BLOGMay 22, 2017

Sen. Mike Lee Explains Why a Portrait in the Capitol Rotunda Sends Chills Down His Spine

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined Glenn on radio Monday to talk about the news of the day and his new book, Written Out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government.

"In this book, I outline the stories of a number of Americans --- who were neither rich nor white nor male, in some cases --- people who made a profound contribution to the early days of the American republic. But their narrative, their story didn't fit with our modern narrative of what happened at the American founding," Sen. Lee said.

The narrative taught in schools is, of course, that America was founded by rich, white slaveowners who did little to end the practice of slavery.

"You could go to George Washington University now and study history, and you don't to have take more than one semester of American history," Glenn said. "So there's a good chance that you go to George Washington University, and you're never taught about George Washington."

One person covered in the senator's book is Mum Bett, a slave in Massachusetts, who fought for and won her freedom in court.

"She made an early contribution to the abolition movement in America. The discussion of slavery was not just something that sort of bubbled up around or in the immediate lead-in to the Civil War. This was something that was actively debated and discussed at the time of the Revolution," Sen. Lee said.

With respect to George Washington, the senator shared a personal anecdote.

"One of the many paintings that hangs in the Capitol rotunda is one of George Washington surrendering his commission to the Continental Congress after winning the Revolutionary War. It sends chills down my spine every time I see it, every time I think about it, every time I talk about it," he shared.

Written Out of History: The Forgotten Founders Who Fought Big Government is available in bookstores everywhere.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Welcome back to the program, Mike Lee, senator from Utah is with us. He's got a new book. A book that everybody should have on their shelf, especially if you are looking to teach your kids American history. This is written out of history by Mike Lee. These are all the heroes of the American Revolution that had been written out of history because it just didn't jive with what the story everybody wants to tell. Where do you want to start?

MIKE: You know, my interest in writing this book came about in part as a result of my work on my last book, called Our Last Constitution. I told some stories about. The formation of the republic. It came out about the same time as this certain Broadway play, a certain Broadway play that kind of lit a match with some very dry tinder.

GLENN: Hamilton. Have you seen it?

MIKE: Hamilton, exactly.

I haven't seen it. I know the soundtrack well. I've listened to it over and over again. I hope to see it at some point. But have not been able to get in so far.

That kindled something in the American people. It got them excited. It made them realize, "There is a lot to learn from our founding generation. And if we study our founding generation, we can discover some things about ourself."

GLENN: So what did you discover about us?

MIKE: What I discovered about us is that we didn't start out the way a lot of people assume we started out.

GLENN: Wait. Rich, white people that are just interested in slavery and business?

MIKE: That's the narrative. That's the narrative. Those were the only people. Everyone else in America was silent or silenced. Had nothing to say. No contribution to make to public discourse.

And in this book, I outline the stories of a number of Americans, who were neither rich nor white nor male, in some cases. People who made a profound contribution to the early days of the American republic.

But their narrative, their story didn't fit with our modern narrative of what happened at the American founding.

GLENN: Give me -- give me a couple of your favorite examples.

MIKE: Mum Bett. Mum Bett was a slave in early America in Massachusetts. She discovered that with the revolution and with the Massachusetts state constitution, as it came out, guaranteed individuals with certain rights, that all men -- and including women -- were protected by these rights. And she fought for and won her slavery in court, as a result of that.

She made an early contribution to the abolition movement in America. The -- the discussion of slavery was not just something that sort of bubbled up around or in the immediate lead-in to the Civil War. This was something that was actively debated and discussed at the time of the Revolution.

PAT: What year was this?

MIKE: This was in the late 1700s. So about the time we became our own country, but --

PAT: Wow.

MIKE: -- long before -- long before anything close to the Civil War happened. So as a result of that, she fought for and won her freedom. She had a very significant role in -- and an understanding in this country that we as individuals have certain rights given to us by God. But she was a black woman. She was a black woman who won her freedom. She didn't fit that narrative. She's been written out of history.

GLENN: When did you find -- was she ever prominent in history in America? Did we ever learn about her? Or had she always been written out?

MIKE: There was times when she was well-known. She was relatively known at the time of the revolution. And she continued to be well-known throughout the abolition effort. But overtime, her memory faded because people assumed, you know, we got a lot of rich white guys to talk about. That's all we're going to talk about.

GLENN: We also have this belief -- and it's so wrong, that women didn't -- they didn't have the vote. That's not exactly right. You had to own property. So if -- if you were a woman and your husband died and you had property, you got the vote. And it was more of a family kind of vote. It wasn't against a woman. It was about, who is the owner of property, correct?

MIKE: Yes.

GLENN: And a lot of women played a very important role in the American founding.

MIKE: Including Mercy Otis Warren, another American who was very prominent at the time of the revolution, but who we've written out. Who has been forgotten.

She was well educated. She was an author. She was constantly involved in public discourse. She had some grave concerns about what our federal government might become under the new Constitution.

She was good friends with John Adams, but it became a sort of love/hate relationship. They had this back-and-forth exchange of letters, over the course of many years, in which she would raise concerns about the new government. And these discussions became increasingly heated.

She ended up having a real voice in speaking out for freedom, speaking out about the fact that, you know, when government acts, it does so at the expense of individual liberty. We have to constrain government power. But that too conflicts with the modern narrative.

So what I'm trying to do in assembling these stories is remember some of the comments that I received in connection with my last book.

On Our Last Constitution, I've gone through and read the reviews on Amazon and elsewhere. Over and over and over again, some different themes developed. People would say, in that story -- these are great stories, but these are stories I've never heard. These are stories that are not discussed in civics class or in history class, even in AP or college-level history classes. Some of these stories have been left out.

So I've tried in this book, Written Out of History, to find more of those stories. More of the people who contributed to our founding.

GLENN: You could go to George Washington University now and study history, and you don't to have take more than one semester of American history. So there's a good chance that you go to George Washington University, and you're never taught about George Washington. I mean, we're leaving George Washington out of our history now.

MIKE: And my guess is, Glenn, if you did study George Washington, it might not be the more noble aspects of George Washington's life that would be first discovered.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Well, he was a rich, white slave owner.

MIKE: He was indeed that. He was indeed that. He was also many other things.

PAT: Yeah, he was a guy with white privilege. We didn't establish that, but that's for sure. Right? White privilege.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

MIKE: And with respect to George Washington, one of my favorite things to show people on the capitol is the portrait -- one of the many paintings that hangs in the capitol rotunda is one of George Washington surrendering his commission to the Continental Congress after winning the Revolutionary War. It sends chills down my spine every time I see it, every time I think about it, every time I talk about it.

The fact that --

GLENN: You don't have to name him. But do you see anyone that is or could be the next George Washington?

MIKE: Oh, sure. Look, I see a lot of people who have liberty in their veins, who long for liberty, who yearn for it.

Anybody who yearns for liberty has the ability to be that person.

GLENN: Yeah.

MIKE: And all they have to do is speak about it. Do something about it. Talk about it. Push back against the narrative that says that anything we do that's important has to be through government. And anything we do through government that's important must be done through the federal government and never through states and localities. Push back against that narrative, and you will help restore the spirit of America's founding.

GLENN: You talk about George Mason -- you tell the story of George Mason as being kind of a forgotten founder. Tell the story that you have in the book.

MIKE: George Mason was a remarkable human being. He was a reluctant statesman. One who was a man of business. He just wanted to live his own life, without undue interference. He got involved in government. He ended up going to the constitutional convention. He ended up having some grave concerns with the Constitution, which he ultimately couldn't support, in part because he could see that the powers created by it would one day be abused. That's one of the things that we have to remember and one of the understandings we have to restore in this country.

We talk a lot in our US history courses in school about the Federalists, about the fact that those pushing the Constitution pointed out that there were all these protections in place. We don't talk as much about the anti-Federalists. Those who warned about how this government power could be abused. Those who understood that based on human nature, human beings are by nature redeemable, but flawed. And when they get power, they tend to abuse it, unless that power is kept in check.

George Mason was one who really understood that. And he fought hard to make sure that his fellow beings, his fellow patriots would be protected. And he didn't want them to be subjects --

GLENN: Wasn't he against the Constitution as written?

MIKE: Yeah.

GLENN: But didn't he help -- he helped write it, didn't he?

MIKE: Yes. Yes. One of his -- he was very concerned that unless it outlined more areas that were out of bounds for the government. Unless there were more protections, like those ultimately provided through the Bill of Rights, for example.

GLENN: And those weren't included at the beginning. In fact, every state voted against them.

MIKE: Those were not included at the beginning. But the Bill of Rights came about in part because of the efforts of men like George Mason, who said, "We've got to constrain this government. We've got to identify a number of things that government just cannot do. Otherwise, government will do those things because people will come forward and say, look, this is important. Therefore, it must be done. And it must be done in the most efficient manner possible."

GLENN: Mike, I was talking to somebody the other day, and I said, "With the exception of maybe a couple -- you know, like the vice president or removal of office of the president and the taxes and prohibition, pretty much everything else in there, past the first ten, I feel like are covered by the first ten. And it's just Congress going, no, dummy, what part didn't you understand? Black people are men who are born to be free. Women are -- you know, when we said men, we meant everybody. Men, women. We meant everybody." And so it's just a reiteration of the first ten because they're so well written.

MIKE: In many respects, yes. And that's one of the things I love about the first ten amendments is they're written so carefully, elegantly, and with this simplicity that allows them to stand the test of time.

GLENN: Right.

Except for the quartering of soldiers. I mean, that's the only one. That's the only one --

MIKE: Hey, you never know when that might come in handy.

GLENN: I know.

MIKE: The day may come, Glenn, when you might --

GLENN: What do you think of the idea that in some ways, they have quartered soldiers in our home through NSA being able to listen and snoop and -- and record everything that we have. Our government is in our home all the time.

MIKE: Yes. And in that respect, I've got several chapters in my book that would interest you about that issue. James Otis, for example, would have been very concerned about that.

He pushed back on the abuse of writs of assistance, which were these roving warrants, roving commissions that could be used by the king's officers, to kick down doors, to go after any contraband goods. Pursuant to efforts to enforce laws that were themselves put in place to protect British subjects in America from counterfeit non-British approved goods.

This is not really a quartering of troops problem that you're describing. It's a Fourth Amendment problem.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, in their papers, in their homes, from unreasonable intrusive searches and seizures is what protects us, both in letter and in spirit, from the NSA undertaking surveillance on the American people without a warrant.

GLENN: It amazes me, there was a new study out that shows that I think it's 49 percent of conservative millennials say that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, yada, yada, it's all absolute, except the government has to decide what speech is okay.

Forty-nine percent of conservatives think the government has to put limits on speech and press and everything else.

MIKE: Yeah. And if you understand freedom of speech that way, what you're really saying is, "There's no such thing as freedom of speech." That's what freedom of speech is there for, is to say, "Government must stay out."

GLENN: Mike Lee, he'll be joining me soon on the television program at 5 o'clock. TheBlaze. You don't want to miss that. Mike Lee, the author of the book Written Out of History: The Forgotten Fathers Who Fought Big Government. Written Out of History. Something that should be on everybody's bookshelf. If you're trying to teach history to your kids, it's a great read. Easy to read. And stories you've never heard before. Written Out of History by Mike Lee. It's available everywhere now.

RADIO

71% of Dems Back Law to Lock Up Musk

A new poll found that 71% of Democrats now want to put Elon Musk in jail for what he’s done with President Trump. But if that’s not insane enough – that they want to IMPRISON the guy who’s done the most for their climate crusade in modern history – the 71% is actually in favor of designing a NEW law to jail Musk. "How far are you going to fall, Democrats, before you realize, 'I might be on the wrong side?'" Glenn says. Not even AI can justify this, Glenn and Stu find out!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. 71 percent of Democrats now say that this person should go to prison. Who is that person besides Donald Trump?

STU: I was going to say, only 70 percent. It can't be Trump.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Who? Who? Who?

STU: I believe I know the answer to this. Elon Musk.

GLENN: Yeah, who is it? Elon Musk.

Elon freaking Musk! They now want to put Elon Musk in prison!

STU: The guy that saved the climate.

GLENN: Saved the climate.

Single-handedly saved it more for climate, than anybody else on the planet. Yes. Dare I say, even more than Al Gore.

STU: Wow, the guy who invented the internet.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. He did.

STU: I will say, if you're looking at this honestly, with the left-wing calculus.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

STU: Right? It is impossible to disagree with that.

That he's done more than anybody else. He basically took electric cars from nothing. No one wanted them. No one had them. And built the world's largest car company out of it.

Not to mention what he's done with SpaceX, which also has a massive climate motivation.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Not to mention, what he did -- what was it? SolarCity. The solar company.

That, you know, solar roofs. And solar panels.

How many conservatives do we know, that either owned Tesla. Or have solar on their house now. Or both!

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And not because of the conservative turn necessarily, to -- to --

GLENN: Because --

STU: Which is part of it, lately.

But because he was the first person to actually work.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

Now, just so you know, so you don't get down in the mouth. When I say, they want to put him in prison. You might say, what's the logical question here. 71 percent of Democrats want to put him in prison.

The logical question is.

STU: Why would he do it, it's a crime.

GLENN: Yeah. It's actually 71 percent of Democrats now want to pass a law, that puts him into prison!

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Yeah. So just when you thought it was bad.

No. It's much worse.

STU: Much, much worse. They want to retroactively -- not for a -- they can make him commit essentially.

GLENN: They are for an unidentified, nondescript law, that would put him in prison.

Wow! How far are you going to fall, Democrats, before you realize, I might be on the wrong side.

You now are for passing of -- coming up with a law, where the objective is, put that guy in jail!

I think there's no way to defend that.

I mean, I'm just working on it.

Just off the top of my head here.

I don't think I could find a way to defend -- would you ask Grok or ChatGPT. How could I defend creating a law, when -- whose objective is, only to put Elon Musk in jail?

How would I defend it.

STU: Well, I would have to ask Grok that question. Give me a defense of a lay that --

GLENN: No. Of writing a law, whose only objective is to put Elon Musk in jail. That's -- let's see what Grok has to say.

Because I don't even think Grok could come up with it.

Hopefully, the answer is: I can't justify that.

STU: I will get no. My Twitter account will get no reach after I type this sentence.

GLENN: No. Watch. I bet you, it will come up with something.

It doesn't. It plays fair with Elon Musk.

It won't defend him.

STU: No. I know.

I'm just saying, some part of this algorithm will pick up.

I'm trying to put Elon Musk in jail.

We will get re-tweets for a month.

The sole objective of jailing Elon Musk is a tough sell.
(laughter)
But let's give it a shot by framing it in a way that might appeal to reason, while acknowledging the obvious pitfalls.

The argument hinges on principles of accountability, deterrence, and symbolic justice. So it's riddled with issues that might make it more of a thought experiment, than a practical proposal.

First, such a law could be pitched as a response to concentrated power.

Musk's influence through wealth and control of companies, like Tesla, SpaceX.

GLENN: That's how they would have to do it. You would have to go, well, no. It's about concentrated power. That was not the question in the poll.

That's not the question in the poll. Question in the poll is, would you support the designing of a law to put Elon Musk in jail?

STU: That is -- again, this is why we harp on principles and foundations so much. Because no matter what the name is, in that sentence, the answer is always no! Like the principle of the moment. You would have to know that at the beginning. Right?

When you hear a sentence like that, you should reflexively say, absolutely not!

Regardless of who the person is. What winds up happening with a lot of people on the left. And I think it's a problem on the right to a lesser extent. Is, do I like the name that was mentioned?

Do I think bad things should happen to the person mentioned in the sentence? Like if we were to flip that around. Do you support a law that would throw, you know, George Soros in prison?

I do not -- I do not support a law that was created with the sole design of putting George Soros in prison.

If George Soros broke a law, he should go to prison. But I do not support a law created to put him in prison, even if I don't really like him.

Now, you can get to LeBron James territory. I might go along with you.

GLENN: Wait. But even with Soros, I would support a law that would say, you cannot do these things.

STU: In the future.

GLENN: Yeah. And that means, he has to stop doing those things.

STU: Right. But he does not get in trouble.

However, it's a principle of our country. You do not get in trouble for things that happen beforehand. Right?

You can't retroactively prosecute someone for a law that was passed afterward.

That is, I think a fundamental principle of our country.

And, of course, it should be applied equally to everyone. It shouldn't just be to one person, because of his name.

GLENN: Okay. What did Grok say? Because I just asked ChatGPT. I think ChatGPT's answer might be better than Grok.

Grok is Elon Musk's own company. So what did it say at the beginning?

What was the opening?

STU: It said, defending the law with the sole objective of jailing Elon Musk is a tough sell.

But let's give it a shot by framing it in a way that may appeal to reason, while ignoring the obvious pitfalls.

Listen to this. This is from ChatGPT.

Legally and morally, it's extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible to justify writing a law whose sole and explicit purpose is to imprison one individual, such as Elon Musk, without violating core principles of justice, equality under law, and Constitutional protections.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: However, if the question is to attempt an argument, in favor of such a law, as a rhetorical or theoretical exercise, here is the best possible version of that case, though it is inherently flawed and dangerous!

STU: Right. And that's --

GLENN: Listen to that.

STU: Good. Good. That's a good --

GLENN: I couldn't know -- you know why AI is giving that answer? Because unlike you, so far, unlike anybody of the 71 percent of Democrats who are like, yeah.

I would be for that. It's still using critical thinking. It's still saying, wait a minute.
I have to check. I have to check this against a couple of other things. I have to ask a couple of questions. Is that right to do?

Is that Constitutional to do? Does that support liberty and justice and equality?

Under the law, or is this just a totalitarian state? If you don't ask those critical thinking questions, you're like, yeah, I don't like Elon Musk. Go to prison! You know, get the guillotine out. I want blood. That would be great.

STU: And, by the way, I will say, what you just heard us do, is literally happening inside the halls of Washington right now.

One of the things that's interesting about these programs. Which are re-- very good. At what they do.

Is there used to be a line, where a politician came up with a crazy idea.

Right?

And they would -- they would pop it up there. They would go to their attorneys. Could we do this?

And the attorneys would typically say, no. Of course not. You can't do that.

What's happening now is everybody has kind of an attorney in a box.

And they're going to it. And they're saying, hey. Give me the best case possible for this policy.

Which we all know is insane.

And it is providing that best case.

It's not --

GLENN: But listen to the best case.

STU: But they toss out all of the stuff you read already. Right?

And then they bring that to the American people, and try to get it to catch on.

You've heard examples of it.

One example I'll give you of this. Is the one that Joe Biden did right at the end of his presidency. When he just declared the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

I -- this is what they do. They go in there, and they get some justification, that's not the justification. Not the truth.

It's a possible argument, that could theoretically, maybe be the truth.

Maybe. And then they just go to the public with it. And try to enforce it.

Now, it didn't work.

Everybody just ignored Joe Biden because of how he was asleep when he said it.

But it is a concern now.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to how he says.

This is how you do it.

If I want to justify it. Justify a law that puts Elon Musk in -- it says, in this hypothetical, Elon Musk by virtue of his control over critical infrastructure, Starlink.

Platforms for public discourse. Discourse.

Like Twitter. Or X.

Massive transportation. And defense contracts.

Tesla, space, and global influence.

Could be seen as a private actor with state-like power.

Okay.

You're like, yeah!

All right. Then what about everyone else, like I don't know.

George Soros.

What about Jeff Bezos?

What about anybody on your side?

What about anybody?

Once you cross this Rubicon, you don't go back.

But, anyway, let me -- could be seen as an actor with state-like power.

But without state-level checks.

If he repeatedly evades regulatory oversight. Or is found manipulating markets. Weaponizing satellites in geopolitical conflicts.

Or undermining US sovereignty through opaque foreign deals.

Congress might argue, that national interest justifies emergency action.

From that vantage point, a law targeting Musk might be framed, not as a personal vendetta, but as a necessary surgical-like strike to prevent a modern-day oligarch from becoming untouchable, a figure above the law, immune to consequences.

So you would have to have all of those other things happening. And then maybe you could make the case.

But what is the moral detriment?

Then you just have opened the door for everybody going to jail?

And you have no -- you have no meaning behind life.

You could write a law to make anybody go to jail.

And that -- that is the thing.

Isn't that the thing, that everybody is saying, that they're trying to avoid?

I know I'm trying to avoid that from the right and the left.

I don't want laws to be personal.

I want to be a nation of laws. Not a nation of men.

And men. What do men do?

Well, when you're a nation not of laws. And you're a nation of men, men can say, that person needs to go to prison.

Because I don't like that person.

Which?

That's what a nation of men do. A nation of laws is what George Washington said we now have.

We have a nation of laws. And not a nation of men.

A nation of laws don't allow you to single one individual out.

It means, you have to look to the law.

Are they violating something?

What are they doing that is violating the law?

And if they're not violating the lay.

You just don't like it.

Well, then there's nothing you can do about it.

Unless you want to start compromising your own values.

Remember, gang, this cuts both ways.

This is why everybody is like, well, look at.

Donald Trump. You can't put Joe Biden in jail.

Yes, you can.

But you wouldn't put Joe Biden in jail, because he's Joe Biden.

You put Joe Biden and his family in jail, because they're criminals.

Now, I'm not saying they are. I'm saying, there should have been an investigation.

Like there would have been on Donald Trump.

There should have been an investigation.

And if he broke the law, then he and his family should go to jail.

But not if he didn't break the law.

You don't just make things up. Letitia James.

I mean, this is -- this is what the left -- this is what our friends who are Democrats need to understand.

When you have 71 percent say, we should write a law that can put him in prison.

You should understand, there is an almost 100 percent chance you have become the fascist.

You cannot do that. In a free country.

RADIO

Biden’s Reckless Biolabs Nearly Sparked Pandemic 2.0

Under the Biden administration, a lax safety environment at the most dangerous biolabs in America could have caused a second pandemic, Trump NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tells Glenn. He points to Fort Detrick's Integrated Research Facility, where an employee allegedly recently cut a hole in a coworker’s hazmat suit with the goal of causing sickness. “This goes back to the Biden administration,” he says about the only story that has “scared” him since starting his job. Dr. Bhattacharya explains how the Trump administration plans to increase security in our labs. Plus, he gives his take on the President’s executive order to make pharmaceuticals cheaper for Americans and his previous EO to pause gain-of-function research.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So I am thrilled to have Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on. He's from the National Institutes of Health.

I want to talk to him about being science back into the NIH.

There was a lab leak. And I want to get to that here in a second.

But I have to touch on the news of the take. And it's not really his area of expertise.

But the president just signed an executive order to lower drug costs.

Doctor, welcome to the program. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Any comment on that, as we get started here?

JAY: Sure. It's something I studied in a past life when I was a professor. The difference in product prices between the United States and Europe is sharp and alarming.

And it has been persisting for decades.

Sometime between two and five times. Sometimes as high as 10 times, of the same drug as Europeans do.

And, you know, as a professor who has a -- you know, has a deal in economics, I'll tell you. When you see a persistent price differences like that. That indicates a very unhealthy market.

And this particular state, what it means is that, Americans. American consumers, essentially are being taken advantage of.

American patients are paying, you know, through the nose, for drugs that are -- that Europeans paid much less for.

And the reason is, that the European countries will tell drug companies, if you don't lower the drug prices to a very low level, you know, just above -- then we're not going to cover you at all.

And the -- what the drug companies, told Americans, if we don't pay higher drug prices, there won't be any RD on drugs. What the president and the executive order does is it tell Europeans, look, this is not fair to Americans. This is actually lowering the investment, that we could possibly be making on R&D for drugs.

And so they should be paying prices that are equal to the level Americans pay. And the Americans pay much lower prices than we do -- much closer -- it's a huge move forward.

And now, we'll have to see, what Europeans do. Ask what drug companies do in response. Does to me, I've been hearing about this problem for decades.

It's the first time a president has really taken a big step to really try to address it.

GLENN: As someone who is in research for a very long time.

Let me -- doesn't the promise of AI, AGI, ASI. Lessen this whole thing of we need gobs of money to be able to do R&D. Because that should, you know, in maybe five years from now, begin to do -- to cut those costs dramatically.

To take that chair away from the table. Or put that chair back into the table, if you will.

JAY: Yeah. No. That's quite -- just to give one example.

There's this technology called Alpha Fold. That allows scientists to much more easily understand how proteins will fold on each other.

And how -- and as a result, hopefully, anyway, dramatically reduce drug development expenditures.

Drug development is -- you still have to run randomized, large-scale clinical trials, and those will be expensive.

But the initial perception of drug development with AI. And as well as the clinical trials will be much more efficiently run over time.

The idea that you need to have trillions of dollars, you know. Tens of billions of dollars, to develop a single drug.

We hope, it will become a thing of the past.

In any case, there's no reason why the Americans should shoulder the burden of the whole rest of the world. The developed world should be bearing this burden together.

GLENN: Let me switch.

You know, I recently reached out to you, because I wanted to talk to you about the HHS halting work at high risk infectious disease labs around the world.

And I -- I can't believe this is true. But you tell me.

So there was an incident that -- at a -- at a bio lab. That apparently, what happened is. There was a -- I don't know.

A personal squabble between people.

And a contractor, actually punched a hole in the other person's biolab suit.

I don't know. To get them sick.

Or whatever.

But it was -- I mean, is that what happened, at that bio lab?

I think it was at Ft. Diedrick.

JAY: That's exactly what happened.
I haven't been scared about anything, except for that one thing.

So I learned about this, about three weeks into the job.

I've been in the job, since the beginning of April.

It turns out, that there had been an incident a few weeks before.

In fact, right before I signed -- I like joined the NIH director.

A lab had much run -- part of the lab is run by the National Institute of Health.

And it's a -- which is the highest biosecurity lab.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: I mean, the lab, the experiments done there, are on some really nasty bugs.

You know, Ebola. A whole bunch of viruses and pathogens.

If it gets out in the population or if it injects lab workers, it's for -- it's quite deadly.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: And what I've learned was that there's been incidents, just a couple of weeks before I joined as director of the NIH. Where a lab worker has cut a hole in the -- in a bio containment suit of a fellow worker with the express intention of getting that worker infected.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

JAY: If that is -- and apparently, it was over some lover's spat. And I'm not sure exactly the details.

There's an ongoing investigation of that.

What I learned was that -- that the -- not just the incident that happened.

Which actually has a threat not just to the worker.

GLENN: The world.

JAY: If these gets out.

I was actually -- I mean, I was absolutely livid.

And so what I do, is I order the lab -- an operational shutdown. Secured all of the vials of the nasty bugs, in a safe environment. Made sure the animals were cared for, that they're in the lab.

And we're going to -- we're not going to open that up, until the safety of the lab is absolutely solid.

The contractor that was overseeing this. I think did a very last week job. What I learned, this goes back to the Biden administration.

That the safety environment in the lab, essentially, downplayed these kinds of security problems.

If you're going to run experiments on these bugs.

And personally, I'm not sold that all of these are worth doing.

But in any case, if you're going to run. Have an absolute responsibility to have zero to do for safety problems.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: The issue here, is not just a one-off thing.

It's something problematic in the safety culture of this lab. Where I don't -- I cannot guarantee that if we reopen the lab right now. It would be a safe environment.

While we reopen the lab. I'm sure that's the case.

GLENN: Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Shouldn't that person be punished.

That really is attempted murder. And maybe on a mass scale.

JAY: I mean, there's an ongoing investigation.

I shouldn't say more about this.

It's one of those things.

I was actually actively scared when I first heard --

GLENN: Yeah. Americans are actively scared. Because none of this stuff should be happening.

We are just. We're just an accident or a stupid move. Or an intentional leak away from mass death.

And, you know, you keep hearing people like Bill Gates saying, we're on the verge of another pandemic.

Why?

Why?

I mean, why are we on the verge of another pandemic?

Do you think we are?

JAY: I mean, you know, pandemics happen. They happen all throughout history.

The key thing to me, though, Glenn. We don't want to cause one.

GLENN: Right.

JAY: That increases the risk of them.

This past pandemic. Is that it was very likely caused by actions aimed at stopping pandemics from happening.

GLENN: Yeah.

JAY: Almost this hubris.

It was hubris.

This idea that we could somehow, if we go into the case of China and all the wild places.

Bring all those viruses we find there.

It happens that we find there. Into the lab.

Catalog them.

We can somehow prevent all pandemics from happening.

Making them more dangerous to humans.

We can somehow as a result of that exercise, make it less likely to have pandemics happen.

Of course, what we found out, the opposite is true.

You can't do this work entirely safely.

And actually, even if you fully accomplish what is the same of that sort of research program.

Which is to go out, and find the pathogen.

You wouldn't protect anybody against the pathogen. Because what would happen is, when and if the outbreak happens, whatever countermeasures you denied for them would already be out of date.

Because the illusionary biology of these viruses is you take very rapidly.

And so when they come out of the population, the countermeasures you prepared for, which you never attempted in any humans, very likely would not work.

GLENN: Have we stopped all of the gain of function stuff now? Are you convinced it's done?

JAY: Yeah. So last week, President Trump signed in an absolutely historic executive order. Which puts a pause. A full pause on all of gain of function work throughout the government.

And we -- we implemented a pause at the NIH.

And I'm sure the government has done the same.

Over the next 90 days, we will develop the framework.

Here's how the framework will work.

You have to be a little careful here. Gain of function can mean many things.

For instance, insulin is produced via the gain of function exercise. There's no risk of a pandemic being codified, but you take a bacteria and E. coli.

You change, so they can produce insulin. That's how you produce human insulin.

That's a completely safe thing to do. On the other hand, you take a virus like a bat virus, and then the -- that has these sort of coronavirus-like properties.

Add a (inaudible) and manipulate it so they can infect human cells more easily.

Well, now you have the potential to cause a pandemic. If you're going to do an experiment like that, you the scientist alone. Or scientist alone, should not get to decide whether the risk is worth taking. The public should have a say.

The public should be able to say, no, that's -- no matter what knowledge you're going to gain from that. It's not worth the risk of causing a worldwide pandemic, that will kill 20 million people and cost $25 trillion or something.

And that's exactly what they want to do. They say, if you assign -- if I assign this to a project, the public will have a veto over that.

They know you're not allowed to do it.

Because most science won't be affected by this.

Most science has no chance of causing a pandemic. Any time that it does, it will be the subject of this very, very strict regulatory framework.

GLENN: We're on with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is a hero in my book, now the director of the National Institutes of Health.

Is an apology good enough for the National Institute of Health? I mean, should anybody go to jail for what has happened?

And what is it like to walk into that building? When you're enemy number one, to many in that building. You know, during the time pandemic.

JAY: You know, it's been interesting. It's certainly a big turn of faith.

Where I -- a devastating takedowns. And called all kinds of names. By folks, who are in this building, where I now lead.

At the same time, I found many, many excellent scientists. Many people devoted to -- to advancing human knowledge.

For benefiting. For the benefit of all people.

I mean, most scientists are like that. They're not trying to create havoc.

And so I've been trying to find out.

And I found out a lot -- you asked, what should happen, with regard to policy.

To me, apology is -- I mean, I -- I think the key thing. Personally, I'm very happy to apologize, on behalf of American public health. To the American people, to the failure during COVID. The key thing going forward is reform.

How do we change the institutions? So that it's focused on the health needs of the American people.

Rather than these utopian schemes to end all pandemics. Adding no heat whatsoever to the risk that they take.

Science is very, very powerful.

Kind of an idea and institution. But it needs to be focused on real, human needs.

Real -- particularly, for the NIH. Real human health needs.

And there have to be guardrails so that scientists understand, they operate in the context of public support. We -- we function on taxpayer money. We have to answer to the taxpayers.

So that's been the challenge.

Keep the light of science alive.

While still reminding scientists that we are not acting just as -- as if we were like independent actors like God. We are actually beholden to the American people.

GLENN: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. I unfortunately, have to take a network break.

I would love to have you back for a longer podcast.

Thank you. Thank you. For everything you did during the COVID nightmare.

And thank you for standing up so strongly now.

And congratulations on being our director of the NIH.

JAY: Thank you, Glenn. So good to talk.

GLENN: God bless you. Buh-bye.

RADIO

White House Official Addresses Criticism of Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill"

President Trump has promised to team up with Congressional Republicans to pass a “big, beautiful bill” chock full of campaign promises, like “no tax on tips,” “no tax on overtime,” and major spending cuts. But as the bill’s progress drags on, are the Republicans to blame, is Trump starting to compromise too much, and will he allow Democrats to increase taxes for the rich? Trump’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, joins Glenn to address the criticism. He discusses what Trump’s real strategy is, whether the bill will restore government spending to 2019 levels, how DOGE has been helping, whether the bureaucracy will actually shrink, and whether Congress will codify any of Trump’s policy changes.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Russell Vought. Office of Management and Budget. He is the director.

And one of my personal heroes. And I think yours too, Stu. Welcome to the program, Russell.

RUSSELL: Thanks, Glenn. Appreciate you having me on.

GLENN: You bet. All right. So I want to talk about the Republicans. Because I believe they're kind of a waste of space.

They are not doing the things that I think the president promised. And that is, cut the budget.

And cut regulation, in dramatic ways.

And President Trump has been playing very, very nice with them.

Trying to get them to do what I think is something. By passing the big, beautiful bill.

Can you tell me where we stand on this. And what's in it.

RUSSELL: We're working through. Right now, the House has a -- they're trying to meet their instructions.

They basically passed the budget that would have 100 -- or 1.5 trillion in savings.

And about four and a half trillion in tax relief.

And they are working through to get a bill that can pass.

And we're right there with them, trying to get it done.

And I think it would be a big savings. We could go north of that.

And I think that's -- that is the goal, to try to figure out, how to make this a historic opportunity, to both extend the tax cuts.

Do the tax cuts, the president wanted to do on the campaign. No tax on over time.

Some other things. No tax on Social Security benefits.

And then to really make sure that, you know, this is an opportunity to have some of the -- the highest reforms to mandatory spending since the 1990s. And there's a lot we can do in this area.

And I think that the House right now, is trying to put these bills together.

You know, we spend so much time debating whether you have a couple of bills. Or one bill.

We lost some time in that.

And we were trying to catch up.

And I think they're hard at work. And we have to be right by them, to help get them done.

GLENN: So when are we expecting to get this voted on, and possibly go through.

RUSSELL: My hope is that they pass it out of committee, the two big committees that we've seen. Energy and commerce. And then go to budget. And set up a vote thereafter on the House floor. That's our hope. That's what we're working toward.

I don't think they've noticed yet, the committees. But that's what we're working --

GLENN: So, Russ, can you do me a favor?

I mean, I'm sure you've done this to Congress. But I don't know the American people really understand how dire this situation is.

I mean, I've got a letter from a family member who I just love dearly. A couple weeks ago.

And he said, Glenn. What the president is doing. I said, well, what the president is doing, is trying to save the country from The Great Reset.

Because a reset is coming!

And you want it to be towards shareholder capitalism. Not stakeholder capitalism.

But with our debt the way it is, the interest rates, that we're now paying. Bigger than the defense budget.

No country has ever survived this.

Can you give us some idea on -- on how serious -- I mean, Congress needs to move a little quicker.

RUSSELL: Look. We have $36 trillion in debt.

When I left office the first time.

Under President Trump. We had about $300 trillion per year in interest costs.

Now it's above the defense spending. At $900 billion.

GLENN: 1.1.

RUSSELL: 1.1. So we've got this enormous interest cost, as a result. And it's one of the reasons why, we've incurred it from the administration on balance.

On taking dramatic actions through DOGE. Our budget that you referenced in the lead-up. The lowest non-defense spending, since 2000 adjusted for inflation.

And so -- and I think what we've been trying to do to deal with kind of the paralysis on Capitol Hill, is to change the reality on the ground.

I mean, I think that's what DOGE has done, in a fundamental way. And we will try to make those savings permanent in a couple of different ways.

But it's to force Congress.

If they want to be a part of the process, you know, come alongside of us.

But we will move inasmuch as we can. Within the parameters of the law, and the Constitution. And we will move as fast, and aggressively as possible. To change the reality on the ground. With reductions in force.

With reorganizations.

With doing a dramatic review of spending, that doesn't have to go out.

There's a whole thing.

Set of tools in our box.

That we will use aggressively. To get Congress moving in our direction.

Because we can't -- we cannot be in the normal situation, as an administration, where we just kind of send bills up. And wait on them.

GLENN: Right.

RUSSELL: We have one big bill that needs to occur.

We've tried to put everything, as we possibly can. On that.

Because it has procedural protection in the Senate.

But -- and even in that. It was part of our thinking, was to make sure we limit the number of things that we have to go to Congress for.

GLENN: The -- the taxes.

I mean, I was hoping that we were going to get new tax cuts.

And not just the -- not just the renewal of the Trump tax cut.

But I was hoping Congress would get serious.

And we would get even deeper than that.

And now, the White House, last night. The president last night tweeted.

You know, I know that Congress, you know, they're going to be wishy-washy on -- you know, they will get blamed, if they raise any taxes on the very rich.

But I will go along with it.

If they want to do that.

That's a little scary. We should be going the other way. Shouldn't we?

RUSSELL: Well, I think the president ran a set of tax proposals. That he was very excited about.

Committed out.

Designed toward the working class.

That we, from an economic standpoint. Also believe are really critical to getting more and more of -- of labor force participation at it, of this part of the economy.

And we think it would be a huge boon to the -- the impetus on the economy, the growth.

And so, we are living in a world where, you know, we don't -- we don't have the ability to have unlimited tax cuts.

GLENN: Right. But is it --

RUSSELL: You're seeing a lot of different navigation on that.

GLENN: But is it possible to go back to the 2019 budget. I mean, why can't we just reset and say, we're going back to that budget.

It was fine then. It will be fine now.

RUSSELL: We're trying to do that with the budget that you saw, that we sent out.

That is essentially what that budget represents. It's an effort to go back, non-adjusted for inflation.

It goes back to 2017. It's the 35 percent cut for most programs, when we account for maintaining infrastructure and veteran spending.

But that's what we're trying to do.
Do the entitlements, the mandatory spending, the interest. Do those have an impact on our ability to go back overnight to 2019?

Yes, they do.

And so that's really what we're trying to say.

And I do think that there's a newfound desire to cut spending, even in the context of the tacks cuts on the Hill.

You have a ton of members that are really trying to make sure, this is either deficit neutral.

Or you have -- this is a moment, that can be used for significant mandatory reform.

GLENN: So to get there. Are tax hikes on the rich part of that plan?

RUSSELL: Well, listen, the President put out a truce this morning. He said, look.

I think he said, a couple different minds. He has always been very focused on the things that he ran on.

This was not something that he ran on.

The -- the no tax on overtime.

GLENN: Right. Right.

No tax on tips. Yeah.

RUSSELL: No tax on tips. All that kind of thing.

That's really what we've been trying to fit in. To the amount that Congress is ready to reduce.

At the same time, we have to spend the tax cuts from his first term.

GLENN: I saw in the budget, we are increasing defense and border security.

Is that border.

Is that why this is happening?

RUSSELL: On the border. We want to increase -- and really, buy out all of our increases, over the next three to four years. In one bill.

And we're doing that. This is a paradigm shift. I'm really glad you asked.

We no longer want to be in a situation, where we have to get Democrat votes. Defense increases.

That then, they put us in a situation, where they have to lever up and demand -- not only on our habits. But that we have to increase non-defense spending.

Because we need their votes in the Senate.

Secondly, they flatout oppose any border spending. They put us on the precipice of a shutdown every single time, we want to increase spending for ICE or the wall.

And so our view is to -- to actually look to how they did it. And then the Joe Biden administration.

And put those increases, on the mandatory one big, beautiful reconciliation bill. And then put us in a situation where we have a united Republican Party.

So your defense hawks are not working against us in the appropriations process, to actually get non-defense cuts. That's what we're trying to do.

And then we have DOGE working over time. Pete Hegseth with reforms. Obviously, there's waste there as well.

And at least in this first year. To make sure, we would reinvest there. And let the new leaders there, get a sense of where the reforms need to be.

GLENN: So with all the DOGE stuff. A, this has nothing to do with DOGE, but I was glad to see Kash Patel come out yesterday and say, no, no, no. I will go with the budget.

On the FBI. Because he was saying, no. We can't live on that. We need more. And cut, cut, cut. And I was glad to see, that he kind of changed his position on that yesterday.

But, you know, with DOGE, I'm seeing that Congress is like, well, we're not going to take all of the DOGE recommendations.

Why?

JOHN: Yeah, I mean, that's the question Congress has asked. Number one, send all these rescission bills. Rescission bills. And I'm willing to send rescissions bills.

Our administration is. The Trump administration is. But, man, they have to pass.

And so if they don't pass. It passes our ability to use some of the tools that we would have executively. To spend less of that money.

And so we are working with them.

That's why I haven't formerly sent up the 9th round of rescissions from DOGE.

I am having great conversations, surprisingly with the appropriations committee. Historic in and of itself.

And they are trying to think through. Okay. What's the version that we could do this a little bit different?

But hit the same amount of savings?

That's a healthy back and forth. I think that in and of itself.

This is a little bit different, Glenn.

This is more like the early 1980s. When Reagan first came in, than anything we've seen recently.

Congress is saying, we -- instead of, we will ignore your budget. Saying, we will want to hit your number.

So it's early. I don't know if that will materialize. But I am optimistic about it.

GLENN: How -- how optimistic are you?

Because, you know, I've talked to the president about this. Just a couple of weeks ago.

And I said, we are playing such a dangerous game. Because we have to.

I mean, I think America -- I mean, no country has ever turned around from this point. And we have to.

And it just requires some really big boy pants, to do it.

But I'm -- I'm just so concerned about it.

And I'm -- you know, I'm hoping that we can get the reduction, and the staff.

I know that you're -- you know, you're doing a fantastic job on reducing the number of federal employees. Do you believe we'll be able to get these things, actually codified, so if things don't go well. Or even if they do go well.

But it's not President Trump, the next time. That this remains. This path remains this direction?

RUSSELL: I do. I think if you zoom out for a second, we will come away from this year, in particular. We have to know when to cut spending in like two or three decades.

You know, Paul Ryan kind of put us in this cul-de-sac forever. I think we will come away this year with probably the largest mandatory savings ever, or adjusted for inflation.

Since the 1997 balanced budget. That's going to happen.

I think we will see the appropriations process fixed for the first time, because of our talking about executive tools like rescissions and empowerment.

It's going to cause the appropriations process, a return to separation of powers. That Congress actually listened to our cuts.

GLENN: Wow.

RUSSELL: And we may not get all of them. But we will get some of them. And I think we will see something that is progress on that front.

Third, I think -- I remember coming on this show, in the first term.

And they're just like, the extent to which, the career bureaucracy is just impregnable. Is totally unacceptable. You pushed on this.

And I think, many of us. The president. Elon has spent a ton of time thinking about this.

And I think that will be -- one of the biggest stories, the extent to which, the things that have been done. You know, the fork in the road. Has fundamentally changed the reality on the ground.

And so we have a much smaller. We will have a much smaller bureaucracy, as a result of it.

Notwithstanding the laws that are on the books, that have been here thus far.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I stay away from Washington, DC, you know, as much as I try to stay away from the plague. But next time, I'm up, Russ, I would love to sit down with you, and do a long form interview with you.

You're really one of the good guys. Thank you for everything you're doing.

JOHN: You've got it. Thanks, Glenn.

RADIO

Rogan Debate Bombshell: Murray Calls Out Fake Experts!

After his recent appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience" with comedian Dave Smith, author Douglas Murray was accused of practically saying, “don’t listen to anybody unless they have an Oxford degree.” But Douglas joins Glenn to set the record straight: He claims he never said that. Instead, he says he believes “experts HAVE let us down.” But having actual experience with a topic, like he does with the Israel/Hamas conflict, still makes a difference. Glenn, as a fan of both Murray and Smith, hears this side of the story.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Thank you. So I hate to get into this because it's been talked about for so long.
But I just -- I think I agree with you, Douglas.

And I just want to make sure that we are saying the same thing. Can you lay out the controversy that you've been embroiled in here recently?

DOUGLAS: You mean, I tend to be embroiled in quite a lot of controversies. Which one?

GLENN: The one where you're accused of saying, don't listen to anybody, unless they have an Oxford degree.
(laughter)

DOUGLAS: Which, of course, I never said. I never would say.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

DOUGLAS: I think this was -- from my recent appearance on Joe Rogan.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

DOUGLAS: The similar thing I said, which has been I think misrepresented by a very large number of people, deliberately. Is that everybody has the right to say anything they like about anything.

But that doesn't mean that all opinion should be regarded as being equal.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DOUGLAS: And when I was brought on to debate.

And it's not often that Joe Rogan's podcast does that. Normally, he has people give their opinion. But he felt that clearly, the pro-Israel voices like mine, had to be countered.

On air. And when I was talking about my recent book, the best-seller on democracies and death cults. Israel and the future of civilization.

I got into the weeds of what had been happening in the last two years, in the Middle East.

I got into it.

Not just because I had written about it. But I had seen it all up close.

I spent the last couple of years, mainly living it. Being embedded with the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza and Lebanon, and elsewhere.

I have seen this war up close.

And I was being pitched against. Who was wildly, wildly uninformed.

On issue after issue. On spouting after spouting after spouting.

Turned out to never have been to the region. And I said, this is -- this is like, if we were to discover, the Chinese state media, as somebody on all the time.

Talking about America.

Claiming that America was a racist country.

The claiming black Americans are currently being lynched and sold into slavery.

If we discovered that person was rampaging across the Chinese media.

But he's never been to America.

Didn't speak English.

And obviously, so -- he's so wildly misinformed.

We would regard that person as being almost comical in their ignorance.

Certainly malevolent.

So why should it be, that when there are people at home, here in America. Who are also just not informed.

Just as many British people are not informed.

About big situations in the world that they're talking about. Why should their opinion be regarded as being somehow sacrosanct?

I don't think it is. And yet, I believe in standards. I believe that they have let us down badly. Experts have let us town badly.

But it doesn't mean there's no such thing as expertise. Or comparative expertise. In matters.

And if people don't understand that, and don't understand that, for instance, a journalist who can goes and reports, first hand. May well get things wrong.

But it's better than somebody who has never left their bedroom. And think they know the world.

GLENN: You know, I mean, read a quote. I think it was from Jefferson. And I've adapted it to modern times.

The man who reads nothing at all, is better educated, than the man who reads nothing, but social media.

He said, newspapers.

But I think that's -- I think that's the kind of expert we have now!

That are running around.
And I don't believe in, you have to be credentialed. Or anything like that. I don't think you have to have a formal education. I don't think that hurts.

But I think serious people can do serious study on their own.

Especially in today's world.

And become an expert in a field.

But, you know, you're -- also have to have enough humility to go, you know what, I'm not an expert on this.

I don't know. I've just done a lot of homework.

And I'm open to different opinions. But here's what I found.

DOUGLAS: Absolutely. And there's a lot of good that can come from that. And we've all done that to some extent.

That is, as you say, in particular, is able to push on people.

GLENN: Yeah.

DOUGLAS: Is extraordinary. Not least because of the lack of humility.

One of the things in debate, it was sort of near the comedian, he put me on with.

One of the things that was startling about it, is the sheer lack of humility of the guy I was debating.

I mean, he seems to think that he knew everything about Israel. And the idea.

Despite never having been there or met anyone. Or spoken with anyone on the ground.

Of the idea.

And he seemed to think that in the Israeli Defense Forces, how they should protect their people, from another massacre like October the 7th.

Maybe, the generals in the Israeli Army, and the politicians and others, who have been losing family, for the last 18 months.

Fighting in Gaza. Maybe they do know something more. Than -- than from even social media.

In Austin, Texas.

Maybe!

It's my view.

I mean, people quite often say to me. You know, what would you -- what would you tell this politician?

Or what would you tell this general, when you meet them?

And I always say, I don't tell them anything.

I listen. I listen.

Because that's much, much more important.

Because they know more about the proximate causes of the conflict.

And what they're doing to prevent it.

And when I hear and see these people. There was a guy. One of Joe Rogan's friends, who had been cropping up on social media recently.

And he accepted the challenge. Which was if you know, if you have a plan to how you would get 250 hostages back from the density buildup and booby trapped area of Gaza. And if you know how to get 250 hostages back. And how to kill or capture all the leadership of Hamas, if you have a better plan, than what the Israelis have been doing for the last 18 months, let me know, and I will pass it on to anyone I know, in Jerusalem.

Okay? And one of these comedians decides to take up this challenge. And you know what he said? He said among other things. Why don't they fight like men?

Why don't they fight like men? And I'm sorry. I've been to the funerals of young men who have no desire to have to ever be in Gaza again.

Who lost their lives, because they were fighting house to house with terrorists embedded in mosques and in hospitals and in civilian homes, and cropping up in tunnels, all over the place.

And if the idea is to me, Israeli Air Force. To level the place they could have done.

But they didn't, because they wanted to minimize casualties on their opponent's size. And minimize casualties on their own.

And if you have to put up with some doofus, claiming that he's the real man.

And he knows, because he's sitting in a podcast studio somewhere, two continents away.

And I think that's just objectionable on every level. And it's a lack of humility and understanding, that is almost pathological.

GLENN: I tell you, Douglas, I mean, I think I struggled from this a little bit. I've done this job for almost 50 years now.

But when I got into television, everything changes so rapidly.

I was -- I was pretty assured that I was right.

Thinking -- I spent a lot of money on research and everything else.

Really good, you know, we were buttoned up.

But when I left there, and I was reflecting on what I had done, I -- I came to the understanding, and I think this just comes from maturity. And experience.

And that is, the only thing I'm certain of, is that I'm not certain of anything.

DOUGLAS: Hmm.

GLENN: I don't -- I don't know. I'm like you. I will ask questions, I will voice my opinion, I will voice what I do know. But that doesn't necessarily make it the absolute truth.

I need to understand more of the situation.

DOUGLAS: Yes.

And you do that. And, you know, one of the things, Glenn.

Is that all of us who -- I hope -- I want to learn more.

And know more. And understand things better.

We -- we have that instinct.

But it also doesn't mean that on the things we know about. Including the things we've seen with our own eyes.

That we should be lacking in confidence. To say --

GLENN: Yes. It's a really tough place to be.

You have to have the confidence in what you do know. And you also have to have the humility to say. I don't know anything.

DOUGLAS: Right. And one of the things that I do know is that having seen war up close. And know what the difference is, between a death cult, as I call Hamas, a death cult like Hamas.

That fights for death, fights to bring death to its enemies, fights to bring death to its own side, even to its own children. And know the difference between a death cult like that. And the democracy like Israel or the United States of America and our armies, who fight for life.

Who fight to minimize casualties, on our own side. And to fight to minimize casualties on the enemy's side.

And there is all the difference in the world between these two things.

But when I see people fighting, it is complicated to tell the difference between a democracy and a death cult, I think they're lost.

Glenn's Show Prep

Sen. Mike Lee Explains Why a Portrait in the Capitol Rotunda Sends Chills Down His Spine

71% of Dems Back Law to Lock Up Musk

Transcript

Biden’s Reckless Biolabs Nearly Sparked Pandemic 2.0

Transcript

White House Official Addresses Criticism of Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill"

Transcript

Rogan Debate Bombshell: Murray Calls Out Fake Experts!

Transcript