RADIOMarch 15, 2024

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which could decide the fate of the federal government’s massive campaign to force social media companies into censoring Americans. “It’s the most important free speech case in the country,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) tells Glenn. Sen. Schmitt, who filed the case while he was Attorney General of Missouri, describes the “Orwellian” things this lawsuit has uncovered: “The full power of the federal government was being used to silence Americans.” But will this be enough to stop our power-out-of-control government?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Give me -- give me some good news, will you?

ERIC: Well, I will. So Monday, Missouri versus Biden is being argued at the Supreme Court.

And it is this -- we've talked about before. It's the most important free speech case in the history of the country.

Certainly in a generation. Because it deals with the federal government, and its vast censorship enterprise, coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech. And what the judge found in the lower court, when I filed it, when I was attorney general in Missouri.

What the judge found at the lower court, was that this was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeks of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

And it was Orwellian. What was uncovered, Glenn. Was tens of thousands of emails and text messages from hiring government officials, to social media giants, saying, take it down.

Or we will launch an investigation. Or we will sue you under anti-trust -- I mean, really, really, the full power of the federal government was to suppress defense, to silence Americans.

So that's been shown in the case. So that now has been appealed by the government.

They want to continue to censor people, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that on Monday.

And how do you think it will go?

KEN: I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

I just think, the case, a lot of it will come down to, what is the government, actually, doing. And were they, in fact, coercing?

Right? Were they using the power of the federal government to get these social media giants, to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?

What makes this case unique is, typically, social media companies are sued by people who are then de-platformed, or their posts have been taken down.

And those go to the Northern District of California, and they're never seen again.

But what's unique in our case, is that we've sued the federal government, themselves.

In the -- and the actors like Jen Psaki and Anthony Psaki.

Anthony Fauci's deposition, to Elvis Chan's deposition, who was, of course, the FBI agent in charge.

Who was pre-bunking the Hunter Biden story, calling a Russian disinformation a hack and leak operation.

Even though, they had the laptop already. They are pre-bunking this you know, getting ready for 2020.

The COVID -- the -- the efficacy of mass.

You know, they were suppressing that speech.

Vaccine issues. Origins of COVID. Where they were shutting anybody down, that were talking about this, coming from the lab in Wuhan. So all that is uncovered in this law.

And if it wasn't for this lawsuit, Glenn, and then later, Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files.

And then later, some of the Congressional hearings, this stuff would still be in the dark.
You know, it would still be a conspiracy theory. But it was happening. You know, we referred to it in the lawsuit, is a vast censorship enterprise.

The number of agencies and people involved here, is breathtaking.

And the -- you know, sometimes willing behavior of social media companies to comply and de-platform and censor people. But in some instances, they didn't want to, actually, do it. And they changed their rules.

GLENN: Right. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

How much of this do you think this is willing? And how much of it was fear of the government?

ERIC: Both. So, yeah.

I mean, these social media platforms, typically were very aligned with the left.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: I think in many instances, Facebook, for example, after 2016, and Donald Trump won, they made it clear, publicly. They were never going to let that happen again.

Right, they were never going to let that happen again.

So I think some of this was overtly political on their part. And they were willing participants. But there are -- there are documents, to uncover. Where they were pushing back.

It was not -- it didn't violate their length of service.

As one judge said in the previous argument. That's a nice social media company you have there, right?

It would be a shame if something happens to us, almost like a mothball, coming from the government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that is.

KEN: So this is, again, the -- the -- all the power that the federal government has, exerting that on these social media companies. To do what they can't legally do themselves.

Which is to censor.

So this case, it's hard -- for me, as somebody who believes deeply in the right to free speech. And what that means for a country. And freedom.

This is, in my view, one of the most important cases. In general, the courts heard in a very, very long time. But certainly, as it relates to the First Amendment. That's the most important.

Because we're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.

GLENN: How is this going to affect the -- the new systems that they're putting in, for mis and disinformation? And the governments, you know, work with Five Eyes and with social media and the rest of the media.

Where they are just training them. And guiding them through mis and disinformation.

Will this case have anything to do with that? Because that's upon us, right now.

ERIC: Absolutely.

And so that is the intention of this, to bust that up. Because there are agencies like CISA that most people have never heard of.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: But, yeah, was very involved, Glenn.

GLENN: Explain what -- explain to the audience, what CISA is.

ERIC: It's basically the agency that was created, not that long ago. The deal was sort of cyber security. Okay?

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And what it found itself doing. In -- you know, during COVID. In particular.

Was under the guise of disinformation and misinformation, as you clearly articulate, that's -- look, that is -- that's a ploy, by one of the tyrants to control speech.

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: The truth of the matter is, you get to say your opinion. Even if someone else thinks it's wrong.

The government doesn't get to shut that down. The government doesn't get to tell you, what you can say and what you can hear.

It's up to the individual, how they want to move forward.

And as they analyze facts, and what their decisions are. Right?

It was sort of like with the mandates. With mask mandates.

People can make their own decisions. They can judge if this is a good thing or not for their families. Same with the vaccine.

So all of this was about command and control, for these sprawling agencies. The other thing that was exposed in this too, Glenn. Is there were universities. University of Washington, Stanford were involved with helping, you know, sort of determine what the disinformation. And misinformation was.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: So, again, they're outsourcing this to their sort of web of allies. To censor Americans.

And this case would prevent that. This case, if the court rules the right way, and I hope that they do. It would essentially, it would be an injunction on all these agencies from engaging in that kind of activity.

It would be a huge win. Now, no matter what happens, the case, of course, stands for exposing all of this.

But the remedy that hopefully will play out. Is preventing this.

But as we talked about before, I've got legislation, in the Senate. That would empower individuals, to sue individual government actors. If they -- if they're right to be --

GLENN: I would --

ERIC: It would -- you can then sue. Yeah, it would. Because in stead of the AG and the state suing, you would have an army of citizens, being able to stand up for their First Amendment rights.

GLENN: You know, the Treasury, I think in cooperation -- I would have to look this up.
I think it was the World Bank. I don't know. Some world organization, got together and ran a -- kind of a war game with the central banks around the world.

And one of the things that came out of that was, we have got to shut down voices.

And this -- this is an exact quote. We have to shut down voices, that disagree, in the case of an emergency. A financial emergency.

That disagree with the actions of the central banks. Even if they are correct, because they could further the collapse of the system.

And I've been saying on the air, for a while now. I know I'm not going to agree with the -- with the global central banks on whatever it is they're planning to do.

The people who created the problem, I don't want designing a new system or anything else. And that snuffs out freedom of speech, quickly. Quickly.

ERIC: It does. It does. And what I think you're seeing play out in realtime, is the -- the broad diffusion of information, which is good.

That's good. Is the democratization of how people get information. You're sort of on the front lines of all this, a long time ago.

What they really fear is that individuals will then take different inputs and make up their own minds.

Free networks, that tell you everything they want you to hear.

And, again, I just think that we ought to be unafraid, I think, as conservatives, to talk about.

This is about -- this is before B freedom. This is about liberty. This is about making up your own mind. And they know how powerful that idea is.

They absolutely -- so what's the game plan?

You saw it play out in COVID. Which is create a crisis. Have a -- in other words, real or manufactured, right?

GLENN: Yep.

KEN: And then you consolidate power. You fearmonger. You other, the othering of those who are dissenting.

I mean, think about it.

Go back in time just a little bit. They were -- in Australia, which we thought was kind of like us, but with cute apples. They had camps.

You know, they have camps!

People were being arrested in parks, for not wearing masks. I mean, we can't memory hole all this stuff.

That is a glimpse of the kind of world that some of these folks want to live in, if you disagree with the regime. And we have to fight that with everything we have, to make sure that doesn't happen.

And also, it depends on us, defending somebody else's rights to say something that we disagree with.

That's their hallmark of it.

They want to bulldoze all of that, Glenn. To have a regime there, and anybody that stands in the way is othered, marginalized, called all sorts of names, lose their jobs, de-platformed.

I mean, that is -- so this whole lecture we get from Joe Biden, on threats to democracy.

We have seen the threats. We have seen the threats. And it is Joe Biden's administration which is censorship enterprise, and trying to throw political opponents in jail.

So I think people are waking up to this. And I think we just have to stand up to this.

GLENN: Good. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching Monday. Maybe you'll come back Monday or Tuesday. And tell us highway it went.

And -- and dissect the arguments, back and forth, between the two.

Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it.

Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri.

ill Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs Lead to a Manufacturing Resurgence in America?

President Trump has declared April 2, 2025, “Liberation Day.” But will his reciprocal tariff plan work and bring manufacturing jobs and prosperity back to America? Glenn speaks with economist Stephen Moore on what Americans can expect once the tariffs hit. Yes, there will be pain, Moore says. But “Trump is the single best negotiator I have ever met in my life and I think, in the end, he will prevail.” Moore also urges the White House to emphasize its regulation and tax cuts along with the tariffs. Plus, he predicts what America could look like a year from now and what Americans should prepare for.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stephen Moore. My good friend, how are you, sir?

Stephen, are you there?

STEPHEN: Good morning.

GLENN: How are you, man?

STEPHEN: Hi, Glenn. Great to be with you.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Today is Liberation Day. How are you feeling?

STEPHEN: Well, you know, I -- I think it's a Liberation Day. But I'm feeling a little maybe trepidation day as well.

We will see what's out there. I don't know exactly what the details are. I don't think anybody does.

Except Donald Trump at this moment.

Look, I'm a free trade guy. I understands the benefits. Benefits both countries.

But I would say, on the other hand. Because this is really a debate. Where I can go at either side of it.

Trump has an important point.

A lot of people don't understand. You have a wise listenership.

But A lot of Americans don't understand, that we're the lowest terror country in the world right now, among all the major trade partners. And what Trump is simply saying is it's not a level playing field. It's not fair. These other countries are not playing by the rules.

And they need to trade with the United States. So they better get their act together, they better start treating us fairly, or he will hit them with these tariffs. I've been listening to you, for the last 15, 20 minutes. There will be some costs to Americans.

In buying cars. And we might see a little rise in prices of things. Trump describes this as, you know, short-term pain for long-term gain. And I think it's for every American to kind of figure out where they stand on this right now.

I'm a little bit worried about it. I will say this, Trump is the single best negotiator I've ever met in my life. And I think in the end, he will prevail.

GLENN: So is he going just for a strange level field?

You can't say it's a -- it's a free market. Because there are tariffs involved. But if our tariffs are only reflecting everybody else's. Then it is a free market, if you will.

Just trying to bring everything level up to the -- you know, the place where everybody else is. Is that the goal here, which would lead me to believe, there might be some short-term effects, because we can turn the negotiating power on. Pretty quickly.

Or is he trying to bring manufacturing back, which is -- I mean, I think he's calling it Liberation Day. Because it harkens back to World War II. And he's liberating us from almost everything that we set up, right after World War II.

He's saying, effectively, with almost -- in almost every category. All of that stuff is broken. And we can't do that anymore.

So is he saying, we're not going to be part of this global thing anymore. We will bring manufacturing back here. And that will be tough. But it's the only way to really, truly grow our economy.

By building things here. Which is it, or is it both? Stephen.

STEPHEN: These are complicated questions. You know, and I can't get into Donald Trump's mind. Look, let's start with why he won this election. He won the election by winning blue-collar, middle class voters into the Republican Party, many of whom have voted Democratic, but realized that Trump was the one who really stood behind them.

I believe, gren, to answer your question about how do we make America number one in manufacturing and, you know, obviously technology. And other industries that are so important.

I believe many of the other things that Trump is doing.

For example, lead article in the Wall Street Journal this week, didn't get a lot of attention.

Front page. That Trump is deregulating our economy. It will reduce costs for American companies, by as much as a trillion dollars. So that will make us very competitive.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

I was just talking about, I'm not seeing enough about cutting the regulation, and also cutting of tax cuts.

STEPHEN: Right. That's right!

GLENN: Because if you don't have those to go along with the tariffs, this isn't going to work. This is just not going to work.

STEPHEN: Exactly. Yeah. Great minds think alike. And that's exactly what I was going to say.

And it was almost like we were saying the same thing.

As you know, you look at the tax plan. As you know, Larry Kudlow and I -- the very first version of that tax plan. Eight or nine years ago.
And it was a huge success. Huge success.

Glenn, one of my frustrations right now, with the Trump administration, with the president. I love this guy. I mean, I would -- I would go through a burning building for him.

And he would do those things for the country. Have you heard him talk a lot about the tax cut in the last month? No. And have you ever heard him talk about deregulation last month? No.

GLENN: No. No.

STEPHEN: No. It's all been about tariffs. And, you know, that's the medicine, but people want to see the good stuff. There are issues that unify the Republican Party, like lowering tax rates, deregulating the economy, pro-America energy policy. Those kinds of things.

Frankly, the tariff issue is the kind of issue that divides us. Some of my best friends are in favor of it. I'm kind of on the fence on it. Others are strongly against it. So I want to see Trump talking a little bit more about all of the benefits of these other things that he's doing.

In fact, I've waited 40 years, Glenn, for a president to say, we're going to dismantle the US Department of Education because it's totally useless. It probably does more damage to our schools. Well, he did it.

I was there when he signed that executive order. That was amazing. He's doing incredible things for our country.

But a lot of it gets overshadowed, because all he's talking about right now is tariffs.

GLENN: Well, he's got to bring a lot of people to the table. So what do you think is going to happen?

He obviously picked 4 o'clock, because the stock market is closed, right?

STEPHEN: I guess so. He may very well be right. I think it's going to be -- nobody knows exactly what he's going to say.

But I think he is going to call for a ten to 20 percent across-the-board tariffs, on just about anything that comes into the US. Now, that will raise prices. I mean, if you put a tax on things that come in, to some extent, you know, consumers will pay the cost of that.

And then, I think he's going to go after certain countries, that are the worst abusers like China.

And, by the way, I'm all in favor of going after China. I think China is a menace. You were one of the first people that started talking about this, 25 years ago. So China is the enemy. One thing I don't get.

And I say this with all due respect, because I do love this president. I don't understand why we've got so much discussion about Canada.

Canada is one of our most important allies. And why aren't we talking about China, and some of these other countries, that are -- you know, dangerous to our economy and national security.

GLENN: I know. Yeah. I've been questioning that.

And so let me ask you, best case scenario. What happens?

What do we look like in a year from now?

STEPHEN: Other countries dramatically bring down their tariffs. Not just tariffs, by the way, Glenn.

Trump made an important point here.

Also, nontariff barriers. The fact that many of these countries have various rules that close the markets to American products. And I'm not just talking about manufacturing products. You know, we're the breadbasket of the world. We have the greatest, most productive farmers in the world. We produce more of our food and agricultural products than any other country.

And yet, many countries lock out our wheat and our corn and our barley and our meat. Our dairy products.

So I think, if this works out. And I would never bet against this president. I think you will see other countries having to open up their markets to American manufacturers and American farmers and American technology. Because, by the way, our technology company is completely discriminated against by these Europeans and these other countries.

So there's a lot to be angry about.

GLENN: Brussels said, I think yesterday, or early this morning. We've got war plans. You know, economic war plans. You go ahead, you launch these.

We're relaunching our own attack. You know, tomorrow.

Bluster or real?

STEPHEN: I'm sorry, who said that?

GLENN: Brussels. Yeah, the EU.

STEPHEN: Oh, the EU. Yeah. Right. Okay. Well, let me address that.

Because, first of all, I'm so sick and tired of these sanctimonious.

GLENN: We don't hang out enough, Stephen. I just love you. Go ahead.

STEPHEN: You know, oh, my gosh. How tear Donald Trump do this. He's starting a trade war.

I know what Donald Trump would say, if he was on your show right now. He would say, what are you talking about?

I'm -- one-third as high as theirs now. They have a lot of nerve to say Trump is causing a trade war!

I mean, you know, it's like -- if I came up to you, Glenn, and punched you in the nose.

And then you tried to fight back. How dare you start a fight with me! I mean, so Trump has the moral high ground here because we do open up our markets.

And the other countries. By the way, there was a very famous incident that happened, I wasn't there.

But my buddy Larry Kudlow was there.

At one of the G20 meetings, I think it was in Ottawa.

And the Europeans were sitting there and complaining and grousing about Trump talking about tariffs. I don't know if you're aware of this.

But Trump, it's on the record. People were there. Trump said, okay! You know what, why don't we all go to zero on tariffs?

They ran to the doors as quickly as they could.

GLENN: I know. I know. I know.

So now, tell me what you think is -- is -- say likely nor a, if things don't go exactly the way. You know, bring this up. Because Paul Krugman. The New York Times.

He said, with Biden. Don't dismiss the careful work of our statistical agencies because you're feeling angry on the check out line.

I don't want to say that about tariffs.

I mean, it's going to make things harder to buy what you need.

And we shouldn't downplay that.

The president is not even downplaying that.

He says, it's going to be a little painful for a while, right?

But people are on the edge financially. And, you know, no amount of political theory helps people pay for the groceries, or makes it feel better when you're paying for the groceries, so I don't want to be in that camp.

What should people mentally respect for, that is a likely scenario, even if it turns out, that it was the right thing? What's coming our way?

STEPHEN: So I think that Trump has -- has -- has made a mistake here, in the sense that, we should have done this tax bill, first!

GLENN: Yeah. I agree.

STEPHEN: That would have been a huge victory. I hope your listeners understand, if we don't get this thing done. We're talking about a 3,000-dollar per family tax increase. On January 1st. And, by the way, every single Democrat in Congress voted for that.

$3,000 per family tax increase. So we should -- I -- I hope as he's talking about these tariffs. He links that to the fact that he's talking about, you know -- a major growth enhancing tax reduction.

You know, I like his idea, for example, Glenn. Where he said, look, if you will bring something into the country.

You will pay a 15 percent tariff on.

But if it's made in America. You will only pay a 15 percent tax.

I love that. Let's do that.

Let's implement that now. What you're doing is giving a little bit of favoritism to some, in Ohio and Maine and Vermont.

GLENN: My guess is, he would have done that, if he could count on the Republicans.

STEPHEN: He can't! I know.

GLENN: I know. There are two groups of people that worry me.

Congress. And, quite honestly, the Justice Department. I don't know where Pam Bondi is, but that's a different story. But Congress needs to do their job.

STEPHEN: And, you know, I think you're right. What are we?

Day 89. I can't keep track.

But it's amazing what Trump has done already. I mean, Trump should have that tax bill -- he has the voter mandate.

Why have the Fed been sitting on this for five weeks?

GLENN: I can't tell you. I can't tell you. So tell me about the -- tell me about the -- tell me about the regulations that you're seeing.

Is the regulation -- because tariffs, tax cuts, regulations.

Tell me about the regulations that you're seeing.

Is it significant? The regulation slicing!

STEPHEN: Enormously so. So remember, you remember. What was the first thing that Joe Biden did when he became president?

GLENN: Energy.

STEPHEN: Yeah. He killed all our energy infrastructure project.

That's something our enemies would have done to us.

Biden did it to us. He shut down the pipelines.

He put incredibly onerous climate change taxes on our goal and gas and coal industry.

Remember Hillary saying, well, that's okay.

The coal miners can become computer programmers or something.

GLENN: That's working.

STEPHEN: Exactly. So Trump is opening up our energy. We have more oil, gas, and minerals, by the way.

You know, this new Secretary of Interior, Governor Doug.

GLENN: Burgum. Burgum.

STEPHEN: Burgum. He's doing an amazing job. You know, we have $10 trillion of mineable, critical minerals in this country. In the mountains of Utah and Dakotas. We can do that.

You know, he's --

GLENN: So, but what I want to ask you.

STEPHEN: He can allow more mergers and acquisitions. So our companies can be more effective. It's all over the board.

It's on transportation policy. And that will cut costs dramatically for American consumers and that's a really positive thing. In fact, when I give talks to small businesses, you give a lot more talks than I do.

I always ask the men and women, I say, which is worse for you? The tax burden or the regulation burden? And you know what they said, the regulations.

GLENN: The regulations, every time.

Caught on Camera: Tesla Vandals Exposed as Hypocritical Activists

Teslas are being vandalized all over the country by leftist “activists” who, Glenn points out, aren’t that smart. Not only do they fail to realize that they’re committing the “hate crimes” they claim to despise, but they’re vandalizing cars that have cameras all over them! Glenn and Stu review the tape of one vandal who completely changed his tune when the car’s owner confronted him. Then, Stu crunches the numbers: Are leftists who burn Cybertrucks doing more damage to the environment than people who drive gas-powered vehicles?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to play a couple of things. First of all, I want to -- Stu, if untilled. We will describe this video here.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: This is a vandal, working some arc on a Tesla. Go ahead. Play this.

There he is. Describing. He's getting out of the car.

STU: He's hiding. Which is always --

GLENN: He's hiding. Now -- he --

STU: Again, these people don't realize that Tesla have cameras. Every angle.

GLENN: Just so stupid.

Okay. So he's hiding in that. Now, he was caught on camera. And so the person that -- who had the Tesla. It was -- his car was keyed. He confronted him in the parking lot. This is satisfying.

Listen to this.

VOICE: Tree service. Free service. (?) how about you pay for the repairs.

Write a check. You bought a Tesla. (?)

VOICE: No. It is a hate crime, sir. Did you write a swastika on there?

VOICE: I'm sorry you're upset. It didn't even work.

VOICE: Did you write a swastika?

VOICE: It's a key, sir. We see it on the video.

VOICE: It's not a keep I was putting my keys in the --

VOICE: Is there a key (?)

VOICE: Yes. Is it a swastika. It's at the police right now. It's being fingerprinted.

VOICE: What do you mean, (?) thankfully, Facebook tracked you down. So your business, your freaking livelihood, everything now. Because you chose to write -- tell Facebook that you're sorry for writing a swastika eye Tesla. (?)

VOICE: I said, I'm sorry.

VOICE: For what? For what?

VOICE: I apologize. I have nothing against the car. And I have nothing against I.

VOICE: So why did you put a swastika against a Tesla?

VOICE: Obviously that's.

VOICE: Because (?) it was bought and paid for. It was bought and paid for a long time ago.

VOICE: That's why it's misguided. And obviously I did not intend to.

GLENN: Total change. What do you mean it's at the police? They're finger printing it? (?), boy, was that, oh. Wow. I feel completely different.

STU: Yeah. His explanation at the end there, say good one.

For like a mean tweet.

Right?

Like, you know, you're right.

I shouldn't. I got carried away.

And I'm upset.

I shouldn't have done that.

You're keying a car. I mean, he says he wasn't keying it.

A lot of people have crayons on their (?)

GLENN: Come out of car. Holding it like a key.

STU: Yeah.

Are Illegals Getting "Maximum" Social Security Benefits?

Elon Musk and Valor Equity Partners CEO Antonio Gracias recently announced a shocking discovery made by DOGE: over 4.8 million “noncitizens” have been given Social Security numbers since President Biden entered office. Even more shocking was the discovery that “the defaults in the system, from Social Security to all of the benefit programs, have been set to max inclusion, max pay for these people — and minimum collection,” according to Gracias. And some of these noncitizens even registered to vote! So, how many were legal immigrants on work visas, and how many were illegal immigrants? Musk and Gracias noted that under Biden, applying for asylum became much easier and there was “no interview” required to obtain these Social Security numbers. Glenn and Stu discuss the story …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Let me get into the SSI thing.

Social Security insurance.

So Elon Musk and a friend of his, they were out in Wisconsin. Doing a -- doing a rally or a town hall.

And they were talking about how -- how they -- what they found on Social Security, is just horrible.

The government was giving away Social Security numbers. And it wasn't haphazard. It was planned. People were coming across the border.

And they were handing them a Social Security number.

And it was clear, I don't remember the numbers. But it's a very high number.

We are paying people who came here illegally. We're giving them Social Security.

When our -- when our old people can't afford to eat, we're just giving this away, to people who are here illegally.

That's crazy!

Crazy! So, you know, we don't survive as a nation. Without some accountability.

And without some common ground. And I don't know -- again, when did it become okay, to cheer or jeer. For somebody who is stopping corruption in our government.

When did it become okay? I mean, how did we get here? How did we get to the point to where people actually cheer the idea of our government, secretly, and denying it, if you ask them.

Giving them taxpayer funded benefits like Social Security, to millions of people, who are here illegally. And most people don't even blink now.

How did we forget? Forget politics.

Forget red team, blue team. Just let me say this. Let me ask your friend. Ask yourself this question.

If the people who you trusted the least were doing this, would you be okay with it?

That's to my son. Would you be okay with it? I would be fine, if you had an Elon Musk in there, doing this.

Would be totally fine, and exposing all of this.

Yep. It's not a gotcha. It's a principle. It's critical thinking. Would you be okay?

You know, critical thinking really needs to make a comeback. Because when we stop thinking critically. We start defending nonsense. Because our side is doing it.

And we lies something bigger than an argument. We lose trust. We lose connection. We lose the ability to have any kind of honest conversations with the people that we love.

So how do you talk to your friends and family, who just don't seem to see, what we see?

Well, it doesn't start with confrontation. It starts with curiosity. Which brings us to questions you can ask.

You ask them, can we just look at them, as if we didn't know who was in office?

Because then we can find our principles.

Would you still feel like this was okay?

What's the limiting principle here?

If this is allowed, for the government to deny that they're doing this, but give all of this money. All of these benefits to people who are here illegally, while denying they're doing it. And it's not within the bounds of the law!

If we can just do this now, is there any limiting principle? What can't we do?

What happens to a country when the law no longer means what it says? Don't accuse. I -- we just need to start inviting people to answer these questions. Show respect for their mommy. Because deep down, most people don't want to be hypocrites.

They don't.

And that's the conflict they're having in their head right now.

Okay. They want to be consistent.

They want to be fair. But sometimes they need a little help connecting the dots. What they'll say is, well, Trump did. Stop them right there. It's not about Trump. It's about policies and principles right now. Can we judge this on its own merits. The dishonest ones will end the conversation there, and they will want to just go back to the outrage machine. But you stay in reality, because we can't see our neighbors as enemies, just because they see the world differently.

But the first step to helping each other is ask honest questions.

Have the courage to listen to their answer. Not be thinking. Oh, good. They said that. Just listen. Even when it makes you really uncomfortable.

Because we have to find our way back to actual truth. We have to find our way back to logic. Because it's not political.

It's just about right and wrong.

And if we can't do this, then the fight isn't about left versus right anymore.

It honestly isn't even about good and evil.

It's about sane versus the insane.

Gaza Turns on Hamas, But Will it Last?

Anti-Hamas protests have sprung up in Gaza after the ceasefire with Israel ended. Is this a sign that Hamas’ days are numbered, with both Israel and the people of Gaza standing against them? Glenn speaks with “Israel and Civilization” author Josh Hammer, who explains why “we still have a way to go to get to a Hamas-free Gaza.” Plus, he explains how this connects to the debate over Trump’s decision to deport Hamas-supporting Green Card holders, like former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil and another student at Tufts University.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Josh Hammer from Newsweek. Senior editor-at-large. Host of America on Trial.

And the author of Israel and Civilization.

Kind of a small topic on that one, Josh.

How are you?

JOSH: Glenn, my friend, I'm doing great.

How are you, sir?

GLENN: Good. First of all -- tell me about the Gaza protests.

I mean, what kind of guts does it take to do that?

JOSH: Well, it takes tremendous guts. And it's tragic that I can some of the individuals, that we've seen thus far. Who have risen up against Hamas.

Have been thrown into prison already.

Or at least -- potentially one or two have been killed by Hamas.

I mean, this is not the -- unfortunately, Glenn. You're dealing with a totalitarian death cult.

That is trying to take Gaza back to the seventh century. And have

And, frankly, take whatever territory they can. And back to that time period as well. It takes tremendous guts.

Unfortunately, we still have a ways to go.

The West, that is, still has a way to go. To get to a Hamas-free Gaza. But ultimately, a Gaza that is totally rid of the Hamas jackboot, is the only kind of Gaza that can play any role for anyone! Jew, Arab, Christian, anyone there.

So Hamas will have to go. It will be a little bit of --

GLENN: Have you ever seen this before?

Because I don't remember this ever happening.

KEVIN: Honestly, I would really have to think. I mean, like nothing comes immediately to mind. Right?

I mean, they had their Civil War back in 2007. So Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Unilateral withdraws. One of the most tragic short-sighted decisions in retrospect in all of Israel's history. And then two years later, there's this bloody Civil War on the streets of Gaza between Hamas and Fatah. That's the purportedly more moderate group, led by (inaudible), if not particularly more moderate there. In fact, then around that time, during the Palestinian Arab Civil War in Gaza, you had anti-Hamas demonstrations. But for the most part since then, Glenn, and we're dealing with roughly 18 years at this point.

They have ruled with such an iron fist and a totalitarian jackboot, that demonstrations like this are certainly few and far between.

GLENN: Tell me about Tufts.

JOSH: Look, you're dealing here with people that have to go.

I mean, whether it's a situation. Whether it's this kidney doctor at Brown University. Whether it's Mahmoud Khalil. Whether it's this researcher -- I saw headline's out of New Haven, Connecticut.

I'm actually flying to New Haven tomorrow and giving talks at Yale University. I saw Yale Law School, is now cutting ties with a senior researcher there.

I prefer her questionable ties to a terrorist organization.

I mean, first of all, Glenn. What does it say, about our upper echelons of American education?

Tools like Yale, Columbia, Tufts, which is no academic slouch in its own right.

I mean, what does it say, that we're dealing with the level of miscreants and jihad connected actors on these campuses, that we're even having these conversations.

GLENN: Oh, jeez. I've been following Yale for years.

Yale had this going right after 9/11.

They were bringing people in that were jihadists.

STU: Incredible.

JOSH: They certainly were! And I think back to those first days as well in Harvard. After October 7th there, when there was thirty-two, 33 Harvard student groups. Whatever the exact number was, that came out in unison, to blame Israel for their own Nazi-esque pogrom that was inflicted against them there.

I mean, Glenn, sometimes I actually pause, and I'm not even making this up. I actually ask myself: If 9/11, God forbid were to happen today, would the faculty lounge at Harvard, Yale, and the schools like that, actually cheer for the United States, or take the other side?

I think it's an entirely fair question to ask. I genuinely don't know the answer.

Ultimately, these deportations proceedings, whether it's Mahmoud Khalil, whether it's the Turkish student at Tufts University, the kidney doctor at Brown. The law in this is pretty straightforward: If you're not a United States citizen, if you're anything from a short-term travel visa, all the way up to an LPR.

I.e. a green card. If you are anywhere on that spectrum. If you're an alien, you don't have the permanent right to be here.

You are simply here at the discretion of we, the people.

And as Justice Robert Jackson, who was actually the dissenter in the Japanese internment case of Korematsu. They called him the great dissenter because of that.

Even he said, in a separate 1953 case, called Shaughnessy at the Supreme Court.

He said that due process does not entail any alien with the right to remain here in the United States, against the national will. So the law is actually pretty straightforward.

What we're seeing here are the paracisms of this sprawling anti-Trump judicial insurrection. But over the course of time, these folks are going to get deported. I feel pretty confident.

GLENN: So I am very worried about.

For the first time, now. I think it's 47 percent of the American people are now backing Israel.

That's not good!

Especially when you look at -- I mean, your book talks about it.

Israel and civilization.

Israel goes down, those who don't support Israel.

It will not go well for you. Israel is fundamental to the west!

JOSH: And the book, Glenn. Israel and civilization.

Which you have such a beautiful blush for. And truly can -- thank you so much for that. The word Israel in the title is of something a double entendre.

Where it refers to the state of Israel. But also, to the children of Israel. The Jewish people.

As people understood, all throughout history.

You come for the Saturday people first, as a near steppingstone to get to the Sunday people.

So Karl Marx is actually a great example here. Karl Marx, one of the 19 century's most infamous self-hating Jews himself.

Has this infamously anti-Semitic treaty. It's called Omni-Jewish Question, which he publishes a few years prior to the Communist manifesto.

He's not mincing words about his dripping disdain for Judaism, the actual religion. But what was Karl Marx's actual goal? His ambition.

And thank God, thus far, an unsuccessful goal, has been nothing less than the overthrowing of Western capitalism and Western Christendom. These civilizations that Christians have built, off of the Judaic Jewish Foundations there. So Hamas and their charter from the late 1980s, the anti-Semites are very clear.

Again, you come for the original people in the book. And then eventually, you will come to -- to quote, the many years ago, referred to as the great Gentile offshoot of the original -- Moses, the children of Israel there.

And then looking at the geopolitical chessboard, the capitalist state of Israel is just the geopolitical version of this exact argument. They come for the state of Israel.

Whether that's the economic forum or the World Health Organization. The nine nations. The globalists, the transnational folks there.

They come for Israel because, again, Israel represents a shining beacon of the geo-Christian Western civilization. But another interesting point that I argue in the book, Glenn. They also come after Israel is because they are globalist. They hate the nation state. They hate nationalism. Isreal is actually the world's first real nation state, I argue. Going back to Biblical times.

When they unite the tribes of Israel in Jerusalem, that's the predecessor in antiquity to the modern post-1648 West nation state. So their diabolical credit, they're actually being kind of logically consistent here.

If your goal, à la George Soros, Open Society Foundation. Klaus Schwab is to eradicate all borders. I call it the geopolitical version of the John Lenin song Imagine, the worst song of all time. This notion that we're trying to eradicate all the things that makes us human.

It actually makes a lot of sense, that you would start with the oldest nation, that is the nation of Israel. So for all these reasons, and then more, Glenn, people who care about the West. Who care about the nation state.

Jews, Christians. All those who care about our joint shared intelligence.

You have to care about this stuff.

STU: Well, I mean, it's because of Israel, that we have in the Old Testament. That we have a personal one on one relationship with a God, that is personal to us.

Listens to us. Speaks to us, as individuals.

It's the beginning of the power of the actual individual, and the power against totalitarianism.

And kings, that are dictators. I mean, that's the source of all freedom. It starts there, in the Old Testament.

JOSH: It does. I mean, I argue in the book, Israel and civilization. That today what we call Western Civilization, actually begins with God's revelation to Mt. Sinai. The day that he brought his revealed word to a people there. And that so much that we take for granted today is directly downstream of that.

You know, Glenn, I have a very interesting example that I like to talk about.

Sometimes, in the past. Does and it's all horrible

But one thing we've heard from the left, Glenn. Over and over again.

They love to say. Nobody is above the law.

I agree with that.

I totally agree with that. Even more important, I have to ask our friends on the left. Do you guys know where that principle comes from?

The notion that no one is above the law. The king is not above the law.

That literally is from the book of Deuteronomy.

I sometimes wonder, if they actually understood that. If they understood the Biblical origins of everything today, just much more depressed they would be there.

The point of this book, Glenn. To call on Jews and Christians. To remember where we came from.

And to engage in nothing less ambitious than a joint and Biblical restoration project.

Because without that inheritance and without understanding that and doubling down on that, I genuinely do fear that we will not be able to turn back the tide against these very real hegemonic forces.

Wokism. Islamism. And what I call global and neoliberalism today.

GLENN: We're talking to Josh Hammer. He's from Newsweek, the editor at large. Also, his book is Israel and Civilization.

You know, I'm watching what's happening over in Europe.

And I just don't know what it's going to take. I don't know if you saw this.

But Marine Le Pen was -- was banned from running. They put her in jail, and then banning her from running for office in France.

That's not good.

They're just going to keep pushing people further and further and further, until you get really scary people.

And, you know, you've got these countries being overrun by Islamists. Not Islam.

Islamists. People who believe in Sharia law, and their way or the highway.

And, boy, I mean, how long before they will wake up, and do they wake up in time?

KEVIN: So I did see the Le Pen news. I wish I could say, I'm shocked. Unfortunately, I'm not shocked.

Because I have a high threshold for being shocked at this point. But whether it's France. Whether it's a very similar situation in Romania to their right-wing politician, a man named George Escue. Whether it's Donald Trump and the lawfare that we were just talking about here. Whether it's in Israel. Bibi Netanyahu is facing his own version of Deep State lawfare against him as well there.

All around the world, you see in these first world democracies, the Deep State, in overweening judiciary. They are dramatically overstepping, ironically, Glenn, in the name -- or the purported name of, quote, unquote, democracy. That may be the most ironic part of all of this there. When you see people like these judges and prosecutors in France, the prosecutors here in the United States.

People like Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith. They're always saying that what they're doing is in the name of the people. That what they're doing is in the name of democracy there.

But, you know, this too can relate back to I think the Biblical inheritance there.

Ultimately, when you understand, you were just saying, that there is a God. He is real. He is created in his image. And we can have a personal relationship with him, that he reveals his word. His truth. And so forth there.

When you understand this and you live your life according to that, according to those manners and those precepts and those values and so forth there, it puts your head in a fundamentally different place. And you're going to be much less likely, I think. To dramatically overstep your bounds there.

The American founders totally understood this, by the way.

And all of media said, American founders totally understood that without this Biblical foundation, where you understand that what happens here in this world is important, because we have free will. And you are endowed to free will by your creator.

But ultimately, it's subservient to something much more powerful there. That's why George Washington in his farewell address, that religion.

Not just fate, or not just morality. But actually revealed Biblical religion is the most indefensible safe guard for truth and Republican self-governance there.

And I do fear that we're starting to lose that, which is part of the reason I wrote this book. Israel and civilization.