The #1 Journalist Targeted for Anti-Semitism on the Internet Talks With Glenn

Ben Shapiro holds many titles, awards and distinctions --- editor-in-chief, author, attorney --- but perhaps his latest is the most compelling. Shapiro was recently named the number one journalistic target of anti-Semitism on the internet.

"I was always of the opinion that the vast, you know, anti-Semitic left was a much bigger threat, with regard to anti-Semitism, than the right," Shapiro said. "Virtually all of the anti-Semitism I received this year was from the alt-right. You know, that came as a shock to me."

According to an Anti-Defamation League survey, about 20,000 anti-Semitic tweets were directed at American journalists since March of 2016. Eight thousand of those were at Shapiro.

Unswayed by the hatred, Shapiro remains as focused and committed as ever to conservative principles. His new book --- True Allegiance --- is available now for pre-order and at bookstores everywhere next week.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these steadfast questions:

• What gives Ben hope in millennials?

• Why could Ben's new book be a history book very soon?

• What's Steve Bannon's scam?

• Does Trump even care about being president?

• What does Ben wake up every morning thinking about?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

BEN: Hey, doing pretty well. How are you?

GLENN: Pretty good.

So we find out now that it is indeed a Jew, Ben Shapiro, that has been torching Donald Trump. They were right all along. They were right all along, Ben.

BEN: Yeah. If only they had known I was an international banker, this would have changed everything.

GLENN: That's right.

BEN: It is amazing how all of the people who foisted Donald Trump on us in the primaries are now insisting that anyone who says that Donald Trump was a bad candidate from the beginning is at fault here. If only we had jumped on the Trump train sooner, then he would be losing by presumably by six points, instead of by eight.

GLENN: Right.

BEN: Everybody is preparing for the post-election fallout. The people who timed themselves to this electrical fire, more than anybody else. They're already prepping Trump TV. And I look forward to the lineup, including, you know, some of our good friends who will presumably be appearing shortly.

I mean, Trump debuted Trump TV in the middle of the debate last night. And it's clear that's what this rigging talk is about, by the way. This whole routine is not designed to win any votes. No, independent voter across the country is going, "Well, you know, if Trump says it's rigged, that means I'm going to vote for that guy." This is just all about the coalition of the dispossessed. It's about creating a grievance culture where people think that the real reason Trump lost wasn't because he's the worst major candidate in presidential history. That the real reason he lost is because there are all these media people and evil pollsters and evil voting fraud gurus and the Never Trumpers who combine to stop him. And the only way that you're going to be able to fight back against those people is by paying 10.99 a month to watch Laura Ingram talk to Sean Hannity about the wonders of Donald Trump.

GLENN: So, Ben, how does this actually shape up at the end? Because he is not going away. As you said, during the debate two nights ago, he was debuting Trump TV. The BBC even tweeted that. Are we watching the beginning of Trump TV? It was clear that was the prototype broadcast of what was coming.

And he's not going away. And the reason why he hit Hillary as hard as he did was -- was not to expand his base, which he had to do. It was to make sure that his base was die-hard for him. They are going to say that it was rigged. They're going to blame it on the G.O.P. They're going to blame it on the media. They're going to blame it on people like you, people like me. And a good portion of those people are going to believe that from -- from now until the end of time.

BEN: Yeah, and that's a scam. That was Steve Bannon's scam, you know, when he moved over from Breitbart. I said it immediately. I'm admiring him. That Bannon is too smart not to have a backup plan. His backup plan is if Trump loses, they convert, you know, a million or 2 million of the big Trump fans into the a subscriber base for some sort of TV network. That was always the plan here.

I mean, Trump is not a great businessman. He's a great branding magnate. His brand is ruined internationally because of all the things he's done inside of this election cycle. But that doesn't mean he can't make a lot of money off of the die-hards. They're attempting to increase the number of die-hards here by suddenly narrowing all the Tea Party language that Trump despised at the time, but suddenly he's a Tea Partier, because they're trying to grab on to that audience, hold them tight, and then claim the real reason that people have moved away from him is not because he's not conservative enough, not because he has no values. The reason that people moved away from him is of course because he's just too tough and we're too wimpy to really take the fight to the enemy.

GLENN: So with -- with Steve Bannon who is -- and you worked for him for years, or worked with him for years. One of the more despicable men alive. Would you agree?

BEN: Yeah. I'm not a Steve Bannon fan.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

BEN: Yeah, he's a bad guy.

GLENN: Right. A really bad guy. He is -- he is -- he will use -- I don't know if he believes in the alt-right, but he is certainly willing to use the alt-right for fuel.

This is going to be a very bad chemistry lab experiment that that could blow the conservative movement sky-high. How do we navigate around this? How do we -- how do you expose what's coming and what they're going to be doing?

BEN: I mean, the only thing that we can do is, of course, tell the truth about what is going on. And this is sort of the final con in what has been a con of a campaign.

But beyond that, I think that we also have to make clear, some of the stuff that you've been saying, Glenn, I think has been useful in this respect. And I've been trying to say the same thing.

My hard feelings are not with the people who feel like they have to vote for Donald Trump in order to stop Hillary Clinton. I totally understand that logic.

GLENN: Correct. I do too.

BEN: You know, I wake up every morning trying to figure out for myself on a personal level, is that logic that predominates over other logic that suggests you can't vote for this guy.

GLENN: Hang on. Before you say anymore. Was there a time -- any time at all in the first ten minutes a couple of nights ago on the debate when you heard her talk about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment, and abortion, that before he started talking, that you said, "I've -- I have to consider voting for Donald Trump. She is awful."

BEN: Yeah. Pretty much every time she opens her mouth, I have to consider voting for Trump. And I think that that's true for virtually everybody who considers themselves Never Trump.

GLENN: Correct. I agree. And I think that's why both of us -- all of us, we do not condemn anyone who is voting for Donald Trump. We get it -- we totally get it.

BEN: Right. Exactly.

GLENN: Unless you're part of the alt-right -- you know, when you had 16 candidates in front of you, I don't understand that.

BEN: Right. Even if you had 16 others in front of you, but you weren't following the news that closely, and all you saw was sort of the headlines that he's going to be a fighter.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree.

BEN: But somebody who backed him because you're sort of a nationalist/populist and you want that sort of constitutional conservatism that's always driven the Republican Party or has since the Reagan era, then that's the part that I don't understand.

I think that what you're seeing is sort of a preemptive strike from a lot of the Trumpkins, the Bannons of the world, saying, "Look, we know we're going to go down in flames here, but we have to make it seem as though people like Beck and Shapiro and people who aren't going to vote for Trump are sneering at you, like they're looking down their nose at you for voting Trump. I'm not looking down my nose at anybody. I've made a personal calculation. I've never said to anybody, "I'm encouraging you not to vote for Donald Trump."

I have said that, "Here's my -- you know, here's calculation, why I'm not voting for Donald Trump." I think that Washington takes the heart out of the Republican Party over the last year alone is good evidence that he's going to do much worse over the next eight years and pervert the Republican Party into the Steve Bannon alt-right, and that is something that I'm not going to stand around for. But, you know, that said, I understand the differing risk assessments that people have.

GLENN: Sure.

BEN: The civil war is entirely a creation of the Bannon/Trump brigade. They want the civil war. Neither you nor I want the civil war. We would like to see us come together and actually fight the left. Listen, the reason that I opposed Trump in the primaries because I thought he's an agent of the left. I still think that he's leftist in his heart.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too. You know, I don't think you meant that literally. But there are some -- and I think you could make a pretty strong case that Bill Clinton, you know, called him up a week before and was like, "Hey, Don, I know you're thinking about it. You should do it because, you know, it will be good for your brand. And you'll be able to have fun. And, you know, you'll be able to clean up those crazies on the right."

BEN: Look, I don't think Trump is the plan. But if he were, I'm not sure he would be acting much differently than he has been for the past few months.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

BEN: I think he's -- I think Trump is an ad hoc guy who has never really thought about politics very much. What he does think is about (inaudible). He has no ties to the Constitution. He has no ties to conservatism. And so he's this sort of reactionary who doesn't like some of the stuff that he saw from Barack Obama. That's all.

GLENN: So let's just assume that the polls don't change -- because he didn't have a game-changing debate. And so let's say the polls are accurate, which is still an if. And Donald Trump loses. We know what he'll do. He'll start Trump TV. There will be an alt-right party that grows out of this. Let's talk about, how do we come together enough to stop Hillary Clinton? Because that's -- that's going to be the important part. And I will tell you, because some show hosts have said, "I will never come together with you. I will condemn you for you, you know, losing the vote for Donald Trump." So how do we get together and stand together as a bloc to block Hillary if she wins?

BEN: You know, I think that we're going to have to ignore the flames and arrows. Unfortunately, this capitulation -- there's a phrase in the Jewish prayers -- (cutting out) I let my soul (cutting out) -- I think there's going to be have to be some of that. (cutting out)

GLENN: Hang. Hang on. Ben, I don't know if you just walked into another room or something, but you broke up. Can you tell us -- we lost you at the -- at the Jewish prayer.

BEN: No.

Yeah. Can you hear me now? Is that better?

GLENN: Yes, yes.

BEN: Okay. So there's a part of the Jewish prayer service where it talks about, you know, let my soul be as dust to people who criticize me. And I think that we're going to have to adopt that, that idea. Because we're going to get hit with blame for Hillary, because everybody who selected Trump in the primaries and backed him so ardently, they have to shift the blame somewhere. We're just going to have to keep the focus. We're going to have to ignore it. We're just going to have to keep the focus, where it ought to be, which is on attacking the left, attacking Hillary Clinton.

And, look, I think that the recriminations are going to last longer than they did after 2012.

GLENN: Right.

BEN: It is amazing. I don't remember after 2012, the whole Republican -- a large swath of the Republican Party turning on the Trump people, who didn't show up for Romney. And saying, "It's your fault Romney wasn't elected." But the Trump people, some of them, are going to do it to us this time. But, you know, I think that -- people have short memories. And the only thing that's going to matter is, how do we stop Hillary's agenda? So alliances of conveniences to the Republican Party -- has shown are not foreign to the Republican Party or a lot of people who are in it.

STU: Ben, this is Stu, and it's very rare that we have award-winning journalists on the program. You have won the award for the number one journalistic target of anti-Semitism on the internet. Congratulations.

BEN: Thank you. I thank God. I thank my neighbor --

(laughter)

STU: Did you want to give -- I -- you have to look at this -- I mean, A, it must be just a nightmare to even sign on to Twitter or any of these places these days with this stuff going on. Not only were you the number one target of anti-Semitism. It was by a really, really large margin.

GLENN: I know what it's like, Ben, to sign on for me. The things that they say -- my wife blew a gasket the other day. I just got an email, and she said, you are never talking to another person in the press ever, ever again. I don't care what it is. I don't care what happens. You're never talking to another member of the press.

And I can't imagine what it's like to be you, with the anti-Semitism that is going on. How are you dealing with it?

BEN: You know, at a certain point, you start to tune it out because you have to. But on the day of your baby's birth and you're getting notes from, you know, people who write for Breitbart, you know, that are essentially racists. And then you get other notes from people that are -- just pictures of gas chambers and talk about cockroaches. And I hope the four of you die in a gas chamber. That kind of stuff. At a certain point, it moves from the mildly irritating to the actually upsetting.

I mean, I've received -- according to that ADL survey, there were something like 20,000 anti-Semitic tweets directed at American journalists since March. And I was the recipient of nearly 8,000 of those.

So, you know, at a certain point it's kind of amazing that there are that many people that think they're that important in their lives that they're going to do that. And my feeling has always been that if you're pissing off the mouth-breathing Jew hater, then you're doing something right.

So it didn't bother me on any moral level. But I will tell you that it's pretty clear that it's coordinated. I mean, there are certain spike points where people did it based on the news cycle. There were a couple of accounts that were taken off of Twitter. By the way, I'm not an advocate of taking people off Twitter for anti-Semitism. I retweet these people because I think it's important to expose them.

But there are a couple who were taken off of Twitter when Milo Yiannopoulos was booted off of Twitter, which I didn't advocate for. When that happened, the amount of anti-Semitism in my feed dropped by at least 50 percent.

So, you know, when people ask why are you concerned about the Breitbart/alt-right movement, why are you worried Trump, you know, being kind of confused with that, well, it's because the major players in that movement are a problem. I mean, they believe some pretty terrible things. And our fellow travelers (phonetic) are people who believe even worse things.

GLENN: Ben, I -- I have to tell you, we've been a fan of yours for a very long time. But this -- this last year has really shown people's colors. And I don't know if the -- the people who read you or listen to you on the radio understand the difficulty that you have put up. And anybody who has taken this stand. It's a very, very brave thing to do.

And we've been watching you for the last year. And we are -- we're really impressed. Really impressed. Can I switch topics? Go ahead.

BEN: Yeah, that's high praise come from you obviously. Because of the people who have taken a lot of hits in this election cycle, you're definitely number one on that list. So it's been brutal, and I'm just hoping that after this election cycle, we can move into a period where people actually go back to principle instead of sort of the tribal fight that they've wanted to engage in.

GLENN: Yeah. Can you hang for a minute. Because you also have started another project that I think is really interesting. And I'd love for you to share with the audience. Do you have time to stay?

BEN: Sure. That would be great.

GLENN: Okay. Great.

[break]

GLENN: Ben Shapiro is with us. Ben, you've written a novel. You want to tell us about it?

BEN: Sure. That would be great. The novel is called True Allegiance. And it sort of takes all of the political crises we're facing in the country and ratcheting them up by a factor of about 50 percent. And it talks about what the dissolution of the country would look like.

And the reason that I wrote it as fiction as opposed to writing a sort of nonfiction book as to what the future looks like, is mainly because -- and, Glenn, I know you've been a proponent of this for a long time, Andrew Breitbart, my mentor, or my former mentor, was promoting this as well, the idea that culture is upstream of politics.

And if you tell it in a story, what you can't necessarily say in nonfiction, you know, here's one possible future, here's how bad things are on everything from the border to government's encroachment on land rights to race relations in the inner city, then people are more likely to read it and take it seriously, oddly enough, than they are to take a non-fiction book about the same topic seriously. Plus, you end up with more readers.

Ayn Rand did more for capitalism probably than Milton Friedman did, just because there are so many more people who read Atlas Shrugged. So the idea was to take all of these crises, stack them up one on another, and say, "Okay. How close are we really to everything collapsing?" And I have to say, I wrote the thing maybe a year and a half ago I started writing it. I completed it probably a year ago. And since then, half of the stuff in the book came true. So it turns out that I thought it was all 30 years away, and it may only be about 15 years away, which is a little scary.

GLENN: I did -- I'll tell you, I did the same thing.

We published -- what was it? Eye of Moloch. I don't remember what it was. Oh, it was the NSA stuff. The Eye of Moloch was a novel that I wrote. And it was about the spying on American citizens and how the NSA was going to do this and everything else. And I wrote it. It took about a year and a half to write.

And we put it out. And the day it came out was the day that I think the WikiLeaks story broke. We were like, "Good heavens, man. This is supposed to be in the future." It's amazing.

BEN: Oh, yeah. It is incredible how the future has accelerated. I mean, all of the worst fictional things that I talk about in True Allegiance, again, a lot of them came true. I wrote about major race riots in an American city and the attempt by the race rioters to kind of mainstream their politics into the politics of the upper echelon of the city. And obviously that's now been happening in pretty much every major Democrat-controlled city in America.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. I have to take a quick break. Come back and just tell us the things that are in the book. And what the solutions are, if there are any. I'd like to hear your version of what's coming in America. Next, Ben Shapiro.

[break]

GLENN: Ben Shapiro, the biggest target for anti-Semitism in America today. He's an amazingly brave man. And a -- a brilliant, brilliant mind. And I'm glad he's on our side because I'd hate him to see him use his power for evil. Ben Shapiro is with us. He has a new book -- is it out this week?

BEN: Yeah. It's coming out next week.

GLENN: Okay.

BEN: So you can preorder it now.

JEFFY: True Allegiance.

GLENN: True Allegiance. Tell me the scenarios that you put in the book that you thought were 30 years away.

BEN: So one I talk about at length is a major race riot breaking out in a major American city and the government, led by presidents of the United States, essentially pushing the notion that the -- that the government -- the local government should give into the race rioters and allow them to take leadership of the local government.

And obviously, we've seen things along those lines from the presidents of the United States. I talk about precipitous pullout from a country. In this case, Afghanistan, that leads to the rise of a major terrorist group that hooks up with Iran to start pursuing nuclear terrorism.

And, you know, it turned out, I had the wrong country. The precipitous pullout from Iraq is what caused the rise in ISIS. But the idea that precipitous pullout causing rise in a major terrorist group, I wrote that before the rise of ISIS.

I talked about the idea of raids across the southern border from Mexican drug cartels, causing tensions on the border such that the government of Texas has to start disobeying the federal government in attempts to enforce the border, causing serious conflict between the state of Texas and the president of the United States. Obviously, you can see that beginning to materialize now.

GLENN: Ben, this isn't 30 years in the future. This was Wednesday.

(laughter)

BEN: Exactly. That's why I have to tell it now because it will be history --

GLENN: Right. It's a history book very soon. So how do -- how do -- I mean, I don't want you to tell me the whole story. But is there a solution to these problems that you see? Are you in this novel, are you proposing solutions?

BEN: Well, there are some solutions. And I think the number one solution that I sort of propose is that everybody start relying on basic human decency, which I know sounds ridiculous. But that's what we've come down to in this country. Is, are we going to have a country founded on individual decency, or are we going to have a country founded on everybody taking advantage of the situation at hand?

But the book does -- you know, I don't want to give away the ending of the book. But I will say that not everything is resolved peachy keen. Because I'm not sure that everything is resolved so peachy keen easily. I think these are deep abiding conflicts. And I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. But people of principle are going to have to ban together because tough times are coming.

If we do that, then I think we're going to be able to rebuild from some pretty bad things that are about to happen. But I think that it may be -- I mean, not to be a pessimist. I think it's late to forestall some of the worst things that are already happening from taking further material effect.

GLENN: Ben, I was talking to a guy -- yesterday I was having a meeting. And a pretty famous commentator -- and he just stopped by the studios to say hi. And we were having a private conversation. And he said to me, "I no longer believe people are good." He said, "I used to." He said, "I used to believe" -- he said, "I've heard you a million times, you know, you put good against evil, side by side, and Americans will always pick good." He said, "I don't think so."

Do you?

BEN: I think that unless there's a serious revival of morality in the country, I agree with your friend. And I think, by the way, our Founders didn't believe that people were naturally good.

I think our Founders, they said in Federalist 51, they believe that people are capable of good. They're capable of evil. That's why you can't have a government that's overpowering because the people who run it could be evil. And the only way that you're actually going to protect liberty is with a decent citizenry.

Obviously, the Republican Party -- conservatives have done a very poor job of maintaining the culture, maintaining the educational system, maintaining the media. And a lot of these values have dripped down all the way into -- you know, what was shocking to me about this election was, is that I didn't realize how far a lot of this had dripped down into our own party.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: You always like to think of yourself as sort of you're on the side of the angels and people on your own team aren't part of the tribal problem. And then you look around and you realize, some of the people on your own team are not really on your team.

And that was -- that came as a rude awakening to me. You mentioned the anti-Semitism thing a little bit earlier. I was always of the opinion that the vast, you know, anti-Semitic left was a much bigger threat, with regard to anti-Semitism, than the right. I really had never -- I'm a guy who wears the Yamaka every day. I had never seen anti-Semitism from the right. Virtually all of the anti-Semitism I received this year was from the alt-right. You know, that came as a shock to me.

I think that we're going to need to re-inculcate values from the most basic level with our kids because people just don't know anything about, not only basic economics and basic politics, but basic decency. Because in the end, politics is just a reflection of values. When you have an entire generation of voters who are looking at Bernie Sanders as some sort of savior and socialism is a good, moral thing. And that's -- that's our fault. I mean, that's because we haven't done enough. Because my parents' generation hasn't done enough. I have to do a better job as a father in order to rectify the breach. And that's going to be a long process. That's not something that happens overnight. I don't think that we're one election away from restoring the country. I think we're one generation away from restoring the country. The idea that Reagan said, we're -- liberty is always one generation away from disappearing. You know, I think that liberty is always one generation from restoration, but it's going to be a hard generation (inaudible).

GLENN: How old are you, Ben?

BEN: I'm 32.

GLENN: So you're a millennial. How much faith do you have in the millennials?

BEN: I'm hoping for the millennials. I think the millennials are bored. I think the millennials don't pay a lot of attention to politics. I think they're dispossessed. They don't like all of the institutions. So there's not the same faith in the government and the same faith in the media that you see with the Boomers.

So there's an opening there. I think they're susceptible to basic reason, but they have to be -- they have to be pushed off the moral superiority they feel. And I speak at probably 30 colleges a year. And when I speak at these colleges, the first thing that I do is I immediately take the feelings question off the table, by basically saying, "You think you're a good person because you believe these things politically. Here's why what you believe politically is actually immoral and it hurts people."

And it's an argument who are young have never heard before. Because they've grown up in a millennia that's told them that the way to assure your ascent to political heaven is just by voting Democrat or by saying socialism is a great system of redistribution or by talking about white privilege.

When you say, look, the real way to be a good person is to actually be a good person. I agree with you. When young people are presented with the argument for good, then they will become more good. But if they're never presented with the argument for good and they're just told that politics is politics and everybody is corrupt and the whole system is rigged and nobody is good in the end and it's get yours at the table before somebody takes it away from you -- or (cuts out) the ultimate sacrifice that you can make is voting somebody else's money away, then you're going to go with the side that gives you a feeling of moral superiority. And failing to recognize that on the part of the right has been a mistake.

GLENN: Do you think that -- do you see when you're speaking out in universities, when you really start to teach some of these things, do you see the millennials at all get a little pissed that they've kind of been robbed by -- by people who have been teaching them garbage? Are they ticked at all?

BEN: Yeah, there's definitely a backlash that's building. I mean, I get probably somewhere between 50 to 100 emails every day. And all from millennials. People who are my age or younger. Who are excited that -- who have watched -- there are these videos on YouTube that have started to go viral, called Ben Shapiro thug life videos. Where somebody took like my kind of destroying somebody in the debate. Then they put sunglasses on me and an Obey hat on me.

It's really ridiculous stuff. But it's become very popular with young folks. And I get a lot of emails from young people saying, I was never even exposed to basic arguments or moral arguments. And if you speak dispassionately about what is good and true, then I think the young people resonate to that. It's actually one of the areas where I do have hope.

I speak on enough college campuses that I have hope for young people. I actually have less hope for some of the Baby Boomers than I do for people who are my own age and younger. I think a lot of the people, my own age and younger, are still malleable. They don't know a lot. They haven't been taught a lot. And when they're made aware of arguments they've never heard before, they're kind of shocked by it. They're actually vulnerable in that way because they're being blind-sided by the truth.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Always good to talk to you, sir. Thank you so much. And thanks for all your hard work and taking such a hard stand. Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of dailywire.com. Thank you so much, Ben.

BEN: Really appreciate it, Glenn.

Featured Image: Ben Shapiro on radio

How Trump is WINNING at the Panama Canal

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite the doubts of the nay-sayers, Trump's Panamanian plans have already borne fruit.

Shortly before his inauguration, President Trump drew national attention to the Panama Canal. He reminded Americans of just how important the canal is for the U.S. and highlighted the Chinese influence that has been slowly taking control of the vital passage ever since America handed it over to Panama.

President Trump was immediately mocked and ridiculed by the Left, who called him delusional and an imperialist. However, earlier this week, Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made a trip to Panama and spoke with the Panamanian President, José Raúl Mulino, and Rubio made some serious headway. As Glenn has explained, Trump's boisterous talk is part of his strategy. Invading Panama was never the goal, just one of several options to get what America needed, and after Rubio's visit, it seems like America's needs will be met.

Here are the TOP THREE takeaways from Marco Rubio's visit to Panama:

1. Marco Rubio makes headway

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

On February 2nd, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha and President José Raúl Mulino where they discussed critical regional and global challenges, including the canal. Rubio drew attention to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal in which the U.S. promised Panama ownership of the canal on the condition of its guaranteed neutrality. Rubio argued that China's growing influence qualified as a breach of the treaty and that it gives the U.S. the power to take necessary measures to rectify the faults, given Panama doesn't act. As of this week, reports say Panama agreed and promised to take immediate action to purge Chinese influence from canal operations.

2. Panama is ditching China's Belt Road

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

After his meeting with Rubio, Panamanian President Mulino agreed that Panama would step away from China's "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI). The BRI is a Chinese effort to establish China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. In 2017, Panama signed on to this initiative, and China's influence in the small nation has exponentially grown. However, after Rubio's visit, President Mulino has not only stated that Panama will not renew its agreement with China, but moreover, the country will also look for ways to back out of the agreement early. This is a massive win for the Trump Administration and the American people.

3. The Chinese may lose their ports on the canal

MARTIN BERNETTI / Contributor | Getty Images

Shortly after Rubio left Panama City, two lawyers spearheaded the effort to kick out a Chinese company that controls two major ports on the Panama Canal. The Chinese company—CK Hutchison Holdings—has operated one port on both ends of the canal since 1997, which could potentially give China a massive degree of control over traffic. After analyzing the contract, the Panamanian lawyers argue that the contract is potentially in violation of the Panamanian constitution and should be revoked. It is unclear if the constitutional issues relate to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, but even on its own merit, this is a huge victory for America.

Top 15 jobs AI is TAKING OVER

CFOTO / Contributor, VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

The AI takeover has begun.

Last week, Glenn delved into the World Economic Forum's 2025 summit in Davos, where our malevolent overlords focused especially on AI and how it can replace millions of workers worldwide. We are at the precipice of a monumental change in how the world is run—WEF founder Klaus Schwab called it "The Fourth Industrial Revolution"—and in time, AI will augment every one of our lives.

Already, AI is taking jobs. Thousands, if not millions, of tasks are slowly being delegated to it. The affected fields are largely data entry, admin tasks, and clerical work, along with graphic design and some customer support roles. However, as AI becomes more sophisticated, the scope of its abilities will only grow. The WEF is all for it, and last month they released a shocking chart

that revealed what jobs were already feeling the pain. Check out the top 15 jobs that are already disappearing:

1. Postal service clerks

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

2. Bank tellers

JOHANNES EISELE / Staff | Getty Images

3. Data entry clerks

AFP / Staff | Getty Images

4. Cashiers and ticket clerks

Andreas Rentz / Staff | Getty Images

5. Administrative assistants and executive secretaries

6. Printing workers

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

7. Accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll clerks

8. Material-recording and stock-keeping clerks

9. Transportation attendants and conductors

10. Door-to-door salesmen

11. Graphic designers

12. Claims adjusters, examiners and investigators

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

13. Legal officials

14. Legal secretaries

15. Telemarketers

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

3 stories that prove USAID is a criminal organization

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has one mission—to eliminate government waste—and it's starting with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is a federal agency that, on paper, is responsible for distributing foreign aid to conflict-ridden zones across the world. However, for years, Glenn has revealed that the USAID acts more like a second CIA, but without the regulation or oversight under the State Department. Elon Musk concurred, describing the federal agency as not merely "an apple with a worm in it" but rather "just a ball of worms."

Don't fall for the left's narrative calling USAID a "humanitarian" organization. Here are the top three stories that reveal just how corrupt the USAID really is:

1. USAID has funded terrorist organizations and Osama bin Laden

Ahmad Khateib / Stringer | Getty Images

In 2023, USAID provided "assistance" to nearly 130 countries, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria (which is currently run by a terrorist that received aid from the Obama-era CIA). Under Obama, USAID gave funds to an organization known as the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), which was known at the time to help finance Jihadist groups and had been labeled by the U.S. Treasury Department as a "terror-financing organization."

The ISRA also funded and gave shelter to the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden—U.S. taxpayer dollars sent straight to the perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in history and the most lethal attack on U.S. soil.

2. USAID "loses" funds that happen to end up in individuals' pockets

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) revealed that in 2016, Chemonics International colluded with a USAID subcontractor to massively overcharge a USAID project to pocket extra funds from the project's bottom line. Moreover, the USAID project used "self-reported" performance metrics, which made it impossible to verify the actual progress of the project and how the funds were being used.

Even the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has USAID's sticky fingerprints all over it. In 2014, USAID provided $38 million to an EcoHealth Alliance project called "Predict-2." One of the subcontractors, Ben Hu, headed the Wuhan Institute of Virology's gain-of-function research and was one of the first three people infected with COVID-19 in late 2019. That means U.S. taxpayer dollars were likely used to fund the very research that gave rise to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. USAID operates as a second "CIA" with no accountability

Andrew Burton / Staff | Getty Images

The CIA isn't the only agency that meddles in the political inner workings of foreign powers. USAID has conducted similar operations since the 1950s. USAID notoriously sowed dissent in Cuba to grow U.S. influence, and they even taught South American police forces Nazi torture methods. In the late 1990s, 300,000 Peruvian women were forcibly sterilized in a "poverty reduction strategy" that received $35 million in funding from USAID.

More recently, USAID's foreign influence has grown significantly under former Obama adviser, Samantha Power, called USAID America's "soft power arsenal." Under her leadership, the organization meddled in the political affairs of several nations, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, and, Bolivia. Several domestic, left-leaning influence groups, such as the Tides Center, received several grants and aid.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.