Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Here’s How PragerU Found out YouTube Was Censoring Its Conservative Videos

October 26, 2017
Staff

WRITER

PragerU is an educational site that sums up conservative ideas in concise, shareable videos. The problem? YouTube has been arbitrarily marking PragerU videos as inappropriate content and blocking them from generating ad money.

“What they have done is truly remarkable, and they make these 5-minute educational videos,” Glenn said. “You can’t tell me that they are inaccurate; they are done by some of the greatest minds alive today, and they are now being censored on YouTube.”

PragerU CEO Marissa Streit spoke out about the dangers of online censorship on today’s show. At first, PragerU thought there was simply a mistake since the videos don’t contain pornographic or inflammatory content that would be flagged in YouTube’s guidelines.

She said PragerU first noticed the problem when college students who enjoy their educational videos reached out to say that their school’s internet had blocked the clips.

“The students were the ones who told us, ‘We can’t reach the videos,’” she said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: You know, I would -- I would like to -- I'd love to have -- boy, I've never used this word before in a positive. I'd really like to have a symposium sometime next year with some of the best minds in the country. Not only the conservative minds, but also the futurist minds, on how does -- how do you -- how do you get a message out?

I think the days of people like me are numbered. I -- I worry. And it has changed in the last six months. And -- and things are becoming more and more clear on the railroad lines that have been laid by companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook, and even Apple is poised to get into it.

How do we -- how do we pay for news? How do we do news? How do we deliver news, when these companies can just wash you out? People are not talking about the fact that Google has hired its -- this is a quote, its first 1,000 journalists, end quote.

They are going to provide news. And it's going to come all through them. And if they don't like you, you're not going to see it. It won't be -- I mean, it will be on some dot-com. But how do you find it?

It's already beginning. You know, we are going to be doing a special next -- probably after the first of the year, about Media Matters. And I want to show you how Media Matters is operating, and how they are already at places like Google and YouTube. This is -- in their own words, they're already there, telling them who should be dropped and who is -- who has an opinion that is important. And who has an opinion that isn't important. Which is offensive? What isn't?

You want Media Matters deciding that? Because that's who Google and YouTube are now listening to. Which brings me to a story yesterday that we talked about.

And if you have any money, and you are looking to help somebody learn and gain some knowledge in a -- in a very effective way, I want you to make a donation to Prager University. Prager University is -- Dennis Prager, what he has done -- and his team is unbelievable.

And what they have done is truly remarkable. And they make these five-minute educational videos, that, look, if you have a different opinion, you may not like it because they're very effective.

But you can't tell me they're inaccurate. They're done by some of the greatest minds alive today. And they are now being censored on YouTube and being demonetized, which means you can't -- they can't make money on them.

Now, here's the thing, they operate on donations because I don't know how many thousands of dollars each of these videos cost. But they're not cheap to make. And so they have been making them on donations, because they -- they can't rack up the views like the Young Turks did, who are complete conspiracy theorist guys. Completely discredited. And yet, they'll sell for a billion dollars.

Prager U is never going to be able to cash out at a billion dollars. No company is ever going to buy Prager U. We can't eat our own. And we must support our own. And Prager University, I can't recommend highly enough that you support them in every way possible, even if it is just spreading their video.

So they have now -- they have now filed a lawsuit on Monday against YouTube. And who do we have on, Stu?

Marissa Street? She's the CEO. I love this woman. So smart. From Prager U. Hi, Marissa, how are you?

MARISSA: Hi, Glenn. Thank you for this. An amazing introduction. I can't tell you how encouraging it is to have good people like you on our side. Well, thank you.

GLENN: Well, I have been watching you and cheering you from the sidelines for a long time. And I want to do everything I can. And I've already pledged to you that Mercury One is going to give you a percentage of everything that we raise for education. Because I think you guys do unbelievable work.

So, Marissa, tell me what is happening at YouTube.

MARISSA: So I'll tell you something really interesting, how we heard about this, to begin with. About a year and a half ago, we got some emails from students. You know, we have this student group called Prager Force, they're essentially our ambassadors on campuses across the United States. And they started emailing in, hey, what's going on? We've been watching your videos. We use them on campus. But for some reason, we can't watch them. When we get to the library, we've been wanting to share them with some other students. And we couldn't figure out, what was the issue? Why aren't they able to reach -- see these videos? So as we looked into it, we figured out that our videos are being restricted. And they're being restricted from the exact audience that needs these videos more than ever. So the students were the ones who told us, you know, we can't reach the video.

So we started looking into it. And we sent a few emails to Google and say this must -- we said, this must be a mistake. Why would our videos be -- be censored?

We read through the guidelines. The guideline that said that videos that are censored are usually pornographic and graphic, and hate speech, and -- and violent. Obviously, anybody in their right mind would watch our videos and agree with us, that these videos are none of the above.

So we started looking into it further. We heard crickets from YouTube for almost a year, until we launched a petition this past summer and got close to 300,000 signatures. At that point, YouTube finally responded to us and said that they're reviewing our videos. And we have this in writing, by the way. They review our videos, and they deemed them inappropriate and only appropriate for mature audience. So the very audience that we're trying to reach is essentially blocked from reaching our videos.

GLENN: Okay. So the audience can get a handle on this. These are the same kind of people that say that we have to teach about transgenderism to our kindergarten classes. Yet, students in college cannot handle -- why isn't communism as hated as Naziism? Or the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill.

You can't handle that. But a kindergartener can handle transgenderism. I don't understand it.

MARISSA: Yeah. Exactly. I mean, that is -- that is our exact point. And that's the point that our students and our viewership was making.

So, you know, we can't allow the left to take over the university -- to take over the internet as they have done with the university. If we lose the internet, which is obviously the -- the way people get information these days, then -- then what's left?

GLENN: Yeah. This is -- this is the new Hollywood. I mean, I think -- for instance, Facebook, I think is replacing -- is a replacement for the telephone, the television, the newsroom, talk radio. It's -- it's all forms of communication that we have had. And if you lose in Facebook and you lose with YouTube and Google, you're never going to be found. You're never going to be found.

Do you know, Marissa, we have an internal -- bunch of internal documents from Media Matters, where they say they are already in-house at YouTube and Google, advising them on what should be cut and what should remain. Were you aware of that?

MARISSA: I'm certainly not surprised. I mean, from the way that he's been dealing with us, it's -- it's not a surprise to me, that they have -- and, by the way, it's complete hubris as well. They believe that they can get away with it. They believe that people on our side won't fight.

GLENN: So, Marissa, what should people do? I know you filed a lawsuit. But what should people do?

MARISSA: So, first of all, we are fighting Goliath. And we know it. Suing Google, slash, YouTube weighed very heavily on us. Obviously, was a very big decision, but we decided that we have to do. And we'll take any help we can get.

So we have a petition, which obviously brought some awareness to YouTube. And a willingness to at least communicate with us, if you can sign the petition on our website at PragerU.com. That would be immensely helpful. And share it with other people. This specific case is going to be tried in the court of public opinion, as well as in the court of law. And we need you to help us win the public opinion and bring awareness.

If you think about the word "Google," people think they can -- they use it as a verb, right? You can Google anything and find anything. But that is not the case. And the public should be aware of that. So we want everybody talking about that. And, of course, financially, this is not going to be inexpensive. So anybody who can help us in any way -- and, by the way, even $5 shows me and my team that we're not in this alone. So anybody who can give anything at any level is -- is hugely encouraging, and we need anything we can get.

GLENN: Marissa, I thank you so much. And your team is truly remarkable. And -- and I would go to work for you any day of the week. I think you guys are remarkable. And I'd be proud to be an intern there with the people that you have assembled. I'm sincere. I think you've created something really, truly remarkable. And you're making a difference. And I thank you for that. Thanks, Marissa.

MARISSA: Well, God bless you. Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. PragerU.com.

Now, if you're a student, you cannot Google this, if you're using -- if you're at a university. You can't Google this and find it. This is the problem.

If you are not a student, I want you just to -- I want you to Google a couple of things. I want you to Google, why did America fight the Korean War? Prager U. And watch that.

I want you to -- I want you to Google, what's the other one? Why isn't communism as hated as Naziism?

Google, the world's most persecuted minority, Christians.

You watch those three things. Those have all been banned now by Google. By YouTube. And you can find them, unless you have settings on your computer that you have set them so your kids can't watch them. They'll never pop up for you. If you're at a university or if you're at a government institution, you will never be able to find them.

But if you don't have any filters, you're going to be able to find it. And I want you to watch those and ask yourself why. Why would those be deleted? Why are those -- with everything you can get on YouTube -- how many times have you walked in, and you've caught your kids online, and you're like, what the hell are you even watching?

How many times have you walked in on the Disney Channel?

I want you to watch those and tell me what you would say if you walked in and your kids were watching those videos? I'd hug my kids.

Google them. And then do everything you can to support Prager U. PragerU.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.