Stop Pretending Conservatives and the ‘Alt-Right’ Are the Same Group

January 23, 2018

WRITER

A recent USA Today news article wrongly tied Nazi Twitter accounts and the Daily Stormer to the conservative group PragerU.

CEO Marissa Streit joined Glenn on today’s show to talk about why conflating conservatives who believe in American principles with white supremacist hate groups is a serious problem. It’s ridiculous and inaccurate to list PragerU as part of an article about the “alt-right,” a group generally characterized by nationalist and white supremacist ideals.

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

PragerU, which makes educational videos on conservative topics, is suing Google and YouTube for arbitrarily censoring and demonetizing its videos on U.S. history; Christians who are persecuted worldwide; American leadership; and other topics.

Looking for the petition discussed in this podcast? Follow this link.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There's an incredible story that was in USA Today.

Alt-right escalates war against Silicon Valley. Pledges to expose bias against conservatives. The alt-right. If you read this story, it talks -- you know, it talks about Nazi groups. It talks about the Klan. It talks about the website. The Daily Stormer. Which is a Nazi website.

And then, lumped in along with everything else, is Prager University.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think there's a difference between Dennis Prager and Hitler. One of them might be the whole Jewish thing.

The other might be that one is driven by facts. Prager University, if you have not seen a Prager U video, this is something that you need to turn your kids onto. You need to share them. You need to support them in any way you possibly can.

Prager University is -- is not a flash point. They are facts and fact-driven.

It's why you never see them taken apart. You don't see a, you know, Prager University facts are wrong, website. Because they're fact-driven. And not emotionally driven.

They are being painted as the alt-right. That just shows that the media has absolutely no idea what the alt-right is, or worse yet, they do, and they don't care.

We have the CEO of PragerU on with us. You've been on before. Melissa (sic), how are you?

MARISSA: Wonderful, thank you for having me on.

GLENN: So, you know, how are things at the office when you read about you and the alt-right and the Nazis all being, you know --

MARISSA: You know, I wish it was laughable because it's almost laughable. But, you know, a few things I know you know about me. First of all, I'm a Jew. Dennis Prager is a Jew.

GLENN: Whoa, when did the Nazi party start to let Jews in?

MARISSA: I mean, we couldn't be further away from the alt-right. Basically, nothing that we believe in, the alternative right, which is basically the alternative to the right, the alternative to conservatism, has more in common with the left than with conservatives. We actually have a video on that, by Mike Knowles.

But this is -- this is a typical tactic of the left. They conflate any of the bad guys with conservatives. And try to make consumers and the audience assume that because we are the bad guys, it's okay to take us down.

As you know, Prager University's videos are completely fact-based. To claim that we have in common with the right is a typical tactic to try to undermine our efforts and our lawsuit against YouTube.

GLENN: So, Marissa, you and I have talked about this privately and on the air before. There is a concerted effort by, I believe, the big four, Facebook, Apple, Google, what's the -- what's the last one? I'm trying to think. The big four.

Anyway, there is a -- there is an effort to silence the voices of anyone on the right.

I mean, what Facebook is doing now with, you know, hey, tell us what news sources you think are credible. That's going to put places like Breitbart, TheBlaze, Daily Wire. It could put us out of business. And they know it. And they know it.

How do we survive in this world where -- where Google and Facebook can control so many eyeballs and are -- and are using these kinds of tactics to ban people who are really trying to be reasonable like PragerU.

MARISSA: You know, Glenn, I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you get this. Because this is so dangerous. As somebody who works with millennials and runs an organization that specifically is geared toward speaking and educating millennials, this is very, very dangerous. This is exactly why we've taken on this lawsuit, because the public needs to be aware of the fact that these big fours, as you're saying, have an ideological bent. They have an ideological bias.

And they're not afraid to do whatever it takes to take conservatives down. And that includes lying about who their -- their content creators are.

And, I mean, they hide information from us. This past week, we had another issue with Twitter. It's -- it's pretty unbelievable what's happening out there. I'm not sure what can be done. But the public needs to be aware of the fact that they are in control of the biggest communication platforms in the world. And if we don't do something about it, it's going to get real bad, real soon.

GLENN: Well, it's really disturbing. You know, people don't know this. But Facebook runs an algorithm. Not only are they now saying that we're going to choose which news sites are credible and which ones aren't, and we're not going to spread ones that we think are not credible, I can guarantee you, there's nothing on the right that is going to be deemed credible to Facebook.

Not only are they doing that, and that hasn't even started yet, that is coming very, very soon. They are also changing their algorithm, which is, you know, their right to do. Et cetera, et cetera.

But I will tell you that not my website, thank God, but one of the conservative websites went from their largest day ever and their largest quarter, just keep growing and growing and growing -- in one day, they lost 90 percent of their traffic. Because Facebook targeted the algorithm differently. There's no way media companies, especially on the right, that, you know, are not getting big funding, there's no way to survive.

MARISSA: For social media platforms to claim that the reason that some of the conservative platforms are not getting as many views is because of some sort of algorithm, is -- is ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, who is writing the algorithms? You can't just say, well, it's the algorithm's fault. A human being is behind writing the algorithm. And that's the main issue.

GLENN: I agree. I agree.

MARISSA: They are writing algorithms that are suppressing our information. We see this -- I mean, YouTube has admitted to us. In writing, they've sent us an email saying, we review your content, and we deem your content inappropriate for a young audience. So they make us look like we're some evil bad guys. And because of that, they can block our -- our content and our information, which is exactly what was done in this USA Today. Whoever reported on this, is totally irresponsible, to conflate PragerU with the alt-right is basically irresponsible reporting.

GLENN: And, you know, I have to tell you, the Young Turks, one of the most irresponsible group of people I have ever seen, they got a 20-million-dollar funding from people including Jeffrey Katzenberg.

And I can also guarantee you that their YouTube channel is never going to receive anything. They'll always be spread by YouTube. They'll always be spread by Google. And they are indeed radicals.

I mean, just look up the definition and the history of the Young Turks. And you kind of know where they're coming from. And yet, Dan Rather joined them because they've been normalized.

MARISSA: It's interesting you bring up Young Turks because they have done video responses to some of our videos. And, you know, they get millions of views on -- on the videos that they create. And YouTube has no issue with that. But when PragerU creates videos on opposing views, you know, our videos end up getting demonetized and restricted.

GLENN: And, you know what, I have no problem -- if the Young Turks wants to present an opposing opinion to PragerU, more power to them. But it should be on an even playing field, and we should not be having this nonsense back and forth, algorithms, and people that we know through the words of Media Matters themselves, that they are inside of YouTube and Google and all of the big four, trying to help them understand what radicalism is on the right. They have absolutely no idea. And by -- by coming after people like PragerU, you are only making the alt-right much stronger. Do you agree with that?

MARISSA: First of all, I agree with it. And secondly, the alt-right is actually not as big as they claim it to be. But they create this hysteria around the alt-right. And then they conflate conservatives, conservative Christians with the alt-right in order to make us look like -- again, like the bad guys. In order to justify their efforts to undermined our efforts. I mean, if you think about it, the alt-right has more -- again, they have more in common with the left. They are obsessed with race and identity politics. They reject Christianity. Many of them are actually atheists who reject God. They have a disdain for the individual. They're obsessed with group identity, as anti-American as a concept as it gets. They have more in common with the left. But they try to make conservatives look like they're the same thing as the alt-right. And it's all under one specific agenda, which is to undermine those who have opposing views to theirs. And they'll do whatever it takes. Anything from lying, you know, making up facts that are obviously, you know, lies.

I don't know where it's going to end. This is why we need the public to help us. This is why we're suing YouTube. We have a petition. I invite, you know, your audience. Many of your -- I know that many of the people who listen to you have already signed our petition. But there needs to be a public outcry over this.

GLENN: I cannot urge you strongly enough to get involved.

I mean, PragerU is taking on not YouTube. Google. You don't take on Google with, you know, your hat in your hand.

We must band together. This may be one of the more important lawsuits that are fought in our lifetime. Because your voice is going to be silenced. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. When Prager University is deemed as radical and something that YouTube really needs to watch over and this he need to make sure they keep it away from kids, we have real issues.

When they -- when the press starts to compare PragerU with Nazis, we have real issues. And you will lose your voice. And it's happening right now.

Where can you go to sign the petition and help?

MARISSA: So if you go to our home page, PragerU.com -- P-R-A-G-E-R-U.com -- you'll find an icon. Just click on it. All we're asking for is that you put your email in. We want to show Google and YouTube that there are people out there who are upset about what's happening. And you can help us in whatever way you can. We just want to make the public aware and put some pressure on Google to change their ways.

GLENN: Marissa, thank you so much, God bless.

MARISSA: Thank you. God bless you. Bye.

GLENN: My best to Dennis.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep