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

Hey, podcasters, we've got a great show for you today.

Packed.

Jeez, 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 cue,

and she talks a little bit about the biggest threats that we have.

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 blend back program

patriot mobile okay

here we are talking about how people are using your money using you using you 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 Planned 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 into

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 Beck.

PatriotMobile.com.

Promo code Beck.

Elwe, Elingfei

Retipe Udge

Eli Ray Excited

Alte

Boute

Astle

Nightnays

Debate

Day.

I'm not supposed to acknowledge that, right?

We're just supposed to act as if you're just act like

yeah, I'm just reaching out to a new constituency, the people that speak latin pig latin uh 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 just yes that and that proves it nothing proves it like awkwardly blurting out language like that hi ray uste

right stup oh okay because i yeah yeah

did you see it when when uh was it bedo first broke out he was the first one to come out of the gate with Spanish.

Yeah.

And Corey Booker and Elizabeth Warren, their faces were like, oh.

Oh, but Corey Booker is the perfect example.

It was such a Corey Booker moment because it was being shared all over the internet.

Like, look at Corey Booker.

He's like, oh, rolling his eyes at Betto.

But he did it too.

That's why he was rolling his eyes.

He's 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 Betto did it first.

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 unfiltered.

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 all.

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.

Not as president, but as adults.

We'll die today from gun violence.

Stop.

Stu.

Seven children will die today from gun violence?

Have 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 gun from guns.

So if you're counting suicide and you're counting like Chicago,

you know, and where are you talking about?

Are you saying school shootings, essentially?

Are you saying that?

No, no, no.

She says not in school shootings.

She said 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, and 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 you but if that's if there's 30 000 roughly uh gun deaths in the united states if you include everything and then if seven a day for children would be about 2500 right for the day so like i think that's it's not uh out of the line of what you would think is uh is the number of course it does matter what you're counting and how we're yeah exactly what they're trying of course the pain the picture they're trying to paint is seven kids a day gets 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.

And we need to.

It's 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.

So what can we do?

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 that.

The virus we have to treatment 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.

Oh, look at John Lott's book.

There's a lot of serious research in that.

Serious research.

It doesn't seem like they 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 showed no effect at all.

They had an assault weapons ban.

It was repealed because it didn't work.

Well, expired, but yeah, it wasn't renewed because it did nothing.

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,

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'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

the concept being that what they're going to do is, A, violate the privacy of gun owners,

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 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,

a register list.

Yeah, a register is

the first way,

the first step to gun control and gun banning.

And Corey 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 Corey Booker lives in the ghetto?

I do not.

Okay.

What he just, let me just translate political bullcrap into English because I speak political bullcrap now.

Not fluently.

It's not my first language, but I've first language pig Latin, right?

Pig Latin.

Right.

Yes, 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

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 bans.

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 I was

legitimately terrified of it because I lived one block from the river that separates Pennsylvania and 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, 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.

Because 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 always mistakenly forget it in the back, the back or or go to the gas station that i would go to that's right across the bridge you know or it like because you know 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 i you could legitimately go to prison for multiple years and it's happened to people no happened to average citizen fly out of newark i 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 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.

Unless the gun or the ammunition suddenly became Houdini,

and they were also sexually attracted 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 what's going on.

But Corey 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, ands, or buts.

Once you start going and legislating or not legislating, just declaring national emergencies, the 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 in our guest, Johnna 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, Johnna, 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, Johnna, can we do that?

There was a disguise 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 things up and started bringing 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 the ⁇ 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 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 it's a lot of CGI, it's a lot of budging.

What we needed was something you could put on in ten 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 was first did 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, to get an Oscar.

He did Planet of the Apes.

We didn't want to turn people into apes.

Right.

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, etc., it's very obvious.

And it would be really difficult to make it look real and not like a rubber mask.

Well, the parameters of our mask was you had to be able to put it on in a parking garage, in an unlit parking garage, and get out of the car and know that it was perfect, that it was aligned, that it was registered, that it was on, and that it would not draw any attention.

With the hair and everything.

So, with the hair and everything, you would just pull it over your head like a stocking cap?

Not quite like a stocking cap, but 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.

put my finger under one side of it and just peeled it off of my face.

And

Brittany was there.

Nunu was there.

Bob Gates was there, and they were all

incredulous at

how good it was.

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.

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.

He had a very creative mind.

And when the Iranian Revolution happened and 60-some Americans were taken hostage at our embassy after it was overrun, six escaped out a back door.

They were on the streets of Tehran, didn't know where to go.

The Canadians, bless their hearts, took them in.

And the Canadians held on to these American, we called them house guests.

They called them house guests.

They kept them for 84 days.

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 bazaar for their movie.

He said everyone knows that Hollywood is a little bit crazy.

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, learn it.

Learn it.

You have two days.

And he walked them out through the Tehran airport, through the Revolutionary Guards with their trigger finger

attitude with their guns at their side.

That airport was a dangerous, dangerous place.

Walked them out.

And everybody went home safe and happy.

And we still see those six house guests.

We still see them maybe once a year.

We bump into them frequently.

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.

And it's amazing to me.

You were in Moscow, the Moscow Rules,

which

means what exactly, the Moscow rules?

Well, I gave a book talk last night in Seattle, and the chief of station Moscow, the CIA chief of station Moscow, who is 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.

They are rules of comportment.

They are rules of behavior when you're smothered

with surveillance.

But 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 the agent safe.

Because if you were found out, you would simply be thrown out of the country and embarrassed with newspaper photos.

But if that agent was exposed and that's what they wanted was the agent, he would be arrested, taken to Lubyanka, he would be executed, he would be shot in the back of the head.

They did it over and over and over.

And when Aldrich Ames, that huge Aldrich Ames case, the treason of the CIA officer, about a dozen Russians were arrested and killed because Aldrich Ames exposed them.

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?

These rules will always be morphing and changing as tactics evolve.

So in the new cyber verse that we all live in, I'm sure that there is a

technological bent to these rules now that was not there then.

But a lot of these are kind of evergreen.

One of them is don't harass the opposition, which means, pardon me, but it means don't piss off your surveillance because they will come after you and they can do that.

They can bumper lock you.

They can smother you with surveillance.

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 medevaced out the next day.

He never could go back.

They broke his clavicle.

This man was really wounded.

When Tony Mendez, my husband, saw the YouTube video of that attack, Tony looked at me and said,

Never harass the opposition.

They will get.

So we don't know what he did, but he really, really ticked them off.

So we're talking to Jonna Mendez.

She was former chief of disguise 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

have so much experience to be able to look at and say, here's what everybody's missing.

What poses the biggest threat to us right now, do you think?

Is it technology?

Is it China, Iran, Russia,

global warming?

What do you see as...

Is there a box for all of the above?

I mean, every one of those is a serious, profound threat.

Every one of them.

Every one of them is an opportunity to stumble into

or overexcite or react.

Every one of them is a

bomb waiting to go off if we play it wrong.

So

I don't know.

Putin says

a much more intricate place than it used to be.

Putin.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Putin?

What did you say?

I was going to say, Putin says that we're already in World War III.

The West just doesn't recognize it.

You know what I think is I think that we are still in the Cold War and that even the title of this book is slightly misleading because you could make a pretty strong case and it grows stronger all the time that the Cold War perhaps never ended but that it just went dormant, that it just was

at a low burn for a while.

Yeah, I think this

the same people just they just changed uniforms.

Well, you and I are on the same page on that.

Yeah.

I mean,

that dawned on me about, 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 War, and it says, the game has changed.

This is part of that great game.

It's become more of a contact sport, rougher, the rules more elastic, the prize more precious.

Putin's attempts to manipulate the U.S.

government have broadened the playing field and taken the game into new territory, the U.S.

political arena.

And we go on and talk about his goal of destabilizing the West.

And these Russian 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?

I'm pretty confident.

We came out of the technical side.

The DDS ⁇ T, Directorate 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 expertise absolutely at least matches what they have and probably overmatches what we have.

America's power in that area is

profound.

I feel good that we can counter any threat that they offer and we can probably do some interesting counter-attacking on our own.

Jonna Mendez, 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, Jonna.

Glenn, it was a pleasure.

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 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 Karl Marx at his best.

It was the Marx brothers, but just not Groucho or Harpo or

Geppetto.

I can't remember the other one.

It was definitely Geppetto, for sure.

It is, I think.

But it was definitely the Marx 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 did we find out today?

Okay, 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 Whelan actually tweeting it.

Looks like the secretary did not violate the enumerations clause or the Census Act and decided 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 that 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 the census up until 2010 when the Obama administration took it out.

So

this is very legally straightforward in my mind.

This is a big win for the Trump administration.

And

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 the 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, as to why it's 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 to citizens.

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 in the in the framer's conception of that are thinking of citizens.

And it's kind of just it kind of is a more symbolic ability of this this this citizenry taking back their country and and and kind of getting back to the entire notion that the citizens created the government, not the other way around.

Okay.

So it's very symbolic have to hear.

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 is 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.

It seems to me pretty unfounded, to be honest with you.

There are plenty of red states like our state of Texas, Glenn, that have a large

legal, yeah, very large legal and illegal alien population.

It's not just California and New York here.

Okay, so let's go to gerrymandering.

Because that was the other one that came out.

Yep.

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 skim of the opinion, but it looks, you know, this is a traditional 5-4 split.

It comes out along the lines that you would expect Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion for the court.

Justice Kagan files a dissent for the liberal bloc.

They're basically saying that this is not a judiciable case.

And this, to me, is very clearly correct.

Gerrymandering 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 legislatures 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.

And in order for you to have standing, you have to have a viable, what Article III refers to as a case or controversy.

And the Supreme Court

for cases for

centuries, the seminal case was a 1992 case called Luhan.

It was a Justice Scalia opinion, if I recall.

He kind of broke that down and showed exactly what you need for there 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 remedy the courts have had going back to English common law.

And this just clearly does not meet

that threshold.

I mean, we're talking here about torts or criminal law or a 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 or controversy requirement of which the Constitution speaks.

So this seems to be a very, very clearly correct holding, and I'm excited to dig a little deeper into payments.

So this is one that I hate agreeing with because I hate gerrymandering.

And even Justice Thomas comes out and says that in the opinion that Roberts, or Roberts, that

this is a really bad thing.

I don't agree with gerrymandering.

It's a toxic thing, but

the power is in the state.

It's not at the federal bench.

And so

as a libertarian,

I lean towards, yes, more power to the local than the state and the least amount of power going 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 right, right?

I mean,

the two causes of action that kind of led to this case, though, one was out of 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 by 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, if we're trying to channel what the Republican National Committee might be thinking, it would be short-sided 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 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, Lito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined.

With respect to 4A, Thomas Ginsburg, Breyer, Sodomayar, Kagan, and 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 on the 20, on the 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, you know,

like

a really bad episode of Law and Order in which they 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 really think it means?

Sure, absolutely, guys.

Happy to 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 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 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 were 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 ain't using that term, but

there's a website called All Sides that tracks the biases of various sites.

And they straight up said the Veritas story has been largely ignored by left-wing media.

Oh, yeah.

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 with, I mean, I vehemently disagree with Alex Jones.

I've been a target of his.

I have no, there's no love between us at all, but I will stand for his right to be heard.

We can't do this.

I don't want any Marxist silenced.

I don't want any crazy person silenced.

What's happening, these organizations are not only silencing people by taking them off, but they're also doing, for instance, the Donald and Reddit.

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.

Right, right.

I think the Donald,

I'm sure 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 things you know if 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.

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

administrators and say, hey, ban them now?

Well, first of all,

unless they have banned

Black Lives Matter and

Antifa,

they don't have a consistent case at all.

I'll tell you what.

There was a post post on one forum.

It was a far-left forum, where they were saying that people should bring firearms to confront

a Trump rally.

And they said, hey, we better bring our guns, protect ourselves.

Now, for one, I'm like, okay, that's, you know, you have your 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 this capacity.

There's a bunch of better examples I could give than that because that one kind of gets close to like a two-way 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 familiar, no.

Okay,

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 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 don't come up in the recommended.

It's something else, which they say they are doing right now.

That's the same thing.

That's the the same thing.

It's a really interesting argument on principle for me.

You know, 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 perspectives, because I don't consider myself a conservative, I'm moderate slightly to the left.

But if they're going to take down someone like me or Gave 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

I have the right to have my content promoted, but then you are going to see a massive shift in the perception 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 in 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 data published 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 you know 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 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 Vertas leaked, where they refer to Prager Yu 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 such

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

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 these, 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 there,

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 Huffington 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 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 Tario 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 reasons.

Like, 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, 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 the 2016 election and that Trump supporters don't share his values.

That was last year.

When 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'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I gotta say, it's a damn perfect coincidence that the same day as a Democratic debates, 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.

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 just all of these major outlets.

They said Pinterest

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 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 is 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.

You know, 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 issued a statement 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 behind closed doors, Google now says, you know what, screw it, regulation's 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

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 Skousen 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, and 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

Ginsberg, 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 Skinsburg, not Justice Ginsburg.

You have,

who did you just say?

Gorson.

Yeah, yeah.

And then you have me.

I know Penjillette is coming.

Who else is coming?

Well, we have Kevin O'Leary of Shark Tank, and he's going to debate John Mackey, the CEO 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, buy a dog.

So

it's going to be a lecture.

That's going to be a great debate.

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 Cain, 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 Candace 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.

And 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're 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 and 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 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,

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 prospect.

Exactly right.

Mark, I look forward to seeing you at Freedom Fest.

You can 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.