Best of the Program | Guests: Jeff Giesea & Dr. Will Reilly | 3/13/19

Hey podcasters, great show for you today.

We start in the heart of darkness with Venezuela and the celebrities that just love Hugo Chavez.

Then right into something that has now been de-platformed, I'm sorry, not deplatformed, but got us demonetized.

Demonetized on

YouTube, and that is for telling you who

we believe Congresswoman Omar is.

If you have a problem with today's episode, you should listen to tomorrow's podcast.

Then had a great conversation about freedom of speech and what do we do?

Do we break up these big social media companies, these tech companies?

I don't necessarily agree with that, but what do we do?

Because freedom of speech is even hitting you.

They're trying to curtail your speech, and I got a letter in from a listener yesterday that I shared with you.

And then the hate crime hoax, how the left is selling a fake race war.

And of course, we end with

Tony Robbins.

My visit to him.

I'm going to be gone over the next few days, and I'm going to go see Tony Robbins.

And he's going to motivate me.

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm much more interested in the Ricky Gervais

show on Netflix called

Afterlife.

Really fun.

Really funny.

Really, really good.

Harsh, but really funny.

That's all on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Blenbeck program.

Imagine...

A darkness, something darker and scarier than the deepest parts of the ocean.

Darker than that awful darkness of space.

The darkness of night, a house shackled by darkness because there isn't any electricity and there hasn't been for months.

But then again, that's not the dark I'm talking about.

The real dark is the dark part that lives inside of you.

The things that you now have to do on a daily basis, just to stay alive.

Around the corner, you hear the bestial shouts from a Caracas jail.

The prisoners have taken over.

At least that's what you hear.

They feel they can do a better job of controlling themselves than whoever has been doing it lately.

It was 100 years ago that this country was lavished in wealth.

Not too long ago, you too were rich.

You were healthy in that chubby 19th century Russian diplomat way.

You ate well.

You probably ate too much.

Black turtle beans and fried bananas, asado negro.

You drool just thinking of the tender shredded beef and the carrot and oregano tinged broth.

You strode through steakhouses on special occasions.

You ate T-bones like a Texan.

You drank Chilean wines, malback from Argentina, occasionally a glass of cognac.

Not because you were a drunk, but because you could.

Because you enjoyed the sprouting goodness that life had to offer.

Man, that life, it seemed like it was never going end.

Now look at yourself.

You're a bag of bones.

Bones jutting out like false teeth.

At times, you think about all the energy you waste just breathing.

What happened?

Now you can barely afford a single egg, one egg.

Eggs that fall out of the backsides of chickens, and I can't afford it?

Your mouth quivers at the thought of a fried egg tender.

So tender it pops open with just the prod of a fork oozing onto the fried papaya and rotisserie chicken.

You've lost 120 pounds since it all started going to hell.

And now,

you're in it.

Firmly.

You weren't rich, you were middle class, lower middle class even.

That's just how good things used to be.

Although there there was always the cinderblock hovels that you can see from the plane as you land in Caracas,

now it has spread.

The office, where you used to work as an accountant, it's now empty, abandoned, overtaken by squatters, people like you who lost everything,

who limp a little more each day toward their death.

Men all in black now patrol the streets with shotguns, black bulletproof vests and black tarp-like shirts and black pants, black military boots.

People hamper cars in the street because there's nowhere to go,

nothing to do.

Gasping a bit, you rest below a crucifix statue, the left-tilting head of Christ emblazoned in a soft and sad light, the burnished rise of daylight breathing into a new day.

Looking at Christ, perhaps for the first time you understand suffering.

You understand his defeated look, the look of hopelessness and violence and death.

The hopelessness of surrendering and surrendering until it stops mattering.

You hope

you have that one hope left that all things will change.

But you really hope

That just anything begins to change.

It was all so promising promising at the beginning.

Everybody was going to be able to live the high life.

And now

only a handful are

and they are the ones that live behind the gates.

This, you think to yourself, this is the socialist utopia they promised all of us as Venezuelans?

As you sit there under the statue,

you begin to replay it all in your mind and wonder,

where are all those Americans, those celebrities, those from Hollywood that praised our leaders

and helped convince us that this was the road to prosperity.

I wonder what they're eating tonight.

I have a feeling they're eating very well.

This is the hypocrisy.

This is why the media is an enemy of the people.

Not because they're against Donald Trump or anything else, but because they will not tell you the truth.

Where are the big long specials on Venezuela and how it all happened?

Where are the demands for the apologies from those who brought this socialism to Venezuela?

I can tell you right now that if a capitalist country would implode and you had the very rich and the very elite of this grotesque capitalist system

living the high life, taking the gold from the country currently, holding it hostage, forcing people to starve, fixing elections, I can guarantee you, CNN would be there 24-7.

They would be talking about it non-stop and saying, this is why we need socialism.

But where is the media today?

Where are the leaders today

that will actually stand up and say, wait a minute, hold it.

We're all talking about socialism.

Can we stop and look at what socialism has done?

Can we just stop and ask a few people?

Hey, Sean Penn, do you remember when you said this?

He is one of the most important forces we have had on this planet.

And I will

wish him nothing but that great strength he has shown over and over again.

I do it in love

and I do it in gratitude.

I just want to

say that

from my very American point of view

of my friend President Chavez,

it is only possible

to be so inspiring as he is

as a two-way street.

And he would say that his inspiration is the people.

Hugo Chavez.

Praise after the death of Hugo Chavez.

Praise for the new bus driver, Maduro,

who was one of the people,

who will be democratically elected, and he will continue this proud, proud tradition of Chavez.

They will feed you a lie of fiction now that Chavez was doing it right.

It was Maduro.

Well, that falls apart in two places.

One, the economy was already falling apart.

Everything was falling into disrepair at the end of Hugo Chavez.

And my greater point here is this is democratic socialism.

You're going to elect somebody.

He's going to be the greatest.

He's going to bring Barack Obama.

He gave us Obamacare.

And as it starts to fall apart, the democratically elected successor has to pick up the pieces.

And at some point, it gets so bad

that one of these successors just has to stop the elections.

They just have to stop these people because it's the people who are complaining that are causing all the problems.

Where is Danny Glover today?

Has anyone seen Danny Glover?

Is he on television being asked, Hey, how are you feeling about Venezuela now?

Because you were a big supporter when you said things like this.

Well, first of all, I consider the President Hugo Chavez my friend and certainly an ally about the things that I talk about in the world and that he talks about in the world.

I ought to talk preciously about the country that

people often consider me a descendant of and from Hei Haiti.

Haiti is something very special to me.

And so when I talked to the president about Haiti, he understood there was a fundamental relationship that

Latin America, and particularly Venezuela, and the Bolivarian Revolution had to Haiti.

Haiti, otherwise known as Haiti.

Danny Glover will say, Well, that I was talking, no, no, no, I was talking about Chavez, but here he is in 2014 giving a speech next to Maduro,

supporting Maduro.

So proud to be with you

as we commemorate and celebrate

a true man of the people.

Hugo Chavez.

Chavez.

His memory

lives

with us.

It's

through

the work that you do as citizens of this great nation,

as you continue to realize his vision of a participatory democracy, one involving all citizens.

in contact,

in context

with its

elected leaders

who are the stewards of this democracy.

It is a task that is very difficult,

but a task that you are up to

is a task with many challenges,

but he knows that you will continue the fight

that he gave his last breath for

a free,

democratic,

self-determining Venezuela.

That's fantastic.

if any of it were true, as he had his arm around Nicolas Maduro as he was saying it.

If you think that the socialists

really believe in a self-determining group of people, an exchange of ideas,

then why are they silencing so many people today in America?

Don't you see?

This is...

They don't show up in black boots.

They don't show up in in in scary uniforms

germany they showed up in those black uniforms but those weren't scary at the time those were sharp uniforms they were designed by hugo boss

they instilled confidence in the people they thought oh wow look at them i want to be a part of that Now, only now, do you know what they really mean?

And now those uniforms are frightening.

They show up friends.

As Ronald Reagan said, I'm from the government.

I'm here to help.

The most frightening words anybody has ever spoken.

If they truly are going to create a utopia where all of us can express ourselves, then why are they silencing us today?

Why is that Noam Chomsky?

Why is that Oliver Stone?

Danny Glover, Sean Penn.

You all should be held accountable for what you said.

And I know you're going to have an excuse.

Well, they just didn't do it right in Venezuela.

They never do it right.

Shame on you, Hollywood.

And shame on you, American press.

Where are you as people languish in the dark and starve?

The best of the Glenbeck Program.

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.

Here's this

freshman congresswoman that no one is willing to look into.

There's an electric fence around here.

You cannot talk about her.

But

when I said to my staff, I want to really look into her and I want to see, tell me who she is, tell me where she came from, et cetera, et cetera, we started uncovering things that are just beyond description strange.

There are multiple, multiple suspicious stories that the media has granted her a pass and they would never grant this pass to anyone.

I mean, even the average Democrat would not get away with these things.

So I want to talk to you a little bit about

her and

where she came from today.

We'll talk about her anti-Semitism and the heart of that on tomorrow's episode at this time.

Now,

the first stories that started to come out to question her came out from online bloggers back in 2016.

Normally, I wouldn't go to an online blogger and say, hey, look at what this online blogger did.

However, when you have no media, sometimes the online bloggers, if you check them out, have something, and they have checked this out.

Back in 2016, Elon Omar had committed immigration fraud.

This was the charge, that she had committed immigration fraud by marrying her brother to facilitate his arrival in the United States.

Okay, all right.

If it was from a blogger,

I would look into it, but it doesn't help that, you know, it's like, okay,

really?

So she set

her social media platforms to private immediately after that story broke and then deleted all of the alleged evidence that was used to prove the immigration fraud case.

It was all up on her social media.

And as soon as that came out, delete.

Okay,

sounds suspicious, but the mainstream media wouldn't touch it.

Not even the local Minnesota media would touch it.

And you'll understand why by the end of this episode tomorrow.

The Associated Press actually took this on.

They were the only outlet, the Associated Press, not a slum outvet and currently

not a conservative outlet, to say the least.

But when they asked Omar what was going on, she just said, quote, I choose not to further the narrative of those who oppose us, end quote.

Okay, well, I assume that you're saying that those are all lies, but it would be easy to prove them.

So, the AP asked Omar for her immigration records and birth certificates that would prove her denial.

Now, when I first saw this, I was like, oh, geez, a birth certificate thing.

There was nothing with the Obama birth certificate.

Can we stop with the birth certificates?

And the fact that she said that her family's birth certificates were lost during the Somali civil war, something that probably did happen and was true.

So you're not going to base it on birth records.

However, the immigration records, the things that should be open, you shouldn't have a problem with this at all.

She refused to offer any of those up and a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Associated Press was sent back explaining the approval of the release.

It had to be authorized by Omar and her husband, and they won't sign off.

Now, even Snopes, who's not really in the Donald Trump camp, classifying this not as true or false, but unproven.

So let's recap.

We have a credible case of immigration fraud by a U.S.

representative,

and the alleged perpetrator has deleted the visual evidence, refuses to provide any evidence, the person who is, you know, under the microscope.

She's gone radio silent on this issue ever since.

And no one is looking into it.

Okay, I mean, you'd think that someone would, you know, at the the New York Times or Washington Post at least be curious.

Why wouldn't the government open a probe?

The Associated Press, according to the Associated Press, the Obama administration never started an investigation, and the Trump administration hasn't started an investigation.

Okay.

What else you got?

Well, there's also evidence that Elon Omar committed perjury in court.

Now, this is where it starts to fall into place.

When she filed for a divorce from her possible brother in 2017, Omar claimed that she hadn't seen or made contact with her husband since 2011.

She said, I don't even know where my husband is or where he was.

It's possible he was somewhere in London.

Well, PJ Media went to the Minnesota Family Records Center and they verified that Omar officially submitted to the court that her last

contact with her husband was June 2011.

So remember this.

She said, I haven't seen him since June 2011, and that's in her divorce records.

So in the absence of any journalist doing any work on this at all,

the internet sleuths had to go to work, and they searched Omar's husband's last known location, which was London, right?

She said, I haven't seen him, probably in London.

So they searched to see if Omar had traveled there between 2011 and 2016.

Oops!

They found some photos on social media taken in London back in 2014.

The picture is up on the screen now if you happen to be watching.

It is taken in 2014.

That's Elian Omar and her ex-husband or brother

or whatever.

So, isn't that a pretty strong case for perjury?

A case for law enforcement, at least to investigate the mainstream media, to do some kind of looking into this.

Give credit to the Associated Press.

They're the only ones that at least ask Omar about this discrepancy, and she refused to address the situation.

And Omar's husband, ex-husband, has

declined any kind of response either.

And by the way, the pictures, yeah, they're mysteriously been deleted.

Now, there's one other thing.

Omar has been accused by State Representative Steve Dreskowski

of not one, but three campaign finance and ethics violations.

The first allegation involves the use of $3,000 in campaign money that was spent on travel to Estonia and Boston.

Now, Drakowski claims that these trips were personal in nature.

And her response?

It should be concerning to his constituents that he's using taxpayer dollars to harass a Muslim candidate.

So, in other words, her defense is, I'm a Muslim.

The second allegation is that Omar used over $2,000 in campaign finance to pay her lawyer for her divorce proceedings.

Omar's response was basically, no, no,

it was for something else.

And no other explanation has been given.

The third allegation is that she made ethics violations after accepting speaker fees from public colleges.

Omar would later pay that money back, but

no apology?

No, instead we got this.

We recognize how these folks are deeply invested in stopping a progressive, black, Muslim, hijab-wearing, immigrant woman.

Boy, intersectionality is working for her.

We know these people are part of systems that have historically been disturbingly motivated to silence and discredit and dehumanize influencers who threaten the establishment.

Now, it's really interesting that she would use

dehumanize.

What does that mean?

These disturbingly,

what does she call them?

Disturbingly motivated to discredit and silence and to dehumanize influencers.

Let me see if I can explain to Omar what dehumanizing actually looks like from an interview in a hallway that she denies that's what she was saying until she released the video herself, apparently not listening to it and realized, oh crap, that's exactly what I said and deleted it.

Here's the audio.

Listen.

Could you just set the record straight so we get your side of it?

Do you think that President Obama is the same as President Obama?

Absolutely not.

That is silly to even think and equate to one is human, the other is it true that you just think

one is human, one is clearly not.

Hmm.

Omar, I don't know how they do things in Somalia,

but that is

the

dictionary definition of dehumanizing someone.

To claim one is a person and because I disagree with him, the other one is not.

But what is her real story?

Where did she come from?

How has she been educated?

Who are her friends?

Who was in her office last week just as the Democrats decided to change and say, no, no, no, what we're going to say is it's anti-Semitism.

It won't be related to her.

Anti-Semitism,

but also anti-Muslim.

Who was in her office as that decision was being made?

On tomorrow's episode.

It's also on YouTube.

You can watch it.

We didn't make any money off it.

Why get paid for your work?

We were demonetized yesterday because of this monologue.

Again, an effort to silence us.

You can watch it there.

You can hear it here on tomorrow's broadcast, or you can always get it and support us at the Blaze at Blazetv.com.

Blazetv.com.

Use the promo code Beck and you'll save 10% on your subscription.

This is 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.

Jeff GC is online with us.

He has put

a bunch of

comments out on Twitter that I thought was interesting, a Twitter thread.

I'd like to elevate the way we talk about censorship issues.

Let me offer a few quick thoughts on language around these issues, how I'm currently thinking about them.

We thought we would get him on and have him lay it out for us.

Hello, Jeff.

How are you?

Hey, Glenn.

How are you?

I'm good.

I'm good.

Tell me,

can you guide us through it all

a logical way that we can

have freedom of speech?

Companies can be themselves and

do what they feel is right

while still having freedom of speech and getting the government out of bed with these people.

Yeah, exactly.

So let's try to frame the discussion.

I mean, first, we all care about freedom here, right?

We want to live in a free society.

The question is, what does it mean to live in a free society when there are these incredibly powerful tech companies and global services that have a ton of market share and that conceivably can kind of kick you off for any reason?

Right.

So

that's what I'm wrestling with.

I kind of come at this with this freedom libertarian type orientation, but I recognize that the issues get a lot more complicated in this era.

And so I've been trying to elevate the way we talk about these issues and just advance this dialogue because I think it's incredibly important to the future.

So I'm really grateful to be on your show to talk about it.

No, I really appreciate it.

We do not have serious discussions on this.

We have a bunch of politicians throwing things back and forth,

and people are just, I think on this issue, they just

become outraged by it and then they don't know what to do, so they just hook their wagon to some politician.

And I don't think we're having a serious discussion about this in society.

So where do we begin?

Right.

Well, I think, I mean, I think it begins with talking about it and trying to wrap our heads around it and understand what are the right questions to ask.

And I think, you know, we've heard about, just to kind kind of poke at you a little bit, I mean, we've all heard about the Chinese social credit system where they're monitoring its citizens.

And if the citizens don't behave properly, they'll get demarised and they won't be able to take the train and stuff like that.

Well, in our society, a privatized version of totalitarianism is still totalitarianism.

Like,

in some sense, we're evolving this American social credit system.

So

just say, when you say poke at me, you don't think I disagree because I think China is building 1984.

We're building Brave New World.

It's the same thing.

Exactly.

It's just privatized.

So maybe we don't disagree.

But

so I talk to my friends who are passionate Christians and they care a lot about religious freedom.

And I generally support them.

I happen to be a gay guy.

But like if Masterpiece doesn't want to sell me a cake for my fabulous wedding, that's no big deal.

I can go to a different bakery.

Right.

But if Amazon bans me from selling my books on Amazon for whatever reason, that's really devastating.

Correct.

However, one of the messages.

However, there is, and I agree with you, but that's where the discussion needs to be.

They're a private company, but they're still a massive private company.

So I agree with you 100%.

We have to talk about that.

But how do you balance the libertarian, you know, hey, it's still a private company with...

So in my eyes, it comes down to market share and consumer choice and I think like in the case of Christians I ask them what's gonna happen when the SPLC labels you a Christian extremist because you don't like gay marriage you don't support gay marriage which my book is fine like I can respect that right but what's gonna happen when you refuse to bake my cake and then you get banned from uber

right like right what's gonna happen like those are two very different things so for me a lot of the discussion comes down to consumer choice

If there's a service that has a ton of market share, like Amazon just dominates book distribution,

Uber dominates ride sharing, that is a different, that's a different phenomenon, or PayPal dominates online payments.

That's a different dynamic than if I have lots of choice in the marketplace and there are like five bakeries in town, and this one doesn't want to make me a fabulous cake, so I'll just go to a different one.

So, I think that's

one element for us to think about.

I think

that's a good question.

And how do we solve that?

Two ways.

One is

I think having a broader conversation about political discrimination and religious discrimination in the commercial landscape, because we want to balance the ability for businesses to choose their customers, because that's part of their freedom, on the one hand.

And yet, on the other hand, I think recognizing that with global services that have a ton of market share, like maybe that's not okay.

So

should they be able to ban me from wearing a MAGA hat?

And I go to, should my bank be able to say, I don't want to serve you because you voted for Trump?

Correct.

Or should my airline be able to say, you're not allowed to fly in American airlines anymore because you voted for Trump?

Right.

Like, that feels very wrong to me.

Or my Internet service, that may be different because they're a telecommunications app, but my cell phone or whatever could say, I don't want to serve you anymore because you're a Christian extremist.

Like, that seems very problematic to me.

Correct.

And I guess it is market share

that

makes it so frightening.

However,

let me push back from a libertarian standpoint.

If I create a company and I grow to be huge because there's nobody else that was doing what I did, and why should I then have be punished

as long as I'm not obstructing?

See, this is I'm tying myself in a knot here, Jeff, because the only thing, the only thing that I cannot solve on the capitalist system is really the de Tocqueville problem.

He said in Democracy in America that at some point the rich will get so rich they will kick the door behind them and not allow anybody else through.

And that's true.

Now, not all rich people do that, but some do.

I talked to Ray Kurzweil and I said, what makes you think that Google is not going to just notice what I'm doing online and say, they're trying to build a competition to me, to Google, and just start banning them, start changing the information?

Why wouldn't someone who has a dark heart

do that?

And he said, because people won't.

Like, you don't know people.

People will always do that kind of stuff.

So I don't know when you have that much power and you don't have the the morals to to underpinning of saying you know no i don't want to screw people i made it and somebody else can make it and competition makes will just make me stronger i don't know how to solve that well i think i think i think you are helping solve it by advancing the conversation.

I think one angle, I think there are a lot of different angles.

There's no one magic bullet, but I think antitrust is certainly part of the equation here.

And maybe reevaluating how we think about antitrust and at what point, you know, Elizabeth Warren proposed breaking up tech companies.

I don't know if that's a good idea or not, but that is one angle of kind of attack on these issues.

And I just did an analysis of social media, you know, how much is social media impacting our democratic discourse?

And what I found is that American use of social media is dominated by eight platforms And Facebook-owned platforms, Facebook itself, Facebook also owned WhatsApp and Instagram, dominate about half of all social media activity among Americans.

And then Google,

Google controls 90% of the search market.

So imagine all the times that you're searching for information.

And on top of that, they own YouTube, which is the most used social media and the dominant video sharing one.

And they're an investor in Snapchat, which, as you know, is really popular, especially among young people.

So

you look at the landscape and we have eight platforms with two companies controlling

how we make sense of the world and filtering the information that we receive.

And social media is unique because it's participatory.

It's not like we're sharing and creating information in addition to consuming it.

So

what do you think of the argument

between platforms and

publishers?

That they're trying to have it both ways.

They have the protection of a platform because they could not survive.

YouTube couldn't survive if they were going to be sued for everything anybody ever posted.

Facebook couldn't survive.

But that's a platform, and they have to say, I'm an editor, I'm a publisher, or I'm a platform.

If you're a platform, you got to let it ride because you can't edit.

Otherwise, you are responsible for the content because you're editing unless it's illegal.

Why not just make them platforms or publishers?

And publishing is a total different set of rules.

And congratulations on that.

You're going to get sued all the time.

Right.

Well, I think, okay, let's talk about policy and then politics because you're referring to section 230,

which is what protects these platforms from getting sued for the content that they're searching.

So

it seems like that's the root of the problem.

Well, but it gets more complicated because let's be honest.

Like,

I think threatening to revoke Section 230

protection is a really effective political move.

Saying, listen, we're going to pull this, like, we're not going to protect you anymore if you're going to act like a publisher and tweak your algorithms and steer people to this politically biased information and

disproportionately bias everything against conservatives.

So I think it works politically to threaten it.

In practice, I think it's a really bad policy that would basically destroy the internet.

So

I'm not sure that's exactly the right approach.

How would it destroy?

I want to understand.

I'm not pushing back to be.

I think if I could sue Google for anything that Google indexes, that's just going to be a nightmare.

Correct.

And

so I think you're taking a grenade approach when a smarter policy approach would be to

a more surgical approach and maybe change the language of requirements around Section 230 and get in there and say, you know what,

we recognize this thing is this protection is vital to the internet.

But we're going to tweak the language.

And if we find that you're having a disproportionate impact or bias against conservatives or against our Democrats

against anybody, then we're going to.

So I think a more surgical approach to finessing that language and adding requirements might be a smarter approach than just yanking it.

I just assumed that no one in their right mind would take that deal.

They would all back up and go, okay, okay, okay, okay.

Because you're right, it will shut everything down.

That protection has to be provided because no company could handle it.

And I just assume that they would all be wise enough to go, okay, we'll behave.

I mean, the reality is these big platforms do have too many legal protections.

So I do think that I don't want, I'm not a big fan of

litigious culture at all, but I do think that they are overly protected and that we can finesse some of the language.

So I think when we look at policy solutions, looking at it more with a scalpel rather rather than a grenade is a much smarter approach.

I mean, I asked some friends what they thought made sense policy-wise, and they

specified with platforms with more than several million users, maybe that's when they should fall under certain requirements, right?

Because when you have a global platform, that's different than having a local retail shop.

We were talking, Jeff, about

being demonetized, and

I'm wondering how much of that is just from

companies, advertisers, saying, you know, we're Mercedes-Benz.

I don't want anything political.

I don't want anything that could be controversial.

And them just not having different categories or levels and just saying, okay, no advertising because some advertisers don't want this.

How much of it is that and how much of it is an agenda to silence?

I definitely think there's an agenda to silence.

I mean, look at you may be familiar with Sleeping Giants.

That's the name of a left-wing advocacy effort that basically tries to remove threatened advertisers who are advertising on Tucker Carlson's show or on Fox or whatever.

And they pulled the plug on all of Breitbart's advertising or a lot of their algorithmic advertising.

So it's pretty devastating for a lot of these businesses.

And

yeah, so I definitely think the advertising censorship issue is big, and it's kind of a structural way to really take the legs out from under conservative media.

And they're winning on this front for sure.

They are.

How do we fight back without being

them?

Well, Glenn, I mean.

I think we may have to be them.

You know, I think conservatives like to be lofty and pretend like

everything's good and wonderful in the world.

And the left is taking this by any means necessary approach.

And that's a recipe for losing.

And there's a sense in which conservatives are just kind of perpetual losing losers, right?

And so I think part of it is bringing the fight back to them, which isn't fun.

Nobody likes playing that game.

But I think they only stop when we force them to play it by their own rules, as Alinsky would say, right?

Exactly.

Yeah, so I think that's one step is to is to push back, take the offensive.

I think a second step is just to stop playing the game.

What Tucker Carlson did the other night was phenomenal.

When he said, no, I'm not going to let you shame me.

No, Fox is standing by me.

We're not going to be fired.

That is really powerful when people learn to just not take the bait with these these outrage campaigns,

especially when they're fake ones.

Now, with advertisers, it's complicated because, you know, Tucker Carlson's show still is losing advertisers.

I'm not exactly sure what to do around that other than making our voices heard and felt with the advertisers and demonstrating to them that, like, hey, this is almost a mutually,

we need to get in the mutually assured destruction mode where, where, okay, we can play this game, but that's going to be a nightmare for advertisers when you're boycotting us and we're boycotting you and all this stuff, or we could just not play this game.

And I think the only way to get to that position is by threatening the left back and saying, no, you know, we don't play that.

We're not going to do that anymore.

Yeah.

And also, I think

one third step is getting our dollars together.

AstraZeneca, if they're going to pull their ads from Tucker Carlson, you know, well, maybe that's not the best example because people need their med, but

like, you know, pick your service.

If you're going to like not advertise, we're going to boycott your service.

And so getting organized to make them pay a price for that behavior is another thing we can do.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Dr.

Will Riley is with us now.

Doctor, how are you, sir?

Good.

How are you?

Very good.

You should refer to me as a doctor as well.

I'm,

of course, a doctor of humanities, which means I can operate on any portion of the body.

I don't know if you know that, but.

Or at least the mind.

Or none of it.

Anyway,

you are a real professor, a doctor of political science, and you have

looked through all of the hate crimes that have been reported over the, what, last 15 years?

Well, it's actually a closer timeframe than that, or a narrower timeframe.

I mean, my book focuses on really the last five years.

Five years.

My research window was 2012 to 2017.

So I guess last six and a half years now.

But yeah, what I find is that a very large number, I wouldn't say of all hate crimes, if you you look at the allegation that someone had a word shouted at them outside a fraternity party on either black or white individual, but a very large percentage of the high profile, widely reported recent hate crimes, more than half, have been fakes.

So, I mean, we saw Jussie Smollett a couple of weeks ago now.

Man claimed that he was beaten up at two o'clock in the morning in Chicago by two white bodybuilders with MAGA hats on.

They turned out to be Nigerian that had a rope, a gallon bottle of bleach.

They chanted, build the wall.

This is MAGA country.

That turned out to be a complete fraud.

He's currently facing 16 felony charges.

Literally a week before that, we saw Covington Catholic, where the claim was that this group of press school athletes had surrounded a literal Native American Indian elder.

I think he was a shaman.

They chanted build the wall.

They tried to take his tribe's sacred rain drum.

And going back through a whole bunch of these, I mean, you've got Eastern Michigan, the graffiti incidents targeting African American students, allegedly.

Air Force Academy, where a general literally had to show up on campus and speak denouncing racism.

A young black girl in Grand Rapids, who claimed that boorish white men literally urinated on her, pretty painful to read.

Keegan College with the death threats.

Wisconsin Parkside with the nooses.

Just a few more, but I mean, UVA, the Virginia quote-unquote rape scandal a couple of years ago where the fraternities were allegedly running.

anti-feminist rape rings that made the front cover Rolling Stone, kind of the OG scandal, Duke La Crosse, all of these turned out to be fake.

And because I had personally had some connection with two fake hate crime incidents in Chicago as a graduate student, one of the city's best-known sort of young hipster bars burned down.

The owner said that this was because he was a gay man.

That turned out to be false.

I became interested in why there was this remarkably high rate of false reporting in this category.

So, I mean, I think there's some good jokes and so on in the book, but I used modern scientific technology to look into why.

So what you found, I'll let you reveal, but it is

very Sololinsky in a way.

It's very progressive in a way that

people feel

justified in doing it.

Yeah, well, I think

that's an excellent point.

So I think there are a couple of levels there.

The first is just that there are a very large number of hate crime hoaxes and frauds.

This isn't, as it's sometimes presented.

I think there's an article in Vox, actually, after Jesse Smollett, just a few cases being amplified by the right.

I mean, putting together hoax, I was able to fairly easily compile a data set of 409 confirmed hate crime hoaxes.

That's currently up to 516.

Almost all of these occurred within the last five years, as I said.

That data set's available to anyone who wants it, by the way.

I've gone on a range of right and left media.

I'm very confident in that.

Would you put,

what was the kid's name that was killed with the hoodie, you know, this could be my son.

Trayvon Martin.

Trayvon Martin.

Would you put Trayvon Martin in that category?

No, actually,

because I think this is something that will be challenged, not just in that public sector where I enjoy debating and arguing, but in academia, I defined a hate crime hoax very narrowly, actually.

The data set easily could be three or four times as large as it is.

And I explicitly didn't include most sexual assaults.

There's a fairly high rate of false reporting there as well, especially on the campus.

And I explicitly didn't include a lot of these police shootings.

And the reason for that is that there was no filed charge of hate crime.

The initial allegation was that this is a hate crime per se.

But if you look at a bunch of those, like Michael Brown, that is, I would say, an additional example, a different type of example of a false created narrative.

If you remember, hands up, don't shoot.

Yes.

The gentle giant, he was walking away from the police.

They said he had tears on his face.

Right.

And he was shot down in cold blood.

It turns out that Michael Brown had committed a strong-armed robbery of another person of color, sympathetic local store owner, well-liked, earlier that day.

He came into conflict with the police because he was walking literally down the median of a busy street.

Cop couldn't tolerate that, got out of his car to confront him.

Brown grabbed the officer's gun.

These are big men.

I mean, Michael Brown was 17, 18, 6'5.

Darren Wilson was 6'4.

There's a vicious struggle.

Brown's fingerprints are on the slide of the weapon, the trigger guard of the weapon.

I mean, I'm a pistol instructor.

I know what that means.

Wilson finally discharges, I believe, two shots, and unfortunately, there's a death.

But many of those narratives, and this will be in my next book, actually, but many of these narratives that come out of the Black Lives Matter movement, and also the alt-right response to that, by the way, are, in addition, fictional.

But those are not in this book.

This is just about fake hate crimes.

And there were more than enough to fill up a book.

You know, I want to go deeper into this with you.

I want to take a break for a minute.

But I have to ask you this.

You're also

a gun instructor?

Yeah, I'm a pistol instructor for the National Rifle Association.

I also do hand-to-hand combat martial arts, but I mean, the ability to kill your enemies is exactly equivalent to the right to be free.

How the hell are you a professor?

I mean, you are an oddball.

How did you get that job?

Or keep it?

Let me say that.

How did you keep that job?

Well, there's a funny answer there, and that's that I teach at a historically black college.

Political correctness, minorities, blacks and Asians, tend to vote for conservative but Democratic political candidates.

Vote heavily for the Democrats.

I'd like to see that change so there's more valuation of your vote.

But the entire far left culture of outrage, whether that's the trans movement perhaps, or constant marches through campus against racism, that's to a large extent absent from the black colleges where everyone in leadership is an upper middle class black guy.

So, I mean, I would say that probably 20% of our professors are conservatives.

I would say I've gotten really no backlash about writing the book.

So it is interesting to contrast that at Kentucky.

Wow.

It's interesting to contract that with a primarily white institution of equivalent size and rank, where you'd be talking about Evergreen State, Portland State, Drake.

So again, obviously heavily Democratic voters to some extent when we vote in the black community, but every single one of the most extreme, outraged leftists I've ever met is a privileged upper-middle-class white kid.

So I actually think that where I am teaching, it is fairly accepted that I've written a right-leaning book.

The Blaze Radio Network

on Demand.