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

migraine is 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.

Botox, onobotulinum toxin A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they start.

It's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month.

It prevents on average eight to nine headache days a month versus six to seven for placebo.

Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor.

Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms.

Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition.

Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk.

Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck, and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache.

Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness.

Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection.

Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

Why wait?

Ask your doctor, visit BotoxchronicMigraine.com, or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

Welcome to the podcast.

In case you just don't have enough to listen to here today, you can always click over to Stew Does 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 mRNA 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

getting banned all over the internet.

So we'll see

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 the best of the Blenbeck program.

Joined by the one and only Mr.

Pat Gray from Pat Gray Unleashed, the outrageously funny and provocative, if I may say, usually because he's wearing something low-cut.

Yeah.

It is

Pat Gray.

Welcome, Pat.

Thank you, Glenn.

Good to be here.

I'm very excited.

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 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.

Hammer throwing.

It's not an actual hammer.

You know that, right?

It's not a hammer.

No,

but it's just a hammer.

What is it?

Well, it's a.

Oh, what is it?

It's a ball on a chain.

Yeah, it's kind of like a ball on a really long thing that they swing around their head and then they throw it at a good distance down the field.

Yeah.

But it's not a bad thing.

Okay, so then

let me rephrase.

A ball and chain throwing thing is a sport?

Yes.

It's been around for a while, I will say.

It has not expensive.

It's been racked.

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 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

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 hammer throw.

What is this?

Bronze?

This is the United States of America.

Bronze?

And the hammer throw?

I expect gold.

We should be turning the flag away from her.

Well, it's not the Olympics yet.

Wow.

So this was an American competition, and all Americans medaled.

All that medaled were Americans.

However, I'm going to be rooting against her coming to 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 just say that.

Susshan's going to do it for sure.

Absolutely.

It's going to happen.

Yeah.

It's going to happen.

Yeah.

All right.

Next 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 the Birds Aren't Real rally.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

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.

It actually sounds kind of fun, but I'll bet it has some political meaning

behind 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-in-cheekness there going on.

So, yeah.

Whoa, they're not serious?

The birds aren't real?

No, that's not.

Holy cow.

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.

Yeah.

Well, it's not, you couldn't get it as easily.

It's harder to talk.

It's not a 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 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 Romney, uh, Joe Biden at his word when he says, if I don't get this multiple, you know, 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 walkback.

Taking him at his word, it makes sense 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 walkback?

That's the you know when

when a when a politician says that the the uh crime surge

uh 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 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

expect you to sit quietly with all of these lies.

I just don't,

I don't know why people aren't

more

that I'm surprised that he has a 45% approval rating.

Oh, it's higher than that.

You know, Donald Trump, you could say, it's higher than that.

It's 50%.

You could say Donald Trump,

is it really?

Yeah, like 52, 54, somewhere in there.

Holy cow.

You could say that Donald Trump was

a liar.

You could say that he was P.T.

Barnum, which he was.

He said things that

he really thought was true.

He convinced himself of these things.

And

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 those things.

He's now doing them.

Right.

No, I think I'd rather have P.T.

Barnum.

It's, oh, for sure.

And it's so bad that even

PolitiFact fact-checked him

on his 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 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 tiers.

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.

Why don't I have a tank?

It would really be cool.

That's the thing that's bothering me about this whole conversation.

Where do I buy it?

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.

I'd love to make sure that they knew he had a tank.

That says Texas.

Thank God.

Thank God for Texas.

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 great.

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 one love, right?

He's 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

NRA vaccines or RNA vaccines.

Can you tell me about this?

They're talking about enlargement of the heart.

Welcome, Doctor.

Thanks, Glenn, and thanks for having me back and for the opportunity to talk with you.

and 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 are coming into the CDC and coming into other databases, safety databases in other governments.

And frankly, the analysis of that has been lagging quite a bit.

So things that we had signals about months ago now are 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 acknowledgment 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 Thomson Reuters and by Plotifac.

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 is somewhat of a satisfaction, perhaps it's a little twisted, to have the FDA finally fessing up that, in fact, I was right.

I don't take pleasure in that, absolutely.

But my core point, point, and thank you for letting me put it out,

is that the government isn't being fully transparent with us regarding the risks.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't take vaccine or it doesn't save lives.

I'm saying that these are currently experimental and the government owes us to be transparent about the risks.

It's over.

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 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, et cetera, the fundamental bedrock of bioethics.

And that requires that people

those rules that are in federal law require 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 of bioethics.

So you said a minute ago you take a little satisfaction.

And, you know, back in 20, I don't know, 11,

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, 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, et cetera.

For me, being at the tip of the spear is kind of what I do.

I'm a little bit of an outbreak junkie.

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 is we just don't seem to be learning.

As a system, as a country, as a public health service,

and the WHO, I've spoken at the WHO multiple times, been there many times.

I know what makes that place tick, good, bad, and ugly.

But

we just don't seem to be learning the lessons 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

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'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,

that's spurious.

That is not a valid argument because for whatever reason, it has become wicked hard to get through peer-review and publish anything involving a repurposed drug.

And as Brett Weinstein 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 the White House or whatever

cooked 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 the best of intentions, but it has become

Orwellian in the extreme.

I can't believe it as 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 have heard this yet.

Congressman Thomas Massey

has just revealed that Facebook's so-called third-party fact-checker, factcheck.org, is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

And they have $2 billion of stock in Johnson ⁇ Johnson.

And

so factcheck.org doesn't want to do anything that's going to hurt their funding as they have

$2 billion

in stock from Johnson Johnson that helps fund them.

That seems like maybe

a problem when they're fact-checking on Johnson Johnson products.

Am I wrong?

This is another one of those looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck.

I would call that journalistic 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 and J and AstraZeneca.

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, my peers,

you know, so-called experts, right, those of us that do this for a living, have just been scratching our heads, going, what is going on with all this censorship?

And I don't want to go go down the, you know, 4chan

QAnon world,

but it's over.

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.

They're touting that,

and here's the origin of this.

It's bizarre, Trusted News Initiative.

It was set up initially to counter disinformation, political disinformation.

And

a year ago, they decided, well, now that we've got all ourselves together, let's turn it on censoring any information that we determine to be disinformation relating to COVID and COVID vaccines.

So they have no qualms about censoring me,

censoring other scientists, censoring patients.

You know, the 200,000 patients that had a

a group on Facebook sharing their stories about their own adverse events, Facebook just kills that, you know, drops them off, deletes it.

This is the, this is, you know, I read 1984 as a school kid, and then it was science fiction.

This is pretty overt.

Have you read 1984 lately?

No,

I got it drilled into

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.

I reread it about a year ago, and

it was crazy.

That was Orwell's response to what he saw in fascist authoritarianism.

That was what he was writing from, was a warning to the future saying

this can happen.

I'll tell you the people that I run into now, because

this Brett Weinstein podcast went viral globally.

I'm getting a lot of traffic from Europeans, and

they're really alarmed.

These are people that are very sensitive to what happened in Europe in the 1940s, intellectuals that think deep thoughts about this stuff.

And

the term slippery slope is often used.

We're there.

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 fact.

You're listening to the best of the Glendeck program.

Hey, there was 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 force-y kind of music.

Yeah, 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.

Wow, 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 there 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

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.

Well, 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 archive 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 Archive, you got to be ready for this, Sarah.

The National Archives Race Task Force.

They also said

that the National Archives portrays the individual founding fathers in a much too positive way.

Oh

my gosh.

You know, can I tell you something about Ben Franklin?

He was fat.

He's a 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, Ben.

Ben's a 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 archive's 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 and 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, 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.

Why?

First of all, you know me, Stu, and I think you can verify if there is anybody that is bigger in the interpretive dance world

than me.

I mean, name them.

Well, I am a huge advocate of interpretive dance.

You are, and that's why, of course, you were named the number three overall advocate of interpreted dance in Interpretive Dance magazine.

That being said,

that was politics that

kept me out of number one.

That was a political thing with the magazine.

But,

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

that was what.

See, are you one of those people that thinks that would be offensive?

Yeah.

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 think so.

Can we balance 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, geez, 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 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, 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 president says, don't buy in to 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 made 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 should bother people deeply.

These documents, I believe, are sacred documents.

These documents have

are the

key to end slavery.

They are the key.

That's not me 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.

The problem 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 were 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 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 Glenhead on them.

So please, National Archives, please keep them safe.

Because I have a feeling I'm not the only one whose head would pop if I see interpretive dance in front front of those documents.