RADIODecember 13, 2023

Is THIS why Harvard PROTECTED President Gay from plagiarism scandal?

The Harvard board has promised to let Harvard president Claudine Gay keep her job, despite multiple scandals. On one hand, she has been criticized for failing to say that calls for Jewish genocide violate Harvard's policies. And then, there's her plagiarism scandal. But is this just a random attack dug up by conservatives trying to take her down? Washington Free Beacon staff writer Aaron Sibarium joins Glenn to explain why this is not the case at all. Harvard has known about President Gay's plagiarism scandal for months — and even hired "the best defamation law firm in the country" to try and shut the media's reporting efforts down. But why go through all this trouble to protect her? Aaron explains his theory and also breaks down why these alleged instances of plagiarism are so serious.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's a couple of things going on with -- with a woman that runs Harv

And one of them is, hey. I have to have a room with -- with color crayons. And comic books, so you can read a comic book, and then, you know, color a happy tree. Because you feel like you're being, you know -- you have microaggressions all around you.

Stopping free speech everywhere, unless you're calling for, you know, the death of Jews.

Then, I guess, hey.

You know, free speech.

It's crazy!

But there's something else that has now been brought up, that I think people knew about in the Harvard world.

But didn't say anything.

And that is the fact that its president Claudine Gay, broke Harvard's own code of conduct on plagiarism.

And it's a pretty significant amount of plagiarism.

Including her doctoral dissertation.

Parts of it were wholly plagiarized.

And she never credited anybody.

Now, here's why this matters: You plagiarize something. I don't really care.

You plagiarize something in a book. And claim it's yours.

Okay. I care. Because that's stealing from somebody else. You plagiarize in a university. Well, you're setting the standards, and trying to hold those standards of academic excellence and honesty. And if the person who is at the top is known to have plagiarized. How do you tell the students, we're going to kick you out?

This has nothing to do with her testimony, but it has everything to do with how corrupt our -- our universities are. How morally corrupt they are.

We have Aaron Sibarium on with us now.

He wrote a great piece for the Washington free beacon. And we wanted to talk to him about this.

You went to Yale. And you were the editor of the Yale Daily News. So you know something about Ivy League, and plagiarism.

Not really celebrated, is it?

AARON: No, Glenn. It is not. It is not celebrated. And, in fact, I would say that generally, at you all of these standards to get a lecture thing, it doesn't matter how small. It doesn't matter if it's unintentional. Even if you do it with the best intentions, it's still a serious problem. You should double-check your work to make sure absolutely nothing is plagiarized. That is what Harvard tells the students in a very long document that outlines its policy very clearly. It's no fewer than five times indicates that intent is irrelevant. Any language or even just ideas or content from someone else, and don't cite them, it's plagiarism. And according to the letter of the Harvard plagiarism policies, A, they clearly violated them.

GLENN: Yeah, and like significant.

I mean, you in your article go threw it. We don't have to go threw it here. But it's significant. Why does this matter?

AARON: Well, look, people do make mistakes.

And if this were -- if this was what we found out of a corpus of, say, a hundred or 200 peer-reviewed papers, one of which had won a noble prize. He might say, okay. A few paragraphs here or a there. It's the overall content. It's not such a big deal.

I think it's worth emphasizing that she had published in total, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Eleven in the past two decades. That is a really, really small number for any academic I think at a prestigious university. But especially for the academic that the university chooses to elevate to its position.

So you're not talking about a few instances of maybe perilous citations or plagiarism. How to have 100 papers. You're talking about it out of 11 papers. Right?

So we found -- so there have been, you know, 11 peer-reviewed articles. Two of them. We found examples of plagiarism.

Then a dissertation. Then another thing that she wrote. That is in another peer-reviewed journal.

So this starts to amount to a pretty substantial percentage of her academic output. That contained at least some plagiarized material.

So as a percentage thing, I think it's not actually the best way to look at it.

It's not just a couple mistakes here or there. It seems to be a pattern. And a pattern that is fairly consistent throughout two decades of relatively meager scholarly output. Meager scholarly output.

GLENN: So this is not anything new. It's my understanding it's kind of been known and kicked around for a while, but just kept quiet and didn't matter. Is that true?

AARON: Well, yeah, it appears to be true. Because just last night, the New York Post reported that they had many of these examples, confronted Harvard with them. All the way back in October. And Harvard claimed, oh, we addressed this promptly. As soon as it was brought to our attention, we initiated the review. And Dr. Gay requested corrections.

Well, what the Harvard corporation didn't mention is that apparently, they intimidated and maybe even threatened to sue the New York Post for defamation after the New York Post reached out for comment.

So Harvard apparently took this seriously enough, that they thought it was worth hiring the best defamation law firm in the country. God knows how much they were paying them, to send a 15-page intimidation letter. To journalists who were coming to them. For examples of plagiarism.

Clearly, they thought it was worth pulling out the big bucks.

Shelling out a lot of money.

To shut this down. And that was all the way back in October.

GLENN: So why would they do this? To protect -- I mean, why?

AARON: I think that Claudine Gay is an emblematic of the -- of the kind of DEI ideology that is -- that is at Harvard.

You know, some people have focused on her race and gender. And I'm sure, they don't want the -- of firing, yeah, of course.

But I actually think it's more than that. It's that she -- she kind of represents the ideology they already subscribe to, and they don't want the ideology discredited.

And also, I think they haven't gotten as much attention.

She was a very shrewd political operator before she became president. She was sort at the center of a lot of cancellations, right? She helped engineer the bureaucratic administration of votes. The Israeli famous (inaudible) at Harvard. And she helped also strip Ronald Sullivan, Harvard law professor from the administrative post, after Sullivan meets the decision to serve on Harvey Weinstein's defense team. He can't defend the unpopular. That's no longer allowed.

So she -- you know, I think had a -- had a pattern of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And sort of maneuvered the administration and bureaucratic apparatus, Harvard, around her.

Very strictly. That's a part of how she became president.

And I think that that background may be part of why they're so unwilling to let her go.

The whole kind of institution having some sense been mobilized around her. Kind of put all the places in place.

GLENN: Right. Does it play any role, that her first cousin is Roxanne Gay. Who is a feminist author and New York Times writer, who is absolutely -- absolutely a terrible human being.

AARON: Yeah, honestly, I don't know if that really -- I think they would view this with just about anyone in her position, anyone in her position, anyone with her ideology.

GLENN: Position.

AARON: I mean, and I would say, too, right? They've obviously been under pressure from donors. But they're also under pressure from their own faculty and students. And, you know, you mentioned the -- the testimony she gave where she put in forthrightly -- condemned calls for the genocide of Jews. I think part of the issue is that she couldn't really go up there and say, yeah. We support free speech in all cases. And, in fact, yes, even if you want to call for the genocide of other groups, we will protect that. Because we're so principled.

A, because it wouldn't be true. I mean, we all know it's not true.

And, B, if she would have said that, student activists would have come and tried to burn her house down.

GLENN: Right.

AARON: So they really -- to be fair to her, she is kind of in a rock and a hard place. And no matter what she does, or what Harvard does, some constituency is going to throw a fit.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I do not want to see harm come to anybody. But, gee, if you get nailed by your own policies and your life is tough because you shoveled this poison, and now that poison is coming back to haunt you, you know, I have a hard time. Again, with nobody being hurt, I have a really hard time giving any sympathy to her at all.

AARON: Yeah.

GLENN: Thank you so much. One last question, is this an issue outside of her?

Should this be an issue outside of her testimony?

In other words, is this just being brought up, because there's a mob brought up on the other side, that is saying, hey, she should be fired for this.

Is this a real issue, beyond the anti-Semitism stuff?

AARON: Obviously, anti-Semitism stuff increased scrutiny on her. It would be silly to deny that. But I'm thinking what would be an issue, you know, this -- the plagiarism, isn't quite as severe as -- it's not like data fraud.

Right? There's a guy at Stanford, right? Stepped down amid allegations of data fraud. And that was really curious, right? On its own terms.

I think this would be a scandal on its own. The anti-Semitism stuff, obviously amplifies it and makes it worse.

But, again, I think the real context here is them meager, scholarly record. Right?

Again, I really don't think people would care. I wouldn't care all that much if we had found this and it was in the context of like 200 brilliant peer-reviewed papers. That's not the context.

And I think what it underscores, this woman was clearly not chosen for her scholarly manner.

If that was the criterion, they had a lot of other candidates at Harvard, would have been better.

GLENN: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Appreciate all your work and all your writing. God bless.

AARON: Thank you.

Exclusive new poll reveals why Gen Z wants to BURN the system down

A shocking number of young Americans support BOTH President Trump and democratic socialism, a new poll has found, and they're willing to make major changes to the American system to get what they feel they deserve. Justin Haskins, who conducted the poll with Rasmussen, joins Glenn Beck to break down the unexpected findings…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins. He's the president of our republic. StoppingSocialism.com. He's editor-in-chief. And also the coauthor of several books, with me. Welcome to the program, Justin.

How are you?

JUSTIN: I'm doing well, Glenn. How are you?

STU: Well, I was well, until you contacted me on vacation, and sent me this disturbing poll.

I am in bed at night.

And I'm reading this. I'm like, oh, dear.

What? My wife is like, I told you to not check this email. I'm like, I didn't know Justin was going to write to me.

Justin, tell me, first of all, before we get into it, how secure is the sample size on this poll?

JUSTIN: It's a very good sample size. 1200 people nationally.

Only 18 to 39-year-olds. And we did that deliberately, so that we could get a sample size large enough so we could pull out valid responses, just from younger people.

So the whole purpose of this poll was to find out what younger people, 18 to 39 think, voters only. And people who say that they're likely to vote. So we're not talking about just people out in the public. We're not talking about registered voters.

We're talking about people who are registered to vote. And say they're likely to vote.

GLENN: So let's go over some of the things that you have already released to the press.

And that is, in the survey, 18 to 39-year-olds, likely voters.

The Trump approval rating is a lot higher than you thought it would be. Right?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. Forty-eight percent positive approval rating of Donald Trump, which for young people, is very high.

So that's -- that's the good news.

That's the only good news we're going to talk about.

GLENN: We might have to come back to that first question several times.

Do you believe the United States is a fundamentally good, evil, or morally mixed country?

JUSTIN: Yep. This one is not too bad.

It's not great. But fundamentally good was 28 percent.

Which is low. But mixed was 50 percent.

And fundamentally evil was 17 percent.

And I think mixed at 50 percent is not an unreasonable, crazy response.

I -- I can see why all sorts of people might choose that.

So I don't think there's anything terrible here. It depends on what you mean by mixed. Fundamentally good at 28 percent. It's a little low. Fundamentally evil at 17 percent, it's a little disturbing. But it's not -- it's not insane. The insane stuff comes a little bit later.

GLENN: Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Major industries talk about the crazy stuff coming later, here it is.

Major industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized and give more control and equity to the people.

JUSTIN: Yeah. This was -- this was -- this one floored me. If I look at strongly agree. Somewhat agree for that statement you just read. It's over 70 percent of young people, including -- including the vast majority of Republicans. Young Republicans. And people who identify as conservatives.

It was pretty similar, in fact, how young people responded compared to liberals and independents.

And Democrats.

They all pretty much agreed that, yes. The government. The federal government should be nationalizing whole industries to make things more equitable for people.

GLENN: As the guy who is the chief -- editor-in-chief of stopping socialism. What's the problem with nationalizing energy, and health care?

JUSTIN: Well --

GLENN: What happens, typically.

JUSTIN: Well, usually, there's blood in the streets, when you do too much of that.

You know, socialism, communism have been spectacularly horrible, throughout the course of human history. Across every society, culture, religion.

It doesn't matter when or what kind of technological advancements you have. The more you collect vies a society. The more authoritarian that society gets. The less you have individual freedom. And the worst the economy usually is for regular people. So it's been a catastrophe across-the-board. Everyone listening to this audience, probably knows that.

And so the idea that you would have three-quarters of young voters. So remember, these people will be the primary voters in ten to 20 years.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: Saying, yeah. We should be nationalizing whole industries. Whole industries, is so disturbing.

And I don't think that conservatives are -- understand how deeply rooted some of these ideas are with younger people.

GLENN: No. No.

And I will tell you, I think some conservatives are walking a very dangerous line. And, you know, coming up with a little mix of everything.

And -- and I think we have to be very careful on -- on what is being said. And who are WHO our friends and allies are.

By the way, that number again is 39 percent strongly agree.

37 percent somewhat agree.

Somewhat disagree, 12 percent. Strongly disagree, 5 percent.

That is disastrous. Now, try this one on. These are the ones that have been -- we have new ones.

These are just a few of the ones that were released late last week. The next presidential election is in 2028. Would you like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election?

JUSTIN: Yep, 53 percent said yes.

Fifty-three percent of all voters said yes. And the most shocking thing, was that 35 percent of those who we poll, who said they voted for Donald Trump, in 2024, said that that they want to see a socialist win in 2028. And so about a third of Republicans, 35 percent of Trump voters, 43 percent of people who call themselves conservatives, so even on the right, among younger people. There is a large group that want a socialist president, in 2028.

GLENN: And the reason -- the reason is, it -- it tied into the next few questions. Okay.

So here's question five. Among the following options, which best describes your biggest reason, you would like to see a democratic socialist candidate. Thirty-one percent said housing costs are too high. Twelve percent, taxes are too low for corporations. Eleven percent, taxes are too low for wealthy have I seen.

Eight percent want single payer health care systems. Seventeen say the economy unfairly benefits older, wealthier Americans.

Fifteen percent say the economy unfairly benefits larger corporations. 5 percent, some other reason.

And 2 percent, unsure. Now, let's get into the new polls that were breaking today.

Question six.

How would you describe your current financial situation?

JUSTIN: Yeah. Only 24 percent said that they're doing well. Thirty-four -- 38 percent said getting by. Struggling 29 percent. Seven percent said in crisis. So if you add up just getting by, struggling, and in crisis, that's 74 percent said that they're just barely getting by, at best.

And I think that explains a lot of the other negative responses we've seen so far.

GLENN: That's not good.

JUSTIN: In this poll. And the ones that are going to come pretty soon here.

GLENN: Seven. Which best describes your personal life situation?

You are thriving, you're doing well with a few ups and downs. You feel stuck and uncertain. You feel lonely, disconnected, or emotionally drained. You're in a crisis and feel most negative about your personal life.

JUSTIN: Yeah. Yeah. About a third said that they feel stuck or uncertain. Lonely. Or that they're in a crisis.

That's a third of young people. Say that.

I mean, that's -- that's not great. Only 19 percent said thriving.

46 percent said, they have ups and downs. Which I think is not. Too shocking.

But the idea that there's a third of American voters out there, who feel like, they can't buy a home. And they feel like they are lonely. And that they're in crisis. And that life is not just going well at all for them.

Again, I think that's -- that's driving a lot of the support for socialism. When you have 53 percent of these people saying, yeah. I want a socialist president in 2028.

GLENN: So socialism is not the answer. It is the symptom. It is the symptom of what people are feeling right now.

And they -- they don't know any other -- they don't -- nobody is presenting them with anything other than, you know, Republican/Democrat bullcrap. And socialists are coming at it from a completely nigh angle. Or so the youth think it's the oldest and most failed system of all time.

But they're seeing this as a solution that is different than what the party -- the Republican/Democrats are offering. Even though the Democrats are offering the socialism thing.

Number eight, do you think the American economy is unfair to young people?

Sixty-two percent say yes.

JUSTIN: Yeah, and 27 percent said no.
And I think that this really gets at the heart of what the issue is here.

When you look at the reasons. When you look at the detailed things of the poll.

What -- to try to find out if there's an association between some kind of demographic or response question about people's lives and their support for socialism, to see if there's a correlation there between something that is happening. And whether someone is a socialist or not.

One of the top correlations, connections, is, if people think the economy is unfair.

And if they're having trouble buying a home. Or they don't think they can buy a home. Or that's one of their reasons for supporting socialism.

So, in other words, there's this fairness issue. And it's not even about inequality.

It's not about, well, they have too much -- well, if they feel like the -- to use a Trump term. Rigged.

And throughout the data. That's what we see over and over and over again. Is lots of people say, the economy is rigged. For older people. For wealthier people, for corporations. It's rigged. And if they say, yeah. I think it's rigged, you know, then they're more likely to say, yeah. I want a socialist.

And I also think the same group has a relatively high approval rating of Donald Trump.

It's because the reason that a lot of young people like Trump in the poll, is that he's not part of the establishment.

And I think -- I don't think they -- I think a lot of young people who voted for Trump and who liked Trump, they didn't do it, because they liked free market, pro-liberty policies. And that's not a good thing.

But I don't think that's why they did it. I think a lot of them voted for Trump and supported him, because he's not the establishment. And that's what they don't like. They want to blow the establishment up.

JUSTIN: So my -- Justin, my sample size is my two young adults. My two children.

And they're like, talking to me, and saying, Dad. I will never be able to own a home, looking at the prices, looking at interest rates. They're like, I can't even afford to pay rent at an apartment. And they don't know what to do.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JASON: And so they're looking at -- on, like, TikTok. And they're like, who is this Mamdani guy? This sounds interesting. They bring this to me. They grew up listening to me indoctrinating them their entire lives. They're looking at other voices like on TikTok. Are we just not being loud enough?

GLENN: No. We're not -- we're not connecting with them. We're not -- I feel like they don't feel they're being heard.

And we are speaking to them in red, white and be blue.

And that means nothing. The Statue of Liberty means nothing to them. Ellis Island means nothing to them. The flag means nothing to them.

It's all partisan politics.

They're all symbols of really, the two parties.

You know, and an America, they don't relate to at all.

I think that's -- that's our biggest problem, and not being able to break through. To your point, question nine. How confident are you that you will own a home at some point, in the next ten years?

29 percent say, they already own a home. Which I found interesting. That's -- I think a pretty high number for somebody who is 18 to 34 years old.

JUSTIN: Thirty-nine.

GLENN: Thirty-nine.

JUSTIN: Yeah.

GLENN: There's a lot of 18 to 30. That I didn't own home when I was, you know, 30. Just got a home when I was 30. But go ahead. Go ahead with the rest of that poll.

JUSTIN: Yeah. So then 21 percent said discouraged, but somewhat hopeful. 12 percent said, not confident. 10 percent said, you are convinced you will never own a home. 3 percent not sure.

So if you add up the negative responses, it's around 43 percent that gave that response.

GLENN: Right. But, again, 29 percent, you already own a home. And 25 percent you are confident you will own a home, is still good. It just -- these -- these other numbers, have, you know, discouraged, but hopefully you will own a home. Who is discouraging that? And how is that being discouraged?

You know, only 12 -- let's see 12. Twenty-two. 25 percent are not sure they will ever own a home. That's too high of a number.

But I -- I don't think that's completely dismal. Now, a completely dismal answer, to the question, would you support a law that would confiscate America's excess wealth?

Including things like second homes. Luxury cars, and private boats, in order to help young people buy a home for the first time?

Are you for or against that? We'll give you that number here in just a second.

GLENN: There are some disturbing results, that get very disturbing, going from here on.

We've got two of these today, and then more tomorrow.

We'll spend more time with you tomorrow, Justin.

But would you support a law that would confiscate American's excess wealth, including things like second home, luxury cars, and private boats in order to help young people buy a home for the first time? Get the results.

JUSTIN: Yeah, 25 percent strongly support that, 30 percent somewhat support it, 55 percent in total for support. Only 38 percent strongly or somewhat oppose, with just 20 percent saying strongly oppose. So the vast majority now is -- is supporting this Communistic policy to confiscate people's wealth in order to help people. Younger people buy homes, which is in line with that question, we talked about earlier. Where it said, you know, three-quarters of these respondents wanted to nationalize whole industries to make things fairer. So it's all about -- it's all about this sense of unfairness that exists.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JUSTIN: And they feel like. Young people feel like the system is rigged. They feel like neither party is on their side, and they want to blow the whole thing up, by just taking wealth away from people, nationalizing whole industries, and redistributing it all.

And guess what, that's basically the democratic socialist platform. So it's not a surprise that that's -- that's becoming increasingly more popular with these young people.

And I don't think that free market, pro-liberty people are dealing with -- with this.

GLENN: No.

JUSTIN: In a real way.

In fact, I think a lot of us have believed recently that the wind is at our backs, and we're actually winning more and more young people over.
And that isn't what's happening according to the poll results.

GLENN: It explains why the Democrats have not moved their position off of the socialism stuff.

Doesn't it?

We keep saying, why? It's not working with anybody.

It is working. It is working with people under 39.

18 to 39-year-olds are hearing this message, and are embracing this message.

Mamdani & AOC are correct: This system is RIGGED

The socialists like AOC and Zohran Mamdani are right about one thing, Glenn Beck says: the system we’re living under right now IS RIGGED. But it’s not capitalism. Glenn explains what this system really is and gives a much better solution than trying yet another communist revolution.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: When you talk about capitalism, that just falls on deaf ears. Because people think we have capitalism now. We haven't had capitalism in over 100 years, okay?

The word free market. Those words.
That's like wallpaper now. Just background noise, and a political speech. And nobody pays attention to it. But what we are living under and have lived under is not the free market. It's a cartel. It really is.

The government has turned into a cartel with crony deals and lobbyists that are writing the rules and bailouts for the powerful. You know, people -- people on the left keep saying, the rich keep getting richer. Well, yes. And -- and who are the rich? Who are the rich? Who are the rich? Let's just start at the top. How about the banks?

What do the banks do? The banks have a cartel. It's called the Federal Reserve.

Who controls the Federal Reserve? Do you control the Federal Reserve.

That's the five biggest banks in the country. The five biggest banks in the country. We don't even know who they are. What kind of system is that? That is a progressive system, put in by Woodrow Wilson and his cronies at the time to control you. That's what all of this is about. Controlling you! Getting rich themselves, and controlling you.

And they do it through these official sounding things like the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is not the free market. And should be destroyed! We haven't had the free market for a very long time. Who is bailing these corporations out? It's the government.

Why is the government doing that? Because the corporations are taking money, and they're allowed to buy lobbyists. So they can -- most of the laws are not written by any lawmaker.

They're written by lobbyists. And then they're pushed through, by the lobbyists, into Congress, all the way up to the president.

That's not a free system.

That is a -- that is a system where you get screwed in the end. Okay?

The government is -- it's a machine that has been used by the powerful corporations, and the powerful people like George Soros.

To keep you down and to lift them up. Protect them.

Because they think they know better than you. They're more important than you.

And if you were -- if you're 30 years old. This is all you've ever seen. You've seen the rotten fruit of that tree for a very, very long time.

The crushing rent. The suffocating debt. That you probably saw your parents go through, while the banks were being bailed out.

The health care bills that you can't understand anymore.

How does that even work?

Not only can you not understand your health care bill, how are you going to pay your health care bill?

But here's the secret: None of this is the free market.

None of it.

You've not seen the free market. Not once!

What you've seen and witnessed here in America is a rigged game. And people are right to reject it.

You're right! But that's not what the system was designed to do. That is the bastardization of this. It's taken them 100 years to do it.

But that's what this system has been turned into. Here's the twist.

If you let the real free market breathe, it doesn't chain you down. It lifts you up.

What -- what if we instead of burning the whole system down, what if we burn down the barricades. The barricades of red tape. And let builders actually build.

What if zoning laws and rent controls were cleared out like brush wood. Suddenly, the housing market would be affordable again.

And if you don't believe me, look at what's happening in Argentina.

And not in theory, in practice!

Actually doing these things, and making things affordable again. What if health care bills showed the price up front?

Okay. Like a restaurant menu.

Doctors were competing to earn your business, instead of serving the insurance companies.

The insurance companies, also have gone completely mad and corrupt. And how did they do it. Why did they do it. They did it because it's the rules the government set up.

Because it was dirty. If you think awe bigger government is going on to make things better, you're wrong.

The government is the problem. What if student loans stopped being a -- a government racket?
Do you know -- do you know the price of education back in the '60s and '70s. It wasn't the price of a house.

What happened? That got out of control when the government started saying, you know what, we're going to -- we're going to get into the business of loans.

We're going to give the loans.

Once those loans were guaranteed, the universities knew, well, we're in bed with the government now.

It will never fail.

They'll never -- they'll never stop writing those loans.

And we can charge whatever we want.

But what if the loans stopped being this government racket and education was tailored and affordable and actually useful!

Not this crap you're getting now. You're being trained to be a revolutionary. That's it!

They're not training you for any usable skill. They are so far behind the curve on what is coming, by the time you racked up all this debt, you're sitting there under this mountain of debt, you think you've played by the rules, and so you're feeling like, hey, I'm getting screwed by everybody else.

You're not getting screwed by everybody else. You were screwed by the universities in bed with the government and the teachers unions. That's who you've been screwed by. Make no mistake.

And what do the teachers unions and the schools and the government now trying to get you to do?

To be a revolutionary.

To make the government even bigger and more powerful!

What if we made things actually work.

I mean, not just a slogan. But a real idea of cutting all of this.

Milei is doing it in Argentina right now. He's stripping rent control, and it has caused the supply of houses to triple and prices to fall!

Why is nobody talking about that?

Why is that not -- why is that not in anybody's best interest to talk about that?

Why is that not on the front page of everything? That's an actual solution. The houses. The market has tripled in size! The availability of housing is triple what it was! And the prices are lower. Why aren't we looking at that?

Because it's not in anyone's interest except for yours. And nobody is serving you.

And you are become a useful idiot, by playing into this system. By saying, yeah. We need more government regulation.

This is not about left or right.

It's not about the Democrats or the Republicans. Because all of that is garbage.

This is about finally, for the first time in your lifetime. In my lifetime, trying to do what America was actually built to do in the first place.

Freedom in the marketplace.
The free market is not an old idea.

Okay?

It's the newest idea that America hasn't dared tried in decades.

Why is everybody pushing failed systems that have failed over and over and over again. And yet, we have the one system. The free market. The true free market that completely changed the entire world. Fed more people.

Brought more people out of poverty.

Changed health care system entirely.

Gave us -- gave us energy and -- and fuel to be able to read at night. Study at night. Fly across the world.

Do all of these amazing things.

Gave us the internet.

Well, why -- why -- why aren't we going back and saying, wait a minute. What was it? That started that revolution?

Why? Let's try that again. Instead of going back to something that ended in 100 million people being killed.

Starved to death!

Oppressed. People thrown in prison.

My gosh.

We are -- we are dragging anchors through history, old language. Old solutions. Old slogans. Democrats. Republicans. They argue over the size of government, as if that debate hasn't become the deadweight that keeps this nation down in the first place.

Meanwhile, you, a young person in Dallas that's just starting a family. A single mom in Chicago, the contractor in Idaho.

You're not debating theory.

This is real life for you.

You're drown in the price of rent and groceries and gasoline.

You're watching your dream shrink and shrink and shrink while politicians just keep using recycled words that meant something 40 years ago, that don't mean anything anymore.

Don't burn the system down.

Cut the ropes that have been tying you down!

It's time to throw the deadweight overboard. So what does that look like?

It looks like putting you the consumer, not the government, not the corporation, back at the center.

Ever notice, recently, corporations really don't care about you. They say they care about you in theory. They care about people in blocks. But they don't serve you. Has your service, at your local store or whatever, gotten better or worse?

Do they care more about serving you? That's the idea of the free market. You want to know how to get rich? You get rich by coming up with a way to serve people and make their life easier and better every day.

If I can help you understand the world in a better way, so it makes -- so the world makes sense to you. I've given you something of value, that you want.

That's how I make my money.

Because I work every day, trying to figure out, how can I make your life more manageable

You have to do. That's what all entrepreneurs have to do. How can I help people ease their life?

Provide them with something that makes their life better. Instead, the other way to do it is how can I oppress people.

How can I make sure the government will guard everything I'm doing. Even though I'm ripping people off.

I'm destroying lives. But I'll get rich. And the government will get rich.

No.

We need energy prices that fall. Because of competition. Not subsidies. And the government not deciding winners. But you deciding the winner. We -- we need housing unlocked bit simple idea that builders should be allowed to build. Wages that rise because the little guy is suddenly allowed to compete with the big guy! Not beg the big guy for a job.

We have to stop defending capitalism, because capitalism as it has been, it's over. It doesn't work.

We need to unleash freedom, as it was meant to be.

Not the freedom of slogans. Not the freedom of insider deals.

But the real freedom of choice and risk and reward, applied to everyone in everyday life, all around the country.

Because the -- honestly, history will tell us, when countries fall into despair, they reach control.

Every time. Every time, and it's going to happen here.

The central plan. The state solution.

Strong man. America was built on the opposite impulse. To trust people more than the planners.

That was our radical idea!

That was the miracle!

Trust people over the planners!

The question is: I mean, that's the one idea, we haven't tried in a very long time.

Can we make it new again?

And can we convince people to believe in themselves! Instead of the people who have brought us this misery.