Best of The Program | Guests: Sen. Mike Lee & Rep. Burgess Owens | 2/11/21

Welcome to Only Murders in the Building, the official podcast.

Join me, Michael Cyril Creighton, as we go behind the scenes with some of the amazing actors, writers, and crew from season five.

The audience should never stop suspecting anything.

How can you not be funny crawling around on a coffin?

Yeah, that's true.

Catch Only Murders in the Building official podcast.

Now, streaming wherever you get your podcasts, and watch Only Murders in the Building, streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney Plus for bundle subscribers.

Terms apply.

It's Glenn and Stu, and

we had quite a show today.

Stu was a little more

forceful with his call for Molotov Cocktails.

I want to be clear.

I did not call for Molotov Cocktails New York Times.

Well, I know I am Gandhi.

Gandhi in comparison to Stu today.

This is the way it tends to go.

I usually get more pissed off at people bashing you in the media than you do.

I'm kind of used to it.

I'm kind of dead inside on that.

The New York Times Times wrote an article about me, Rush Limbaugh,

Mark Levin, Sean Hannity,

calling us purveyors of hate, basically, and saying that we were the ones who riled people up for the Capitol.

Except none of that's true.

And

you need to know the truth on that.

And that leads me to the explanation of what this impeachment trial is really all about.

And some really great insights from Mike Lee on the impeachment trial and also the media.

We also had David Barton and Burgess Owens, Congressman Burgess Owens, in to talk about Black History Month.

Oh, the left is not going to like what we have to say, but I think you will, black or white.

All on the Glenbeck podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenbeck program.

Actress Gina Carano

has incurred the wrath of the mob.

The mob that runs Hollywood, the universities, and the arts.

She made a

historical analogy with the intention of giving people pause in their relentless crusade to ostracize non-leftists from society.

This is what she wrote in a post.

Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers, but by their neighbors, even by children.

Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews.

How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?

She is absolutely 100% correct.

They did it through propaganda, they did it through smears, and they did it through intimidation.

And they praised the people who did it.

So

if you were beating Jews in the streets, you'd be held up by the Nazi party as one of the good guys.

You'd get special praise.

If you said something in defense, the opposite would happen.

Well, just to show how much they don't hate her political views and don't want to silence people or beat them into submission,

they lobbied to have Disney beat her into submission.

And when she wouldn't submit, they fired her.

She is not currently employed by Lucasfilm, and according to Disney, there are no plans for her to be hired in the future.

Her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.

Her social media posts, denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities, are abhorrent and unacceptable.

What?

To say, hey,

you know how you get people to beat Jews?

You run a campaign and you get the neighbors to beat the Jews for you.

What?

You know what we should?

You know what we should?

We should start

banning things like Schindler's List, because that showed how the German people, not just the Nazis, how the German neighbors were involved, how people were involved in that that didn't wear the swastika or the uniform.

We should ban that.

You know what?

Stu, let's make a list of books we should ban.

Always a good idea.

And with no historical echo at all.

Well, none.

None that could be.

We can't mention it.

No, no, no, no.

No.

All right.

Let me tell you what's going on.

You know this already.

This is just to intimidate you and everyone else.

This is

the way that dictators do it.

This is the way.

What does that mean?

Is that code?

Is that a Zionist code?

I can't talk about the code.

Oh, my gosh.

Okay.

This is the way dictators take over countries.

They take over countries by

propaganda.

That's why propaganda is so dangerous, especially when it is being done by the state and, in our case, also powerful corporations.

Now, let me give you one of those powerful corporations, the New York Times.

Now, I'm going to

address the New York Times specifically on this article in about 50 minutes, so.

You don't want to miss that.

But there's an article that runs today, How Right Wing Radio stoked anger before the Capitol siege.

The New York Times writes, shows hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk radio stars promoted debunked claims of stolen election and urged listeners to fight back.

Two days before the mob of Trump supporters invaded the United States Capitol, upending the nation's peaceful transition of power and leaving at least five people dead, the right-wing radio star Glenn Beck delivered delivered a message to his flock of listeners.

It's time to fight.

It's quoting, it's time to rip and claw and rake, end quote, Mr.

Beck said on his January 4th broadcast.

Quote, it's time to go to war as the left went to war four years ago, end quote.

Hmm.

Okay, time to rip, claw, and rake.

In his January 4th broadcast, it's time to go to war as the left went to war four years ago.

Why is that a problem?

Why is that a problem?

Well, then you, because if you have a problem with that, you're criticizing how the left went to war four years ago, which I don't remember them doing.

I don't remember that part of the story.

You should listen to the monologue.

We'll get into that later.

Former Fox News host, Mr.

Beck, has speculated for weeks about baseless claims of voter fraud in the presidential race.

He told listeners that Donald J.

Trump had taught conservatives that you don't have to cower anymore.

You don't have to back down when ridiculed into oblivion.

You can fight back.

Yeah,

that's true.

Is that a bad message?

Is that a bad message to tell people that you don't have to cower, don't live in fear, stand up for what you believe in?

Is that somehow now a bad message to reject the bullies?

I mean,

would you like to hear an anti-bullying message from, I don't know, the New York Times?

It's amazing.

Now it's not okay to say, stand up straight.

Don't be ashamed of who you are.

Stand up.

If somebody calls you a name, dismiss it.

Stand up.

Fight back.

Speak the truth.

Mr.

Beck did not lobby for his listeners to invade the Capitol.

And a day later, a day later, because I've never done this before, a day later, he urged marchers in Washington to really kind of channel, quoting, your inner Martin Luther King.

Wait,

wait,

you asked people to channel their inner Martin Luther King, which, of course, I've heard you do thousands of times.

Yeah.

And the article is about how you tried to get people to riot at the Capitol.

I don't remember that part of the Martin Luther King story.

Well, remember when Martin Luther King said,

cower.

You've got to cower in fear.

Don't stand up.

Don't speak your mind.

Remember?

He was saying, when you go in to the lunch counter, cower.

I don't remember.

He said, sit down.

That's what he said.

Sit down.

I mean,

I'm saying, don't sit down.

Okay.

He said, sit down.

I mean, I'm glad they included the Martin Luther King point, but doesn't it totally disprove their argument from the first paragraph?

Yes, it does, but they don't care.

Mr.

Beck did not lobby for his listeners to evade the Capitol.

Day later, he urged marchers in Washington to really kind of channel your inner Martin Luther King, adding that violence is just, quoting, just not who we've ever been, end quote.

No, no, no.

They also put that in there?

Yes, they did.

But the language he used on his January 4th show

was typical.

of the aggressive rhetoric that permeated conservative talk radio in the weeks before the Washington siege.

Well, I can tell you this, the Martin Luther King point is typical of the Glenn Beck program for the last decade.

Yeah.

Maybe decade and a half.

At least.

But wait.

What?

So they're saying.

No, I need at least one moment on this.

They're saying on December 4th, you said...

January 4th.

Excuse me, January 4th.

Yeah.

You said

we need to fight.

And then also said you need to fight like the Democrats did.

It's time to go to war as the left went to war four years ago.

And then you said the Martin Luther King thing, not on the 6th after the violence.

Right.

You said the Martin Luther King thing on the fifth before

the day of the violence.

Right.

And they're still leading a column about the violence with you.

Yeah, well, they're using me.

Fascinating.

They're using me as the rhetoric that is

heard all throughout talk radio.

It doesn't it seem like if, okay, you go down this road and you're like, all right, I'm going to write this thing.

And here's a quote from Glenn Beck that looks really bad out of context.

I'm going to put it in there.

When you make the decision that you add

the Martin Luther King point, which totally disproves what you've just written.

That might have been added because

we may have said, if you print this the way you say you're going to print this, your lawsuit will make your eyes bleed.

Okay.

They may have put the Martin Luther King thing in there because...

So this is not their suggestion.

This was

not their suggestion.

In fact, and I'm going to get into this.

Oh, because I have the email.

I'm going to show you where they started.

And it was, it's time to go to war.

And they left out as the left went to war four years ago.

They left that part out originally.

Oh, so yeah, that was a negotiation point.

The comma in that sentence.

Okay.

So anyway, the reason why I'm bringing this up here is because I want you to know what is really happening in Washington.

As we discussed yesterday, the Democrats don't have a prayer of impeaching, I'm sorry, of convicting Donald Trump.

Okay, they don't have a prayer of it.

They're not going to win.

So, why are they doing this battle?

Several reasons.

I'll give you the biggest in a second.

First,

it's a distraction.

No, no, sorry.

It's a distraction.

First, it's a distraction.

You have to distract from what's really going on in the first 100 days.

The second thing that is happening now is

they are trying to make sure that you understand,

don't stand up, don't stand up.

You cower in fear.

If anyone tries to run for president and take on the machine, the machine will kill them.

It will destroy them in every way possible.

And they're teaching you a lesson by teaching Donald Trump a lesson.

This is what you get if you come against us.

Okay.

But here's the third reason.

And it is, I believe, a very important reason.

In fact, I think it might be the most important reason.

They are tying rhetoric directly to violence.

Now, they will never tie their rhetoric to violence.

But anytime the right says something, they tried to do this with the Tea Party, but we were so disciplined that we didn't ever give them an opening.

And they were trying to tie us into violence.

Well, now they have the one case where the Tea Party is violent.

SEIU beating people in the streets during the Tea Party, they had no problem with that.

No problem with that.

But our violent rhetoric, which never turned to violence,

that's where they were headed.

Now they have it.

So this article, It's not a coincidence that A, that monologue was a monologue that referenced Media Matters.

I can guarantee you Media Matters has its fingers all over this story.

Second,

it's not a coincidence that it is coming out right now as they are showing all the violence on television that happened on January 6th, which was despicable and we condemned it immediately.

While it was happening.

While it was happening.

While that was happening, we're condemning it.

They take this video now and they're pushing it through and they've got all the media showing Trump's violent rhetoric.

See, this is what happens when you have a leader that does this.

But now

they also want to tie in and say, yeah, but the leader also had some helpers along the way.

He had right-wing radio.

They have been trying to shut us down for so long.

The targets in this article, Rush Limbaugh, Dan Bongino,

Mark Levin, and me.

Well, two out of the four have cancer.

So I think it's great that they're taking on cancer patients now and accusing them of horrible things as they are fighting cancer.

But

they're doing that for a reason.

They need us to be removed.

They need talk radio to be shut down.

I guarantee you, the House and the Senate will move and if they don't move, it will just happen through the FCC.

They will do everything they can to silence our voices because they need you

to not have a freedom of association,

freedom of speech.

They need you to stop having a place to where you can gather your thoughts.

They need you to feel alone.

But you won't be alone.

You won't be alone in this fight.

You won't be alone in your stand.

Because wherever,

wherever

there is

a group of people that are trying to erase our God-given, constitutionally protected rights,

you will find good patriots willing to stand up and fight

did he say fight how do you mean fight Glenn I know we're not intelligent enough to know after a lifetime of using the word fight having cheerleaders go fight fight fight

we're so stupid that we don't realize that there are many ways to take that term.

And especially those who listen to this program, who have heard me talk about Gandhi and F and MLK forever.

Incessantly.

I mean, gosh, going back to...

Okay, stop.

Don't need to hear it.

Just know, this is why impeachment is happening.

This is what is happening in social media.

And it's about to come like a bag of bricks onto talk radio.

You will never silence me.

You will find me beneath a tree in your town square or in some farm, and I will be there telling you the true history of America, what's truly going on, and how we need to stand shoulder to shoulder and try to be servants of the Lord

so he will provide us

some protection.

the best of the Glenbeck program

welcome to the Glenbeck program well in reading the New York Times I find out that Mike Lee does not have a problem with the riots uh he I think he was cheering them on uh and he thought that Donald Trump should get a mulligan for it.

This is a story by Glenn Thrush.

Mike Lee suggests Trump should get a mulligan for the Capital

Capitol Riot Day speech.

Wow, that doesn't sound like

Mike Lee.

In an email to Mr.

Lee's spokesman requesting an explanation of his remarks, it was not immediately returned, but some of his defenders on social media said that he was making a larger point about the need for civility in both parties.

But that's only some in social media.

As an example of what he viewed as a recent transgression, Mr.

Lee singled out Representative Alexandria Casio-Cortez, Casio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, for making it personal,

end quote, when she recently took a swipe at his ally, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

A swipe?

Wow.

I guess that's what she said when he was planning on having her killed.

I guess that was a swipe to the New York.

Calling someone a murderer is definitely a swipe.

It is a swipe.

It's definitely one word for it.

Senator Mike Lee here to answer the charges.

Go ahead.

The courts are listening, Mike.

Well, you know, unfortunately, she only accused him of attempted murder.

Right.

Right.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

If it was actual murder, then that wouldn't have been a swipe.

That would have been important.

But this was attempted murder.

Right.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Exactly.

One of the things I've learned is that, you know, you've got a problem with your news source when every single time they print something as to which you have personal knowledge, they're wrong.

Yeah.

I'm sure that's just a massive coincidence here.

Yes, I'm sure it is.

I'm sure it is.

It's probably that you're listening to

the wrong sources.

You're part of the conspiracy cabal, you know.

That's probably what the problem is, Mike.

Tell me first.

The interesting thing there.

Yeah, go ahead.

I just want you to, because I know the context.

And what is so crazy is the context that this was said in was to say, let's ratchet things down a bit, and I'm going to give everybody a mulligan because everybody makes mistakes.

You were talking to the left.

You weren't talking about Donald Trump.

That's exactly right.

I was talking to, and in that sense, in defense of, some of my colleagues on the far left who had said some really inflammatory stuff.

stuff that that rivals a lot of the things that are being attacked that have been said by people on the right.

And so I said, look,

referring specifically to those people on the left, people like AOC, Kamala Harris,

Corey Booker, and Chuck Schumer.

I said,

everyone from time to time says something that they regret, and they probably ought to take a mulligan on this one.

Everyone's entitled to one of those once in a while.

But the point is we shouldn't be saying things like this.

In no way, shape, or form did I say that President Trump ought to be taking a mulligan on this.

That had nothing to do with President Trump.

And yet somehow the geniuses at New York Times and the geniuses at Fox 13 in Salt Lake City and about 50 other news outlets throughout the country picked it up and took exactly that message directly contrary to the fact.

And the truth is, this reflects what

can best be characterized as reckless disregard for the truth.

But ironically.

they're going to be the arbiters of truth here soon, Mike.

They are pushing for it and trying to silence anyone that has a different opinion.

No, that's exactly right.

And they're playing off of

the famous Supreme Court case, New York Times versus Sullivan.

It basically gives them impunity to defame people so long as they're not acting with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

And yet, oddly enough, here, they seem to have crossed that threshold.

And I've got another one for you.

They just wrote a story about me today in the New York Times that they

knowingly, knowingly are printing things that are just false as a news story.

If it was a if it was an opinion piece, that'd be one thing.

But this is a news story, and it's despicable, Mike.

Let's talk a little bit about the impeachment trial itself.

First of all, are you seeing any movement at all with anyone on either side?

The Democrats making a good case or any of the Republicans going, oh, I don't know.

That's a good point.

Okay, look, here's what I'll tell you on that front.

There's no doubt horrible things happened on January 6th.

There's no doubt that

we should have been able to avoid it.

I wish we had been able to avoid it.

I've said for a long time that

I don't think that there should have been an effort to try to win the election on January 6th, because if you read the 12th Amendment and if you read Article 2 of the Constitution, they don't make that possible.

It is the states that decide these things and not Congress.

Correct.

Congress is there only to count.

It has one job: open and count, open and count.

That's it.

These things that happened on January 6th were tragic.

They were horrific.

All of that being the case,

it is different than what is on trial this week.

What's on trial this week

is different than that.

And there are a number of us, 44 of us, to be precise, that don't believe that it's appropriate for the Senate to exercise jurisdiction as a court of impeachment after a president's term of office has expired.

Okay, can I give you something on this?

Just a play devil's advocate.

give Mike the quote from John Adams.

John Quincy Adams.

Yeah.

Let's see.

Here we go.

I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by the House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.

Yeah, that's great.

And I've seen that quote, and I understand his point.

I don't think he's necessarily approaching this as a textualist.

I don't think he's necessarily approaching this as someone who sees the abuse of government powers that can be brought to bear with an impeachment trial.

I don't think he anticipated the issues that could arise as a result of it.

Now, look, I will grant you this much.

As a strict textual matter, it is a very close call.

I actually think the text can be read one way or the other, thus requiring us to make some prudential judgment calls.

about how best it ought to fit into this framework.

But when you look at the floodgates this thing would open, you imagine what would happen, just, for example, the next time we have a red wave election,

you'd see massive calls for impeachment proceedings on Hillary Clinton, for Benghazi, on Jim Comey,

maybe even for Jimmy Carter, going back to the fact that he gave away the Panama Canal.

This would result in an interminable succession of absurd impeachment proceedings.

And I don't think that's good for the country.

I don't think we ought to give Congress that power.

So

when the Chief Justice decided not to be seated for this,

does this make this a kangaroo court?

I mean, isn't that part of the Constitution?

First of all, it's not at all clear to me that the Chief Justice declined anything.

From what I understand, the Chief Justice was never invited to preside.

They knew that by, yeah, they knew that by the time we got the Articles of Impeachment, 10 days or so, mind you, after they had passed them, and nearly a week week after President Trump had left office, they knew that he wasn't the president, and thus it wasn't appropriate to have the Chief Justice attend.

Someone floated the rumor that he had been invited and declined.

Now, unless there's

something out there that's changed, that's simply not true.

My understanding is that he was never invited in the first place.

Why?

Well, they knew he's not the president, and therefore there's no reason to have the chief justice.

Okay, so so does it make this

i mean is it constitutional to an impeachment doesn't it say the supreme court justice comes and is is is oversees it

yes yes if in fact the president is being tried for impeachment but here we don't have the president or the vice president or any civil officers of the united states you have a former president it's a different thing doesn't require the chief justice to preside

By my reading, it shouldn't allow us to have a trial at all.

Now, this would have been different.

That would have been a completely different set of questions we were facing.

Have the House of Representatives initiated this process and actually delivered the articles of impeachment right after they passed them.

They didn't.

They sat on them.

Why?

I'm not really sure.

You're going to have to ask Nancy Pelosi that question.

But it makes a huge difference for them, and they really need to live with the consequences.

And that's what they're facing now.

It's one of the reasons why I don't think there will be a shift in the outcome of this impeachment.

Remember, in order for an impeachment trial to be successful,

you can have no more than 33 senators voting to acquit.

We've got 44 already who are saying just on jurisdictional grounds alone, we shouldn't do this.

And so unless something dramatic changes, which I don't see, we're nowhere close to the...

So then why are they doing this again?

This is remarkable stuff.

This, to me, leads to

banana republic kind of stuff, because as you've just said, you know, you get a red wave, then who do they take out?

This is what dictatorships do.

This is what banana republics do.

So what is their gain?

What is the real goal, do you think, Mike?

It appears to me they're doing everything they can

to smear Republicans, smear conservatives, smear people who support or supported Donald Trump at any moment.

And all along the way, they're characterizing the evidence.

In fact, it's not, at least so far, it's not like a normal trial.

They're not bringing in witnesses.

They're basically reciting things from news reports written by their liberal allies with the most smearing characterization they can possibly find.

Some of them turn out to be inaccurate.

I made an objection last night

to some evidence that they claimed to have that I personally knew about, and I asked that it be stricken because I knew it not to be true.

Look, it's always hard for me to speak to another person's subjective intent.

But what I do know is that they seem to be having a good time doing everything they can to just say Republicans are awful.

And all of these people who supported Donald Trump are awful.

And I think that's unfortunate.

So the problem with this is, they are not only saying they're awful, but they're also using social media, the media itself,

and

the New York Times article today to silence people and

to label them as violent extremists.

We have 5,000 troops still on the ground in Washington, D.C.

without a defined mission.

That doesn't happen.

The Department of Homeland Security says there is no credible

or specific threat.

What is going on, Mike?

You can't keep calling half the country violent extremists.

And I mean, because at some point you're like, well, then we got to do something about it.

If they're all violent extremists, we have to do.

Well, what do you do?

This is not about an election anymore.

You know, I'll tell you, Glenn, we have to take down that wall.

Every day when I come come into work, I have to pass this enormous wall with razor wire, with armed military all around it.

Not only are these bad optics, this is bad substance.

This is not who we are.

This is not what we need to do.

And I call on Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and my colleagues in the Senate and counterparts in the House to tear down this wall and do it.

Mike Lee, thank you so much.

Mike Lee, Senator of Utah, I'd like to talk to you more about that.

It's interesting.

I never thought, I mean, I remember Reagan saying that.

Never thought I would hear Mike Lee

say those words to Chuck Schumer about a wall, let alone

the wall around the Capitol.

Tear down this wall.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

Joining us now, David Barton, founder of Wall Builders

and the author of The American Story, which is a book everyone should own.

Get the American Story by David Barton.

It is pithy in its stories.

It is comprehensive.

It's the best

starter kit on American history, I think, I've ever seen.

It's called The American Story.

You can buy it on Amazon or wherever you buy your books by David Barton.

Welcome, David.

How are you?

Hey, Glenn.

Hey, Stu.

Not a bad little endorsement there.

Oh, jeez.

That's pretty good.

I'll keep that one.

I didn't mean a word of it, Stu.

We have Burgess Owens on with us as well.

Congressman, how are you, sir?

I'm doing good, Glenn.

Good.

Pleasure talking with you.

Looking forward to it for sure.

Well, I don't know if we can really, you know, as two white guys,

you know, as I've learned from Salt Lake Tribune, white guys can probably understand the black plight a little bit better than you because you were an athlete, you made a lot of money, you know, white privilege, white privilege, white privilege.

So what do you really understand about the black culture and plight?

Well, I think it's interesting.

And this is something I have to keep in mind, is the condescending attitude of these leftists.

And by the way, I want to make a very bird kill point.

I'm not talking about liberals.

I'm talking about leftists.

These are folks who don't have the same values, the same desire to have the end game that conservatives and liberals have, good people have.

This is probably the only time he's ever thought about the plight of black Americans, particularly our young kids, as we watch them go down the tubes for decades.

And he stands up and puts me down because I say we need to be proud of our country.

Look at the history we've had.

Look how far we've come.

And if we can do it back in the 60s, we can do it in 2020, 21.

But no, the leftists like this, the Salt Lake Trip,

and by the way, can I say this also?

Do not take the lead of leftist papers,

read

the headlines.

They don't believe that we have the intelligence to read through the article to find the truth.

So they have these remarkable headlines that people get caught up in.

Just though

that's another tool that the left does.

But you'll find again that my message very simply is that Americans, no matter where they come from, what background, what color, can make it in this country by working hard and going by the tenets that we've been talking about throughout the last year or so I've been talking with you.

And

that is the thing that we all used to melt in.

We used to have a melting pot and we melted in.

We brought our own culture, our own things, but we melted into this idea that anybody can make it here, that all men are created equal.

When we lived up to our highest values, which is not all the time, but when we live up to those, that's what Martin Luther King was saying, America.

He wasn't trashing America.

He was saying, live up to your founding words.

It's the same thing that I think Frederick Douglass.

You know, at first he didn't like the Constitution.

Then he was asked, did you read it?

And he read it.

And David, what happened?

He completely turned around.

He said there was not a single anti-slavery word in that document.

He had been taught there was by white abolitionists who were really anti-Constitution.

When he became a full-time speaker for the Massachusetts Abolition Society, he said, I have a responsibility to know what I'm talking about.

So he read the Constitution.

He said he went through an epiphany, completely changed his view of founding fathers.

It's interesting.

Frederick Douglass, in his life, wrote an autobiography three times.

He wrote an autobiography when he was young, when he's middle-aged, and when he's older.

And you can see the transition he went through.

The love and respect that he comes up with for the country that he did not have at the beginning.

A lot of activists love to quote his speech on the 4th of July where he thinks we're not included, we're not part of this.

That's earlier in life.

As you see him get later in life, he has a whole different viewpoint.

And that inclusion comes from knowing history.

And that's something he did not know as a slave.

Once he studied it out, once he found it, it was a whole different American story than what he knew.

And I will tell you this: I feel the same way

American history, the white aspects of it, the black aspects of it, the

yellow.

And I mean, it just doesn't matter what color you are.

But when you see how history has been shaped and written and then rewritten and deleted,

you could spend a long time, especially if you're an African-American, going, what the, who did this?

How come I don't know those stories?

How come I only know these four people and I've never heard of people like Phyllis Wheatley?

Well, there is a reason you don't know it, and it is the progressives that did this.

Yeah, a real change, a visible change you can see in 1902 when Woodrow Wilson came out with his five-volume set, The History of the American People.

And in that five-volume set, and it's a comprehensive history, except it has not a single black person in it, not even Frederick Douglass, who is more photographed than Abraham Lincoln was.

This is a guy that was, Wilson was alive with Frederick Douglass, and he doesn't even put him in the book.

Not a single book.

The Klan is in that book.

That's what?

The Klan is in that book.

I think.

Yeah, that is the book that the Klan used for the rebirth of the Klan, the second revival of the Klan.

And so, but academics look at it and say, my gosh, he's the president of Princeton University.

He's the president, he's a professor at three universities.

This is such a smart work.

This is such a brilliant guy.

Let's use this.

And that's the basis of black history today, which is why on Black History Month, you usually get MLK and Rosa Parks, and 20th Century folks, you get Malcolm X and W.B.

Du Bois, but you get very little of the Jack Sissons or the James Armisteads or all the heroes from the American Revolution that were genuine heroes.

Well, you know, it's funny because Oprah magazine just did something on Apple, and I was looking at the Apple News app today, and it's, you know, Oprah teaches black history, and the first one she taught was Phyllis Wheatley.

However, she's leaving out an awful lot.

And what's amazing is she's like, hey, these are people you've never heard of.

And I thought, no, people in my audience, they know them.

We've talked about Phyllis Wheatley forever.

But in this, she says, Phyllis Wheatley was the first African-American to publish a book of poetry, poems on various subjects, religious and moral in 1773.

Born in Gambia, sold to the Wheatley family in Boston when she was seven.

Wheatley was emancipated shortly after her book was released.

Wow, is that the Phyllis Wheatley story?

I think they missed some major points.

Some major points.

Yeah.

First of all, she was the first African American to publish a book as a slave?

Yeah, she

published a book.

She did not publish a book.

Her book was published, but she did not publish a book.

Who published that?

It was published by Selena, Countess of Huntington.

English sponsor.

She was in England, and the book was published in England, not in America.

And so she was actually taken to England for her health.

Her health was not good.

While she was there,

this great lady, she's called Lady Bountiful.

I mean, she put her money into really good additional.

She's a woman who really changed.

She changed.

Nobody knows who she is.

We should talk about her sometime.

She's a white woman.

Nobody knows who she is, but she actually changed the course of the country and religion.

You know, it's interesting that in the founding era,

the concept of separating whites and blacks is not nearly as prominent as it was in the Civil War.

And so in so many places, even where there was slavery, there was not the segregation.

Let me just give you an example.

Something we found just in the last few months was in the American Revolution, we cannot find a single battle that had segregated units in fighting.

All blacks, all whites fought together throughout the American Revolution.

It was a total volunteer army, which means you had to re-enlist if you wanted to fight more than six months.

You signed up for six months.

That's it.

The average black soldier served nine times longer than the average white soldier did, and that's on voluntary re-enlistments.

They averaged nine enlistments, the average black soldier did.

Average white soldier was white,

was one.

So nine times longer with black guys in a volunteer army serving side by side, no segregated units.

The narrative, you said earlier, we were melting pot even back then.

We looked at George Washington's generals.

Out of 76 generals he had, 28 of them came from foreign nations.

So just over one-third of his generals, foreign nations.

You look at all the ladies involved.

You look at all the black heroes involved.

We used to know that.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

We know none of that now.

Phyllis Wheatley, I just want to go back to her real quick.

Emancipated shortly after her book was released, what she leaves out is the important part that Ben Franklin, if I'm not mistaken, used to take her from town to town and had, and would bring her in front of white audiences to read her poetry, basically in a way of saying,

anybody who says black people are stupid, I like you to meet somebody.

George Washington did the same thing.

George Washington had her kind of as the first USO for American troops.

George Washington had Phyllis Wheatley read her poetry to the officers at Cambridge when they had the siege of Boston going on.

He brought Phyllis Wheatley in to read to the officers.

Why would you do that if you hated all black people?

Why would you do that if you thought they were animals?

You wouldn't do that.

You wouldn't do that.

But you don't hear this because it goes against the narrative they're trying to create today.

They're cutting out major portions of black history in order to create a new narrative that goes in the wrong direction.

Burgess, let me pick it up with you.

Okay.

You wanted to comment on what we were just talking about?

Yes, I do.

And this is why history is so important.

And by the way, I'm blessed.

When I was raised in my segregated community of the 60s, we were taught history.

We were taught pride in our country.

Matter of fact, what we had in common with all the other different cultures around our country, Jewish, German, Polish, we were not assimilating at that time.

But we had in common is love for our country.

We had love for our history and the fact that we're called Americans.

Our goal very simply was to gain the respect, command respect from our fellow Americans by beating them out.

It's called meritocracy.

And that's where we're going.

So understand that this has been an attack on our country for a long, long time.

It was Karl Marx, the Marxist Karl Marx, that said the first battleground rewriting of history.

Because in our history, we find pride.

We find pride in our past.

We find appreciation for what we are today, and a vision for our future.

And our vision for Americans has always been to look at each other better from inside out versus outside in and to understand what we have in common is what makes us so unique and so great as a nation.

I tell you,

I can tell you something right now that I never thought when I was in the 60s growing up that I'm not this part of my family.

My family is black, white, Hispanic, American Indian, Trinidadian, and if I did some more genealogy, probably find some more.

That is the way our country has always been defined.

And what we have to understand is there are people out there who do not want us to come together.

The we the people, the most powerful three words in the history of of mankind, says that we see ourselves as a unit, as a team, and we get past our difference because we have the same endgame.

This leftist group, the cowards and the bullies, the people who hide behind liberalism, they hide behind

a media, they hide behind a computer screen.

You can't see them, but they're empowered by it, destroying people's lives.

And that's what we're up against right now.

And understand that the more we know about our history, the more those guys lose because we become proud of who we are.

And by the way, that's why they've been trying these leftists in the NFL and NBA trying to to get rid of our flag, our national anthem,

our worshiping God.

Those are the things that keep us as a unit focused on something we have in common.

It allows us to go to a game.

And whether we are conservative or liberal, we can root for our team and high-fire because we're on the same team.

So understand that's what they're trying to do, divide us.

And they do that by taking away our history that shows what we've done together is remarkable.

By the way, Jeremiah Hamilton, in 1821, before the Civil War,

was a stockbroker stockbroker in New York.

He died in 1874 worth over $240 million today.

That's the kind of things that happened.

You have Betsy Coleman.

Wait, wait, wait.

He was black.

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

In 1821,

he's a stockbroker.

How's that possible?

Worth $200 and some million dollars in today's dollars.

At his death, how is that possible?

We don't know that man.

Yeah, and it's possible because here's the deal that we have to understand in our country.

It doesn't matter how we get here, how long we've been here, we're language of speech, if we focus on four things, our faith,

the free market,

education, and our family, we can become part of the middle class or beyond.

Everyone who succeeds in this country does it through meritocracy.

They do it to the fact of commanding respect.

And people like Jeremiah or Betsy Coleman, the first black pilot, international and national pilot.

She passed away in 1960 and 1934 in an accident.

But those are the the kind of folks we don't know about.

Dr.

Drew, I'm sure you know, Dr.

Charles Drew,

the founder of the blood bank.

There's so many of, there's so much about history that goes on.

And if we were to know that, guess what happens to black Americans, black youth?

They said, if they can do it back in those days, I can do it today.

I'm so proud to have this lineage that shows

what great Americans can do.

I'm just thankful I grew up in a time where I saw them first time.

I'm so blessed.

It's not hypothetical to me.

And David, it is becoming more and more difficult to find that.

You saw something happen this week that you've never seen before.

Yeah, we have seen ⁇ we've really encouraged legislators to really get into black history as a way to expand the names.

The names you just got from Burgess, you know, that.

You add a Biddy Mason, you add a Clara Brown, you add a Stephen Smith, a Charles Patterson.

To guarantee, I don't know any of those.

We have legislators now standing in the floor of the legislatures in the mornings with a three to five minute reading on a black hero that they've never heard before, the kind of people we're talking about right now, just expanding the field.

And so two black history resolutions were voted down just in the past week, and the argument was that you're presenting blacks in a way that make them look like they're victors and overcoming, not like they're victims.

And that hurts the movement.

So we're voting this down because we don't want that image out there.

Right.

It does hurt the movement, but by doing the reverse, it hurts the people.

That's right.

Well, it hurts truth.

And truth is our objective.

You always tell the truth, the good, the bad, the ugly.

And there's plenty of bad and ugly with racism, discrimination.

But what I'm saying is if you're only telling the downside, you're not only just ignoring the truth of the full picture,

you are hurting people because all they hear is you can't make it.

And that is destructive.

That's battery acid to the soul.

That's right.

That's battery acid to the country as well.

You will not survive that.

So go ahead.

Can I add this to that point?

Because it really is is all about stereotyping.

And what I knew growing up is that there was a mentality, particularly by the Democratic Party, that blacks were not capable.

We were not intelligent.

We were not disciplined.

We're not all those negative stereotypes.

And when you look back, you see Martin Luther King marching during the summer months down south.

Understand,

remember this.

They're walking in white shirts and dark ties.

They're walking dressed.

They're walking in a way that's very disciplined.

Because they were not only beating out the Jim Crow laws, they were beating out the the democratic stereotypes that black people were not capable of.

When I came to the NFL in 1973, there were no black quarterbacks, no black middle linebackers, no black free safeties, because those were quote white men leadership positions.

We don't think that way anymore.

Any position that a person is able to win out, they earn it and they get millions of dollars to do it.

So we've grown in that area, but only in athletics.

Why is it that the leftists do not want have us they have us in affirmative action when it comes down to thinking, but does not have us in in terms of affirmative action when it comes down to sports that's one of the stereotypes that we have to understand that's against us we do more than sports and singing and dancing we can compete in any area that we go up against that we study we work and we feel good that we can achieve those opportunities that's what they're taking away when we have snoopy dog as our hero instead of being cars

Bundled and safe with Expedia, you were made to follow your favorite band and from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are at all protected.