John Ziegler's Crazy Prediction Comes True (Sort Of): Bush 41 Will Vote for Clinton

John Ziegler with Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on Glenn's radio program last week, suggesting that George W. Bush might endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Three or four days later his prediction came true --- sort of. Another George Bush --- George Bush 41 --- said he was voting for Hillary. 

"Does this count, John?" Glenn asked.

"I'll take it, Glenn. One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition," Ziegler joked.

Standing by his intial prediction, Ziegler said George Bush 43 could still cast his vote for the Democratic nominee.

"If this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president," Ziegler clarified.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these bi-partisan questions:

• What would make Trump winning the White House an unprecedented situation?

• What favor might Bill Clinton ask of his brother from another mother?

• Is Barbara Bush voting for Trump?

• How much would TheBlaze pay for a pay-per-view interview with Babs?

• What did George W. Bush tell Glenn in the Oval Office?

• What one question could Lester Holt ask at the debate to sink Hillary?

• What's with American blue bloods?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN:  John Ziegler from Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on this program last week, and he suggested that George W. Bush might end up endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.  Three or four days after he made that prediction, George Bush 41 said that he was voting for Hillary.  We wanted to get him back on the phone.  

Does this count, John?

JOHN:  I'll take it, Glenn.  One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition.  

I -- just to clarify, my theory when you had me on last week was, look, if this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president.

GLENN:  But who does that -- who do you think that actually helps?  Because you will immediately hear -- a lot of people, even me -- I mean, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush and his policies, you know, with prescription drugs and the border and everything else.  He was not the right guy for many things.  Constitutionally, the Patriot Act.  So does this work for or against?

JOHN:  Well, let's pretend it happens.  

And, by the way, you know, as interesting as 41's vote for Hillary would be, how much would TheBlaze pay for the pay-per-view rights on the Barbara Bush interview on why she's not voting for Trump?  That's what I really want to see.  That's a 29.99 deal right there.  I want to see Barbara Bush's interview because I think she would be the one to tell it like it really is.

GLENN:  Right.  Right.  Yes.

JOHN:  But if this were to happen -- if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, but it's just the beginning -- and if George W. Bush really is willing to grab a bat at the bottom of the ninth inning with the score tied, and Bill Clinton calls him up and says, "Hey, I'm not sure we can get this runner home.  We need your help, George" -- if that happens, you know, from his brother from another mother, then I think it would have an impact.

Now, would it be a complete game-ender?  No.  But the reality, Glenn, is you would then have an unprecedented situation.  You would have a situation where a guy who has never held elected office, never won a major war, and would have every living president from both parties anti-endorsing him.  I'm talking about obviously Donald Trump here.

Now, we live in an era where the establishment is not seen very highly, especially on the Republican side.  But there are still enough furious people out there of both parties, I think, where that would make a difference.

Like, for instance, how he would win -- how Trump would win North Carolina if George Bush did that, I have no idea.  There's a lot of very educated moderates in North Carolina, and I just don't see how he could win that.  I think it would also impact New Hampshire, Maine, where the Bushes are still very well respected

GLENN:  Yeah, well, if he loses the Carolinas or New Hampshire, he's pretty much done.  Is that still true, Stu?

STU:  Yeah.  Carolina, for sure.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And, by the way, one path to make Trump win North Carolina is have Black Lives Matter burn the cities down in it.

GLENN:  Yes, that is.

STU:  Because you want to see people push back against something, they'll do it there.  

JOHN:  You know, that's an interesting theory, and I've heard people say that.  And it might be true.  

Having lived in North Carolina though, I view North Carolina no longer as a Southern state.  I think North Carolina is very wussified.  I think the white people in North Carolina are as likely to say, "Oh, my gosh, we've got to help this Black Lives Matter thing," than they are to say, "Wow, this is repulsive.  We've got to rush to Donald Trump."  That's just my gut feeling, having lived there.

STU:  Hmm.

GLENN:  So let me go here:  We were talking about George Bush doing this.  And we've pretty much come to the conclusion -- I mean, I sat with Donald Trump -- or, not Donald Trump.  George Bush.  

Do you know George by any chance, John?

JOHN:  I don't.  But my marriage is intact because I somehow got George W. Bush to take a picture with my wife and I backstage at The Tonight Show a couple years ago.  And my wife is a huge fan.  But I do not know the Bushes, no.

GLENN:  Okay.  Okay.  So I don't really either.  But I happened to be in the Oval once where George Bush was in kind of a testy mood towards people who didn't necessarily like him.  And so I had finger pointed in my chest several times.

And he is -- he's rock solid on a few things.  For instance, I made the point off the air that -- that George Bush said to me, "I don't care if I'm the most hated man in the next 50 years, I'm prepared for that because I know this is right."

JOHN:  Right.

GLENN:  However, that being said, that was about terrorism and not about politics.  The other thing that can be said about George Bush is he is G.O.P. through and through.  How would George Bush do that and throw the party and Reince and everybody else completely under the bus?

JOHN:  Well, his father apparently already is willing to do that.

GLENN:  So you don't buy that this was a Kennedy that was having a private conversation and George H.W. Bush had no intent that that was supposed to get out?

JOHN:  That's quite possible.  But the reality is, there were a lot of people there, and, you know, the Bush team did not deny it.  It's also -- I mean, you know how these blue bloods work.  I mean, that would be a great betrayal if there was not at least some understanding that it was okay for this to get out.  But it's the Kennedys.  So who the heck knows?

So, look, I'm not pretending that -- I do not believe this is going to happen because I don't think it's going to be that close in the closing days.  But I do believe that George W. Bush, to your point, Glenn, is a guy who cares more about the country than he cares about his own personal self-interest or reputation.

GLENN:  Yeah.

JOHN:  And oddly enough, I think the thing that would keep him from doing it is he probably has so much class that he would be -- he doesn't want to be perceived as doing this as revenge for his brother Jeb, or something along those lines.

GLENN:  Yes, yes.

JOHN:  I mean, that's where we are in this country.  As you well know, when an act of courage and principle is ridiculed as somehow not being that because people want to rationalize it in whatever way they can.  And, of course, the Trump fans are, you know, black belts in rationalization.

GLENN:  Well, quite honestly, both sides are.  I mean, Barack Obama supporters --

JOHN:  Oh, absolutely they are.  But I used to think that our side was better, Glenn.

GLENN:  Yes, I did too.

JOHN:  I really did.  But you want to see rationalization, wait till White House spokesperson sean Hannity on a Friday night announces that, "Oh, by the way, the wall isn't going to happen," and the Trumpsters will rationalize that somehow that was a great idea too.  So we're not living in a world where rationality makes any sense anymore.  Has any value.  The facts don't matter.

But, look, so my whole point on this thing is, I think the Bush family cares about the institution of the presidency.  I think they care about the country.  And I think that they know that Donald Trump has no business being president of the United States, regardless of what the other alternative is, when -- as liberal as she is, as horrible as she is, as corrupt as she is, as much of a liar as she is, at least she seems relatively qualified for the position from a traditional standpoint.  And I think that that's where the Bushes are coming from.  And I don't think that's illogical and I don't think that that's a situation where they're trying to pursue their own self-interests or get revenge for Jeb getting crushed in the primaries by this buffoon Donald Trump.

GLENN:  Last question:  You wrote in Mediaite the other day that you thought Condi Rice and Dick Cheney will start to come out.

JOHN:  Well, no.  Dick Cheney won't because his daughter obviously is running.  And he's got his hands tied.  I think that if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, I think we will see Condoleezza Rice take a shot at Donald Trump's lack of foreign policy, jobs.  And I'd love to see that.

By the way, since this is the last question, let me throw out another quirky prediction for you.

GLENN:  Go ahead.

JOHN:  I think that Trump's big chance on Monday and the worse thing that could happen for Hillary is if Lester Holt decides to ask the Colin Kaepernick question.  I think that is potentially deadly on Monday for Hillary Clinton because that is one area where her hands are completely tied, and Donald Trump can hit a grand slam/home run on an issue that I believe the vast majority of the American people are on his side and not on hers.  But she can't do anything about it because of the racial politics involved.

GLENN:  How should she answer that?

JOHN:  There's no good answer.  She's got to give the greatest "I love free speech" answer in the history of the world, and I don't think she's capable of that.

GLENN:  Yeah.  No, we were just talking about this.  This could be game-changing for Donald Trump.  She better have a different strategy if she wants to win than the 17 Republicans that didn't want to hit him.  And I don't know if she's capable of hitting him without looking horrible.

She's so horrible, that I don't know how she does it.  However, I don't know how he hits her without looking like a big man beating up on an old lady.

JOHN:  Well, if I was advising her, I would have one-liners.  And I would -- by the way, if he decides to be presidential, I would hit him with, "It's interesting to see that you've decided to be low energy today, Donald."  You know, go -- basically use some of his own medicine against him to provoke him into being unpresidential, which I think would probably be a tactic that would work.  

But I don't believe that we're a substantive people anymore.  I think substantively, she will win the debate, but it's always about style points in this day and age.  And so who the heck knows.  

I do think the media will protect her from a disaster.  But overall, she'll probably win the debate.  And I don't think it's -- but it probably won't matter very much because very few people are in a situation where they want to change their minds at this point anyway.

GLENN:  John, thank you very much.  Talk to you again.  

JOHN:  Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN:  God bless.  You bet.  

John Ziegler.  

I think he's fantastic.  What an interesting mind he has.  

Featured Image: Advanced copies of '41: A Portrait of My Father,' by Former U.S. President George W. Bush, are stacked in the George Bush Presidential Library Center on the Texas A&M University campus on November 11, 2014 in College Station, TX. Bush gave a talk about the book moderated by former White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., who also served as Secretary of Transportation for U.S. President George H.W. Bush. (Photo by Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images)

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.