Reeducation Camps? PC Police at UC Berkeley want to ban one of the most American phrases of all time

Remember how everyone referred to America as a “melting pot” in school? Well, that’s about to change in UC Berkeley. The school — for some INSANE reason — thinks the term is offensive and administrators want it out of the curriculums. Glenn’s been warning for a long time that universities are turning into reeducation camps that brainwash students to only think certain thoughts, and this may be the craziest example yet. Glenn had the story and reaction Tuesday morning on radio.

The Daily Beast reports:

Fifty years after the birth of the free speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley, officials across the UC system are encouraging faculty and students to purge mundane, potentially offensive words and phrases from their vocabularies.

Administrators want members of campus to avoid the use of racist and sexist statements, though their notions about what kinds of statements qualify are completely bonkers. “America is a melting pot,” “Why are you so quiet?” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” are all phrases that should raise red flags, according to the UC speech police.

Get Glenn's reaction below, and scroll down for a transcript.

Below is a rush transcription, it may contain errors:

Glenn: First you ban words. Now you're banning phrases.

It's not unlikely that the next step is to ban books. I mean, how could you not ban books? If you're saying that the person -- America is the land of opportunity, a book that says that must be banned. One that makes that case.

If you're saying that America is a melting pot, you've got to ban the books that originated that. How could you possibly have a book in the library that explains why affirmative action is racist? That's a racist microaggression by default.

It's not far down the road before books are banned by universities.

PAT: It's interest too because the people -- a lot of the same people who banned words in the past, like the N-word, which has absolutely been banned for white people.

GLENN: Not the president.

STU: It's -- it's the people who banned it that can say it. It's really fascinating to me that that's perfectly acceptable and he used it like you said earlier, without hesitation.

GLENN: With no hesitation.

PAT: He just went right to it. And I don't know how you can do that when you've been preaching all along about racism and offensive words.

GLENN: Because the first thing you have to do is you have to set up -- like Animal Farm. All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.

PAT: Yeah, that's where we are.

GLENN: You have to set up who is running the show. And who is running the show is definitely not God. God -- all rights do not come from God; they come from the government. And so they will tell you what you can and cannot do. They will make the rules.

You can't expect to understand them. They're arbitrary.

Because they're making them.

STU: Haven't we as a country done a pretty good job at sorting these out ourselves?

GLENN: No, because a lot of places, the most qualified person gets the job.

STU: I know. But this is why this is ridiculous. Like, we have a First Amendment in this country. And you look back at history, we are less than 100 years from a time where a -- a president that is completely celebrated today by the same people who want to make these bans in banning flags and banning words, those same people celebrate Woodrow Wilson, the guy who brought the KKK back. We're less than 100 years from that. We didn't ban people saying the KKK. We didn't end their organization. We didn't stop their publications from being available. They just suck so bad, the United States decided, get away. What a great country.

We don't have to ban these horrible ideas. You know, they get pushed back into the dustbin of history through what we see as a free speech market. It actually works. I mean, you see in Germany where they have -- they've gone and you can't do -- the guy wearing the Nazi armband on the train we were talking about yesterday, where was it? Seattle. That can't happen in Germany. You go to prison for that in Germany. Obviously you can do that. But the organic way to make these things go away for good and to be really tossed into the dustbin of history is to let people come to their own conclusions that those ideas are wrong. They're horribly, horribly wrong. And I think that's -- we've done a pretty good job of that in this country. We've come a long way.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

STU: I mean, I'm not going to say melting pot on the air. Oh, no. I did it.

GLENN: Wow. America's land of opportunity, Stu.

STU: Yes, I like it. I know it's unpopular to say, but I like it.

PAT: I suppose you feel the most qualified person should get the job.

STU: Yes. That's why I don't understand the whole Jeffy thing.

GLENN: Gee, Pat, why are you so quiet?

PAT: Are you saying I should assimilate into the dominant culture?

GLENN: I have to tell you something, I know we've joked for a long, long time, about, you know, Glenn always says, oh, yeah, Glenn, you know, he takes anything, and it always ends with a bullet in the head. This ends with a bullet in the head.

PAT: It does. I agree with that. I agree with that.

GLENN: This ends with a bullet in the head because the next step. They started with words. They're now doing phrases because the phrases are ideas. We're not talking about words anymore. We're talking about ideas.

The most qualified gets the job is not a string of words. It's an idea. So you have to squash the idea. If you can't squash the idea, you must put a bullet in somebody's head. What happens? Play Bill Ayers again. Play Bill Ayers again. Listen to this. This is the FBI informant that studied the Weather Underground in the 1970s. This is him when it became unclassified. This is what he said

VOICE: I brought up the subject of what's going to happen after we take over the government? You know, we -- we become responsible then for administrating, you know, 250 million people.

And there was no answers. No one had given any thought to economics. How are you going to clothe and feed these people? The only thing that I could get was that they expected that the Cubans and the north Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Russians would all want to occupy different portions of the United States.

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter-revolution. And they felt that this counter-revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing reeducation centers in the southwest.

We would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can't reeducate? They're die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. There you go. There you go. They're going to have to set up a reeducation camp. I contend that's the University of California Berkeley. That's a reeducation camp, gang. You're going there. You're sending your kid there, and they're telling them, there are ideas they must not think. Who puts their kid in a college where they say, you must not think those things? I want to go to a college that challenges my children. Pushes their buttons. Make sure they know what they really believe and what they stand for. Say the most outrageous thing to get them to think.

They're telling them, you shall not think. Nobody does that. Nobody does that. Nobody with good intent does that. I don't want my kids going to a church. I won't go to a church that says, you won't think these things. You won't read won't things. You won't talk about these things. No, no, no. Nobody says that to me!

I read what I want. If I want to read something that is -- is challenging to my faith, I will read that. Because I'm smart enough to figure it out.

They're telling your children not to think. That ideas are dangerous. Ideas change the world.

That ideas of merit are dangerous. Merit changes the world. Merit is the reason we have stopped disease. Merit is the reason we feed as many millions of people as we feed because of merit. Somebody did something. Somebody said, I can fix that. And they did.

So what happens? First you have the reeducation camp. There are those that will not go. The reeducation camp teaches you how to think.

They must ban certain thoughts. Once that ban doesn't go far enough, then they have to ban the thoughts and the books that those thoughts are contained in. Those books that further that thought. They must discredit those authors. They must discredit anybody who stands up for that. Who has a different point of view. Shout them down! Shout them down! Beat them in the streets. Call them racists. Call them haters. Do whatever you have to do. But get them to shut up.

If you can't scare them into silence, you beat them into silence.

And if you can't beat them into silence, you just kill a few of them and everybody else shuts up. That's the way it works. That's the way it has worked every time in human history. What, we're unique somehow or another? It doesn't end this way somehow or another? Tell me what makes us different than the Nazis when they banned thoughts. Tell me the difference. When you have comedians who have always gone to the universities -- why? Because they're open-minded. That's where you go and you try new thoughts, new things. You try to it on the youth. These -- the youth today are being taught, close your mind. Shut your mind down. Don't think different things. Think exactly what we tell you. When comedians will no longer go to college campuses because they're sheep. Because they're foolish. Because they're politically correct. You've -- you don't have revolutionaries. You have lemmings. You have useful idiots.

When will our children wake up? When will our college students wake up? They're telling you to ban ideas.

If you would have learned anything in history, you would have known, that is the act of a fascist dictator. I'm called a fascist. I say, read anything. More importantly, read what they tell you not to read.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

America's comeback: Trump is crushing crime in the Capitol

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s DC crackdown is about more than controlling crime — it’s about restoring America’s strength and credibility on the world stage.

Donald Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control and deploying the National Guard to restore law and order. This move is long overdue.

D.C.’s crime problem has been spiraling for years as local authorities and Democratic leadership have abandoned the nation’s capital to the consequences of their own failed policies. The city’s murder rate is about three times higher than that of Islamabad, Pakistan, and 18 times higher than that of communist-led Havana, Cuba.

When DC is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak.

Theft, assaults, and carjackings have transformed many of its streets into war zones. D.C. saw a 32% increase in homicides from 2022 to 2023, marking the highest number in two decades and surpassing both New York and Los Angeles. Even if crime rates dropped to 2019 levels, that wouldn’t be good enough.

Local leaders have downplayed the crisis, manipulating crime stats to preserve their image. Felony assault, for example, is no longer considered a “violent crime” in their crime stats. Same with carjacking. But the reality on the streets is different. People in D.C. are living in constant fear.

Trump isn’t waiting for the crime rate to improve on its own. He’s taking action.

Broken windows theory in action

Trump’s takeover of D.C. puts the “broken windows theory” into action — the idea that ignoring minor crimes invites bigger ones. When authorities look the other way on turnstile-jumping or graffiti, they signal that lawbreaking carries no real consequence.

Rudy Giuliani used this approach in the 1990s to clean up New York, cracking down on small offenses before they escalated. Trump is doing the same in the capital, drawing a hard line and declaring enough is enough. Letting crime fester in Washington tells the world that the seat of American power tolerates lawlessness.

What Trump is doing for D.C. isn’t just about law enforcement — it’s about national identity. When D.C. is in chaos, it sends a message to the world that America is weak. The capital city represents the soul of the country. If we can’t even keep our own capital safe, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Reversing the decline

Anyone who has visited D.C. regularly over the past several years has witnessed its rapid decline. Homeless people bathe in the fountains outside Union Station. People are tripping out in Dupont Circle. The left’s negligence is a disgrace, enabling drug use and homelessness to explode on our capital’s streets while depriving these individuals of desperately needed care and help.

Restoring law and order to D.C. is not about politics or scoring points. It’s about doing what’s right for the people. It’s about protecting communities, taking the vulnerable off the streets, and sending the message to both law-abiding and law-breaking citizens alike that the rule of law matters.

D.C. should be a lesson to the rest of America. If we want to take our cities back, we need leadership willing to take bold action. Trump is showing how to do it.

Now, it’s time for other cities to step up and follow his lead. We can restore law and order. We can make our cities something to be proud of again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.