BLOG

Bill Wirtz of 'Young Voices' Says French Citizens Are Fed up With Politicians

Young Voices Advocate Bill Wirtz joined Glenn on radio to share his insights on the French presidential election, faux-conservatism in Europe and the similarities between France and America when it comes to politiicans.

From Young Voices: Bill Wirtz is a Law student at the Université de Lorraine in Nancy, France. After starting off in politics in his home country Luxembourg, and even running for parliament, he reconsidered his view on the role of government and became a local coordinator for European Students for Liberty. Today he blogs in four languages and was published by the Foundation for Economic Education, the Mises Institute, the Wasington Examiner or daily Luxembourgish newspapers.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Thrilled to have Bill Wirtz on. He is from a group, Young Voices. With Young Voices. He is over in France. He's a young Libertarian studying law over in France. He originally was from Luxembourg. We wanted to talk to him about what is happening in France and what he feels the -- the rhythm of the street is, if you will, on Le Pen and -- and Macron. What France is going to do and what it will mean for the next few years. Welcome to the program, Bill, how are you?

BILL: Hello. Good to be with you. There's a lot to talk about.

GLENN: Yeah. So tell me -- I assume you were quite concerned that it might be the communist and the fascist that were going to battle it out.

Does Le Pen have a chance of winning?

BILL: Well, I mean, the first polls came out recently, which gave Macron a chance of winning by 60 percent of the vote. So quite frankly, it is quite unlikely she will win.

GLENN: Okay. Good.

BILL: Now, I've got Brexit wrong as well. So I'm not really going to put my advice forward here, but if it's -- anything could happen at this point. If there's going to be a terrorist attack in Paris tomorrow, it could all change.

GLENN: Yes. Okay. So, Bill, what does this mean for -- as I read France and Europe -- and I've been watching France since I was on Fox News and talking about, you know, The Coming Insurrection in France and the fact that people -- the media and the politicians, same here in America, are not hearing the voice of the people. And the voice of the people, I believe -- and this is where I want you to correct me, where I'm wrong. They are saying, you're not listening to us. We're not uber nationalists that hate everybody else. But we believe in, you know, our borders. We believe in sovereignty. There's a -- it's meaningful to be French.

We want to help refugees, but we don't want to have our country overrun by people who don't want to be here or who are just taking us for what it's worth. And we're tired of being lied to and stolen from by the politicians and the banks.

Is that what you're feeling over there?

BILL: Well, I mean, I think there's two things to say about this.

For once, if you look at the results of the first ballots, Marine Le Pen scored very badly in the big city, Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon. In these cities she didn't even get 10 percent of the vote. So the more you go in rural areas where there's less than a thousand people living, she gets very high scores because these people feel left out by Paris. So I compare it to US politics. I guess it's more or less the same. That people in rural areas feel left out.

But the perception that some people in these areas where they live among in the areas with the least immigrants are and where there's often no refugees whatsoever, the perception that these people have is sometimes quite wrong in terms of how bad it really is. Now, I hear these people who -- you know, when I write about the alt-right, they tell me on Twitter, "Oh, I was in Paris a few weeks ago, and it was horrible." And, yes, if you go -- there's a few streets in Paris which you can go to, which are very problematic. But that's not really representative of what's happening really in France. So there's a lot of misinformation I would say.

GLENN: So what is it that the people are fed up with? Are they believing a false narrative?

BILL: Sort of. But it is the classic example of blaming the economic situation on immigrants. France is doing very badly. That's absolutely true.

GLENN: But let's move off of immigrants and move into the section of the politicians and the -- and the banks and the corporations, kind of steamrolling everyone. Are they feeling that? Or is that a myth over there too in your opinion?

BILL: Well, I mean, if you just look at the candidates, you got quite an idea why people are fed up. Now running, you have a former investment banker, who was an adviser to François Hollande, who really screwed the country for the last five years. And also we're running another socialist candidate, the candidate who -- (inaudible), who paid his wife a lot of money to do no work whatsoever. So there's a lot of corruption going on and a lot of -- you know, these people they bailed out the banks in 2008 with taxpayers' money. And nobody, apart from a few outsiders, have really criticized that.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: So people are fed up with the politicians. But I don't believe that Marine Le Pen has any of the answers to that.

GLENN: So Farage has come out. I mean, he's an amazing guy. He loves Margaret Thatcher, is quite smart. But he's come out -- he's endorsed Le Pen. He's endorsed Donald Trump as well. What's your take on what's happening there?

BILL: I believe it's very disappointing. I like Nigel Farage an awful lot, but he's very wrong on this. And I don't know where this comes from. I always believe that people like Nigel Farage and others, American conservatives, are very principled. But now they turn out to be just contrarians. Because Marine Le Pen disagrees with the status quo, she disagrees with Brussels, and that's apparently now reason enough to just support her? No, she's a big government socialist. And her policies would lead France even further into disaster.

So why these people start endorsing her, I don't really understand. And that's what I've been warning about in -- in a piece for the Washington Examiner.

GLENN: Yeah, well, good luck with that. Because that's what we tried to do with Donald Trump. And we felt the same way about many people, but, you know, they were up against a horribly flawed candidate in Hillary Clinton, who Donald Trump didn't beat Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton beat Hillary Clinton. He just happened to be the one standing there, while she imploded.

How is -- how is the United States, conservatives, and Donald Trump -- separate them if you can -- viewed overseas in Europe?

BILL: Well, apart from the elections, in the same that the US only is interested in France when there's an election going on, people are now sort of disconnected from the discussion that is going on in the US. People are quite concerned with the discussion about North Korea, on foreign policy. People are quite interested. But in that sense, people don't really see a difference now. Now that Donald Trump is rising in the polls again, as soon as he starts bombing countries -- for people, there's no real difference. That's what we had for the last five years. And that's what we're going to get for the next five years.

As long -- France really is fed up with being called for interventionism. The French people don't want to intervene in foreign countries anymore. And that's why Marine Le Pen is also appealing to them. Because she -- she claims to be noninterventionist. She doesn't want to intervene in Syria, and she wants to get along better with Russia.

GLENN: She actually wants to switch the allies from the United States to Russia. What's the influence of Russia in France? And how is Putin viewed?

BILL: Well, I mean, there was -- I read this article in the Washington Post, where they claimed that Russia is now trying to influence the French election with paid news as well.

Here, people don't believe in these kinds of stories, as long as there's no proof for it. So the discussion is not as big as compared to the United States. But what is true is that Marine Le Pen has been getting loans for her campaign finances by Russian banks, which has been a concern in the past. Because she has been invited to the Kremlin as well. She obviously has close ties to Russia. How is that influencing her policies? I wouldn't be able to immediately tell. But some people are concerned. But it's not a major topic.

Her disastrous economic policies are far more interesting than people's interest in what she could have to do with Russia.

GLENN: Bill Wirtz from Young Voices in France.

Bill, the -- if I were to take us back to World War I, when the world was in more turmoil than it is now, but in the 1930s, it felt kind of like this, I think, you know, I could point out Franco and Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin. But I could also point to Churchill being number one. And, you know, FDR. The allies. And the resistance.

And you had a balanced table of good guys and bad guys in many respects. I don't see that now. Do you see anybody worth rooting for, coming up in Europe or America or anywhere that you think, "Oh, finally, this some guy showing up?"

BILL: Not really. The French people are usually looking for such a figure. Because they look for somebody like Charles de Gaulle. And Charles de Gaulle was sort of an authoritarian, but he was a symbol of the French Resistance. Now, today's politicians in France, they claim to be in his image, but obviously nobody comes even close in terms of popularity. Now in Europe, most countries are mostly occupied with themselves.

GLENN: So how is it going for a Libertarian? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, can you write for the Mises Institute. I mean, is that growing, or is that diminishing?

BILL: That's -- I mean, it's definitely not easy being a Libertarian, especially not in France, where almost everything is done by the government and highly regulated.

More people are getting interested in it because -- it's mostly young people who are interested in these ideas. There's no real Libertarian tradition. Nobody here is a Libertarian because their parents were. It's very rare.

We're mostly lacking -- what is mostly lacking is funding basically for Libertarian think tanks. Because there are people who want to start, to get something going. But it's not really easy to get it started. I have a small Libertarian group in my city here. But the university doesn't give me any funding. And doesn't even provide me a room, basically to hold conferences in my university. It's just -- it's really difficult to get started.

GLENN: Bill Wirtz, thank you so much.

What are you expecting? Your prediction for May 7th?

BILL: Oh, that's very difficult. I mean, if I would have to bet my money on it, it would definitely be Macron. But for those interested in the French election, I'd say look for the parliamentary elections next month. Because whoever becomes president this time means the majority in parliament. Otherwise, they can't do anything. So that's definitely something to look into.

GLENN: And which way --

BILL: Right now, it would be Macron.

GLENN: And which way does it lean? Does it lean more fascist? More communist? More status quo?

BILL: Well, the last poll was done a year ago. But Marine Le Pen would definitely not get a majority in parliament. So no matter what, she would be a president without power. Macron, on the other hand, he might be able to rally moderates of all sides, but that's uncertain. The party which is most likely to get a majority in parliament is the Republican Party, an establishment, center right party. And so, yeah, whoever becomes president is going to be very difficult to govern.

GLENN: Thank you very much, Bill. I appreciate it. And stay safe in France. Back in just a second.

This “MIND-BOGGLING” Attack on Freelancing Has Mike Rowe Sounding the Alarm
RADIO

This “MIND-BOGGLING” Attack on Freelancing Has Mike Rowe Sounding the Alarm

Have you heard of the Corporate Transparency Act? How about the new gig economy guidelines that the Department of Labor just set? Because if you’re a gig worker, freelancer, or small business owner, your career could be in jeopardy. “Dirty Jobs” host and executive producer Mike Rowe joins The Glenn Beck Program to sound the alarm: “You want to set your own schedule? Forget it!” Mike and Glenn discuss how these new rules could affect 70 million Americans. Plus, they also debate whether our college system is beneficial, harmful, or unnecessary.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Friend of the program, Mr. Mike Rowe. How are you?

MIKE: First of all, with regard to your sponsors. Excellent choices. I love this foundation.

And at the risk of just shameless pluggery and wanton capitalism, this is an American Giant share.

STU: Oh, wow.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. They have that shirt. I have that shirt.

MIKE: I think you wore it last time I was here. And I thought, what are the odds/but you know Byerd (phonetic), he's a friend of mine.

GLENN: I love him.

MIKE: And I've had him on my podcast. And he's featured in a new book that you'll love. If you haven't seen it, it's called flannel. And it's all about what it really takes to make this.

GLENN: Shockingly difficult.

MIKE: It is amazing, brother.

I mean, I know you know that. You gave me a shirt, ten, 11 years ago.

When you were doing -- what was it? Seventeen.

GLENN: 1791.

MIKE: I still have it.

It was like a canvas work shirt. Ever since then, man. I have been obsessed with trying to better understand the drama and the trauma of getting textile manufacturing back in this country. It's mind-boggling.

GLENN: If companies like Levi's would do 5 percent of their -- of their manufacturing here in America, America would change. It would change.

MIKE: For sure.

GLENN: No interest in it at all.

MIKE: When you really start to peel back the layers. I don't know if this is on your agenda to talk about.

It is -- I just did a whole thing on the toothpick.

Like the business. We used to be the toothpick Capitol of the world.

GLENN: We're very proud of it.

MIKE: A giant industry up in Maine. White birch.

I mean, there's -- the book on it is amazing.

And when you slowly see the way, that we basically give up on toothpicks.

You start to understand the way we gave up on textiles. And then you start asking questions, like, well, what hope does Detroit really have?

Like, if we can't get the splinter right. If we can't get the shirt right, right?

So there are no small things.

Anyway, what American Giant is doing, I think it matters. Because they're 13 years at it now. Right?

So good for you.

GLENN: I just -- I know. I love them. I love them.

So, Mike, let's just talk about the state of the world.

Because we are being boxed. If you are a small business guy, you have under 20 employees.

You now have a transparency act, where you'll spend two years in jail.

If you don't tell the federal government the Treasury crimes division, everything that they want to know.

I don't know how much that's going to cost the small businessman. And just time alone.

Plus, you have the Pro Act, which has now just been done with the Department of Labor. We don't vote on anything anymore, it's just the new guide lines.

MIKE: Yes, yes. New guidelines.

GLENN: What is that going to do -- when we think gig economy, we think, you know, Uber drivers, et cetera.

No. No. Truckers alone. Will we have groceries at our store?

MIKE: 50,000 in California alone. 50,000. I had a guy on my podcast, called Tom Otem (phonetic), who is one of these truckers. And he's been written about in the press, and I was just so interested in his story.

In fact, I interviewed him, while he was in his truck, driving across the fruited plain.

You know, he pulled over, and we had this amazing conversation. But people, I like to talk about it in terms of unintended consequences.

But I realize now, that I might be giving too much credit.

GLENN: Way too much credit.

MIKE: Right?

But I'm trying to stay in whatever lane is left to me.

But when I first say the --

GLENN: I'll be taking that lane away from you soon.

MIKE: It's getting narrow. It's getting narrow.

GLENN: Yeah. Very narrow.

MIKE: When I first saw this thing rear its ugly head.

To your point, it aimed toward the gig competent, and Silicon Valley, mostly Uber and Lyft.

And then it just grew and grew and grew. Graphic artists. Writers. Cinematographers.

Dancers. So many people.

And I'm like, how many are, actually, going to be impacted.

And then the question was, how many people are, actually, freelancing right now?

And the answer is north of 70 million in the whole country.

And so what the drafters of AB5 asked us to believe, initially, was that huge numbers of workers were being shamelessly victimized by greedy and rapacious capitalists, who should have hired them as employees.

And therefore, opened the door to benefits and so forth.

Now, did that ever happen?

Yeah. I suspect.

It's a big country. And there's exceptions to every rule.

But the number of people who were adversely affected, prior to this, versus the number of people, who have now lost the freedom to work, the way they want, is mind-boggling.

And it happened in California, of course.

And to your point. It's happened. And it's happening right now.

And when people realize what this means, you know, you want to set your own schedule? Forget it. You want to eat what you kill? Forget it.

We don't want to think that way anymore.

Because that person, might fail. And if that person fails. Well, then the narrative goes, we just can't tolerate that.

GLENN: I'm sure you've been to Buckingham Palace, and Windsor castle.

And I've been there for the first time.

And the new king has been in the castle.

And he has his whole wing by himself.

And he lands this giant helicopter, right there in his backyard.

And I've never been. Like, I've been to the American castles.

MIKE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I have never had a problem with it. Never. I walked through that castle, and it pissed me off the entire time. Because I thought, there is no one in this country, that could ever build this, except the one who has cornered the market, you know.

MIKE: Right.

GLENN: There's no opportunity. None!

To actually become something, because the government has you so pigeonholed, and people just accept it.

And I don't want to be like that. I don't want to live in that kind of country. If there's no risk, there's no reward.

MIKE: Well, there's the four-letter word.

Risk, and maybe debt, the only four letter words, right now, that I think are truly for sale.

You know, we have to have honest questions about both of those things.

The willingness to accept risk, is the fundamental bedrock of freelancing.

STU: Right. And not everybody is willing to take that risk. Some people just want a stable job.

MIKE: And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

GLENN: Nothing wrong with that.

MIKE: It's so similar -- I think the reason why this has become such an issue for me, is because it translates perfectly, into a four-year education, versus a trade school.

This idea, that we have to put our thumb on the scale. This idea, that one has to be elevated at the expense of the other, is precisely what's informing the Pro Act.

We're not saying that it's -- that it's good to be an employee. We're saying, it's so good, that if you don't do that.

Then you're doomed. You're engaging in a level of behavior, that's so risky, you're actually posing some sort of existential threat, not just to yourself, but to your family, to your neighbor, and so forth.

So it's -- it's amazing how we can't simply put all the options on the table. And let the grownups decide, what fits best.

GLENN: I have to tell you, even in today's world, where universities are taking our children. And molding them into the exact opposite.

Woodrow Wilson said, the job of a university, is to make a man, the most unlike, his father as possible.

Okay?

That was his goal. And that's really kind of the goal now, I think, in many places.

And so many people, will say, because I've got two teenagers.

Are they going to go to college?

No. Probably not.

One of them, maybe.

The other one, trade school, maybe.

Don't know. Don't know. It will be up to them.

And what is the value of a big expensive 250 thousands of individuals dollar education, if you're not going to use it.

If you don't have something, if you're just like, well, I think I'm going to do this.

A, the world is changing so fast. We don't know what jobs are going to be there.

MIKE: I worry. Look, I'm the product of a liberal arts education. I got one. Is served me well. I'm glad I got one.

Did it lead directly to my chosen field?

No. It did not, but it comes in handy, every single day. And mine consists of two years of community college, and another two years at university.

When I finished at '84, the whole thing cost $12,200. All of it.

Today, same school, same course loads. Ninety-two grand.

Now, nothing in the history of this country, has increased faster than the cost of a four-year degree.

GLENN: Bitcoin. Bitcoin.

MIKE: Well, Bitcoin. Or, but that's fallen and headed back. Right? But, I mean, really, if you look at health care, you look at real estate, if you look at food, if you look at energy, the big four -- those things have all been eclipsed by the cost of a four-year degree.

Still, we can't help ourselves. Still, we tell this whole generation, if you don't get one, we're descried.

And that's criminal. It's a shame, because my liberal arts education right now is on this thing.

We have all of it. I have access to 98 percent of the known information right now. For free.

Okay?

But still -- still, we charge. During lockdowns.

Columbia raised their rates.

NYU raised their rates.

And we still paid it, right?

Look, it's easy to look at the Ivy League, especially now.

And point to all sorts of embarrassments.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: But it's not even about that. It's just this bigger thing that is happening. Where a whole chunk of our workforce is tied to a whole chunk of our education system, that has become the proximate cause of derision.

GLENN: I said to my son, where did you learn that?

He said, oh.

I got a course on MIT. Online.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. I mean, you have the opportunity, unlike any human has had. And yet, it's a bad thing. I want to talk a little bit about what you're doing with Mike Rowe Works here in just a second.

So your big push for a long time is you can go to college. But you don't need to go to college.

And you've been, you know, it started with dirty jobs.

Now, you are -- I mean, your -- your foundation has raised a ton of money. How many people are you putting through college?

MIKE: So far, we have close to 2,000 who we have helped master a skill that is in demand.

Mike Rowe Works began really just as a PR campaign in 2008. Dirty Jobs was at its absolute height. The whole country seemed to be unemployed. But, you know, everywhere we went, we saw these help wanted signs. So it seemed pretty clear, there was some other narrative going on. And this idea, that you could fix unemployment by simply creating more jobs.

Was, actually, a canard.

You know, today we have close to 10 million open jobs.

We've got win $.7 trillion in student loans.

And we're still sending the same basic message that we always have.

This path is the best. Everything else will lead to some sort of vocational consolidation prize. That PR campaign morphed into a trade resource center.

And now we're a scholarship fund. We've raised about $9 million, giving it out.

GLENN: You're doing another million this year, aren't you?

MIKE: Yeah. Right now, as we speak, yeah, MikeRoweWorks.org. If anybody is listening with a kid or a grandkid or you yourself want to learn a skill that's in demand. We can help, and we have helped.

But it's really a means to an end, Glenn. The scholarship program in and of itself is great.

But what it's done for me, is it's given me a chance to circle back and talk to people, who five, six years ago, got a welding certificate with our help. Or a plumbing.

And when you ask them the question today, how is it going?

You get amazing answers. Like, now, some of them are still plumbing. They're in a strong union.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Still plumbing.

You know what plumbers make?

You do. Plumbers make a really good living if you bust their ass. They make a really good living.

MIKE: And if you're back to that freelance model we were talking about, you can work as much as you want. You can set your own schedule.

And you are busy. I know a lot of guys, both electric, plumbing, heating and air-conditioning. You can basically work anywhere in the country right now.

GLENN: I know. And I have to tell you, I had some. I was building a house. I had the plumbers there. I was talking to them.

The guy is like, I can't get anyone to help me. I'm aging out soon. I don't have to do this.

He said, I'm trying to get all the kids in my family. Hello. Good living here.

MIKE: Here's the math. For every trades people who will retire this year, two will replace them.

That's been happening for 15 years. Now you know where this is going. Right?

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: In fact, we're here right now. It's happening right now. So what I'm trying to do with my little slice of the internet is to make sure that I can tell the stories of the people that I just described.

Because, I mean, I can tell a decent story. But I'm not persuasive to a 25-year-old or a 20-year-old. They need to see somebody who looks like them, and talks like them. Who is living debt-free. And making 150 grand a year.

And I have a long list of those people. And they are very persuasive.

So, you know, going back to your first question. You know, how do I feel about the country? What do I think needs to happen?

I have a list of things. For me, somewhere near the top, is a persuasive campaign.

And that's not even the right word. But we need persuasive voices, talking in a credible way, about the value of all forms of education.

And the absolute criticality, of not ignoring the part of our workforce, that keeps these lights on.

Because it's only a matter of national security.

GLENN: Security.

MIKE: It really is, man. And here's the good things. And I'm not sure it's good. Sometimes things need to go splat. We talked about this before.

So rather than having a conversation about, okay. This company is trying to hire skilled tradespeople and they can't. And these people over here don't have a skill. We should get them together.

Yeah. Yeah, that's happening.

But now the real conversation is, how long do you, Glenn, want to wait for a plumber?

How long does Stu want to wait for an electrician when the lights aren't coming on?

GLENN: Yeah. There's a Simpsons on this very thing.

MIKE: There's a Simpsons on everything, and a South Park too!

GLENN: There is. There is.

Okay. Where do people go if they want to find out more about the scholarships?

MIKE: MikeRoweWorks.org.

We're always open. We will be taking applications through the middle of April.

We're giving away a million bucks in this trench, and we'll probably do it later this year.

You know, baby steps, man. You have to push the boulder up the hill.

GLENN: Mike Rowe, always pushing the boulder up the hill. Thank you.

MIKE: Any time, Glenn.

Is Too Much Therapy Hurting Our Kids? | Abigail Shrier | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 213
THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Is Too Much Therapy Hurting Our Kids? | Abigail Shrier | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 213

“There are no quirky people in the next generation, they all just have a diagnosis,” says researcher and best-selling author Abigail Shrier. Her book, Bad Therapy: Why The Kids Aren’t Growing Up, pulls back the curtain on the therapeutic model that’s infecting every aspect of our kids' lives. From the CDC spreading a "suicide contagion" to America’s youth through “diabolical mental health surveys," to the “Social Emotional Learning” curriculums invading America’s classrooms, it’s clear that it's time to tell the expert class to leave our kids alone. In this episode of The Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn and Abigail discuss how a “tyranny of feelings” is making our kids weak. The “climate hysteria” on the left is undeniably fueling Gen Z’s fear of growing up, but Abigail argues that there is a growing nihilism on the left and right that is “turning people against marriage and family.” In the end, Abigail offers a message of hope for parents: you don’t need all these “mental health experts.” The best person to raise your child is you.

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED
RADIO

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which could decide the fate of the federal government’s massive campaign to force social media companies into censoring Americans. “It’s the most important free speech case in the country,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) tells Glenn. Sen. Schmitt, who filed the case while he was Attorney General of Missouri, describes the “Orwellian” things this lawsuit has uncovered: “The full power of the federal government was being used to silence Americans.” But will this be enough to stop our power-out-of-control government?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Give me -- give me some good news, will you?

ERIC: Well, I will. So Monday, Missouri versus Biden is being argued at the Supreme Court.

And it is this -- we've talked about before. It's the most important free speech case in the history of the country.

Certainly in a generation. Because it deals with the federal government, and its vast censorship enterprise, coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech. And what the judge found in the lower court, when I filed it, when I was attorney general in Missouri.

What the judge found at the lower court, was that this was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeks of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

And it was Orwellian. What was uncovered, Glenn. Was tens of thousands of emails and text messages from hiring government officials, to social media giants, saying, take it down.

Or we will launch an investigation. Or we will sue you under anti-trust -- I mean, really, really, the full power of the federal government was to suppress defense, to silence Americans.

So that's been shown in the case. So that now has been appealed by the government.

They want to continue to censor people, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that on Monday.

And how do you think it will go?


KEN: I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

I just think, the case, a lot of it will come down to, what is the government, actually, doing. And were they, in fact, coercing?

Right? Were they using the power of the federal government to get these social media giants, to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?

What makes this case unique is, typically, social media companies are sued by people who are then de-platformed, or their posts have been taken down.

And those go to the Northern District of California, and they're never seen again.

But what's unique in our case, is that we've sued the federal government, themselves.

In the -- and the actors like Jen Psaki and Anthony Psaki.

Anthony Fauci's deposition, to Elvis Chan's deposition, who was, of course, the FBI agent in charge.

Who was pre-bunking the Hunter Biden story, calling a Russian disinformation a hack and leak operation.

Even though, they had the laptop already. They are pre-bunking this you know, getting ready for 2020.

The COVID -- the -- the efficacy of mass.

You know, they were suppressing that speech.

Vaccine issues. Origins of COVID. Where they were shutting anybody down, that were talking about this, coming from the lab in Wuhan. So all that is uncovered in this law.

And if it wasn't for this lawsuit, Glenn, and then later, Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files.

And then later, some of the Congressional hearings, this stuff would still be in the dark.
You know, it would still be a conspiracy theory. But it was happening. You know, we referred to it in the lawsuit, is a vast censorship enterprise.

The number of agencies and people involved here, is breathtaking.

And the -- you know, sometimes willing behavior of social media companies to comply and de-platform and censor people. But in some instances, they didn't want to, actually, do it. And they changed their rules.

GLENN: Right. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

How much of this do you think this is willing? And how much of it was fear of the government?

ERIC: Both. So, yeah.

I mean, these social media platforms, typically were very aligned with the left.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: I think in many instances, Facebook, for example, after 2016, and Donald Trump won, they made it clear, publicly. They were never going to let that happen again.

Right, they were never going to let that happen again.

So I think some of this was overtly political on their part. And they were willing participants. But there are -- there are documents, to uncover. Where they were pushing back.

It was not -- it didn't violate their length of service.

As one judge said in the previous argument. That's a nice social media company you have there, right?

It would be a shame if something happens to us, almost like a mothball, coming from the government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that is.

KEN: So this is, again, the -- the -- all the power that the federal government has, exerting that on these social media companies. To do what they can't legally do themselves.

Which is to censor.

So this case, it's hard -- for me, as somebody who believes deeply in the right to free speech. And what that means for a country. And freedom.

This is, in my view, one of the most important cases. In general, the courts heard in a very, very long time. But certainly, as it relates to the First Amendment. That's the most important.

Because we're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.

GLENN: How is this going to affect the -- the new systems that they're putting in, for mis and disinformation? And the governments, you know, work with Five Eyes and with social media and the rest of the media.

Where they are just training them. And guiding them through mis and disinformation.

Will this case have anything to do with that? Because that's upon us, right now.

ERIC: Absolutely.

And so that is the intention of this, to bust that up. Because there are agencies like CISA that most people have never heard of.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: But, yeah, was very involved, Glenn.

GLENN: Explain what -- explain to the audience, what CISA is.

ERIC: It's basically the agency that was created, not that long ago. The deal was sort of cyber security. Okay?

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And what it found itself doing. In -- you know, during COVID. In particular.

Was under the guise of disinformation and misinformation, as you clearly articulate, that's -- look, that is -- that's a ploy, by one of the tyrants to control speech.

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: The truth of the matter is, you get to say your opinion. Even if someone else thinks it's wrong.

The government doesn't get to shut that down. The government doesn't get to tell you, what you can say and what you can hear.

It's up to the individual, how they want to move forward.

And as they analyze facts, and what their decisions are. Right?

It was sort of like with the mandates. With mask mandates.

People can make their own decisions. They can judge if this is a good thing or not for their families. Same with the vaccine.

So all of this was about command and control, for these sprawling agencies. The other thing that was exposed in this too, Glenn. Is there were universities. University of Washington, Stanford were involved with helping, you know, sort of determine what the disinformation. And misinformation was.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: So, again, they're outsourcing this to their sort of web of allies. To censor Americans.

And this case would prevent that. This case, if the court rules the right way, and I hope that they do. It would essentially, it would be an injunction on all these agencies from engaging in that kind of activity.

It would be a huge win. Now, no matter what happens, the case, of course, stands for exposing all of this.

But the remedy that hopefully will play out. Is preventing this.

But as we talked about before, I've got legislation, in the Senate. That would empower individuals, to sue individual government actors. If they -- if they're right to be --

GLENN: I would --

ERIC: It would -- you can then sue. Yeah, it would. Because in stead of the AG and the state suing, you would have an army of citizens, being able to stand up for their First Amendment rights.

GLENN: You know, the Treasury, I think in cooperation -- I would have to look this up.
I think it was the World Bank. I don't know. Some world organization, got together and ran a -- kind of a war game with the central banks around the world.

And one of the things that came out of that was, we have got to shut down voices.

And this -- this is an exact quote. We have to shut down voices, that disagree, in the case of an emergency. A financial emergency.

That disagree with the actions of the central banks. Even if they are correct, because they could further the collapse of the system.

And I've been saying on the air, for a while now. I know I'm not going to agree with the -- with the global central banks on whatever it is they're planning to do.

The people who created the problem, I don't want designing a new system or anything else. And that snuffs out freedom of speech, quickly. Quickly.

ERIC: It does. It does. And what I think you're seeing play out in realtime, is the -- the broad diffusion of information, which is good.

That's good. Is the democratization of how people get information. You're sort of on the front lines of all this, a long time ago.

What they really fear is that individuals will then take different inputs and make up their own minds.

Free networks, that tell you everything they want you to hear.

And, again, I just think that we ought to be unafraid, I think, as conservatives, to talk about.

This is about -- this is before B freedom. This is about liberty. This is about making up your own mind. And they know how powerful that idea is.

They absolutely -- so what's the game plan?

You saw it play out in COVID. Which is create a crisis. Have a -- in other words, real or manufactured, right?

GLENN: Yep.

KEN: And then you consolidate power. You fearmonger. You other, the othering of those who are dissenting.

I mean, think about it.

Go back in time just a little bit. They were -- in Australia, which we thought was kind of like us, but with cute apples. They had camps.

You know, they have camps!

People were being arrested in parks, for not wearing masks. I mean, we can't memory hole all this stuff.

That is a glimpse of the kind of world that some of these folks want to live in, if you disagree with the regime. And we have to fight that with everything we have, to make sure that doesn't happen.

And also, it depends on us, defending somebody else's rights to say something that we disagree with.

That's their hallmark of it.

They want to bulldoze all of that, Glenn. To have a regime there, and anybody that stands in the way is othered, marginalized, called all sorts of names, lose their jobs, de-platformed.

I mean, that is -- so this whole lecture we get from Joe Biden, on threats to democracy.

We have seen the threats. We have seen the threats. And it is Joe Biden's administration which is censorship enterprise, and trying to throw political opponents in jail.

So I think people are waking up to this. And I think we just have to stand up to this.

GLENN: Good. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching Monday. Maybe you'll come back Monday or Tuesday. And tell us highway it went.

And -- and dissect the arguments, back and forth, between the two.

Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it.

Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri.

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion
RADIO

INSANE: Fani Willis Ousting Case Comes to SHOCKING Conclusion

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has allowed District Attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting former president Donald Trump’s Georgia election interference case … and Glenn has a few words for him. “I have never seen a clearer case of perjury,” Glenn says, after the world watched Fani Willis defend her relationship with her special prosecutor “friend.” Glenn warns that if this judge can ignore GPS evidence in this case, how many criminals will this allow to go free? But why did Judge McAfee issue this ruling in the first place? Is he a “coward” who is afraid of repercussions from the anti-Trump left?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

All right. We just had some breaking news here.

STU: Yeah. We have our Fani decision.

Fani Wilson. Remember, the course, what was on the line was, is she going to leave? Is she going to be forced out, and they will have to find an entirely new situation, basically restart from scratch? Was what was on the line here.

GLENN: Because she perjured herself.

STU: Again, and this is, of course, the case against Donald Trump in Georgia. And the judge, Scott McAfee, has come out in a 23-page ruling issued.

He said that the defendants failed to meet their burden, in proving Willis' relationship with the special prosecutor, named Wade, was a conflict of interest.

Enough to merit her removal from the case. The judge did find an appearance of impropriety. And said, either Willis -- and her office may leave the case. Or wade must withdraw from the proceeding.

So basically, what will happen here is the dude will get fired. And she will be able to keep going. Now, this is not the a --

GLENN: That's unbelievable!

STU: That's incredible.

After what they've done.

GLENN: Have you ever seen a clear case of perjury?

STU: Everyone on earth knows she was lying. He was lying.

GLENN: There's no justice. There really is no justice. I mean, if you want to know highway African-Americans felt, in, you know, the 1930s, '40s, '50s, especially in the South?

Here it is! Here it is!

You can see it with your eyes. You hear the testimony, and you just know it's rigged. It's rigged.

Because there is no way, any reasonable person would come up with that.

STU: What do you mean, an appearance of impropriety?

How can I possibly think it's just an appearance of impropriety. Again, we talked about this in the beginning. If they had come out and said, look, Nathan wade is just the bad guy out there.

Yeah. I had an affair with him. He was an incredible man. I had to have a piece. But he's an incredible attorney. And I'll admit to everything. And I hired him because he's the best. Probably, they just skate. Instead, they decided to lie throughout the entire thing.

GLENN: Boldly.

STU: Boldly. The face of judge --

GLENN: It is not. You know, you can debate. Well, I made a mistake.

Well, I was -- no. They boldly took the stand.

Wanted to lie.

STU: And did lie.

GLENN: And did lie. Over and over.

STU: Over and over again.

GLENN: How?

STU: It was noted by the judge, that the situation was not proper. However, basically, they're just going to make him leave.

GLENN: Yes. But how does she stay?

Forget the relationship. How does she stay even an attorney, if she has perjured herself?

STU: Right. This is so far beyond the relationship. I barely cared about the story, when there was a relationship involved. Okay.

Whatever. But once she started lying on the stand, and he started lying on the stand, and it was proven. There is absolutely no way she should be in a position of power, and she certainly, and so should he, lose his law license.

There is no law. If attorneys can get away with that. None. None.

None.

STU: It's quite the statement. But it's hard to disagree with.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: They were overt in this. We all know. Just looking at this from a human perspective, we know they were all lying. They didn't go through a perjury trial. Right?

They didn't go through a bar hearing, where they had to fight for their license. They went through something that was -- a proceeding that was supposed to lean on this case. In this case, they will let her stay on. Obviously, that will be the choice she makes, by the way.

GLENN: But how? How?

How can the judge believe anything that she is presenting or saying, if the judge knows, she boldly, knowingly, lied in two other cases.

How?

STU: I certainly can't believe a word she's saying. I don't know how he can.

GLENN: I can't.

STU: It is incredible. And you would be right to look at this and say, this is seemingly very unfair.

I mean, I don't know how I can look at this, and say, anything other than, they -- look, they definitely want Donald Trump to get in legal trouble.

You know, there's no question about that. And if they don't -- if they keep Fani Willis on the trial, there's a chance these things come to fruition before the election. If they throw her off, basically it's over.

And they don't want that.

GLENN: A new study shows that what the Supreme Court doctrine that was the old doctrine created by the Supreme Court, allows 96 percent of private property, is open now to warrantless searches.

The DEA, in a completely other new story, shows that they had a surveillance program on Americans.

They have collected massive amounts of telephone records, for 20 years.

And it was shuttered, because of the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. The inspector general has released a report heavily redacted.

And that has been released. That was released six years later. The Washington Examiner has just received a copy of it.

The office of inspector general exists to provide oversight of government agencies. Among the new details of the DEA program, is that it refused to comply with parts of the IG investigation, for seven months. And no one faced any consequences.

Can you trust inspector general reports anymore?

Can you trust that Congress even has oversight or even if they want to have oversight?

This, the country has broken down. And all of the problems that are happening, right now. Are because we've abandoned all of our principles.

Does it ever feel to you, let me take a break.

Let me just take a break. Sorry, we didn't expect that news broke, just as I was finishing that commercial.

STU: Let me give you a quick rundown of what their argument is. And what the judges argument is in this case, Glenn. Basically, they start out and go through -- reading through it, while you're talking.

Go through the idea of why weather she financially benefited from it first. Her argument was, we don't have proof of that. We don't know for sure.

They essentially bide the Fani Willis argument of number one, she already makes a bunch of money. She already doesn't have massive debts. She wasn't doing this purely for financial gain. They bought the idea that okay. She paid for one of these trips.

Which it does seem like she did one of the birthday trips that she mentioned many times. So it wasn't like -- and I sort of agree, right?

Like I think you do too. This isn't necessarily, entirely about, oh, we hired this guy, just so I could take trips.

Like, I don't think that's necessarily what happened.

GLENN: Right. It could have.

STU: I think they were broken up. They wanted to take trips. And it just happened to work out well.

I don't know if that's the primary reason.

It's more like, she wanted the guy she was sleeping with, to be close.

And that's a massive problem there. Let me give you this paragraph. This is after they basically say, look, there's issues there. But we can't prove that was her motivation.

Without sufficient evidence, that the district attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the defendant's claims of an actual conflict must be denied. This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment. Or the unprofessional manor of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing.

GLENN: Unprofessional.

STU: He's admitting that he knows, that she was lying, basically.

GLENN: That's not unprofessional. It's perjury.

STU: I would agree.

I mean, that's a separate. You don't necessarily get charged with it, in that way.

You would have to have a separate hearing on it. Still, it rises to that standard, to me.

He says, rather, it is the undersigned opinion, that the Georgia law, does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices, even repeatedly.

And it is the trial court's duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and lay brought before it.

Other forms or sources of authority, such as the general assembly -- he's giving a path here.

The general assembly. The Georgia state ethics commission. The state bar of Georgia.

The faulted county Board of Commissioners. Or the voters of Fulton county.

May offer feedback for any unanswered questions that linger. This is directly from the ruling.

But those are not the issues determined to the defendant's motions, alleging an actual conflict. So he's basically.

I think you can very fairly look at this. And say, he's being very challenged by a Jesse Jackson disciple. You can argue --

GLENN: Lose your job. Verify to lose -- what a coward.

STU: Well, he would deny it.

GLENN: Terrified to lose your job.

How dare you. Your job is a constitutional boast. And you're terrified -- what you know I'm terrified of?

I'm terrified of being shot and killed. I'm terrified of an out-of-control government, swooping in, and arresting my employees.

Or arresting me.

That's what I'm -- that's what I'm afraid of?

Okay. Plus, everything else that is going on, that I am worried about my family and my children.

How dare any of you judges be afraid that you'll lose your job. Boohoo. Cry me a river.

It is our Constitution and our country, that is at stake.

And none of this monologue has anything to do with Donald Trump. None of it.

We all know she perjured herself.

I don't care about the relationship. I don't care about the money.

The people of Georgia should. What I care about, more than even the case with Donald Trump, is that this woman perjured herself, and so did her boyfriend.

They knowingly, gleefully, wickedly perjured themselves. Over and over.

Neither of them, should have a law license today.

Neither of them!

STU: Allegedly. So we --

GLENN: Allegedly.

STU: Just trying to protect you from being sued. But, no. I think there is a standard here, where like, as a person who is a normal human being, looking at what they say, I -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't know every little in and out of what they're doing here.

We'll have the mom to talk about it. But it's to me, blatantly obvious. I said this 100 times.

No human being in history, has, actually, done the things they said they did.

Nobody.

And that is outside of the cell phone data. Where we know, she was there.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: Societies blatantly obvious to any human being.

GLENN: It is the cell phone data.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It is that. Forget about --

STU: They've addressed that.

GLENN: Et cetera, et cetera.

It is the cell phone GPS location, by triangulating the phones. That they know he was -- may not know he was in bed with her.

But I'm sure the CIA has some satellites that can see the heat of bodies through a ruse of houses.

STU: They can look through now and see through Wi-Fi, and see who is in the rooms.

GLENN: Exactly right. If -- if that triangulation does not hold up as evidence.

STU: To be fair, I don't think that's what he said.

I don't think he's saying the cell phone data doesn't hold up.

I think he's basically admitting, they had this relationship, and they were lying.

GLENN: Yeah. Wait.

So he can allow them to go on a case, when they shouldn't be. When they perjured themselves.

It's his court, as well as another courtroom.

STU: Again, I disagree with this ruling.

That's why I read that paragraph.

He's basically stating. I don't have the legal authority to do this on these grounds.

He's saying, these other institutions should be the ones doing this. They should be the ones disqualifying her. I can only act under the law, I have. At my behest right now.

Look, I tend to agree we strongly.

But that is his argument.

He says, he's limited by the law. It's not just -- you can't. If there was a financial aspect.

He could throw her off.

He said, I don't have the financial aspect locked down enough. Therefore, I can't do it.

GLENN: You have perjury.

One is fraud. The other is perjury. Under oath. By an officer of the court.

STU: I know.

GLENN: I got news for you, gang. If this is the way you can just go to court, you think any lawyer is not going to tell murderers, and everything else, exactly what to say?

No. No. No.

Change -- the change story a bit.

STU: Yeah. Stick to your story.

This is a Mafia tactic, right?

If the Mafia were to exist, this would be one of the tactics they would do.

GLENN: And of course we don't need any more enemies. And if they do exist, I love the mob.

STU: But I think that is real. All you have to do, and they proved that they talked.

They talked -- coordinate your story. That's basically what occurred here.

They -- they had a very similar story.

And like, again, I don't think -- I don't think Fani Willis was saying, hey. If I hired this guy, I would be able to go to Napa Valley, in six months.

I don't think that's the full motivation. To your point, a much greater violation has occurred.

They went in front of this judge, and blatantly lied in my view.

Over and over and over again.

And that doesn't --

GLENN: I mean, I just want to say, in your view, no. Let's follow the science.

GPS coordinates. That is not reliable technology.

STU: According to the GPS coordinates. And that's not reliable technology. To your point, there's a lot of criminals out on the street later today.

GLENN: Let me just say this real quick. Please, dear Jesus come. Or send us an astroid.

Because I can't take much more of this.