The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Ben Burr | 12/6/22

Episode Date: December 6, 2022

Pat Gray joins the guys to debate who Time's Person of the Year should be. The Supreme Court is hearing another freedom of religion case from Colorado. Glenn reviews some of the arguments as he and Stu discuss the absurdity of the Left attempting to force its beliefs onto others. BlueRibbon Coalition executive director Ben Burr dives into Oregon's latest federal land grab, which prohibits people from accessing their homes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

60% of the vans on Amazon come a vendor independent like Sac Magic. Hello, here Camille of Sackmagic. Our compresses, show of fraud are fabriced in Quebec, and our presence on Amazon enlarge our clientele

to the world entire. Trouvee to little enterprises like the other. Onesha. Welcome to the podcast. Today, we look at how the Bureau of Land Management is blocking homeowners

access to their homes in Oregon. What's a big deal there? The Supreme Court is ruling over several cases, including regarding religious freedom. Kirstie Alley passed away. We look back at the last time she was on the show,

which is only a couple years ago. Really a sad, sad story. You can listen to all this and more on today's podcast. Don't forget and go to studeau's power hour.com. We have a power hour coming up on Friday. This is going to be free on YouTube. YouTube.com slash Studez America. Go there and subscribe if you would.

Or you can come to the studio to check it out live. It's a mess of an event, but it's a lot of fun. Sue does power hour. com. Also, just take a minute to subscribe, rate and review this podcast. We always appreciate it when you do that. It helps us to spread the word on the show, as well as the Studios America podcast, also available five days a week for free. And you're a listening pleasure.

Here's the podcast. You're good for all. What? World Economic Forum had a band on a theme song. It'd be this from the poor man's poison. There's blood all over the ground. Let's all just blind for the poor. We must remind us.

find them what's in store. We got them now. Just break them down a little bit more. Together. And just to make it all clear, we want the same thing. A Glenn Beck program, it is Tuesday.

I want to thank NRS in Salt Lake for hosting me here. I'm working on a fundraiser for an organization called United We Pledge. They are, they're transforming America's first county. It is probably the most red, I'm sorry, yeah, the most red county in the country. And they are planting their stakes in the ground and developing some things in St. George that are truly remarkable. And I want to assist them on that. So thank you, KNRS,

for allowing me to do the broadcast from here. Time Magazine has announced that the finalists have been selected in its 22 person of the year. Pat Gray is here to join us. Are you pulling for Liz Cheney or for President Z? Or, wait a minute, or Janet Yellen or Vladimir Zelensky. Oh, wow. Yeah, and there's also DeSantis. but why even talk about him?

Right. Gosh. Most of those people I can at least understand as nominees, right? Like they were big figures. Liz Cheney, though? What was her contribution exactly that she finished? She got beat by 70 points. I think that was their big contributions of the world.

She lost by 70 points and then she headed a commission that I guess if you want to give, let's just say the most optimistic look at her year would be that she was kind of a big figure on the January 6th commission, which possibly, I guess, contributed to the Democrats having either the same amount of Senate seats or one more and losing the House? What possibly could be the argument for Liz Cheney to be person of the year? Well, she's thinking about running against Donald Trump. Well, if she does that and wins, I mean, maybe then she could be person of the year. I don't know, but she hasn't even announced that.

And that would be next year anyway. Oh my gosh, Pat, do you hear this from this guy? And I suppose you want the Nobel Peace Prize to be given to somebody after they've made peace. Well, that would be my preference. That would be my preference. So picky. Wow. So picky.

Weird stances I have sometimes. Really? Seriously. I mean, Liz Cheney losing by literally 40 points and then potentially running for president makes so much sense that she should be person of the year. She really should. In today's world, yeah. In today's world.

And Ronda Santos is now upended the entire potential Republican primary, if you want to look ahead, right? He won, he's turned Florida from a purple state to basically a red state at this point. He won by, what, 18, 19 points in a state that usually is decided by the slimmest of margins. He's changed the culture in many ways. of an entire political party and now is among the favorites to become the nominee for the Republicans. That's why you can't consider him for a person of the year. Can't even consider him. What are you even talking about? How about John Bolton? He's considering John Bolton. And I got to tell you, who is not on that John Bolton? I don't think John Bolton is on the John

Bolton train. He can't even guarantee his own vote. Now, I don't. I really don't. I really don't think so. I was listening to your show this morning, Pat, which airs on Blaze TV and radio every morning prior to this program, and then you could get it on podcast wherever a podcast are found. But I heard you play John Kennedy, but I only had the headphones up very, very softly, and they were on the counter, and I was doing work. was that a spoof or is that really John Kennedy? Senator Kennedy. Yeah, it's really Senator Kennedy. What was he talking about? No, no, no, no. No, no, don't, don't set it.

Just listen. Here it is. These woke, high IQ stupid people, they're easy to recognize. They hate George Washington. They hate Thomas Jefferson. They hate Dr. Zeus and they hate Mr. Potato Head. These woke,

high IQ stupid people, they walk around, they walk around with Ziploc bags of kale that they can eat to give them energy. Now, if you want to eat kale, that's up to you. I don't eat kale.

You know why? Because kale tastes to me like I'd rather be fat. and these high IQ stupid people, the walkers in charge in Washington, D.C., the berserk wing of the Democratic Party, they hyperventilate on their yoga mats if you use the wrong pronoun. They're all over Washington, D.C. I love him. I just love him.

Is that one of the greatest senatorial rants of all time? Oh, yeah. It's good stuff. Oh, yeah. Fun. Let's see. By the way, yesterday it was announced that the Biden administration is launching an investigation into Elon Musk and his company, Neuroling. Wait, why?

Why? Well, he's the CEO. That is the only qualifier needed. Like, wouldn't Elon Musk be an interesting person of the year? I think he seems like he might be. Well, he was person of the year in 2021 when he was popular. Oh, so now? Yeah, so now he can't be.

That's amazing. It really is. Now he's the, now it's like one of the Hitler awards. When they get person of the year, every once in a while they give it to like Hitler because even though he's terrible, he's made a big impact, that's how they look at Elon Musk now.

And it's strange because first Time magazine embraced Hitler. So it's kind of the same thing. You know, they embraced Hitler. They embraced Elon Musk. The only difference is Musk isn't going to turn into Hitler. And Hitler was always Hitler. Maybe it's just me. So they're looking into his Neurrelink.

They just want to make sure that everything is up on the, you know, the up and up on this one. They're very concerned. You know, not about, not about Neurrelink itself. not about that it will open the gateway to information in your mind to anybody like Google. None of that. They're investigating his use of animals in research and teaching and testing. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, did he test it on monkeys? Isn't that what happened? He probably did. He did test it on monkeys. Yeah. Or somebody in his organization did. I'm sure he wasn't actually sticking the probes in the monkey brain.

Oh, I think he is. You think he is the guy? Pat, let's be honest. And I mean this half sincerely. He is one white kitty cat away from being a James Bond villain. He probably is. I mean, he really, he is, I'm not sure if he's a good guy or a bad. guy. I think we find that out in the second half of the movie. I mean, I really like him, but he's also

developing the portal for the internet implanted in human brains. Yeah. Every time I start to think that Elon Musk is just like us, and he thinks like we do, and he's pretty conservative, then you look at, you know, some of his work. And you think, No. No, he's really not. And I love the way they're making him conservative now. And or that he's nothing.

They're like, you know, he was all for the Democrats. Then he was for the Republicans. Now we don't even know who he's going to vote for. Yeah, because that's not the way he vote. He doesn't care about the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. He's looking for something. And it may or may not be what I'm looking for in a candidate. but that's what he's doing.

He's so disingenuous. He just won't walk, lock, lock step with one party. Oh, yeah. I get it. He is evil. And once upon a time, you know, that was a pretty good thing. Most people agreed that, hey, if you had principles and you didn't care about the party affiliation, then you're a guy we, you know.

we like. I'm not sure if it was ever as good as we would hope. Yeah. You know, because my grandparents were zomified by FDR. And no matter what happened, uh, they voted Democrat because of

FDR. A lot of people do that. You get on your team and you stay on your team no matter what from some weird decision when you were like a kid. You know, like you one memorable moment shapes your political views for a long time. Probably not wise to do you probably not uh... it's it's interesting to me though that uh...

the ones who are breaking this pattern really are the republicans i'd throw every single republican out i'd throw them all out if i could because i think the the party itself is so rotted that you have to start a new party and with none of those people we're fighting the republicans and Mitch McConnell as much as we're fighting you know uh...

Joe Biden. Yep. Remember, vote Republican. Actually, do vote Republican. If you are in Georgia today, vote for Herschel Walker. The betting market is giving Herschel, what, 10% chance of winning? Yeah, about a 10% chance, according to Betty Markets. Wow.

This is a 90-10 situation. So you can make some money for yourself if Herschel is to win today. Yeah, hopefully. Yeah, I mean, and to be clear, the polls are really close. This was a one-point election when it went into the general. Now the runoff, the polls, there was a poll came out. Yesterday had Rwarnock up five, but, you know, all within the margin of error. Okay, so hang on just a second.

Let me, let me, I'm going to take a quick break, and then I want to come back to you and talk to you about the polls and how Democrats win elections. And it's not about corruption. Well, kind of. This is the best of the Glennon. back program and don't forget rate us on iTunes so does the first amendment even exist anymore uh we have a white house telling us no will we have the supreme court telling us no as well i want to play a couple of things that happen in the supreme court and outside concerning the court case now um that is involving this web designer who says she cannot make a website you know

with gay marriage announcements and everything else because she's a Christian. Well, let's start here. This is the Colorado Attorney General that is insisting on television here that even if you have moral objections, you have to do the work. Listen to this. Cut three. You talk about the slip. I'm short-hand, but it's the slippery slope argument, right?

If this happens, then what's the next domino to fall? There are 29 states, including Colorado, that have non-discrimination laws. What is the impact, if the court sides with Smith, what is the impact for, you know, makeup artists, hair style, you know, people in this sort of consider themselves having expressive professions? What is the actual big implication here if this case doesn't go your way, as you see it? Well, first off, we're going to start having to figure out where to draw that line. If someone makes specialized lattes, do they have an expressive interest in saying, I'm sorry, I don't want to serve Mormons because I don't believe in the Mormon religion. That set of hypotheticals could become reality if we lose this case. Now hang on just a second.

Isn't this what cancel culture is doing? Aren't these businesses that disagree with your political view? Not a status as a human being, but your political view, aren't they canceling you? So aren't they already having the right to do it? You are just trying to take away the religious right. Because I don't want to cancel anyone, but I'm not going to work for MSNBC.

You know, they're never going to hire me, but I'm not going to go to work for them. I don't do that. I don't want to do that. I don't want to say those things. if I worked at MSNBC, well, then I had made a choice to take that job because that's what they do. Do I have a right to get on MSNBC and do the exact opposite? Don't I have a right to my own conscience and what I deeply believe, especially when it comes to faith?

Now, listen to Katanji Brown. She got a lot of heat on this. She was talking about It's a Wonderful Life from the stand yesterday. Public business. I'm a photographer. My belief is that, you know, I'm doing It's a Wonderful Life scenes. That's what I'm offering. Okay.

I want to do video depictions of It's a Wonderful Life. And I'm knowing that movie very well, I want to be authentic and so only white. children and families can be customers for that particular product. Everybody else can, I'll give to everybody else, I'll sell them anything they want, just not the It's a Wonderful Life depictions. I'm expressing something, right, for your purposes, that speech. What about, what's the other step? Sit down. Sit down. You're a mora. What a moron. First of all, yes,

I am making It's a Wonderful Life scenes. That is clearly a vision that we've seen. We can put the standard side by side. So if I'm creating that scene, yeah, I can discriminate and say, no, I need white people in this. Because I'm recreating that scene. Now, if I'm updating that scene, if I'm showing it's a wonderful life in today's America, well, then I could include and should include everyone. I don't even know what she's talking about here.

First of all, it's a wonderful life. Is not a religious objection. If I have a religious objection, I can't change what I believe. Just like you can't change your skin. I cannot change a deeply held religious belief. But it's true, first of all, but it's also an additional thing, right? Like, the religious part of this gives you additional protection beyond what is already there. You can't compel someone to say something.

That is like really a bright line in our country. You can't, like, take it to this. example. If Kanye West decided to open up a website that said, hey, I will customize birthday songs for you, which by the way, given his career arc, may be

a real possibility very, very soon. He's working on the pancake recipe now. And so let's just say he's like, you know, hey, I will customize your happy birthday of rap. Just give me your name. And then someone decides, hey, in fact, how about do my

bar mitzvah instead does he have to do that the answer to that is no you can't ask despite his anti-semitic views being abhorrent to most you cannot force him to sing a positive song about a bar mitzvah because that would be compelling his artistic expression you cannot do that it's already there whether it's a religious belief or not just because in his case it is both well it might be his case is poxled. You could argue, I guess the black Israelite, maybe that's where he is. But I mean, even if it's just, he just, it's not about religion at all, you still can't make somebody do that. Add on to that, the religious protection. It's a whole other layer. I mean, really a lot of this case has been less about religion and more about the idea of whether

you can compel speech. There was a famous case that happened recently where it was a, it was a religious institution, I can't remember which one it was, but was saying, hey, there's a new state law that says if you're going to counsel people on pregnancy, you have to post a poster that says abortion is an option and here's how you can get one if you want to. And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't force a religious organization who doesn't believe in abortion to post that. You can't compel them to speech. And that speech was defined as posting a poster. This has been a bright line forever. And hopefully this Supreme Court will actually have the balls to cast a very broad net here to make sure this is protected for everyone. You should never be forced to say or

express something you don't believe. So here's what Barrett said yesterday. She said, Canada's designer declined to serve a Catholic club because they disagree with their views on marriage. The Colorado attorney responded, yes, because that's not status-based discrimination. Wait, hang on just a second. She went in and said, wait, but the designer can't decline to do a same-sex marriage design. Yes, because same-sex marriage is inextricably intertwined with status. and religion isn't. Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second. There is a whole right that was defined as a very bright line as Stu just said. So it's not like we're looking and trying to read in well we've got to have freedom of speech and

does freedom of religion fall into that. No, freedom of religion is entirely separate, entirely separate. And so it is protected clearly. There is no troublesome comma in this one. It is clearly protected. But if you want to argue that you have the right for a designer, a web designer, to discriminate against a Catholic Church, which they do have that right. I don't want to do your design. Great. I'm glad you told me that you hate us because I don't want you designing our website. I don't think you'll do a good job. If I can decline the church, why is it the church that has a deeply held religious belief? I mean, my church was founded on the family and the sacredness of men and women and gender.

Gender is ordained by God before birth. There is no confusion. That's like 40 years old in my church. Wait, I have to change now? No. Because I can't change because the government tells me I have to change. This is something I believe to the core. And I either believe it or I don't.

Now you think that I can just change my belief because you're right. No, no. I believe God has set these standards, not man, not you, not me. I can't change the standards. Neither can you. And as long as I'm consistent in that, I have a right to assert my religious, exemption from your little rule. I'm sorry. My faith tells me I cannot go there.

If you have a religious objection to war and you are a pacifist and it's a religious exemption, you don't have to go fight in war because you're a Quaker and it is a deeply held religious exemption and it's a deeply held relief. or belief. That's a great example too. Like, we have come, think of what that particular exemption is. We are saying our country is under attack. Our nation may fall. It's the literal most important thing that a government can do, right?

Without your nation, without people fighting this war, we could fall to the Nazis and you won't have the right to your religion. Right. That's the argument against. And even with. that scenario. Yes. We say to the Quakers, you know what?

You don't have to do it. Your religion's more important than the war. Religion's more important than the entire country falling or not. Because we don't have the right to get between you and God. And yet here we're having an argument about lattes. We're acting as if weddings websites, which are they even a thing? I don't know. I guess I got married too early.

but wedding websites. We're acting as if that's as important. We've said the actual defense of our country to Nazis is not important enough to overwhelm this right. And we're talking about lattes and photographers and cupcakes. And this is completely ridiculous. And then you add on the free speech element of this, which is what this case seems to be surrounding more than anything else,

whether the government can say you must say two plus two equals, five. With this, the way they're describing this right, the government could tell anyone to say anything. And either one of these rights is clearly defined. Either one of them overwhelms the left's case on this. And they have both of them working in conjunction here. This is not a close call. This is a freedom breaking decision. If they decide in favor of Colorado, this is a freedom break. You have no right anymore. you'll have no right and this done in conjunction with what they just passed the defense of marriage act and interracial marriage act this is what they're hoping for this is what they're shooting for to be able to shut down anyone that objects it's not about

living together and tolerating one another it is about forcing everyone to do exactly what they say when they say it and have you accept and profess a belief you don't have that's a dictatorship that is naziism communism uh... it it is a religion we are headed towards a uh... a theocratic autocracy

their religion is just of gaia and of baal and whatever whatever it is that worships the earth and slaughter and perversion of children. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. We have Ben Burr on with us now. He's Blue Ribbon Coalition Executive Director. He is watching and fighting against the federal land grab that mainly is happening in the West. Ben, welcome to the program.

Yeah, thanks for having me, Glenn. So did you look in, I had my office reach. out to you and ask you about the story of the the homeowners that have to walk to their cabins and nobody is repairing the road because it's BLM land now. Is this just another land grab? I believe it is. I've been working against these federal agencies for years now and one of the common trends I see is that these agencies work to dispossess property owners of their property and the way they do it is through what It is called a regulatory taking.

They enact so many regulations. They make it so difficult for you to access and enjoy your property that eventually you just can't afford to own it anymore. So you sell it and then they turn it into a wilderness or a conservation area or something. And it's a really pernicious form of tyranny that exists within our public land system. And these poor property owners in Oregon have been fighting the BLM for two years to be able to access a road that they've been accessing since 1906. to go to these cabins. And now the BLM's telling them they're not allowed to do it. They put up a gate.

They won't give them a key. And they are being prevented from going to what is essentially their homes. So what is it that they can do? Well, currently, we're putting a lot of pressure on the BLM. They've started an administrative process to see if they can reopen this road. But the reason that I think this needs national attention is because there just needs to be pressure with it. Congressman Bentz has been helpful in trying to get this done.

But as you know, the Republicans were in the minority last Congress. As soon as they're in the majority, I'm hoping there's some congressional scrutiny on the behavior of what's going on at this BLM office. I just don't think that the BLM should be an agency that can just decide one day that you can't go to your home anymore and they block off a road. I got news for you. I know you agree with me on this. No agency should be able to get up one.

day and just change the rules. No agency should do that. Congress makes the laws. They don't even have to change the rules. The BLM's own rules say, like, if you go look at their handbook, it says that they cannot deny a property owner access to go and use and enjoy their property. They're not following their rules. And so, but they are willing to play chicken. Like, and so the question is, is this going to have to go to court? Like, it's just frustrating that that might have to be the outcome because all you need is for one field manager to change his mind and say they can keep using this road they've been using since 1906. And one thing you should know is I did help them get emergency access to go winterize their cabins one year. There was

an early freeze coming. Nobody had turned off their water. This was the first year they couldn't go up. And so we petition the BLM say, can we just go up to turn off the water so we don't break all our pipes and destroy the homes. And they're like, okay, fine, you can do it. So they actually drove up the road that's been allegedly destroyed by an erosion event that happened from a flood. They were able to passable. You can still do it in a four-wheel-drive vehicle.

So no work actually needs to be done, but the BLM just won't let them open the gate. They're telling them no. And the reason is because they're worried that these four-wheel-drive vehicles will run over fish in the river. and I've walked up. I've hiked to these cabins, Glenn. I have a picture on our website of me hiking up there. The river goes up to my knees.

Have you ever tried to run over a fish in a river that be deep with a jeep? Oh, I do it all the time. I just run over it. That's how I fish and how I take out my anger. I just drive up and down rivers to kill fish. Yeah. This is ridiculous. There are a few places where there's river crossings.

They've been doing. doing it for a century and more. And they're worried about the fish. And I'm just like, I don't think they're going to run over the fish in their jeeps. I've tried to catch fish with my hands in a river when I was a kid. And it's impossible. They're pretty adapted to risk. Yeah.

It's almost as if water is their element. Almost. Almost. Okay. So, Ben, is this part of, I remember during the Clinton years, somebody was talking about Yellowstone and letting roads in and around the park degrade so people would just eventually just kind of vacate that area because it was too difficult to get to. I don't even know if that was true.

That was something that was going around in the 90s. Is there a concerted effort in our land management agencies to do these kinds of things? Oh, 100%. In the Clinton era, you had what was called the roadless rule, which is one of these rules that the agencies just dreamed up that I think if we could get it before the Supreme Court again, they'd strike it down after the EPA versus West Virginia case because they just made up the rule out of clean cloth. They have no congressional direction to do it.

But my organization, Blue Ribbon Coalition, that's one of the primary things we fight over is roads. Because if you can close roads, you can close access. That means we're not using our natural resources. It means people can't access private property. I've helped ranchers, in the same case as these folks in Oregon, try to get up to their grazing permitted lands and their private properties. And so there is a concerted effort to obliterate and decommission roads all across the public land system because that's how you can turn it into what's called designated wilderness, which is you can only go and walk on it on your own two feet and you can't do anything,

no mechanized anything on a wilderness area. And in some wilderness is okay. I mean, there's some people, like for recreation reasons, that's probably okay to have some areas that are kind of set aside for that. But this group that wants to close this all down wants at all. I have to tell you, I have, I have land up in Idaho that when I bought it, it was a good thing. It's surrounded by BLM and then surrounded by national forest. And I thought that's a good buffer and everything. No, that's really bad. It is literally surrounded.

The road has to go through the national forest to be able to get to my, my ranch. that's exactly the kind of stuff they want to shut down, isn't it? Yeah, so you have neighbors who have the infinite power of the federal government to hurt you if they ever decide they don't want to be your neighbor anymore. And so you and I get in a conflict with our neighbor. We go knock on their door and we talk up to them and we work it out. If things get really heated, maybe we go to civil court, do you have a disagreement with your government? And the government says, well, we don't want using that road anymore. now you have to go up against something with a $4 trillion budget, infinite regulatory power to dispossess you of your property.

And how often do you think an individual citizen wins those fights? It's hard work. The only reason I have any ability to know how to do it is because I had somebody who'd been working in the agency for 35 years train me on how to challenge these decisions that come out of these agencies. and there's not a lot of people that know what to do or how to do it. And so that's an open invitation, by the way. If any of your listeners ever need help with these federal land agencies, we're here to help them. And your website is sharetrails.org.

Sharetrails.org. I have to tell you, BLM is the worst neighbor out there. There is a noxious weed that grows in my area. and once it spreads, it just devastates everything. And my family went on BLM land just to dig up the weeds because it was destroying the farmland and the grasslands and everything else. They don't care. BLM just doesn't care.

So what are we supposed to do? They have an impossible mandate. They're being asked to manage 600 million acres of land. There isn't a government agency on the planet that has enough staff or budget. no matter how much you give them to manage that much land. And so, and then they've been co-opted in a lot of cases by a lot of special interest groups. And so they are, they have the tendency to be an almost impossible agency to work with if they dig in on a position and they're unwilling to change their mind, which is what we're facing in Oregon. Good luck with your weeds.

That is a, you're probably not going to get a lot of help on that. No, I'm not even, I'm not even calling. I know the answer. Of course not. It's probably, you know. Be careful about the surrounding forest. I mean, they try to manage these forests for wildfire. You have the Forest Service trying to, in forests, just do basic management.

And they get sued every time by the environmental litigation groups. And they block everything. And so the agencies, their hands are tied one way or another, either from internal direction or because they get pressured into it through litigation. And so... It is a different America that we are living in today. Ben, thank you so much for all of the hard work you've done over the years. Thank you for the hard work that you're going to be doing.

Again, if you have a land management, BLM or federal land problem, just go to the website, sharetrails.org. You can also follow Ben at BRC Blue Ribbon on Twitter, BRC Blue Ribbon or ShareTrails.org. Na, na, na, na.