Twitter is the LAST DIGITAL HAVEN of free speech

BRITTA PEDERSEN / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

I want to talk specifically here to those people in journalism.

Don Lemon, I used to think we just really disagreed with each other. I don't believe that anymore. I think you might be sick. I think you might be living under some delusion that makes you believe the things you're saying are true. But they're not.

I have never, ever wanted you silenced. I have no problem with someone trying to make their point of view. That doesn't mean I agree with you. It doesn't mean I'm not going to counter your arguments or point out I believe these things are total falsehoods. But I do not want anyone silenced. Not anyone—even on the left.

I sincerely ask you to take Elon Musk up on his offer and take your show to Twitter. And I mean it. Right now—and this could all change—right now, what Elon Musk is doing is reasonable and American. He is trying to turn Twitter into an actual town square.

What Elon Musk is doing is reasonable and American.

A town square is a place where, traditionally, in America, you could always go, and there would be somebody on their soapbox. You would listen to them. Then, you would go to another person that was on their soapbox, and you would listen to them. They might be disagreeing. But you could hear everything. That's the way we did it in the 1700-1800s.

Last year, the New York Times put out a poll that found one in five Americans say politics hurt their relationships with their friends or families. I don't believe that number is that low. Only one in five! Across the political spectrum, do you know the one thing we all agree on? We're too divided.

There are two solutions to this.

One, I believe, is evil. You liquidate all the people that disagree with whatever the government says. Whatever the leaders or the elites say is true becomes "permitted speech." For all those who dare challenge the official narrative, you either liquidate them or put them in jail. It's been done before. If you were an awful, evil person who believes in dictatorship, that's a legitimate way to deal with things.

The other solution, which has always been the American solution, is open communication. ALL voices. It used to be the case in America that people of all stripes could get all pieces of information. Why is this so important? Because if I am lying to you about what's happening, you should be able to hear it. When you are able to hear something openly, then others are able to discredit it through free and open speech.

We need the space for speech to be protected and to say whether something is orisn't true. Let someone dare speak their mind, and we THE PEOPLE can debate amongst each other whether their statement is true or false. This was the intention of the First Amendment.

This is really important. But we don't have that now.

When you are able to hear something openly, then others are able to discredit it through free and open speech.

Right now, people like me, and Ben Shapiro, and Tucker Carlson are being throttled by social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube. We actually have teams of people to manage this. You can't believe the amount of time and money and energy it takes to strategize every single day on how NOT to get censored for sharing what we believe to be true!

Tucker Carlson has found a very ingenious way to make sure his voice isn't blocked. Fox News is, I believe, doing some very Fox-News-sort-of-things to keep him silent, for at least a couple of years. That can't happen. Legally, they think they can get away with it. I don't think so, but I've not read Tucker Carlson's contract.

Tucker Carlson has found a very ingenious way to make sure his voice isn't blocked.

But this is what makes Tucker's move so ingenious. The one outlet that is most likely not prohibited by his contract is Twitter. We all own our own Twitter feeds as individuals. Our employers don't own our personal accounts. Companies don't own our Twitter feeds. WE DO.

At Fox, they have been ignoring the power of the internet for years. When I left, they didn't cover anything online. Because Roger Ailes thought "online" was a fad. I told him, "No, it's not, Roger." And he said, "Well, you go ahead and do that internet thing. That won't amount to anything."

I responded, "Roger, you really need to pay attention to the internet. I know people thought television is a fad. This is not a fad. This will come and destroy Fox News, as you know it." He laughed at me. They never took it seriously until we built TheBlaze and became a threat, and they started to build Fox Nation.

They never took it seriously until we built TheBlaze and became a threat.

We have been in discussions already with Elon's team about the possibility of streaming something exclusive and special on Twitter. God willing, if Elon stays his course, Twitter will become one of the only social media platforms that actually supports free speech and transparency.

I do not expect Elon Musk to censor anyone on the left, and I believe he actually wants the left to take him up on his offer of “you stream things too.” This is the idea that YouTube and Facebook were supposed to be. That's how they pitched Facebook to us in the first place. We were the ones that helped build Facebook. And then they turned it all around on you and took all of our subscribers. Now we have to pay for access to the very same people we brought to Facebook.

We have been in discussions already with Elon's team about the possibility of streaming something exclusive and special on Twitter.

This is why I started TheBlaze 12 years ago. We needed a space to speak freely. And we still do. It's not enough just to have BlazeTV, because you need an additional microphone. If you can speak all you want to a group of people, it doesn't matter—if those people are behind a wall. That's where we are with social media today.

The Germans found out that putting people behind a wall is a very effective way to shut your dissidents down. Just put them in a ghetto. And we've talked about the digital ghetto for a long time. Between what Elon is doing and the Twitter Files, we have seen Big Tech and the government's coordinated effort to put political dissidents behind a digital ghetto. Now, Elon is breaking us out, at least on Twitter.

We can amplify everything we say on BlazeTV on Twitter in a way that no other social media platform has allowed anyone to do. Anyone who believes in the right to free speech—I see us all as a team—myself, BlazeTV, the Daily Wire, Twitter—I am thrilled to partner with anyone who believes in the First Amendment.

We can amplify everything we say on BlazeTV on Twitter in a way that no other social media platform has allowed anyone to do.

I doubt Elon Musk and I agree on an awful lot. But we don't need to agree. We only need to agree that freedom of speech is paramount for a free society. And anyone who is against censorship, all censorship, I stand with you!

This is why Tucker Carlson is taking a version of his show to Twitter. And it's a brilliant move. It wouldn't be possible if Elon Musk hadn't put his money on the line and, quite honestly, his neck on the line, to turn Twitter from the "Ministry of Truth" into a marketplace of ideas.

I urge everyone in this audience to get on Twitter and to learn how to disagree again without hating each other. Why not treat Twitter as an intellectual coliseum to hash out the real issues we are facing? Because we may finally—at least for a while—have an even playing field online.

Why not treat Twitter as an intellectual coliseum to hash out the real issues we are facing?

So, Don Lemon, I would never ask you to join BlazeTV. You don't belong here. We are looking for people who love America, love the truth, and love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't believe you fit that. But on Twitter, you absolutely fit that. As do I. As does Tucker.

Join us on Twitter. And may the best ideas win.

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked? 

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant 

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.