RFK Jr. blows Tucker Carlson’s mind; says what NO politician will admit



The Biden administration has never been a fan of political dissidents, and RFK Jr. is living proof.

“Thirty-seven hours after he took the oath of office, President Biden’s White House opened up a portal for the FBI to begin to have access to social media posts on all the different social media sites,” RFK explained in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

“The FBI then invited in the CIA, DHS, the IRS, and CISA. CISA is this new agency that is the center of the censorship industrial complex that is in charge, making sure Americans don’t hear things that their government doesn’t want them to hear.”

Those agencies, as well as agencies like the CDC, were given access to social media sites to change posts and shadow-ban users.

“I lost my Instagram account; I had almost a million followers. They say it was for ‘misinformation,’ but they could not point to a single post that I ever made that was factually erroneous,” RFK explains.

In emails, Facebook was recorded pushing back and saying RFK wasn’t factually incorrect, so they had to come up with a new word for what RFK was doing.

“Malinformation, which is information that is factually true but nevertheless inconvenient for the government,” he says, to which Tucker responds, “That’s illegal.”

“The White House was overtly telling them that if they didn’t comply, that their Section 230 immunity was in jeopardy,” RFK adds.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” isn’t surprised but is disturbed.

“It should be noted that even if RFK Jr., with his 1 million followers on Instagram, was sharing misinformation,” Rubin says, “it's not illegal.”

“It would be against the First Amendment,” he adds.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

RFK Jr. discloses what Elon Musk told him about the Twitter files



When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he found millions of documents that showed collusion between the White House and Twitter employees to censor Americans. These became known as the Twitter files.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was one American specifically targeted in those documents.

“The government put pressure on a corporation to silence you. That is, by most legal standards, that would be a violation of the First Amendment,” Dave Rubin says.

Rather than ignoring them, Musk then invited investigative journalists like Matt Taibi to do whatever they wanted with the documents.

“His lawyers were just screaming, ‘You can’t do that,’ and I will always love Elon because he did that. It was such a bold, brazen move,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tells Dave Rubin before sharing what Musk had told him after.

“I asked him, why’d you do that, and he said, ‘Look, I grew up in South Africa. I moved here, and I moved here partially because of the First Amendment because I love the freedom of this country,’” RFK explained.

“‘I’m a citizen of this country now. I have a lot of money. I could buy houses all over the world. I don’t. Everything I own is here, and I want this country to be what it’s supposed to be,’” RFK continues, recalling what Elon had told him.

“It was a very extraordinary conversation,” he says, adding, “in this country, Elon is at this point standing up for free speech, and I think that’s great.”


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Tell Congress: To save America, your digital rights matter more than TikTok’s



For many tech critics, especially more patriotic ones, the passage of a House bill to ban TikTok is cause for celebration. However, the most critical legislation to keep America American in the digital age differs significantly. It hasn’t even been drafted yet — and if Congress keeps our eyes on the TikTok soap opera, it never will be.

To be sure, there are ample grounds for debate over the Chinese social media giant. All the big criticisms have their root in a kernel of truth or more. China really is our worst digital adversary, hoovering up far more American data than the rest of the world combined and shamelessly using information on our intimate lives and worst proclivities to map in doubtlessly rich detail the fabric of psychological, social, financial, and political vulnerabilities of ordinary citizens and public officials alike.

The truth is that many millions of Americans feel soul-sick inside the oppressive new virtual tyranny imposed by those whose response to our risk of enslavement to technology is forcing tech to enslave us to a woke religion.

TikTok isn’t just a key part of that omnivorous digital arsenal. It’s also a corrosive cultural mainline in terms of content and medium. As is well known, much of TikTok’s most recognizable content — across sex, gender, and entertainment — is the kind of stuff the average American wouldn’t want his kids touching with a 10-foot pole, much less consuming a few inches away from their faces on an infinite scroll. And thanks to the app’s algorithms, users can be shepherded with incredible speed from generic social media filler content to the hard stuff.

But the issue goes well beyond content. Those in the know understand that users can readily route around the standard bilge and enjoy some of the most edgy, hilarious, and authentic memes and s**tposts of the right-wing variety — or just relax with a host of highly aesthetic and vibey content blissfully free of any ideological coding or psychosexual manipulation.

Nevertheless, the nature of the hybrid cyber televisual medium within which TikTok works affects users, regardless of the flavor of content they consume. Zoning out on the app, seeking answers to elementary life questions on the app, starting your morning with the app, and ending your past-your-bedtime night with the app — all these things instill serious issues in users.

What’s more, it’s clear the cyber televisual medium, whether via TikTok or other social media apps, is “rewiring” users to abandon “generic” or “basic” or “normie” self-identities in favor of increasingly bespoke, obscure, and insular identities, where users’ collective lingo, behavior, imagination, and memory — to name just a few — becomes impenetrable to outsiders and erodes the broadly shared and lived-out identity that, since World War II, has been seen as absolutely essential to America’s functioning as a world-leading nation-state.

Whether or not that’s actually (or still) true, the social psychology involved in its sudden unraveling has already had dramatic consequences, exacerbating various divides among Americans that are proving easy to politicize and ideologize. That’s damaging in and of itself, but when the damage accrues to a rival like China — busy hardening its cultural unity and traditionalist discipline — in the form of increased power, the costs become dizzying. And when that damage causes Americans to forget that the ultimate harm comes in the form of obsessively interpreting identity in terms of politics instead of in terms of our relationship with God, well, it’s not hard to see why so many of us feel the digital age has been, for America, one of across-the-board free fall.

Dancing toward oblivion

Add it all up, and it’s clear that even burning TikTok down or forcing a fire sale to an American Big Tech firm won’t cure what ails us. Unfortunately, that’s why so many citizens and officials nurse a secret despair about the magnitude of the problem. It’s too late, they believe — especially since COVID, we’ve been pushed to a point of no return. Not much more of our hard-won American way of life can be preserved beyond a few pro sports leagues, a handful of church congregations, and Buc-ee's.

Enough! This is no time for despair, especially if we’re going to accept the reality of how bad things have gotten and how far they still have to go. The truth is that many millions of Americans from all walks of life feel soul-sick inside the oppressive new virtual tyranny imposed by those whose response to our risk of enslavement to technology is forcing tech to enslave us to a woke religion.

But feeling bad is not enough to make things right. That’s why some radicalized dissenters and traditionalists look to ancient and medieval models that fuse spiritual and temporal power into a single theocratic authority. After all, that’s what today’s “left” is doing – it must be good for the gander, right? Wrong. History amply shows that whenever the state seizes the prerogatives of the church, things go from bad to worse even if church and state should ideally function in harmony (and they should, assuming neither worships and compels the worship of false gods and idols). Here in America, we must adhere to our Constitution and preserve our constitutionally guaranteed form of government, even if by further amendment.

And that’s where the most critical legislation to keep America American, both online and off, comes in. No matter how horrible TikTok is, Big Tech is in some ways even worse because it’s an integral part of the current regime’s breakneck race to become both our digital church and state. This hi-tech, uber-woke cyber theocracy is flagrantly unconstitutional by design. And the only constitutional way to stop it is with a Digital Rights Amendment — or a Digital Rights Act that works similarly — to provide explicit blanket safeguards to ensure American citizens’ ability to access and use fundamental digital tech is not infringed.

The Bill of Rights covers our digital rights

The idea is simple. In our First and Second Amendments, our federal government is expressly prevented from violating or punishing our fundamental rights to access and use foundational tools to freely speak, associate, and defend ourselves and our loved ones. The key tools the First Amendment covers are basic, general communications technologies. In the Second Amendment, they’re essential, general weapons technologies. And as we all know today, in the digital age, all technology is increasingly “dual use” — pretty much every communications technology today is also a kind of weapons technology.

Our right to access and use foundational digital tools is already implicit in the First and Second Amendments. However, due to the flagrantly unconstitutional “whole of government, whole of society” digital revolution imposed on us without a vote and consent, it is time to explicitly enshrine our implicit digital rights.

Some may fear this approach uses too broad a brush. But we know even the Bill of Rights is not immune to judicial review — far from it, in fact. And our digital rights would, of course, be restricted to human American citizens, not extended to Chinese shell companies, machine entities, or cyborgs of the future.

It’s easy to get whipsawed by the pace of unasked-for technological and political change today. But we don’t have to roll over and take it. And if Congress won’t get the message, we’ve got plenty of states to work with. As long as we hasten to work!

SCOTUS judge makes the craziest argument for more censorship you've ever heard



Is it possible for the government’s First Amendment rights to be under attack?

During the Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made clear that she certainly thinks so.

“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” Jackson said.

“Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.”

“You’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective, and you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems,” she continued.

Glenn Beck is floored, saying that Jackson’s statement is a “cry for help on understanding any of the amendments, let alone the first one,” and that it’s shocking it’s coming from a Supreme Court Justice.

“I appreciate your willingness to say, 'I really don’t have a clue as to what I’m doing here,'” Glenn says, before laying out the facts.

“The government can speak and say, ‘Hey, this is bad, you shouldn’t do this,’ but when governments coerce people, especially businesses, well, they’ve got an awful lot of power, and that can turn into tyranny quickly,” Glenn explains, noting that there’s a reason the Bill of Rights applies to citizens and not to governments.

“I’m trying to help you,” Glenn says addressing Jackson, adding, “which I find just so refreshing that a talk show host that’s a recovering alcoholic and former DJ who is just completely self-educated knows this stuff better than a Supreme Court Justice.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Next week, SCOTUS will hear 'the most important free speech case in the history of the country.​' Here’s what you need to know.



The Federal government’s collusion with social media giants to control the narrative through censorship may be coming to an end.

On Monday, March 18, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy vs. Missouri (formerly Missouri vs. Biden).

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) joins Glenn Beck to discuss the details of the upcoming hearing.

The case “deals with the Federal government in its vast censorship enterprise — coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech,” Schmitt says.

“What the judge found at the lower court ... was that it was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeked of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.”

“What was uncovered, Glenn, were tens of thousands of pages of emails and text messages from high-ranking government officials to social media giants saying, ‘Take it down or we're going to launch an investigation or we're going to sue you under antitrust issues,’” Schmitt explains. “The full power of the Federal government was being used to suppress dissent to silence Americans.”

Of course, this has been “appealed by the government” because “they want to continue to censor people,” says Schmitt, but thankfully, “the Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments on that on Monday.”

“How do you think it’s gonna go?” asks Glenn.

“I’m hopeful. ... A lot of it will come down to: what was the government actually doing and were they, in fact, coercing? Were they using the power of the Federal government to get these social media giants to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?”

On top of FBI agent Elvis Chan “pre-bunking the Hunter Biden laptop story — calling it Russian disinformation [and] a hack and leak operation” in preparation for 2020, the Federal government squashed any talk of “the efficacy of masks,” “vaccine issues,” and potential “origins of COVID.”

“All of that is uncovered in this lawsuit,” says Schmitt, adding that “Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files” has also helped tremendously in bringing the blatant violation of the First Amendment to light.

“How much of this do you think was willing, and how much of it was fear of the government?” asks Glenn.

“Both,” is Schmitt’s answer.

“These social media platforms typically were very aligned with the left,” especially Facebook, who he thinks is run by “willing participants.”

However, other documents reveal that some companies “were pushing back” and that the content they were being told to censor “didn’t violate their terms of service.”

“We're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.”

To hear more about Monday’s SCOTUS hearing, watch the clip below.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

When it comes to this issue, Rep. Jim Jordan says we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place



America’s border crisis is listed as one of the top voter issues of the 2024 election. People of all political ideologies mostly agree that illegal immigration is problematic and must be dealt with, but it seems Biden has no intentions of reversing course. Plus, with Election Day still months away, he has ample time to continue funneling more illegal immigrants into the country.

“Biden could close the border, right?” Dave Rubin asks Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

“I mean yeah ... but he probably won’t stop something that he intentionally started,” says Jordan. “They did this on purpose — willfully, deliberately, intentionally. They decided that they wanted to change three fundamental policies: no more wall, no more weight in Mexico, [and] once you’re here, you will not be detained.”

“They can stop it if they put back in place those policies, but they just don't want to.”

“When you talk to your colleagues on the other side, do they believe it's intentional? What do they think Biden’s intentions are? This is just a replacement of voters?” asks Dave.

“That’s the question. Why are they doing it? I gotta believe it’s political. Sometimes I think it's just, ‘Well President Trump did A, B, and C, so we're going to do D, E, and F; we're not going to do what he did, we're going to do the opposite,”’ Jordan speculates.

The bottom line is, “we’re down to two options: [Biden] is not going to fix it, so we can wait for the election ... or we can use the power of the Constitution the framers gave us, which is the power of purse.”

When the spending bill is due next month, we can say, “No money can be used to process or release into the country any new migrant” and instead focus on “evaluating the the 8 million who've come thus far” by having them “go through the adjudication process to see if they actually are legitimate asylum-seekers,” says Jordan, acknowledging that this course of action is the opposite of the Senate’s border bill that was designed to “keep letting the flow happen.”

In “three years and 17 days of the Biden administration, we went from a secure border to no border.”

To hear more, watch the clip below.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.