Twitter is the LAST DIGITAL HAVEN of free speech

May 12, 2023

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

CEO/Founder

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.

Have you considered doing your show on this platform? Maybe worth a try. Audience is much bigger.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 10, 2023

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.

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