Stephen Miller sounds alarm over Biden's 'unprecedented' border policies

close

Video

Stephen Miller sounds alarm over Biden's 'unprecedented' border policies

Former Trump adviser decries Biden border policies on 'Life, Liberty & Levin'

This is a rush transcript from "Life, Liberty & Levin," May 9, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARK LEVIN, FOX NEWS HOST: Hello America. I'm Mark Levin and this is LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN.

We have two great guests this evening. The topics are immigration, as well as the 1619 Project. But before I get to them, but related to them, I've written a new book called "American Marxism." Why did I write this book? I don't write books just to write books. I'm not on TV just to be on TV. I'm not on radio just to be on radio.

I don't seek glory and I don't seek fame. I'm an activist at heart.

Since I was a young teenager, for me, it's about this country. It's about liberty. It's about constitutional conservatism. That's why I'm here every Sunday. That's why I do my radio show every day. That's why I do LevinTV and that's why I write books.

We are in an extraordinarily grave and dire situation right now. Every principle and fundamental of the founding of this nation is under assault and we are losing today.

Whether you look at the border, whether you look in our classrooms, the way our cops are treated, the lack of law and order in so many areas in this country, the use of racism, the use of genderism, we're being attacked in a thousand ways and so that's why I've written this book, "American Marxism."

"American Marxism," doesn't that sound weird? What does that mean? "American Marxism."

What it means is very simple. These folks like to name themselves: liberals, progressives, social activists, democratic socialists. They are remember embracing the fundamentals of Marxism, not in every respect, but in enough respects.

What have they done? Class warfare: all we hear from Joe Biden is, the rich don't pay enough. The poor don't get enough. Where does that kind of class argument come from? Does it come from the founders? No. Does it come from any of the great enlightenment thinkers? No.

Where does it come from? It comes from Karl Marx.

What about this argument of oppressed and oppressors? My God, when you look at the United States of America, there are so many victims in this country, whether it's based on race, or genitalia, or income. Now, the environment. The list is so long, it's infinite, I can't even name it.

Well, where does all this come from? These movements, these ideologies are spawned from Marxism, and many of them have the same purpose, which is to attack the existing society, to attack the constitutional system, to attack the economic system and they found a home in the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has gone over to the dark side and Joe Biden is over there with them and we are losing our country one classroom at a time, one neighborhood at a time, one book at a time.

And so that's the purpose of my book, "American Marxism." And we're going to discuss that down the road in more detail because I am, at bottom, an activist, I believe that you can't just sit back and talk about stuff or observe stuff. You've got to do something.

And the whole point of "American Marxism" is to try and galvanize you and the American people who still love this country and rally us to a cause. And I explain the various actions that I think we should take.

You know, 12 years or so ago, I wrote a book called "Liberty and Tyranny" and it came out almost exactly the same time, coinciding with the rise of the Tea Party movement. And together, we made a difference in this country and that's exactly what I'm hoping we can do right now. Together, you and I can make a difference in this country and take our country back, not based on race, not because we're white supremacists. No. Because we're red blooded Americans, all of us regardless of our skin color or anything else, and we cannot allow these Marxists and these Marxist, one of these, to destroy this country from within.

That's what I'm talking about.

We have a great guest to start the program tonight. Stephen Miller, former senior adviser to President Trump, now America First Legal founder. Stephen Miller, how are you my friend?

STEPHEN MILLER, FOUNDER, AMERICA FIRST LEGAL: I am doing great. Thank you for having me.

LEVIN: Well, thanks for being here. Let's talk about the border.

Nobody knows more about this than you. You've spent your entire career studying this subject, which is why you're constantly under attack by these Marxists among others.

MILLER: Yes.

LEVIN: First of all, let's get something straight. Help me and the American people with this.

We don't care about the browning of America. This has nothing to do with the browning of America or race of any kind. What we care about is having a lawful immigration system, people assimilating into our system.

It's the Democrats. Obama used to talk about it, Biden used to talk about it, the media talks about the browning of America.

You and I and most Americans don't even bring up race. It has nothing to do with race. Explain.

MILLER: Yes, well, that's a really great place to open.

So in the last election, President Trump carried overwhelmingly, Texas border counties that were largely Hispanic and Latino. Why is that? Why is that? Is it because Latino voters living in border counties are racist against Latinos?

I mean, that's just madness.

The reason is because they oftentimes, either immigrants themselves, the children or grandchildren of immigrants, see firsthand the extraordinarily deleterious consequences of large scale illegal migration.

They see it in terms of the overwhelming of local schools. You have too many students per teacher, assuming the schools of course are open. You have overwhelmed hospital capacity. You have depressed wages in the job market. You have criminal elements that are able to get through a porous border, and spread very dangerous forms of gang activity in local communities.

You have drug trafficking and drug smuggling that claims thousands of lives, and impresses young people into a life of crime.

You also, of course, have the financial consequences. You have to have higher community taxes, higher sales taxes, higher income taxes to pay for free government services given to people who came here illegally.

This has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It has everything to do with a universal law of human nature that applies to every country in the world, including Mexico, which is that the citizens of a nation want their boundaries, borders, and territory upheld, just like you have a lock on your door, just like you lock your car when you leave it, just like rich and powerful people build fences around their houses. The citizens of any country, including our country -- black, white, brown, every color you can imagine -- are entitled to and want desperately to have security on their border as a basic right of living.

LEVIN: Well said. I'm a little perplexed, though, Stephen Miller, what you have just espoused there has been official American policy for well over a hundred years until up until now. Until up until now -- so what has changed?

Have you and I changed? Have the American people changed or has the Democratic Party changed? You know, there was a Pew report out in September, and I don't believe they're run by white supremacists, but there was a Pew report that came out and they pointed out how immigration has utterly changed the demographics, the political demographics in this country.

The political demographics in this country -- are we to believe, Stephen Miller, that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden and the Democrats are ignoring this? That they're just acting out of altruism and sincerity? Is what's going on to the border today, when you have women trying to cross, 30 percent of whom are raped? You have kids being stuffed into these buildings, despite COVID and so forth, what exactly is the Democratic Party about here?

MILLER: Well, first of all, you really hit on I think the essential issue, which is that what we're seeing with the new administration is unprecedented.

That word gets thrown around a lot, "unprecedented." In this case, it's the textbook dictionary definition of unprecedented i.e., no American President, not just in our lifetimes, but in the whole history of the nation has ever attempted what is now happening, which is to not even attempt to secure the border, but in fact to actively recruit and encourage people to cross illegally with the promise of unrestricted entry.

That has never been tried. It has never been attempted before likewise, what they are doing on the interior of the country with I.C.E., massively unprecedentedly again, reducing interior enforcement to almost nothing, just a just a handful of arrests per I.C.E. officer. That's all never been tried before. It's all never been done before.

And you do have to ask yourself, why? Why? It is terrible for the migrants. You know, you talk about the morality of this. Like you, I am just so sick of having Democratic politicians stand up on a high horse and preen about morality when their policies aren't only causing all the harms outlined here in America, but are leading innocent migrants to get brutalized and assaulted and raped.

And many of them then have to come to United States and work off their debt to their traffickers. They're put into sex, and they're put into labor trafficking, the most heinous kinds of abuse imaginable.

Why would they do all of these horrible things, these immoral things that disproportionately hurt migrants and communities of color in this country? You have to ask why. And I do believe fundamentally, the reason is because they believe that large scale illegal migration shifts the politics of this country towards the left on a variety of economic and social issues, and that is their fundamental, overwhelming motivation and it explains why a party that as recently as the early 2000s was opposed to amnesty in many cases, and had many members who were opposed to unfettered migration has now become the party of open borders and severed its ties completely with the historical labor movement in America, which back in the 20th Century, understood that unfettered flows of low wage labor is bad for workers.

So yes, I think that's the motivation, Mark.

LEVIN: And I would remind our viewers that Nancy Pelosi said just last week, when she was confronted with a question about a special election in Texas that there's basically now two Republicans and only two Republicans running in part thanks to an endorsement by President Trump in a special election.

She was asked about, what does this foretell about 2022? And she said, well, we're not that worried -- I'm paraphrasing -- because we have -- we'll have a big turnout by Hispanics and black voters.

That is pretty much what she said. They see everything through the lens of race.

I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back. Stephen Miller, founder of America First Legal.

Stephen Miller, the Democrats are often schizophrenic. So in other words, we hear day in and day out that America is systematically racist. We hear that we have a dominant white privilege society, all this critical race theory crap, may I say?

It is regurgitated by the media, among others. It is taught to our children now. If we were that kind of country, why would 42 million people south of the border want to come to the United States rather than 42 million people in the United States try to leave the United States?

MILLER: So well said. The best measure of the kinds of freedom, rights, dignity is afforded by a society is whether or not people are trying to leave en masse, or whether or not people are trying to arrive en masse. I mean, its basic measures you are going to get.

You know, look at the Soviet Union as a classic example. People would do anything -- anything -- to escape the Soviet Union and find a measure of freedom and human dignity.

In the United States, we are the number one global destination for migration and we have been for a very long time. The challenge that we have as a country then is to establish rules and conditions and to enforce laws governing who can and can't enter.

You know, if you use the position of the left that every single person in the world who would stand to economically benefit from entering the U.S. should be allowed to enter the U.S., you would have to let in several billion people. You would cease to have a nation.

The situation on the border right now is not just a phenomenon of illegal migration from Mexico and the northern triangle. As you know, I was at the White House for four years and what we saw working day and night on the border is that it had become a global phenomenon.

Smuggling and trafficking networks bring people from all over Planet Earth from literally scores of countries into our border. It's unimaginable that right now, the message that this administration has sent to the world: if you smuggle a child to our border, you will get in and that child will get in.

That is outrageous. It is dangerous. It is antithetical to the idea of sovereignty.

We are basically saying that there is a loophole in our borders so large that half of Planet Earth can fit through it. And think, again, as we talked earlier about the terrible human tragedies that Democrats are inflicting disproportionately, again, on people of color, on minority communities, on migrants.

You know, you think that you give a $7,000.00 check to a smuggler to get into the country. That's all cashed up front. You know how many times somebody comes to this country, and then they are basically forced into again, labor or sex trafficking to pay off that debt? Indentured servitude of the worst kind imaginable.

This is what we're doing on the border of the greatest country in the world.

That's why my organization, America First Legal is saying enough. Congress passed laws. The President signed those laws. The Constitution says the Executive must take care of those laws are faithfully executed.

We don't have a democracy anymore.

If a President can come in and say this whole section of law doesn't exist anymore, we're not a partisan organization. We are a nonpartisan organization. This isn't right or left. This is about the Constitution of the United States and that's why we're suing the Biden administration alongside Texas, and the Great Ken Paxton to end the catch and release policies on the border that not only violate law, but they violate the administration's own COVID regulations.

Additionally, we're working behind the scenes with several states that are filing lawsuits, and that are ongoing right now to end the backdoor abolition of I.C.E. Biden's memos, basically curtailing most interior immigration enforcement, so that April saw the lowest ever interior removals is an attempt to abolish I.C.E. by memo, and almost a hundred percent of that reduction in enforcement is accomplished by freeing illegal immigrants who are facing separate criminal charges and convictions.

That's reckless. That's immoral, that has to be enjoined.

LEVIN: Do we know how many MS-13 gang members are crossing the border? We don't, do we?

MILLER: No, that is -- I'm so glad you raised that issue because that's one that keeps me up at night, Mark. We saw this firsthand.

So one of the things that when President Trump came into office four years ago, one of his first less noticed Executive Orders was to dismantle organized crime networks that were crossing our border. At the center of that effort was MS-13.

We removed thousands of MS-13 members from this country through partnerships with local law enforcement, I.C.E., C.B.P. and Federal law enforcement in general, including F.B.I. and we indicted many MS-13 members. What did we find? A very large percentage of those MS-13 members entered the country as unaccompanied minors during the Obama administration.

So if you have a policy that says 17, you're under, get in guaranteed, get resettled. You don't think criminal organizations are going to take advantage of that? That they are not going to smuggle criminal gang members? MS-13 gang members who will then be resettled at taxpayer expense in Long Island, and in cities all across the country?

You know, again, this is another area where our lawsuit is so important because if you end catch and release, then you end the ability of those gang members to get automatic entry into the country and you can read more about that at aflegal.org, aflegal.org and you can learn more about that lawsuit.

I will say one other thing. The gotaways is a huge problem. When you redirect Border Patrol, just to focus on the humanitarian mission because you're inviting in massive numbers of families and so Border agents now are all doing that work. What happens? Thousands get in undetected, over a thousand illegal immigrants a day are being added to the U.S. population who never come into contact with Border Patrol.

That is a public safety disaster and it is entirely because of discretionary policy choices, voluntary decisions that Joe Biden has made.

LEVIN: I guess we know why Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don't want to go to the southern border.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JON SCOTT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL ANCHOR: Welcome to "FOX News Live." I'm Jon Scott.

A day of celebration becomes a horrible tragedy. A gunman opened fire at a birthday party in Colorado Springs killing six adults before taking his own life. The suspect was the boyfriend of a female victim. Children at the party were not hurt. Police have not released the identities of the killer or the victims. A motive, not known at this time.

Stunning news from the world of horse racing. Medina Spirit, the horse that won the Kentucky Derby just eight days ago has failed a post-race drug test. The colt beat 12 to one odds to win, but now could be stripped of the Derby title and winning purse if disqualified.

Medina Spirit's trainer, Bob Baffert called the news a punch to the gut, adding it's an injustice to the horse.

I'm Jon Scott. Now back to LIFE, LIBERTY, & LEVIN.

LEVIN: Welcome back. Steven Miller, the purpose of immigration historically has been to benefit the United States, to benefit the citizenry of the United States because the citizenry of the United States own the country.

The purpose of immigration has never been until now, what individuals, foreign individuals want from the United States and to gain jurisdiction by putting their foot in the territory of the United States, or what other countries want from the United States.

So we've now reached a point where it is actual Federal Biden administration, Democratic Party policy, that the interest is not the United States, of the United States citizenry, the interest is foreign governments and their citizenry. What do you make of this?

MILLER: You have just cut to the core of the whole issue, Mark. That's the center of everything. What does it mean to have a nation and to be a citizen in that nation?

It was the uncontested idea for almost our entire history that immigration policy and decisions about immigration policy were made to benefit the people already living here, especially those who are citizens of this country.

Does it make your life better? Does it make your economy stronger? Does it make your community safer? And that was the moral center of immigration policy. The left has completely abandoned and rejected that idea. And now what is the needs of the foreign citizen living in the foreign country that are super imposed over the needs of the everyday American citizen including those who are struggling.

Here is why this moral principle is so important, because what is happening right now is moral extortion. A lie is being told, a terrible lie by the left that America is a systemically racist country and the only way to atone for its deep, intrinsic irredeemable sin is to have functionally open borders and unlimited migration. That is the lie.

And the extortion is, do not resist, do not complain about uncontrolled, unrestricted migration.

And I will just say this point, and it is very important. If you are an immigrant to this country living here today and you have taken the Oath of Citizenship, you become naturalized. You are a full member of our American family. You are a citizen now, our heritage is yours. Our history is yours, our culture is yours.

As a U.S. citizen, though you were born somewhere else, you are entitled to the exact same protections as every other citizen. You are entitled to have your needs come first. You are entitled to have your border protected. You are entitled to send your kids to a safe school where they can learn and grow and thrive.

You are entitled to have your tax dollars spent on your own community.

So this is also, Mark, about protecting immigrants living here today who are citizens in our country and understanding that as full citizens in America, their rights are being violated, too, and I would hope all pro- border lawmakers would switch their rhetoric about immigration, to get back to first principles and say that my duty as a lawmaker, first and foremost, is to make sure that every citizen living here today, U.S. born or foreign born, has their jobs, their safety, their security put before every other considerations.

I don't want to hear about amnesty. I don't want to hear about tolerating illegal immigration, I only want to hear about policies that make the lives and livelihoods better of the constituents I represent no matter where they came from.

LEVIN: And you know, Stephen Miller, that seems to be the attitude of people who live on the southern border on the United States side, a majority of whom are Hispanic-Americans.

MILLER: Exactly.

LEVIN: That also seems to be the attitude of Democratic representatives who represent them, like Representative Cuellar, who ...

MILLER: A very courageous lawmaker.

LEVIN: ... has been ringing the bell and banging the pots and pans and telling the Biden administration, you're destroying our communities here, and has tried to take photos and to inform the American people about what's going on.

Listen, I want to thank you for everything you've been doing. I want to thank you for what you're doing today, Stephen Miller. We really appreciate it. And God bless you, my friend.

MILLER: Thank you so much. Thank you, Mark.

LEVIN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back, America. I have a great guest, Professor Peter Wood. He is the President of the National Association of Scholars and he has written a tremendous book "1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project."

I've read this book and I recommend it to you very, very strongly.

Professor, welcome and thank you for coming.

PETER WOOD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS: Thank you so much for having me.

LEVIN: Now you seem very concerned about the 1619 Project. So let's walk through this if we can. What is it that occurred in 1619 that "The New York Times" and the author of the project claim was actually the founding moment of the United States?

WOOD: An English pirate ship brought 20 some -- we don't know the exact number of enslaved Africans to Jamestown, Virginia, that ship had intercepted a Spanish slave ship in the Caribbean, taken most of the slaves and sold them in Bermuda and brought the remainder up to Jamestown where they traded them for provisions.

According to "The New York Times" that event was the beginning of slavery in what was going to become America.

There are some problems with that, which I can go into, but basically, "The New York Times" claim was that that event is the real beginning of America, that the nation that was going to be was founded on the oppression of African slaves, the white supremacy that emerged from that and the centuries that followed, in which this attempt to extract labor and to oppress the rights of black people became the founding idea of who we are, what we are, and everything else that followed.

It is a matter of some interest in me as a scholar that the event as described didn't really take place. What had happened was that Jamestown, Virginia did not recognize slavery. So it took these captives and treated them as indentured servants.

It's not maybe the best place to be in your life at the prime of life, but an indentured servant only serves a few years of servitude, and then is set free, and we know historically, that that's exactly what happened to these captives. They were set free. They were not reduced to a lifetime of slavery.

If you want to call their position of indentured servitude slavery, it was certainly of a very mild form, and nothing like the slavery that we normally think of when we're thinking of the Chattel Slavery of the pre- Civil War south.

In any case, slavery had already been in North America and South America millennia before the arrival of this pirate ship and that was partly because Native Americans, as we know, from both South America and North America were themselves engaged in enslaving each other and later on, whites when they could capture them.

Slavery was, of course, something that was nearly universal in the human experience, all around the world, cultures and societies held people as captives and enslaved them. So it wasn't an invention of the people in Jamestown in 1619, it wasn't an invention of the English colonists in the New World, the Spanish and the Portuguese had been enslaving both Native Americans and African captives well before this slavery in what was going to become the United States had already been there for at least a hundred years, because the Spanish had brought slaves to what is now Florida and to Georgia.

So things are a bit more complicated than "The Times" made out, but their founding idea is that the United States became the inheritor of this original sin of slavery and that became the basis of all our sort of focal institutions, our economy, our laws, are very principles of freedom and equality were according to this reinterpretation of American history, simply a smokescreen in order to make people feel justified in violating the natural rights of other people.

So that's where I took off in writing a book about this.

LEVIN: It seems awfully strange, that "The New York Times" and their project would pick 1619, as opposed to some other date, isn't it? And this is being now pushed into our school systems. I understand 3,500 school systems are now using this, "The New York Times" is intentionally preparing educational materials for this.

So the argument would go that 1776 not only wasn't the real event, the Declaration of Independence and really prior to 1776 -- 1760, 1770, 1775 when the Revolutionary War really, really started, but that the Revolutionary War wasn't really for independence, they argue, it was to enshrine slavery.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back. Professor Peter Wood, President of the National Association of Scholars, author of an excellent book, "1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project."

So my question to you, Professor, is this, was the purpose of the revolution in 1776 to enshrine slavery because if it was, after all these decades of studying the American Revolution, I must have missed it. How do you respond to that?

WOOD: Well, I respond to it as something that was just made up pretty much out of thin air. Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead writer for the 1619 Project contributed the first substantial essay to the 100-page magazine supplement where "The Times" launched it, and in it, she made a number of claims that I think just have to be seen as preposterous.

One of them is the idea that the American Revolution was fought by the colonists against England, because they feared that the English King was going to emancipate American slaves and end the institution of slavery.

Now, there just is nothing behind that. We know why the American Revolution was fought. If nothing else, we have this handy document called the Declaration of Independence in which Thomas Jefferson laid out about 20 some reasons why the colonists should rebel. It didn't occur to him that they should rebel because there was a fear that the English were going to end slavery.

Why didn't they fear that? Well, they didn't fear it because that was never a prospect. The English had indeed, emancipated slaves in England in something called a Somerset Decision a few years earlier, but no one believed that the emancipation of slaves was something that was going to be visited on the colonies.

Why not? Because the slave trade was a major British enterprise. They were profiting immensely from taking slaves to the Caribbean. The only complaint that North Americans had about the English slave trade was that the English were bringing too many slaves to the new world.

But in any case, slavery was not a factor in that sense in the American Revolution. To some extent, it could be a factor in the opposite direction and that the Abolition Movement had already gained fervor and adherence in New England and other parts of the colonies, so that the imposition of British law was now getting in the way of that pursuit of freedom, which was the fundamental purpose of the American Revolution, freedom of conscience, freedom of political self-identity, the New World was seeking a way to emancipate itself from England, it was not seeking further ways to enslave or to mistreat people of African origin.

You mentioned a moment ago that this is in our schools and I should add that what happened was that when "The New York Times" launched the 1619 Project, it partnered with the Pulitzer Center, and the Pulitzer Center on the last page of "The New York Times" bombshell release of this report, declared that it had already signed up major school districts and teachers around the country.

It went on to say that this was going to be turned into curriculum, a curriculum suitable with variations for every level of school from first grade through high school, and so it has become -- it has been heavily marketed to teachers and to school districts. And some, like the Buffalo School District, the Chicago School District have jumped right in and said, this is how we're now going to tell American history.

Now, note, this is not just adding something to the way we teach history. It is meant to replace something. This is not telling the American history as we know it as the pursuit of independence, liberty and equality. This is telling the history of America entirely through the lens of racial oppression.

So the claims that are made in this report that American prosperity, every bit of it is founded on the slave trade and the plantation system, every bit of our prosperity as a nation that has free markets and some form of capitalism derives from plantation slavery. Every bit of the freedom that has been won through emancipation through the civil rights movement was black only enterprise, whites had no part of that, they are simply part of the systemic oppression.

Abraham Lincoln is treated as someone whose motive in the Civil War was not the emancipation of the slaves, but rather, the idea that America should be a place where the whites and blacks should be kept separate, and he entertained the idea of even exiling the ex-slaves to some colony abroad.

Nikole Hannah-Jones and her partners in this enterprise are telling a story that is factually untrue. Anyone who does real American History knows that and many of those have come forward to complain that "The Times" has been manhandling history. It is a strange thing that a newspaper of all things would think that it has the intellectual authority to wipe away American History and replace it with something that's brand new.

A brand new thing that it was creating is not the product of scholarship or historians. Eight of the 10 major essays in "The Times" product were the creation of journalists and people who were not historians at all. It proceeds without footnotes, without any recognition of the history that was told before this.

So we are in a kind of effort to promote propaganda.

LEVIN: Well, I would remind the audience, this would be the same "New York Times" and there have been several scholars who have written about this, and I've written about it that for the most part covered up the Holocaust when six million European Jews were being exterminated, the same "New York Times" that printed lies from Walter Duranty, their man in Moscow. He was Joseph Stalin's flunky, and about the slaughter of the Ukrainians at the hands of Stalin.

So "The New York Times" has a pretty bad past when it comes to history and human rights.

Professor, I want to thank you very much, outstanding book, "1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project." This is the book that should be in all the schools in America. And good luck to you, sir.

WOOD: Thank you so much.

LEVIN: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEVIN: Welcome back, America. This July 4th, will we all be celebrating American Independence? I assume our Democratic friends will be celebrating the 1619 Project, not 1776 on July 4th because they don't believe that was the founding of America. Strange thing, isn't it?

Look, here's the bottom line. I just had two guests who are courageous men, not because they went off to war, not because they're police officers, but because they have the guts to speak to millions of people and speak the truth. Stephen Miller and Peter Wood.

That's what each and every one of us have to do. We need to have the courage to exercise our free speech rights, where the Big Tech, Big Media, like it or not, we need to speak the truth. We need to know what the truth is.

The more informed we are, the more powerful we are. Ideas have consequences.

Our ideas are righteous and great.

You know, it is very interesting when you hear Biden or when you hear Pelosi or Schumer or when you listen to some of the founders of Black Lives Matter or Antifa in the streets, when you watch CNN and MSNBC and some of the people they bring on, professors, among others who speak, do they speak for you? Do they sound like they are pro-American?

Do they sound like they're talking about the same America that you live in?

I want you to remember something. When people trash this country, they are trashing you. And by you, I mean, all of you, regardless of your race, regardless of your religion, regardless of your ethnicity, regardless of your gender preference. They are trashing all of you.

And who is it that they embrace ultimately? Class warfare, oppressed and oppressor. These are foreign concepts. These are concepts imported into the United States from Europe, from Marxists.

These are concepts taught to your children by tenured professors in our colleges and universities who are accountable to literally nobody.

We can't allow that ideology to conquer us from within, and as long as I'm sitting here, and as long as I'm behind a microphone, and as long as I have a breath to breathe, they won't.

Join me, so I hope you'll get your copy of "American Marxism."

I'll see you next week on LIFE, LIBERTY & LEVIN

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.