The Dennis Prager Show LIVE

All right, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show. I was listening to Judge Bryant— I'm Barrett, I'm sorry, me and names, that's classic. Judge Barrett. I was listening to Judge Bryant as well, by the way. You may not have been listening to Judge Bryant, but I was listening to both Bryant and Barrett. She is so impressive, they're not even bothering with her. It's fascinating actually to watch. Most of the Democratic senators, as pointed out by Senator Cruz, were not even in the room when the last questioning was done. I think it was Senator Whitehouse. The— unless she has Tourette's syndrome and starts mumbling obscenities, I think it's very hard to imagine why she would be why she would not be confirmed. I'll tell you, one of the things I like about her is that she didn't go to Yale or Harvard. The— this country has a bunch of false gods that have substituted for the God who created the heavens and the earth. College is a god. Degrees are gods, prestigious colleges are gods. Why would parents bribe to get their child into UCLA or USC? There is something— forget the act of the bribery itself, the belief that your child must go to one of these places. I don't believe it is only, oh, it'll be so good for my child. Many parents feel that their parenthood is judged by the prestige level of the college that their child attends. I can't think of an emptier way to assess whether you were a good parent You could have produced a despicable human being who got into Yale. You could have produced a remarkably wonderful kid who didn't even go to college. But this, this is— it's the report card on your parenting. That's one of the reasons. It's also interesting that she would be, I believe, is it correct, the 6th Catholic out of 9 judges? I think that's the case. It's, it's pointed out on occasion. Uh, I— it's an interesting question as to, is it just a coincidence or, uh, is there a reason? It may well be a coincidence, but, uh, it's, it's clearly a credit to the Catholic, uh, intellectual tradition If you do have 6 Catholics out of the 9, I personally couldn't care less. It is of no interest to me in that regard because I want people with the judicial philosophy that their task is not to make law. Senator Cruz, who was turning out to be truly a luminous senator, He has found his niche. He will not be President of the United States. I think he recognizes that. And so he has decided to be as good a senator as he can, which is very important. And he made the point that, take school choice, said, I am for school choice. He said that's the civil rights issue of this century. And he said, as much as I might like to see it ruled accordingly in the Supreme Court, that's not the venue. The arena where school choice should be enacted is not the Supreme Court. It is with us in the Senate. In Congress, that one Black would vote for the Democrats given the disastrous governing of where Blacks tend to live, all by Democrats for a half century, and the obscene opposition to school choice. Oh, Blacks don't get a chance. They don't go to good schools. That is the reason for The inferior rates of graduation and academic achievement among many Blacks. Yes, so here's a remedy. Let them choose the school they want to go to. Oh no, we're against that. Why are you against that? Because the teachers unions are against that. Teachers unions are as interested in students as the communists were in workers. Teachers unions and the left, they use teachers, and teachers, most teachers obligingly go along. Leftism is more important than teaching students properly or than giving them good schools. The corruption is very deep, and that's what the hearings are actually bringing about. Also, Senator Cruz revealed a devastating statistic on Obamacare. Uh, it's— first of all, it's a lie about all these people with prior conditions, pre-existing conditions, will get them— get their insurance removed. But secondly, why isn't it ever raised how much more money people have to pay as a result of Obamacare? Obamacare passed. I mean, it's amazing. History doesn't matter, obviously, and this is not— this is recent history. Obamacare passed because of some fluky, uh, use of the law. It was so opposed, Obamacare, that Massachusetts, the liberal bastion of Massachusetts, elected a Republican senator. Remember when Ted Kennedy died? They elected a Republican senator. In order not to pass Obamacare. It's very hard to think of anything good the man did in 8 years. As I said at the time, I thought he was the worst president in modern history. But he had style, folks. The man has style. People on the left love style. I've talked about that often. The thing I'll never forget, when tragedy of John F. Kennedy Jr.'s plane crashing and his dying with his wife, and they gave him a naval gun salute. He was handsome and he had style and did nothing. He edited a magazine that was useless called George. I don't hold that against him, but he doesn't deserve the accolades and the naval gun salute that he received upon his tragic death. But he had style, and this president has no style. He's the anti-style president. One of the many reasons that he is so loathed. All right, 1-800-PRAGER-776, 877-243-7776. Is the Habib piece worth reading aloud? Is it, uh, I think it might be important. Lee Habib, my friend, wrote the piece for Newsweek, What America Learned and Didn't Learn from the Breonna Taylor Grand Jury Testimony. It came and went without a fuss. The grand jury testimony from the Breonna Taylor case was released October 2nd, and the reaction from the media was a gaping yawn. Americans knew little more than we knew before, and not nearly enough about how the tragedy itself happened. An innocent life was lost, two cops were cleared of charges, and in the end, people retreated to their camps—left, right, black, brown, white, and blue—and stuck to their narrative. But there was something about this story that kept tugging at me. Why did Taylor's boyfriend Kenneth Walker shoot at the cops that night? And why was there so little fanfare when attempted murder charges against him were dismissed back in May? Why was he cleared so quickly? What really happened that night in Louisville, Kentucky? I decided to listen to Walker's grand jury testimony to find out, and it was a hell of a story he told, which we will tell you on The Dennis Prager Show.

This is Michael Medved at michaelmedved.com for Town Hall. The appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court counts as a masterstroke and easily one of the best decisions of Donald Trump's presidency. In an election season when liberals and media try to characterize conservatives as old, angry, bigoted, extreme, and lacking in empathy, Judge Barrett displays the opposite. Opposite characteristics. At age 48, she's youthful, a genial consensus builder, and mother of 7, including a special needs child and 2 adopted kids from Haiti. On a court dominated for decades by Yale and Harvard graduates, she's a breath of Midwestern fresh air, beloved by her students at Notre Dame. Most importantly, she'll give new life to the originalist thinking of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, in stressing what the Constitution actually says, not what judges want it to say. As Americans have been losing faith in public institutions, Judge Barrett can help to restore their confidence. I'm Michael Medved.

The Pepperdine Graduate School of Public Policy, impacting policy decisions today, preparing public leaders for tomorrow. Trending now on the Larry Elder Show.

My guest is Senator Ted Cruz. Senator, people are clueless about the real meaning of Citizens United. Can you explain to people what that ruling really means and why is the left so afraid of it?

Yeah, I can. It's a hugely important question. The chapter on free speech in the book talks all about Citizens United. Most people have heard of it, but they don't know what it is, and they know Democrats hate it, right? What it was about is our right to criticize politicians. And in this instance, a nonprofit group in DC called Citizens United made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, and the Obama Justice Department took the position that the government could fine them, could punish them for daring to criticize Hillary Clinton. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The most chilling moment was an oral argument when Justice Sam Alito asked the Obama Justice Department, under your theory of the case, could the federal government ban books? And the Obama Justice Department said, yes, yes, we can ban books, never mind what the First Amendment says, but we can— they criticize a politician. Now, thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected that. By a vote of 5 to 4, or 4 justices willing to say the government can censor movies, can censor books, can ban books if they criticize politicians. We're one vote away from our free speech rights being taken away. Senator, who wins on November 3rd? I genuinely don't know. The hard left is going to show up in massive numbers. If everybody else shows up, if people turn out, we could have a great election. The president could get reelected and we could, we could retake the House and hold the Senate.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today.

This is Owen Strand for Townhall.com. If you're on a college campus today or have a child on campus, there's a solid chance you'll hear this: "All white people are racist." You might hear this too: "America is founded on white supremacy." These two sentences are not mere overheated emotion. They express an ideology called critical race theory, or CRT, which argues that race is a social construct made by white people. Just as race was once used to enslave and terrorize, so it is used today to keep America unequal, unfair, and hostile to minorities. The Trump administration just took symbolic and courageous action against CRT. It issued a memo to federal agencies calling for the end of the government's CRT racial sensitivity trainings, terming them divisive anti-American propaganda. Does America have real issues in its past? Yes. Have we made real progress that we must guard carefully? Also yes. The White House has led well here. I'm Owen Strand.

The Pepperdine Graduate School of Public Policy, impacting policy decisions today, preparing public leaders for tomorrow. Trending now on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

I know you don't do politics.

I'm continuing here with Lee Habib's description of what really happened in Louisville, Kentucky with Breonna Taylor. Remember, the cops were shot at by her boyfriend. The boyfriend was Kenneth Walker. So I decided to listen to Walker's grand jury testimony to find out, and it was a hell of a story he told, a complicated story. And we know how much people, especially the media, like complicated stories. That was what we call a subtle dig. It was late at night on March 13th, and Walker and Taylor were sleeping. She'd worked hard that day at the local hospital. Instead of a late date, the couple stayed at home and did what couples across America often do— streamed a movie in bed. The last words Walker remembered hearing Taylor say were, "Turn off the TV." Then came the late-night banging on the door, loud, ominous banging that scared them both. Walker, who'd known Taylor for over 7 years and had been dating her since 2016, testified that he thought it was an intruder at the door, but not any intruder. He thought it was Jamarcus Glover, Taylor's ex-boyfriend whom she had begun dating not long after she began dating Walker. Glover had a lengthy criminal record dating back to 2008 in his home state of Mississippi. Where he served 6 years of a 17-year sentence for a drug felony. After his release, he moved to Kentucky, where he was convicted of another drug offense in 2014. More brushes with the law followed. Taylor made the biggest mistake of her life when she began dating Glover back in 2016. Soon she was pulled into his life of crime. In December 2016, Glover rented a car for Glover— Taylor rented a car for Glover and lent it to him. Not long after, a man was found dead in that car. He was executed gang style. Inside the car were 3 baggies of drugs and Ms. Taylor's rental contract, a New York Times story reported. The victim was the brother of an associate of Mr. Glover who had been arrested alongside the drug dealer numerous times. Investigators didn't believe Breonna Taylor had knowledge of that crime, quote, but they wondered whether she was involved in Mr. Glover's drug operation, the Times story said. In the years to come, Taylor would come up with bail money, at least $7,500, for Glover and a friend on two occasions. In early 2020, Glover landed in jail and he called Taylor. Quote, his tone on the January 3rd call was demanding, the Times story noted. He told her whom to contact to arrange his bail and added that after he was released, he would come get me some rest in your bed. The story continued. Taylor was not happy with the relationship with Glover, telling him that, quote, when you were around, I stress more because I just always be worried about you with the police, unquote. That's why the cops were at Taylor's home that night. Not because they thought she was a dealer or a bad girl— she was neither— but because she'd been dating a bad guy. And that bad guy spent time with her and listed her apartment as his home address with Chase Bank, where he had an account. 5 no-knock warrants were signed by a judge that afternoon seeking evidence of drug trafficking by Glover. And people affiliated and associated with him. Though the media mostly overlooked Taylor's complicated and unfortunate relationship with Glover and the larger context of those late-night raids, her new boyfriend didn't. He testified that he too thought it was the drug-dealing ex-boyfriend at the door. We've been on and off together, whatever, for like 7 years, Walker told the grand jury about his relationship with Taylor. That's Breonna Taylor. So there's— there was a guy that she was messing with or whatever throughout that time, you know, and he popped up over there once before while I was there, like a couple months ago, Walker explained. So that's what I thought was going on. The night of the shooting, Walker testified, he and Taylor screamed as loud as they could More than once, who is it? The pounding got harder, and soon there was an extremely loud sound and the door was off the hinges. The would-be intruders were about to enter the home. Walker admitted he fired the first shot. So boom, one shot, he testified. Then all of a sudden, there's a whole lot of shots. I just hear her screaming. That's why Walker wasn't charged, because he was a good guy and a licensed owner of a 9mm Glock, and he thought the person trying to break into his girlfriend's apartment was a bad guy with a bad history, a bad guy his girlfriend was trying her best to leave. That's why Walker fired the first shot to defend himself and his girl, and that's why he was cleared of the attempted murder charge, because under Kentucky's Stand Your Ground statute, citizens have the right used deadly force against an intruder. I didn't mean to kill anybody, he testified. And Walker wasn't lying. He also told investigators that if he'd known it was the police at the door, he would never fire that shot, and that he and Taylor had no reason to fear the cops. That's why Walker wasn't charged— because in America, people shouldn't get charged for crimes they don't commit. The testimonies of Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly and Detective Miles Cosgrove of the Louisville Metro Police department were equally compelling. The two officers said they knocked at the door repeatedly and identified themselves. Mattingly testified that as soon as he pushed in the door and cleared the threshold, he saw silhouettes of a male and female figure near the end of the hallway, the man holding what seemed to be a gun in his hand, his arm stretched out in a firing position. Then came the first shot, which was fired by Taylor's boyfriend. 'As soon as the shot hit, I could feel the heat in my leg,' Mattingly testified, 'and so I just returned fire.' He recalled firing at least 4 rounds. Cosgrove, who was behind him, also returned fire. And that's why the 2 Louisville cops who sent Taylor were cleared, because like Walker, they too thought they were shooting at a bad guy, a bad guy who shot them first. And under Kentucky law, there's a statute protecting cops who use deadly force in self-defense. I will finish the story with regard to Breonna Taylor's death, and we will be back in a moment. You are listening to The Dennis Prager Show. Hi, this is Dennis Prager, and you know we are in a fight for our fundamental freedoms. That's why I am grateful for my friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. They are on the front lines fighting pivotal lawsuits for Americans whose freedoms are threatened, and they do it for free. That's why we're asking you to be as generous as you can by giving today so that Alliance Defending Freedom can continue to fight these lawsuits and be ready when your rights are threatened too. Give your gift now by visiting adflegal.org/prager, and thank you for joining the fight for freedom.

Turning now to the Charlie Kirk Show.

[Speaker:1] In the summer of 2016, right near the Republican convention, out of nowhere, there was chatter that started to surface around President Donald Trump allegedly having connections to Russia. In fact, we can go back and we find television clips of Hillary Clinton campaign surrogates starting to talk about Donald Trump is bought and paid for by Russia. Or there is meaningful collusion happening on behalf of the Trump campaign and Russia. And it was always very bizarre. It was always so incongruent with the entire election because there were such bigger issues happening in 2016. Go back into 2016. Russia was not at the forefront of any sort of geopolitical conversations. People were mostly focused on Hillary Clinton's campaign or Hillary Clinton's emails. We'll talk about that. But 2016 was a lot about what Donald Trump was going to do if he became president. It was a lot about the economy. It was about the Obama succession. It was about the Obama legacy. And so this conversation about Russia always felt very, very strange and very bizarre for those of us that were in the campaign. Were around the campaign, I should say. And so John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, has just declassified a series of documents that revealed that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton's purported plan to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as a, quote, means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Eric Metaxas Show.

I want to go back to Pence. I was really genuinely stunned and impressed at his self-control. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it, because you did not get the impression, which the media sometimes wants to give you, is that he's dull, that he's a dud. You could see the fire within. I think many people saw him as incredibly presidential, uh, and thought, my goodness, you could think what you want of Trump, but he picked this guy to replace him if something goes wrong. That's a pretty good pick.

When Trump or Biden are sworn in in January of 2021, uh, they will be the oldest president coming into office for a term. Uh, 74 or 78 will beat the all-time age limits. And so I think particularly because of the discussion about whether or not Biden would even complete a term I think the focus on Kamala Harris being a potential president really put that debate under that kind of spotlight. Would these people make a good president if the, if the top guy goes down? And with Biden's health issues, and certainly with, with the president catching COVID I just think we've seen the humanity and kind of the frailty of the people that can be in that office pretty upfront. So that is a relevant question at this point in time. And there's no question about last night, that Mike Pence had command not only of what he needed to say and what he wanted to get across, but, uh, the kind of had the demeanor to be able to do so.

Okay everyone, I'm Dennis Prager. Steven Moore is an economist with FreedomWorks.org, a free market pro-growth think tank. His video at PragerU released last week has over 6 million views, YouTube and Facebook. Where do you want to live, red state or blue state? So I am going to really trap the guy right now. Are you ready, Stephen Moore? Hi, Dennis. Great to be with you.

By the way, of all the things I've done in my life in 35 years, you know, in terms of video and TV, I don't think I've ever seen anything like this response we've gotten to your, you know, PragerU. And I got a confession to make to you, Dennis, that my wife was the big fan of PragerU. She'd be showing me these videos at night. You got to see this one. You got to see that one. And, and so I'm very excited. I'm very touched by that.

And I want you to know it is clear you married a wonderful woman.

Exactly. And so anyway, it's been really cool. And I now, I mean, I just walk down the street, you know, and, and, you know, I do Fox News now and then, but people say, hey, that's Steve Miller. I love your PragerU video. So people have got to That's right.

Yes, that's exactly right. That's what happens. I walk down the street and people ask me how my dog Otto is. That's because of my fireside chat. It's a very funny life. Anyway, so I said to you, are you prepared for my first question? Do you, Stephen Moore, live in a red or blue state?

Well, I'm from a blue state. I'm from the great state of Illinois. I grew up in the Chicago area. I love Chicago. Is one of the great world-class cities. And what I've seen, Dennis, um, in my lifetime is the destruction of a great city by liberal, uh, leadership. And by the way, the Democrats ran that city for many years under Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley was a good mayor, you know, it was a city that worked. And since then it's just been a destruction of a city that I once loved. But right now And then I moved to Virginia, by the way, and Virginia has been sort of taken over by the left as well. It used to be a red state. Now it's a blue state. Uh, and you got big problems there. And now I have to confess, I live in a blue state, Maryland, and they have restrictions on all the things you can do. You know, you can't go to church, you can't go to the movie theater, you can't go to bars, you can't go to restaurants. Uh, they wanted to even shut down the private schools. So, You know, I can't wait till I have enough money that I could move to Florida or Arizona or Georgia or Tennessee or Texas. You know, Dennis, by the way, my co-author, because I have a book coming out called The Blue State Meltdown, and we're accelerating it because of, you know, the response we've gotten from the PragerU video. But you probably know the story. Arthur Laffer, my co-author, the great economist, he moved from California moved to Tennessee about 4 or 5 years ago, and he saved so much money just in taxes from moving to California to Tennessee. It's what paid for his house.

It's painful because I still live in California. It is painful. I'm here because of the people— so many people I love are here. It's a very serious problem in my life because this state has been ruined. This glorious, incredible state has been ruined by the Democrats on the left. So it's, uh, it's a very painful subject personally for me. Anyway, I was just curious in which, which type of a state you lived. The, uh, the curse is that people leave blue states like California and New York and Illinois, then they move to red states and they, they convert those states into purple. I can't think of a more moronic idea than I left a place because it's being ruined, so now I would like to ruin with the same policies another state. If I were to ask a New Yorker who fled New York, why do you vote Democrat in Florida, a state run by Republicans, and that's why you fled there, what would he say?

You know, I don't get it.

I don't get why people do that. By the way, it is very clear, it's crystal clear, this was one of the most important points of the PragerU video. The people en masse are leaving blue states. Now, to my liberal friends, and this is something of all the arguments we make about the superiority of free markets over, uh, you know, socialism and government regulation, high taxes, it's the one thing Democrats don't have a good response to. If your policies work so well, why are people— why are millions of people leaving California? Why are they leaving New York? Why are they Why are they leaving New Jersey? Why are they leaving Illinois? Why are they leaving Rhode Island and Connecticut? And they don't have a response. I used to debate Paul Krugman. I don't know if you know—

You, wait a minute. I'm actually surprised that he debated anybody because I have put out a big offer to debate people like Paul Krugman. Hold on a minute. I'm very curious to hear about you and Paul Krugman. In the meantime, the video is something you should watch, obviously. Where do you want to live, red state or blue state, Stephen Moore? Reduzone is a very impressive product. I have never advertised any other product that has to do with anything to do with dieting. It's, it's, it is a dieting product, but it really, in my view, at least equally a health product because it has you eat less. Reduzone, developed by doctors, two patents. Is composed of the molecule that your body produces to tell your brain you're full. That's it. The only FDA, uh, OEA product approved. So there's a 30-day guarantee of satisfaction. Doesn't work, you get your money back. But it's very powerful. It's a powerful idea and it works. Use the promo code Dennis to immediately save 30% riduzone, riduzone.com.

Trending now on the Mike Gallagher Show.

You've got the Speaker of the House saying something that is so telling to me. I've had a number of people text and call me and say, this 25th Amendment crap that Pelosi's pulling, this stunt, it isn't for Trump, it's for Biden. And as I think about it and I'm listening to Nancy Pelosi's announcement, which we are just about to play for you, It's coming, I'm told. But this is just moments ago. Nancy Pelosi said, this is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents. Future— you mean like Joe Biden if he wins? You know, 59% of Americans polled by Rasmussen a couple of months ago don't think Joe Biden will complete a 4-year term, right? 59. You know, in that same poll, 49% of Democrats don't think Joe Biden will complete a 4-year term. Is Nancy Pelosi setting up the 25th Amendment to remove Joe Biden so we have President Kamala Harris? You let— you be the judge. You listen to what Nancy Pelosi said moments ago. Announcing a bill on the 25th Amendment. This is not about President Trump.

He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today.

Hi, this is Dennis Prager, and you know we are in a fight for our fundamental freedoms. That's why I am grateful for my friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. They are on the front lines fighting pivotal lawsuits for Americans whose freedoms are threatened, and they do it for free. That's why we're asking you to be as generous as you can by giving today so that Alliance Defending Freedom can continue to fight these lawsuits and be ready when your rights are threatened too. Give your gift now by visiting adflegal.org.

Dennisprager.com/prager.

And thank you for joining the fight for freedom.

Trending now on The Charlie Kirk Show.

In the summer of 2016, right near the Republican convention, out of nowhere, there was chatter that started to surface around President Donald Trump allegedly having connections to Russia.

In fact, All right, everybody, a reminder that there's a great Dinesh D'Souza movie out there, Trump Card, and you can see it now at SalemNow.com. Dinesh D'Souza makes these very powerful films, and this is— might be his most powerful on Trump, on socialism, on what's at stake in America at this time. And it is available, you can watch it immediately at SalemNow.com before it is even released to the public. If you're looking for a DVD, you won't find it at Amazon. They're out of stock. But you can order your DVD today at salemnow.com. Again, that's where Dennis D'Souza's movie Trump Card, uh, is viewable. I'm back to Stephen Moore, whose video at PragerU is viewable, over 6 million views. Where do you want to live, red state or blue state? So do you recall what you were saying?

Well, we were talking about, uh, when, when I debated Paul Krugman. For those who don't know, Paul Krugman, and he's probably the most influential liberal economist in the country, writes twice a week for the New York Times. He has a Nobel Prize in economics, uh, and he's been wrong about everything he said for the last 10 years.

Correct. That's right. He's been wrong about everything.

Yeah. I mean, he was the one, remember Dennis, who said that morning after Donald Trump was elected president, he was asked, when will the economy and the stock market recover? And he said, never. And then 2 hours later, the stock market went up by 700 points. I mean, the guy is not a very good economic prognosticator, but I did debate him. And the reason I brought it up, it's related to what we were talking about, red state, blue state. You know, it was, by the way, he requested, he would not do the debate right before the debate started until all the cameras were removed from the room because CNN was there, C-SPAN was there. He didn't want any of this televised because he was, he doesn't, he didn't want to be held accountable, but some people got some bootleg copies of it. And if you go on YouTube, you can see it. And, you know, with all humility, I mean, I just wiped him out. And on the one issue we talked about, one of them was red state, blue state. And I said, Paul, look, yeah, I don't have a Nobel Prize, you do. But, you know, these states like New York and California and Illinois have done everything you said. They have high taxes, high regulation, high minimum wages, high welfare healthcare benefits, all of this stuff. And I said, but everybody's leaving these states and they're going to the states that do the opposite of what you suggest, like Texas and Florida and Tennessee that have no income tax and don't have super high minimum wages and so on and so forth. So I said, why is that? And you know what he said, Dennis?

I'm dying to know.

He said, it's the weather. It's the weather. So then I—

Wait a minute, people leave California because of the weather?

Exactly. We have the finest weather on planet Earth.

That's the only reason people stay in California.

Exactly. Exactly. It was a very funny moment. And I said that to him. I said, well, you know, that's really interesting, you know, Dr. Krugman, because I said, you know, that might explain why people might move from Michigan to Florida, but why would people move from San Diego to Houston? Nobody moves from San Diego to Houston for the weather. He had no response to that. The weather.

They live in a make-believe world. I am shocked that he agreed to debate you.

What year was this? This was 5 years ago. He was furious after the debate. He has ever since then refused to— they did a poll after the debate was over, and I think I won 80% of the— you know, because our stuff makes sense and his stuff doesn't make sense. Wait, wait, wait, you said he was furious at what?

At having said yes to debating a conservative? He would—

what he does when he gets trapped is he says stuff like, you know, you're an idiot and things like that. He just— he actually said that to you? Oh yeah. He'd say stuff like, you know, and by the way, he has this weird— he's like a stalker. Every other column he writes, he'll mention me and say, that idiot Steve Moore says this or that, you know, and that kind of thing. But that's why— that may explain, Dennis, why you can't get him to debate. I think ever since that debate, he has refused to debate conservatives.

I have said publicly I would give— we would raise $10,000 to $20,000 to have a New York Times columnist to debate me. Or not just me. I would give a whole list of people that I would be happy for them to debate. They don't want to debate. They don't, of course not. Of course not, because they don't have any coherent position. Right.

And then, you know, the problem is that he is really regarded as the guru of the left, and many of his crazy ideas he's endorsed. By the way, this is good.

Forgive me, this is a— it's going to sound a little odd to you, but I have a reason, and I rarely ask about individuals rather than their ideas. Yeah, does he— and, and don't answer what you think I want you to answer. Tell me what you think. I was never with him. Did he strike you as essentially a happy person?

No, that's a great point. He, he is, uh, a little strange, uh, you know, and he's, uh, no, he's, he's glum. He's glum. So here, I'll tell you the difference. Go ahead. This is the difference between us and them. They are not happy people. They are not. You know, it's one of my favorite PragerU videos, and I watch them all now, Dennis, thanks to my wife. Do you know the one about that woman who said why she became a Republican from being a—

the one who went to the Trump rally?

Yes. I mean, I related to that.

It's one of the greatest, one of the greatest things we've ever put out.

Yeah. Our people are nice. That's right. That's right. Welcoming.

That's right.

They are. They are. They are angry. Right. They are not nice people. They aren't. I got assaulted by a Black Lives Matter person a couple weeks ago.

Well, this is— I'll tell you my theory. My listeners know this. I believe that there are happy and unhappy conservatives, happy and unhappy liberals. I don't believe there is one happy leftist.

No, they're angry. They're not. And even— and that's the difference. Even if we lose, and I think we're gonna win on November 3rd, but if We lose, we're not going to become violent, right? That's correct. They become violent. You are really a kindred spirit.

I, I, when is your book coming out?

Uh, so, uh, it's gonna, it's called The Blue State Meltdown by Laffer and Moore, but probably be out in January.

All right. Obviously I'm going to promote it. We'll have you on. Yes. Give a big hug to your wife.

She loves you more than I do.

Trending now on the Eric Metaxas Show.

I have almost nothing to say about last night's debate. It was one of those things where I thought Mike Pence is masterful. The idea that he was able to contain himself and to respond in this measured way no matter what Kamala Harris said, I thought that is seriously amazing to me in these passionate times in which we live. And I was in awe of his self-control. So that's all I'll say.

What do you say? Well, you know, he, he is a born-again Christian. He carries his faith very seriously. And I think that he represents that faith very well when he does things in public. And I thought last night was just an example of that. But there were a couple of things I was looking for, and I wanted to see if they were going to happen. And it took about 15 seconds into the debate for them to come true. One was I wanted to see how long it would take for the coronation to begin. And about 20 minutes into the debate, you already had CNN and MSNBC saying that Kamala was killing it, and she was masterfully in control of the evening, and so forth. And the other thing I wanted to see was, would she be the one of the two that would push the envelope with the emotional side of maybe overreaction? And it only took a few of those side-by-side shots where she's glaring at Pence while he's giving his response to whatever the question was. I mean, it wasn't like a, it wasn't like a gentle but placed smile. It was like, not only did—

female Al Gore of color.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

Who do you think won? I am most happy that Mike Pence got a chance to address the abysmal and offensive lie about what the president said about the horrific events in Charlottesville years ago. Let's begin with cut 17.

He, on the issue of Charlottesville, where people were peacefully protesting the need for racial justice, where a young woman was killed. And on the other side, there were neo-Nazis carrying tiki torches, shouting racial epithets, anti-Semitic slurs. And Donald Trump, when asked about it, said there were fine people on both sides.

You know, I think this is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much in this country, Susan. Is that you selectively edit, just like Senator Harris did, comments that President Trump and I and others on our side of the aisle make. I mean, Senator Harris conveniently omitted, after the president made comments about people on either side of the debate over I will finish the story with Breonna Taylor in the third hour.

Next hour is the male-female hour. I was telling the producer here how I really like Stephen Moore. It is so much fun to have wonderful people in your life. Douglas Murray is another example. I did a Facebook— that'll be out today— Facebook, I mean, fireside chat with him. And you'll love it. You'll just love it. I have all these people calling who've moved from blue states. Oh God, it is, it is so, it is so true. I mean, it's, it's, uh, let's go to, uh, Land of Lakes, uh, Land of Lakes, Florida.

Amy, hi Amy. Hello there, Mr.

Prager, how are you?

Well, thank you.

I am excited to be here, um, in Florida.

And, and because of the weather. Exactly. No, it's not. No, I know that. I know it's a joke. It's a bad joke, the Paul Krugman line. But, uh, where did you— wait, you got to tell us, where did you move from?

From Illinois, from a small town. I grew up there my whole life, 51 years. I worked at a job 31 years, and we shocked our family. We, um, said we had to come here. Now I'm trying to get them all to the warm state. And so you made me a little nervous when I— when you— the New Yorkers and the people. I was taking a walk last week and a lady was behind me and I heard her talking and she was from New York. And, you know, they— she had different views than I did. But I'm hoping we just keep this state going red. My daughter is in 8th grade. She said, Mom, a lot of my friends are Trumpers.

Well, I salute you. You sound so happy. I would do anything to ask these New Yorkers in Florida, these Californians in Arizona, why did you leave the place you grew up in? Most of your family and friends, why did you leave them? I would like to get their answer. And so why, and why would you want to replicate what you left in the new state? Florida works. Third hour, I will report to you 30,000 people in science have come out against lockdowns. My friends, I make an appeal to you. I appeal for very few groups. Alliance Defending Freedom provides free lawyers in freedom cases like religious liberty. Please click on the banner for ADF. It's on my website at DennisPrager.com. Please do it during the break. Thank you.

Trending now on the Mike Gallagher Show.

You've got the Speaker of the House saying something that is so telling to me. I've had a number of people text and call me and say, this 25th Amendment crap that Pelosi's pulling, this stunt, it isn't for Trump, it's for Biden. And as I think about it and I'm listening to Nancy Pelosi's announcement, which we are just about to play for you, It's coming, I'm told. But this is just moments ago. Nancy Pelosi said, this is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents. Future— you mean like Joe Biden if he wins? You know, 59% of Americans polled by Rasmussen a couple of months ago don't think Joe Biden will complete a 4-year term, right? 59. You know, in that same poll, 49% of Democrats don't think Joe Biden will complete a 4-year term. Is Nancy Pelosi setting up the 25th Amendment to remove Joe Biden so we have President Kamala Harris? You be the judge. You listen to what Nancy Pelosi said moments ago, announcing a bill on the 25th Amendment.

This is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters, but he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents. Keep up with what's trending.

Subscribe on YouTube today.

Hi, this is Dennis Prager, and you know we are in a fight for our fundamental freedoms. That's why I am grateful for my friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. They are on the front lines fighting pivotal lawsuits for Americans whose freedoms are threatened, and they do it for free. That's why we're asking you to be as generous as you can by giving today so that Alliance Defending Freedom can We will continue to fight these lawsuits and be ready when your rights are threatened too. Give your gift now by visiting adflegal.org/prager, and thank you for joining the fight for freedom.

Turning now to the Charlie Kirk Show.

In the summer of 2016, right near the Republican convention, out of nowhere, there was chatter that started to surface around President Donald Trump allegedly having connections to Russia. In fact, we can go back and we find television clips of Hillary Clinton campaign surrogates starting to talk about Donald Trump is bought and paid for by Russia, or there is meaningful collusion happening on behalf of the Trump campaign in Russia. Always very bizarre. It was always so incongruent with the entire election because there were such bigger issues happening in 2016. Go back into 2016. Russia was not at the forefront of any sort of geopolitical conversations. People were mostly focused on Hillary Clinton's campaign or Hillary Clinton's emails. We'll talk about that. But 2016 was a lot about what Donald Trump was going to do if he became president. It was a lot about the economy. It was about the Obama succession. It was about the Obama legacy. And so this conversation about Russia always felt very, very strange and very bizarre for those of us that were in the campaign, were around the campaign, I should say. And so John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, has just declassified a series of documents that revealed that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton's purported plan to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as a, quote, means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Eric Metaxas Show.

I, I want to go back to Pence. I was really genuinely stunned and impressed at his self-control. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it because you did not get the impression which the media sometimes wants to give you, is that he's dull, that he's a dud. You could see the fire within. I think many people saw him as incredibly presidential, uh, and thought, my goodness, you could think what you want of Trump, but he picked this guy to replace him if something goes wrong. That's a pretty good pick.

When Trump or Biden are sworn in in January of 2021, uh, they will be the oldest president coming into office for a term. 74 or 78 will beat the all-time age limits. And so I think particularly because of the discussion about whether or not Biden would even complete a term, I think the focus on Kamala Harris being a potential president really put that debate under that kind of spotlight. Would these people make a good president if the, if the top guy goes down? And with Biden's health issues, and certainly with, with the president catching COVID I just think we've seen the humanity and kind of the frailty of the people that can be in that office pretty upfront. So that is a relevant question at this point in time. And there's no question about last night that Mike Pence had command not only of what he needed to say and what he wanted to get across, but the kind of have the demeanor to be able to do so in a way that would be appealing and understandable by the majority, mass majority of Americans.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today.

This is Michael Medved at michaelmedved.com for Town Hall. The appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court counts as a masterstroke and easily one of the best decisions of Donald Trump's presidency. In an election season when liberals and media try to characterize conservatives as old, angry, bigoted, extreme, and lacking in empathy. Judge Barrett displays the opposite characteristics. At age 48, she's youthful, a genial consensus builder, and mother of 7, including a special needs child and 2 adopted kids from Haiti. On a court dominated for decades by Yale and Harvard graduates, she's a breath This is the Male Female Hour.

The reason it is the Male Female Hour is it is the second hour of my show on Wednesday. Why, uh, you're good. He's fast. He has a fast mind, Sean. I like fast minds. They're fun to deal with. Uh, when I said it, I realized it's true and not true. That is, the re— the reason it is the male-female hour is because it's the second hour on Wednesday. Second hour on Wednesday is the male-female hour. However, There are other reasons, but I won't delay. This is, I believe, the most honest talk about men and women in the American media at this time. Part of the reason is I am very open on these matters. Another reason is I am not a male fan or a female fan, which is an interesting subject unto itself. Are people fans of either sex? It's an interesting question, right? No, well, I remember— I don't know if you were producer then, this is how far back it goes— I interviewed a man who wrote a book, a professor, The Superiority of Women. He was one of the nicest persons I ever interviewed. And he had among the stupidest arguments that I have ever encountered in an interview. And all I did, I remember my mindset: Dennis, be as nice as possible to this man. Do not embarrass him despite the fact that his arguments are ridiculous. And they were— they— I don't even— I don't remember what they were, but they were ridiculous. The superiority of women. Here's a very interesting question: is there a part of men that think men are superior, and is there a part of women that think women are superior? You like that? Yeah, I think we should do that. I don't, I never ever thought women were inherently superior. Never, there wasn't a 5-minute period under attempted hypnosis that never occurred to me. As regards men, did I ever think that all things being equal, men were superior? I might have. I think I would have had a period like that. But what has enabled me— I mean, I haven't thought that in quite some time. What I do, however, what, what chastened me was meeting spectacular women, too many spectacular women, and too many loser men to make any generalization. It's as simple as that. I do believe men are inherently superior in certain areas and women are inherently superior in others. That I do believe. So today's subject is, do you believe either sex is? Did you ever believe? And do you think that people are inclined to believe their sex is superior? You know, deep, deep, deep down, do they think that? I think a lot of women think women are superior. I think a lot of men think men are superior. And, uh, it's, it's, for me personally, it is— life has simply, uh, made me aware that a generalization— and I love generalizations, so I just want to make that clear— but I don't think a generalization is possible. I do believe that there are superior elements to each, which is why I believe God made men and women. I think that at our best, we can do for the other and for humanity, when joined together, the superiority or the natural superiority of women and the natural superiority of men combined would be a good thing. You know, you know, one of— I'll give you an example of where, uh, what I'm thinking. I have done during the lockdown the greatest mistake in history, and I have even more support now. 30,000 scientists have signed a petition saying the lockdowns were useless. What I was mocked for 4 months ago is now becoming the norm. Uh, it is a disgrace. It, uh, it should give you immediate contempt for experts in, uh, in giving advice. But, uh, that— we'll talk about that another time. But during the lockdown, I discussed the question, which one of you If you're a couple, male-female couple, which one of you is more scared of COVID And it really turned out 50-50. You would think, you know, the, the instinctive reaction would be the, the women were more afraid, but it's not true. Sometimes it's the woman, sometimes it is the man. So, uh, the, the generalizations— there are generalizations to be made about the sexes, just not on the superiority. I think that, uh, you know, when, when I think of all the women, for example, taking care of their, uh, older parents Now obviously the man, if she's married, the man is involved too, so he's got to get credit. But a lot of the work often falls on the middle-aged daughter. That's a huge compliment to women. When I think of the men who lead wars against evil, a huge compliment to men. If so, men can learn the attention to individuals from women, and women can learn how to vote from men. And the reason I say that is men think macro more clearly. Women think micro more clearly. It's a generalization. There are exceptions, obviously. If you apply your compassionate nature to politics, you will vote wrong. The purpose of politics is to produce a better society and to live by certain principles. See, the moment compassion is the governing agent of your voting, you will vote for bigger government. Because then, oh look, the government can do more for people. But bigger government is a moral problem. 1-8-Prager-776. Did you ever think, do you think that either sex is superior? And do you think that as a general rule, women think women are and men think men are? Again, my position is that in certain areas, each has an individual superiority, but neither sex is superior. There are too many terrific— that's what did it for me. All right, 1-800-PRAEGER, 776-877-243-7776. Kim in the Mawa, New Jersey.

Hi. Hi. Hi there. Pleasure to speak to you once again. I've spoken to you a few times and I always enjoy it, and I enjoy listening listening to you, so thank you very much. Thank you. I'm with you on this. I have never thought that one sex was more superior over— or superior over the other. I think that people who are insecure may believe those things. And I think—

hold on, hold on, I want you to finish your thought. I just got to take a break. She's cheerful.

I like that.

Trending now on the Eric Metaxas Show.

But last night, I, I'm going into it, I, I've known Mike Pence for 30 years. I, I knew he was going to be the polished gentleman that he always is, a consistent Christian, very capable of keeping his testimony intact when he's in front of people. And I was waiting to see if the Kamala from about the third or fourth primary debate— remember where she was just like hacking at Joe Biden and she was just out of control? We didn't get that Kamala Harris last night, but the one we did get was someone who still obviously gets very angry about things and can't keep that from expressing it on her face. And all you had to do was read some of the Twitter activity during the debate. Megyn Kelly calling her out on, you know, she's like, even if you feel it, don't wear it on your face, lady.

I try to filter out my own biases. I tried to be aware of my own biases. And I'm thinking, do I not like her just because I don't like her positions? Do I not like her, you know, but there does seem to be something cloying and annoying about the way she comes across.

On the optics alone, and all you have to do is just look at the average number of polls that are being done by individual news stations that carried the debate and so forth last night, all across Twitter, I have not seen a poll come in from an independent journalism outlet or think tank group that has not said that Pence won in a landslide last night. And I don't think that that was purely on policy because I think a lot of those places don't agree with Mike Pence on policy. I think that is a reflection of how she comes across personality-wise.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today.

This is Owen Strand for townhall.com. If you're on a college campus today or have a child on campus, there's a solid chance you'll hear this: "All white people are racist." You might hear this too: "America is founded on white supremacy." These two sentences are not mere overheated emotion. They express an ideology called Critical Race Theory, or CRT, which argues that race is a social construct made by white people. Just as race was once used to enslave and terrorize, so it is used today to keep America unequal, unfair, and hostile to minorities. The Trump administration just took symbolic and courageous action against CRT. It issued a memo to federal agencies calling for the end of the government's CRT racial sensitivity trainings, terming them divisive anti-American propaganda. Does America have real issues in its past? Yes. Have we made real progress that we must guard carefully? Also yes. The White House has led well here. I'm Owen Strickland.

The Pepperdine Graduate School of Public Policy. Impacting policy decisions today, preparing public leaders for tomorrow. Trending now on the Mike Gallagher Show.

And politically speaking, you got a Democrat candidate who's got a plan to pack the Supreme Court with 4 liberal justices because they can't accept the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing is going to lead to a 6-3 conservative majority. And they don't know what to do about it. So all they can do is say, well, we'll change the rules. We gotta win. And then we're gonna pack the court. Biden doubled down yesterday on refusing to answer the question.

They'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over. Now look, I know it's a great question for y'all, and I don't blame you for asking, but you know, the moment I answer that question, the headlines Every line in every one of your papers will be about that, other than, other than focusing on what's happening now. The election has begun. There's never been a court appointment once an election begun, but 4 million or so people have already voted.

Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here. I violated a basic rule of this program behind the scenes. I joked about something about the show. We, we, we have a rule, the three of us. Well, Alan doesn't joke about anything, so the rule doesn't apply to him, or it's irrelevant to him. But Sean and I, who joke about everything, uh, including death, uh, uh, we do have that rule, and I violated it. The question on the table for the male-female hour is, do you believe either sex is superior? And I just want to remind you before I go on that there is a way to get unlimited talk, unlimited text, 2 gigabytes of data in your— on your phone plan. It's so, it's so inexpensive, it's $20 a month, that I actually got a phone and went on their line system to make sure I could advertise it It's terrific. It's the same as my own, more expensive one. That's pure talk. Pound 250, say Dennis Prager. Pound 250, Dennis Prager. Back to Mahwah, New Jersey, and Kim. Alrighty, hi.

Hi. So I was saying that I think a lot of the questions that you ask, the answers to a lot of the questions that you ask, always seem to boil down to secure with oneself.

Hmm. A lot of them do. I don't know. You think the insecure woman would think women are superior, or the insecure man would think men are superior?

Yes, because they need to, or they think that they're proving something. They have to flaunt something. And I think that that's a sign of insecurity.

I have to give it some thought. I never asked, which I do usually, oddly enough, I never asked why does one think this way? I think it sort of comes, I have a slightly more charitable view that it sort of comes with the territory. That women will think that way perhaps, or men will think their way. I'll tell you this, this is gonna sound utterly sexist, but it doesn't matter to me 'cause I care about truth and not satisfying the left. But I think I admire a woman, I don't believe either sex is superior, but I think I admire a woman who thinks men are superior more than I admire a man who thinks women are superior.

Oh, I can understand that. I just— I think that men are superior in certain ways, and in a way that I would like a man to be superior, um, coming from a woman. Um, and I think that women are superior in other ways that men are not, the same as you believe. Um, so there are certain ways that I would like a man to be superior, and that's why I am attracted to men.

Um, because those are the things that I would like, would like to tell you how true that is. But, and how interesting though it might be, the reverse is not as true. I think that, um, women are attracted— is a very big element in what makes a man attractive to women is self-confidence. Is that correct? Yes. But I don't think it's equally the same the other way. Correct, because that sometimes is found to be, um, unfeminine.

Um, right.

Okay. Yes.

So women, but women have a way, women have a way of being able to be self-confident, but also not overbearing.

Right. But not in a masculine way.

It's overbearing in a masculine way. That's what it sounds like. But that's, yeah.

Yeah. All right. So I hope I see you one day.

I would love to see you one day.

I'm looking for you to come, you know, actually I'm moving down to South Carolina. I'm getting out of the Northeast. Um, so I'm going to keep looking to see whenever you're around and I'm going to try to get there and I will say hi.

You remind me exactly from Mauá to South Carolina. It's exactly what we were just discussing last hour. The movement of people from blue states to red states. She is going to be so much happier in South Carolina. Her first question to herself will be, why did I wait so long? That's it. That's, that's what she will think. I have a big affection for South Carolina. All right, let's see here. This is very interesting that, uh, one— let me see, we have 8 lines. One 2, 3, 4, 5 are males. Interesting. I don't know if it's interesting. I find it interesting, but it may not be suggestive. Okay, everybody, and a number of you are calling in to say we complement one another. That's my theory exactly. So if I don't take you, please understand that's my basic thesis. That there are superior, just as she said, there are superior traits in each direction. I would be very interested to ask this question of college students. What do you think college students would answer on an anonymous survey? That all equal, no one is superior? I, I, you might be right. I don't know. I could just as easily see this feminized generation, both sexes answering women. But I'll tell you this, you, I don't, I think as well, I remember I said this just now, I think that a woman would be happier with a man who thinks men are superior than with a man who thought women were superior, and a man would be happier with a woman who thought men were superior than who thought women were superior. And you will not hear that anywhere else because truth by definition is politically incorrect. The left is, is its, its attitude to truth is fear. It's a very interesting thing. All righty, everybody, let's go here. Uh, Dan in Chino Hills, California. Hello.

Good morning.

Hi. I would agree that theater is inherently superior. I'm sorry, neither. Is that what you said?

Neither. I would say neither is inherently superior. It were, you know, like you said earlier, that we complement one another.

However, I think, um, it's easier for a male, especially if he's got any insecurities, to be emasculated by women, by a woman, rather You know, a woman, unless she's, you know, willing to put up with abuse, um, you know, I think that's an extreme, but I think more men are prone to being emasculated and, and put up with it than—

well, well, got a lot to say on that. Back in a moment.

Trending now on America First with Sebastian Burka.

Just a few minutes ago, let's remind everybody, so there's the Hunter Biden scandal, Ukraine. Hunter Biden's primary business partner, both at Burisma Brisma, the Ukrainian company, on many other things including the China things, is a guy named Devin Archer. And back in 2018, there was—

Kerry was involved as well. Kerry's stepson, uh, they were—

that was a third partner on some of the business. We're like Rosemont Seneca, right? Uh, his name was Christopher Hines. He didn't have anything to do with Brisma. Okay. Uh, but he did have to do with some of the other ones. But tell us about this other partner. Devin Archer, uh, was the primary driving force on almost all of Hunter's big deals— the China deals, the Brisma deal. The Kazakhstan deal, the Russia deal about the Russian oligarch, the one that Joe Biden claimed wasn't true, but it is.

You mean the $3.5 million?

And you know what it is? It's more than $3.5 million according to the documents the FBI obtained in Devin Archer's criminal case, which we're going to talk about. It was $200 million that came in for Yelena Baturina. Well, she's a billionaire. She is. So $200 million is, you know, a little bit of money. Yeah. And, and the FBI has known that. So it's that case. Devon Archer in 2018 was convicted of fraud in a case up in New York. And then mysteriously, a few months after the jury verdict, the judge set aside only his verdict. The other men in the case were continued to be viewed as guilty. Only Devon Archer. Only Devon Archer was excised from the case and freed and the guilty verdict overturned. The Justice Department appealed. The wheels of justice turn slow, but at 4 o'clock, just a few minutes ago, the Second District Court of Appeals in New York reinstated the guilty plea, saying the judge had no right to come up with their own theory of the case and throw out Devin Archer's conviction.

So the prosecution say the judge can't just throw out a guilty verdict.

Exactly. And more importantly, because I think this has some application to the Mike Flynn case, yes, the judge was scolded for developing their own theory of the case.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Mike Gallagher Show.

You've got the Speaker of the House saying something that is so telling to me. I've had a number of people text and call me and say, this 25th Amendment crap that Pelosi's pulling this stunt, it isn't for Trump, it's for Biden. And as I think about it and I'm listening to Nancy Pelosi's announcement, which we are just about to play for you, it's coming, I'm told, but this is just moments ago. Nancy Pelosi said, this is not about President Trump. He will face the judgment of the voters. But he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents. Future— you mean like Joe Biden if he wins? You know, 59% of Americans polled by Rasmussen a couple of months ago don't think Joe Biden will complete a 4-year term, right? 59. You know, in that same poll, 49% of Democrats don't think Joe Biden will complete a 4-year term. Is Nancy Pelosi setting up the 25th Amendment to remove Joe Biden so we have President Kamala Harris? You let— you be the judge. You listen to what Nancy Pelosi said moments ago, announcing a bill on the 25th Amendment. This is not about President Trump.

He will face the judgment of the voters. But he shows the need for us to create a process for future presidents.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today.

Hi, this is Dennis Prager, and you know we are in a fight for our fundamental freedoms. That's why I am grateful for my friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. They are on the front lines lines fighting pivotal lawsuits for Americans whose freedoms are threatened, and they do it for free. Yes indeed, y'all. Dennis Prager here. And a reminder to click on the ADF banner, please. I make requests for funding very few groups. I'm very strict about asking you for money, but they are the group, the primary group in America to supply free lawyers in religious freedom and other freedom cases. The Alliance Defending Freedom, the banner is at DennisPrager.com. Just click on the banner. This is a classic example of you will be happier after you do it than before you do it. The banner is at my website. Male-female hour is either sex superior and related issues. Last week I discussed feminization of men, so I won't proceed further on the last call. And let's, uh, let's continue here. Uh, Martin in Phoenix, hello.

Hello. Hi, how are you doing? Good morning. Okay, um, I think a lot of people believe that, uh, the female is more superior because I think of that misnomer that, um, women mature faster than men. And I'm thinking a couple of cues from a couple of PragerU videos that I had saw that— because, you know, if you assume that's true, then the children mature faster, then obviously there would be more superior, assuming that it would be true. But I kind of liken maturity to like a tree where the men are the wood and the women are the flowers and the leaves. And as you grow, you know, in the maturity level, you have certain milestones you have to hit first, like leaves and flowers need to know how to hit that milestone of receiving sunlight. And wood would have to hit that milestone first of receiving water, for example, for roots and whatnot. So, but then the flower might look at the wood and say, you know, you're less mature than me because you don't know how to receive sunlight. And I do.

And you just gotta wait for the right time. So, uh, so heading away from the metaphor, you, you don't believe women mature faster than men?

No, I think that's men and women have different purposes into their design. And no, no, that's a separate issue.

We all believe— well, nearly all of us believe that. I certainly do. But on the maturity, uh, issue, uh, I think that, um, I, I don't know. I don't know if it's true today. I think it was true for, for much of history that an 18-year-old girl was more mature, generally speaking, than an 18-year-old boy, or at least, uh, acted that way. I don't think about this, the subject much, but, uh, I think that, uh, there is some truth to it, but it has nothing to do with superiority. But his argument might be that's why people might argue for female superiority. And let me put it to you this way, uh, this will sound sexist And again, fine. The issue is not whether it's sexist, it's whether it's true. The left ceased asking, is something true, and started asking, is it something pejorative? So it's like saying tall men play basketball better. Is that heightist? Is that an anti-shorter-man statement of bigotry, or is it true? Anyway, I would prefer to live in a society which thought men were superior than a society that thought women were superior. However, I don't believe either sex is superior. But I am saying if I had to live in one or the other, That's the, that's the one I would prefer. That's, uh, oh God. We're, uh, okay. Uh, let's go to, um, Gary in Columbus, Ohio. Hello.

Hey Dennis, uh, great to talk to you. Like, I think when you were restating something, you restated it in incorrectly. You know, women are not— don't want to go out with a man who thinks men are superior, and a man doesn't want to go out with a woman that thinks women are— that thinks men are superior. That— I just don't believe that.

Well, that is incredibly fair. What I said was, I think that men— women were— we have a break here. Uh, I, I will tell you exactly what I believe I said. If I didn't say it correctly, then I'm glad I have to say it again. I think that, uh, all right, I'll tell you when we come back. Relief Factor is a very important supplement because it relieves pain. It's an extremely effective supplement. A father and son developed this, the Talbots. And you can go to relieffactor.com and read about the almost miraculous curing of joint pain and other muscle pain. It does not, not touch nerve pain, nothing that I know of, at least non-prescriptive does. Try it out for 3 weeks. You'll know in 3 weeks if it works for $19.95 plus shipping. relieffactor.com. Or 800-500-8384.

Turning now to the Charlie Kirk Show.

—day of celebration and jubilation has turned into a news cycle of condemnation and of a media circus unlike anything I've seen in recent memory. At times, I believe that the laws of nature and just basic Newtonian physics don't apply to the members of the activist media. So the president was discharged from the hospital, flies back on Marine One, comes back to the White House triumphantly, should be a symbol of conquering and of victory, should be a moment that should be kind of just a post-political moment. But instead of just trying to take a couple hours off and a couple days off, the activist media leans in more than ever before to try and attack the president for not properly wearing his mask or not being completely forthright with everything around the Chinese coronavirus. In fact, some members of the media— Mika Brzezinski, see, she suggested manslaughter. Let's go to cut 7.

But I'm just wondering, he's pushing all of this against the advice of the professional professionals in his government against the advice of scientists. At some, some point, isn't this manslaughter? I mean, if you purposefully put people in a position where you send a deadly virus their way, purposefully send a deadly virus their way.

CNN also had a very aggressive take on it after The president got back to the White House being discharged from the hospital, Walter Reed. President Trump was under attack by CNN reporters trying to shame him for taking off his mask at home, getting good care, and giving hope to the nation.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Eric Metaxas Show.

I have almost nothing to say about last night's debate. It was one of those things where I thought Mike Pence is masterful. The idea that he was able to contain himself and to respond in this measured way no matter what Kamala Harris said, I thought that is seriously amazing to me in these passionate times in which we live. And I was in awe of his self-control. So that's all I'll say. What do you say?

Well, you know, he, um, he is a born-again Christian. He carries his faith very seriously, and I think that he represents that faith very well when he does things in public. And I thought last night was just an example of that. But there were a couple of things I was looking for, and I wanted to see if they were going to happen, and it took about 15 seconds into the debate for them to come true. Uh, one was I wanted to see how long it would take for the And I'd like to explain what I did say for the last caller.

It's the male-female hour, second hour Wednesdays, and it's, do you think either sex is superior? What I did say was I think that I prefer, and I think women would prefer, If I believe the sex— neither sex is superior. However, I, I believe that women would rather be with a man who thought men were superior than who thought women were superior. And men would prefer to be with a woman who thought men were superior than women were superior. Okay, so is that— now, if you're still there, Gary in Columbus, is it clear now?

Yeah, it's clear, and I think that's ridiculous. I think that men don't want to be with a woman that thinks men are superior. I don't believe that.

Okay, I think I would rather be with a woman who thought that men were superior to being with a woman who thought women were superior. I don't think either is. Well, that's true. Well, that's what I said, so it's not ridiculous. You didn't react to what I said. Okay, you have no idea.

I get you. I get you.

All right, so if you get me, then that's the point. That's it. That's all there is to say. But it isn't insignificant, and it's certainly not ridiculous. It is part of the male-female difference that exists. There's no doubt in my mind there are women who would prefer to be with a man who thought women were superior. That is not my kind of woman, and that is not my kind of man. But okay, if it works, it's fine with me. Okay, very nice. Dana in Naples, Florida. Hello, Dana. Hi. Hi, how are you? I'm well, thank you.

Great. So actually, I, I really think that this question is very polarizing. I believe that each person, male or female, has elements of masculinity, femininity, that we look for the person who will balance us. And then I want to go even further and actually say that this question reminds me of what's wrong with our country right now, which is if you take the party, if you take the, the red party as the masculine party and the Democratic Party as the feminine, then we're looking at each other as possibly superior. It's why we are not talking to each other and having actually good conversation and recognizing that each party has something to say, has something to offer the other in the country. I think so. I kind of have an issue with the question.

I'm sure you do, and I am very happy that you called. First, the reason that we don't talk to each other is entirely the, the problem of the, the blue party. They don't talk to us, they don't hear us, they don't study under us, they don't read us, they don't watch us. We hear them, study under them, They don't want to talk to us. They want to smear us.

But listen, I am a blue person and I am listening and I'm talking and I really, really want to be a part of that.

That's right, and you're good. And I am doubly grateful for your calling in light of that. But if you wish to see the roots of the problem, we are not— the red do not suppress the blue from speaking. All suppression of speech in this country is blue of red?

Well, I think that it does go both ways.

Give me an example. Give me one example of conservatives suppressing liberal speech.

Well, you know, it's really interesting because I've just started to listen to— so to be honest with you, I can't I can't speak clearly to that because I don't know the breadth of it. And I'm stepping a toe in the water because I'm tired of the polarization. And I'm, you know, I'm grateful that you gave me a voice and that you're listening to what I, you know, what I want to say. And, you know, I appreciate your honesty and the candor with which you asked the question. And I've been, you know, really interested in what your callers had to say. And I just, you know, So given this platform, I really, really appreciate it.

All right, well, I appreciate you. You're a rare specimen on the left. You're a liberal, you're not a leftist. And I appreciate liberals, as I've often noted, and the distinction is huge. The very fact that you would listen and call are examples. As regards red and blue and the governance, the masculine, I said the masculine masculine superiority lies in the macro and the feminine superiority lies in the micro. So I'd rather be governed by masculine values than feminine values. Cuomo is the perfect example of a feminized politician. I will destroy all the livelihoods in New York City if I have to just to save one life. That's a feminine idea. It's not an insult to women because many women have very rational thought, more than Cuomo. But if your entire object is to save one life, that's a feminized policy. The masculine mind asks, what is the price of saving one life? You save one life if you lower the speed limits. But we don't lower the speed limits and we allow more people to die. We often raise speed limits and no more people will die because you don't only make policy based on compassion. That's how you lead your individual life, but it's not how you should lead your, uh, the public life. And it's, by the way, it's not even good policy in raising children if you, if you're a dominant attitude toward your child is compassion, you are not— you're not going to raise a good child. That's why we— yes, we do need each other. That's, that's my theory. But I thought it was important that she noted about talking to each other. We're dying to talk to them. They want us to disappear. We will be back. This is the Male-Female Hour on the Dennis Prager Show, every Wednesday second hour. You want to hear all of them that I've ever done? Go to pragertopia.com.

This is Michael Medved at michaelmedved.com for Town Praeger on Town Hall. The appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court counts as a masterstroke and easily one of the best decisions of Donald Trump's presidency. In an election season when liberals and media try to characterize conservatives as old, angry, bigoted, extreme, and lacking in empathy, Judge Barrett displays the opposite characteristics. At age 48, she's youthful, a genial consensus builder, and mother of 7, including a special needs child and two adopted kids from Haiti. On a court dominated for decades by Yale and Harvard graduates, she's a breath of Midwestern fresh air, beloved by her students at Notre Dame. Most importantly, she'll give new life to the originalist thinking of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, in stressing what the Constitution actually says, not what judges want it to say. As Americans have been losing faith in public institutions, Judge Barrett can help to restore their confidence. Confidence. I'm Michael Medved.

The Pepperdine Graduate School of Public Policy, impacting policy decisions today, preparing public leaders for tomorrow. Trending now on the Larry Elder Show.

My guest is Senator Ted Cruz. Senator, people are clueless about the real meaning of Citizens United. Can you explain to people what that rule what this ruling really means, and why is the left so afraid of it? Yeah, I can.

It's a hugely important question. The chapter on free speech in the book talks all about Citizens United. Most people have heard of it, but they don't know what it is, and they know Democrats hate it, right? What it was about is our right to criticize politicians. And in this instance, a nonprofit group in D.C. called Citizens United made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, and the Obama Justice Department took the position that the government could fine them, could punish them for daring to criticize Hillary Clinton. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The most chilling moment was an oral argument when Justice Sam Alito asked the Obama Justice Department, under your theory of the case, could the federal government ban books? And the Obama Justice Department said, yes, yes, we can ban books Never mind what the First Amendment says, but we can— they criticize a politician. Now, thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected that by a vote of 5 to 4, or 4 justices willing to say the government can censor movies, can censor books, can ban books if they criticize politicians. We're one vote away from our free speech rights being taken away. Senator, who wins on November 3rd? I genuinely don't know. The hard left's gonna show up in massive numbers. If everybody else shows up, if people turn out, we could have a great election. The president could get reelected and we could retake the House and hold the Senate.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

I know you don't do politics, but on the vice presidential debate on Tuesday night, Kamala Harris spoke wistfully of the Iran deal. Joe Biden wants to get back—

Hi everyone, you're listening to The Dennis Prager Show, Wednesday, the second hour. And if you don't, if you don't get to hear all 3 hours of my show, not every station I'm on carries all 3 hours. Many carry 2, many carry all 3. So that's one reason to subscribe to Prager Utopia. Get every hour you want, anytime you want, and no commercials. That's all at pragertopia.com. You can also hear every show I've ever done, or at least for 20 years or 10 years, whatever it is, at Prager Utopia Unlimited. It's— but Prager Utopia, check it out. Men or women superior, and what do you think? I think they're— they are, uh, equal. There are great men and great women and lousy men and lousy women. But I still had some, I guess, semi-controversial thoughts in saying what I would prefer. I, I would prefer— I would prefer what If a woman— I'm totally happy when a woman thinks they're both equal because I do, but if I would prefer a woman who thought men were superior to one who thought women were superior. And anyway, it's something— it's a fun subject to, to talk to your significant other with, or about, I should say. Let's see. So let me summarize your comments here. Dave in Sacramento: It's not about superiority, it's about who can be more rational. That's a sneaky way of saying men are superior. That's my read of that call. There is nothing as sexy to me as a rational woman. I don't think I've never actually said that. Isn't that funny? And I mean sexy. When a woman is committed to reason. By the way, I think it's a very sexy thing in men too. An irrational man is not, Well, is completely undesirable. But I just wanted to— that would be a great bumper sticker. Rational women are sexy. But of course it would be considered sexist, right? So fine, rational men are sexy too. That's okay with me. Because we live in the age of anti-reason. That's the scariest part of the time in which we live. If you say men do not menstruate, you are considered evil. That's not rational. I'm Dennis Prager. We continue.

Trending now on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

We have great news as we begin this segment. Gilead Sciences, a US company, has just announced that remdesivir, it will be available to any hospitalized patient in the US, and they expect to be able to satisfy global demand by the end of October. So the United States is leading the way, Mr. Secretary, on this pandemic?

So we've, we've been working on multiple fronts to make sure that the entire world has access, and importantly, the American people have access to the world's best healthcare. Uh, President has authorized enormous investments in multiple vaccine efforts, therapeutics all along the way. It's good work. We're starting to see the results of that, and absolutely in record time. No, no one believed this could happen, and we're now seeing the fruits of all this good work that the president directed many, many months ago.

Now, at the same time that the U.S. is leading internationally and nationally the antivirus response, the image of China according to Pew Research has plummeted. A new 14-country Pew Research Center survey shows that a majority in each of the surveyed countries has an unfavorable opinion of China. Do you believe, Mr. Secretary, that the world has the number of the Chinese Communist Party. They were responsible for this nightmare. They hid it, they covered it up, they still cover it up.

The tide has turned in terms of what the world has now actually had the chance to see. They've seen the facts and the data. They've seen that the Chinese Communist Party had the one opportunity to be candid, be clear, be transparent, to put this virus in a place where the whole world could attack it simultaneously. Instead, you— I think we've talked about this before, right? They disappeared journalists. They hid doctors who knew the truth. They covered up. They allowed people to transit out of Wuhan when they knew better. These are the kind of things that authoritarian regimes do.

The whole world can now see it.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Turning now to the Charlie Kirk Show.

—day of celebration and jubilation has turned into a news cycle of condemnation and of a media circus unlike anything I have seen in recent memory. At times, I believe that the laws of nature and just basic Newtonian physics don't apply to the members of the activist media. So the president was discharged from the hospital, flies back on Marine One, comes back to the White House triumphantly, should be a symbol of conquering and of victory, should be a moment that should be kind of just a post-political moment. But instead of just trying to take a couple hours off and a couple days off, the activist media leans in more than ever before to try and attack the president for not properly wearing his mask or not being completely forthright with everything around the Chinese coronavirus. In fact, some members of the media— Mika Brzezinski, see, she suggested manslaughter. Let's go to cut 7.

But I'm just wondering, he's pushing all of this against the advice of the professional in his government against the advice of scientists. At some, some point, isn't this manslaughter? I mean, if you purposefully put people in a position where you send a deadly virus their way, purposefully send a deadly virus their way.

CNN also had a very aggressive take on it after The president got back to the White House being discharged from the hospital, Walter Reed. President Trump was under attack by CNN reporters trying to shame him for taking off his mask at home, getting good care and giving hope to the nation.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Eric Metaxas Show.

I have almost nothing to say about last night's debate. It was one of those things where I thought Mike Pence is masterful. The idea that he was able to contain himself and to respond in this measured way no matter what Kamala Harris said, I thought that is seriously amazing to me in these passionate times in which we live. And I was in awe of his self-control. So that's all I'll say. What do you say?

Well, you know, he is a born-again Christian. He carries his faith very seriously, and I think that he represents that faith very well when he does things in public. And I thought last night was just an example of that. But there were a couple of things I was looking for, and I wanted to see if they were going to happen, and it took about 15 seconds into the debate for them to come true. One was I wanted to see how long it would take for the coronation to begin And about 20 minutes into the debate, you already had CNN and MSNBC saying that Kamala was killing it, and she was masterfully in control of the evening, and so forth. And the other thing I wanted to see was, would she be the one of the two that would push the envelope with the emotional side of maybe overreaction? And it only took a few of those side-by-side shots where she's glaring at Pence while he's giving his response to whatever the question was. I mean, it wasn't like a, it wasn't like a gentle but placed smile.

It was like, not only did Al Gore of color—

keep up with what's trending, subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

Who do you think won? I am most happy that Mike Pence got a chance to address the abysmal and offensive lie about what the president said about the horrific events in Charlottesville years ago. Let's begin with cut 17.

He, on the issue of Charlottesville, where people were peacefully protesting the need for racial justice, where a young woman was killed. And on the other side, there were neo-Nazis carrying tiki torches, shouting racial epithets, anti-Semitic slurs. And Donald Trump, when asked about it, said there were fine people on both sides.

You know, I think this is one of the things that makes people dislike the media so much. In this country, Susan, is that you selectively edit, just like Senator Harris did, comments that President Trump and I and others on our side of the aisle make. I mean, Senator Harris conveniently omitted, after the president made comments about people on either side of the debate over monuments, he condemned the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists, and has done so All right, my friends, I'm Dennis Prager.

One of the most serious subjects of our time, and we have a lot of serious subjects in our time, is the belief by a very substantial part of America that we may be set up for a lot of cheating in American elections. This is a very painful subject. It's the subject of a PragerU video. Is it this week's video? Yep. How to Steal an Election: Mail-in Balloting. And it is delivered by Eric Eggers, investigative reporter for the Government Accountability Institute. So I got a lot of questions for you, and welcome to my show, Eric. Thank you, Dennis.

It's great to be here as always.

Thank you. Are there any Republican-controlled states that are doing this on non-requested mass mailing of ballots?

Uh, not at the state level. That I'm aware of. There have been Republicans that have advocated for it, you know, I think based on some of their demographics. But by and large, I think you're correct, and others have been correct to point out that this mass mailing of ballots, these unsolicited mail-in ballots, are happening in Democratic-controlled states like California.

So it would be interesting to ask a fair-minded Democrat Why do you think that is, that only Democratic-controlled states, Democrat-controlled states, are sending millions of unrequested ballots to people? What would they say?

It's a great question, Dennis, and I think it's probably related to this idea that here we are in the midst of a global pandemic, and so we want to preserve safety. But I think it's very telling that it's not just only Democratic states that are the ones that are pushing this all-mail balloting. As you probably recall, when we first started seeing coronavirus stimulus packages being deliberated and discussed in the US Congress, the first bill that Nancy Pelosi's House came out with did several things that I think, while it may have improved conceptually access to the voter booth, it also, I think, in any reasonable person's mind, dramatically undermined security. Their bill, their first response to the coronavirus pandemic, would have included national mail-in balloting, right? That is to say, sending everyone a ballot. It would have nationalized legally ballot harvesting, and it would have eliminated voter ID. So like, that's where I think you need to draw the lines in terms of— it's always this balance between access and security. And we can see Democrats may be pushing things that conceptually improve access, but certainly at the expense of security.

Well, again, it seems to me to be dispositive. If only one party is doing X, it's because it benefits that party. Now let's go to the cheating issue. My friend Hugh Hewitt, my colleague Hugh Hewitt, as both friend and colleague, and that's why I repeated myself, wrote a book. What is it? If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat. Is that the— I think that's the title. Do you, do Do you think— I don't know what your answer will be. I'm really curious. Do you think that the biggest single reason for this is the ease with which one can cheat?

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt, Dennis. Um, I mean, that's the cruel and insidious truth about voter fraud. It's one of the easiest crimes to commit and there's virtually no penalty for it. And it's almost undetectable. In fact, in the book that I've written on voter fraud, I mean, the vast majority, if not every single instance of voter fraud that we know about, that's been reported about, has come about not because election officials uncovered it, but only because opposing campaigns who have a vested interest in making sure that the integrity of the ballot box is sort of borne out, they're the ones that flagged it and had to kind of fight the process administratively to get judges to say, okay, yes, we agree that there's sufficient evidence here for that. Um, but we now know, I mean, thankfully we're seeing, because I think of technology, because I think honestly the president has raised the issue so much, it's now on people's minds. Um, you know, I don't know that voter fraud's happening more often now. We're just finding out more about it. That's how we know about the hundreds of ballots being stolen out of mailboxes in New Jersey and these political operatives admitting to like not only taking ballots not just collecting ballots, but creating a database of signatures so that they could then forward signatures for those voters in future elections. Right. We know about the weaknesses that exist in terms of not having to be a citizen to register to vote thanks to motor voter laws. And we know about the political operatives that continue to get things, forcing all these potential noncitizens through those loopholes that leftist-funded lawyers fight to make sure still exist. So absolutely. I mean, cheating happens and the only reason we know about it is because campaigns flag it, but it's virtually undetectable.

I have another question that bothers me. In the city that I live, I have lived there for 14 years, and outside of Los Angeles, every election I have voted at a voting place within 5 minutes of my home. And this year the entire city, it's a small city, but the entire city has no voting place. I have to go elsewhere. Why did that happen?

Well, my guess would be A, to incentivize you to vote by mail, and then B, um, because they probably have suffered from a lack of volunteers and staffing. Because they probably would say they're having a harder time maintaining as many in-person polling places. But, you know, don't let that real answer— or I guess, see, if you're a leftist and, you know, wanted to kind of abide by victimist ideology, you could say you were a victim of voter suppression, Dennis.

Yeah, they don't want us to go physically and vote. Is that fair to say?

I think it's fair to say that people On the left, who happen to be more concerned about the health ramifications of the coronavirus pandemic, are responding to a constituency that finds any in-person activity to be not only life-threatening but irresponsible to even permit such a thing to occur. So I think that would be why they're dramatically incentivizing mail-in balloting. And then, oh, by the way, it just so happens that the further you become removed from voting in person, the more susceptible for fraud an election becomes. And that's not in dispute. The video that I was lucky enough to do for PragerU, we cite the New York Times in which they say, yes, no, not even a question that absentee ballot or any ballot that's cast by mail is substantially more susceptible to fraud. I mean, think about it, right? You have polling places that have some level of baked-in security. It's maybe not perfect, as we've seen by instances of election judges in Philadelphia be busted for voter fraud for literally stuffing the ballot box. And we know other instances of voter fraud can occur in the polling place. But it just makes sense. The further you get removed from the inherent security measures that are in any election office, the less secure that vote becomes. I mean, even the idea of putting your ballot into mailboxes has proven to be not overly secure because we're seeing reports about mailboxes being broken into and stolen. And it just so happens at a time and a season in which mail-in balloting is being encouraged. So you tell me. But no, I think It's no doubt that there clearly seems to be, for whatever reason, an incentive to get people to vote by mail despite the known security risks that are inherent with that practice.

What's the most obvious mode of cheating with regard to these mailed ballots?

Well, sadly, I mean, it's maybe a colorful example, but it's one that hits close to home as somebody that has grandparents, but there's this practice of targeting senior citizens. There are numerous documented examples of this, but the practice is so well known it even has its own name called granny farming. And so that's where people, senior citizens, especially in the coronavirus era who've been encouraged, say, don't risk yourself, request your mail-in ballot. But you've got a whole army of political operatives that will go door to door. They'll go to these senior citizens. They'll help them request their absentee ballot. And they'll even oftentimes bring them an absentee ballot request form. And then they'll watch them put it in the mail. And then they know days later when the ballot will get there, and then they'll be there to either A, help the senior citizen fill out the ballot, and then B, collect it, whether or not that practice is even legal in certain states. Of course, we know California has legalized ballot harvesting. There's only a handful of states in which ballot harvesting is technically illegal. Other states do have some level of security over how many ballots somebody can have, but nevertheless, this practice persists. So I would say the practice of targeting senior citizens, helping them mail in, helping them fill out the ballots, and then ostensibly, quote unquote, helping them deliver those ballots is the most well-known and historically practiced art of voter fraud that occurs.

1-800-PRAEGER-776. I want to just say to my listeners, I have not often addressed this issue, and the fact that I am and that we have put out this video this week is testimony to— testifies to the fact that I believe that there will be cheating and that this mailing people ballots who never requested them— forgetting cheating, I don't understand why it doesn't allow for massive mistakes, which we'll address in a moment with Eric Eggers. I'm Dennis Prager.

Trending now on the Mike Gallagher Show.

And politically speaking, you got a Democrat candidate Who's got a plan to pack the Supreme Court with 4 liberal justices because they can't accept the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing is going to lead to a 6-3 conservative majority, and they don't know what to do about it. So all they can do is say, well, we'll change the rules, we gotta win, and then we're gonna pack the court. Biden doubled down yesterday on refusing to answer the question.

They'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over. Now look, I know You know, it's a great question, y'all, and I don't blame you for asking. But you know, the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that, other than, other than focusing on what's happening now. The election has begun. There's never been a court appointment once an election begun, but 4 million or so people have already voted.

Think about that. A guy who's running for president doesn't want to tell you what he's going to do because he's afraid the media is going to write on it, write about it, the media is going to report on it. And the media just says, okay, makes sense to me, nothing to see here. Meanwhile, the president, all right, not going to have a virtual debate next week because he's not going to sit in front of a computer. So instead of virtually debating Joe Biden, he's going to hold a campaign rally. And people are going to lose their minds.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Larry Elder Show.

Because when John McCain was running in 2008, he's on The View, and one of the ladies says Think about that. A guy who's running for president doesn't want to tell you what he's going to do because he's afraid the media is going to write on it, right? About it. The media is going to report on it. And the media just says, okay, makes sense to me. Nothing to see here. Meanwhile, the president, all right, not going to have a virtual debate next week because he's not going to sit in front of a computer.

So instead of virtually debating Joe Biden, he's going to hold a campaign rally But you're exactly right, and what I describe in the book One Vote Away in the chapter on life is for 200 years of our nation's history, laws on abortion were made at the state level, and different states had different laws. And if you wanted to change the laws on abortion, you did the same thing you did if you wanted to change any other laws, which is you tried to convince your fellow citizens your ideas were right and their ideas were wrong. Then in 1973, the Supreme Court stepped in and said, You silly voters, you don't get to decide this anymore. We're taking this out of your hand. The American people have no ability to resolve this question. And I think that decision more than anything politicized the court. It's the reason we have these ugly circus confirmations now. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, they support unlimited abortion on demand up until the moment of birth, partial birth abortion, with no parental notification, no parental consent, and taxpayer funding for it all. Do you know, Larry, that only 9% of Americans support that radical extreme position? And yet that's what they want the court to mandate.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on America First with Sebastian Burke.

Just a few minutes ago, let's remind everybody. So there's the Hunter Biden scandal, Ukraine. Hunter Biden's primary business partner, both at Burisma, the Ukrainian company, on many other things including the China things, is a guy named Devin Archer. And back in 2018, there was— Kerry was involved as well.

Kerry. All right, everybody, Dennis Prager here. And in light of the subject, that is a perfect Segway to remind you to go to keepamericaamerica.com because they're working on getting out the vote. This is, and this is where you can help tremendously. This, so I can't, I don't need to persuade any of you listening on how significant this election is and getting out to the vote. It is amazing to me. I hear this. I don't even know if it's true. Maybe Eric Eggers does. But it's not the subject that he's covering, so I don't know if he does or not. I am told every 4 years that a significant number of conservatives don't vote. If that's true, then we lose our country, and it's the fault of the people who theoretically believe in the country. Go to keepamericaamerica.com. Back to Eric Eggers and, and the whole issue of— for the first— is it the first time that millions of ballots are being sent to people who never requested them? That's absolutely— Eric on a show?

Yes, yes, it's absolutely true that for the first time millions of ballots are being sent to people that didn't request them. And I think that's why we have so many concerns, and I think that's why you're so correct to raise these issues, because not only does this allow for lots of errors, which I think you alluded to before the break, but it also allows for the possibility of people that are registered to vote that shouldn't be to receive ballots and potentially cast ballots. And I think we talked about this before, but remember, I mean, the Supreme Court's the one that cited the statistic that said 1 in 8 or 24 million voter registrations in this country are significantly flawed or totally inaccurate. You've got over 300 counties in this country where you've got more registered voters than legal citizens of voting age. So it's a known fact that people that shouldn't be receiving ballots will get them. And then when you consider the fact that there's virtually nothing to stop those people from getting the ballot once they get them from voting, then that's a whole nother wave of issues, right? I mean, the idea of ballots being destroyed or lost is, I think, a real concern. But, um, but my primary primary concern is the idea of people that are going to now, because they didn't request them, they'll get a ballot anyway. There's heightened levels of uncertainty over who's allowed to vote, who's not. Never forget, Dennis, that the head of the Democratic Party, Tom Perez, right before he worked for Obama's Justice Department, he worked for an organization called Casa de Maryland, and they were basically an ACORN-like organization whose primary purpose was to advocate for the expansion non-citizen voting rights. You know, and we've seen that happen in municipalities around the country. So between the idea of a lack of security and more questioning about who and, you know, who can do what, I think that's, that's probably the biggest thing I'm worried about as it relates to the mail-in ballot.

What, the non-citizen voting?

Yeah, just the idea of non-citizens, people that—

so, so, hold on. Yeah, yeah, yes, wait. Wait, wait, wait, this is really important. In other words, what? Okay, not in other words. I want to understand something. Who gets the ballot? How do they even have a non-citizen's name to send that person a ballot?

Well, it's a known fact, Dennis Prager, that sadly, right, um, because you can register to vote when you get your driver's license and the threshold to get your driver's license is not one of legal citizenship, that sadly many noncitizens end up on voter rolls.

Oh, so that's how it happens. Absolutely. That happens. So the key was giving license, driver's licenses to noncitizens, using driver's licenses as the benchmark of getting a ballot.

Yes, and those happen, you know, at different times. But then yes, it's a known fact in California we've got over a million noncitizens that have driver's licenses, right? And California says, oh, they do a very good job of cross-referencing. You know, you point me to the government database that does a good job of interacting with other government databases in the name of efficiency and accuracy, and I'll make sure to write that down because I haven't seen it yet. So I think that that's a process, and those are the loopholes. And there's just— and that's, you know, one of the things I've covered, and I think it's really sort of a sad story. But you've got a lot of non-citizens that inadvertently, you know, get signed up, or maybe they think they're allowed to vote. And then you've got these political operatives that then target these people and, you know, funnel them through these loopholes. And actually, all it does is sort of imperil the status of those non-citizens, because once you cast the ballot, you can A, A, never get legal citizenship before, and B, face almost certain deportation when that's found out. So, right. So that's one way that illegal votes are cast. In other ways, people that aren't removed from the voter rolls because they've died, it's because family members want to keep them on for Social Security payment reasons, things like that. So, you know, between noncitizens and dead people and then people that double vote, people that move, we did a study that led to my book on voter fraud that found Tens of thousands of double votes cast, including over 2,000 instances of double voting in Florida alone in the 2016 election. That's 4 times the margin of victory of a presidential election decided by Florida this century. So we know voter fraud occurs and it can occur on a scale the likes of which has already swung an election this century. And we look at how close the election was in 2016 and how close we expect it to be next month. I think unfortunately you're very right to raise these concerns, Dennis.

If I get it, which I did, my home got a bunch of ballots. If we vote by mail, what is to prevent us from going and voting in person a second time? Your conscience. Is that it? If I'm corrupt, I could vote twice?

Well, conceptually, And this is one of the challenges you run into, right? Because America's election, you have to remember a couple things. Number one, it's so decentralized. So it's impossible to make a blanket statement about American elections because for every well-run county or municipality, there's something like Broward County in Florida, which is always in the news for having terrible elections. So it's decentralized that way. But also, America remains a third-world country when it comes to election technology. Technology, right? While countries like Estonia—

I think that's an insult to the Third World.

I mean, there are countries in Eastern Europe, small tiny countries in Eastern Europe like Estonia, are using blockchain technology, right? Uh, we're using hanging chads and, you know, unplugging machines to reset them, which happens to be one of the main reasons why you see these long lines, uh, from, you know, it's like to be an elections official, you have to be basically an IT professional. And sadly, many people are not, right? So we have a lot of technology problems that lead to a lot of issues that people want to sort of claim as voter suppression. So, yeah, I mean, American election systems are this rickety old wagon that when this increase of mail-in ballot occurs, it's basically like throwing it on the Autobahn and saying, hey, have fun. And we've sadly already seen massive problems in the primary, right? California rejected 100,000 ballots mostly because of mismatched signatures and also because they weren't accepted past the election day. Other states have done the same. So now states have responded to that by saying, all right, well, we'll just extend the deadline by which we'll accept ballots. So we'll accept them, you know, up to a week or 10 days after election day, which I don't have to tell you only exacerbates the likelihood of fraud. They will just have to be postmarked by election day. So now the threshold to cast a secure ballot isn't even casting in person, isn't even getting getting in the mail, uh, having it delivered by Election Day. It's just having access to a postmark that says it was cast by Election Day.

I got a few seconds. Are you familiar with this? California GOP says it owns unofficial ballot drop boxes. Are you familiar with that? I am, yes. All right then, hold on. Hi, this is Dennis Prager, and you know we are in a fight for our fundamental freedoms. That's why I am grateful for my friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. They are on the front lines fighting pivotal lawsuits for Americans whose freedoms are threatened, and they do it for free. That's why we're asking you to be as generous as you can by giving today so that Alliance Defending Freedom can continue to fight these lawsuits and be ready when your rights are threatened too. Give your gift now by visiting adflegal.org/prager, and thank you for joining the fight for freedom. Turning now on the Charlie Kirk Show.

In the summer of 2016, right near the Republican convention, out of nowhere, there was chatter that started to surface around President Donald Trump allegedly having connections to Russia. In fact, we can go back and we find television clips of Hillary Clinton campaign surrogates starting to talk about Donald Trump is bought and paid for by Russia. Or there is meaningful collusion happening on behalf of the Trump campaign and Russia. And it was always very bizarre. It was always so incongruent with the entire election because there were such bigger issues happening in 2016. Go back into 2016. Russia was not at the forefront of any sort of geopolitical conversations. People were mostly focused on Hillary Clinton's campaign or Hillary Clinton's emails. We'll talk about that. But 2016 was a lot about what Donald Trump was going to do if he became president. It was a lot about the economy. It was about the Obama succession. It was about the Obama legacy. And so this conversation about Russia always felt very, very strange and very bizarre for those of us that were in the campaign. Or around the campaign, I should say. And so John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, has just declassified a series of documents that revealed that former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton's purported plan to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as a, quote, means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Eric Metaxas Show.

I want to go back to Pence. I was really genuinely stunned and impressed at his self-control. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it, because you did not get the impression, which the media sometimes wants to give you, is that he's dull, that he's a dud. You could see the fire within. I think many people saw him as incredibly presidential, uh, and thought, my goodness, you could think what you want of Trump, but he picked this guy to replace him if something goes wrong. That's a pretty good pick.

When Trump or Biden are sworn in in January of 2021, uh, they will be the oldest president coming into office for a term. Uh, 74 or 78 will beat the all-time age limits. And so I think particularly because of the discussion about whether or not Biden would even complete a term, I think the focus on Kamala Harris being a potential president really put that debate under that kind of spotlight. Would these people make a good president if the, if the top guy goes down? And with Biden's health issues, and certainly with, with the president catching COVID I just think we've seen the humanity and kind of the All right, final question for Eric Eggers here.

As always, a terrific guest, and I appreciate, appreciate you. Where do you live, by the way?

I live in Tallahassee, Florida.

You know, vast numbers of doctors have now come out and said that lockdowns are a disaster. So you live in one of the states that didn't lock down?

That's correct. I guess you could say I have lockdown privilege that way.

Yes, lockdown privilege is called having a Republican governor. It's so true.

I, I was actually in California. I went to California to film the video. Uh, I was taken aback by how different it was out there. I was, you know, got a hotel near the beach and, uh, I was asking hotel guys like, hey, can I go to to the beach. He said, yeah, just make sure you bring the mask. I'm like, no, I'm going to be at the beach. He said, yeah, make sure you have your mask.

So, um, if it's ever governed by irrationality, it's, it's an extremely scary time to be an American. Never has irrationality governed so many people, and it's almost all among the well-educated.

No, it's very well put. I go to football games, you know, Florida State in Tallahassee, last year we had football games, we got excoriated nationally because people had the audacity to sit at a football game outside without a mask on. So luckily the Ivy Tower executives made sure to implement some new rules to prevent people from doing that very egregious public health practice.

Very egregious. Exactly. Okay, so what is the story here? Brand new story. The left is making making a big deal of it. California— this is from CNBC— California GOP says it owns unofficial ballot drop boxes. What's the story there?

Yeah, you're not wrong when you say that the left is making a big deal about it. I can't tell you how many text messages I got from liberal friends saying, haha, I guess we finally cracked the old voter fraud code. It's actually a brilliant move by the fact— by the part of the California GOP Party, you know. Because think about it, the Democrats passed ballot harvesting legislation that they used to their advantage in 2018. So it's so telling to me that the Democrats are making a big deal about this because, Dennis, think about this. What's the difference between, you know, strangers coming to your house and collecting your ballots? And according to Democrats, that's okay, that's ballot harvesting. But having boxes in GOP headquarters or in church or in buildings like gun shops that say, "Hey, we're collecting ballots for the California GOP." Somehow that's way less secure than some person that I don't know coming to my house and promising to take my ballot to the voter registration office or to the elections office. So I think what they're doing is they're exposing the hypocrisy and saying, "Yeah, you know, you can't have it both ways." Either having third-party collection sites like these GOP collection boxes are not secure, as California Democrats are currently saying they are not, and oh, by the way, the mainstream media certainly says right now they're not, because that's why you see it in the national news, or it is okay, and then we shouldn't make a big deal about it, because we certainly don't complain about ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting in California is fine in the name of voter access. So why are these boxes not okay in the same name?

Well, my silence is that I don't have an answer. I would like to see both ended.

Well, I think that— so what the quote from the California GOP official is just like, hey, they wrote the rules, they made the chessboard, we're not just playing chess.

That's right. It's like Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster. That's exactly right. They don't like the consequences of their policies. Only they're only applicable to them.

One of my favorite phrases, Dennis, is today's problems are yesterday's solutions.

Good one. Did you come up with that?

I did not, but if— but as far as you know, I did. But yes, so that's right, as far as I know, you did.

But if I ever quote you, I will have to say Eric Eggers citing someone he doesn't know. Dennis Prager said the following. All right, in 10 seconds or 15 seconds, tell me, I'm curious, about the Government Accountability Institute. Well, we're a nonpartisan research organization.

We're headed by Peter Schweizer, so we do groundbreaking investigative research, and it's been an honor to work there for the last 8 years, and I look forward to continuing to break news that's relevant to Americans. You do a good job.

Thank you so much. Thanks, Dennis. You're welcome. All right, that was Eric Eggers, and his video is up at the Dennis— excuse me, at PragerU, and it is about this very issue that we talked about, how to steal an election mail-in balloting. Why must everything be changed? It's like, if it works, ruin it. That's the motto of the left. Why did they make Election Day 6 weeks in advance? What is the point of Election Day if you can vote in September? All right, everybody, Relief Factor. Father and son who run this, who own it, Pete and Seth Talbot, they're very good people. They are, they're religious people. I met them on a number of occasions. They sell the 3-week quick start for just $19.95 to anyone struggling from pain. Struggling from or struggling with? It's struggling with. They, it's incorrectly written, Sean. I can't believe you would have handed this to me. I'm not blaming Sean. Try it for 3 weeks, $19.95. ReliefFactor.com.

Trending now on the Mike Gallagher Show.

And politically speaking, you got a Democrat candidate who's got a plan to pack the Supreme Court with 4 liberal justices because they can't accept the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing is going to lead to a 6-3 conservative majority, and they don't know what to do about it. So all they can do is say, well, we'll change the rules, we gotta win, and then we're gonna pack the court. Biden doubled down yesterday on refusing to answer the question.

They'll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over. Now, look, I know it's a great question for y'all, and I don't blame you for asking, but you know the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that, other than, other than focusing on what's happening now. The election has begun. There's never been a court appointment once an election begun, but 4 million or so people have already voted.

Think about that. A guy who's running for president doesn't want to tell you what he's going to do because he's afraid the media is going to write on it, write about it. The media is going to report on it, and the media just says, okay, makes sense to me, nothing to see here. Meanwhile, the president, all right, not going to have a virtual debate next week because he's not going to sit in front of a computer. So instead of virtually debating Joe Biden, he's going to hold a campaign rally and people are going to lose their minds.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Larry Elder Show. the election has begun. There's never been a court appointment once an election begun.

But 4 million or so people have already voted.

Think about that. A guy who's running for president doesn't want to tell you what he's going to do because he's afraid the media is going to write on it. Write about it. The media is going to report on it. And the media just says, okay, makes sense to me. Nothing to see here. I just don't think it's gonna happen, but I— what kind of answer is that?

The wrong answer.

I mean, it's— you're exactly right, and what I described in the book One Vote Away in the chapter on life is for 200 years of our nation's history, laws on abortion were made at the state level, and different states had different laws, and if you wanted to change the laws on abortion, you did the same thing you did if you wanted to change any other laws, which is you tried to convince your fellow citizens your ideas were right and their ideas were wrong. Then in 1973, the Supreme Court stepped in and said, you silly voters, you don't get to decide this anymore. We're taking this out of your hand. The American people have no ability to resolve this question. And I think that decision more than anything politicized the court.

It's the I think you'll find it fascinating. I'm sure you will. And please retweet it. It's about a New York Times headline, front page, New York Times headline. Front page: Can Trump squeeze more from his white base? Do you think the New York Times will ever headline, can Democrats squeeze more from their black base? Gives you an idea of the distorted news from the New York Times. Hey, by the way, I have also another thing that I've done that I'd like you to know about. Social Unrest in America. I have a dialogue with Pastor Jack Hibbs, one of the major pastors in the country, and, uh, it's at, uh, salemnow.com. Use the coupon code Prager for 20% discount. It's, uh, very professionally done. He's a terrific man. Social Unrest in America, salemnow.com. These are the things you need to also send to people. It's very important. We got to get the word out, and we are getting the word out, by the way, which drives them crazy. They think that they should be the only ones to get the word out. I was talking to you about the article by Lee Habib in Newsweek. He really listened to the grand jury testimony and he summarized What happened to Breonna Taylor? The tragedy is that she had been involved— her ex-boyfriend is a thug. The new guy that she was with the night she was killed is a good guy, a decent guy apparently. And this is— this has nothing to do with racism, her being killed. It has nothing to do with police brutality against Blacks. It's nothing, nothing at all. It's a tragedy. What happened was a tragedy. The man she was with in his apartment thought that it was actually her ex-boyfriend knocking down the door, so he shot— she shot through it. And the police shot back, and that's how she got killed. It's a tragedy, not an evil, but the left will use all tragedies in order to stoke the flames of interracial tension. We should put the, uh, the piece up. We'll put the piece up at DennisPrager.com from Newsweek. I think Lee Habib did his service. It's up already. Good. That's the complicated story America deserves to know about what happened on that tragic night in Louisville. This is how he ends it. Those who love Breonna Taylor deserve to have it known. The cops whose reputations were destroyed and who will forever live with the consequences of their lawful actions deserve it too. Good man, Lee Habib. So indeed he wrote that. Now, my friends, like, I, uh, I wrote a piece and said on the air, PragerU, the lockdown was the greatest mistake in world history, not greatest evil. I made that clear, of course. Much greater evils It's not an evil. Well, it's now an evil in California, but, uh, it was a mistake. It was a grand— it was a horrific mistake, the crushing of tens of millions of innocent people's lives for no good reason. So here's this: more than 32,000 medical doctors and health scientists from around the of the world have signed a petition against lockdowns put in place to curb the spread of COVID-19, saying the measures are causing, quote, irreparable damage. As of October 13th, over 23,000 of the signatories were medical practitioners. 9,000 were medical and public health scientists. They have been joined by more than 400,000 members of the general public. The petition— I'd like to see the LA Times attack on this, by the way. I wonder, did they mention that it was co-authored by a Harvard professor and epidemiologist, an Oxford professor and epidemiologist, and a Stanford University medical professor and epidemiologist? Did they mention that once? LA Times attacks the petition. Isn't that interesting? They don't tell you that it was co-authored by 3 medical doctors and epidemiologists— Harvard, Stanford, Oxford. It's— I don't, I don't know why the Great Barrington Hoax. It's because it's called the Barrington Petition Declaration. And they've already called it the Great Barrington Hoax. Why does the left want lockdowns to crush people's lives? Why? They're afraid. They're legit. That's a legitimate— that's right, they are the, the wimps of our time. Wimps with power is a very bad, bad thing.

Yeah, Dr.

Martin Kulldorff, Harvard professor and epidemiologist. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Oxford University professor and epidemiologist. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford University Medical School professor and epidemiologist. This is what the petition reads in part: Coming from both the left and right and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. That's right, keeping school— keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. Instead of shutting everything down until a vaccine is available, the doctors say focus should be on minimizing mortality and and social harm. Sounds like stuff you've been hearing from me since March. Until herd immunity is reached. Herd immunity refers to when a population becomes immune to an infectious disease, which the doctors say will eventually be reached. I'm Dennis Prager. We continue.

This is Michael Medved at michaelmedved.com for Town Hall. The appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court counts as a massive masterstroke and easily one of the best decisions of Donald Trump's presidency. In an election season when liberals and media try to characterize conservatives as old, angry, bigoted, extreme, and lacking in empathy, Judge Barrett displays the opposite characteristics. At age 48, she's youthful, a genial consensus builder, and mother of 7, including a special needs child and 2 adopted kids from Haiti. On a court dominated for decades by Yale and Harvard Harvard graduates, she's a breath of Midwestern fresh air, beloved by her students at Notre Dame. Most importantly, she'll give new life to the originalist thinking of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, in stressing what the Constitution actually says, not what judges want it to say. As Americans have been losing faith in public institutions, Judge Barrett can help to restore their confidence. I'm Michael Medved.

The Pepperdine Graduate School of Public Policy, impacting policy decisions today, preparing public leaders for tomorrow. Trending now on the Larry Elder Show.

My guest is Senator Ted Cruz. Senator, people are clueless about the real meaning of Citizens United. Can you explain to people what that ruling really means and why is the left so afraid of it?

Yeah, I can. It's a hugely important question. The chapter on free speech in the book talks all about Citizens United. Most people have heard of it, but they don't know what it is, and they know Democrats hate it, right? What it was about is our right to criticize politicians. And in this instance, a nonprofit group in D.C. called Citizens United made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. And the Obama Justice Department took the position that the government could fine them, could punish them for daring to criticize Hillary Clinton. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The most chilling moment was an oral argument argument when Justice Sam Alito asked the Obama Justice Department, under your theory of the case, could the federal government ban books? And the Obama Justice Department said, yes, yes, we can ban books, never mind what the First Amendment says, but we can— they criticize a politician. Now, thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected that by a vote of 5 to 4, for 4 justices willing to say the government can censor movies, can censor books, can ban books if they criticize politicians. We're one vote away from our free speech rights being taken away.

Senator, who wins on November 3rd?

I genuinely don't know. The hard left's going to show up in massive numbers. If everybody else shows up, if people turn out, we could have a great election. The president could get reelected and we could retake the House and hold the Senate.

Keep up with what's trending. Subscribe on YouTube today. Trending now on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

I know you don't do—

it is so interesting that the LA Times has an editorial. Its lead editorial today is The Great Barrington Hoax. Hoax. 33,000 doctors and other medical professionals sign a petition to open up societies and the LA Times lists it as a hoax. Not mentioned the Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford epidemiologists, doctors who ran the, who put out the petition originally. Isn't that something? LA Times. See, these guys, the editors of the LA Times, have not lost their salaries, their life savings. Now listen to this. Where do they get these? They make up figures. About 3% of doctors and public health scientists signed on to the document. Okay, what is— first of all, how do they know what the percentage— but it doesn't matter.

Well, well, exactly.

I mean, it's 33,000. Why did they ever list the percentage of Californians who died of COVID Way below 3%. This nation is not in lockdown. Really? They not live in the same city I do with the LA Times? Still can't enter a restaurant and masks outside. People look stupid. Nice, intelligent, kind people. I want you to understand, if you're one of those, I'm not attacking you. I'm telling you what you look like. I'm not saying you are stupid, and I mean it. I don't fool around. If I think you're stupid, I'll say you're stupid, but that's not my point. I'm saying you look stupid. People jogging with a mask on— you saw it this morning. Was it a young person? Well, the young people jog. They're the most scared. The people unbelievably unlikely to die from the disease are the most scared of it. The people most likely to die of it are the least scared of it. Because even if you're over 70, what is it? It's, it's still— yes, you have— if you get it, you have a 95% chance of living. If you get it. And the vast majority of people don't get it. Oh my God. I try to— I really try to give you every day honest, rational thought, but I, I don't think in my career I have ever been vindicated on a more controversial position I have taken than on this on the lockdown. I said it was wrong in March, and now 33,000 doctors agree. Uh, I need