a lot, but that is about personalities.
	What?
	We don't agree on...
	So political opinions are just that, opinions?
	We're not talking about actual objective arguments?
	It can either be true or false?
	No, they're personality traits, like being chirpy.
	Maybe, maybe it has to do with the fact that during the election, Tommy...
	As a supporter of Donald Trump, she wasn't on the bandwagon from the start, but she got there.
	She was actually called by the president who thanked her for her fair coverage.
	Glenn Beck really doesn't like Trump, as the Hitler comparison would kind of point out.
	And meanwhile, someone that works with him is getting a call from the president of the United States to thank her for the fair coverage.
	I can imagine that as her star kind of accelerates upwards, And his goes through the floor.
	She's getting a call at 24 from the president thanking her for fair coverage.
	He's rolling his face in Cheetos and seeing executives flee his company.
	I can...
	I mean, I think we understand why this is happening and why now it's an issue.
	A little fun fact is that Tommy's contract appears to be up with the blaze in September.
	So...
	Here we have someone whose popularity has dramatically increased, and she's going to be a free agent come September.
	So what does that mean?
	Does that mean, okay, if she's going to stay with the Blaze, they need to renegotiate a new contract.
	More popular!
	More eyeballs.
	That would mean more money.
	She's going to go out to the free market.
	Is she going to stay with the Blaze?
	Is she going to stay with someone who snipes with her on Twitter?
	I'd imagine not.
	I'd imagine not.
	So could this be viewed as someone trying to undercut And diminish the value of someone who is going to be leaving the network in the near future.
	You could certainly look at it that way.
	I don't think you'd be nuts for looking at it that way.
	And, you know, we'll see if this one week suspension, we'll see if she's back in the chair on Monday doing her show or if this is something that's going to lead to her leaving long before September.
	But again, my whole thing is you have disagreements.
	You both work for the same network.
	It's not like you have time to fill on your shows.
	Devote an entire show to debating this issue.
	I mean, I would listen to that.
	I think that would be interesting.
	There's certainly important arguments to be made on both sides of that debate regarding the government involvement in trying to stop abortion.
	I mean, it's a discussion that can happen and there's reasonable points to be made on all sides.
	So, okay, have that debate.
	But no, we're going to suspend you because I want to be challenged.
	Well, and just to update you, if you haven't checked things in the last 30 seconds, he actually did pivot to insanely pro-Trump.
	This is from the 16th of March, 2017.
	I don't know what happened on the 17th or the 15th, because he seems to live in a bit of a blur of the now.
	But he said, I am so pro-Trump right now.
	That's after he was reading the proposed spending cuts that came out of Donald Trump's administration.
	So I just want to keep people updated on where the rotating ambulance light is right now.
	I don't know if that's consistent or that was just after the budget.
	Trump cut some funding for a Woodrow Wilson foundation.
	I forget exactly what it was, but...
	His co-host said like, oh, that's a signal for you, Glenn.
	That's a signal because you really don't like Woodrow Wilson.
	And they said it as a joke.
	It's an olive branch sent out just for you.
	It's a dog whistle.
	And I'm sure they were saying that jokingly, but just the fact that they were joking about that.
	It's like, I don't think Donald Trump wants Glenn Beck's support.
	I don't think he wants Glenn Beck anywhere near him.
	It seems that most people in the conservative movement don't want Glenn Beck anywhere near them because everything he touches seems to fall to crap.
	So there's that.
	And, you know, someone is getting phone calls thanking them for their coverage.
	Well, Glenn Beck gets to sit down with Samantha Bee.
	I mean, that's the thing, too.
	Glenn Beck went on the whole apology tour talking to lots of liberals about how, oh, man, you know, we need to sit down and have a discussion.
	You can watch the thing he did with Samantha Bee, which is just it's pretty revolting.
	We're not having a debate where he sits down with someone that works for the same company as him to discuss an issue that, you know, there's legitimate arguments on both sides.
	But he'll sit down with Samantha Bee because, you know, liberal virtue signaling.
	That's the only thing you can say.
	It's all virtue signaling.
	Well, next we move to, it's not a story from this week, but it's probably the biggest story that has not been covered by hardly anyone.
	So I wanted to get it in here to make people aware of it, because I was only slightly aware of it.
	And then I dug into it, and it's pretty horrifying.
	So most of this work is from The Daily Caller, so major kudos to The Daily Caller.
	House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committee members compromised by rogue IT staff.
	That sounds kind of boring, just reading the headline.
	This story is not boring.
	So the gist is four people, three brothers and a wife, who managed office information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers were abruptly relieved of their duties on suspicion that they access congressional computers without permission.
	Now this was back in February that this happened.
	Alright, so the three brothers, Amran, Abid, and Jamal Awan, and, oh, I'm going to butcher this, Hannah Alvi, who's Amran's wife.
	All four of them were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives and are currently under criminal investigation, so...
	Three members of the Intelligence Panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis.
	The two committees deal with many of the nation's most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.
	But it's okay, Mike, because the whole point of vetting, and remember, the government is very, very good at vetting, they can vet people without papers who come from countries that hate America.
	So we have no issue with regards to vetting, because of course, if you're working with this kind of incredibly sensitive information...
	You are going to be vetted up the yin-yang, and this is the easiest conceivable vetting situation with the most sensitive information conceivable.
	I'm sure that there were no red flags whatsoever in any way, shape, or form in these people's histories.
	Well...
	Or was there?
	Apparently, signs of trouble have been, quote, long been visible in public records.
	These folks that are accused of serious violations, including accessing members' computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment, stealing equipment from Congress, They were well paid.
	Apparently they made $160,000 a year on average each.
	In their early 20s.
	Technology workers, yes.
	Which is three times the average house IT staff salary.
	So they're making more than the average $160,000.
	And the signs of trouble have long been visible.
	So let's look at those.
	The four were involved in multiple suspicious mortgage transfers and a debt evading bankruptcy.
	Abad had more than $1 million in debts following a failed business called Cars International, which he ran in Falls Church, Virginia from November 2009 to September 2010.
	And business associates setting court documents that Abid had stolen money and vehicles from them.
	Stolen property from Congress?
	Stolen...
	No connection.
	The dealership took and never repaid a $100,000 loan from Dr.
	Ali Al-Atari, who, not important at all.
	He's just a fugitive from the United States authorities that has been linked to Hezbollah.
	Huh.
	Yeah.
	So there's that.
	Okay, but outside of this...
	Abed has been on the congressional payroll since 2005 and other things that have happened with him.
	They repossessed his car in 2009.
	He declared bankruptcy, as we mentioned, in 2012 and is facing the multiple lawsuits regarding that prior business.
	He's also...
	His record includes numerous driving and alcohol-related problems, including driving with a suspended or revoked license.
	He was found guilty of drunk driving a month before he started at the house and was arrested for public intoxication a month after his first day.
	Now, Amran, who's another of the brothers, has also been convicted of driving offenses serious enough to rise to the level of criminal misdemeanors As well as using an illegal radar detection and driving an unregistered vehicle.
	Now, unusual real estate deals seem to be the more notable bond between the four.
	So, Hani Alvari, whose name I'm assuredly butchering, is Amran's wife.
	She bought two homes in 2008, including one that all of the brothers had been associated with at one time.
	So, in November 2016...
	She sold the home to the youngest brother, Jamal, who's also involved in this, who was only 22 at the time, for $620,000.
	The transaction capitalized on increasing Washington, D.C. real estate appraisals, netting her $150,000.
	Well, almost all the costs were incurred to the bank, and Jamal put almost no money down.
	So people were like, how did this happen?
	Then Alvari's husband, Amran, also owned a house in Springfield, and Which he put in his father's name in 2008.
	Abed, who's another of the brothers, later claimed in bankruptcy that the house was his.
	And Alvari has also taken out multiple second mortgages.
	Can I add one more?
	Please do, Steph.
	The brothers allegedly kept their stepmom in, quote, captivity, end quote, to access offshore cash.
	I'll just, you know, we'll put the links.
	Of course, you can just go and explore this stuff yourself.
	Just, you know, wear a crash helmet, a hazmat suit, and plug your nose.
	Just have a look.
	So, it seems that this was not great vetting.
	I'm not a security expert, but...
	Going out on a limb.
	Yeah, I'm going out on a limb.
	Hey, this is your babysitter.
	Do you feel like having this person be your babysitter?
	If not, I'm not sure giving them access to highly sensitive and secretive information about the war on terror is a really great idea.
	No, stuff, stuff, stuff.
	Now, come on.
	Some Democrats haven't terminated their connection to the four, including, this name sounds familiar, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	Who was she again?
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Formerly ran the DNC, had to resign in disgrace.
	Ah, in the tank for Hillary Clinton.
	Rigged the election for Hillary against Bernie Sanders.
	Right.
	Debbie Wasserman Schultz and...
	Gregory Meeks have stood by them, as far as employing them.
	Now Meeks is of New York, and said although they had access to his data, he'd seen no evidence that they were doing anything that was nefarious, like steal or hack, and they were being unfairly picked on.
	Why, Steph?
	For being Muslim.
	Yeah, no, no question.
	It's phobias of some kind or another, right?
	Amran and his wife are personal friends of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
	She refused to fire him, even though he's actually banned from the House network.
	And she actually circumvented this ban by bringing him on as an advisor.
	Now, again, I'm no theologian, but if you are a Muslim and you are arrested for drunken driving, it seems that doesn't make you a very committed theologian within your religion.
	Good point.
	So this is what you were referring to earlier.
	The staffers allegedly held their stepmother in captivity with violent threats and a plan to use her to access money stashed away in the Middle East.
	Days before the U.S. Capitol Police told House members three Pakistani brothers who ran their computer networks may have stolen congressional data.
	Their stepmother had called Fairfax County, Virginia police to say that the Democratic staffers were keeping her from her husband's deathbed.
	A relative described the woman's life as being completely controlled by the brothers for months while they schemed to take their father's life insurance.
	The brothers, who was IT professionals for Congress, could read House members' emails, allegedly used wiretapping devices on their own stepmother and threatened to abduct loved ones in Pakistan if she didn't give them access to money stowed away in that country.
	This is from the officer's report.
	The woman called police after her stepchildren were denying her access to her husband of eight years, who's currently hospitalized.
	Made contact with her stepson, who responded to location, was obviously upset with the situation.
	He stated he has full power of attorney over his father and produced an unsigned, undated document as proof.
	He refused to disclose his father's location.
	And then the father died days later.
	So the stepmother never got to see their father before he died.
	Wow.
	And this is like, I mean, this is Keystone cops who have flamethrowers.
	You know, there are some people who have made the case that Democrats can't be trusted with national security.
	And this is one indication that this may be the case.
	I mean, it is truly, truly mental.
	Now, how do we know this later part?
	Well, it's because a relative came forward.
	And said that, you know, members of Congress have been downplaying the brothers' potential crimes and limited investigation to the Capitol Police, who really lack the ability to investigate cyber breaches and all this kind of stuff.
	And despite naming the brothers as suspects, they haven't even arrested them.
	So this relative says, I am fighting to protect the country.
	These are very bad people.
	If they're not digging deep into it, who knows what's been compromised that they don't know has been compromised and the consequences of that.
	I mean, it doesn't take long to think of how far-reaching those consequences are.
	Alright, so moving on now, we have a BBC article to the United Kingdom where rape victims are to get a pretrial recorded interview option.
	Which, let me just translate that.
	It means rape victims, if this goes through, won't have to face the person they're accusing in court.
	So plans to allow alleged rape victims to avoid cross-examination in front of the accused are being brought forward, the Justice Secretary said.
	Liz Truss said victims of sexual assault would be able to pre-record their testimony.
	And speaking to the Sunday Times, she said, Schemes in three cities showed the system had led to a higher level of early guilty pleas.
	Hmm.
	It reduces the level of trauma for the victim.
	I want to see that be the standard offer in those cases, and that will give more victims confidence to come forward.
	See, I just want to stop everyone right here.
	This is called the presumption of guilt.
	Yeah.
	She's already calling these women victims when the whole point of a goddamn trial is to figure out whether the accusations are true or not, or at least provable or not.
	So calling them victims ahead of time is the presumption of guilt.
	And, you know, human beings struggled for thousands of years and millions of people died in order to establish a basic principle called the presumption of innocence.
	If we switch that over to the presumption of guilt...
	Well, people died and suffered for nothing.
	But Steph, the victim's commissioner, in other words, they have a victim's commissioner, said, The entire reason there's a trial is because we do not know if they are a victim.
	We do not know if the person they've accused is guilty.
	If they're a victim...
	If it's a false accusation, the man is the victim of the crime.
	But she's not really addressing that.
	And this was actually developed in England for children.
	So children who were accusing people of pedophilia wouldn't have to...
	And I can sort of understand that.
	You know, I can't really understand treating grown women as children.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, all this stuff on the surface, if you don't think about it too much, you're like, well, I don't want rape victims to have to be uncomfortable and have to be cross-examined and relive every detail.
	Yeah, like I have a visceral negative reaction to that.
	But when you look at the actual practical reality of doing this, I mean, these people that are accused don't get a chance to face their accusers.
	And like they said, there's more early guilty pleas.
	Sure.
	So, are those people that are innocent that are saying, good God, looking at what's ahead of me, I'm just going to plea?
	In fact, yeah, I mean, if you can't even cross-examine these women, what are the odds that you are going to be vindicated if you're innocent?
	Let's say the typical, stereotypical situation here, you have...
	A crying woman on the stand and, you know, a white male sitting as the accused.
	I mean, the sympathy strings are already being pulled and it's going to be difficult for people to put their emotions to the side and just look at the facts of the case.
	And now you have a situation where, you know, the accused lawyer can't even cross examine and dig into oftentimes what they're looking for here is Past sexual issues, you know, credibility issues, you know, have there been false accusations in the past?
	Is there a track record of this kind of behavior?
	And this pre-recorded, pre-trial interview is going to be narrowed in scope, so there's going to be a lot of stuff that would otherwise be very important to ask to get to the bottom of things, which is uncomfortable, and it is a shame that actual victims would have to answer such terrible questions.
	But in order to get to the bottom of it and actually have a fair trial, it's necessary.
	This stuff won't be asked.
	So, like they said, more early guilty pleas.
	It's a pretty scary thought.
	And James Cox, the founder of accused.me.uk, seemed to agree and said, If you are a wholly innocent victim of someone trying to frame you, you will not welcome these changes because they will increase the chances that you will be wrongly convicted.
	Yep.
	And the chairwoman of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association said that taped interviews before trial would not take into account real-time developments and said this may be a step too far.
	So yeah, I mean, before trial, you do your due diligence and research.
	When are they recording the interview?
	Then you have to submit your questions, get them approved, actually get them asked.
	I mean, there's a whole bunch of...
	A whole bunch of issues with this that make it a lot harder for people that are accused to defend themselves.
	Well, and of course, the way to solve this in a positive, just, and proactive way is to make sure that false accusers are punished to the full extent of the law.
	Because if people are afraid of coming forward with false accusations, then the likelihood, it doesn't change the presumption of innocence, but the likelihood of false accusations proliferating is going to be lower.
	But, of course, real feminists, for people who really care about women, will want false accusers.
	And there has been quite a few of those in the media lately.
	They will want false accusers prosecuted to the full extent of the law to make sure that women don't try and use this, or men for that matter, as some sort of a weapon to get back in some sort of bunny-boiler way to...
	At an ex or some man who rejected them or some woman who rejected them.
	And that's the best way to not need this kind of stuff.
	But as long as you're allowing false accusers to get away with things, as long as you're hiding the information about the number of false accusers, which is not tiny, then you're going to end up with these kinds of escalations.
	But this is the fragmentation.
	It's treating women differently than men.
	And I thought the whole point was to make the genders equal.
	But I guess that was naive.
	Yeah, this is certainly one of those stories that really tugs at the heartstrings, but you actually dig into the logic of it and see the effect that it'll have.
	And innocent until proven guilty is one of the most important things in any kind of free society.
	And when that gets eroded or cheapened or taken away to any extent, it damages the country as a whole.
	Much like with if you don't have consequences for voting illegally, well, guess what?
	You're going to get people that vote illegally.
	If you don't have consequences for people that make false accusations, You're going to get more false accusations, just as day follows night.
	We'll see what happens, but yeah, if you are falsely accused in the United Kingdom, it looks like things are going to get worse for you in the very near future.
	Stay safe.
	Now, this is one of the more sick stories of the week.
	Two suspects reportedly in the United States illegally allegedly raped and sodomized a 14-year-old Maryland high school student on Thursday after trapping her in a bathroom stall during the school day.
	The young victim was allegedly orally, anally, and vaginally raped.
	The suspects, prosecutors said that 17-year-old Jose Mantao, originally from El Salvador, has arrived in the United States as of eight months ago.
	But whether or not he was an illegal alien was not immediately known.
	So you have someone from El Salvador, but they don't have his specific information as of yet.
	Eighteen-year-old suspect, Henry Sanchez Matillon, has an active pending alien removal case against him in the federal judicial system.
	He had arrived in the U.S. seven months ago from Guatemala.
	Now, despite his age, you know, 17-year-old and then an 18-year-old, they were allowed to enroll as freshmen in Rockville High School.
	Now, I'm gonna read, this is one of those, I'm just gonna read it because I think people need to hear it, the police transcript.
	It's a little long and it's pretty graphic.
	So, Steph, is there anything you wanna say before I do a deep dive into this uncomfortable reading?
	Yeah, just feel free, we'll put links to skip this in the video.
	So, if it's difficult for you, I mean, we understand, then just skip past it, but no, go ahead.
	All right.
	Victim A was in the school hallways when she met with two other students later identified as Montano and Sanchez Millian.
	Victim A knew Montano as a friend and did not know Sanchez Millian personally.
	Montano and Victim A engaged in a conversation and Montano asked Victim A for a hug.
	Then Montano slapped her butt and asked her to come with him as his friend, Sanchez Millian.
	They were walking near a gym area when they passed by the bathroom.
	Montano asked Victim A for sex, which she refused.
	Montano asked again, more persistently, and pushed Victim A into the boys' bathroom.
	Montano then pushed Victim A into the one-bathroom stall with a door.
	Sanchez Malian came in and left.
	Victim A was holding a sink to avoid going into the bathroom when Montano grabbed her hand and pulled her into the stall.
	Montano pushed Victim A into the corner of the stall and kissed her neck.
	Montano then unzipped Victim A's top and pulled out her breasts to play with them.
	Victim A again told Montano to stop.
	Sanchez Milian then came into the stall.
	Montano unbuckled Victim A's pants and pulled it down.
	Montano pressed his body against Victim A. Victim A tried to push Montano off.
	Montano grabbed Victim A's arms and turned her around.
	Montano bent Victim A over the toilet.
	Victim A again said to stop.
	Montano and Sanchez Millian spoke to each other in Spanish.
	Then Sanchez Millian sat in front of Victim A on the toilet with his penis pulled out.
	Sanchez Millian forced his penis inside Victim A's mouth and forced oral sex.
	Victim A tried to lift up, but Sanchez Millian held the back of Victim A's head.
	During the same time, Montano attempted to force anal intercourse with Victim A. Victim A felt Montano's penis against her butt and felt pain.
	Victim A cried out in pain.
	Sanchez Milian told Victim A to calm down.
	Montano then forced vaginal intercourse with Victim A from behind.
	Montano pulled Victim A's hands behind her back.
	Montano also grabbed her breasts.
	Montano moved faster.
	Victime was able to lift her head to say stop.
	Montano replied that he was almost there.
	Montano took a deep breath and stopped.
	Once Montano pulled his penis from Victime's vagina, Montano and Sanchez Millian switched positions.
	Montano sat down on a toilet in front of Victime.
	Victime observed the blood on Montano's penis.
	Victime said she was on her menstrual cycle.
	Montano took victim A's head and forced his penis inside her mouth, forcing oral sex.
	Montano held the back of victim A's head.
	At the same time, Sanchez Milian penetrated victim A's anus with his penis and forced anal intercourse on victim A. Then Sanchez Milian pulled out and penetrated victim A's vagina with his penis.
	Sanchez Milian forced vaginal intercourse with victim A. Sanchez Milian held They heard the door.
	Sanchez-Milion left, and Montano told Victim A to be quiet.
	Montano also put his hand over Victim A's mouth to keep her quiet.
	Sanchez-Milion returned.
	Montano and Sanchez Millian again talked to each other in Spanish.
	Sanchez Millian gave Victime his jacket to put over her head.
	They act like, quote, bodyguards and walk out of the bathroom.
	Then Montano and Sanchez Milian leave.
	Victim A enter girl's bathroom.
	When Victim A exited the girl's bathroom, she saw Montano and Sanchez Milian returning towards her.
	Victim A drop Sanchez Milian's jacket on a railing and left the area to go to class, where she told staff, So, that's the police report on this incident.
	And on March 16th, Montano was interviewed by police, which at a time he denied having any sexual contact with victim A. He said that they went into the bathroom to tell jokes.
	Then a forensic specialist processed the bathroom and suspected blood damage.
	That may be mixed with male fluid was found.
	And just Sanchez Millian's lawyer told the Washington Post, he said, based on everything we know we think he's innocent, this appears to have been a consensual encounter.
	But the prosecutors are, of course, citing injuries suffered by the victim as evidence of a most serious sexual assault.
	So both Montano and Sanchez Millian face first-degree rape in two counts.
	A first-degree sexual offense.
	U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, placed an immigration detainer request on 18-year-old Sanchez, but would not comment on Montano's case since he is still a minor.
	So, this, I don't know, Steph, if you saw any of the parents, because there was a meeting after this happened, where the school district seemed to tell the parents how great the school was repeatedly, and then at the last...
	Ten minutes of a very long meeting took questions and is pretty clear what people wanted to talk about.
	And needless to say, the parents whose children go to this school were not very satisfied with the answers.
	Why is someone who is 18 years old enrolled as a freshman?
	Why is someone who one of these individuals we know is not in the country legally, the other, it's suspected, why are they allowed to enroll in school if There's actually information out where they're looking for them, let alone why are they allowed to enroll?
	So lots of parents were hit really hard after this situation, and it's something that should give anyone that puts their children in any school, especially public schools, a real pause.
	Because this is one of those, you know, I'm sure the parents of this child thought that kind of thing could never happen to my child, and then before you know it, there's a police report, and it's one of the biggest stories in the country.
	Well, and Rockville, it's on the brink of becoming a sanctuary city, protecting undocumented immigrants from facing deportation.
	So there's a lot of social factors that are kind of coming together here.
	So you get 30 countries that won't take back criminal, illegal immigrants.
	And you also have sanctuary cities.
	And now, I mean, people are pursuing sanctuary states.
	There's certain states that are trying to do that.
	So there's so many barriers in the way of just, hey, can people that are in the country illegally that have committed crimes, can they not be here?
	So many barriers are being put in place by people to prevent what could only be described as sane immigration policy.
	Yeah, and it's, you know, we talked about this with Jason Richwine and people should check out his thesis.
	It's very important to understand this kind of stuff.
	But as Jason Richwine points out, that the average IQ among...
	Hispanic immigrants is lower, significantly lower.
	And there is a sweet spot around criminality of around IQ 85.
	And these are just basic realities that need to be dealt with by anyone who cares about anything.
	The safety of their children, the safety of their streets, the safety of their communities, and what's best for immigrants as well.
	I mean, if you bring people into a situation where they're almost certain to fail, it's terrible for everyone.
	And I just really, it's a difficult topic and it's a heartbreaking topic, but it is an absolutely essential topic to understand.
	And we will put a link to his thesis below, which is readable and has a lot of information in it about IQ and is well worth going through.
	All right, well, our last story today, which is not exactly more positive, but it certainly is interesting.
	The 9-11 families are suing Saudi Arabia.
	Accusing the U.S. ally of complicity in the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
	So this is from Pix11 New York, which had the exclusive first.
	In a stunning lawsuit seeking to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for 9-11, the families of 800 victims have filed a lawsuit accusing the Saudis of complicity in the worst terrorist attacks on American soil.
	The legal action, filed in federal court in Manhattan, details a scenario of involvement by Saudi officials who are said to have aided some of the hijackers before the attacks.
	Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi nationals, and three of them had previously worked for the kingdom.
	The document details how officials from Saudi embassies supported hijackers Salam al-Qaq.
	Hazmi and Khalad al-Malhari, 18 months before 9-11.
	The officials allegedly helped them find apartments, learn English, and obtain credit cards and cash.
	The documents state that the officials helped them learn how to blend into the American landscape.
	The suit also produces evidence that officials in the Saudi embassy in Germany supported lead hijacker Mohammed Atta.
	It claims that a Saudi official was in the same hotel in Virginia with several hijackers the night before the attacks.
	Now, many of these revelations in the lawsuit are culled from the findings of an FBI investigation into the terrorist attacks, and the lawsuit asserts that the Saudi royals, who had for years been trying to curry favor with fundamentalists to avoid losing power, were aware of the funds from Saudi charities that were being funneled to al-Qaeda.
	Interesting element of this is President George W. Bush and Barack Obama had resisted efforts Hmm.
	last September Congress overrode an Obama veto and passed justice against sponsors of terrorism act that would allow Americans to take legal action against countries that support terrorism, which is why this lawsuit is happening now.
	This is back to WikiLeaks from 2010, In a WikiLeaks cable dump back from 2010, it was clearly revealed that the Saudis were a major financier of jihadist terrorist entities all over the globe.
	This is nothing new.
	I mean, you have to really work to avoid this kind of information.
	And Middle Eastern money is awash in the West and in other places.
	I don't know if you remember, James O'Keefe from Project Veritas once tricked Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemingway into accepting, like, made-up Middle Eastern money to help fund a film that was anti-fracking, like, against fracking.
	They didn't know that they were being secretly filmed or anything.
	And both Begley and Hemingway agreed to hide the reality that their film was going to be funded by Middle Eastern interests.
	And James O'Keefe also found, you know, and recorded Hollywood producers explaining various methods to hide this kind of funding.
	They were referring to these non-profit groups that would help keep Middle Eastern funding under wraps.
	And this ties in, I think, to Keystone XL, right?
	Just this pipeline.
	You have to use oil in a modern economy until we come up with something better.
	And you can either get your oil domestically or you can get it from the Middle East.
	And if you get oil from the Middle East, you're handing money to a bunch of theocratic authoritarian governments that, at least in the case of the Saudis, have been shown to be funding some very questionable groups around the world.
	And this goes back to many of the disasters that came out of the Second World War, because it was the British and American interest to a large degree that discovered and developed oil in the Middle East and ran the companies there.
	And then after the West was weakened by the Second World War, the Middle Eastern governments took over and nationalized, so to speak, the oil.
	And then a bunch of environmental groups popped up and began paralyzing the capacity for the West to use its own oil resources.
	And some of these groups, it's certainly theoretically possible, and there have been some indications that some Middle Eastern money is funding certain aspects of environmentalism, which makes sense, right?
	They don't want the West to develop its own oil resources so that they can continue to take Western money in return for shipping oil overseas.
	But given that oil is going to be used, you want it to be produced locally rather than produced in a distant way, because pipes are safer than seagoing vessels when it comes to shipping oil.
	And so, yeah, there is...
	Anti-fracking movement has had – there have been some sources for Middle East oil money.
	So there's a lot to say that's positive about environmentalism, but in certain areas they're just useful idiots for theocratic jerks to make sure that the West doesn't develop any kind of self-sufficiency in oil so that we can continue to pour money into these regimes who then use it for sometimes pretty nefarious reasons.
	I'm a big fan of local oil production because the alternative is pretty horrendous.
	Well, we can't go through this segment without, of course, speculating as to the $25 million that Hillary Clinton got from Saudi Arabia.
	If there was no ties and no problems, why would you stand in the way?
	The only way you'd stand in the way is if there were ties.
	It's a clear way to disprove a conspiracy theory for that other case.
	You just look at Hillary Clinton getting so much money from the Saudis and look at what past presidents have done and you have to wonder.
	You have to wonder.
	So that's our update for this week in the world from Free Domain Radio with Mike and Steph.
	We really, really appreciate everyone's positive feedback and your negative feedback.
	Please keep us posted about how to navigate this new segment of conversations about what's going on in the world.
	Please, please, please, if you find this helpful, if you find this show useful, helpful, like, subscribe, share this information.
	You can, of course, do it on the YouTube channel, and, of course, you can do it through fdrpodcast.com.
	Share the show.
	Please, please, please go to freedomainradio.com slash donate.
	Help us out with the donation.
	So thanks everyone so much for listening.

▲