The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guests: Joanna Mendez, Josh Hammer, Tim Pool & Mark Skousen | 6/27/19

Episode Date: June 27, 2019

Best on the Program | 6/27 Buzz Word Debates - h1 The Moscow Rules (w/ Joanna Mendez) - h2 SCOTUS Rulings (w/ Josh Hammer) - h2  Google Bias & Censorship (w/ Tim Pool) - h3 Freedom Fest Dot Com (w/ Mark Skousen) - h3  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, podcasters. We've got a great show for you today. Pact. It is packed. I mean, we had so much that we just couldn't even get to. We start with Elizabeth Warren and the debate last night. And it's fun if you didn't have to actually watch it. And don't watch tonight's debate. We'll watch it for you.

And then we'll make it fun. Also, the author of the book Moscow Rules, this is the woman who really was inspired. The CIA was kind of inspired to hire her by watching Mission Impossible. She was in the disguise unit of the CIA. In fact, she's the one that really put it together. Her husband was our CIA's Q. And she talks a little bit about the biggest threats that we have and is Moscow a big threat. Josh Hammer gives us the SCOTUS rulings and what they all mean.

We talked to Mark Skousen about Freedom Fest, which you can still get the tickets to. I'm going to be going there and I'm speaking about socialism. It's FreedomFest.com. Go there. Also, Tim Poole is on with us. Great conversation with Tim about Google, their bias, their censorship, and what's coming. All on today's podcast. You're listening to The Best of the Blenbeck program.

Patriot Mobile. Okay. Here we are talking about how people are using your money, using you, your product, you as a product. And none of us like it. Well, what about Patriot Mobile? Have you thought about your phone companies? Because your phone companies, AT&T, they're giving money hand over fist to plan parenthood. These phone companies are working against the things you believe.

And so every time you use your phone, you're actually helping fund the fight for abortion. It's nuts. Now, you could say, well, I'm not going to use those. And then what are you going to do? Of course you're going to use them because it's good service, right? so you need something that has great service, has a great price, will save you money, and will make it flawless and seamless to switch over. That is Patriot Mobile.

They don't give their money to left-wing causes. These guys are patriots that believe in the Constitution. They have already supported with $2 million free speech just from starting this very small. They take some of their profits and they turn it in to. you know, Second Amendment, pro-life, et cetera, et cetera. You're going to get the same great service. You're going to save money and this company actually is on your side. Please switch right now.

Patriotmobile.com. Use the promo code Beck. You'll get a free month of service when you switch over. Patriotmobile.com slash back. Patriot mobile.com. promo code Beck. Elway, Ellingfei, Retipe, Udge, Ely Ray excited a

Ute Alte Bout a Astley Night Nays a debate Day I'm not supposed to acknowledge that right

We're just supposed to act as if you're speaking English Just like yeah I'm just reaching out to a new constituency The people that speak Latin, pig Latin And it's not my first language so I'm sorry if I butchered it, but I want you to know that I'm just like you. I'm part of your community. Yes, and that proves it. Nothing proves it like awkwardly blurting out language like that.

Right. Uste. Oh, okay. Because I, yeah. Yeah. Oh, man. Did you see it when, when was it Beto first broke out, he was the first one to come out of the game with Spanish? Yeah.

And Cory Booker and Elizabeth, Warren, their faces were like, oh. But Cory Booker is the perfect example. It was such a Cory Booker moment because it was being shared all over the internet. Like look at Cory Booker. He's like, oh, rolling his eyes at Beto. But he did it too. That's why he was rolling his eyes. He was like, crap, this guy took my good idea. He was mad that later on he was going to speak in Spanish awkwardly and is pissed off that Beto did it first. It was so bad. It was so bad. Okay, because I'm excited to get to some of the highlights. Let's start with Warren on Guns.

Here's Elizabeth Warren on Guns. In this period of time that I've been running for president, I've had more than 100 town halls. I've taken more than 2,000 unfiltered questions. Oh, that's crazy. And the single hardest question I've gotten, I got one from a little boy and I got one from a little girl. Oh, boy.

These are hard. And that is to say, when you're president, how are you going to keep us? safe. Oh, boy. That's our responsibility as adults. Seven children, but as adults. Seven children will die today from gun violence.

Stop. Stop. Stop. Stu. Seven children will die today from gun violence? Do you ever heard that stat? I don't know the breakdown of... Yeah.

How are we getting to seven children will die today from gun violence? Well, I mean, you know, there's... Obviously, they're going to probably count... suicides in there, I'm assuming. Yes. But I mean, you know, there's tens of, like, what is it? Roughly 30,000 people a year die, so if, from guns. So if you're counting suicide and you're counting like Chicago.

Yep. You know, and where are you talking about, are you saying school shootings essentially? No, no, no. She says not in school shootings. She set out by the pool, you know, just from, just from guns. Okay, well, wait a minute. There's a difference between somebody, some kid getting a hold of a gun that shouldn't, you know, because parents didn't lock it up or whatever. And they're, you know, in the, you know, in the playroom and there's dad's gun.

They pick it up and they accidentally shoot themselves. There's a difference between that and suicide. That and, you know, gang violence. There's a huge difference. Where is the cutoff for kids? Right. I mean, it really does depend. I mean, if there's 30,000 roughly gun deaths in the United States, if you include everything,

and then if seven a day for children would be about 2,500, right, for the day. So, like, I think that's, it's not out of the line of what you would think is the number. Of course, it does matter what you're counting. How? Yeah. Exactly. What they're trying, of course, the picture they're trying to paint is seven kids a day get shot as they're just sitting in school in the cafeteria because of school shootings.

They're trying to. Well, she says, go ahead and play the rest. Children and teenagers. And they won't just die in mass shootings. They'll die on sidewalks. They'll die in playgrounds. They'll die in people's backyards. Gun violence is a national health emergency in this country.

Stop. Really important. A national health emergency. Why do you think they are pushing Trump on the border? Why do you think they are making it so he only can take emergency presidential powers to do it. They want him to do that so badly. So badly. Because they're going to do the same thing right here.

Correct. And they're setting it up right now. This is a national health emergency. We have to do something about guns. Now, she goes on as only Elizabeth Warren could possibly do in smoke signals. Watch. And we need to treat it like that. We can do the things that are sensible. We can do the universal background checks. We can ban the weapons of war. But we can also double down on the research and find out what really works, where it is that we can make the differences at the margins that will keep our children safe. We need to treat this like the virus that's killing our children. You didn't address the federal government needs to go and figure out a way to get the guns that are already out there. What I think we need to do is we need to treat it like a serious research

problem which we have not done. A serious. Stop, stop, stop. We have not done a serious research on what works, what doesn't work. Look at John Lott's book. There's a lot of serious research in that. It doesn't seem like that one, though. Yeah, the things you're doing

in research shows it doesn't make any difference. Everything you propose makes no difference. And there's lots of serious research done on their assault weapons ban, which show of no effect at all. They had an assault weapon. ban. It was repealed because it didn't work. Well, expired, but yeah, it wasn't renewed because it did

nothing. Correct. The much more aggressive policies in places like Australia also, lots of serious research done on those that showed that there was no impact whatsoever on homicide rates. But, you know, hey, let's, this is a very common left-wing talking point, which is they won't even let us research guns. You can research anything you want. But they, A, they're talking about the federal government paying for that research, which of course is a big, part of it. And one of the protections, this goes back years, and Democrats were involved in this at the beginning, was we aren't going to allow money to go and do all sorts of research on gun owners because there's, you know, the concept being that what they're going to do is, is A, violate the

privacy of gun owners, which, and B, try to overturn this right of theirs that is constitutionally guaranteed. So to get certain restrictions on guns, they said, well, we will promise you that we're not going to make a registry of gun owners and all these things. Now, of course, obviously, it's been some time. People forget that. So they've completely reversed their position on it. But this was not a right-wing position. It used to be very American that you don't want the government going in and, you know,

no, a register is the first way, the first step to gun control and gun banning. And Cory Booker called for that last night. I love here. Let's go to Booker on guns. Well, first of all, I want to say. my colleague and I both have been hearing this on the campaign trail. But what's even worse is I hear gunshots in my neighborhood. I think I'm the only one.

I hope I'm the only one on this panel here that had seven people shot in their neighborhood just last week. Someone I knew, Shahad Smith was killed with an assault rifle at the top of my block last year. All right, stop. Does anyone think that Cory Booker lives in the ghetto? I do not. Okay.

What he just, let me just transatlose. political bull crap into English because I speak political bull crap now. Not fluently. It's not my first language, but I've learned it. Well, first language is pig Latin, right? Pig Latin, okay? But I also speak political bull crap. So let me translate this to English.

I hope I'm the only one. I think I am because I'm the only one that lives in New Jersey that has some of the most stringent laws. but even in the really nice sections of New Jersey, because, you know, I'm a pretty powerful guy and I'm not going to be living in the slums. I'm not going to be living in, you know, places, you know, like Chicago, you can live it up or you can live in places where they're shooting people all the time.

But my town and my state, and the town that I was, you know, mayor of, is so horrible through and through that even the nice neighborhoods where a senator can live, it's so bad that I'm hearing gunshots in the middle of the night, and seven people were shot in my neighborhood. So what I'm really trying to say is, good Lord, help us.

New Jersey's completely out of control. Anyway, that's what he actually was saying, yes, last night. But the political speech was, oh my gosh, guns are just, guns are out of control. I mean, I think I'm the only one, but it's coming to your neighborhood, too. Well, yes, if you live in New Jersey.

It's a weird thing to brag about, considering he was in control of the city through large portions of this time. He could have had an influence in theory about how the city was doing. No, well, no, you can't because they've already enacted all of the bands. New Jersey, you don't want to go to New Jersey with a gun. Oh, believe me, I know that. I used to live a block away from it. and legitimately terrified of it because I lived one block from the river that separates Pennsylvania, New Jersey. I was on the Pennsylvania side.

And Pennsylvania has, you know, relatively normal, I would say, gun laws, you know, not super, you know, it's not lax, but not restrictive. And so, you know, you might put, if you have a gun, you might put it in your trunk, you might have it with you. You know, there's a lot of things you might do. You go to prison, no question. But you go across that bridge, one step into New Jersey, they pull you over and you could go to prison for years. Yeah. I was terrified to take it anywhere because I was mistakenly forget it in the back

or go to the gas station that I would go to that's right across the bridge because of course gas is inexpensive in New Jersey in comparison so you'd cross the bridge a lot of times and if you forget and you could legitimately go to prison for multiple years and it's happened to people to average citizens. I would fly out

of Newark. I remember distinctively one time I flew out of Newark, New Jersey and I was taking my gun because I was going out west and I was going to go do some shooting. So I bring my gun with me and I remember having like an hour long conversation. Okay, I'm going into New Jersey. Okay, don't have any hollow points.

Make sure there's no hollow points. You know, what is the magazine supposed to be? Is it, is the magazine supposed to be in the glove box and the gun is in the trunk of the car, and then walking in with a locked case into the airport in New Jersey. And I was treated like I was a terrorist. I brought the gun up,

and they told me I had it in two separate cases. I had the ammunition in one locked case, and I had the gun in one locked case, okay? Unless the gun or the ammunition suddenly became Houdini, and they were also sexually attrously. to each other. There was no way they were going to get out and mate on the plane

underneath the plane. Oh my gosh. The airline told me I needed it in three pieces and three pieces of locked luggage. And so we had to do all of that. And then the airline lost my luggage.

They shipped it up to Canada. So my gun was going around a carousel up in Quebec, Canada, and nobody approached it for a while because the entire nation of Canada surrendered to my luggage. It's crazy what's going on. But Cory Booker, he's afraid for his life. So last night, I think we were very clear.

Your gun rights are going to be infringed, if not taken away, if these radicals find themselves in office. And it was important to notice that all of them talked about an emergency. This is why they are not doing anything down on the border because they need Trump to declare an emergency through executive order and take over the border. Once he does that, they are all going to sit in their office and laugh. They'll be outraged, but they will laugh because they know when they get into office, it's a national emergency on climate change. It is a national emergency on gun laws. it's a national emergency on speech. It will become a dictatorship.

No ifs, or buts, once you start going and legislating or not legislating, just declaring national emergencies, President has all the power he wants. And if you get somebody who wants to do that and start bypassing the system, which I believe the Democrats are now setting up for, that's a problem. And it's a problem for Republicans. It's a problem if Democrats do it. It's a problem.

The best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn. And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed. His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast. I want to bring on our guest, John A Mendez. She is the author of The Moscow Rules. She is the former chief of disguise at the CIA. And we'll get into some of her.

other things and how you know her in just a second. First of all, John, welcome to the program. How are you? Thank you. I'm great. It's good to be here. So you were the former chief of disguise, which the CIA, if I understand this right, didn't have until they started

watching the old Mission Impossible series. And they were like, hey, John, can we do that? Guy's capability. But it was not dormant. It wasn't widely used and it wasn't really well thought of. It was my husband who really went in and stirred some creativity to what we did with disguise, how we used it, and it became just an incredible tool. So how come we weren't using, when you think of spies, you do now think of Mission Impossible, which, by the way, we don't have the masks like that, right?

We do have masks. We have, we watched Mission Impossible. for years sort of out of the corner of our eyes while we were developing our own program. What they show in Mission Impossible on screen is a lot of CGI. It's a lot of fudging. What we needed was something you could put on in 10 seconds and take off in five, and something that you could brief someone in, something that animated, something that actually was realistic. And we developed that, and we used those extensively.

And the guy who first did the work on Planet of the Apes, is he the guy who helped develop the masks with you? That's where it began with us. His name was John Chambers. He was the first Hollywood makeup expert to get a star on the Walk of Fame. He did Planet of the Apes. We didn't want to turn people into apes. But we were really interested in his technology and his materials. That was really the beginning of our mask program.

We went way past what they do in movies. They have lights. They have retakes. They have all kinds of opportunities to make it right. We had one shot when we're using a mask on the streets of Moscow. And it had to be difficult because without lights and masks and heavy makeup and everything else, that sometimes, you know, when you see people in heavy makeup, et cetera, it's very obvious. and it would be really difficult to make it look real and not like a rubber mask.

You had to be able to put it on. With the hair and everything. So with the hair and everything, you would just pull it over your head like a stocking cap? Yeah, you would pull it on and you would pull it off. I stood in front of George H.W. Bush in the Oval Office when he was president. I was wearing one. I had just briefed him. I told him I was there to show him a new product. He said, well, he looked at my hands.

He looked around. I didn't have a bag. He said, well, where is it? And I did a Tom Cruise reveal, actually. I put my finger under one side of it and just peeled it off of my face. Oh, my gosh. Nunu was there. Bob Gates was there, and they were all.

Incredulous. Oh, my gosh. You and your husband also are the author of Argo, which was made into a movie. you went in, or your husband, your husband did. You did not go in, did you? I did not. Yeah. I watched from the sidelines, holding my breath.

I bet. Tell me a little bit. Tell me about that in case anybody doesn't know about Argo and what you and your husband were involved in. Well, Tony Mendez was an artist. He was hired as an artist by the CIA. And when the Iranian Revolution happened and 60-some Americans were taken hostage, six, the Canadians held on.

to these American, we call them house guests. They kept them for it. But someone had to come up with a way to get them out of the country. And Tony, with his connections to Hollywood, came up with an idea of disguising them as a Hollywood location scouting party, looking for just the right bizarre for the... This was a plausible cover, they thought. So Tony went in, gave them all their new bios, their new names,

their new histories, their new backgrounds. He said, learned it. learn it you have two days and he ginary guards with and everybody went home safe and happy and we still see those six to them maybe once a year i just got a letter from one saying how many times can we thank you for saving our lives that's amazing that's amazing um and it's it's amazing to me you were in you were in moscow the moscow rules um which it means means what exactly the moscow rules I gave a book talk last night in Seattle, and the chief of station Moscow, the CIA chief of station Moscow, who was in the book, was at the talk last night. He said that one rule that you put in, float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Before Muhammad Ali picked that up as a motto, that was the CIA station in Moscow. That was our mantra. And Jack was very pleased to see that it was in the book. rules of comportment, they are rules of behavior. When you're smothered with, you still have to

communicate with the Russians who are providing us with intelligence. What are you going to do? These were the rules that allowed you to stay safe, to keep your agent safe, most importantly, to keep you were found out. You would simply be thrown out of the country and embarrassed when you would be arrested, taken to Lubyanka, huge Aldrich Ames case, the treasoned So do we have Moscow rules now? I mean, if I understand this right, it's rules that we all kind of play by in some regard, where we don't have those rules anymore. Or is that just basic spy etiquette and Moscow rules are different? They can smother you.

There's an incident at the very beginning of the book that happened in 2016. where an American diplomat is trying to exit a taxi and walk into his American embassy at 3 o'clock in the morning. He's attacked and he's beaten to a bloody pulp. And he's medevacked aftergo-back. They broke his clavicle. This man was really wounded. When Tony Mendez, my husband, never harassed the op. So we're talking to John A.Mendez.

She was former chief of disguised at CIA. her husband was the lead character, if you will, I think played by Ben Affleck in Argo. She was a CIA officer working on Moscow and other areas. Looking at this, I'm sure you and your husband, you know, have so much experience to be able to look at and say, here's what everybody's missing. what is the what is what is the what is the what poses the biggest threat to us right now do you think is it is it technology is it china Iran Russia global warming what what do you see is there is there a is there a box for all of the above Putin I don't know Putin said a much more intricate place than it

used to be Putin putin go ahead I'm sorry Putin what did you I was just a put Putin says that we're already in World War III, the West just doesn't recognize it. I think that we're still in the Cold War and that even the title of this book is slightly misleading because you could make a pretty strong case in it. The Cold War that it just went wild. Yeah, I think the same people just, they just changed uniforms. You and I are on the same page on that. Yeah.

I mean, that dawned on me about. I don't know, 20 years ago, when we thought we won. And then I went, wait a minute, but where did all the old communists go? They just took off their uniform and started using different titles and put on a suit, and they're still running it. I'm looking at a paragraph at the very end of our book talking about the cold. The game has changed. More of a contact sport. Putin's attempts to manipulate the U.S. government and taking the game into new territory.

The U.S. politics. Intelligence officers have tools that we could not have imagined 20 years ago, the cyber tools, the digital tools. Are we prepared for what we're facing? Pretty confident. We came out of the technical side, the DDS&T, Director of Science and Technology at CIA. We were the queue. We were the gadget guys, but we were much more than gadgets. I think our technical matches what they have and probably overmatches what we have. America's power in that area is, I feel good that we can counter any threat that they offer, and we can probably do some interesting counter-attacking on our own.

John A Mendes, thank you so much. She's the author of the Moscow Rules. She was former chief of disguise at CIA, as she just said, her husband, Tony, was really kind of cue from the James Bond series. The new book written by both of them, The Moscow Rules, worth the read. Thank you so much, John. Thank you. You bet.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. Welcome to the program. Today's a big day. We're going to give you an update coming up on the commentary on last night's debate and prepare you for tonight. If you missed this, we did a full hour, the first hour, and you can find it in wherever you find your podcast. Just look for the Glenn Beck Program podcast. and you'll be able to get our coverage on that. I personally, I thought it was fun.

You know, if it wasn't for the destruction of our country, you know, we could all enjoy it and have a good laugh. It was, it was Carl Marx at his best. It was the Marks Brothers, but just not Groucho or Harpo or Geppetto, I can't remember the other one. But it was definitely Geppetto, for sure. It is, I think. But it was definitely the Marks brothers.

And we'll talk about that coming up in just a second. The Supreme Court has ruled on a few cases, and some of them big. We have Josh Hammer. He is editor at large of the Daily Wire and watching these and has a quick understanding of what has come out. They just came out a few minutes ago. They have also reached the decision on the census question. We're waiting for that to come out. So, Josh, welcome to the program.

It's always great to be with you, Glenn. Thanks for having me. Yeah, you bet. So tell me what is, what did we find out today? So we've got two opinions come out so far. We're waiting on the big one, as you just said. We're still waiting, I guess, hopefully any second now, any minute now, perhaps to see that big census case come out. Actually, you know what, as I am live on the air with you, I see Ed Wheel and actually tweeting it. It looks like the secretary did not violate the enumerations clause or the Census Act and decide to reinstate that question. Okay, so it looks like that case is going to come out in the Trump administration's favor based on the absolute latest I'm seeing on Twitter. So that's a huge win for the Trump administration, Glenn.

This is a big win. In my opinion, it's a very, very legally straightforward case. This was a practice that was on the census. They obviously comes out every 10 years for over a century, was my understanding, going back to at least the middle of the 19th century, perhaps even longer than that. There was a very, very lengthy history of the federal government asking some questions that are not strictly necessary

to purely apportioning congressional districts on the census. This goes back a very long time. It was on the long-form version of census up until 2010 when the Obama administration took it out. So this is very legally straightforward in my line. This is a big winner for the Trump administration. And what does it, wait, wait, what does it mean to the states and to the left? What does the reinstatement of this question?

What does it mean? Why is it important? Right. So the actual narrow legal reason why it's important is actually not super obvious. It's actually very important for litigation under Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. A lot of the cause of action that fall under that particular statutory provision require very accurate data as to the citizens, not just a total person population, but the actual citizens in order to bring a viable claim for voting disenfranchisement under that particular statutory provision.

But the broader kind of macro picture here, Glenn, it's why this is important. is it's important just for the federal government to have a sense, not just as to the total number of persons, including aliens, but as a citizen. I mean, think about the Constitution, Glenn, think about the preamble. Think about basic structural principles. We the people. We the people who form this union. We the people, you know, in the framers' conception of that, are thinking of citizens. And it's kind of just a more symbolic.

ability of this citizenry taking back their country and kind of gained back the entire notion that the citizens create the government, not the other way around. Okay. So it's very symbolic hefty here. And the real reason why the left is going to go ballistic over this is? The real reason that the left is going ballistic is that they think it's going to suppress aliens, both legal and illegal aliens, from responding to the census. So they think that it will suppress response in such a way as to not only might be from their perspective, xenophobic, but also might actually potentially politically benefit more red states than blue states for purposes of the 2020 census.

Seems to me pretty unfounded, to be honest with you. There are plenty of red states like our state of Texas clan that have a large, both legal, yeah, very large legal and illegal alien population. just California and New York here. Okay, so let's go to gerrymandering, because that was the other one that came out. Yeah, so that was the other kind of big case that came out this morning. Haven't had time to do more than a very quick scheme of the opinion, but it looks, you know, this is a traditional five-four split. It comes out along the line that you would expect Chief Justice Roberts,

write the opinion for the court, Justice Kagan filed a dissent for the liberal bloc. They're basically saying that this is not a judicial case. And this, to me, is very, very. clearly correct. Jerrymandering as a practice goes back literally to the beginning of the Republic. The very term gerrymandering refers to founding father Elbridge Jerry. And another word, Glenn, for gerrymandering is politics. The Constitution clearly grants the state legislature is the ability to draw congressional maps. So if you want to change congressional delegation in your state, the way to do that and the way that you've always had to do that, going back to the

beginning of the Republic, is to win elections at the ballot box. And under the Constitution, under Article III, which establishes the judiciary, you have to have standing. In order for you have standing, you have to have a viable, what Article III refers to, as a case or controversy. And the Supreme Court over for cases for centuries, the seminal case, the 1992 case called Wuhan, there's a Justice Scalia opinion, if I recall. He kind of broke that down and showed exactly what you need for them to be standing.

There has to be an injury in fact, direct causation, and the court has to be able to redress it in a suitable fashion in accordance with traditional tools of equitable remedies. The courts have had going back to English common law. And this clearly

does not meet that threshold. I mean, we're talking here about torts or criminal law or direct injury. But a body of partisan Democrats or Republicans complaining that the other party gerrymandered them out of district is just so far removed from the case or controversy requirement of which the Constitution speaks. So this seems to me very, very clearly correct holding. I'm excited to dig a little deeper in two pen. So this is this is one that I hate agreeing with because I hate gerrymandering. And even Justice Thomas comes out and says that.

that in the opinion that Roberts or Roberts that this is a this is a really bad thing I don't agree with gerrymandering it's a it's a toxic thing but it's it's this the power is in the state it's not at the federal bench and so as a as a libertarian I lean towards yes more power to the local than the state and the least amount of power going to the to the federal government so I agree with it it's just that I disagree with gerrymandering and the Republicans are going to celebrate now, but there will come a time when they don't have control of the states and those things will be gerrymandered back. And they won't be happy.

Yeah, no, I think that's, I think that's right, right? I mean, the two causes of action that kind of led to this case, though, one was out in North Carolina where it was Democrats complaining and then one was out in Maryland where I believe it was the Republicans complaining. So it's actually both parties who are having their complaints kind of dismissed here about the court. I think you're right, Glenn. I mean, from like a partisan perspective, if we're trying to, like, put on, you know, we're trying to channel what the Republican National Committee might be thinking.

It would be short-sighted to think of this as a victory. But from the perspective of someone trying to get the original public meaning of the Constitution right, I think it's a clear victory. So, Josh, I'm looking, we're talking to Josh Hammer, of Daily Wire. I'm looking at this ruling on the census, and it's seemingly incredibly complicated and way above my intellect. You could, obviously, when you read this thing in full, it happened breaking here as we're on the air. But it does seem that it says it's affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. And we're seeing the, I mean, the breakdown of it, there's several parts.

I mean, it's, you know, Roberts, the unanimous court on parts one and two. Opinion of the court with respect to parts three, four B and four C, which Thomas Alito Gorsuch and Cabinand joined with respect to 4A, Thomas Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, it is like all over the board on all different parts. And the summary I'm starting to see here is that they will not

allow the census question to be on the 20 citizenship question to be on the 2020 census, though it almost seems like they're going into the motivations as to why it was placed there in the first place. I, you know, this is a

I mean, I feel like I'm in the middle of a really bad episode of Law and Order in which I really don't explain things well. So, Josh, I tell you what, instead of wasting time with conjecture, can we just cut you loose here and then have you read this and come back and tell us what you really think it means? Sure, absolutely, guys. I think you do that. All right, so we'll cut you loose now. You go and study that. When you're ready, you just call us back and we'll get into the census.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Hey, it's Glenn. And I want to tell you about something that you should either end your day with or start your morning with. And that is, the news and why it matters. If you like this show, you're going to love the news and why it matters. It's a bunch of us that all get together at the end of the day and just talk about the stories that matter to you and your life. The news and why it matters. Look for it now wherever you download your favorite podcast.

Tim Poole, been a fan of yours for a while. You are fair, outspoken. unafraid and you know what you're talking about more than I think almost anybody else in the media when it comes to what is really happening when it comes to freedom of speech and censorship at Google and Twitter and Facebook. Welcome to the program. Thanks for having me. So do you agree that what we're facing now, what's going to.

coming out and most people in the media are ignoring with Project Veritas and everything else, that this is the beginnings of an understanding of an all-encompassing control on everyone's life and mind. Yeah, absolutely. And I got to say, it's astounding that, you know, I was a lifelong liberal and now having conversations about massive, powerful corporations, you know, infringing on our lives and our rights with conservatives. And, you know, throughout my life, all the liberals who are the ones challenging the corporations, even in the debate last night, bringing up all these corporations, where was the conversation about how Google and Facebook are controlling what we are seeing and hearing? It's not coming from the left. And you look at the mainstream press, I use that term, but there's a website called AllSides that tracks the biases of various sites. and they straight up said the Veritas story has been largely ignored by left-wing media.

That's crazy to me. Well, it's crazy also because, you know, where's the ACLU? Where are people that are, they say they're for freedom of speech? I disagree. I mean, I vehemently disagree with Alex Jones. I bet a target of his. There's no love between us at all. But I will stand for his right to be heard.

we can't we can't do this i don't want any marxist silenced i don't want any crazy person silenced this what's happening these these organizations are not only silencing people by taking them off but they're also doing for instance the donald and redid they didn't remove them they just remove them and put them in their own little special little ghetto and that eventually just it decays away because you're not seen anymore. I'm sure, you know, your listeners are familiar. It's basically the biggest pro-Trump forum. And what's particularly worrisome to me about this, they claim that it was taken down because people on the forum were making threats of violence towards police. Well, I really doubt

conservative Trump supporters are going to threaten police, but maybe, right? And what's worrisome is that anyone can make an account, go into any forum, post whatever they want, take a screenshot, and then, you know, wave flags and say, hey, look, ban them. They're saying, bad them. They're saying, things. You know, if you're going to tell me that conservatives are making threats against cops, I'd laugh, and I wouldn't believe you. And so I'm confused as even the Trump supporters are posting photos of police saying we love cops that would never happen. So how easy would it be for some activists to go in, make some fake posts, and then flag that to write to administrators and say, hey, ban them now. Well, first of all, unless they have banned, you know,

Black Lives Matter and Antifa, they don't, they don't have a consistent. consistent case at all. I'll tell you what. There was a post on one forum. It was a far left forum where they were saying that people should bring firearms to confront, you know, a Trump rally. And they said, hey, we better bring our guns to protect ourselves. Now, for one, I'm like, okay, that's, you know, you have a second amendment right.

I can understand that. But how is that not, you know, far left people saying there's going to be violence at this rally so we should bring our guns? That's okay with Reddit, but, you know, right, in its capacity. There's a bunch of better examples. I could give them that because that one kind of gets close to like a two-a argument. But it's an example in my opinion of double standards. Because if you look at some of these left-wing forums, they all day call for violence and harm against other people.

So I talked to Dr. Robert Epstein. Do you know him from Harvard, the creepy line? I'm not familiar now. Okay, you should you should talk to him. He's fantastic. He started doing research. He's a guy who voted for Hillary Clinton. He's a lefty. and not a lefty. He's a Democrat. And he started doing research on Google because he wanted to see if they were

swaying elections at all. And he found real evidence and said that it is much worse in the 2018 than it was in the 2016. And he believes that they can just through

their search engines by the way they by the way they give you answers to your queries and how they stack those things, he says that 80% of undecideds can be swayed, and he has evidence that Google is doing it now. Well, isn't that the same thing by saying your videos, my videos, Dave Rubin's videos, Ben Shapiro's videos, when you go on YouTube and you'll find one of our videos, but then your other videos, videos don't come up in the recommended, it's something else, which they say they are doing right now. That's the same thing. It's a really interesting argument on principle for me. I don't believe that

YouTube is legally required to recommend my content to anybody. Right. So I will, you know, I tell my listeners, listen, you know, if you like my content, share it, otherwise I don't deserve it. But here's the thing. If we then recognize that YouTube is, I believe they're like the largest media distributor on the planet. the second largest search engine, we recognize that. And if they are specifically targeting certain perspective, because I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm a moderate slightly to the left. But if they're going to take down someone like me or Dave Rubin or Prager University,

and they're still going to provide recommendations to left-wing voices and mainstream media voices, well, then I understand, right, I don't think that I have the right to have my content promoted, but then you are going to see a massive shift in the perception of, of Americans and the world because Google is feeding them specific ideology. Correct. Correct. So I heard you speak earlier this week and you were talking on one of your videos about how you think it might be too late to get out of the beginning of this matrix. Why do you think that?

Well, there's a couple weeks ago on Twitter. I can't remember who the researcher was, but he took a look at LexisNexis data. This is a big tracking company. They look at stories going back to the 70s, and they tracked a left-wing, identitarian ideological terminology, right? It's kind of jargon, but basically far-left words, like intersectionality, white privilege. And around the beginning of 2010, there's a hockey stick on all of these graphs,

a massive skyrocketing. I think this has to do with digital media companies who are not ideologically driven, who discovered pissing people off results in shares, which results in money. So they end up hiring these activists to push this narrative, this ideology over and over again. And we're at a point now where you look at some of these internal messages like what Veritas leaked, where they refer to Prager You and Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, as Nazis. And you can see that these people have really been infected with what a dogmatic ideology of some sort.

So now we're at a point where you have a very large group of people who, I guess you can say, you know, have been indoctrinated through this algorithmic money chasing. They're not going to let those views go. Their world is built around this idea that's a fake reality. How do you break that? I don't know, right? Because these companies certainly aren't going to disappear overnight. They are hurting now, you know, the BuzzFeeds, the Foxes, et cetera. But now look at what happens with the these people are so entrenched in their tribalism.

that you have Donald Trump come out, what, years ago, saying we have a border crisis, and it took two years for the media and the Democrats to finally recognize, we actually have a border crisis, and now they're finally going to. So because the media was so, you know, look, these media companies are making money off of this ideology, all of them, you know, and it's infecting the bigger, more credible sources now as well. Like the New York Times runs a front-page story about one guy who watched YouTube videos to push some narrative about the far right, it was complete nonsense.

So the New York Times is now hiring on these people. They refuse to acknowledge reality, and that truly terrifies me. And you know what's crazy is I feel like we're too far gone at this point. I mean, maybe it's a bit hyperbolic. But when you look at the rhetoric we have, where we say, hey, these people are pushing things that are nonsense, there's nothing we can do.

How do we stop this? I mean, they're saying the exact same thing about us. Oh, these people live in a fake reality. It's like, look, you know, I go on the ground, I've been on the ground across the world. I talk to regular people. They don't believe these weird things that you guys believe on the Internet, you know, the far left. But they live in that reality. And now, because all of these young people have started to pick up this indoctrination through, you know, the Voxes, the Hubbidden Post, the BuzzFeeds, they're starting to work at the New York Times.

They're starting to work at NBC. And they're weaponizing these media platforms to silence their political opponents. So I'll add this very quickly. I recently was leaked some information where I was able to publish an email from a left-wing journalist who accused us. Essentially, it sounded like they were saying Chase Bank was supporting the Proud Boys by providing basic financial services. About a day after that email was sent, Chase cut off the personal and business accounts of Enrique Atario of the Proud Boys. Look, you don't have to like the Proud Boys. That's not the point.

The point is these journalists know that bad PR is a weapon, and they're using, it for activist reason. They're activists now. It's not about sharing information. It's about weaponizing their platform to hurt political opponents. And it's only getting worse. So, you know, when it comes to the issue of Google, I look back to the same example of the border. Trump said there was a crisis on the border. Everyone finally agrees for the most part. You know, Ocasio-Cortez still doesn't. But it took years to get to this point. We have Project Veritas. We have leaked video of Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, saying he's deeply offended by the election of, you know, the 2016 election and that Trump supporters don't share his values.

That was last year. When are, is the media going to finally say, hey, it's not a conspiracy theory anymore? Two more years? Well, look, this censorship that we're seeing, I, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I got to say it's a damn perfect coincidence that the same day as a Democratic debate, the Donald gets quarantined so you can't find their posts anymore. Project Veritas has basically been banned by all of the big providers, even Vimeo now, has banned their account, Reddit's banned their account. YouTube took down their video. YouTube, I'll tell you what's really crazy. This is what freaks me out. I made a video commenting on publicly available information that was reported on by BuzzFeed, by The Guardian, by, you know, just all of these major

outlets. They said, Pinterest, you know, has banned live action, this pro-life group. So I made a video, I commented on it. YouTube took my video down without warning, without any chance to fix any problem saying I was violating the privacy of the people in the story, even though the information was public, was on Twitter. They took my video down. So that I take a great offense to. I understand, you know, look, YouTube wants to argue that Veritas is violating someone's privacy. I think that's ridiculous. But the argument over when a name is newsworthy, fine, we can have that argument. I still think Veritas is in the right. But for me, we've stepped into an even crazier dystopia, where the act of commenting on the information that was already made public

is now being banned from the platform. To me, that's scary because that means independent people. Look, YouTube's the only game in town, right? You're not going to get a million views on Vimeo. You're not going to get a million views on these other video platforms. YouTube has really monopolized the video space. And that means if you want to reach people, YouTube's the only game in town. They've dominated.

And they're using that power to suppress those that are critical of what's happening. So I'll say this. Here's what I think's happening. We know the censorship has been going on for a long time. I think this is partly due to the fact that in reality, conservatives are better at the internet than liberals are. They say the left can't meme. So in response to this, we see these people at Twitter, at Facebook, at Google,

start taking down conservative content to try and rectify that. We know what's happening. Even Jack Dorsey has said conservative employees are scared to speak up. Pinterest really, James O'Keefe really cracked the case open with Pinterest's overt censorship of live action. And you could see that Pinterest panicked. They at first, when the story broke, they unblocked live action. But then immediately, you should have said and saying, you know what, no, we're going to ban them anyway. I think that was an opening of the floodgates that emboldened all these other platforms. So when Veritas comes out with a bigger expose, hey, Google, here's what

their employees are saying, pine closed doors. Google now says, you know what, screw it. Regulations coming anyway, knock them down. I think they're at a point where they just don't care anymore. Pinterest was the floodgates being ripped open where you can't deny it anymore. And now Google says, you know what, let's just go for it. Tim, I know we have a podcast scheduled with you in a few weeks, and I'm really looking forward to being able to have, you know, some real time to sit down and talk to you about all of this. I appreciate your time today.

Thank you so much. Tim Poole, you can follow him at Timcast. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. It's a great day to have Mark Skousen join us. By the way, we're going to hear from Josh Hammer, who is one of our legal minds that is following the Supreme Court. He's going to give us the latest on what has been released today from the Supreme Court. But Mark Skousin is on with us right now.

He is the producer of Freedom Fest, and I have been invited to speak at Freedom Fest, and he is with us now. Hi, Mark. How are you? Well, I'm doing great, Glenn. It's glad to be on your show to talk about the big show in Vegas, Freedom Fest. Okay, so it's in Vegas. When is it? It's a few weeks away, isn't it?

Yep, July 17th through the 20th. It's a Wednesday, starting the evening with our opening ceremonies and ends with our Saturday program. We've got the full schedule online at FreedomFest.com, and we're expecting a couple thousand people. We're very excited to have you. Now, these are libertarians, conservatives. These are the people that are actually looking at the Constitution and trying to rule their life on constitutional things. In fact, we do have a Constitution Day with Douglas Ginsburg, the judge. He's going to be covering that topic as well as 250 other sessions. You know, Glenn, the whole idea of Freedom Fest, which I came up with over a decade ago, was we're losing this war for freedom, mainly because we're all going our separate ways, and I know you have tried your best to gather people together. My idea is that once a year, all the freedom lovers come together in Las Vegas, the entertainment capital of the world,

and we come together to network, to socialize, to learn, to celebrate liberty. And you've been there before. You came in 2015, which is when Donald Trump came. And we had 2,500 people there. It was just standing room only. Mark, who do you have this year? You have Justice Ginsburg, not Justice Ginsburg. You have, who did you just say? Gorsuch.

Yeah, yeah. And then you have, you have me. I know Penn Gillette is coming. Who else is coming? Well, we have Kevin O'Leary of Shark Tank, and he's going to debate John Mackey, the Sea of Whole Foods markets, about the real purpose of business.

Is it to make money or is it have a higher purpose? And of course, John Mackey argues for a higher purpose in business. And Kevin O'Leary says, listen, it's all about making money if you want a friend by a dog. It's going to be a lectifying. That's going to be a great debate. Yeah. But we do a lot of debates. We're going to have a debate on is eating meat, ethical.

and nutritional is one of our debates with John Mackey as well as Joel Salatin, who's the libertarian Christian farmer from Virginia. We have John Stossel, George Gilder, Rich Lowry from National Review, Alan Dersowitz, and Randy Barnett are going to talk specifically about these recent Supreme Court decisions. We have Steve Moore and Herman Kane, who both were going to be nominated to go in the Fed, and we're going to ask them what would they have done if they had been nominated and became members of the Fed. We have Candice Owens, the fiery black conservative who took on Congress recently.

It's really a fun conference. Well, I will be there. And if you want to join us, how do you get tickets? So the best thing is to go to FreedomFest.com. And if they register before July 1st, you get $100 off. it's really going to be a lot of fun. I'm really looking forward to having you there again and to meet all of these people who are anxious to change.

You know, my feeling is if we all gather together once a year, they can't ignore us anymore, right? That's the whole idea. And if we can get as big as the NRA or what have you, you make a big difference. So, Mark, you are an award-winning economist. and I don't know if you saw the debate last night, but they're talking about ending the free market now in the Democratic Party.

Yeah. How fast can this thing be dismantled? Well, I think the Democratic Party is trying to distinguish themselves some way. So the way they're doing it is by going further and further toward the cause of socialism. I mean, let's call it what it is. And that's what your topic is going to be at Freedom Fest. And, you know, I have to deal with this because I teach economics at Chapman University. I've also taught at Columbia Business School.

And I write on the board, I say, okay, let's take this quote that sounds really good. from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. And I don't tell them it's from Karl Marx because I don't want to affect their bias. And I said, just by a show of hands, how many of you upper middle class students at Chapman University, how many of you agree with this? And I get about 75% who raise their hand that says, oh, it sounds really good. And then I said, put your economics cap on. And what happens to anybody who earns more than the need?

the need level, which for them was, believe it or not, $75,000 a year for these students. I said, what if you earn more than $75,000? Well, it's all taken away and it's put into this community pot. So I said, in essence, what's the marginal tax rate under this plan? And it's 100%. And once people, once students get that and they get it right away, suddenly they realize, oh, this isn't really a great plan after all. And when you're through, I have 100% voting against it.

They say we don't want it. So we have to educate our people. And obviously the Democrats who are running for office offering free Medicare and free college education and so forth. It all sounds very appealing until you realize it's going to result in extremely high tax rates, which is going to destroy what caused us in the first place to become a prosperous. Exactly right. Exactly right. Mark, look forward to seeing you at FreedomFest.

You go to FreedomFest.com. FreedomFest.com. I highly recommend that you come, and I'm going to be there. And my topic is socialism versus the free market. And I'm anxious to present that, and we'll see you there. Mark Skousen, thank you so much. FreedomFest.com. Yeah, I'll be coming along too.

The Blaze Radio Network. On Demand.