The Glenn Beck Program - Best of The Program | Guest: Dr. Robert Malone | 6/28/21

Episode Date: June 28, 2021

Pat Gray joins to discuss various news of the day, including a U.S. Olympic athlete shunning the national anthem, a Birds Aren’t Real rally, and PolitiFact correcting President Biden. Dr. Robert Malone returns to further his and Glenn’s discussion about the censorship he’s facing and the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. The National Archives created a task force to research racism in America, and it went just as expected. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the podcast. In case you just don't have enough to listen to here today, you know, as click over to Studeau's America and subscribe there as well. And don't forget to subscribe, rate and review to this podcast. If you haven't already, five stars is the appropriate number of stars. And it's right, whatever for the review. It's great. Whatever. Fantastic. Today on the podcast, we have Glenn's interaction with thousands of Buffalo. Quite an interesting story from Glenn on that one. We have Dr. Robert Malone back on the program with us. He's a doctor, one of the inventors of the original MRI vaccine technology to explain to us his concerns and what he thinks is promising about vaccines and where we're going from here.

He's a voice you're not, he's getting banned all over the internet. So we'll see, you know, if you're actually able to get this podcast today. And today is your last day to opt out of a very new government benefit. 100% beneficial, no problems whatsoever, but today is the last day to opt out of it. You're already getting it unless you opt out. A brand new way to deal with taxes and tax credits. Fantastic news and certainly not at all an indoctrination for universal basic income. Here's the podcast.

You're listening to Mr. Pat Gray from Pat Gray Unleashed. Outrageously funny and provocative, if I may say, usually because he's wearing some something low cut. Yeah. It is, it is Pat Gray. Welcome, Pat. Thank you, Glenn.

Good to be here. I'm very excited. I have some, I have some crazy stories I would just like you to comment on. Okay. The Olympic hammer thrower, Gwen Berry, turns her back to the U.S. flag during the ceremonies where she got bronze.

And they started. playing the National Anthem and she turned her back on it. She was very upset. She said that she felt that was a setup for her. Yeah, because when was the last time they played the National Anthem at a sporting event? I mean, come on. I've never seen it. He just did that to her.

It's so ridiculous. Shut up. Yeah. See, this is the part that I think everybody is focusing on. I just would like to focus just for a second on. hammer throwing is a sport yeah it's not a real hammer you know hammer throwing it's not an actual hammer you know that right

it's not not a hammer no it's just a hammer what is it well it's a oh what is it it's ball on a chain yeah it's like kind of like a ball on a really long thing that they swing around their head and then they throw it a good distance down the field yeah it's but it's not a hammer okay so then let me let me let me rephrase

a ball and chain throwing thing is a sport. Yes. Been around for a while, I will say. It has. It's not exactly a long time. Yeah, it does. It sounds like maybe medieval times, you know.

And if you want to see that, you get a dinner with it for like, I don't know, 25 bucks at medieval times. 25 bucks. What? What downstream medieval times are you going to? How much are those things? Oh, a lot. Let's see.

I took like four people there once, so a couple years ago for about $175. So what is that? You know, it's probably about $50 a piece almost. Wow. Wow. Well, I will tell you that it's been a while since my kids were like, I want to go to medieval times because the prince will throw a flower at me. Oh, my gosh.

Also, I will point out a flower at you. A hammer throw. What is this bronze? this is the United States of America bronze in the hammer throw I expect gold we should be turning the flag away from her well it's not the Olympics yet

so this was an American competition and all Americans meddled all that meddled were Americans however I'm going to be rooting against her come of the Olympics that's for sure how embarrassing would it be if she got up on the podium during the Olympics turned her back on the American flag

oh and she'll do it She will go. Someone's going to do it for sure. Absolutely. It's going to happen. Yeah. It's going to happen. All right.

The back story, I'd like to hear your comments. The next story I'd like to hear your comment on is downtown Springfield, a crowd of people gathered for the birds aren't real rally. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which. Uh-huh. I was surprised how many people showed up for the birds aren't real rally.

There was quite a crowd there. they were having some fun so i'm not sure yeah i'm not sure i mean it sounds almost like a rally i know nothing about it but it sounds like a rally that my son and i would go to you know because we've often talked about how they are they're clearly robotic that's why they're sitting on the power lines they're recharging right that's what's happening there exactly it's that birds aren't real uh it's actually sounds kind of fun but i'll bet it has some political meaning uh by it. Am I wrong on that?

I think it has a sarcastic meaning behind it. I mean, they claim that... Okay, well, I'm good with that. Yeah. Yeah, they claim they're there for surveillance. All 12 billion birds are really just surveillance devices. And I think there might be some tongue and cheekness there going on. So, yeah.

Whoa, they're not serious that birds aren't real? No, I don't think they are. Okay, well, I'm off that bandwagon. By the way, Pat, I just wanted to let you know today That a trans feminist activist Has come out to say that Gendering Animals is very wrong It's very wrong

So you could get milk equally from a cow as you could A bull Just be as easy as Yes Well, it's not, you couldn't get it as easily It's harder to milk Bull. Yeah, right.

But go for it. I invite her to try it. And have a big swig of that. And then in the craziest story of the weekend, Mitt Romney said, I take Joe Biden at his word when it comes to his budget proposals. I think actually Romney may

not be real. He may just be. be a surveillance vehicle of some sort. I don't get it with him. Why? Why is he okay with everything the Democrats do? Why is he okay with the psychotic Democrats? But the Republicans, he's got to take issue with all the time.

He has to bash and bring them down. But Joe Biden, let's take him at his word. Based on what? Based on what? The guy lies continually. He's out to lunch and he's not coming home for dinner. He has serious, serious degeneration problems. And this is the guy you're going to take at your word?

Wow. I mean, Mitt Romney should be impeached. I'll say too that, like, I think you can take Mitt, Joe Biden at his word when he says, if I don't get this multiple three to five trillion dollar extra bill, I'm not going to sign this bipartisan thing. That's what he blurted out. Then he had to walk

that back in a blatant lie. I mean, he's obviously lying when he's walking it back. He said the opposite in front of everyone when he was having to please the progressives. And so he's blatantly lying in the walk back. Taking him at his word makes sense

when when he blurts out something off the top of his head, admitting the truth. But that's not what Romney means. Yeah, he means the opposite. Romney means he means believe the walkback. Who believes the walk back? That's the...

You know, when a politician says that the crime surge is all about guns and not about BLM, not about the lawlessness in this country, but it's really because there are more guns on the street

and then says also the Republicans were the ones that wanted to defund the police how do you take that man seriously how do you take him at his word if you're willing to say crazy crazy stuff that the vast I would hope I can't even say this anymore that a lot of people in this country know is false they know that that is false that's like that's like Biden saying you know what it was George Washington

that ran up all these bills I mean it wasn't me I'll tell you that right now and expecting people to believe it they just they are so insulting the way they talk to minorities the way they talk about minorities

they are it's so insulting it's so insulting when they just they expect you to sit quietly with all of these lies. I just don't, I don't know why people aren't, aren't more, I'm surprised that he has a 45% approval rating.

It's higher. You know, Donald Trump, you could say, you could say Donald Trump, what is it, is it really? Yeah, like 52, 54, somewhere in there. Holy cow. You could say that Donald Trump was, you know, a liar. You could say that he was P.T. Barnum, which he was. He said things that, you know, he really thought was true. He convinced himself of these things. And, you know, some of them were not true. Okay, I got it. But we knew that one going in. We knew that going in. This guy has changed everything. Everything he said he was. Oh, I'm a moderate. I'm not going to comment on that. I'm not going to do that.

those things. He's now doing them. Right. And it's so, I don't know. I think I'd rather have P.T. Barnum. It's, it's, oh, for sure. And it's so bad that even, uh, Politifact fact checked him on his, yes, on his, uh, speech last week about guns. And they said what we all said, that it's a total lie that the second amendment from the very beginning limited, uh, the guns and the weapons we could use. Even Politifact said that's an outright lie. It's false. It's malarkey to coin a phrase from Joe himself. And that, it takes a lot for Politifact to fact-check Joe Biden. So, wait a minute. You could, you could own a cannon? Yes, you could. Actually. Yes. The privateers owned cannons, who were private citizens, thus private.

private tears. Well, the good thing is you can't own a tank today. Oh, no, wait. You can own a tank today. You can actually buy a tank. You can buy a U.S. tank. Now, it's not going to have like the firing, the big tank firing pin in it,

but you can own a tank today. And you could have a cannon back then. I want a tank. Yeah, why don't I have a tank? really be cool. That's the thing that's bothering me about this whole conversation. Where do I buy a tank? So there's a guy here in Texas that has a tank that a friend of a friend knows. And, yeah, of course it's in Texas. But he said that this guy bought his tank and it made some of his liberal neighbors mad. And so he parked it on his front lawn just to make sure that they knew he had a tank.

That says Texas. Thank God. Thank God for Texas. It does. Oh, by the way, the, I mean, this is the Greg Abbott we elected. Did you see what happened over the weekend? I don't think so. Oh, he said, you remember he was on the air with us a couple of weeks ago and said,

I'm not paying the Democrats. The Democrats didn't show up for work. Oh, yeah. I'm docking their salary. They're not going to get paid. He went through with it. That's good. He's not, he docked the pay.

of any Democrat or any Republican, but there were none, anybody who didn't show up for the sessions, he's not paying. And they're all upset. Now, that's the Greg Abbott. We came to know in love, right? He's back. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Dr. Robert Malone. I could go on and on and on about all of the things that he has done. Let's just say, expert is really underselling this man. He is the inventor of the MRNA vaccine technology. Dr. Robert Malone joins us again, and I want to get into the censorship. But there's a couple of new stories that are out today.

The FDA has added a warning to COVID-19 MNRA vaccines, or RNAVVV. vaccines. Can you tell me about this? They're talking about an enlargement of the heart. Welcome, Dr. Thanks, Glenn. And thanks for having to be back and for the opportunity to talk with you in your audience. I'm really grateful for that. So what's been buried in the data, and I think we might have touched on this the other day, we have a body of safety data that coming into the CDC and coming into other databases, safety databases, and other governments. And frankly, the analysis of that has been lagging quite a bit. So things that we had signals about months ago, now we're finally being verified,

and the whole kind of cascade of how the government reacts has been triggered. As you know, the CDC came out with the ACIP meeting and acknowledged that there is, a problem with cardiotoxicity, so toxicity of the heart in young people, children, adolescents. And that has now triggered, finally, the FDA to acknowledge that. This is with the RNA vaccines that are genetic. That comes on top of the prior reports and acknowledgement that the adenovirus-vectored vaccines related technology, both based on gene therapy, were causing blood clots. I suspect that you're going to have a similar announcement sometime from FDA and CDC

about the risks associated with blood clotting with the RNA vaccines. What I find really fascinating about this is that I got fact checked by Thompson Reuters and by Politifac. And the FDA put out a press announcement that there was no evidence of clinical toxicity associated with these MRNA vaccines. At the time they did it, I knew that that was not true because I have the connections within the FDA. And there's a satisfaction that perhaps passing up that in fact I was right regarding the

risk of lives, experimental, and the government owes us to be trend. I want to repeat or have you repeat what you said on Friday because I thought it was, I think this is really important. You're the guy who invented this technology. So you're clearly not anti-vaccine. And you're not even anti-this vaccine. What you're saying is, you know, hey, the little blue pill can cause, you know, something to go on for three hours. And, you know, if that happens to you, you should go see the hospital.

We know that because all of the things, you know, you can die of a heart attack. You can die of this and die of that. And they sound scary as hell on the commercial. commercials, but those are low risk for a few people, and you should know that it could happen. That's all you're asking for. You're not saying don't take the vaccine. You're saying we should just have some transparency so we know what possible effects are happening. Thank you, and thanks for saying that. We can dive a little deeper underneath that if you have time, but absolutely, it's actually federal law.

These remain experimental vaccines, whatever spin you may hear from the media. They're not yet licensed. And therefore, all of us that are taking it fall under what's called the common rule that's coded in federal law that goes all the way back to the Helsinki Accords, etc. The fundamental bedrock of bioethics. And that requires that people, those rules that are, federal law required that there be transparency about risks, that those risks have to be understood

by anybody that's going to take an experimental product, and that that taking of an experimental product like this vaccine, accepting vaccine, has to be entirely voluntary. It can't be coerced. They can't incentivize you. These are breaking federal law and fundamental principles. So you said a minute ago you take a little satisfaction. You know, back in 2011, 2010, maybe, I was beating the drum that everybody was missing, that a caliphate was coming. And that's what was really going on in Syria and with the Arab Spring, that a caliphate wanted to be formed. And it was coming. And I got mocked and ridiculed and you name it from all sides.

and when the caliphate came, sadly, I took a little satisfaction of being right, but I didn't want to be right. But the problem was that I really didn't have any satisfaction because no one admitted that they were wrong before. And so nothing was learned. They just went on. And that's kind of what I think is happening with you, right? Dead on.

And Glenn, please, please. for your audience, this is not my first outbreak. I've been doing this my whole life, starting with AIDS. I was very involved in the Ebola, what's now the Merck vaccine development, in Zika, etc. For me, being at the tip of the spear is kind of what I do. I'm a little bit of an outbreak junkie, even. I work a lot supporting the DOD and biodefense and have ever since the anthrax attacks. I get this space.

I know how things go wrong. What is a little bit surprising to me and many of my peers that are insiders like this? I've spoken at the WHO multiple times, been there many times. I know what makes that place each time. We repeat them again and again. So why? Why is this? What's changed?

I don't know. One of the things that's different, there are some things that my colleagues and I talk about with this outbreak, and we're perplexed about that are very different. One of them is the censorship. That's quite different. And we, the censorship extends all the way down into the academic literature. It's wicked hard to, for instance, publish anything that has to do with drug repurposing. So just to get on a thread that your listenership probably is familiar with, in the Ivermectin story, And I don't, I, I'm of the opinion that Ivermectin appears to have prophylactic and therapeutic activity, but it's not a silver bullet. So I'm not one of the swallowed the Kool-Aid crowd on Ivermectin.

But there's no question in my mind that this argument that all of these Ivermectin studies haven't been peer-reviewed and published, therefore they have no value. blood argument because for whatever reason, Einstein put out in that dark horse podcast that's just gone crazy viral towards the end, if you listen to him, there's some sort of emergent phenomena going here that is hard to wrap your arms around. And his comment was, this whole systemic breakdown doesn't necessarily require some central conspiracy where everybody got together at, you know, the White House or whatever and cook the books for everybody. It's a series of compromises and arrangements we've made. And one of them that I find particularly shocking is this trusted news initiative.

I'm sure it was set up in best of intentions, but it has become, I read it, and I experience it. I can't believe it. So explain what is going on. First, let me give you the new news. I don't know if you have heard this yet. Congressman Thomas Massey has just revealed

Facebook's so-called third-party fact-checker, fact-check.org, is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. And they have $2 billion of stock in Johnson and Johnson. And so factcheck. Dotorg doesn't want to do anything that's going to hurt their funding as they have two billion dollars in stock from Johnson and Johnson that helps fund them.

That seems like maybe a problem when they're fact checking on Johnson and Johnson products. Am I wrong? This is another one of those looks like a duck. It walks like a duck and it quacks like it. I would call that a realistic conflict of interest. and this business about the CEO of Reuters sitting on the board of Pfizer is another one. And so I just pulled that up this morning, thanks to my wife pulled it out, and posted it on Twitter. And I'm getting blasted with people saying, of course, this is a conflict of interest.

And it explains why Reuters is running all these hit pieces against J&J and Astorzeneca. that the capture here that has happened, this fusion between mainstream media and pharmaceutical industry, blows my mind. I mean, we already have this fusion between the pharmaceutical industry and Congress, and we have the regulatory capture of the FDA. And like I said, a lot of us, you know,

much in our heads going, what is going on with all this censorship down the overt? Good for you. Good for you. You're way out on the edge on that one. I'm with you. I'm with you. They're proud of this stuff. Our Trusting News Initiative, it was set up initially

information, political disinformation. They decided, well, now that we've got all ourselves together, let's turn it on censoring any information that we determine COVID and COVID vaccines. So they have no censoring me, censoring other scientists, censoring patients, some patients that had on Facebook,

sharing their stories about, their own adverse events, Facebook just kills that, you know, drops them off, deletes it. This is the, 1984 is a school kid, and then it was science fiction. This is pretty overt. Have you read 1984 lately? No. I got it drilled in the fourth grade or something.

So same with me, and I thought I remembered it all. You should read it. It is astounding how accurate. it is today. I mean, astounding. Like, I read, I reread it about a year ago, and it was crazy. That was Orwell's response to what he saw in fascist authoritarianism. Okay. That was, that was what he was writing from, was a warning to the future saying, this, this can happen. I'll tell you the people that that I run into now because I this Brett Weinstein podcast went viral globally, I'm getting a lot of traffic from Europeans and they're really alarms. These are people that are

very sensitive to what happened in Europe in the 1940s. Intellectuals that think deep thoughts about this stuff. And you know, the term slippery slope is often used. We're there. This, this, This is not okay. We've got organizations that are cross-linked between mainstream media and the pharmaceutical industry and public health organizations that seem to feel that it's okay to substitute opinion for that. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Excuse me. A report that was just issued from the National Archives.

Now, the report came from the National Archives, Task Force. When I say task force, Stu, what kind of comes to your task force? I mean, like almost like a military operation, you know, swooping in. Yeah, military operation. Yeah, they're grappling into the National Archives. Well, they've got their own task force going on. Hey, do we have that CNN race music? Do you remember that, Sarah?

That might be kind of a task forcey kind of. music is CNN said at one point they've got a CNN race team that's going to be out there like a task force and the race team's going to be out there and they're going to jump into action yeah so here it is the National Archives Task Force on racism well they just issued their first report and you will never guess what they said it's crazy They say where America's founding documents are displayed in the National Archives was really an example of structural racism.

Well, this race team is great. They suggested major changes on how the Constitution and other notable records are presented in order to provide context. Now, if I remember the National Archives, and I do very well. You walk in, and it's a big limestone building, big pillars and everything else. There's a flag to one side. There's a flag on the side of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. And here's how racist this is.

They have, when you walk in, they have this big gate that says, oh, this is important. Then you walk past that gate and up these stairs, and they're hanging on the wall in really what is, can only be described as an amazing vault behind all this bomb-proof glass is the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And when I say it's a vault, I say that because it can take a ground zero missile hit. and within a fraction of a second, it drops down and is sealed in a vault.

So nothing can ever happen to it. Structural racism. You know what I'm saying? You know what I'm saying? Do they do that for, you know, the bullhorn of Al Sharpton? Because that is also an American icon that should be preserved. No, just our founding documents. Now, they also pointed out the fact, and I forgot about this, they have a giant mural up on the wall.

They have two of them. One is for all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. And the other one is for all the signers of the Constitution. And they didn't include any of the black signers. I mean, there weren't any. But can't we throw a few black people in there? that is oppressive when you see the actual faces of these monsters, all of them white, without anyone in the archives saying,

hey, let's sprinkle in some black people, maybe a couple of Hispanics. How about a Chinese guy? Maybe the Chinese guy can be right next to George Washington. Can we not reimagine history a little bit? So they said also in the National Archives, you've got to be ready for this, Sarah, the National Archives Race Task Force. Yeah. They also said that the National Archives portrays the individual founding fathers in a much too positive way.

You know, can I tell you something about Ben Franklin? he was fat he's a fat fat fat fatty and i think our national archives need to yeah yeah yeah i know he was one of the you know real leaders of the abolitionist movement but he was fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat bad bad bad bad bad bad's big fat fatty that's what should be in the national archives the group claimed in a little noticed report i noticed it to the U.S. top librarian that the Archives own rotunda, which houses the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is an example of structural racism, and that the founding fathers and other white, historic, impactful Americans are portrayed to positively the

National Archives Race Task Force also said that the legacy descriptions that use racial slurs in harmful language to describe people of color in communities are like racial slurs, but also they use terms like elderly and handicapped and illegal alien. So as bad as this is, I don't know if we're going to be able to, I mean, those frescoes, they're in there. I mean, we got to dynamite those things out. because think of the stop with your white privilege

think of the pain that that is causing yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah I got it it's the truth but who's truth really a bunch of white people they were the signers of the Declaration of Independence oh and that did

good right thanks whitey anyway a lot of people of color come through that rotunda And so the task force would like to have the National Archives put into context these documents. And their suggestions are that perhaps we can provide context of these documents in the Rotunda, through dance and performance art in the space.

So you might go there and you're like, I just want to see the Declaration of Independence. No, no, no. Maybe you should see some interpretive dance routine that will, quote, invite dialogue about the ways that the United States has mythologized the founding era. we why first of all you know me stew and i think you can verify if there is anybody that is bigger in the interpretive dance world uh than me i mean name them well i am a huge advocate

of interpreted dance you are and that's why of course you were named the number three overall advocate of interpreted dance uh in interpretive dance magazine that being said well i that that was politics that kept me they kept me out of number one that was a political thing with the magazine but uh you know i was in auschwitz and i was standing there i was standing in the shower room and i said you know what would bring this home interpretive dance really and uh hmm that was what see are you one of those people that thinks that would be offensive yeah a tad you don't get the interpretive dance Yeah, a tad.

Yeah, well, probably you would say, more offensive than the interpretive dance in front of, you know, the founding documents. And the interpretive dance is basically, because see, you know, I saw Auschwitz and I thought, it's being portrayed. The Germans are being portrayed in a very negative way. And if we could just have some interpretive dance about the good soldiers that were there. I don't Can we think we should do that out a bit? No. You don't think so.

Under no circumstances, should that be balanced out. All right. Strangely, the number three guy for interpretive dance agrees with you. Whoa. Bad idea. Yeah, bad idea. Now, I guess we could reinvent history and we could say, gee, some of those soldiers, you know, that were working in the camps, they weren't so bad. Or we could also reimagine history and say, you know, there were a lot of Hispanics that signed the Declaration of Independence, so I'm just going to put them into that portrait.

That doesn't mean that only white people could come up with it. It just means that at the time, it was white people that did do it. and that you can talk about all of the bad things that you want that have come from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But nothing will ever get me to believe. No dance, believe it or not, no interpretive dance, will convince me that the United States of America, the signing of the Declaration of Independence,

has done more to keep people slaves, or to keep people under the thumb and not bring more freedom and more good to the world than bad. Now, lately, you could make that case. Lately, we are, when France, let me say this again, when France says, the French says, don't buy in to any of the crap that is coming out of Washington and the United States. Don't buy into all of this crap. When France takes a stand that is correct about us, the world's upside down. World's upside down.

Well, it's just like you to say the world's upside down. That's because you've been looking at it with North America at the top. How do we know what the top is and what the bottom is? It's a three-dimensional space. We don't know what the top of the universe is and the bottom of the universe. You talk about the world upside down. It's you white people and you North American people and you Europeans that meet all the globes. Oh, dear God.

I will say, Glenn, I mean, it's a good point, but it would probably be made better with interpretive dance. and I assume you'll be doing that later on your Instagram page or something from the ranch. Oh, don't tempt me because I just might. Don't tempt me. That sentence was specifically designed to tempt you. Yeah. This is, this, this should bother people deeply. These documents, I believe, are sacred documents.

These documents have, are. are the the key to end slavery. They are the key. That's not me saying that. That's Frederick Frickin Douglas that said that. What did Martin Luther King quote in his I dream of, I have a dream speech? He challenged us to live up to the words that he quoted in the Declaration of Independence.

Live up to those words. is not those documents or those men the problem is we don't read those documents anymore we're not even trying to live those documents anymore we haven't tried for at least a hundred years and every time we make a mistake it's because we go off these documents oh the trail of tears yeah yeah why was that wrong because you were taking property you were taking it you were breaking your own word and breaking promises, you are treating one group of people like they're not all men. I don't know. Maybe we should start living those words and understanding those words because that will make us a more perfect nation, not doing some stupid, freaking dance.

And I got to tell you, it's a good thing that the Declaration of Independence is, and all those documents are behind bomb-proof glass. Because if I walk into the National Archives and I see interpretive dance telling me how bad it is, my head will explode. And all of those documents, they'll have pieces of Glenn Head on them. So please, National Archives, please keep them safe because I have a feeling I'm not not the only one whose head would pop if I see interpretive dance in front of those documents.