A Caller Shares a ‘Liberal’ Perspective on Roy Moore vs. Al Franken

November 21, 2017

WRITER

Each of us brings a different set of biases to the table, and sometimes it’s just best to be honest about it.

While Doc sat in for Glenn on today’s show, a caller named Kevin shared his perspective on the sexual misconduct allegations that are disrupting Washington. Listen to his chat with Doc (above) for some blunt commentary from a Democrat voter.

Here’s How Roy Moore Should Respond to These Allegations

He acknowledged that Republicans are more likely to overlook accusations that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to seduce a 14-year-old girl and Democrats are prone to make excuses for Sen. Al Franken after a photo was released showing him groping a woman.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. You can join the program. 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. Or online. Join me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonshow. By the way, Facebook is Facebook.com/DocThompsonShow. We're talking about the latest allegations. I spent a lot of time on it today. But a little bit of sexual improprieties. And the big one last night was Charlie Rose. It's pretty awful if true. There's a lot of salacious stuff. Some of the other ones have been less significant. You know, people like Ben Affleck. He may have touched me inappropriately as we passed, you know, on the set, or something. Charlie seems systematically, again, if proven true.

Then we also heard that John Conyers may have settled a case for $27,000, when he was a sitting congressman in Michigan. John Conyers, you remember, they say you got to pass the bill. They say, vote for -- what was it? Study the bill? Research the bill. Read the bill.

KRIS: Read the bill.

DOC: How are we going to read the bill? That was John Conyers back in the day. Served for 200 years or whatever it was. John Conyers accused of settling for $27,000. The interesting thing, Conyers' settlement came out of his budget, his office budget in DC. Unlike the other 264 allegations for sitting members of Congress over the last 24 years -- or, 20 years. Over 20 years, Congress has paid off 264 people, from a special slush fund that they've created.

KRIS: Can I correct you on that?

DOC: Yes.

KRIS: Because it wasn't Congress. We paid for that. We paid for that.

DOC: Thank you. Thank you, Kris Cruz. We have paid into this slush fund, where Congressmen get to act -- in many cases, it's probably going to be true -- inappropriate. People challenge them on it. And we have paid $17 million to 264 cases.

That averages about $64,000 every four weeks. Every four weeks for the last 20 years, we have paid 64 thousands dollars because congressmen acted inappropriately or were accused of it.

Just another perk they get. Let me go to the phone lines now in Illinois. Kevin, thanks for holding here on the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, I'm doing pretty good. How are you?

DOC: Doing well, sir. Thank you.

CALLER: Well, let me first state in full disclosure that I am a liberal.

DOC: Oh, my gosh.

CALLER: I'm a liberal.

DOC: I appreciate the disclosure, sir.

CALLER: That's fine.

So everybody is going to see this through the lens of me being a liberal, which is fine. Because I see things through the lens of you being a conservative. So...

DOC: Real quick, side note, Kevin, that's how it's supposed to be. Because my frustration is when Fox and MSNBC and whoever else doesn't admit and lead with their biases, because it's like they're trying to trick people. Whereas, you know, just lead with your bias. Just tell me who you are, you know.

CALLER: Which is exactly what I did. So I'm going to tell you that my liberal bias says that Al Franken's infracture (sic) is not so bad that he should be kicked out of Congress. Because I want him in, because I'm a liberal.

Now, my liberal bias says that Ray (sic) Moore's infractions are severe.

DOC: Because you don't want him in.

CALLER: And should not be in Congress. Now -- now, we have to weigh these things, about how bad the infractions are. If it were found out that Ray Moore were a Jeffrey Dahmer, well, clearly that about trumps all political efforts, right?

DOC: Sure, mass murderer, absolutely.

CALLER: But Kellyanne Moore (sic) implied that it's sort of okay to assume he might be because we need his vote.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: She did that just a couple days ago.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: And I would say with Al Franken, it's sort of okay that he did these little jokes. You know, faux groping and maybe kissing, because I need his vote.

DOC: Yep.

CALLER: So we really have to see that through this lens.

DOC: No, I agree. And we have to be consistent with this. And that's the reason I break down each case. And, I mean, Al Franken's, half of his have been proven because of the photo. Half of them, the kiss is be the not proven. That's still just an allegation. Roy Moore's have not been proven, although it's looking real sketchy for the guy. And I think he probably did based on the, well, I always asked their mom.

CALLER: Come on, man. Come on, man. You know that Ray Moore is guilty. You know it. Everybody knows it.

DOC: Well, no, Kevin, this is what I'm saying, I believe he is. Although it's still allegations. Half of Al Franken's -- I just admitted, I believe he probably kissed her. But that's still just an allegation. The only difference with the picture is we have proof of that. Now, Kevin Spacey, still an allegation. Much of Harvey Weinstein, still allegations.

CALLER: Proven or not?

DOC: Most of those are still allegations. I don't know if there's any proof of his. And, by the way, I would even accept proof in a court of law. So if Harvey Weinstein gets convicted of something, I go, that's proof. If Roy Moore does too --

CALLER: We don't have time to deal with that with Ray Moore. The election is coming in three weeks. There's no chance for a court of law at that point. We have to decide that right now.

DOC: Right. I know. It's frustrating.

It's likely going -- I mean, he's -- his competitor, Doug Jones is leading by a pretty good margin by most polls.

CALLER: Look, Roy Moore is guilty. This is clear. Look at the handwriting. All these handwriting experts. Give me a break. He wrote that in the yearbook. That's obvious. Okay? Maybe the woman added a line about where it was exactly. But this is just a red herring. And you know it. And everybody --

DOC: Well, wait a minute. You still have to admit, it's still an allegation.

CALLER: Okay. It is. It can't be proven. I don't know why Gloria Allred doesn't submit that to a handwriting expert because it's obvious to me that it's true. Just give it up and let an independent handwriting expert verify that he wrote that.

DOC: Now, do you say the same thing -- are you holding -- and I'm fine, as long as there's consistency. If somebody says, Roy Moore is guilty and therefore should not serve. That's fine. You're entitled to my opinion. My frustration is when you wouldn't also include Al in it. I believe both of them -- both of them are just allegations at this point. With that extra caveat that part of Al Franken's have been proven true. You say that about Roy Moore. You would support someone who did that. Do you still support Al Franken serving?

CALLER: Well, it depends on the severity of his offense.

DOC: Okay. Yeah.

CALLER: Now, I'm pro-liberal. So if this offense is not too severe, if he did a little joke, this is an SNL joke, you know, it's bad, but not disqualifying.

DOC: The allegations against Roy Moore seem more severe because the allegations --

CALLER: A 14-year-old. Underage.

DOC: Exactly. Right. Right.

CALLER: Way more severe.

DOC: Right. Right. However, based on what so many progressives and liberals lead with, when it comes to allegations about, you know, the whole Me Too campaign and how women are second class citizens and need the extra attention and whatever, I would say that based on your philosophies, Al Franken needs to be held accountable even for the joke.

CALLER: He does need to be held accountable even for the joke. Absolutely. Look, I am not so partisan that I don't think a wrong is a wrong, when it's a wrong. Okay? But should he be kicked out? I don't think so. I don't think so. If that were true, then half the Congress would be kicked out. Okay?

DOC: Yeah. And, listen, I'm fine with jokes like that. Again, Kevin, I'm just looking for the consistency person to person. So if you lead with your philosophy --

CALLER: It's just not the consistency. It's the severity of the --

DOC: Well, there's consistency within the severity of all that.

CALLER: If what Bill Clinton did was true, then he should be kicked out. And I'm a Democrat. I'm the first to admit that if someone did something seriously wrong --

DOC: Right.

CALLER: -- even if it was my party, they have no business in my government. Even if it means that I lose the vote to what I want to happen. Now, that's what bothers me about Kellyanne.

DOC: You know, and, Kevin, you're the type of person that I -- that I want to deal with. You're the type of person that I want to have those discussions with. And we can find common ground. If you're willing to hold your own people accountable and parties that you would normally support with as little as bias as possible and be consistent like that, that's -- that's what's missing right now. You're the type of person I want to talk to. You're my fellow American.

CALLER: We are all Americans. And I believe there's more commonality between us than most people would like to believe.

DOC: I mean, Kevin, we can both admit Glenn Beck is overweight, right?

(laughter)

DOC: I'll take that as a yes. Kevin, thanks for the call. Have a happy Thanksgiving, buddy.

What was that?

KRIS: Really?

DOC: I'm trying to find common ground here.

KRIS: And you find it on saying that our boss is fat?

DOC: I didn't say fat. I said overweight. He's big-boned.

KRIS: Okay.

DOC: He's big-boned. He's husky. He may have a medical condition. I don't know. I'm just saying overweight, for his own concern. You know, for his own health. I'm concerned about this.

KRIS: Wow.

DOC: Well, I couldn't start with one of the more nuanced things. You have to go to the obvious things, right? Look, we can all admit that the fourth Indian Jones should not exist and is reprehensible. Kal, am I right?

KAL: I don't even speak of it. I don't know --

DOC: Exactly. See that's what I'm saying. You got to go with those big ones, then you get closer and closer to the more difficult ones.

KAL: I disagree with your last statement completely.

KRIS: Yes. Our boss is not fat.

KAL: Not fat at all. He's not overweight at all.

KRIS: He's fantastic. He's awesome. He's good.

DOC: Just letting you go here. Just letting you go. Just letting you go. All right.

KAL: His hands are very, very slender as he writes my paycheck.

KRIS: Yes. Yes. And when he gives me a hug, I literally can get all around him. He can't get around me.

KAL: I don't know about that.

KRIS: Oh, really?

DOC: Okay. All right. All right. So you're saying Glenn Beck is thin then?

KRIS: Yes, he's thin.

DOC: Kal, do you say he's thin?

KAL: I'm sorry, what? These headphones are not working.

DOC: All right. Move on. Well, I was trying to start with something that was more obvious. Perhaps I made a mistake there. All right. Let's go to line 11. Bill in the great state of Florida, thanks for calling the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: I'm doing fine. I have a question, do they realize how much power they gave women? Anyone can hit the lotto or have a successful business and someone can come from the past and say, "Hey, he did this," just to make money, and nothing really happened.

DOC: Yeah. We've given women way too much power. I mean, that whole suffrage thing, that started the ball rolling, Bill. That was the whole -- no, I know what you mean. If you go back 30, 40 years or whatever, women and many people have a legitimate beef when they say women were never believed. You know, that they automatically didn't believe them. And that's the reason now they keep saying, every woman deserves to be heard. The problem is now the pendulum has swung completely the other way, where as long as you accuse somebody, you're believed, and it's believed to be true. And that's a bigger problem.

CALLER: Yep. That's all I had. You guys are doing a great job. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

DOC: Thanks, buddy. Appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving.

You understand what I'm saying there? It's a bigger problem to accuse people and have that accusation be believed with no proof, no rule of law, no justice system. Now, a lot of this stuff is just tried in the court of opinion.

But that's a bigger problem. The idea of --

KAL: The court of opinion matters almost as much.

DOC: Matters. Because we live on social media, Kal. Everything. You can't even have a restaurant without having it rated by four different apps.

KAL: Yep.

DOC: Everything is judged like that. And we share this information. The court of public opinion is now as valuable and important and powerful as it ever has been. Yes, I recognize, as Mitt Romney said, that, you know, innocent until proven guilty is for the justice system. The legal system.

But shouldn't it also apply in the court of public opinion?

Shouldn't it? So while women were not believed and they were victimized, some men were not believed and victimized over the years. And they said, oh, well, I'm not even going to entertain what you're saying about so-and-so touching you inappropriately, because I like that guy and just go away, and that was horrible. That person who was guilty of something got away with it. That's horrible. But worse, to convict somebody -- even the court of public opinion, when they're innocent, I would rather when we're dealing with the justice system, set free 100 guilty people than send one innocent person to jail. Maybe you disagree. I think that's a pretty good system. So that's the reason we discussed this.

Please, keep recognizing which claims are segregations which ones are proven. Half of Al Franken's are proven. She said he kissed her without permission. Forcibly, whatever. And then number two, he groped her. The groping is on film. That part is proven.

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?

5 videos that reveal the WOKE GARBAGE being taught to our kids

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.