Best of the Program | Guests: David Steinberg & Arthur Herman | 3/20/19

You're listening to the best of the blend back program.

Welcome to the podcast, part of the Blaze media gigantic empire.

Wait a minute,

just blew up Alderong just a few minutes ago.

It's like a thousand voices were screaming out in terror and then suddenly silenced.

Yeah, we're kind of the reverse of that.

It's a bunch of silenced people that actually get voices with the Blaze.

In fact, if you're listening to this podcast and you're subscribing, which we hope you are, you should also subscribe to a bunch of other podcasts like Pat Gray Unleashed, Chewing the Fat with Jeff Fisher, Chad Prather has a new podcast.

A really good podcast.

Allie Stuckey, Andrew Heaton.

There's a lot of really good ones.

So click over and subscribe to other great conservative voices.

All right, on today's podcast,

what has the Democratic Party become?

We look at them just through the eyes of one day.

Also, David Steinberg, he has done some investigation that

you need to be aware of.

There's something building on this.

And Ilan O'Marr.

Ilan Omar,

what is her true story?

That is fascinating.

Also, Arthur Herman joins us about the STEM crisis that we have here in America.

No one is teaching.

No one is excited about STEM.

We've talked deep about quantum mechanics and

quantum computing.

You know this is a promotional segment, right?

Yes, we probably noticed that.

Hey, we talked to Sam Smith, or we

talked about him, about his change now to non-binary and what bullcrap that is.

We tried to find a way to unite, and I think we actually can unite.

We're just using different language.

And an update on how Beto O'Rourke handles human feces.

You know this is a promotional

thing.

All on today's podcast.

Stu just told just a horrible story about a guy who lost his house.

He was an immigrant, Stu?

Yes, he came here, I think, gosh, in the 90s?

90s.

And made a life for himself and got married and got a house and everything else.

Then his wife dies of cancer.

He loses his job.

He's having to, you know, turn off all the lights so he doesn't use electricity because he can't find another job.

Then in the end, somebody steals his home with home title fraud.

And it's just a horrible story.

Right.

And, you know,

once that happens, your life gets much, much worse.

Oh, my gosh.

Because now you got to deal with trying to dig yourself out of.

I'd love to talk to this guy.

Let's just see if we get a hold of him.

I'd love to talk to this guy.

Anyway, home title lock.

That's not going to happen if...

If you have home title lock, they are the only ones that are watching over your title.

If somebody tries to...

imagine, it wouldn't be such a tragic story

if he had home title lock and they would have said, hey, somebody's trying to steal your home, and they would have caught him.

It's home title lock.

Sign up right now.

Get a $100 search for your home.

See if it's already been done to you.

You just hadn't caught up yet.

At home title lock.com.

That's home title lock.com.

Sign up now.

All right.

So let's talk a little bit about...

Yeah, before we should, we should probably get to the new production.

The new what?

The new production for the show.

The new production?

Yeah, we just kind of set the tone, the new theme.

I thought we.

Okay.

Yeah, let's roll the new theme.

Come on.

Come on.

Come on.

Yeah, this is not right.

Have a barrel of fun.

Goodbye, home.

Say hello to your family.

Come on, everyone.

Kentucky fried chicken.

Have a barrel of fun.

I mean, you're trending.

I mean, in the United States yesterday, along with Colonel Sanders.

Have you ever seen us at a party together?

No.

Haven't seen it, have you?

No, only when you're standing next to a mirror.

Somewhere, somewhere in the country, an old decrepit Colonel Sanders is hearing today, you look just like Glenn Beck.

And it's not making him happy.

No, it's not.

You know, you actually were, you were trending.

Glenn Beck was trending nationwide.

And then as an, you know, like, if you were to take one thing and like

hashtag it or make a certain point, the two things trend together.

So it said Glenn Beck, and then like sub-trending with Glenn Beck was Colonel Sanders.

Right.

And then later on in the day, it actually reversed itself.

It was Colonel Sanders was trending with the association to Glenn Beck.

And

like, I don't know if that means you've actually crossed the lines completely.

Okay, all right.

Okay.

And it was trending because of this article in Newsweek magazine about

how I said that socialism means the end of the country as we know it.

And if the Democrats or if the Demons

don't win with Donald Trump, it's the end of the country.

Yeah, and I mean, I think you've been pretty clear on socialism over the years.

You've also been pretty clear that you look like Colonel Sanders over the years.

For a long time.

For a long time.

So this is apparently new to a lot of people.

Right.

And I don't know what is really new for anybody on that statement.

Especially if you are looking at

what the Democratic Party is becoming.

I mean,

I saw some stories today.

Glenn Beck says that socialists, anarchists, and Islamists will band together and work against the country to try to collapse it.

Yeah, I've been saying that for 12 years.

And look at it.

Look at what's happening right now.

You have the pressure from the anarchists on the street.

You have the pressure from the socialists in government.

And you have the pressure from the Islamist movement

in the government with care

and all throughout the world with Muslim Brotherhood.

So, yeah, there's nothing new here.

It's just new to those who aren't paying attention.

And

to our Democratic friends, not in Washington, but those who live down the street,

are you so distracted by Donald Trump that you

can't see what the Democratic Party has become?

You can't become blind to what you're actually voting for.

I mean, this is the, to me, this is the real issue.

It's what are you turning into

as you're running away from something?

I mean,

I said earlier this week that

if Donald Trump and the GOP, and I don't have love for this, this is not, this is not, the GOP has been worthless forever.

Donald Trump, at least, has proven that he would do the things that I never thought he would do.

I never, let me just give you this.

I never thought he would declare Israel,

Jerusalem, the home of Israel and move the embassy.

I didn't think anybody would do it, but I didn't think he would do it.

Tax cuts, I thought he would kind of do it, and we kind of got what the GOP was going to do, which is weak.

The judges, I didn't think he would do this with the judges, and I especially, I didn't even think about what he's doing at the federal level.

He's going to end up, his administration, if he just serves this one term, he could end up appointing 150 federal judges, which will change the balance of the courts in the, you know, at the federal level.

I didn't think he would do that.

I hate his tariffs, hate them,

but I see the economy,

and the economy is chugging.

And if you look at where it was under Obama and where it is now, it is clearly because of the things with regulation, which I wasn't sure he was going to cut.

I thought he might.

I didn't think he would get out of the Paris Agreement.

Remember when I used to say,

his daughter's not going to let him get out of the Paris Agreement.

His daughter is all global warming.

There's no way.

No, he got out of the Paris Accords.

His stance on socialism, his stance on ISIS, his stance on abortion.

Okay, I didn't think he'd do these things.

So I'm willing to admit that I was wrong about him on those things.

Now, I was not wrong about him on things like he's surrounded by really bad people.

Now, all of those people are gone, but all of those people that he had with him during the campaign, they're all the ones that he's paying the price for today.

They were bad people.

They're gone.

Great.

His tariffs, I think, are hurting the country.

He says he's doing it for negotiation.

I'm willing to see that, but when the negotiation is finished, I'm hoping that he's going to take these tariffs off because it will unleash another wave of power in the economy.

What he's doing on 5G, on Huawei, it's not working, but that's because Europe has their head up there,

sandhole, and they're not paying any.

Please don't push me on that.

They're not willing to stand against China on 5G.

This is the most important thing, I believe, for national security since perhaps the Cold War.

So that's what we have.

Now, maybe somebody else comes into the running, but as of today, that's what we have on one side.

Let me show you what we have on the other side.

On the other side, we have a group of radical socialists, not people we say are socialist and everybody's like, they're not socialists.

You're such a racist.

No, no, no.

We have people who are constantly talking about collapsing the free market system.

We have a hundred people in Congress that have signed up, including every single candidate for the Democratic nomination.

We have them signed on to something that calls for

the radical transformation of the free market into a system that supplies social and economic justice.

That's not the free market system.

You have the face of the free market saying free market's not going to be around forever because it doesn't work and it's unjust.

You have them now talking about changing the Constitution to a charter of positive liberties.

They are pushing for infanticide.

We're not even talking about abortion anymore.

We're talking about killing children at nine months old.

We're talking now about packing the court, getting rid of the protection of the Electoral College.

You have anti-Semitism running amok, anti-Israel, pro-care.

It's a cult that is anti-science

and pro-death.

Now, I can say those things, but I just want to recap for you.

I'm going to take a quick break and we're going to come back with just the audio of what's happened in the last 24, 48 hours with this group of people.

You're outraged.

Oh, Trump is tweeting something crazy.

Yeah, he's been tweeting stuff that's crazy forever.

We got that.

But look at what he's doing.

Look at what the policies are.

Those are the things that will last.

Do we have to worry about becoming malicious and nasty?

Yes, I think we do.

The president doesn't set a good example on that.

But that's where the people can lead.

I worry about not just maliciousness, I worry about a culture of death.

I worry about what happens to us when the free market system goes away.

You want to look like Venezuela?

Because that's what they're promising.

All of the things they said they were for for Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, they're for today.

Here in the United States, it is not European socialism.

This is democratic socialism.

And we are not a democratic country.

Our founders intentionally did not want us to be a full-fledged democracy because those never last.

Now, let me show you what happened in the last 24 to 48 hours.

And you tell me,

what should we be talking about?

All right, I just want to play a couple of things.

Now,

this all happened in one day.

So, Betto is on the road.

And Betto, which we'll get into here a little later on the program,

he is frightening because he's an empty suit.

He does not know who he is at all.

And I'll make a case on this later.

But he doesn't know who he is.

He's asking

the people now that are going out, hey, I need you to tell me who you want me to be.

I can be who you need me to be.

Who do you want me to be?

Well, that's not the guy you want because the President of the United States has to know who he is and what he believes.

That's a leader.

Betto has no idea who he is,

but he knows the game he has to play.

And right now, the game he has to play is, I got to be for third trimester abortion.

Now, the number of people in the United States that are for third trimester abortion is minuscule.

It's 14%.

Okay, 14%.

They're also talking about after the child is born, if he's got a birth defect, can we kill the child?

The Democrats refuse to say no.

This is insanity.

Now,

he was at a rally, and some woman said,

What do you say about third trimester abortion?

When the child is ready to be birthed, it is nine months, and we could do a C-section or deliver the child, and the child would be fine.

Mom would be fine.

What do you say about third trimester, nine-month abortions?

Here's what he said: Are you for or against third trimester abortions?

So, the question is about abortion and reproductive rights.

And my answer to you is that that should be a decision that the woman makes.

Yeah!

I trust her.

Woo!

I trust her.

Why?

The woman wants to kill her child.

The minute that child is born,

it has nothing to do with her.

It's a separate life.

I believe it's a separate life in the womb, but they're now talking about killing that child after birth.

This is a very dangerous road.

So same day, here's Gildebrand also running for president, talking about gun manufacturers.

Now, think about how twisted you have to believe, or you have to be, to believe that this is actually true.

Here's Jildebrand.

Gun manufacturers only care about gun sales.

They oppose the common sense reform that can save lives.

They want to oppose universal background checks because they want to sell an assault rifle to a teenager in a Walmart or to someone on the terror watch list or to someone who's gravely mentally ill with a violent background or to someone with a criminal conviction for a violent crime.

They want to sell those weapons.

That's why they oppose universal background checks.

Okay, stop.

No, that's not why they oppose universal background checks.

And in fact, we have universal background checks.

And you know who the person or the group was that pushed and designed the universal background check system?

They're the ones who proposed it.

The NRA.

They were the ones behind the background checks that we currently have.

They proposed

what to do and how to do it.

It was the NRA.

So please, you're looking at any gun owner as a killer, somebody who wants, do you hear what she said?

Gun stores, gun manufacturers, they want to sell the gun to the mentally disturbed.

Now, who do you have to be to want to sell a gun to the mentally disturbed?

Who do you have to be?

That you want to sell it to somebody who wants to go out and kill children?

That's her view of guns and the people who make guns.

Now, let me go to Booker.

Now, Booker was the least offensive in the 24-hour period, but he's here talking about, well,

we should have term limits for the Supreme Court.

And, you know,

I have to tell you, I mean, I will talk to people about packing the court.

Listen to this.

I think we need need to fix the Supreme Court.

I think they stole the Supreme Court seat.

Can we keep it at nine?

Should we keep it at nine?

I think I would like to start exploring a lot of options, and we should have a national conversation.

Term limits for Supreme Court justices might be one thing.

They give every president the ability to choose three.

We have people holding on to those seats in ways that I don't think is necessarily healthy.

So I want to fix.

Look, I think we term limits might be a better way of saying that.

Blurning of things out of it.

All right, hey, Clemer.

Shoots.

I Muffin?

Lemony snicket?

This is R, man.

So listen to what he said.

Should we keep it at nine?

Look,

I'm willing to look at anything.

Keep it at nine?

It's been at nine Supreme Court justices since like 1840.

Okay, this is something that Congress decided on long ago.

But notice what he also says.

I think we should have it term limits so every president gets to pick at least three.

Well, that would get you six out of the nine in two terms.

You could dramatically change the country, the reason why you don't have term limits.

You have the power to impeach, but you don't have term limits, and you don't have the president able to pick them because it's a separate branch.

It's supposed to keep the other branches in line.

It's not supposed to be collusion between the branches.

And that's what the Democrats want.

But

then it gets worse from there.

And this is all in a 24-hour period.

How does the nation survive if any of these people win?

The best of the Glenbeck program.

Like listening to this podcast?

If you're not a subscriber, become one now on iTunes.

And while you're there, do us a favor and rate the show.

All right.

David Steinberg is the New York City editor of PJ Media.

He joins me now.

He is a guy who

has done real homework and one of the few that have actually pursued Elon Omar's history.

And it's kind of complex.

And I wanted to bring David on to take us through it.

David, how are you?

Glenn, Glenn, thanks for bringing me on here.

You know,

you're the first national program.

I've been on this story in almost a year.

You're the first person who decided to give this some attention nationally.

I've done some local radio, but again, I've been putting this out there with verified facts.

I've been putting out, you know, court documents.

I've been putting out social media posts, everything that could be confirmed by listeners themselves.

You're the first person to bring me on.

So I really appreciate that.

David, I appreciate the hard work that you did.

I know the stress that you and your family have to be under because you are exposing something that, if you are right,

is

game-changing.

I think truly, truly game-changing.

Let's

take everybody through the facts on this.

Started as kind of a blog post, kind of rumor, then, was it Reuters or Associated Press, I think, got involved.

And they couldn't verify, nor could they deny.

They said, Really, it's up to her.

We've got to have these documents.

This all seems buttoned up.

Tell me this story.

Well, this actually goes back at least two years.

There's a a local conservative website, powerline.com, up in Minnesota, run by Scott Johnson, who's fantastic.

He's been at this for 15 years.

He found

a post on an anonymous post on a Somali message board right after Ilhan Omer first won election

to

a state representative seat in Minnesota in 2016.

Like two days after she won election, he finds this post

basically spilling all the beans that she married her brother in 2009

and likely did it for some fraudulent purposes.

It certainly was not a real marriage.

It wasn't disturbing in that nature.

But it looks like it could be for immigration purposes.

It looked like it could be for tax purposes, whatever it was.

And right away, there was quite a bit of information that

Scott was able to publish.

He had pictures,

and these were all time-stamped pictures.

He had witness statements, and he did a little digging.

And just going to the courthouse, he found out that she did indeed marry this person just for two years,

and she had

a live-at-home common-law husband during that entire period who she had been married to for seven years prior and had two kids with.

So she's at least would be a bigamist.

At least she would be a bigamist.

Correct.

Now, what she originally said,

and this is important because the media was thrilled to be able to say, this is our first Muslim woman in a hijab,

and she's a refugee from war.

She's everything Donald Trump hates.

This was in 2016, so she was elected the same night Donald Trump was elected.

They were thrilled to have that image.

And yet, just a couple days later, they have this other story that

would certainly destroy all of that.

So,

what they did was

Ilan Omar released a statement, cleared up nothing, addressed none of the evidence, but simply said, I had my first husband, who I'd been married to for seven years.

We drifted apart.

I married this second person around 2009.

We divorced.

We separated in 2011, and I got back with my original husband and that's all I'm going to say about it.

Now,

Glenn,

if you're a journalist, do you stop at that point?

That's what happened.

They did stop at that point.

They were completely satisfied with her explanation.

And next two years until 2018,

there was virtually nothing revisiting that original story.

That's when I jumped in.

I jumped back into this in the run-up to the 2018 election, and I've been digging on it for almost a year now, and

I've uncovered what I believe is enough to put us far beyond a reasonable doubt.

Okay, so

I want to get into the evidence because it's more than just,

do you have any idea yet on why she

may have married her brother?

Absolutely.

Okay, okay, okay.

So we'll get into that here in a second.

I want you to lay out the evidence

and lay out all of the other accusations because it's not just this, and it's very, very disturbing if this is indeed true.

And it's hard to get your hands on birth certificates, et cetera, et cetera.

But

there are other ways to be able to verify.

And we'll get into that with David Steinberg.

He is the New York editor of PJ Media and a guy who has has really done his work on this.

And this is an important story because

this connects directly to care and what happened just a couple of weeks ago when Elon Omar

was not chastised by Nancy Pelosi.

They are afraid of her for some reason.

They are afraid of care.

Joe Lieberman said this to me the other day, not about care, but that the Democrats that he knows in Congress are afraid of the left.

Well, that includes care, and they are very powerful and very dangerous.

That's why I said David was a real hero today, because he is taking something on that might destroy him and his career.

You know, if he gets it wrong, the consequences are really high.

If he gets it right, they may even be higher.

Tell me now what you have found and the facts that

line everything up.

Well,

there's so much here I'd love to go over with you, so much evidence I've published.

Here's the basics for your audience.

Back in 2003,

this man named Ahmed N.

Elmi

graduated from Arlington Senior High School in St.

Paul, Minnesota.

While he was attending that school, he was living with a man named Nur Saeed Mohammed.

Nur Saeed Mohammed is Ilhan Omar's father.

So for the one year he was attending this school in Minnesota, his legal guardian was Ilhan Omar's father.

Now, I don't have the school records yet.

I can't acquire those without a warrant.

But I do have several witness statements placing him in that address, saying that was his father, and I do have address records putting both of them in that address.

Now,

certainly

that would be something that you would think a reporter would ask her about over this time.

No one's asked her about it.

Most of what I've published

has been ignored.

In the one or two times that she has been confronted by the media, a New York Times reporter asked her a couple questions.

An AP reporter asked her a couple questions.

Nobody has brought up that.

The second

bit of information I have showing that this marriage was fraudulent is that from 2009 to 2011, which is the extent of her marriage to Ahmed Elmi,

Ilhan Omar was attending college at North Dakota State University.

Also enrolled was Ahmed Elmi.

Now,

so so shortly after she married this man who appears to be her brother, they both enroll in the same college.

I checked address records.

Ilhan's first husband, who she has two kids with,

also lived in the same address with Ilhan Omar and her brother slash husband during those two years she was attending North Dakota State University.

She was living with two husbands at the same time and her two children.

In the same house.

Actually, in the same house one year and then in the same house the next year.

They were all in the same two addresses.

Actually,

her first husband, whom she has the two kids with, the records actually show she spent more time living with him during her marriage to the second husband than she spent living with the second husband.

And then, as soon as she gets her degree in 2011,

she heads back to Minnesota.

And according to her, her second marriage fell apart, and she never spoke to him again.

That's it.

The extent of her marriage took place while they were both attending college.

Okay, now,

which is weird because her kids and her husband are living in the same house.

All right, so

she claims that she never spoke to him again, and she claimed that in

court

for the divorce, correct?

She did not divorce Ahmed Ahmed Elmi,

her brother, until 2017

when this became a liability for

running for federal office.

So that occurred early in 2017.

She filled out a form saying she had not spoken to him since 2011.

She had no idea of where to find him.

She had no contact with him, with any relatives.

She said she had tried tried to search for him online with social media.

Every single question she answered on that form is a provable lie, a provable instance of perjury.

There's nine, nine instances of perjury just on this one form she signed for the divorce.

Because

all over her social media, she is having contact with Ahmed Elmi from 2011 to 2015.

Not only is she having contact with him, she literally was posting pictures of her having physical contact with them.

They're hugging, taking photos of each other in London in 2015.

And

Ahmed Elmi, we got in touch with him back in 2016.

He admits being the person in the photo, but says he was just at some event.

He doesn't know who the woman standing next to him is.

He admits that

he had a wild night in London

with this woman who he can't identify, but

happened to marry a man with his exact same first name and two middle names and last name.

Now,

I did actually bother to do the homework to rule out if there was anybody else named Ahmed Nursaid Elmi.

There is not.

There was nobody else alive around his age with that name in either England or the United States.

So

for what he said to be true, that he did not know her, there has to be a second person, but there simply is no records of one.

Now, when you say it's her

brother, are you saying, because you can't get the birth certificates because she said that her birth certificates were lost in the civil war in Somalia, which is reasonable to believe.

Are you saying that this is a brother?

Or like I have a guy I refer to as my brother.

We've known each other since we were kids.

He lived with us.

You know, he was practically raised by my parents, but he's not my brother.

But I consider him my brother.

Is that the kind of brother you think this is?

Or is this an actual blood brother?

You know, I

am unable to determine if

this is a blood brother.

No one's going to be able to determine that without a test.

However,

I it is clear to me from what I've published and from information I have not published yet.

I did share some of that with you, Glenn, earlier.

I'm getting that confirmed by our attorneys over here, and I'll publish it as soon as I can.

But

the government of London and the government of the United States certainly was told that this person was her brother on several occasions.

So, whether or not this is a blood brother, he was either adopted, he was a half-brother, he was her full brother.

And

why would she do this?

What do you think the motive is?

Why would she do this?

That's interesting.

Some people have been bringing up the fact that they believe it's immigration fraud.

I don't think that's the case.

Again, because this happened in 2009 and months later, both of them were attending college.

I believe this was about student loan fraud.

She was living in public housing at the time.

He had just graduated from a

pretty rundown high school.

He didn't have much money and I haven't found any records of him working anything but manual labor at the time.

But if they got married and they apply for student loans, they become independents.

So their parents' income is no longer included.

on their application.

So they would immediately, well, first of all,

he was going to be paying the out-of-country, out-of-state rates otherwise.

So it certainly was a boon for him.

And both of them, their parents, were cut out of the picture.

And they had nothing to their names at the time.

So their student loan rates would have been fantastic.

Now,

the idea that we're going to throw someone into jail over cheating on student loans, it might sound like it's not going to happen, but the laws for fraud on a FASTA form are incredibly, incredibly serious.

Each instance of perjury can lead to a felony and five years of jail.

All right, David, I want to have you back when you have some more information because it's a lot deeper than just this,

as if this isn't bad enough.

David Steinberg, thank you so much.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Arthur Herman is one of my favorite authors, one of my favorite historians.

He's a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

He also

has been consulting a bit with the Pentagon and others on our national security because he has written so much about how we've done it before.

The question is, can we do it again?

He's written

an essay that is out, and probably not a lot of people have read it and they should.

America's STEM Crisis Threatens Our National Security.

Welcome to the program, Arthur.

How are you?

Hey, it's a pleasure to be back here, Glenn.

How are you?

Good.

So, Arthur,

I'm very concerned about the 5G dilemma that we're in.

It doesn't look like our allies are going to go along with Donald Trump.

And I think part of that reason is because

we don't have a real viable solution.

They're way ahead of us on this.

Also,

between 5G and ASI, or AI and AGI,

I think, and I'd like to hear your opinion, I think this is the most important national security crisis since maybe Star Wars with Ronald Reagan,

and

if not, it might be as big as the need of a Manhattan Project in World War II.

It could be.

The other comparison, historical comparison, which I point to in my essay that you referred to and very generously mentioned, is the Sputnik and the advent of Sputnik when the United States realized it couldn't be complacent anymore about, oh, we'll get there eventually because there was a competitor who had found a way to get there first.

And the implications from not just in terms of getting the first one on the moon, but the implications for strategic advantage, the possibility of nuclear weapons in space, suddenly galvanized American energies and got the government and its leading research and university institutions focused on we have to change course and we have to really speed up the development.

of where we want where we are now to where we need to be in order to keep up with a competitor.

And I don't think, I think that the 5G, you're absolutely right.

5G is a moment that could be, in some ways, existential for America's information technology and high-tech.

But because,

you know, DOD and our friends at the Pentagon have trouble getting their minds around it because this is different from your usual military threat, the way your weapons were,

the way even SDI was conceived of, was dealing with a real military threat that they could isolate and talk about discreetly in the ways in which they were trained to do.

And 5G represents, as does AI and as does quantum, represent a bold new frontier, and it's really hard for our leading government agencies to come to grips with it.

And that's what I'm trying to do at my end.

And this essay that we're talking about is sort of one piece of getting that puzzle together and getting us ready for what we need to do.

So let me go back to the the essay first real quick on something, and then I want to talk to you about STEM.

You mentioned quantum.

You just mentioned it there.

How close are we to quantum computing?

Well, we already have quantum computers that can solve certain kinds of discrete problems, ones that are really suited for the way in which quantum computers do the numbers and make calculations.

And again, the issue is not that they go faster, it's that they are able to skip steps because of the physics underlying how

quantum computers work.

But the problems they deal with are fairly elementary.

They're designed to be solved by quantum computers.

It's a kind of lab experiment.

The quantum computer that everybody worries about, rightly,

and that keeps me awake at night from time to time, and when I think about where we could be if we lose that race, is the one that could have the capacity of decrypting public encryption systems.

And I've written about the challenge that it and the consequences of not dealing with that threat, of not preparing for Q Day, as I call it, and for not winning that quantum race.

I would say the timeline is steadily shrinking, Glenn.

For a while, I think people thought, oh, this is out there decades away.

I was at a conference in Krakow, Poland, on cybersecurity, and there was a scientist there saying, oh, this is going to be decades away.

I think most people recognize now we're talking five to ten years out.

And the big question is not just when it comes, Glenn, but who gets it first?

We need to be there.

We need to be there first.

All right.

So, in your essay, and this is how it relates to the average person, I remember growing up, I was born in 64, so I came towards, you know, I don't remember Sputnik or anything else.

I do remember the moon landing, just barely, but I do remember the moon landing.

But here's the thing I remember as a child: every boy my age wanted to be an astronaut.

Everyone wanted to work for NASA.

Everybody wanted to work on rockets.

And

that was something that was really pushed,

starting at Sputnik.

They really,

the government knew we are going to be left in the dust unless we ignite the imaginations of children.

Yeah, and it worked, didn't it?

I mean, it did.

You had a whole cultural shift that emphasized going to space, the glamour of engineering, of aerospace.

Okay, maybe you couldn't go to the moon, but you know what?

Maybe you could fly at altitudes no one had ever flown before.

You know, things like the U-2 caught people's imaginations.

And I think, frankly, Glenn, I think we can do that again.

I think

when you talk to people, even kids, about quantum computers, about quantum physics, and you use terms like teleportation in terms of quantum entanglement when you talk about time crystals where you're actually able to using the right materials freeze time so that the entanglement between qubits lasts longer to increase the

calculations that you can you could manage in these nanoseconds of linkage between quantum events.

When you talk, the eyes light up.

I mean, it sounds like so fascinating and so cool, but we're not there and our school system isn't there.

And you and I have had discussions and we understand what a disaster our school systems have been.

And now

the universities and the colleges have not been much better.

But we have the opportunity with these advanced technologies to really

touch on the inner geek for kids in a way that hasn't been possible before.

And I'm looking for, I'm hoping that we can find the right kinds of partners who can go and say, let's get some programs together.

Let's look at the best practices models, look at the ways in which countries like Taiwan and South Korea and Norway and Great Britain have been able to foster strong science and engineering

programs for their young people.

And let's think about ways in which this could be a new American, a new American renaissance

in terms of science, in terms of technology.

And this isn't just a good idea.

It's become an issue of national and economic security of such weight and moment that if we don't get started now, I really worry about

what's going to happen over the next couple of decades.

We're going to have such a shortfall of Americans who know how to do stuff that it's besides work as Barista at Starbucks,

that I think we're

even private companies that and companies like Google and even Facebook understand that they're going to have a real workforce problem and a research problem if we don't address these issues.

Well, we already are.

I mean,

I know

it's not out

in the public, but I do know that there are people that have been offered

large sums of money from China to be able to even work work over here

and stay here.

But China is throwing money at American mines to bring them over or have them work for them over here.

And you have the opposite problem here.

The government isn't doing much and

the giant corporations don't really want to work for America.

No, and you've got to find ways to incentivize them to do that.

And one of the ways in which to do that, I believe, is through making them partners in dealing with this high-tech STEM crisis and make them realize, look,

this is an issue which is not just about national security, assuming you care about that.

And I think a lot of them do, actually.

I think the globalist agenda that they have embraced over the last couple of decades,

it actually wears thin

when confronted

in a really serious way with what happens if America does lose out on its competitive advantage with a challenger like China.

They all understand that.

China's not going to be the next big market for them.

It's going to be the next big competitor for them and what they're trying to do.

But what you have is a moment in which you can say, look, your workforce, your future as companies, as innovative companies in what you do best is

going to be in serious jeopardy, as will our national security, if we don't have more Americans excited about science, excited about engineering.

And you know what, Glenn?

There's a secret aspect of this, which I didn't, I mean, I talk about the implications of this for high-tech STEM, but if we can get American colleges, universities, get their heads straight about what's happening to them with

the brain drain to China,

the way in which they are training future competitors, to get them focused on having strong programs in science and engineering and mathematics, we can start to open the door for other kinds of reforms in colleges and universities.

And I really believe that, that there's ways in which everything that we've deplored about universities and colleges becoming basically Marxist training grounds.

and leaving our kids culturally and intellectually deprived as part of that leftist agenda, we can begin to make inroads at that end by driving this wedge with regard to you have a task and responsibility to America to make us and make our kids prepared for the future.

And it starts with science and engineering, but you know what?

The next step will be in areas like history.

The next step will be in areas like philosophy.

and serious understanding of our world and of America's unique place in that.

So there is a lot at stake here, I think, that goes,

even if you look beyond the question of science and engineering as part of our national and economic security, there is an aspect of this that has to do with saving what's left of the Western cultural legacy that I think

can also come into play here.

And I know that's something that you and I have thought about and pondered and worried about for a long time.

And I see this as one way to start

changing the direction and the momentum on those issues.

Arthur, I've only got about a minute left, and I have to ask you a question off topic.

Yesterday, I was doing a thing on history and how we've lost history.

And I think it, and I can't remember, but I'm pretty close to these numbers.

Out of like the 77

major universities in America, if you go and take and you want to be a history major, you do not have to take one single semester or one course on American history.

And 69 of those,

I don't think, even teach American history, or maybe it's 69 out of the 77, you don't have to take any American history at all.

And I wanted to know, how do you understand history, with an exception of ancient history, how do you understand history at all without including America?

It's baffling.

And I'll bet if you dig even deeper than that, and I know this was the case even a couple of decades ago, if you wanted to major in American history at top-level schools like Yale, like Harvard, you never had to take a course in the American Revolution.

It wasn't a requirement.

So, and how do you understand American history without understanding that pivotal moment

and the birth of

America and of the principles that animate it?

There's a lot of very serious work.

There's a lot of corruption, that intellectual as well as moral corruption, that underlies this.

What we can do here is begin to sort of change the debate and the discussion about what the university's responsibilities are.

And that includes science and engineering, but I think it will also include history.

I always say my concluding remark to you, Glenn, is: if you want a quiet life, don't study history.

You're exactly right.

It is filled with challenges and paradoxes and complexities.

And getting kids away from understanding the true nature of American history and the real dimensions of the past is one of the ways in which universities and the left have left our kids culturally adrift.

Arthur Herman, the author of Freedom Forge, which Freedom's Forge is one of the best books that you can read.

Gandhi's Churchill, also another one that is so timely right now, but it was written in 97.

The idea of decline in Western history.

A must-read from Arthur Herman.

Thank you so much, Arthur.

I appreciate it.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.