The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: John Ziegler, Pat Gray, Del Bigtree & Andrew Heaton | 3/7/19

Episode Date: March 7, 2019

Best of the Program | 3/7 - I Don't Care About Michael Jackson" (w/ John Ziegler) -h1 - 99.5% sure with Pat Gray? -h1 - Feelings versus Facts?  -h2 - 'Vaxxed'? (w/ Del Bigtree) -h2 - Bernie Sanders Stops By? (w/ Andrew Heaton) -h3 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, welcome to the podcast. By the way, you can see the show, you can see my TV show, you can see Stephen Crowder and everybody on the BlazeTV. BlazTV.com, use the promo code back and you're going to save 10%. Also, thank you so much for subscribing. If you haven't rated us and reviewed us, that really helps us because that's the algorithm. It sees how many stars people are giving and also how many people have. spent the time to review it. The more reviews, the higher the star count, the more likely it is for us to be discovered

through algorithms by other people like you. We do so much for you. Can you do one thing for us? I mean, that is all we're asking after all the story wrong here on this one. Today we had a, it was an interesting journey on the podcast today. First, we start with John Ziegler, who is the most unpopular man on the planet. his choice. He is always taking the contrarian view.

But we talked about Michael Jackson and we talked about R. Kelly with him. And then we brought Pat into the conversation as well. Then also, we started talking about story and

feelings and facts. And the reason why we're losing so many times conservatives, even though we have the facts, we don't have the story. and I tried to show you with Dan Crenshaw what he said yesterday on the border that that is the way to tell a story

you tell the story you get people emotionally attached and then you get the facts in there and that kind of took us the rest of the show to kind of argue back and forth with Stu and I yeah it's an interesting way of looking at I think it kind of encapsulates the show but it also encapsulates the way

for conservatives to communicate communicate the things that they believe in, the principles they believe in, without kind of getting rolled over by the media and by the left. And I think you come up at the end with a really good formula of how to do this and something that can actually work. Yeah. That's all on today's podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Do you think he gets up in a morning and says, how can I piss more people on? It's possible. It is possible. Michael, Jackson could be guilty as hell, and HBO's leaving Neverland would still be unfair. Those are the words of John Ziegler.

Welcome to the program, John. Glenn, I'm going to put ever unpopular on my business cards. That's what you need. That's what you need. So, John, I actually, you know, I know this article when you read it, you ought to thought, yeah, you know, everybody's going to disagree with me on this. But we actually don't. We've watched this.

and I think, and in reading your article, I think you would agree, most likely these guys are telling the truth. Most likely this guy, Michael Jackson, did this to these kids and many others. But he's not around to defend himself, and we're just presenting one side. This is dangerous. That's why I wrote the column. However, that column was written a couple of days ago, and I'm not sure I would write the same column today, because I am quite sure that one of the two guys in that HBO, quote-unquote, documentary, Wade Robson, is not telling the truth. Really?

Yeah. And let me put it this way. If he is telling the truth, then we might as well throw away the entire judicial system, because it's, There is absolutely positively no way for an accused person to defend themselves because the Wade Robson story is on paper is a complete joke. And I purposely went into watching the Neverland movie. I don't want to call a documentary because it's ridiculously one-sided, even if Jackson is guilty. Let me just say, I hate this subject, Glenn. I hate being the person that has to stand up and say, wait a minute.

But no one else wants to do this. And, I mean, you said I've ever unpopular. That's even with my own wife. I mean, my wife is furious at me with my own. But I'm telling you, the way robs and the story, my dog in this time is not Michael Jackson. I don't care about Michael Jackson. I don't care about the truth. I really, really care about the rules we're creating for how we evaluate these kind of stories.

That is radically changing in a very dangerous way. And if the Wade Robson story is allowed to stand, then I seriously, Glenn, I do not know how a rich, famous person is able to defend themselves against any allegation. Because I have evaluated these kind of stories for years now, and this one is the most inexplicable that I have ever seen. I mean. Why do you say that? Why do you say that? Well, because in all seriousness, again, he could be telling the truth. But if he is, then on what basis would any story ever be discredited? I mean, I could talk to you for hours about this, but let me just give you a couple of highlights. I mean, here's a guy who, I'm forgetting about the fact that at 12 years old, he testified in a civil complaint that Jackson never did anything to him.

And he was the greatest thing ever. I'm discounting that, okay? He's 12 years old. and supposedly still being abused. But at 22 years old, as an adult celebrity, okay, people need to understand, he's a celebrity. This is a guy who allegedly broke up Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake because he had an affair with Britney Spears. Now, right there, that's confidence, folks. That is not consistent with what we're told is a sex abuse victim. This is a worldly guy at 22 in the midst of a massive criminal trial. He is not just a witness for Michael Jackson.

He's Michael Jackson's first defense witness. I know Michael Jackson's attorney Tom Mezzaro very well here in Los Angeles. Tom Mezzro is a brilliant guy. He believes Michael Jackson is innocent. I do not know if he is or not. I'm agnostic on that issue. But as far as Wade Robson, there is no way in hell that Tom Mezzaro or Michael Jackson, if he's a criminal mastermind, is going to put Wade Robson on the stand first in his criminal trial if he's abused him for seven years. And Tom Resero, who has interviewed him vigorously, his family vigorously, is going to put him on the stand first.

This is the testimony, which was vigorously defending Jackson, is only one of a thousand data points. that continue well after the trial and well after Jackson's death that Robson was never abused. After Jackson dies, Robson issues one of the most abelian pro-Jackson statements I've ever heard anyone give. He's the greatest human being that's ever lived. He writes a chapter in a book eulogizing Michael Jackson. He attends his funeral. And then it only shifts. It only shifts immediately after when Michael Jackson is dead and Ropes and loses out on the job to choreograph a circus salee Michael Jackson show in Las Vegas.

And then he sues for millions of dollars. The first time he ever tells a story to anyone. And in the course of that lawsuit, the course of that lawsuit, the discovery shows how he created his story. and even I, in my column, I don't think I accurately describe how that lawsuit got adjudicated. It got adjudicated because of statute of limitations concerns, and that sounds like, oh, there was nothing about the merit. That's not really accurate. What really happened is it was statute of limitations concern, and then when he tried to figure out a loophole around the statute of limitations, the judge determined that he blatantly perjured himself as proven by emails and threw out his entombed.

higher testimony. Wow. So if this, if this, Wade Robson is to be believed and accepted in a documentary with zero pushback. I mean, zero skeptical questioning, zero informing the audience in the first hour of some of these basic facts, then I really, honestly, Glenn, I do not know how anyone years later can possibly defend themselves. And again, I don't care about Michael Jackson.

and I hate this subject. But come on, people. This was totally – and when you see interviews with this director, Dan Reed, I have never seen anyone as invested in a storyline without facts in this guy's. So, I mean, look, could Wade Robson be telling the truth? I guess so. I guess Jesse Smollett and Christine Ford could, too. I mean, frankly, his story makes Christine Ford and Jesse Smollett look like

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Wow. That's how bad it is. I mean, it's really, it is really, it's the worst I've ever seen. Wow. What about the other guy? Now, James Shavechuk is a different breed of story. And I will fully acknowledge, by the way, both of them are very good.

They're very compelling. It's disgusting. It's horrific. It's important to point out that no one seems to want to acknowledge. These are two guys who have been entertainers since they were kids. They've been performers. So can we at least consider the possibility that in the Jesse Smarlet era that they could be just telling the story? That is certainly possible.

But it's much more difficult to destroy Safechuck's story because he didn't do nearly the same number of things. However, he did testify on behalf of Jackson in a civil complaint. He did file apparently a deposition saying, or not, I mean, an affidavit saying he was not abused. he did not testify at Jackson's trial. He was about 27 years old at that time, but he also didn't testify against him. And he never told anybody about this until after Jackson was dead about the actual allegations. So when you compare it to Wade Robson, it's not nearly as easily questionable. And I will fully agree that they're telling the story in Neverland, leaving Neverland is incredibly compelling. And that's clearly why HBO and the director decide to go with it.

But shouldn't there be more than that? I mean, really, shouldn't there be more than that against a man who is dead, a man who was not convicted in court, a man who was never even found liable in a civil case? I mean, to me, the threshold ought to be much higher grand under those circumstances. This documentary would have been fine if Michael Jackson had been convicted and confessed, but that didn't happen or if he was still alive to defend himself. That's not the case. Because of those circumstances, I do not believe leaving Neverland ever should have even aired on HBO. And I think it's an abomination from a documentary standpoint.

Well, it's not a documentary. A documentary should present both sides so you have some sort of idea. I mean, it is an anti-Michael Jackson movie. And there's no ifs, and zanz or butts. they do not ever give anyone a chance to say the other side at all. Can I give you an example of that with Wade Robson? And I didn't know this until after it aired. Wade Robson, during the time of the alleged allegations that he makes against Michael Jackson,

which go until he's 14 years old, was dating someone. He was dating a woman for eight years during his entire teenage years. That person was Michael Jackson's niece, Brandy, who is incredibly credible. intelligent. I've seen interviews with her. She knows he's lying, knows it. Now, how does that make any damn sense that for eight years he's dating a girl who's Michael Jackson's niece, who was there with him the whole time, who was having sex with him, who knows him better than anybody during this exact period of time, and they don't even interview her? Don't you think she might have some information, Glenn? I mean, that's not a documentary, as you said. That's a hit job. And again,

we should all care about this, not because of Michael Jackson. And I don't want to be, I hate being seen as being, you know, defending supposed pedophiles or Michael Jackson in particular. I despise it. We should care about the truth. And these rules, these new rules are so incredibly dangerous. Well, I want to ask you to hold on here. I'm a break for a minute and then we'll come right back. And I want to change this to R. Kelly and this, and, and even Jeffrey Epstein, here's a guy who clearly on the surface has been doing some really bad stuff. He gets a sweetheart deal in Florida because he's really connected. And now maybe there's a chance that he is going to be looked into because of a social media push. The same thing with R. Kelly.

It's a social media push. Is this good or bad? So, John, here's the thing I think that makes people believe some of this is these big settlements. And, you know, you settle out of court. And quite honestly, that used to be the thing to do because it just isn't worth it. Companies do this all the time. They settle. That's not necessarily an omission of guilt.

And so people think that the rich can get away with anything. And you look at Jeffrey, what is it, Epstein or Epstein? Epstein. Epstein. You look at Jeffrey Epstein. Here's a guy who had dozens, they say, dozens of girls testifying are willing to testify that he had sex with them at underage. He cuts a sweetheart deal.

He gets off with nothing. And it's because he's well connected. The average guy would not have. the same kind of system acting this way with them? 100% true. Based upon what I know of that story, I would agree with that 1,000%. But what the weird part is, because he's not a celebrity, he's just, you're actually advantaged.

Being a celebrity, I think, makes you far more vulnerable. And being rich, of course, gives you huge advantage. I mean, I've always believed, you know, I covered the Michael Jackson trial as a radio talk show host here in Los Angeles. And before the trial, I presume Jackson was guilty as hell because of the payoffs. The trial actually produced very limited evidence, which is why I think he was correctly acquitted. That doesn't mean he's innocent. That means that they didn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

But he was very, very vulnerable largely because of his celebrity and his money. And a payoff to him, let's be fair, isn't the same as a payoff. Well, maybe to you, but not to me, because obviously he was super rich at the time. And so that's all he needs to be taken into consideration. Now, the R. Kelly situation, I find fascinating because to me, what R. Kelly was doing was taking the Brett Kavanaugh strategy and, like, multiplying at times a thousand, which is, you know, you've got to show you're fighting back as much as possible, and at least some people will believe you. I don't believe R. Kelly, but I think his strategy is interesting that he took in that interview with CBS. Yes. So now you have the same kind of situation with R. Kelly as Michael Jackson, where he says, you know, hey, look, I already beat this rap once. You can't tie me into that. I was cleared of that.

That's not really true. And plus, there's another problem for R. Kelly, there's videotape in this case. Well, okay, that little detail. Yeah. And, you know, again, I'm. I've watched enough shows on R. Kelly to know that there's the evidence is far stronger based on what we currently know than it is against Michael Jackson. But did you believe his reaction in that CBS interview? No. That felt like acting to me. No, yeah, I did.

No, I didn't buy it at all. But, you know, what does that mean? I am having to judge somebody's, you know, acting ability. But no, but here's why that's important, Glenn. And I think this is really important going back to this issue of the rules we're creating. Let's pretend for a second that R. Kelly is somehow maybe not guilty. I'm not saying that. I'm just putting that out as a theory, right? How is he supposed to defend himself?

And I really truly do believe that Brett Kavanaugh has carved out the last path for someone who actually is innocent to defend themselves. Donald Trump wouldn't have stuck by Brett Kavanaugh if he hadn't feared. attacked the story in his testimony in front of the Senate. I mean, that would, I mean, and so that's your only option. And what I found interesting was, of course, that many people on social media that I saw news reporters were saying, well, you know, Kelly proved himself to be an abuser because he was abusing his interviewer who was female, female, okay, fine, well, then just tell me, just please, this all I've ever really asked is tell me what the rules are.

How is an innocent person in this kind of situation supposed to defend a defense? themselves. How are they supposed to act? Because frankly, I think me too has taken away all of the avenues. I don't know what you're supposed to do, even if you are innocent. I think that's a great point, John. I would love to see a moment like this on cable news broadcast when they're talking about this, where someone says to the host, hey, have you ever had an intern that you didn't abuse in your life? Okay? And of course they're going to say yes to that. Tell me if that intern came on TV right now and said that you abused them, what would you say to defend himself? What would you say? What excuse could you possibly come up with? You can't

prove where you were every second of every day. You don't have video of yourself every second of every day. And if we're just supposed to believe the accuser, there is no path to defend yourself even if you were completely innocent. That's not a, you know, conviction by documentary and podcast is a really dangerous road to go down. Amen, Stu. And again, I just want to know what the rules are. And I also would like those rules to be semi-rational. And is that asking too much? Because We're way, we are way beyond that now. And I don't see how we go back. I thought Jesse Smollett might at least tap the brakes, but it clearly did not.

No. And we're going to talk next hour about how it's even getting worse now with Facebook and YouTube and everything else. I would love to see you look into the Jeffrey Epstein case and really do some investigating on that. If you do, let me know, John. And we'll follow you as well. individual one is the name of his podcast, free speech broadcasting.com, and follow him on Twitter at Zigman Freud. The Best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn, and if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast. And Pat Gray is with us now. Hello, Pat. I came on the wrong day. He came on the wrong day. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you just heard John Ziegler. who is, I think he gets up every day and he's like, how could I be more unpopular?

What could I take the opposite point of view on today? Right. And he said, I'm not defending Michael Jackson. I have a problem with this HBO documentary that really didn't address the other side. Although it did. It kind of did. A little bit. It didn't spend a lot of time with it, but both of them admitted lying under oath.

They showed a lot of the clips of these of people who were taking them apart online. They did sort of cover the other side of it. I mean, they didn't do it extensively, and it happened towards that. They tip the hat. They tip their hat. Yes. I also, I disagree with Ziegler on a couple of things.

You know, Robson explained pretty much everything that Ziegler talked about. He went on to, yeah, a lot of fame and fortune within sync and Britney Spears. And I don't know that the fact that he had his way with. with Britney Spears proves that he was totally together because, you know, this would be a signal that you were not together. I know. You're breaking up somebody else's marriage. Right.

It's the Kevin Federline law, I believe. Plus, as both of them said, neither one of them considered it abuse at the time. When they were in the relationship, they didn't consider it abuse. And then in their teenage years, they hadn't really worked through it yet. Yeah. And when you are suffering through things, sometimes you pour yourself into work and you become successful in spite. That happens a lot.

Right. It's happened with me. Yeah. I mean, that's what drove me was just concentrate on this. Just concentrate on this. Concentrate on this. You would agree, too, though, to the idea, just generally speaking, about, you know, there's a disturbing trend of, you know, you get enough retweets and the person's guilty.

Absolutely. And that is a... Yes. And I will admit, I kind of fell into that trap on this documentary because I don't know that Michael Jackson 100% is guilty, but I'm about 99.5% believe in it. Yeah. And I probably shouldn't, but there is some evidence. You know, he openly slept with young boys. Right. Openly, over and over and over. What really hurts him is, you know, I had an amusement park. I openly slept with young boys. And, oh, by the way, I had pornoes and... And their fingerprints is on.

And the kids' fingerprints are on. That's a bad sign. Found in my closet. But that's all old. That has nothing to do with the documentary, right? Yeah, yeah, there's old things. But it does bring it back to the top of your mind a little bit. I'd forgotten about some of that evidence. Jordy Chandler also drew, you know, the evidence of his man unit. And it was the exact same markings that the photographs had.

How did that happen? Is he psychic? Just luck. He lucked out. It looked like Abraham Lincoln. So he lucked out on that. Sometimes when I go to the airport, I just guess at my QR code and draw one. And it comes out right.

I'm sure it happens. Yeah. I'm sure it happens. Yeah. So it does seem like there's a lot there on that one. And I think that's been, that's that, in a way, that's what makes me more scared of this is because I think most of these early examples that we could have, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Michael Jackson, R. Kelly. There's so much against them. And there's legitimate evidence outside of just a documentary that shows, you know, like, it looks pretty bad.

And obviously, Cosby and Epstein, both either pled guilty or convicted. But it's almost worse that it starts that way because at some point, we're just going to start believing this is an okay way to make these decisions. I think we're almost there already. Isn't this just the institutionalization of Sololensky tactics? I mean, look what they did to me. Okay, you and I both know. There was a book that came out, said that I... Multiple books.

Yeah, multiple books. One said that I killed a girl, raped and killed her. One said that I went to jail in the 1980s or 90s. Driving your DeLorean drunk. And I was so drunk, I was always late for work. And one day, I think Pat had to go bail me out or whatever it was. What was the other one? They're just horrible, horrible things.

absolutely untrue. Published. Published. And what do you do? Right. So what am I do? I could have sued him, but that would have made that book sell more than five copies, which I think it sold about three, and the author bought those three. And so they're already doing this. Look at what they did at Fox. Now, I helped by saying things like, you know, Barack Obama, I think he has a problem with race.

Well, I do believe that. However, that was just handing them something easy to take and turn into something ugly. Plus, who knew that when you accuse somebody of racism, it makes you a racist? Never before in history. No, that was at that time. That's amazing. That was new. I can't think of any example.

And it doesn't apply anymore. It was just for a short time only. For a limited time only, that was your special offer. Right. Now you can accuse the president of being a racist and it's not a problem. And you're a hero. You get in trouble if you don't accuse him of a racist. being a racist.

You seriously, you're now a racist if you don't accuse the president of being a racist. That's a hell of a turn. It is. So I'll probably learn that right as this one exits. And I'll be like, you know what? I think he is a racist. And then the next guy will be in and you'll be like, wait, wait, we flip back again. I don't know what to do.

But yeah, you're a target and this happens. I mean, look, it happens to a lot of people who go, who are celebrities or well-known. I mean, this is not new. I think there's a level of evidence now that is so low. It's almost like if someone spends a lot of time. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it goes the other way too. Like, I mean, making a murderer and serial are two documentaries or podcasts that are saying basically,

this person's not guilty. You should believe that he's not guilty. And it may be true. But again, it's a relatively one-sided case. This is what documentaries are. People leave things out. They say things that aren't true. and now, you know, there's a whole movement of people who want these people out of prison,

or they want other people in prison. And again, like, that is why we have a freaking legal system. When it doesn't work, it's good that people shine light on it. And I think that's positive. Yeah. But it's still, we have to back up and say, wait a minute, there has to be this additional process that has to be, that occurs inside our legal, you know, construct. If you don't have that, it's not real.

And we can all sit here and say, well, we think R. Kelly is guilty. And, you know, that's my impression as well. But are you going to take his livelihood away? Are you going to ban him? You shouldn't. Think of that. Not based on allegations. That's exactly what the left has done now to anyone who disagrees with them.

If you supported, you know, traditional marriage 10 years ago, you're running a company. Doesn't matter what you're. They will destroy you and you won't be able to make money. The same thing. You have a contrary opinion. We have somebody on who I disagree with. I am pro-vaccination. But here's a guy who made a movie about the facts on vaccination as he understands them.

He is being banned now. He's been dropped by Amazon and YouTube. Is he saying vaccines are dangerous? Yes. Yes. Okay. So I don't agree with that. I don't want to hold this guy up or this movie up and say, hey, everybody should watch this.

I think this is true. I don't. I don't. But he should have the right to say it. They're not doing that to Jim Carrey, who was on that bandwagon for years with Jenny McCarthy. And he still has a career. So if you're on the left, you're usually insulated. Is this guy right wing?

No, I don't know. I don't know anything about it. him. I just know this, that people are, their lives are being destroyed without a court of law. And I don't think you should ban music based on allegations. Like, should Michael Jackson's music be pulled off the air in New Zealand and wherever else they're doing this? No. No. No. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much of that happening in America yet. I know. Have you seen it? With R. Kelly, yes. With R. Kelly, yeah, but not Michael Jackson. I'm not seen it yet with Michael Jackson. Although it's, I mean, it's a lot easier to take R. Kelly's music off the air.

It's one play. It's one song, right? It's like, I believe I can fly. Oh, no. Can we exist without that song? It'll be tough. R. Kelly has a, has sold a lot of, a lot of records. He has to, because he's made, I mean, he lives quite the high life.

Apparently he does. And he's bought some women. And so you've got to have some money to do that. Right. Well, when you say bought women. Well, he says their parents sold him to him. sold the two girls to him. This is quite a run, though.

So is bot, really. It's just an exchange. Okay, so 1993 album six times platinum. Really? Next one five times platinum. Next one, eight times platinum. Wow. Four times platinum.

Again platinum, then two times platinum, then three times platinum. Again platinum, another platinum, another platinum. That's impressive. That is a run there. Yeah, that is. I mean, look at this is chart position. for his albums. 2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-1-4.

I mean, that is a hell of a run. That's from 1993 to 2013. It's a 20-year run. Wow. You know, again, we may not be the target demographic. You think? You think? But that's a hell of a run.

I'm not a 13-year-old black girl, but... Yeah. So I may not be the target. Although I read in a book, you killed one. Which is incredible. Well, I raped and killed. Oh, yeah, that's right. I forgot that.

They're wrong. Thank you, Pat. Packray for Pat Gray. Unleashed. Available anywhere podcasts are all. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Like listening to this podcast? If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

But while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show. So, Stu, state your case again on facts. And I'm in complete agreement with you. I just think maybe we disagree perhaps on new. nuance. Yeah, my basic thesis here is that we blame a lot of things for the problems we have in our society, things like, you know, different

ideologies, you know, people who maybe don't have enough information, people who have human characteristics that are flawed in some way, but the one we don't give enough blame to our feelings. We don't give enough blame to the idea that emotion and feelings consistently overwhelm actual facts in our society. It's one of the reasons I became a conservative

a very long time ago is because I love the idea that conservatives were the ones who prioritized facts over emotion. And that played out for a very long time. I think it still does play out to some extent. But just the human species is so overwhelmed by emotion. And one of the reasons, if you read Thinking Fast and Slow, it talks about basically two,

types, two things that are going on in your brain. One is this immediate action, right? So if someone's running at you with a knife, you don't, you don't sit there and think and contemplate what was that person's motivations. They don't seem like they're very happy with me. Is that a real knife? What are they doing? And then you get stabbed. You have the thinking fast part of your brain that immediately reacts without thinking at all. It does not, it just goes. Fight or fight. You know, get out of there. And then you have the other side in places like policy and the way you design. And the way you design a country and individual rights and, you know, adhering to the Constitution, all of those things are all supposed to be exclusively slow.

Slow. That's second part of your brain that's taking the time to contemplate all the positives and negatives of the rational arguments. And we use the other side of our brain, that emotional, passionate side, which is great for some things. It's great for family. It's great for movies. It's why people care about music, right?

I mean, it's because that part of you is real, and it's great in those moments. It was designed for those moments where you might die in the, you know, you're a caveman, you've got a club, do I hit the saber-tooth tiger with the club or not? That's what it's designed for. All right. So the problem is, and I agree with everything you just said, the problem is, is that it's not, the blame is not on thinking fast or thinking slow. That's neither one of those are the problem or.

the cure. The problem is we're not doing both. It's, it's, you know, a bird can't fly with only one wing. I don't want to live in a world without any liberals because art and everything else will really suck. Really, really suck. Music will suck. Television and movies will suck. Okay? I don't want to live in that. But I also don't want to live in a world. I always bring this back to a theater. I want all the liberals on stage because you're going to do a show and it's going to be great and it's going to be wonderful. We're going to pack the house every night and everybody's going to love it and you'll piss some people off. But it'll generally be great.

However, get away from the box office. Because if you get into the accounting in the box office, we're going to be broke. I want all the conservatives, all the slow thinkers. I want them in the front of the house. Your back of the house. Okay? We need each other. And to be clear, because of the title of that book, it comes off as strange.

Slow thinkers doesn't mean they're slow. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It means that you take your time and consider. Well, let me give me an example of how it works in reverse, okay? Everybody thinks that the atomic bomb, how this is sold to us, is that we just bomb Japan because we had this bomb and we couldn't wait to you. it and we just dropped it on them because, well, they're yellow mongrels. And so we got to kill them all.

Right. That was the theory of the time in some of the propaganda. We've played it before. Yes. Yes. However, that's the exact opposite of the people who designed the bomb. The bomb was designed with very slow thinking. And as they got closer and closer to perfection of the bomb, they all thought, I don't know if we

should do this. And so they went to the president and they said, I don't think we should do this. And they slowed thinking down even more and said, let's count the number of people that we think will die if we don't use the bomb. And the number of people that will die if we do use the bomb. And let's not just count our side. Let's count the Japanese as well. That's how that decision was made. It was not like, we got a new bomb. Let's kill those yellow bastards. We didn't do that. We didn't do that.

We knew what we had and we used slow thinking. But they're accusing us of only using fast thinking. Okay. Now, the left loves fast thinking. Because fast thinking gets them everywhere. Yeah. Because the facts are not on their side. And they want the fast thinking.

A perfect example of this. it immediately. After every mass shooting, what do they do? Guns. Guns. Guns, guns, guns, guns. And immediately, why? Because if you're thinking slow, and again, that means over a long period of time where you you think out every option and what these things mean, you come to the conclusion, well, you look at the stats, the violence is dropping, these are very rare incidents, there's all the arguments that you hear on talk radio in the weeks after a mass shooting. Those are arguments that are not emotional. they're based on fact when and this is why

there's you hear this every other time one year anniversary of X shooting you know I just we thought we were going to get this done this time and nothing happened it's like well no you thought you were to get this done because you want to heighten the emotion of the incident you want people's emotion to

overwhelm their factual thinking and then you can get your thing done and once it's done it's in place and you're done with the problem okay I want to explain this really simply in a different way. And then we're going to take a one minute break and I'm going to come back and I'm going to show you it in action.

If you want to win, if you want to change the game, you have to change the way we present ourselves. All right? I want you to think of that theater idea that I just gave you, that all the liberals are on the stage doing a great show. Okay. And we know that. We know that generally speaking arts.

and entertainment generally lean left, okay? There's something, I don't know what it is, but that's what happens. In touch with their emotions. Correct. And generally speaking, mathematics and business people lean right. Again, generally speaking. So we know that the left is attracted to emotion. The right is attracted to facts.

Fast thinking on the stage, back of house slow thinking. We also know for a theater to work, it has to have both. So we need each other. But what are we doing? What we're doing is the left will say, here's a problem,

and immediately fast thinking, we have to help them. We have to help them. We have to do whatever we can to help them, help them, help them. then they usually skip over the math. You're hearing this now with the new Green Deal where they'll say, well, it doesn't matter. Does it matter how much it costs? Well, yes, it does.

Yes, it does. That's just a benefit analysis, not a cost benefit analysis. Right. We have to know what it's going to cost because we need to know, is that the best use of our money and our resources to help that problem? or are there other problems that we can really impact for the same amount of money? And is there any other way we can help those people without some big government program? So once you do the math, remember, front of the house, the stage, they're telling you the story and everybody's saying,

we got to help them, which is good and natural. Then they will tell you, don't pay attention to the people, you know, in the front of the house because they're just evil money grubbers and they don't really care about what we care here on the stage. And so they convince people not to do the math. If the people, if the audience does the math, you have a moral case against socialism. You have a moral case against what they're preaching on the stage. And it kind of feels bad.

Now, let me reverse it. let's say you're standing in the lobby the show hasn't started yet and you find out about some big crisis the the beam counters the right they're going to say you know what we got a real problem here look at the numbers look at the numbers my gosh the numbers are showing us that well what we're doing right now is going to eventually go into this direction and it's just going to crash and we really shouldn't help without really engaging on the emotional level and so everybody's like I don't care what they even talking about. I don't care.

Then they go into the theater and they hear the emotional plea and they say, that makes me feel good. I want to help. These bean counters, they're heartless. But if you order it correctly where you talk about the heart and the emotion, then you do the math. Then you have a moral. case for capitalism. Not the only case you can make on socialism is a feeling case of socialism.

A moral case. We say an economic case. No, a moral case for capitalism. And let me show you this in action and how we should be arguing. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Today we've been talking about fast thinking and slow things. The fast thinking is the emotional. We got to do something. And that is normal and it is valuable, really valuable. You know, when people get into the normalcy bias, they die. The people who tried to make an airplane flying into the World Trade Center into something normal,

which is also normal. It's called the normalcy bias. Those people who said, you know what, I've got to first go turn off the lights in my office. they died. The people who reacted normally, not necessarily rationally, normally saying, we got to get out of here. They lived. So fast thinking is really important, but slow thinking, looking at the facts, has to be coupled with it. Like I said, you know, if all the liberals are doing the show on stage, which they're best at, and the theater is being run by a bunch of bean counters who are slow thinkers, who are generally on the right, that's important.

We need each other. We have to have each other. Otherwise, we're going to have great shows and no money or lots of money and no shows. So we need each other. Fast thinking and slow thinking must be coupled. Slow thinking requires differing opinions. And I want to talk to you about something.

I want to talk to you here about vaccinations, but I do not want to get into the vaccination thing. I am a big believer in vaccinations. A lot of people aren't. Fine. That's a difference in opinion. But we have entered a place. Adam Schiff has come out and said that he believes that we should silence the government,

Google, YouTube, Facebook, and all of these, all of Amazon should restrict anti-vaxxers, will, any information that does not fall into line with what the government studies show on vaccinations. That's extremely dangerous. One of the guys who has put together a documentary called Vaxed is Del Bigtree. He's one of the preeminent voices of the vaccine risk awareness movement all around the world. He's a founder of the nonprofit, the informed consent action network. And he is one of the first to be banned. Welcome to the program, Dell.

Thank you for having me. And thank you. Yeah, and I want to talk to you, Del, about what happens. I mean, first of all, what you were told and how this is impacting you and the voices of reasonable people. And forget it, even unreasonable people, just affecting the voices of anybody who believes differently than the federal government. Well, we've seen, you know, a government really begins to fail.

And then ultimately, I believe this is book burning. The information that is against the perspective of the government, if it's out there, it's dangerous. And oftentimes when we look out, you know, through history, governments start seeing themselves as the victim against, you know, other information. Or in my case, I would say truth. You know, I made a documentary about a whistleblower at the CDC that came forward and said that they had committed science. FRA on the MMR autism study and that they knew that vaccine the MMR vaccine could be causally linked to autism in that study and they covered it up and hit it from the people. It wasn't my opinion. I made a documentary. I put people in front of a camera. I let them speak their truth. Dr. William Thompson still works the CDC. He is still protected by whistleblower status. So how is it that that is misinformation, which is what this is being called? So yes, censorship at Amazon. They pulled all, you know, we were on Amazon Prime, anybody could watch it, you could stream it, and now it's been pulled. And, you know, I think that that's a dangerous

step when the government starts getting involved. Look, we know Amazon is a private company. They can do what they want. But when government officials start pressuring private companies and industries to censor people, then you're moving into a very, very dangerous place. I mean, it may not be dangerous in China or Iran, but here in America, where we're, we're going to be a very, We're supposed to have freedom of speech. That is shocking and terrifying. So, Delvin, what are you going to do about this? What is your recourse?

I continue doing what I've been doing for the last three years, which is continuing to investigate our government, our health agencies. I've won two lawsuits against the health agency of America. I've won a lawsuit against the National Institute of Health. I want a lawsuit against Health and Human Services, proving that they are not doing the safe demanded by the laws of this country when it comes to vaccines. Also, just so you know, I think that the DVD sales of vaccines have gone than we ever have because people in America and around the world still pumping through their veins. And when they're told they can't look

at something, they become curious. I mean, this is what happened with the film in the beginning. We got kicked out of Tribeca Film Festival after having been accepted. And then Robert De Niro came out and defended the film. And even after Robert De Niro defending the film, the pharmaceutical sponsor of Tribeca, the Sloan Foundation, ended up pushing us out, and there was nothing Robert De Niro could do. That censorship drove more curiosity. The biggest movies, you know, in vaccine risk around the world, there's been bomb threats in theaters around the world where vaxed. Obviously, there's something in this movie that, you know, governments do not want you to see that the pharmaceutical industry do not want you to see, and that curiosity is driving. We're going to have the biggest

sales this month and we've had in the last three years forward with it in 2016. Then you would, then the argument on the other side would be, then we're doing you a favor. But they're not doing the Constitution of favor, and they're not doing a favor for the future of America. I'm not worried about sales of my film. That's not what this is about. We are talking about censorship. We are talking about in this country right now, we are taking away.

There's multiple states. There's a push by the federal government, both the congressional, hearing and a Senate hearing to take your right to choose what's injected into your children away. We're seeing it in states all across the country to take your ability to opt out of this vaccine program away. Let's take vaccines out of discussion, Glenn. We are talking about turning our children into government property of the United States government, meaning your decision is a parent. They can inject your child with whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want. When we look back at history in Nazi Germany and China, how do we think that it would be intelligent to give our government control of our bodies?

And by the way, it's not going to end with children. There's a policy called Healthy People 2020 that Health and Human Services put together, which is a forced vaccination program for every adult in America. So children are only the beginning. If we step onto this slippery slope, we are talking about not controlling our bodies, not having, the right to say, I don't know what's in that shot you're about to give me. I don't want it. I don't want my child to have it. Is it really outrageous or preposterous to think that we shouldn't have the right to stop injections coming into our own bodies from a government agency?

When it comes to things, and see, this is where I may disagree with you on vaccines, but I am really torn and I'm in your favor when it comes to choosing. yourself, but I am torn because we do have a social contract with each other for things like polio. I mean, we got rid of polio. Now it's coming back. It's because people are saying, I don't want that. Well, okay, does that affect me and my children as well? I mean, I don't want to have leper colonies where the people who don't have the vaccine have to go off and be in a leper colony. I also don't want a country where they're telling me I have to have this. I mean, I have to have this RFID chip put in me because it makes for, you know, commerce and it makes

them able to track me. It's for my safety. You know, they put this chip in now. The doctor can monitor my heart and everything else. I don't want any of that stuff. And you have a right to say, know it is your body. That's as you made that statement. There's no polio in America. And the only cases of polio around the world right now are vaccine-strain polio. They're being caused by the vaccination program in third world countries. Those are the facts.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. We are fortunate to once again have Bernie Sanders just stopping by. Hello, Lynn. How are you? I'm very well. I'm very strapping, feeling virile, young, good energized by the campaign of the election. and the goodwill of the American people. Right.

Now you just signed a loyalty pledge, which means that what? I signed a loyalty pledge saying that in the unlikely event that I lose the Democratic primary. Yeah. If I should lose the Democratic primary, I will not run as an independent. I will stay as a Democrat, and I've done that because I'm so confident that I will win. And if not, I will win in the next election or the next one. And I have decided also to pledge to keep running for president until at least 2072. All right.

Well, I don't know if you've noticed this, but you are getting up there in, you're a little long in the tooth. My goal, Glenn, and I think the American people would agree with me, my goal is to have the same age as all of the other entrance to the presidential race combined. And so I am rapidly approaching that, and I believe that will be peak Bernie. Okay, so now you are actually ahead. Am I not, am mistaken on that? I am winning in the polls. That's true. I am in the polls right now.

Of the people that have announced. Of the people that are announced, but one of the people that looks like you are, you're not. he's going to announce and is beating you is Joe Biden. Joe Biden, yes. Joe Biden. Joe Biden is the embodiment, the embodiment, Glenn, of the establishment, of an establishment that props up the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% also he has hair plugs. And that man is corrupt, except when he is running against a Republican, in which case he is a valiant hero that I support and my good friend. Okay. So he is your good friend. He is a quantum friend. Right.

He is both a good friend when he is running against a Republican, but also, a terrible person when running against Democrats. Right, okay. Quantum State Glenn, I'm capable of these things. Okay, all right. Science. And he's, I mean, he's getting up there in years as well. No, he is, in my opinion, he is wildly inexperienced and too young to become president.

He barely knows about football, about politics. He's just, you know, he's just going around smelling people's collarbones. That's what he does. And he barely knows about football? I know, Glenn, I'm actually, in addition to running for president, I'm writing a book on football. Are you? And I've told that you are not a huge football fan. May I explain the game to you?

Sure, I guess. So there's a big field. It's reminiscent of the work and toil of the American agricultural sector done by good populists in the middle of the country. And there are two teams. Do you know who the two teams are, Glenn? The two teams are the players and the owners. Those are the teams. There are two teams.

The players and the owners. and all the people in the stands that are being lied to by thieving monsters that own the teams. And once I'm president, they will get their due. I am telling you that right now. Well, wait, first of all, that team is not on the field. No, it's not on the field team. It's a shadowy team. It's a shadowy team that controls the things.

And they've made it so it's a slanted field. When you look at a football field, you're like, well, that's self-explanatory. It's a putting green with white lines. I get this right? No, it's a slanted field. Because you think I'm going to kick the ball harder. They'll give me more balls. That's how football works.

No, you don't get more balls. You kick as hard as you want. The balls go to the rich people. And that's football. All right, I don't think that, I mean, I don't know anything about football, but I don't think that makes any sense at all. I look it up. Look it up.

Those are the rules of football if you actually look into it. All right. Okay. Well, Bernie, it's, I mean, it's been educational. Thank you. And Glenn, on that note, I would like to remind you that I have several policies that I think your listeners we get behind. And first and foremost, I think everyone agrees that Medicare for All would be a very popular

policy for everyone on earth. And I remain dedicated to Medicare for All for everyone on Earth. But on top of that, I believe that education is a priority in the United States. It is not a luxury. It is a right. You have a right to education. You have a right to any education, any time, however much you want, for however long you want. So I could go into college today.

Well, Glenn, in your case, you would have to go into college today. I would have to go into college. Yes, I believe that college should be voluntary or obligatory. And I will, in your case, I think that there are certain things you would like. It would benefit you to know them. So wait a minute. So would I go to like Harvard or Yale or, you know, someplace like that? Harvard and Yale will be destroyed under my plan.

They are, they are, they are pupa engorged centers of breeding for the 1%. No more of them. Everything's community college. Everything will be divided. So Harvard will be eight community colleges. And yes, you would be locked in one of those until you came to your center. Okay, wait a minute. So it's like a re-education.

Sort of. Yes, you would be reading a lot of kings and you would be forced to wear a Shaguara T-Ga-T-shirt. Okay, all right. Okay, Bernie, best of luck to you, and I mean that. Thank you. The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand.