Dennis Prager Talks Google, YouTube Lawsuits Over ‘Ideologically Driven Censorship’

PragerU, a website that promotes conservative ideals in pithy 5-minute video clips, is suing Google and YouTube for content policies that the company says are overly vague and used to censor “conservative political thought.”

Founder Dennis Prager joined Glenn today to talk about the lawsuit over YouTube’s restrictions on their videos. The lawsuit claims that PragerU videos have been arbitrarily marked “inappropriate” for younger views and demonetized, or cut off from generating ad money.

“I really did believe all my life that there was one thing that did unite Americans,” Prager said. “And that is … free speech. But I was wrong. The left in particular does not believe in free speech because it threatens their power.”

Get the full story with our explainer of the PragerU lawsuit.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There is a chill wind blowing across the First Amendment. And it is happening from all sides. When we have conservatives talking about limiting free speech and free press, it's disturbing.

But there's something else that's going on right now with the -- with all of the big -- I would call them, you know, railroad companies. They're -- the rail lines of communication, they've all been laid now. And so now, these rail companies of Google, Apple, YouTube, which is Google, Facebook. They're going to start dictating exactly what's heard and what's not heard. And it's -- we're entering a very dangerous phase.

I wanted to bring on Dennis Prager. Because Dennis and Prager University have just filed a lawsuit against Google and YouTube. And we have a story up on TheBlaze.com that lays this all out very clearly. And you need to pay attention to this, because we have information from the dark web, where Media Matters was -- was hiding out their plan for the future, that shows what's happening to Dennis Prager was planned and coordinated. And this is their MO moving forward, to silence any voice on YouTube or Google or Apple or Amazon, that disagrees with Media Matters.

Welcome to the program, Dennis Prager.

DENNIS: What a joy to be with you. I'm in Israel. And wherever I am, it's good to talk to you.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. Dennis, I have tremendous respect for you and what you guys are doing. You are making these five-minute videos. And it's educating a lot of people in a very entertaining way. You are approaching your billionth view, if I'm not mistaken.

But YouTube has now removed or demonetized several of your videos and have blocked them because they say that it violates some sort of standard that you can't figure out.

DENNIS: Right. They're inappropriate. I think that's the term. And it's -- we are putting up the lawsuit actually on our website, so that anybody can read it. It's so devastating that it portrays an America that you and I never really thought would -- would take place. If there was one thing, I guess I was naive.

I really did believe all of my life that there's one thing that did unite Americans. Because I don't -- I never buy the unity issue, as you probably know.

I think there's too big a division in the country. But I did believe there was one, a common belief. And that is in free speech. But I was wrong.

The -- the left in particular does not believe in free speech because it threatens their power.

The more people know, the less left they will be. I would -- I bank my life on that belief. I devote my life to that belief. Prager University is devoted to it, my radio show, et cetera. And that's why they're very afraid of us. They have every reason to be afraid of us. We have 500 million views this year. And we change a lot of minds, in a very sophisticated manner. Just for your audience's knowledge, I think it's important that they understand these are five-minute videos on every subject outside of the natural sciences. We're not going to teach botany in five minutes. We understand that. Or mathematics or something like that.

And four of our presenters are Pulitzer prize winners. We have professors from Stanford, Yale, Harvard, UCLA, et cetera, et cetera.

We have liberals like Alan Dershowitz. It is -- it's an extremely sophisticated teaching operation. There is no yelling. There is no slamming. There is no anger. There are five had an minute intellectual presentations. And that's why they change minds. Because they're geared to the mind and not to the emotion. Yeah, go ahead.

GLENN: Is Alan Dershowitz's video on Israel, is that one of them that has been banned?

DENNIS: That's correct. That is correct. It was. They have been recently -- yeah, it was.

GLENN: Alan Dershowitz, in TheBlaze story was asked about it, and he said This is one of the most disturbing things that has happened to him.

DENNIS: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, here's a guy -- here's a guy on the left whose voice is being silenced by YouTube.

DENNIS: Right. Right. Well, let me then venture forth a very important point that I make I think almost daily.

There is nothing in common between leftism and liberalism. They have nothing in common.

GLENN: Yes.

DENNIS: And liberals used to understand this. They no longer do. And so many side with the left, even though it violates everything they stand for. For example, liberalism begins in integration, the melting pot, and that race means nothing. The left believes that race is important, the first ideology since the Nazis to believe that. They have separate graduation exercises at Harvard for black graduate students. They have dorms for black students all over the country at universities. That was called segregation when I grew up. Liberals would have found that to be the antithesis to everything that a liberal stands for. And I'm trying to show -- so I'm trying to show people like Dershowitz are liberals, not leftists. And I think he would even agree to that. Because he spends more of his time now, to his great credit, attacking the left than attacking the right. This is a Hillary Clinton voter.

GLENN: Yeah. I know several people who would have voted for Hillary Clinton in days gone by, who now say that their own party has gone so far off the rails, they're more afraid of their side, the leftists, than they are of the Republicans and the people on the right.

DENNIS: Well, there's nothing to fear from us. We don't want power. I always make this point.

Conservatives, basically run on the doctrine, vote for me. I want less of your money. And I want less power over you.

So --

GLENN: Well, I think that's -- I think that's --

DENNIS: We're only in danger to the left.

GLENN: I think that's generally true. Not as true as I thought it was. You know, we are seeing people talk about, you know, how the government should regulate the free press. I don't want the government involved in the press at all. Period.

DENNIS: I agree with you. But who said that?

GLENN: The president has talked about, maybe it's time to regulate NBC.

DENNIS: Oh, really? I don't really him saying that.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

DENNIS: I believe you. Because you're an honorable man. It's hard for me to believe even he believes in that. But, anyway, obviously none of us believe it. So it doesn't matter.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Dennis, tell me some of the -- tell me which videos are being taken down. See if there's a pattern.

DENNIS: Well, the list is on -- I believe the list is in the indictment. I should have it in front of me. But off the top of my head, I'll give you a few examples.

GLENN: Yeah.

DENNIS: This is my favorite, okay? I think there are about 40 out of 250. But I'll give you -- this is my -- I'm laughing because it's actually hilarious.

I did -- I personally -- I only do 15 percent of the videos. About 85 percent of them are by other people. But I did the videos because we do a fair number. You know, about 10 percent of our videos are on religion. Because we think a godless United States is not what the Founders wanted. In any event, so I did 11 videos on the Ten Commandments, one on each of the Ten Commandments and one introduction.

Believe it or not, they actually took down my video much thou shalt not murder.

GLENN: Why? Why do you think --

DENNIS: I don't know. I don't know. To be honest, to this day, I don't know. That's how absurd -- we're talking about the realm of the absurd.

GLENN: So the videos that TheBlaze is talking about, there are 40 that have been restricted. Many of them have also been demonetized, which means you can't make any money on them. Among the restricted videos, why America must leave. Ten Commandments, do not murder. Why did America fight the Korean War, which is unbelievable. Everyone should see that one. The world's most persecuted minority, Christians. Another unbelievable video. And -- and there's no answer.

DENNIS: By the way, that's really -- that tells you something about the -- Google's morality. That the persecution of Christians in the Middle East would be taken down, would be restricted. It shows you, they're not -- they're not merely totalitarian. They're bad.

I mean, only a bad person would find it objectionable -- and I'm a Jew saying this. Calling -- calling the world's attention to the removal of Christian communities in Middle Eastern countries.

GLENN: Genocide, yeah.

So you are suing them. There's no damages so far that you're going for. What is your -- what's your plan for?

DENNIS: The plan is to win. And thereby bring down the greatest threat to free speech perhaps in world history, or in the history of the existence of freedom of speech. Because they control -- they are the conduit to free speech on earth. You can't -- there's no alternative.

GLENN: So, Dennis, doesn't that make them a utility? Aren't they a private --

DENNIS: That's correct. That's right. It does make them a utility. And the entitlement makes it clear that -- I will use these words. It's not in the indictment. They are a fraud because they -- utterly misrepresent themselves. They say they are a completely open forum. That is as pure a lie as exists. And Prager University is the living proof of the lie that it is. They are not an open forum. And if we don't prevail, it's over for free speech, until there will be an actually open Google. And I don't know how you rival Google at this time.

One day, it may happen. But in the meantime, it's critical to understand --

GLENN: I don't think so.

DENNIS: That this is what is happening.

STU: Dennis, isn't it consistent though with conservative principles that it's their website and they get to do what they want with it?

DENNIS: No. That's very important.

I have actually asked that. The indictment shows law after law after law in California. And it's not an indictment, by the way. That's a technical term. It's a complaint. So just for the record. But, in any event, the -- the -- we show law -- the lawyers -- by the way, that's important that you know who they are. It was actually the suggestion of former California governor Pete Wilson, who was -- I'm greatly honored to know, is a great fan of Prager University. And he is the one who has one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. He is leading this. And it was his idea actually. And they are -- they are truly helping out. I mean, it's very expensive to have lawyers, as you well know, as everybody knows in America.

GLENN: Especially against Google --

DENNIS: Yes, exactly. Unlimited funds, like the government.

But, anyway, they list law after law. This is not a -- this is not a new idea. This predates Google. It predates us. It predates my existence on earth, where the Supreme Court has established that there has to be free speech, where there are claims to be free speech in the private sphere. So it's not merely government cannot -- cannot suppress speech. Now, obviously in the case, let's say of religion. If you have a Christian school and it teaches that -- you know, that -- you know, that a Catholic school teaches that abortion is immortal sin. A teacher says, no, you know, I think that Catholicism welcomes abortion. Obviously, a religion can teach a certain thing. By the way, in that regard, it would be very interesting. I wonder, I don't have the answer to this myself. I'm posing a question to me.

What if Google did announce, you know what, we are a left-wing organization. And we can't stand any left-wing idea that has any traction. And therefore we will shut it down. I wonder then --

GLENN: If they could get away with it.

DENNIS: Yeah. That would be interesting. Because that's what they are.

GLENN: Okay. Dennis, we'll have more on this tonight. Hope to have more on this tomorrow. We are big supporters. Thank you for everything that you're doing. And we will continue to help you get the word out on this. Anything that we can do, you know, that the audience can do?

DENNIS: Right. Well, yes, of course. First of all, they -- for no money whatsoever, they need to watch our videos. Because they are life-changing. They're meant to be. If their kid is in college, their kid is being indoctrinated.

GLENN: Yes.

DENNIS: And we are an antidote to that indoctrination. If they have to pay their kids in high school or college to watch it, or whatever, they should. And, obviously, if they want to help us in any other way, that's great.

GLENN: Okay. Dennis Prager, thank you very much from Prager University. This is worth your money and your time to help them out. Prager University.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.