Best of the Program | Guests: Pat Gray, Sara Gonzales & Justin Haskins | 3/6/19

Welcome to the podcast.

Today, we have a fantastic show, which by the way, you can watch every single day at blazetv.com/slash Beck.

Shut up, it's true.

Did you use the promo code Beck when you went there and signed up, Glenn?

Yeah, I did, and I saved 10%.

Oh, wow!

All right, so today on the podcast, we have some really great stuff.

We uh we delve into the uh R.

Kelly um issue, which is it's kind of kind of an interesting thing.

Uh, then we also talk about vaccines,

they are starting to uh ban books on vaccines and we have government officials writing to Facebook and to Google and to YouTube and everywhere and saying you should ban these things we need to talk about a public private partnership with the government

and your platforms to make sure that these voices of these crazy ideas like vaccines are bad are getting out there.

And simultaneously some really good news from a study in Denmark talking about the vaccines and whether they're dangerous or not.

So we're an interesting day.

Both Stu and I are pro-vaccine, but we are also pro

free speech.

In fact, we're free speech absolutists.

And we kind of get into that a little bit as well with a guest towards the end of the podcast on socialism and what socialism really is.

New York Times says, when did we all become socialists?

Oh, I don't know, but nobody in my circle is a socialist, so I can't tell you when did you become socialist, New York Times.

All this and more on today's podcast.

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

Home Title Lock is our sponsor.

Home Title Lock, of course, is a company that protects your home.

You know, you have a lock on the front of your home because you don't want people to get the stuff inside.

Home Title Lock will lock up your title so that people don't get your title.

It's very simple to remember.

If you go to home titlelock.com, you'll be able to

sign up for home title lock, and they'll check, first of all, to see if you're already a victim of it.

Because a lot of people become victims and they don't even know it for six months or a year or two years.

And then they find out, oh, I have no equity in my home because someone's been spending a giant home equity loan on my behalf, and now I'm stuck with the bills.

I'm stuck with my credit being ruined.

I'm stuck with the eviction notice.

You don't want to deal with this.

There was a huge data breach that just happened, and it exposed about 24 million people to home title fraud.

If

I mean, hopefully, this isn't you this time, but it could be you next time.

Mike, make sure you stop it now.

Go to hometitalock.com.

Get the

scan that they have for free.

It's a free title scan and report.

It's $100 value.

Normally, but they give it to you for free when you sign up at home titlelock.com.

It's pennies a day.

Get the barrier put around your home's title so you do not have to worry about this.

It's home-titlelock.com, home titlelock.com.

All right, by the way, if you are joining us and you would like to watch the show every day, go to blazetv.com slash Beck.

Get the promo code Beck.

It's going to save you about 10 bucks.

Blazetv.com slash Beck.

Radio show starts here in just a few seconds.

Attorney Michael Avenatti has tweeted a statement from the client's family

ahead of last night's Gail King interview with R.

Kelly.

Azrielle has suffered

mental abuse, severe mental abuse at the hands of R.

Kelly for years.

R.

Kelly is a liar, manipulator, and a sociopath who must be brought to justice for his decades of sexual assault on underage girls.

All of these victims and their parents cannot be lying.

Yeah, I know, but you're such a liar.

I mean, why would you go to Michael Avenatti?

At this point, I mean, because at one point, at least half the nation thought he was the most credible man in America, right?

At least half of the country was was like, Michael Avenatti is the gold standard of truth because he's saying bad things about the president.

But now, even that, that side thinks he's a scam artist.

So, I mean, now I don't know how the guy even gets a traffic ticket job.

I don't either.

I don't either.

Okay, so R.

Kelly, criminally accused of sexual misconduct in 2002, eventually tried on child pornography charges in the same case.

He was cleared on all counts in 2008.

And so he says, Look, they're just digging up this stuff from the past, and this isn't true.

I didn't do this.

Here is cut one: R.

Kelly denies.

Don't double jeopardy me.

Do you still sit here and say you have never been with underage girls?

Can you really say that?

I sit here and say this.

I had

two cases

back then

that I said in the beginning of the interview that I would not talk about because of my ongoing case now.

Okay, okay.

Okay, fair enough.

But

I will tell you this.

People are going back to my past.

That's exactly what they're doing.

They're going back to the past, and they're trying to add all of this stuff now

to that.

Oh, yeah.

To make all of the stuff that's going on now

feels real to people.

But the past is relevant with you with underage girls.

Absolutely.

No, it's not.

Why?

Because, for one, I beat my case.

Yeah.

When you beat something, you quit it.

You were quitting it.

You can't double jeopardy me like that.

It's not fair.

It's not fair to nobody.

When you beat your case, you beat your case.

Have you ever been with underage women?

Well, I can't talk about the two times I have been with underage women, but let me tell you, no, of course not.

I love that.

That's a great.

I told you before the interview started, I couldn't talk about the times that I did things that were wrong.

So then.

No, he didn't say that.

He said, I can't talk about

that case.

The two, yeah.

The two in that case.

Right.

And he's, he's but what he's saying is and in a way he has a good point you can't double jeopardy me

that's not even a good sentence let alone a good point i know i but he has said but he has said uh you know and and and

tell me where this is where this is wrong okay

you tried me for that i beat that case i won

yeah well this isn't a court of law obviously she's trying to get to the the bottom of whether this is an ongoing issue for him.

He's saying basic, let's be honest, his translation of what he's saying is, yeah, I did that before.

Remember, he was charged with child pornography, which is, and that was, you can make a legitimate case.

There were 10 counts of child pornography.

They weren't all child pornography.

That was part of it.

That was part of it.

Yeah.

Because, I mean, the big part was it was on video.

And there was never a...

It was kind of one of those things where he was never trying to sell his video to child porn connoisseurs.

He just,

it was a videotape.

It was a sex tape.

Here's why.

Here's why, if I remember right, here's why he lost that case.

He won the case.

Or yeah, he won the case.

Is because the girl said, I was 14 at the time, and two other witnesses said

that that wasn't her.

So she said that was me, and I was 14, and two other witnesses that knew the girl said, no, that's not her, or she wasn't 14 at the time.

They couldn't prove that

that was her and that was her age.

Right.

And the bottom line is he can't, you can't throw him back in prison for that.

And just saying that he did something wrong a long time ago does not prove that he's doing something wrong today.

And that's, I think, his argument here.

That being said, if your past is I've been charged with child pornography and I've had sex with underage girls multiple times, perhaps you never go near another female the the rest of your life.

Maybe that's an answer.

That's what he said.

He said, let me do cut.

No, that's not what he said.

No, no, no, no, no.

Later he did.

Let's see if it's in cut two.

Here's cut two.

But I'm not talking about the one case in which you were acquitted.

I'm talking about the other cases where women have come forward and said, R.

Kelly had sex with me when I was under the age of 18.

R.

Kelly was abusive to me emotionally and physically and verbally.

R.

Kelly took me in a black room where unspeakable things happen.

This is what they're saying about you.

These aren't old rumors.

They're not true, whether they're old rumors, new rumors.

Why would they say rumors?

Not true.

Play cut three, please.

And correct me if I'm wrong, that you have never held anybody against their will.

I don't need to.

Why would I?

Well, I'm how stupid would you never held anybody?

R.

Kelly, with all I've been through in my way, way past

to hold somebody,

let alone four five six fifty you said

what how stupid would I be to do that I didn't say you

guys

is this camera on me yes it's on me that's stupid use your common sense don't forget the blogs forget how you feel about me hate me if you want to love me if you want but just use your common sense how stupid would it be for me to with my

crazy past and what I've been through.

Oh, right now I just think I need to be a monster and hold girls against their will, chain them up in my basement, and don't let them eat and don't let them out unless they need some shoes down the street from their uncle.

Stop it.

Y'all quit playing.

Quit playing.

I didn't do this stuff.

This is not me.

I'm fighting for my life.

The problem here, though, is he has multiple girlfriends that he's supposedly living with.

Yes,

right now.

His point is I didn't hold them against their will, and that may very well be true.

I just feel like if I'm in the spot where I've gone through that in my life, maybe living with multiple girlfriends is not the path you go down.

Maybe you examine where you've been and where you're going a little bit, and maybe make some different choices.

It's a technicality, I know.

But as long as the two girlfriends are both of age, there's nothing illegal about it.

I mean, you might maybe at some point be a little introspective and say, perhaps this road is not the road I should be traveling on.

Why?

It's just a different choice in today's world.

Well, I guess it's just a different choice.

Yes, you're making the argument from the left's point of view, which I don't agree with, right?

I mean, like, again, it's a tough argument because I would agree, and I think everyone would agree, if you are in this position and this is what you've done with your life so far.

And remember, this guy got a reprieve.

He was able to come, not only he was, yes, he was acquitted, but a lot of people get acquitted and their careers are still over.

He was able to come all the way back.

I mean, mean,

he was a star again.

And for this to happen again is, you know, it's, I'm sure, shaking his life up a little bit.

But we've seen too often, it would be really stupid for him to do this.

It would be.

It also would be really stupid to have sex with an intern in the Oval Office, right?

Like, you know,

we've seen this how many times.

Half the country has no memory of what you're even talking about.

How dare you even bring that up?

No, it's okay to bring up now because she's no longer useful to the Democrats.

So So now it's okay to bash Bill Clinton.

That's right.

That's right.

Okay, yeah.

That makes it okay.

Yeah, he was a dirtbag, wasn't he?

Yeah.

Now we, we, and by the way, we were with you the entire time, conservatives.

When you were concerned about character, wow, we were on your side.

We just didn't quite get to admitting it until the moment Hillary Clinton was out of our lives.

And now we are totally principled.

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Pat Gray joins us now.

Pat, welcome to the program.

Thank you.

Good to be here.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm very excited.

Are you?

Yes, yeah.

Because you're very excited to talk about

Russian women.

Russian women.

This is a Jeffy's.

Not the male order bridge.

Right, okay.

So you're excited about Russian women.

Yes.

Well, one in particular who took care of a situation in her convenience store that needed to be handled and then went back about her business.

If you haven't seen this video, this is unbelievable.

A fight breaks out between a couple of drunk guys and in America or Russia?

No, in Russia.

Okay.

And she's behind the counter.

She's the clerk.

And watch what she does here.

This is absolutely amazing.

Okay, we'll explain it on radio.

So one guy's pushing another against

like a vending machine or a refrigerator.

Here she comes.

Little girl.

Boom.

Oh my gosh.

Okay.

Kicks him.

And then he gets in her face.

Boom.

Down.

Oh, my gosh.

And then she spins and walks back behind the counter.

I'm sorry.

Did I give you your change yet?

He's still out.

He's still out.

And everybody just looks down, back down at their phone.

I mean, it's almost like America looks down at their phone.

That is a Russian woman.

Is that amazing?

That's amazing.

It's amazing because that's...

She's not a big woman either.

No, she's tiny.

And there's not even, it's not a, I was picturing an element of surprise there.

Like she knows that she knows the guy didn't see her.

No, she actually hits him a couple times first.

Yeah, kicks him once.

And then he gets right up in her face, and she just gives him a straight right that cold cocks him.

You hear him crack his head on the floor.

That's fantastic.

I love that video.

The other thing about it, though, is...

The men stand around.

There's, what, four men in there?

Nobody does anything.

It takes the Russian woman to go up and deal with this situation.

Kind of sad, really.

Have we been probably the kind of thing that would happen in a convenience store here with the exception of the Russian woman?

Right.

I mean, people just don't want to get involved.

And men have been digibletized.

So they've been women.

Yeah, no giblets.

Really?

Yeah.

De-gibletized.

Gibletized.

Gibletized.

I like that.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, you're welcome.

So I think that's important to note.

And, you know, maybe we need to get our giblets back as men.

Certainly in America, I think we do.

But, you know, masculinity is supposed to be a bad thing now.

It's a toxic thing.

It's terrible.

And we're being told that all the time.

So.

You know,

I think this is why Donald Trump is so successful and

why he has

connected with so many people.

Think how many, I mean, there are no examples of men being men.

James Bond.

That's it.

A movie.

There's no male role models.

Would you agree with that?

Pretty much, yeah.

Okay.

So Donald Trump, here's a guy who marries a supermodel.

Right.

Is like, yeah, I can make it with any model I want.

He's over the top, but he fights back.

He doesn't, he doesn't flinch.

He doesn't take any garbage from anybody.

He is the he is the

almost cartoon of an alpha dog.

Yeah, he is.

You know what I mean?

And I think because we have taken alpha dogs and shot them all,

when he comes to the table, there's a lot of guys who are out there going, yeah, damn right.

That's why he was elected, isn't it?

Right.

And a lot of young guys that are looking at him almost as a father figure.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

I think that's a good idea.

I think that's a huge part of his appeal.

It is absolutely happening.

Also, did you see CNN's little little panel that Allison Camerata did?

Allison Camerata has been fully CNNized, hasn't she?

Yes, since she left Fox.

It's pretty amazing.

Anyway, she's sitting down talking to this little focus group of about six people, and she starts asking about Joe Biden.

And here's what happened there.

How many of you would like to see Joe Biden get in?

Show of hands.

What's happening, Ross?

His time is done.

I'll be honest.

I used to think, like, you know, because obviously he was riding under the Obama wave, and I thought he was the, I thought he was the person that would unite the party.

But to be honest, you know, Senator Biden really comes from the kind of the good old boy politics of the past.

I don't think Joe Biden represents that new thing that we need.

We just, we need a new economy.

We need a new politics, and we need someone to something.

Yeah, they need a new economy.

And they go on to explain, they're talking about somebody more extreme.

They want somebody further left than Joe Biden.

He's not left enough for for him now.

So

it looks to me like, I mean, this is only six people, but it's starting to affect the Democrat rank and file now.

This shift to the left in the Democrat Party has, I think, affected just about all Democrats.

They're becoming the Socialist Party of America.

Well, I will tell you, because there is not

another idea.

on the right.

Where is the person on the right that says, look, we are going into a new economy, but I'm not talking about a green economy.

I'm talking about a digital economy.

Do you know that 41% of the jobs that were lost in the last year have been lost to automation and they were not in manufacturing?

Okay, they're not going to

the car companies anymore.

Those jobs are now starting to be automated that regular people had.

So we're losing jobs.

We've got a new economy and nobody's talking about it.

We have a way to move so rapidly now and this government cannot keep up with it.

It's time to streamline the government.

It's time to

set it in place for 2018.

Congress, raise your hands here.

How many of you actually know the difference between AI, AGI, and ASI?

Maybe three?

Maybe.

Okay, how are you going to protect us?

How are you even going to protect us if you don't know what that is?

Right now, our biggest problem in our country is STEM.

We are not turning out kids that know anything about science, technology, mathematics, nothing.

They don't know it.

How are we going to compete in this new digital world with STEM?

Common core?

Common core math?

That's not the answer.

Where are the big ideas on our side?

There aren't.

Well, nobody can articulate them.

No.

Is there anybody that can articulate?

Do you have confidence in anyone's ability in, say, a position of power to articulate these things?

No.

Nobody does.

So here's the problem.

Democrats have all kinds of people articulating their theories, their ideology.

But they're not.

They've got nobody.

Right, and they're not new.

Those are all old ideas.

They've been repackaged.

They're Karl Marx ideas.

Correct.

So they've all all been repackaged, but they feel new to people.

And instinctively, people know

we can't have Joe Biden who's been in there since 1951

on

this new economy.

And they're talking about a green economy, but there is a new economy.

It is a tech economy.

I will say, though, I mean, if Joe Biden does not enter this race, he does not want to be president.

I mean, he leads in every poll.

Oh, yeah, this is a lot.

This is CNN.

Yeah, I mean, those six people may be representative of those six people and certainly more.

But, I mean, generally speaking, the Democrats, the Democratic voters seem to want Joe Biden in pretty badly.

I mean, again, like, you know, you could say that it's name recognition and then it's certainly part of it against some of these other contenders.

But, I mean, everybody knows Bernie Sanders' name by now.

If you're a Democratic primary voter, you know who Bernie Sanders is.

And Biden is beating Bernie Sanders usually in the double digits.

He's ahead of everybody in double digits, I think, including Kamala Harris.

Yep, everybody.

I think she was second in the latest poll that I saw.

It was like 30 to 20.

Yeah, certain states, you know, like Sanders does well in New Hampshire.

You know, so there's a few different states, you know, and you know who doesn't do well in New Hampshire, oddly, is Elizabeth Warren, who I just don't think she has any chance.

No, she's not.

She's done.

She's over.

But still, like, I mean, Biden, if he does not get in, is going to open up an entire wing because

everyone else is competing for the socialist vote, essentially.

And Joe Biden is no conservative.

They make it seem like, oh, this moderate Joe Biden, he's the one who's pushed.

He pushed Obama to the left about 10 times during that presidency.

He was the one that was blurting out the gay marriage position.

Yeah.

Right.

And do you remember?

He was one of the most, I think, top three liberal senators in the Senate.

Yeah.

So he's no conservative just compared to

the Burger Window.

Oh, yeah, totally.

To the point where Joe Biden looks moderate to us.

That's a frightening place to be.

Somebody called me on my show on Pac-Gray Unleashed,

which happens right before this show on the Blaze Radio TV network.

And they said,

what do you and Glenn and Stew think if

a Democrat actually wins in 2020?

And

so they have the executive, they have the House.

And if they win, they will win.

If they will probably win.

They'll probably get the Senate.

So they'll have a majority in Congress and they'll have the executive office.

Is there going to be any stopping their socialist policies?

And I think the answer to that is no.

No.

And that I bet you one of the first things they do is get rid of this filibuster in the Senate.

Absolutely, they will.

They don't care about that.

No, they don't care about it in the Senate.

They only care about it when there's Republican majority.

That's the only time they care about it.

And they're going to say, look, Trump said he wanted it, and you guys didn't fight it then.

And they'll be right.

And they'll be right.

And so they will just use that as an excuse to move that progressive line a little bit further, and they will pass every single thing they want to pass.

It is the most important election of all time.

The next president, the next president, is going to have to deal with a recession.

And that will be the emergency that will allow them to.

Do you think it won't come until after 2020?

No, I think it could come before.

If it comes before, that's a bad thing.

If it hits before,

some good news that came out of Europe

yesterday.

Everyone, I think, except

Italy was at least flat in their

growth.

And they were expected expected to go down, which would have meant recession all throughout Europe.

China is the only one that has bigger growth than us, but take that with a grain of rice.

Here in America, we have 2.6%

growth on our GDP.

Last year, I was just looking at the stats, it was 3.1 last year in 2018.

So we are still okay.

We're not great, but we're still okay.

And Europe did not go into an official recession, which everyone expected.

So, we bought ourselves some more time, and that's good.

But if it comes before this election, it's going to be trouble for the Republicans.

And if it comes after the election and the Democrats are in, they are going to use that to absolutely change us to a new economy.

And that's

the green economy.

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.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

All right, so we all know that Twitter,

we've all watched Twitter be unbelievably hypocritical.

They are so fast to ban anyone on the right.

But boy, when it comes to the left, it's chance after chance after chance.

Now, that's not the way Jack looks at it.

But Jack, along with Twitter's

mouthpiece,

was on the Joe Rogan show last night, and it is really worth listening to because Tim Poole was there.

Now, Tim is a journalist, used to be with Vice.

He has been following this for a long time.

He is a free speech absolutist, and Twitter has a problem with free speech.

And over and over in the Joe Rogan experience last night, they were talking about how,

you know, they're trying to create a place where everyone feels free and comfortable to speak.

And he said, well, that's not working.

It's not working for conservatives.

You know, your liberals might feel free to speak, but the conservatives don't feel free to speak.

And that seemed to be lost on

Jack and his Twitter friend.

Here's a little bit between journalist Tim Poole and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

Listen, so you don't think we should have any rules about abuse and harassment?

So even that the threats that you received that you under U.S.

law.

But you mentioned a number of threats that you received and you were quite frustrated that we hadn't taken action on them.

You think we shouldn't have rules that I'm frustrated because of the hypocrisy of

when I when I see only I see the flow of one direction and then what I see are Republican politicians who in my opinion are just too ignorant to understand what the hell's going on around them and I see people burning signs that say free speech.

I see you openly saying we recognize the power of our platform and we're not going to abide by American norms.

I see the manipulation of Twitter for in violation of our elections.

I see Democratic operatives in Alabama waging a false flag campaign using fake Russian accounts and and the guy who runs that company has not been banned from your platform, even after it's been written by the New York Times he was doing this.

So we know that not only are people manipulating your platform, you have rules that remove honest American citizens with bad opinions who have a right to engage in public discourse, and it's like you recognize it, but you like having the power.

So

he really made some strong points when she kept going back.

So you say no rules.

He's saying, no, not no rules, American American standards.

So in other words,

if you're threatening someone

with harm, if you're inciting violence, yes.

But if you have an opinion, and one of the things that

kept coming up was learn to code.

And learn to code was,

it became really

a

flag for people to rally around of the arrogance of the elites.

When

manufacturing jobs were lost,

reporters said, Well, they should learn to code.

Well, that's not necessarily something a 50-year-old is going to be doing in the Midwest, is learning how to code.

And it just showed how out of touch these reporters were.

Then, when the reporters started being laid off, people started saying, What's the problem?

Just learn to code.

Well, that hashtag was banned.

And he was really upset about that and the monopoly that Twitter seems to be creating here.

Here's cut two.

I understand your point about the influence, and I'm not denying that.

Certainly, Twitter is an influential platform.

But like anything, whether it's the American law or the rules of Twitter or the rules of Facebook or rules of any platform, there are rules.

And those those rules have to be followed.

So it is your choice whether to follow those rules and to continue to participate in a civic dialogue or it is your choice to not do that.

Absolutely.

You've monopolized public discourse to an extreme degree and you say my way or the highway.

We are facing.

Tim, we haven't monopolized it.

There are many different avenues for people to continue to have a voice.

There are many different platforms that offer that.

We are a largely influential one.

I'm not trying to take away from that.

And we're a very important one.

You don't need to be the most important.

It's just that you are extremely important.

that's, and that's a compliment.

Twitter has become extremely powerful.

But at a certain point, you should not have the right to control what people are allowed to say.

No private or look, I'm a social liberal.

I think we should regulate you guys because you are unelected officials running your system the way you see fit against the wishes of a democratic republic.

And there are people who disagree with you who are being excised from public discourse because of your ideology.

Okay, so here's the problem.

This is where I think Tim goes off the rails a little bit.

He is for regulation.

And that's where a lot of people are going to go.

Regulation.

No,

the problem with Twitter and Facebook and Google is they claim to be a platform.

You notice he said your platform is very, very

important.

You're creating a monopoly

here.

Well, it is a platform.

Now, what is a platform?

A platform, think of that as your,

you know, your local

Kiwanis Club stage or your local school stage.

You know, if you had some sort of a local auditorium, you could rent it out and, you know, a rock band can be there, and the next time it could be a speech, and it welcomes everybody because it's a public auditorium.

That's a platform.

The minute

the auditorium says, no, no, no, no, no, we're not going to take any rock bands, and we don't want that lecture going on.

We're only going to take lectures like this.

Then that becomes, in the digital world, a publisher.

And now, here's why this is important: if you're a platform, you're open to everything, except we want to have,

we want to rent the auditorium because we're going to do a play about

pedophilia and orgies, and it's starring eight-year-old kids and 50 year old men.

No, no, you're not doing that.

That's against the law.

Okay, so once you break the law, I don't have to offer my platform to you.

However,

as long as it's lawful,

I gotta, I'm a platform.

I have to be open to everybody.

And this is important

because

If you are a platform, you are not held responsible for what happens on your your platform.

So if something happens on stage and it's outrageous, you can't be sued for it because you're like, look, we're neutral.

We're neutral.

Did they break the law?

No, I had nothing to do with them.

A lot of this comes from copyright protection because if people are posting, you know, full movies on, you know, Twitter obviously wouldn't be the place for that, but a social network.

then theoretically they could get sued for that because it's their site and and people are posting copywritten material on their site.

However, they get a protection from that because they're just a platform.

They're not going to control everything that everybody posts.

They just have to take it down when they're aware of it.

Right.

They say, okay, look, we're a platform.

We're not judging good and evil.

We are judging illegal and legal.

And posting a movie is illegal.

It violates copyright laws.

But

they don't pass through us first.

They're posted.

So you can't hold us liable for this because people have a right to post.

Then if we get something about it, then we can take it down if it's illegal.

The minute they start to say,

well, we didn't like that point of view.

Now you're a publisher.

Now you do have an editorial committee that gets around and says, what speech do we like and not like?

The minute you do that, you lose your platform status.

Like the Blaze, I can be sued for the Blaze because we see everything that goes on and sometimes we make mistakes, but we have to be held responsible because we are publishing something and we are putting it out.

I can't be held responsible for comments.

Because people that's just the comment section is just a platform.

Anybody can get on and say anything.

We monitor them, but I can't be held responsible because we're not seeing it.

You know,

we're not okaying everything that comes in.

That's a huge difference.

And it's a huge legal expense if you're not a platform.

And so what happened was Twitter, YouTube, everybody else went and said, we're just a platform.

We're just a platform.

That's all we are.

So you can't have any of these lawsuits about copyrights or anything else.

We cannot be sued because we're simply a platform.

And so they got that status from the United States government.

Then they started editing.

Then they became a publisher as well.

So now they're a publisher that cannot be sued.

That's not

the way it works.

Yeah, it's great work if you can get it.

I'll give you the the last piece of this

where Dorsey actually did say, okay, you know, we probably are a little too tough on conservatives.

Whether that's going to mean anything or not,

I doubt.

You know what's amazing to me is Joe Rogan is bigger now in influence, I think, than probably Larry King was at his height.

And nobody in the mainstream media really pays attention to him at all.

And he's talking about the things that people are talking about in a different way.

And last night,

he had Tim Poole on, who is

a liberal,

probably more a classic liberal

journalist who is more journalist than I have heard on any platform in I don't know how long.

The guy knew his stuff when he came up against Twitter and Jack Dorsey and actually got Jack Dorsey to say, okay, okay, you're probably right.

Listen.

This is one of the big problems that people have with this story,

particularly.

You have a left-wing activist who works for NBC News.

I'm not accusing you of having read the article.

He spends like a day lobbying to Twitter saying, guy, you have to do this.

You have to make these changes.

The next day, he writes a story saying that 4chan is organizing these harassment campaigns and death threats.

And while 4chan was doing threads about it, you can't accuse 4chan simply for for talking about it because Reddit was talking about it too, as was Twitter.

So then the next day, after he published his article, now he's getting threats.

And then Twitter issues a statement saying, we will take action.

And to make matters worse, when John Levine, a writer for the rap, got a statement from one of your spokespeople saying,

yes, we are banning people for saying learn to code.

A bunch of journalists came out and then lied.

I had no idea why, saying this is not true, this is fake news.

Then a second statement was published by Twitter saying it's part of a harassment campaign.

And And so then the mainstream narrative becomes: oh, they're only banning people who are part of a harassment campaign.

But you literally see legitimate, high-profile individuals getting suspensions for joining in on a joke.

Oh, there for sure probably mistakes in there.

I don't think that any of us are claiming that we got this 100% right.

And probably our team having a lack of context into actually what's happening as well.

And we would fully admit, we probably were way too aggressive when we first saw this as well and made mistakes.

So the problem is that in this, if you watch this,

Jack talks about how, look, we're surrounded by liberals.

We are liberals.

We're surrounded by liberals.

We don't necessarily understand the context, but this is what we believe.

And so, yes, it will take on that kind of a tone.

Well, you have every right to do that.

But not if you're a platform.

And I don't hear anybody making that case.

This is the easiest way to solve this if Congress threatens to take away their platform status from Google YouTube from Facebook and from

Twitter if they say

you have to choose you're a platform

or you're a publisher if they pick publisher then they have every right to ban whoever they want for whatever reason, left or right.

But not if they're a platform with platform-protected status.

It's easy.

We don't need to regulate.

Do not grow the size of government.

It won't work out well for you.

Don't grow the size of government.

Just take away their platform status.

This goes to so many of the points that we've made over the years and that you have to have a principle because the principle here, I think, is what you're talking about.

Don't grow the size of government.

Don't give government extra power over these types of things.

It's going to be damn tempting for conservatives to jump on the bandwagon here because they're the victims of all of this.

You're getting targeted by Twitter.

You're getting targeted by Facebook all the time.

And so the instinct for a human being is to say, hey, authority figure, government, step in and right this wrong for me.

Look how they've distorted the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement.

You could be for the civil rights movement in the 60s.

You're for the civil rights movement today, where it is the color of my skin.

It's not the content of my character.

These things change fast.

They change fast, and they never change

when it's an organized government entity.

It never leans towards freedom.

And deep down inside of every conservative, we know this, right?

Like, if we, let's say, we are to pass some sort of rule that

regulates social networks that we believe it's on our behalf right now.

With 100% certitude, the government will figure out a way to make you the victim of that rule.

It will not last.

You may get a year of not getting banned or something like that.

In the long run, that rule will be expanded and that use will come to hit you more than it's going to hit the left, especially when a left government takes over.

So, you know, look, it is a really tough one to deal with, and I understand why people go that way.

We've had a lot of good, smart conservatives come in and argue for that position.

But, I mean, I think

we got to think past step one here.

And if, you know, step one is, is, it feels really bad.

You don't want to get banned.

I know that sucks.

I think Cruz has brought this up before, talking about taking away protections.

So this is.

That has to be done.

That is a, I think, a step potentially in the right direction.

If you're going to make decisions based on content because you believe some political person is too offensive, fine, you're just going to deal with it the way the Blaze deals with it or the way the New York Times deals with it.

You're going to be a news source,

you're going to be a publisher, and you're not going to get the protections that you get from the platform.

And you will cut your audience in about half.

Yeah, and Twitter won't be able to exist

in that world, really.

Well, look, here's the deal: until YouTube and everybody else is deemed a platform only,

or that status is taken away, the voices like ours are in jeopardy.

And you're seeing it.

Steven Crowder is fighting fighting it right now.

You're seeing it happen.

This is why platforms like the Blaze are so important.

We have to be able to have the ability to reach our audience and the algorithms are shutting us out of that.

Join us at theblazetv.com.

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

Hey, it's Glenn, and I want to tell you about something that you should either end your day with or

start your morning with, and that is the news and why it matters.

If you like this show, you're going to love the news and why it matters.

It's a bunch of us that all get together at the end of the day and just talk about the stories that matter to you and your life.

The news and why it matters.

Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Sarah, I want to talk to you about what's happening on Capitol Hill right now.

And we have an outbreak of measles,

and measles should not be happening anymore.

I mean, you know, it's like polio.

Polio is making a comeback.

What?

How?

We eradicated polio.

No, some people don't want to take the vaccine.

And the balance of rights

and public health is a really dicey conversation.

Yeah, it is.

You know, I would just like to also point out, I don't believe that there's been a measles death since there was one in 2015, I believe.

So, you know,

I do know that there was a time where people just got the measles and that was just kind of a

way of life, you know, growing up, kind of like the chicken pox.

It wasn't necessarily a deadly, you know, disease.

So, you know, the measles is not so much my concern, but I would like to point out, earlier, I heard that I was referred to as anti-vaccine.

Just set the record straight before I get hate mail.

I am not anti-vaccine.

I am pro-information and pro-parents' choice, just like you said.

I think that you know, it's very clear that vaccines have saved lives.

And it's also very clear that vaccines are not 100% safe or 100% effective.

So, Stu, there was a new study that just came out, extensive study that just came out this week.

Have you seen it, Sarah?

I haven't.

Okay.

And it showed that vaccines are safe.

I mean, safe, safe, how?

Did you see that you saw that?

This is a particular study.

I mean, there's a lot of stuff that goes around this particular topic, but this one was particularly about autism in

Denmark.

And so they did a study.

It was on 660,000

kids born in Denmark.

And Denmark is like super the opposite of us.

Like we are,

we're like, hey, like, we should have the right to do what we want to do with our own kids.

And Denmark's like, we're going to take every piece of your information.

You know, it's great for researchers because, you know, it's like part of the law.

Like, when your kid is born, like, they take every piece of health information and give it over to the scientists.

So, one of the things, so this was every kid born in Denmark over, I think it was a decade.

And they found, you know, no ties to, it was actually, you were actually less likely to get autism.

I think it was 17% less likely to be diagnosed with autism if you got the MMR vaccine.

That's not saying that they think it's vaccinating you against autism.

But, you know, it's just, you know, look,

I think the point of this is more,

and I think this is your point as well here, Sarah, which is like,

this is America, and we are, and parents, we are not, it is not, it does not take a village, right?

We are

we are the parents and we make the decisions.

And so the idea that the federal government is going to come in and tell us what, what, you know, what, what medicines or vaccines we have to give to our kids is the real, I think, the real argument here.

You know, when it comes to,

you know,

this bigger argument of whether they're good or bad, like, you know,

that is, I mean, you can look at all the science and you can make up your own mind.

That's what you're supposed to do as a parent, right?

You're supposed to be able to go in there and make up your own decisions.

Do you want to give your kid ibuprofen?

Do you want to give your kid Tylenol?

Do you want to do these things?

I mean, I'm the same way, Glenn.

My kids are vaccinated through these things.

But, you know,

if you should have that ability, and I think that's Rand Paul's point.

Yes.

You should have the ability to make the choice as a parent.

What is the problem with doing that?

If you don't have the vaccine, okay, so more people are going to get sick.

But if my kids got the vaccine, they're not going to be the ones that got sick.

I mean, there are arguments.

I mean, you know, I'm sure you're well.

Yeah, the argument is the people who are herd immunity, which again is a theory that was originally proposed when it comes to natural immunity.

It's never been.

Herd immunity is the idea, the theory, that

as long as so many of citizens in the society are vaccinated, we will maintain that level.

You know, it was 95 or something percent.

As long as we maintain that level of vaccine rates,

the diseases won't come back, even if some people don't get the vaccine.

Well, how many people are anti-vaccine?

How many people are not vaccinating their kids?

It's a very small percentage.

It's a very small percentage.

It is growing significantly, right?

And that's one of the, that's why it's become this sort of hot-button sort of political issue.

And there are other cases too, like, you know, infants have certain times in their lives where they can't get vaccinated yet, so they're vulnerable.

People with like, you know, cancer at times, they have weakened immune systems, so the vaccines don't work as well, even if they've been vaccinated.

There are issues.

And again, like, as a society, you can say, okay, well, this is what we think the best path is for your health, and you should do this, and we can encourage it.

But even when you're putting someone else at risk, In the United States, like we say to people, like, look, we will license you to drive a car.

And if you do something that we think is wrong or you're putting other people in danger, then we will step in and stop that.

But we all have a choice, right?

Like, to go in there, and we all are at risk of other people doing things that we can't control.

That's that's just the risk you have in a free society where people are walking around, you know, going to the grocery store.

They might have the flu.

You know, we're not going to mandate that they do anything.

But I do think that it's important to point out, Glenn, that you know, you said that the study determined that vaccines were safe.

You know,

in this particular study, for autism, for this particular thing.

But I think that we jump to the autism debate far too quickly.

Whenever we talk about vaccines and safety, we say, no, no, no, no, it doesn't cause autism.

That's already been debunked.

And we forget that a vaccine is a medication that we're injecting into our bodies, just like any other medication that we're putting into our bodies.

people are going to have different reactions.

So, I mean, vaccines have, you know, adverse reactions ranging from very mild to incredibly severe to death sometimes.

And so, I think that it's important.

You know, even the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons just came out and put out a statement saying forced vaccinations violates human rights because vaccines are not 100% safe or 100% effective.

So, to say to someone, we are going to force you to inject your infant, not knowing yet how they're going to respond, that's a problem.

And I think that we lose sight of that in this debate because we jump straight to autism as if there are no other side effects that could happen.

It's like if we said everybody, every male has to take Cialis.

Well, some of us are going to have a four-hour erection and going to have to go to the hospital.

Not that you have any experience with that, right?

I don't.

Stepping back, though, here for a second, like let's just, let me make the worst point of all time.

Every vaccine

causes autism 95 times over for every child.

That's my viewpoint, okay?

No, it's not my viewpoint.

But let's just say it was.

Should I be able to go out and blab about that as much as I want in a society that has a First Amendment?

Yes.

The answer to that has to be yes.

I don't care how crazy the viewpoint is.

There's way crazier crap on the internet than

anything we could possibly come up with here today.

Like, for example, there's a new book in the top 50 overall on Amazon.

I found this yesterday.

It's incredible.

It's about the Q anonymous, whatever the hell that thing is, right?

The Q conspiracy theory that has been out for a while

that thinks that Donald Trump is going to, I guess he's working with Robert Mueller to push back against Hillary Clinton, who controls the government somehow.

It may have worked a little bit in 2016.

How it works now, I don't know.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

So, when did we all become socialists?

That's the question from the New York Times magazine this last Sunday.

And the answer is, we're not all socialists.

Maybe you in the newsroom have gone all socialists, but America has not gone all socialists.

This last weekend, I was at CPAC,

and

I decided to break off and go into one of the smaller conference rooms because

there was a speaker that I wanted to hear, and his name is Justin Haskins.

And

he was very funny and just really sharp on socialism and the Green New Deal.

He's written for The Blaze regularly.

He also is a contributor for The Washington Examiner and also a columnist for townhall.com.

Welcome to the program.

Justin, how are you?

I'm doing great.

Thanks for having me, Glenn.

You bet.

I wanted to go over the five myths of socialism.

I don't know if you saw this from the Washington Post.

I did.

Yeah.

And also,

when did everybody become socialist from the New York Times?

Can you answer that one?

Yeah, sure.

I don't think everyone has become socialist, as you pointed out.

I think that we're living in a time when socialism is clearly on the rise, especially among young people.

And I imagine that if you spent all of your time living in the sort of Greenwich Village, New York bubble that the writer of this particular article that you're referencing does, then yeah, I'm sure everyone seems like they're socialists.

But if you go out to, you know, Iowa or something, I'm sure you're going to find a lot of people who do not believe in Karl Marx's ideology.

It's on the rise, but it's definitely not something that

you could say is quintessential America.

No question about that.

So let me give you the five myths about socialism because you just wrote a new book

about socialism.

And the name escapes me, I'm sorry.

It's a name.

Socialism is evil.

Pretty easy book to remember.

Yeah, pretty easy.

I haven't read it yet, and I want to have you on next week to talk about it after I've had a chance to read it.

But you're pretty clear on socialism.

You were very clear and very funny about the Green New Deal on

how this is clearly just socialism.

It has nothing to do

with

green energy or anything else.

Correct.

Yeah.

The Green New Deal is the most radical, dangerous, destructive policy proposal in modern American history.

It is a socialist Trojan horse without any question at all.

And the obvious way to realize that this is the case is that if you really believed that we were about to head into some sort of post-apocalyptic hellscape 100 years into the future, or that 12 years from now we're all going to be dead, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested not too long ago, then you wouldn't waste a single penny of taxpayer money on things like a federal jobs guarantee or land use practices for farmers or

basic income programs or free college tuition or upgrading homes for safety and comfort.

I mean, the list goes on and on and on.

The Green New Deal is full of socialist programs.

Climate change is just a convenient excuse the left uses, especially democratic socialists, to enact all of the programs that they've always wanted to enact with or without climate change.

You know, you said this, Justin, and it just struck me as so true that if you are really truly, like Ocasio-Cortez, says we only have 12 years before we're all dead, before this thing is just out of control, you wouldn't talk about anything else.

Nothing else.

Your whole campaign, your whole life would be centered around that.

Yeah,

absolutely right.

It's sort of like, you know, in New York City, I know you've spent some time in New York City, so you know this.

You go to Times Square and you see a guy on the side of the road in Times Square with

an old pizza box that says, the end is here.

You know, the end of the world is about to come.

It's like he's there every single day and the end of the world never comes.

But then it would be like if he started putting, like, taping another little small sign next to it saying, oh, and rent is too high.

It's like,

does it matter if rent is too high?

If the world is about to end?

Right.

I mean, that's where we're at.

That was one of the things with the sort of the FAQ that was attached to the Green New Deal when it came out, and they were so embarrassed about it, and they hit it right away.

And it said stuff like, let's get rid of airplanes.

And Ocasio-Cortez went on Twitter and was like, I like to fly to Puerto Rico, and I'm not saying that.

Well, why aren't you saying it?

You're saying the entire earth is going to disintegrate in a decade.

Why would you want to fly to go see your family?

You can't call them.

Why are you even going to Washington, D.C.

to vote on these things?

You can't come up with a system to vote on the internet?

It's completely ridiculous.

It's so clear that this is just something, and you've talked about this, Glenn, and I think you have as well, Justin.

It's like it's this concept of perpetual, constant war.

We can't always have a World War I or World War II to get people to do what we want.

We need to come up with something, and the environment is it, where it's this constant war all the time.

We can always bend the rules, we can always take more power because

things are always dire.

We're always teetering on that cliff of the earth just going away.

So of course we can justify anything.

Well, look at how much just the Patriot Act changed this country.

Think of that.

Patriot Act completely changed us,

changed our theories of privacy and

security entirely, entirely.

And

you just put one of those in because you're in a new war.

You put this new Green Deal Act in, and

it will change us more than the Patriot Act.

Would you agree with that, Justin?

Totally.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

And the best, and the best from a socialist perspective, the best part about the Green New Deal is because it's dealing with climate change, it's always 80 years off into the future or something.

You can always say, oh, well, we just got the prediction, the model a little wrong, but 20 years from now, it's going to be chaos.

Or then 20 years comes and nothing happens.

And 20 years from now, it's going to be chaos.

You can always predict it

off into the future and just say, Yeah, this is a problem that's going to happen.

I know it hasn't happened yet, but it's going to.

Trust me.

And because the media all backs it,

everyone just goes along and believes it.

So, one of the myths that they bring up

from the Washington Post is that all socialists want to abolish markets and private property.

And that's just not true.

They just want a little more control on a few things that really matter.

Right.

Yeah, I think in the short term, there are certainly socialist parties and groups that are not advocating for the end of private property tomorrow.

But every single one of them has the same goal.

The utopian goal that they're all looking for, that Karl Marx was talking about 150 years ago, is the same.

It's we want to live in a world where there is absolutely no classes at all, which means no groups of people with different amounts of wealth.

Everybody has the same amount of wealth.

That's what we want.

And every socialist party, even the Democratic Socialists of America, were very careful to say on their website, you know, we don't want to abolish property tomorrow, say, eventually, though, we would like to abolish private property.

I mean, that would be great.

So they're all working towards that same cause.

It's not true that there are socialists out there who say, ah, we like capitalism,

but just we want some, you know, some controls on it.

No, no, no.

They want to abolish property.

They want to abolish private property.

They want it to be completely controlled by the collective.

It's just a matter of how long they want to do, how long they're willing to wait to have this happen and how extreme they're willing to be at this very moment.

What's the strongest message that we can deliver to people who think that socialism is neat and it's probably some sort of an app?

Right.

I think the strongest message that conservatives can give, and and it's something that, frankly,

conservatives have been incredibly terrible at this over the past few decades, is we have this tendency to obsess over economics and then just seed the moral high ground entirely on this issue.

And so we spend all of our time talking about, well, we got to lower tax rates and, oh, we need GDP growth.

And it's like, you know what?

Those things are not the most important things in the world.

The most important things in the world are individual freedom, inalienable rights.

I have the right to my property, to my life, to live my life the way I see fit, not to have some majority or some bureaucracy somewhere decide how I'm going to live my life.

And that those are the conversations that we need to have.

That conversation about natural law, where do my rights come from?

Do they come from the government or do they come from somewhere else?

We're not even having those conversations.

We're not even on the edge of those conversations

in common discourse.

We're too busy fighting over these minute little issues that at the end of the day don't matter.

What really matters is can we focus on individual liberty and personal freedom?

Or should we have a society where the collective decides everything?

And if you happen to be in the minority, well then too bad for you.

That's the thing that

bothers me the most.

I mean, you look at slavery.

The majority could have voted for slavery.

In fact, the Supreme Court said slavery was okay.

It wasn't.

You know,

even if you're in

a democratic socialist

market, if you will, if the majority votes that you have to do something, that's still slavery.

I don't care if everybody else voted for it.

You didn't.

It's still slavery.

Yeah, that's right.

And actually,

when the country was founded, this was one of the debates that the loyalists had with those who

were the patriots, the people who wanted to move away from England.

They basically said,

look, why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?

That whole quote that was in the Patriot and Mather Biles likely said it, a Massachusetts pastor.

I mean,

that whole notion of, well,

democracy can be tyranny too.

Yeah, we have this obsession in America over democracy, like democracy is somehow this inherently good thing.

Democracy is not inherently good.

Democracy can be evil.

What is inherently good is individual liberty coupled with democracy.

That system works.

And

that is totally incompatible with socialism because socialism doesn't allow for individual rights.

I mean, Hezbollah was democratically elected.

Democracy on its own is not necessarily great.

Let me take one more thing here with you, Justin, because

I agree with you and your criticisms on where the left is going.

Let's point inward a little bit here, though.

I think quite often we on the right

have,

it's easy to be principled when you're in the minority.

It's easy to be principled when things are going your way.

But when things hit you, we've talked about several examples over the past couple of weeks, where things where it feels like you're really getting screwed, and I just need a little bit more power from the government to be able to enforce this thing that I want.

See, this thing, though, is a real problem, and I really need the extra power this time.

Yes, the Constitution, but this is too important.

How do you, I don't feel like people in those moments typically are able to bring themselves back to those principles that really have guided the country the entire way.

Yeah, you're exactly right.

What we need desperately, the biggest opportunity that was missed by Republicans, and there were a lot of opportunities missed over the past couple of years, was this idea of embracing the freedom to fail.

Okay.

The country was established as very different communities with completely different ideas, very different than the states that we have today.

And yet it worked because they were willing to say to each other, we know that we're different, but we're going to allow each other within some within some constraints.

We're going to allow each other to live the way we believe is right.

We're not going to impose those beliefs on each other.

That's why we have state constitutions and state rights.

And we have totally moved away from that, both in the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party.

And now it seems like every four years, the world is about to end for somebody because we're going to have this incredibly important election where we're about to elect some imperial president who's going to make all of our decisions for us.

And then he gets to appoint a couple of open seats to the Supreme Court.

And then the Supreme Court's going to decide by a two-vote margin

what liberty means for 330 million people.

Does this sound like a free society?

Not at all.

Not at all.

Justin, we'll have you back next week.

We want to talk a little bit about your new book.

It's called Socialism is Evil.

And

if you've ever read Justin or you've ever listened to him speak, this is the first time you could see he has a great sense of humor and

very well read.

Justin Haskins, thank you so much for being on.

Thank you.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.