Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC?

Has CPAC been ifiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood? That’s what Pam Geller said on Friday afternoon.What did Glenn think?

“This is from CPAC, and I want you to know that I am not taking on CPAC at this point.  I am going over the news and I am at the beginning of looking into this.  And I don't say this with a slam against CPAC by any stretch of the imagination,” Glenn said.

“Well, it's interesting because one of the panels, Pamela Geller, who's a conservative blogger, made some interesting charges against CPAC and what's going on there,” Pat explained.

“It's corrupted and it's been compromised by Muslim Brotherhood,” Geller said in the audio to applause. “2,000 people, this is where I do my event.  Every year I do an event because if you look at the agenda of CPAC, look at all of the panels and then look at your daily news, headlines, they're either clueless or complicit, okay?  And I believe it's the latter.”

“I find it very hard to believe that they are complicit, you know, but I haven't studied, I haven't studied this particular angle,” Glenn explained.

On the other hand, Suhail A. Khan, a former senior Bush political appointee, and board  director of the American Conservative Union, claimed there was no Musim Brotherhood in the United States.

“Which is absolutely a lie.  That is absolutely untrue.  Now, who is this guy?  This is a very important figure in the Bush administration.  This is a guy who comes with his credentials for the right.”

Glenn invited Zuhdi Jasser on to discuss these remarks and the revolution going on in Egypt.

“In case you don't know Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is a practicing Muslim, and he is one, he is one Muslim that we were all searching for after 9/11, somebody who comes out and says jihad, blowing yourself up is an abomination, and he has been trying to rout out the evils in his own religion for a while.  He is a brave, brave man,” Glenn said.

“He is a patriotic American and a voice that I trust,” Glenn added.

Glenn asked Dr. Jasser if the Muslim Brotherhood was in the United States.

‘Absolutely.  I mean, if you look at any ‑‑ anybody that looks at any of the work being done, whether it was the Holy Land Foundation that showed a whole nexus, our documentary, the Third Jihad [which] talked about the documents that were demonstrated from 1991 that showed a whole Nexus of operating organizations that were founded by members that came out of the brotherhood, out of Egypt and out of the Middle East,” Dr. Jasser said.

“The brotherhood is much more than the brotherhood.  It's the ideology of political Islam.  It's a mixture of mosques and states.  It's the desire to establish Islamic statism and put Sharia law into government,” Dr. Jasser said.

“[Khan] just wants us to accept it on face value that he's a conservative and he's all about Western ideals when, in fact, talked about American ideals, talk about Egypt, talk about other things.  He never identifies the brotherhood as a threat and that to me is a problem for somebody who's an avowed conservative.”

“I do want to caution my conservative colleagues that we have to be careful not to say that, well, good Muslims are nonviolent; bad Muslims are violent and that these guys become extremists.  There's a continuum there.  Even the most radicals like Imam Elahi or Nidal Hasan there is continuum these guys slid down over ten years.”

“That continuum begins with sort of this nonviolent motherhood and apple pie, we want an Islamic state based on separation of powers, we love America, you know, et cetera but their vision of America includes sort of a crescent on the flag, it includes this universalism of Islam, not a universalism of individual rights and reason that our country was based on.  So we have to be careful to be able to nuance the continuum that these individuals slide down.

“And that's what I hope when we have radicalization hearings that Peter King is doing, we start to look at that continuum because we can't as a nation do counterradicalization as sort of a binary black and white.  We have to recognize that there is a long continuum that includes the beginning of a political ideology of Islamism that slides some of them down to violence and others down to this insidious ideology that is a threat, the same type of threat,” Zuhdi explained.

Full rush transcript below:

In case you don't know Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is a practicing Muslim, and he is one, he is one Muslim that we were all searching for after 9/11, somebody who comes out and says jihad, blowing yourself up is an abomination, and he has been trying to rout out the evils in his own religion for a while.  He is a brave, brave man.  There are other voices that say these things.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind, but she is not Muslim.  Zuhdi is.  And he is a patriotic American and a voice that I trust.  And we wanted to get him on because there is a story that you will see the video on The Blaze and, Pat, if you'll help fill in some of the blanks here with Zuhdi where some of the members are saying that there's problems with one member on the board of directors of CPAC.  He is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, he says there is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

Let me bring Zuhdi on with us now.  Hi, Zuhdi, how are you, sir?

JASSER:  Great, Glenn, it's good to be with you.

GLENN:  Good to be with you.  Are you familiar, what is his name, Pat?

PAT:  Sohail Khan?

GLENN:  Sohail Khan, you're familiar with him, right?

JASSER:  Yeah, I am, uh‑huh.

GLENN:  Let me play what happened this weekend at CPAC and they're having a panel with the board of directors on it.  And somebody stands up and they are talking about how could we possibly be excited about a revolution where the Muslim Brotherhood are involved; we can't stand with the Muslim Brotherhood.  And this is what happens.

(Audio playing).

VOICE:  What I have a problem with is they say, you know, jihad is their way, you know, martyrdom is their goal.  I mean, that is antithetic to everything ‑‑

VOICE:  I understand all of those things.

VOICE:  You got your answer.

VOICE:  You know what they said, too, Mr. Khan?  That we should be outreaching the Muslim Brotherhood.  There's no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?


GLENN:  Zuhdi, is the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?

JASSER:  Absolutely.  I mean, if you look at any ‑‑ anybody that looks at any of the work being done, whether it was the Holy Land Foundation that showed a whole nexus, our documentary, the Third Jihad put out by the (inaudible) talked about the documents that were demonstrated from 1991 that showed a whole Nexus of operating organizations that were founded by members that came out of the brotherhood, out of Egypt and out of the Middle East.  And the bottom line is when you say brotherhood, I know many on the left say that, well, this is all conspiracy theory.  They are not card‑carrying members per se.

GLENN:  Yes.

JASSER:  But to me as an active Muslim we formed our organization, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, because the brotherhood is much more than the brotherhood.  It's the ideology of political Islam.  It's a mixture of mosques and states.  It's the desire to establish Islamic statism and put Sharia law into government.  And these Muslims that deny that, actually what they are doing is obfuscating their Muslim responsibility to reform our faith into (inaudible) and to separate mosque and state, they are obfuscating the direct connection between the separatist ideology of Islamism and Western society's values.  And I think this issue at CPAC is very important.  Not that we could definitely prove that sue hail had the card or the brotherhood but you can prove that here you have a so‑called conservative who as far as I'm concerned hasn't represented any of the ideas of true conservatism.  Not only fiscally but when it comes to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, he has not stood against Islamist groups that have basically been all about big governments, all about theocracy.  He has not made any statement that the brotherhood is a threat to society, a threat to the West and to me this is not something that is consistent with CPAC values.

GLENN:  Okay.  So give me the guy's resume.  I mean, Zuhdi, I had heard that you disagreed with David Horowitz.  David Horowitz is strong on this and says this guy's a danger.  I don't know if he goes as far as saying that he is a member, you know, card‑carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  I don't think he does.  He just says this man is ‑‑ was appointed by Bush and brought in, you know, the people like CAIR into the White House which they're, many believe are front organizations for this Islam extremism that makes political correctness, ratchets all the political correctness up so you can't look into any of the dangers that are clear and present.

JASSER:  You know, I agree with him in many ways in that what happens is ‑‑ and not that one Muslim can make that much of a danger to an organization like CPAC, but what happens is in today's society where Muslims are a minority, they look for a Muslim to sort of say, okay, we're not offending Muslims.  So here you have Sohail, comes in and brings in other Muslims.  So the White House or whoever seeks his advice in the State Department or whatever checks up have they talked to a Muslim and here you have him bringing in organizations that are not part of the solution but part of the problem.  CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America and others are basically front organizations.  Why?  Because their entire mantra is about victimology.  It's that, well, terrorism is the West's fault, it's basically because Muslims are attacked.  They use that so‑called narrative that if somehow American foreign policy would change or anti‑ Islam rhetoric would change that somehow terrorism would go away and they don't recognize that it is a problem within the house of Islam that needs reform.  So it is dangerous, I think, to have individuals that so‑called represent Muslims who, in fact, they're actually representing a statistic platform and that is of political Islam.  And it anesthetizes Americans and especially conservatives to our founding ideals of classical liberalism and our founding documents.  So yeah, I think ‑‑ and not to mention, I mean, sue hail hasn't rejected.  He denies his father's connections to the brotherhood which is fine.  I mean, we can't prove that.  And as they say, the sins of the father are not the son's.  But he hasn't rejected those ideologies.  He hasn't ‑‑ I mean, to me my work post 9/11 is rife with ideological descriptions of the problem of Sharia, the problem of Islamism.  He has none of that work.  He just wants us to accept it on face value that he's a conservative and he's all about Western ideals when, in fact, talked about American ideals, talk about Egypt, talk about other things.  He never identifies the brotherhood as a threat and that to me is a problem for somebody who's an avowed conservative.

PAT:  Yeah.  And not only was he a senior political appointee with the Bush administration, he was also a senior fellow for the Muslim Christian Understanding of the Institute For Global Engagement.

GLENN:  What is that, Zuhdi?

JASSER:  It's a think tank that does work on Christian Muslim cooperation around the world and looks at foreign policy.

GLENN:  Do you think it's ‑‑

JASSER:  And, you know, it has some conservatives within.  I even think it's considered a right of center think tank but, you know, this is the thing of political correctness is that many of us in America want to believe that Muslims here have gone through a modernization, that they are Jeffersonian Democrats ‑‑ or Muslim and they believe in the same ideals but yet we don't ask for any type of expounding from them on their ideology so that we know where they stand.  We don't ask them to take apart organizations like CAIR and show how they have facilitated political Islam.  I mean, look at CAIR's position on the referendum of Sharia in Oklahoma.  Look at CAIR's position on ‑‑ recently CAIR, for example, has been doing media spots on Iranian television about the Egyptian crisis.  They weren't on Iranian television last summer when those people were revolting in that country.  So he doesn't speak out against those actions that Muslim organizations are doing and thus he facilitates an anesthesia, if you will, over what Muslim groups are doing in the name of Islamism.

GLENN:  Zuhdi, let me ask you, because you are so outspoken.  And these bad guys exist and they are nasty, nasty organizations.  What is your safety like?  Because here you are, I mean, you are the king of infidels.  You are a practicing Muslim that they would say is perverting Islam and destroying Islam.  What is your ‑‑ I mean, are you safe?

JASSER:  You know, I mean, it's in God's hands and I've never been physically threatened.  I do get my share of hate mail like all of us do but, you know, at the end of the day, they all know that I'm doing this because I love my faith, I'm a conservative Muslim, orthodox, I believe in our scripture and in God and I want to raise my children to be good Muslims with a close relationship with God.  But, you know, to me Islam is about responsibility.  It's about personal repair.  And I think the revolt in Egypt showed for the first time Arabs and Muslims starting to take responsibility for their own condition.  You didn't see them blaming the West, blaming Israel, blaming all these conspiracy theories.  And this is my problem with these Islamist groups.  And people like Mr. Khan who claim to represent Muslim communities in America but yet have done nothing in their work in America to fix our own condition.  It's all about everybody else and blaming others and to me I think Muslims, as much as they may not like what I have to say, you know, when they start attacking the messenger rather than the message, you realize, as you do, Glenn, that they must not have the power of their idea.  And that's my concern with the CPAC issue is CPAC ‑‑ and the reason this is so important is our conservative unions and our groups that we form are based on ideas, based from our Founding Fathers.  And if we can't figure out what that platform is and have appropriate filters to know who is with our ideas and who isn't, then I think we need to reassess how clear those platforms are.

GLENN:  Real quick, Zuhdi, because I have to run.  But what should members of CPAC do?  If you're a member of CPAC and you say, I love CPAC and this guy is on the board of directors, because it's not clearcut.  I mean, he's not, you know, he's not wearing a black hat and he has a lot of people that are, you know, vouching for him that are very high up in the conservative movement.  What should people do?

JASSER:  Well, I think first of all membership in CPAC, you can't have filters.  I think that then it really becomes sort of a McCarthyism and that doesn't make any sense.  But board of directors?  I mean, you have to have established a credibility that you are on the side of liberalism, Westernism, secular liberal democracy, then against political Islam and you recognize that the biggest threat to security, global security in the 21st century is the affinity of the Islamic state.  So I think they need to reassess what type of Muslims and what type of board members they are looking for.

GLENN:  Are you ‑‑ will you confirm that it is political Islam, extremist Islam, if you will, that it is the way to go in undercover, infiltrate and destroy and decay from within?

JASSER:  Yes.  I mean, simply put, absolutely.  But I do want to caution my conservative colleagues that we have to be careful not to say that, well, good Muslims are nonviolent; bad Muslims are violent and that these guys become extremists.  There's a continuum there.  Even the most radicals like Imam Elahi or Nidal Hasan there is continuum these guys slid down over ten years.  That continuum begins with sort of this nonviolent motherhood and apple pie, we want an Islamic state based on separation of powers, we love America, you know, et cetera but their vision of America includes sort of a crescent on the flag, it includes this universalism of Islam, not a universalism of individual rights and reason that our country was based on.  So we have to be careful to be able to nuance the continuum that these individuals slide down.  And that's what I hope when we have radicalization hearings that Peter cane is doing, we start to look at that continuum because we can't as a nation do counterradicalization as sort of a binary black and white.  We have to recognize that there is a long continuum that includes the beginning of a political ideology of Islamism that slides some of them down to violence and others down to this insidious ideology that is a threat, the same type of threat.

GLENN:  Zuhdi Jasser, he's the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum For Democracy.  Go to his website, find out more information.  Zuhdi, I'm proud to be called your friend and I thank you for all the hard work that you've done and the risks that you take and keep it up, brother.

JASSER:  Thanks a lot, Glenn.  God bless.  Appreciate it.

Ryan: Kanye West and the Great Society

Graphic by Alexander Somoskey.

Donald Trump has been name-dropped by nearly every major rapper of the last 30 years, starting with a reference by Beastie Boys on their iconic album Paul's Boutique, the Sgt. Pepper of hip-hop.

He's been mentioned by Jay Z. Ludacris. Young Thug. Nelly. Kendrick Lamar. Juicy J. Rick Ross. Eminem. Big Sean. A Tribe Called Quest. Scarface. Lil Wayne. The Coup. Master P. Ice Cube. Mos Def. Raekwon, Ol' Dirty Bastard, and various other Wu-Tang Clan affiliates. R. Kelly. Pete Rock. Nas. E-40.

And don't forget this surreal moment in our nation's history.

Then-candidate Trump on SNL ... dancing to a Drake parody.(Screenshot from YouTube)

When Bun B referred to Trump on the Chopped-n-Screwed anthem "Pocket Full of Stones," he was keeping with a tradition of rappers admiring Trump. This only changed a few years ago.

But then there's Kanye West, who proudly donned the red MAGA hat after discovering Candace Owens and being called "a jackass" by our nation's first black President. Then Kanye was hugging President Trump in the Oval Office? While wearing a Make America Great Again hat, supposed symbol of white supremacy, Nazism, hate, evil?

(Screenshot from YouTube)

People flipped. Everyone did. Longtime critics suddenly — and bizarrely — embraced Kanye as an ally, while longtime defenders disowned him, abandoned him like nail clippings, often mocking his struggles with mental illness and labeling him, if you can believe it, a white supremacist.

Then, in a moment that changed music history, Kanye released the single "Ye vs. the People."

Ye vs. the People (starring TI as the People)

In it, he challenges what he sees as the unspoken rule that black Americans have to vote Democrat. He had hinted at the idea on his track "Black Skinhead," from the hauntingly gorgeous album Yeezus, but now he was addressing it head-on, with the passion of a man going to Confession for the first time in a decade.

Why should black folks have to abide by any set of cultural or political or artistic guidelines to begin with? And, he argues, the pressure to adhere to this longheld framework is itself undergirded by a subtle and cleverly masked racism, imposed by a group of people who portray themselves as the champions of race and enemies of white supremacy and destroyers of dumb yokel rednecks with their Rebel flags and monster trucks and fully-automatic AR-15 assault weapons. All of which, it turns out, is some next-level projection.

Kanye also confronts the presence of these expectations and stereotypes in hip-hop. The idea that rappers must invoke a negative persona in order to succeed. And the moment they deviate from that image they are rebuked or ignored, even though the persona is damaging to the black community as a whole. Which is especially ironic given that the people who voice the most outrage tend to be highly privileged, supposedly progressive white folks who love to rant about white privilege and black oppression.

Is it better if I rap about crack? 'Cause it's cultural?
Or how about I'ma shoot you? or f**k your b***h?
Or how about all this Gucci, 'cause I'm f****n' rich?

Best of all, Kanye has answers. And they differ from the erudite solutions offered by, say, A Tribe Called Quest, who, like Kanye, have modeled a healthy, positive image of blackness for the black community.

A central theme within "Ye vs. The People" is empathy as power, rebellion, freedom.

Make America Great Again had a negative perception
I took it, wore it, rocked it, gave it a new direction
Added empathy, care and love and affection
And y'all simply questionin' my methods.

This concept is an extension of the powerful devotion to positive energy that Kanye adopted around that time, a purview he has cultivated into a wild new form of electronic gospel.

But his personal transformation was tough.

That [MAGA] hat stayed in my closet like 'bout a year and a half
Then one day I was like, "F**k it, I'ma do me"
I was in the sunken place and then I found the new me.

This is a struggle that many Americans undergo. Researchers call it the spiral of silence. The idea that the news media and social media present biased opinions as though they are fact, and when the message conflicts with a person's opinions or values, they feel isolated, alone.

Kanye and T.I. during the making of "Ye vs. the People"(Screenshot from YouTube)

As Kanye raps in "Ye vs. the People"

A lot of people agree with me but they're too scared to speak up.

Because we have an incredible ability to sense public opinion. So when we suspect that we hold a belief that rails against acceptable thought, we tend to keep quiet about it. That silence makes the opinion seem even more taboo, resulting in a more widespread silence.

In reality, many of these supposedly taboo opinions are not only popular, they are normal and practical and logical. Healthy, even. And the real danger is in demonizing them. But too many people are afraid they'll be ostracized for expressing their beliefs.

Like how — despite what we've been led to believe — most Americans cannot stand political correctness.

But the small minority of people who champion it are powerful and loud. They're like that cardboard city in North Korea, just visible enough from the border to make it seem like a thriving community. They're the Wicked Witch of the West, or Iago from Othello, or Plankton from Spongebob Squarepants.

So far, they have been successful. Although "success" by their metric is anarchic and primal, all destruction and loudness and people nervous to speak their mind. And the cost of rebellion can be devastating.

By the time Kanye West wrote "Yay versus the People," he had gotten sick of this power dynamic. So he broke the spiral of silence."


In the words of German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, "Whoever has language has the world."

Humans alone have it.

But in order for us to know freedom in our world, our language has to be public, shared, active. Because each of us thrives constantly with language, a stream of it always in our mind. Aristotle defined "thought" as the infinite dialogue between the soul and itself. Conversation is the exchange of thought between people. When we converse, we simultaneously release our infinite dialogue and accept the other person's. By speaking, we shape the world and free ourselves.


Another way to say it is that Donald Trump might have inspired the song that could very well signify the end of Hip-Hop, which is not only the most popular genre of our zeitgeist, it's the most popular, and successful, form of music in American history, which is the most important era of musical history.

If the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, and Drake literally outpaces the Beatles, then, well, you get the point God forgive me. And Kanye is bigger than Drake. So who better to have the final word on the capacities of Hip-Hop than Kanye West?


Every genre must come to a close. There's a reason why people aren't eagerly awaiting the next great disco album, or flocking to arenas to hear the newest bluegrass superstar, or asking to get their hair done like the latest syringe-armed guitarist of Guns N Roses.

(Screenshot from Instagram)

The great era of Rock 'N' Roll ended roughly about the time Radiohead traded their guitars and drums for synthesizers and sequencers, not long after Kurt Cobain took an insane amount of heroin and cradled a shotgun in his guesthouse, only to be discovered several days later by an electrician. Even worse, Nickelback soiled Cobain's legacy with godawful anthems, and who have their own weird and contradictory and hilarious connection to President Trump.

These days, Rock N' Roll lives mostly via nostalgia, as evinced by the explosion of cover bands. Notice how you don't see any hip-hop cover bands. You will, someday. But, for now, Hip-Hop reigns supreme. And Kanye is the King.

The brilliant Nina Simone once told a reporter that "An artist's duty, as far as I'm concerned, is to reflect the times."

Because music accords itself to the gravity and creative truth of the era. And currently we entrust hip-hop with this complicated maneuver.

But the past year, Kanye has been crafting a new sound through his Sunday services, weekly jam sessions with acoustic musicians and a choir and everyone dressed in white, praying through song, herding us into a better place, looking above for guidance. If it's anything like his track "Ultralight Beam," it will bring calm to our divided culture.

Mark my words: The resultant album will usher in an entirely new era, a magical flash in human history.

So far, hip-hop has been the defiant child of R&B and Electronica, the grandchild of Spoken Word and Steve Reich Minimalism, with tinges of Punk. Not for much longer. Kanye will see to that. And, weirdly, President Trump has helped inspire this transformation.

Meaning, Donald Trump will have had a hand in reinventing music as a whole, in spreading a movement of positive reformation. Love him or hate him, it does not matter. What other politician can make that claim?

There's an optimism to this that Dave Chappelle captured in his now-infamous Saturday Night Live monologue, just days after Trump was elected, asking Americans to at least give the man a chance. And again in his special "Equanimity," when he said

I swear no matter how bad it gets, you're my countrymen, and I know for a fact that I'm determined to work shit out with y'all.

In a moment of now-tired irony, the usual suspects heaped a barrage of hate at Chappelle for these remarks. But their outrage does not matter, in the grand scheme of things. Because it is an incredible time to be alive. It's beautiful. We should never forget that, no matter how petty or outrageous daily life gets.

At the moment, we are a country that is — everywhere, secretly — hurting. But we are Americans. Together. This is America. And, every day, God delights in our greatness and our empathy and our endless gift for love. So open your heart and listen. Say what you need to say.

New installments of this series come out every Monday and Thursday. Check out my Twitter or email me at

Ryan: Michael Bennet, Little League

Photo by Sean Ryan

Every day, life getting shorter. Every day, life going faster. Every day, like a roller coaster. These were the kinds of things that Michael Bennet was saying.

Michael Bennet, God bless him, he seemed like a decent lad. All week he had his family there. He said his campaign was their family vacation. He had had prostate cancer but would you believe he survived?

"Life is getting shorter," he said. "Every day."

Photo by Sean Ryan

He was well spoken. Dry. Talked with an air of consultation. Like you were in his office, and he had things to tell you.

Like a Little League coach who could actually be a coach someday.


I would encounter Bennet again the next day, at the Iowa State Fair.

Having just seen Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at a small Baptist church, we ventured to the fair to see Bernie Sanders' riot of a Sunday speech. Bennet was on before him, so I got there early, and I paced off to get a restroom break. The media center is in the basement of the administration building, right by the Political Soapbox stage.

For whatever reason, the first-floor men's restroom has giant windows along the wall, and you can see right out onto the walkway that wraps around the building. I did not realize that this was the path that the candidates take to get to the stage.

Photo by Sean Ryan

And, this far into the 2020 presidential election, they never went many places alone. They had a press swarm and their wives and maybe an old friend who relocated here when the hurricane sank his house.

I was rushing. Panicking, really. Because I heard all the commotion. But nature abides by its own pace. And as I shuffled to the sink to wash my hands, my pants fell all the way down. I was exposed. Out in the open and in such desperation, you clobber yourself outside of time. It was all slo-mo with the Chopped-n-screwed voices as I scrambled to lift my trousers and audibly gasped the words, "Well just no." At that exact moment, that "accidental Renaissance" painting occurred as I locked eyes with Michael Bennet, slowly maneuvering the walkway.

These sorts of things happened, didn't they? There you were in a restroom, at an NFL game or a concert or maybe a bar, and you see someone you work with, or someone from church or school, and you lock eyes for a moment in confusion then revert to cave talk and shrug and get on with what you were doing. But it's weird when only one of you is actively part of the etiquette and allowances of a restroom and one of you is held to a higher standard, for the sake of common decency. Now let's say that you, the restroom occupant, happen to be credentialed press, and the outsider, Michael Bennet, happens to be a candidate for president of America.

Once the herd passed by behind him, I laughed a bit, quietly, because life could be very funny.


Onstage, Bennet, a senator from Colorado, gave the performance of a cake falling into a pool. Like he had been ghost-busted. Like he had spent the last two months learning the Fortnite dance moves and now that he had mastered them, suddenly Fortnite was for losers, and Fortnite dances, well, they were even worse.

The Political Soapbox is great because every candidate has 20 minutes. Those 20 minutes were theirs. Most of the time, they got romantic like a Backstreet Boy singing up toward an open window. Occasionally, they lost it. Bennet did neither. He belly-flopped into hay bales.

Photo by Sean Ryan

Remember that the growing crowd had the dangerous feel of a natural disaster. And it was gaspingly warm that day. So neither the crowd nor the environment were ready to give Bennet a freebie.

He gave a ravishing speech, full of neat invective. Then looked up and realized he still had 14 minutes on the clock. Oof. That was most of it, and he'd already done the Floss and the Robot and the Electro Shuffle, and honestly his shoulder was a little stiff from all that dance practice. So he opened the floor for questions.

Now, that was not the greatest idea. For one, this was not the type of place for such a thing. They called it a soapbox because you were meant to live out the phrase "on a soapbox" by ranting and fist-pounding and all other theatrics.

The Bernie Sanders supporters hadn't arrived en masse yet, so most of the people around the stage were clad in Trump gear. And they all had their hands up ready to ask him questions. Well, firebombs, really, masked as interrogative statements. Bennet shouted without breathing, then said, "I want to find a non-male person who has a question."

This did not sit well with the males who did not like the trend of personalizing all things, cautious gendering, and the sudden change of direction so that now they had to just listen.

Most people did not care.

"I do not support Bernie's plan," Bennet shouted. But would you believe the Bernie supporters had literally just arrived, you could smell their hair dye.

They jeered, then acted exactly — and I mean exactly — like the Trump supporters.

"I would rather support free pre-school than free college," he shouted. "Many people talk about... " but the jeering was too powerful. And the Bernie supporters had likely just had quinoa açaí bowls at their pre-Bernie brunch, so they were unstoppable. Well God bless the man for scratching "Give Presidency a Try" off his bucket list. Because at least he had a bucket list.

What did they have? Student debt and a restraining order? They being the growing factions of Bernie and Trump supporters in the audience. You could not see any pavement. It was just people and faces like the Mediterranean in the evening, all the way to the towering walls of the Grandstand.

Looking out at all that chaos, all that latent disaster, Bennet must have felt a deep stirring.

The night before, Slipknot headlined at the Grand Stand, a sold-out show. Rollicking and bursting and howling. How many drumbeats could drummer Jay Weinberg get per minute? At one point, vocalist Corey Taylor unleashed a demonic bellow, then adjusted his mask and looked out to all those people, those devoted fans, because many of them had Slipknot tattoos, and maybe he, like Bennet, indulged a moment for himself, a personalization of the grand setting, then shrieked, then persuaded the audience to lift their hands into the air, maybe toward a constellation of their choosing, and extend their middle finger like it was an egg landing on a pillow, which symbolizes the human condition.

New installments to this series come out every Monday and Thursday morning. For live updates, check out my Twitter or email me at

President Trump couldn't personally make it to Houston for the 3rd Democratic Debate, so he paid $7,500 for a single-engine Cessna to fly in circles over Texas Southern University campus while pulling a banner that said, "Socialism will kill Houston's economy! Vote Trump 2020!"

For four hours, it chugged around up there. You could hear it everywhere. It was the soundtrack of the night.

You can just imagine Trump's face as he had the banner-plane idea. You can hear him putting in the order. You can see his list of demands. And at the very top, "I WANT THE LOUDEST PLANE YOU CAN FIND!!!"


Was that Bret Baier in the aisle, adjusting his reading glasses and thumbing at the strap of his comically small backpack as he crossed the blue-carpeted gymnasium? He looked like the human version of Wisconsin. He was saying something but all you could hear was the plane overhead.

Photo by Kevin Ryan

Bret Baier, the stoic host of "Special Report with Bret Baier" on Fox News and the network's chief political anchor. He's underrated, if you ask me. Legacy. Old-school. He just delivers the news, which is what most people want. He talks the way anchors used to talk, with the American accent unique to news anchors even though he was born in New Jersey and raised in Georgia.

I had spent the last year-and-a-half on a series of in-depth profiles on some of the major countercultural figures of our time. People like Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, and Carol Swain. So my first impulse was to rush over to Baier and profile the guy. Nobody else would, after all. The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Harper's. But they ought to. The man has a hell of a story.
He joined Fox News a year-and-a-half after it was founded, as the southeast correspondent in Atlanta. A few years later, on a Tuesday in September, nineteen terrorists hijacked four passenger airliners and crashed into America.

When the first plane hit, Fox producers told Baier to just get in his car and drive to New York City. They needed back-up reporters for the next day. When the second plane crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m., they said, "Step on it, Baier."

He and his producer were an hour outside Atlanta when American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon. Still a good 8 hours away, but closer to D.C. than to New York City. So they re-routed to Arlington, Virginia, as fast as they could. Past a blur of fields full of indifferent cows. Past houses full of people who could hardly talk, people who couldn't describe what they were seeing and hearing, all the smoke and the blood and the office-supply confetti. Past towns that barely moved, gas stations with nobody in them, people sunken into a far-away stare.

Yet there was the sun, with only a few bangles of cloud every so often. America had been paralyzed but the earth kept trucking along, quiet and unbothered. It must have felt strange for Baier, to speed down empty highways — toward literal death and chaos — under a perfect sky, below cascading light and color.

Nature doesn't care if we make it out alive.


That day, Baier reported live from a Citgo station across the street from the Pentagon, rubble in heaps of flame behind him. It was like he'd fallen onto a different planet and was reporting back to home.

The next day arrived and it was so quiet everywhere. Nobody knew a damn thing. We could not believe our eyes. We all turned to reporters and anchors for answers. Most often, they blurted out whatever they could.

Something about Bret Baier gave audiences a much-needed boost. Reliable, sturdy. Like he said what had to be said and not a word extra.

Fox kept him in D.C., indefinitely. A friend helped him find an apartment. He never went back to Atlanta. Two weeks later, Fox News appointed him Pentagon correspondent, a position that saw him travel the world, including 13 trips to Afghanistan and 12 to Iraq.

Halfway through George W. Bush's second term, Baier became Fox News' White House correspondent.

Then, a year before he would earn his current position as anchor, Baier became a father. His son was born with holes in his heart — five congenital heart defects. Twelve days later, the boy underwent open-heart surgery. Baier and his wife waited in tiled rooms drenched with flowers and ESPN and drab ultraviolet light, surrounded by machines full of beeps and whirring and beeps and whirring.

Baier's son has since undergone two additional open-heart surgeries, nine angioplasties, and one stomach operation. In an interview with Parents Magazine, Baier said that his son's health problems have "given me perspective about my job, going through policy and politics in Washington, D.C., to see the bigger picture."

*Part of the reason I couldn't tell whether or not it was Baier is he's usually up on the main stage. For the 2012 election, he moderated five Republican debates, and co-anchored FNC's America's Election HQ alongside Megyn Kelly.

The 2016 election would propel him into a much larger role. He anchored three Republican debates, but this time he had to handle Donald Trump.

Baier knew Trump personally, from before the election. They'd played golf together. He described Trump as "a nice guy outside of his TV persona" and never thought Trump would actually make a run for the Presidency. Onstage, Trump was much different. And Baier had been tasked with maintaining control.

A devout Roman Catholic, he appreciates a nice glass of wine and a fine cut of steak. He likes a good joke, too. In January, 2019, Baier signed a multi-year deal with Fox News to continue "Special Report." A few weeks later, he and his family went to Montana for a ski trip. The weekend was wonderful. But they had to get back to New York because Baier was scheduled to appear on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" that Tuesday.

Imagine him, again in a car hurtling toward a fateful destination. How he squinted through the frost-pocked windshield and gripped the steering wheel. As he guided the white SUV along the two-lane road to the airport. The land looked haunted, barren, lifeless. Everywhere, the world was frozen white. Snow and ice blanketing the fields, gauze over the sky.

At some anonymous intersection, Baier pumped the brakes, but the tires hit an ice patch, and the SUV spun loose. An oncoming car slammed into the driver's side, launching the vehicle into an embankment, wedged on its side. A man named Zach stopped his pickup truck and helped the family crawl free, and the Montana Highway Patrol rushed them to the hospital.

"Don't take anything for granted," Baier tweeted later. "Every day is a blessing and family is everything. It's always good to remind yourself of that before something does it for you."

Before every debate that he moderates, Baier spends 10 minutes alone, praying.


A Freedom of Information Act request in 2011 revealed that Fox News was actually right. That the Obama Administration really did hate them. And had intentionally excluded them from a press pool two years earlier. Then laughed about it.

The documents unearthed snarky emails between various high-ranking aides in the Obama Administration. In one, the Deputy White House communications director bemoaned Baier's reporting on the bias. "I'm putting some dead fish in the [Fox News] cubby — just cause Bret Baier is a lunatic." That same day, deputy press secretary Josh Earnest bragged in an email that "we've demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews."

The Trump administration pulled a similar stunt in July, 2018 by banning a CNN reporter from the press pool. Trump and Fox News had developed a beneficial relationship by then. And CNN was a lifelong competitor, a public enemy.
That night, Baier delivered an official statement, "This decision to bar a member of the press is retaliatory in nature and not indicative of an open and free press. We demand better. As a member of the White House press pool, Fox stands firmly with CNN on this issue of access."

Fox News rebuked Trump in solidarity with CNN. It was a heartening gesture between two seeming enemies. Fox News were standing up for truth, defending journalism, rejecting tyranny even though the ban would have benefitted them as a company.

Who knows how many books and dissertations and articles have been written about Fox News, usually in relation to bias, usually with a scathing tone. The conclusions differ wildly, yet each one claims certitude.

Generally, academics and journalists have taken a doomsday tone when talking about Fox News. Accusations of evil, fear-mongering, bigotry, hatred, misinformation, propaganda, racism, homophobia, and so on.

Despite these outcries, Fox News has consistently held its spot as the most-watched network in the country. Imagine how that makes its critics feel.

In an August 3, 2018 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live, Baier said, "the biggest problem is that the people who are most critical of Fox are usually people who have not watched Fox News."

Fox News is composed of two distinct departments. Punditry and straight news. Or "opinion news" and "descriptive news." Consistently, surveys of the public rate Fox News as both the least- and most-biased news network.
Last year, a survey found Fox News to be the second most-trusted television news brand in the country, after the BBC.

In a separate study, Democrats rated its bias score at (negative) -87, while Republicans placed it at (positive) +3. Which is like if, at a football game, one referee said "Touchdown," while the other referee said "Turnover, leading to Touchdown for the Defense." It can't be both, can it?

Public opinion may not be the best metric for understanding Fox News, especially in 2019.

Quantitative studies have offered clearer conclusions. In 2016, a content analysis used crowdsourcing and machine learning to examine over 800,000 news stories published over a year by 15 major outlets, from the New York Times to Fox News. They wanted to chart media bias.

What they discovered is that news outlets are far more similar than we believe. Much of the perceived bias is a matter of separating "opinion news" from "descriptive news." For conservatives, it's punditry. For those on the left, it's op-eds and long form investigative pieces, although the left tends to insist that they're not biased, that they are instead just more apt to tell the truth, even though research has disproven this belief.

The researchers found a much larger bias-divide in opinion news, whereas descriptive news was practically neutral. One of the researchers described Fox News' descriptive news as "guided by similar news values as more traditional, legacy media."

University of California Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild wrote that "Fox News stands next to industry, state government, church, and the regular media as an extra pillar of political culture all its own."

Say what you want about Fox News, they play a crucial role in the so-called mainstream media. And, despite what Fox News will lead you to believe, they are definitely part of the mainstream. And they are by no means the innocent victim. And certainly not powerless. And they have all kinds of problems that I will not defend. But we'll talk about that in a later installment, the one about Kamala Harris at a gun control rally, advocating for propaganda.


After two months of political events, I suspected that different news networks have their own signifiers, like the distinct stripes and markings on various spiders.

Wall Street Journal reporters tended to carry old-timey notepads and interview any bystander they could find. Breitbart usually only sent one person, and he wandered around with his iPhone, recording every single thing. Politico, prim-suited men who could just as easily work on the stock market.

Most of the reporters dressed like that, in stagey business attire. Prim for a high school job fair. Meanwhile, the photographers, mostly men, looked like professional paintball players. The camera crews and technical staff were the only ones decked in tattoos and wearing sandals and generally not caring about the chaos all around them. On-camera talent were covered in makeup and shrink-wrapped into dresses or suits with chip-clips along the spine.

The Washington Post sent the classiest and most bored-looking people I have ever encountered. They never looked at their laptops as their fingers chopped at the keys, and you assumed they were pretending until you read their stories online. You could spot ABC because their camera crew wore faded red ABC hats. Associated Press looked like they had just come back from a battlefield assignment in Syria, and never donned the same press credentials as everyone else, preferring a tattered AP lanyard. And you always knew when someone was with the New York Times because they announced it to the entire room.

And Fox News? At democratic events, they usually hid. But not that day, in Houston, as Bret Baier walked up the aisle to a table a couple rows in front of me.

Most people arrived in the Media Filing Center several hours before the debate. Fox News got there just slightly after that, as everyone was wiggling in their seats and connecting their laptops to a shared outlet.

There were seven or so in the pack of Fox News, all grinning. They all had white to-go sacks from Chick-fil-A. And the room got quieter, so Trump's plane got louder. It was a double trolling event.

As host of the debate, ABC would be providing dinner. This information was included in the credentials email that all of us had received. So nobody else had brought food with them. No need.

Even better, I was familiar enough with that part of Houston to know that there was not a Chick-fil-A anywhere close to us. Who knew where they'd gotten that Chick-fil-A, but odds are it wasn't warm. Who knew if there was even any food in the bags.

They had brought Chick-fil-A into a building full of national media during the third Democratic Presidential debate. The 2020 election was already full of outrage about plenty of things, and one of them was Chick-fil-A. To some folks, the red chicken logo might as well have been a swastika. That very week LGBT activists had vehemently — cartoonishly — protested the opening of several Chick-fil-A's throughout North America. Chicken sandwiches had become yet another flag on the tug-of-war rope in the Culture War of our country.

To be clear, the political left was anti-Chicken and the political right was pro-Chicken. The media tended to lean anti-Chicken, and frequently wrote about anti-Chicken causes, often scolding pro-Chicken voices, or ignoring the struggles of the pro-Chicken community only to deny any opinion on Chicken at all. That was the cowardly part, of you ask me, the pretending like they weren't activists.

The Democratic candidates definitely leaned anti-Chicken. Sometimes they took it so far that it upset moderate anti-Chicken advocates. Because was it really so bad to eat Chicken? Couldn't you be anti-Chicken but also enjoy Chicken occasionally? Why did everything have to be either "all Chicken all the time unless you hate freedom" or "no chicken ever unless you support hate"?

The fight had spread everywhere. Airports, stadiums, malls, campuses. All had served as battlegrounds for the anti-Chicken versus the pro-Chicken.

The previous President was anti-Chicken. In fact, he may well have enflamed the entire movement. During his tenure, there were nationwide protests that saw pro-Chicken advocates angrily and proudly eating Chicken while anti-Chicken advocates protested outside and occasionally engaged in homosexual affection, which was being threatened by Chicken, according to them.

Every time the pro-Chicken folks bit into a Chicken sandwich, it was like they were gnawing away at the anti-Chicken people themselves. Degrading their identity. Because, for them, it was about the identity.

But the current President, unabashedly proud of his pro-Chicken stance, once served Chicken at the White House to some winning sports team, and the anti-Chicken activists saw it as proof that Chicken and hate go together. And maybe Chicken would even lead to the impeachment of the President they hate, which would mean the Vice President would become the President, but he's one of the most pro-Chicken people in America, so they'd have to impeach him, too. And the Supreme Court, it was overrun with pro-Chicken types.

This election, the Democratic front-runners competed for the bolder plan. They would end Chicken in America once and for all. They would obliterate our evil President and his Chicken Supremacy. Their stump speeches relied on harsh criticisms of pro-Chicken voters, who pretended to find the whole anti-Chicken movement amusing but were secretly enraged by it. In fact, they were certain that the anti-Chicken movement had been systematically silencing them for years, and that they had to fight for their Chicken in order to keep everything that they valued, even all the not-Chicken.

The media and the democrats and Hollywood and academia — all hated the Chicken, because they hated the pro-Chicken people. If they had their way, no more Chicken, ever again. And no more pro-Chicken deplorables. And tonight the anti-Chicken politico-culture complex would prove it, with long rants which get confirmed by glowing articles, calculated takedowns about the merits of anti-Chicken and the evils of pro-Chicken.

Yet here was Fox News, with actual Chicken. And they were smiling. Maybe in part because the police who were guarding us all tended to be pro-Chicken. And this was Texas, after all, an incredibly pro-Chicken state. But there were 49 other states and 14 territories, and all of them were fighting for or against Chicken.

Some experts even said we were on the cusp of a Civil War.

New installments to this series come out every Monday and Thursday morning. For live updates, check out my Twitter or email me at

We've heard the catchphrase "follow the money" so often that it's nearly a joke. It gained added attention in the 1976 movie All the President's Men, which follows the story of the two journalists who uncovered Watergate. "Follow the money," their source told them, "and you'll find corruption."

Problem is, corrupters hide their bad behavior remarkably well. They are masters of disguise. But if you look closely enough, you can spot the seams splitting in their choreographed routine.

One technique that magicians use for psychological misdirection is called the false solution. The goal is to distract the audience, to make them believe that they know what's really happening. All the while, the machinations of the actual trick are happening right in front of them, because "implanting an unlikely and unfamiliar idea in the mind can prevent participants from finding a more obvious one."

Billions of dollars. Lost. Gone.

I want to tell you a story of tremendous corruption, masked cleverly, using many of the same techniques that magicians have used for centuries. Only it's not a rabbit disappearing into a hat or a coin vanishing behind an ear. It's billions of dollars. Lost. Gone.

And the people responsible are the same people who have been so monstrously worked up about Trump's impeachment. The same people screaming about Trump's malfeasance with Ukraine are actually the ones misbehaving in Ukraine.

It's essentially an elevated, highly organized form of projection. Only instead of one person lashing out at the world, it's an entire political party, right up to the top. The very top. Barack Obama. It's right there on video.

Or how about the audio recording we uncovered, with Artem Sytnyk, Director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine, openly admitting a connection between the DNC and Ukraine?

So far, the story told by the Democrats and the media has been about Trump and Ukraine. Every so often, you hear mention of Joe Biden's dubious history with the war-torn country.

We were the first to talk about Joe Biden's connections to Ukraine back in April, with our candidate profile on Biden.

It turns out, the whole debacle was much worse than we thought. It stretched further than Uncle Joe. What we found out is that the DNC was working with the Ukrainian government.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. And we have the documents to prove it.

Read on to discover everything you need for a 30-second elevator pitch that you can give to your friend and say, "Look, here's what you need to know. Here's what's really going on."

If anyone is guilty, they should go to jail.

Last night, in Ukraine: The Democrats' Russia I revealed the elaborate misdirection taking place.

I said it last night and I'll say it again: If Trump is guilty, he should go to jail. If anyone is guilty, they should go to jail. Because this is too important to the Republic.

Watch the hands, follow the money.

Here are the documents, video, and audio that we found in our reporting. This is the hard evidence that will help you explain this unbelievable situation to other people.

  • June 2016 State Department memos detailing contacts between George Soros' office and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

As you can see, we did a lot of research on this, and we've done our best to condense it for you. It still requires you to do your own homework, but there's a tremendous freedom to that.

You are seeking the truth.

You are bucking the mainstream media. You are rejecting them. And you are seeking truth. Because they abandoned truth a long time ago and they certainly aren't interested in recovering it now.