Episode 627: Antisemitism on College Campuses

Published Nov 11, 2023, 6:06 AM

On Tuesday, October 31st, Patrick Dai, a 21-year-old junior at Cornell University, originally from Pittsford, New York, was arrested for making online threats to Jewish students on the Cornell campus. Dai’s actions represent an upward trend of the rise of antisemitism on college campuses, since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Newt’s guest is William Jacobson, Clinical Professor and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School.

On this episode of news World. On Tuesday, October thirty, first, Patrick Dye, a twenty one year old junior at Cornell University originally from Pittsford, New York, was arrested for making online threats to Jewish students on the Cornell campus. Diye's actions represent an upward trend of the rise of anti Semitism in college campuses since AMAS attacked Israel on October seventh. I'm really pleased to welcome back my guest, William Jacobson, clinical professor and director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. He's also the founder and publisher of Legal Insurrection, a popular politics and law website, which you can find at legalinsurrection dot com. Bill, welcome, and thank you for joining me again on newts World.

Thanks for having me back.

I'm curious, you know, there are a whole series of frankly shocking act so anti semitism on our campuses. What's your perspective on all of this.

My perspective is that this was a long time coming. That people cannot look at it and say something happened on October seventh that ignited this, that started it. I can trace it all the way back to my days at Harvard Law School in the early nineteen eighties, and I would call it, what's the racialization of education and the racialization of the Israeli Arab conflict, much like the campuses have become racialized by critical race theory, so called anti racism theory, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and in that equation, the Jewish students have been left on the sideline that the conflict is portrayed on campuses as white oppressor Israel, much like they call the US the white oppressor and oppressed non white Palestinians. And that over the years, and I've witnessed it at Cornell and I've witnessed it in my website, coverage has metastasized into open anti Semitism. And October seven, Hamas attacked was what kind of bubbled it to.

The surface, But it wasn't the underlying cause.

Is this just an offshoot of the whole notion that there's an anti colonial rebellion worldwide and if you're white, then your colonial and if you're anything else, while you're part of the worldwide rebellion.

I think that's a large part of it.

I think that's a large part of it that the doctrines that have taken hold on campuses are so called anti colonialism, so called liberation, but it's all done in racial terms, and so decolonization is the term they like to use, and they portray Israel as somehow uniquely evil in the world, and much like the Iranian Mulla formulation of us being the big Satan, in Israel the little Satan, they view Israel as essentially a proxy for Western imperialism, for United States, and so it really has taken over the campuses in very racial terms, and it has radicalized a lot of students because what happens is they receive, really nowadays, from kindergarten on up through college, an ahistorical presentation of the world that somehow whatever evils the United States had and whatever evils Israel had are unique to them, are unique to Western societies. But of course we know that's not true. Colonial domination, domination, capture of lands, capture and resettling of territories is something that's.

Been going on as long as.

Humans have walked the earth, and certainly it's happened with Muslim societies, it has happened with other societies. It's not uniquely Western. It's not uniquely American, it's not uniquely Israeli, and certainly not uniquely Jewish. But that's how it's portrayed. So all of their anger, all of their hate for Western society, is taken out on Israel, and that's really what's happened.

So last week, the Ayatolahamoni said, when we say death to America, this is not a slogan, this is a policy. Why is it so hard for these students to understand that death to America includes them because.

They don't see it that way.

They in in any ways, based on their rhetoric, see themselves detached from our country, and that's a massive problem in itself. They see themselves as not part of our society, and that's why so many of them are calling to tear it down. That so they don't view tearing down our system and tearing down our society, according to what they say, as necessarily a negative. Of course, it's an absurd proposition. They don't realize how privileged they are to be in this country. And of course there are tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of people around the world who would do anything to be here. In place of them. So I think people don't understand that the anti Israelism, the anti Semitism, is also anti Americanism on these campuses, if you had one of Kamala Harris's ven diagrams okay that she loves so much, you would have almost a very significant, I'm not sure one hundred percent overlap, but a very significant overlap between the students who would describe themselves as anti American and the students who describe themselves as anti Israel. There's a huge overlap. They're the same activists, so they don't when they hear Komani say those things, if they even hear it, I don't think they necessarily view that as a bad thing because they've been taught since childhood that we are uniquely evil in the world, that we are systemically racist, that it cannot be solved, that you can only work to overcome it and tear it down. It's really a horrifying perspective that our education system, how our education system is raising students.

Two things. One you mentioned Kamala Harris. I've noticed that her stepdaughter had raised eight million dollars for Hamas since October seventh, which is kind of astonishing. Here's the vice president's daughter raising money for a overtly terrorist organization. Yeah.

I think she raised it for one of those front groups to provide plausible deniability. So Hamas and other Islamist organizations have a lot of so called charities around the world.

I think that's how she did it.

I forget the name of the group, but it's one which I think is known to be affiliated. We've seen this many times in the US, and some groups have even been prosecuted for it. Various Islamist charities that are really just front groups, but they have layers of corporate deniability. And I think that's what she's doing. But the question is why is she doing that? And why isn't she raising money for the International Red Cross? Okay, why isn't she raising money for any of the organizations which, whether you like everything they do or you don't, are legitimate humanitarian organizations. Why would you go to a group with shady connections? And I think that's just another example. I mean, I don't know much about her stepdaughter, but it's another example of how people who are college age or in their twenties, maybe now even in their early thirties were raised very differently than we were raised when it comes to the outlook on the world and the outlook on our own country.

There was an FBI report that I think anti Semitic activities incidents have jumped almost four hundred percent in the last year. I suspect now in the last three weeks it's even more dramatic. And yet the Vice President went on TV to explain to us the great challenge we face is Islamophobia. How can you watch the evening news and conclude that it is the group who have been doing the persecuting who are the ones who are in trouble, and that the people being persecuted must in fact be the ones who are bad. It's almost like the world turned upside down.

You know a lot of college statements that were issued college presidential statements after this, which is you had an event on October Sex which was the single largest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust, which was done in ways that would make even Isis ashamed. You know, the mutilation, torture, mass rape. The stories are still coming out, burning of bodies, dismembering of children in front of their parents. I mean things that are so beyond that these are Holocaust level events, although not necessarily numerically, but in terms of qualitatively Holocaust and isis level events inflicted specifically on the Jewish people because they're Jewish, And almost every college presidential statement that has come out throws Islamophobia into the condemnation of what just happened. Now, why would you do that? Put aside whether you should have efforts against Islamophobia or any other phobia. I noticed there's no efforts about anti Christian bias, which is much more pervasive than Islamophobia.

But why would you do that?

Why on this moment of all moments, unique to the Jewish people, done and inflicted upon people because they were Jewish, and done by Islamists, okay, widely cheered throughout the Islamic world, Why in those sentences do you need to throw in Islamophobia? Why are you so incapable of recognizing the harm that was done uniquely to the Jewish people that even for a day, you can't acknowledge that independent of something else. And that's really a problem. I think it speaks to a lot of what's wrong with our societies. We refuse to identify what are the real threats that we face.

I can't decide whether it's a moral equivalence problem we can't talk about one without being balanced, or whether it is a political constituency problem that there are now enough people who are Arab Americans, particularly in places like Michigan, that the bid deministration really can't figure out how to handle this conflict that is now not just in Israel and Goza, but the conflict's now inside the United States.

I think it's a combination of the two.

One. I think it's ideological, the need to draw moral equivalents, to need to bring diversity, equity, and inclusion into everything you do. So you can't decry anti Semitism vile acts of violence without decrying other sorts of hatred in the world. So I think that ideological perspective is part of it, and I think part of it is political. I think that it's not limited by any means to the Arab American community. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party hates Israel, you know, the squad Rashida, talib elon Omar and many other people. There's a significant percentage of the Democrat Party that hates Israel. And I think that's what the administration had to contend with and by far it's you know, secular opposition to Israel. It's not necessarily religious based. And so to me, that's the political angle if you look at gallup polling over the years on who do you have more sympathy for or who do you sympathetize with? Now, I don't love the phrasing of that question because sympathy could mean a lot of things, but essentially Democrats are fifty to fifty now, they no longer have more sympathy, whatever that means for Israel versus the Palestinians. So the Democratic Party at its base, at its progressive wing, is something that Democrat politicians have to contend with. And I think that's the political angle that's driving it.

It puts Senator Schumer in a difficult position because he now in New York has both a very large Jewish constituency and he has an increasingly militant left wing anti Israel constituency and he's trying to dance and not get destroyed in between the two of them. And it's the huge shift from where he would have been ten years ago.

Yeah, and I think people have pointed to him above well else I haven't tracked what he's been saying, but he certainly hasn't been out front and center. I mean, you know the famous line about the most dangerous place in the world is between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera. Where has Chuck Schumer been last three weeks. Again, I'm not going to say he said nothing, because I'm sure he said things. But this is not the Chuck Schumer we know on almost every other issue, where he makes himself the center of attention, and he is this spokesman, you know, dominating in the airwaves.

He's not been around.

And I think in this moment, people are showing their true character, and I think Schumer probably is taking into account his political calculation. I'm not sure why. It's not like he's not going to get re elected.

I think he's.

Got a while before he's up again, and he's a shoe in to be re elected, so I'm not really sure why. I think perhaps there are some people in the Senate, some Democratic senators, who are in disagreement with him, but I'm not sure why he's in hiding relative to how front and center he should be on this issue.

I think part of its ferocity that if you take this group on head on, that their ability to come back and to just be so intense and so hostile is kind of amazing, and I think people just flinch from standing up against them.

They are very aggressive.

We've seen them with their takeover of the capital, for which nobody's been charged, unlike other takeovers of the Capitol. Their disruption of congressional hearings regularly. I was just watching this morning the House Judiciary Committee hearing and there was a Cornell student was among the people testifying about campus and anti semitism. And that's one of the reasons I watched it because I knew there was going to be a Cornell student there and she was interrupted by people screaming and protesting.

So they are very aggressive.

They take over offices, they take over buildings, They get treated with kid gloves. They are never held to account. So I think it does intimidate people like Chuck Schumer because he knows that there have been protests outside his home in Brooklyn. I think fairly strong protests outside. I think it was two or three weeks ago. I might be slightly off on the timing that there were significant arrests of very aggressive protesters outside his home in Brooklyn. These are dangerous people. They're aggressive people. They think they can intimidate others, and it has an impact on politicians.

Congressman McCormick O Georgia who offered the resolution to censure Congresswoman to Lead for her anti Israel comments, and I think at one point calling for the destruction of Israel. He announced that his staff was working from home today because they actually had death threats. Because that's the intensity of the reaction on the other side.

That doesn't surprise me at all. We've witnessed this an increasingly vitriolic left wing of the Democratic Party. You've seen it with Antifa, we've seen it with other groups that they are committed to street violence, they're committed to street intimidation. We see them going around in what appears to be a semi organized fashion, or maybe it's just caught on in their circles, tearing and flyers with regard to Israelis, including children who've been kidnapped by Hamas. So there's something gone very very wrong on the far left wing of the Democratic Party, which has an enormous potential for violence.

We did Laura Ingram show, and before I went on, she had five of the pro terrorist women members of Congress speaking, and she had them put back to back to Baccia at the full intensity of all five of them, and by the fifth one there was a level of hysteria and hostility that was really startling. I mean, it resembled some of the things I've read about in terms of the pre Civil war congresses where people ended up getting beaten with canes and what have you. There's a ferocity there that is I think very challenging, which frankly has led me to wonder what we should do about it, both on campuses but also as a country, because as a historian, I find the parallelism with the intensity and the militancy and the organization from nineteen twenty nine to thirty three of the Nazis in Weimar, Germany very similar. That you have this emerging group willing to impose its views, people intimidated against standing up against it, not quite believing that it really really means what it's saying, because if you think about what they're really saying, that it's so horrifying that you'd have to deal with them. So let's start with where you operate, which is the campuses. What would you do to recapture the campuses for civilization.

The first thing you have to do is get rid of what is euphemistically called diversity, equity, and inclusion, which is simply a racialization of everything. It is viewing everything that happens through a racial lens and some other identity lenses, but basically it's group by identity approach to the world, but particularly a group racial identity approach to the world. It's poisonous. It dominates the campuses, it certainly dominates Cornell, and it has enormous, enormous negative implications for the society. If you wanted to destroy our country from within, what would you do differently than set people against each other based on race and ethnicity. I'm not sure you would do anything differently. So the first step is what has happened in Florida. Regardless of who someone supports for the Republican nomination, what Ron DeSantis has done in Florida is to defund the bureaucracies, and that I think would be a really good step. To refocus education on campuses, not just on academics, but to the extent you want to fight hate and fight bigotry on campus, uphold the dignity of the individual uphold our constitutional guarantee of equal protection, that each person is to be treated as an individual, not as a proxy for their racial or ethnic group. That's how we need to refocus it. That's not going to solve the problem today, but if we did that, I think it would go a long way towards solving the problem with the incoming students on college campuses.

So would you cut off federal funding to schools that continue to offer that kind of focus?

Yeah, I would. I think that's got to be considered.

That's not going to happen, obviously unless there's a dramatic change in the political structure in Washington, but states can do it also. I would absolutely no federal funding for these DEI bureaucracies. I think that would be a really good step. The faculties at certainly the so called elite universities and colleges, have been completely captured by radicals, particularly in the humanities, and I think that that's something that needs to be addressed.

I have been saying for a long time. I do not.

Believe that universities, at least at this so called elite level, can be reformed internally because there's no internal opposition to help with that reform. If you look at the statistics on how professors self identify, how faculty self identify, and if you go back twenty five or thirty years, I think the statistics are that has between liberal and conservative. It was about sixty forty liberal to conservative. So campus has always leaned left. But if you look at it currently at something like twenty eight to one, and if you look at the youngest cohort professors who've only been teaching for ten years or less, something like forty to one, there is no internal opposition left on campus. I would prefer that outsiders not have to take the lead. I would prefer that campuses could reform themselves, but they can't. So I think federal funding, state funding. How about enforcing state and federal civil rights laws, because most a lot of what happens on campuses is discrimination that violates the law, but it doesn't get enforced. So I think there's a lot of things, but funding, I think is the key. I think the money is the key here.

Do you think that if you were able to defund the DEI efforts that that would lead to a substantial shift in the universities.

Yes, it's not going to cure things in and of itself, but it would be a dramatic improvement if those race based, race focused, ethnicity focused, racial lens focused administrative programming and we're eliminated, that would be a dramatic rise. At Cornell, there are efforts, and I think they're coming into fruition next fall, the next academic year, to require these sort of DEI courses, not just training, but coursework for incoming freshmen. So you're going to have new generations of students indoctrinating to believe in that we are systemically racist country, that it can't be cured. The only thing that can help it is to tear things down, and that race in the color of your skin is the most important attribute as to whether you'll be successful in this society. And that's simply not true. But that's what's happening. It's getting worse, it is not getting better.

In addition to taking that head on, how do we deal with the sort of psychological pressures and cultural pressures that seem to be designed almost to drive Jewish students off campus.

I think you're right.

I think this is in many ways a cultural problem that has happened on campuses. It's a deeply anti Western cultural problem which is taking itself out as has happened of course for many centuries on the Jewish population, who are seen for whatever the reason, is an easy target.

While there are.

Some colleges that have significant Jewish populations, they're never majority or almost never majority, except for religious colleges. They are vulnerable because they are not the majority, and they are the victim, held out as the ultimate evil, the so called international jew who is hated by everybody, and that is led mostly on campuses by the left wing and the Islamis, so the so called red Green alliance that the far left and the Islamists all have the same enemy. And those two ropes, the far left and the Islamists on campuses are very powerful and that is why Israel and Jews are being singled out. But people should understand that this is an anti American culture on campuses. It's an anti Western culture on campuses which is revealing itself as anti Semitism.

The reinforce your point about dei's important. Tabia Lee, who is a former DEI director, wrote in The New York Post quote, I saw anti Semitism on a weekly basis in my two years as a faculty diversity, equity and Inclusion director. In fact, I can safely say the toxic DEI ideology deliberately stokes hatred to Israel and the Jewish people. Now, given that kind of testimony and evidence, why are the board of trustees tolerating and turning this into a course?

That is a really good question, and that's a question that I posed to the Cornell Board of Trustees and never really got an answer from them. Is you need to understand you need to stop all new DEI programming at Cornell until you can understand the negative impact it's having both on the campus generally and also its connection to the rise of antisemitism on the campus. It is a wonder and I think it's because a lot of board of trustees probably don't take their job as seriously as it should. It's very frequently a perk of being a big donor to a university or to a college. That's one of your rewards is you get to be on the board of trustees. And I don't know if they really view their job as seriously as they should take it. My guess is if you ask them, they would say, yes, we do take it seriously. But their conduct doesn't show that, and I think Cornell is a very good example of that that I've been warning about this for years, others have been warning about it, and nothing was done. I also think that DEI has taken on a quasi religious fervor at Cornell and elsewhere, and nobody is willing to question it.

The campus.

In July of twenty twenty, a couple of months after George Floyd died, was declared by the president of the university to be an anti racist campus, that they were going to have an anti racism initiative on campus that would involve faculty, staff, and students, and the recommended reading for that summer for the entire university was Ebram Kendy's How to Be An Anti Racist, which, if you've ever read it, is a pretty horrible book. It advocates racial discrimination. And so you have a university that declares itself to be anti racist that recommends Ibram Kendy's book as the reading for the summer for the entire campus, which is now implementing mandated coursework and mandated training for staff. They tried to implement that on faculty, and faculty revolted. I don't think they revolted so much substantively over the topic. I think they revolted as they didn't think the administration could force faculty to go through that sort of training. So, you know, Cornell has a fevered pitch of DEI so bad that the universities and the president's reaction to what just happened on campus where you not only had you know, pro Haamas demonstrations, you had a professor who said he felt exhilarated when he heard of the AMAS attack. You had threats by a student who's now FBI custody against other Jewish students on campus, threatening to slit throats and shoot up the Jewish living house, Jewish dining hall, I should say, and Kosher dining hall is a better description. It's open to anybody. It's the Kosher dining hall. And what does the president do and the senior administration. They announce that they are going to beef up the DEI resources to include broader coverage of antisemitism and of course Islamophobia, And so that one goes to show you that antisemitism wasn't really addressed by this DEI initiative on campus. And they are so wedded to the idea that DEI must remain that rather than examining, deconstructing DEI removing it from the campus, they are simply going to throw a module in there on anti Semitism. So I don't think the board of Trustees has the guts at Cornell, at least they haven't shown it so far to take on the DEI bureaucracy and the Dei quasi religion that has taken hold on campus. And until they do that, whatever they do.

Is just going to be a band aid.

Whatever the various boards of trustees are like. You begin to have people like Ronald Lauder, who has now threatened to stop donations the University of Pennsylvania, or Les Wesner and his wife Abigail, who have the Westerner Foundation, which is now breaking its ties with Harvard University. And you get a number of these kind of things, and you've had in the legal profession the number of the major law firms send a letter saying they're not going to hire anybody who's involved in anti Israel and Prohomas demonstrations. Those are the beginning of a kind of reaction I don't think we've seen in years.

I think it's a positive development that donors are fire only paying attention and finally understanding that they may think they're supporting education when they donate tens of millions of dollars to these universities, but in fact they're actually donating to highly activist institutions to turn out additional activists who are contrary to their own interests. I think it's a positive development. I don't think in and of itself it's going to change the institutional behavior because it's too baked in, and particularly if you look at a Harvard. So Harvard, for example, has an endowment just over fifty billion dollars. That's billion with a B, not million with an M, and so they are largely immune to the pressures of donors. If they never got another donation, they would survive. The donations are not to sustain the operation, it's to put frosting on the cake. I think these are lead institutions largely feel immune to donor pressure. And of course we also know that foreign funding. There's billions of dollars of foreign funding. If they lose a Ronald Lauder as a donor, they'll pick up an anti Israel left wing tech billionaire as a donor, where they'll pick up somebody affiliated with Cutter. So while I'm in favor of these donors becoming active, I don't think we should kid ourselves. These administrators at these elite institutions consider the institutions to be theirs, not to be the donors, not to be anybody else's.

Do you think, though, that either cutting off federal aid or cutting off the tax deductible status would have a bigger impact?

Oh?

Absolutely, I mean the numbers would just dwarf whatever the donors are donating that. You know, federal funding is just massive. You recall it was a long time ago, but it ended up in a Supreme Court decision. Harvard Law School would not permit military recruiters on campus, and Congress passed a lossing that you can't get federal funding if you don't treat military recruiters on equal footing with other recruiters.

And it went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme.

Court held that that law was constitutional, and so Harvard was faced with the loss of federal funding not just for Harvard Law School but for the entire university.

So they back down.

Yes, federal funding is so massive that if that were to be put on the line. I think that would change institutional behavior dramatically.

I want to tell you I'm very impressed with your courage, because you must face a fair amount of pushback from your colleagues and from your administrative leaders to take the stand you do. Has it made you particularly uncomfortable to speak out like this?

When I was hired, I was non political. If you'd googled me in two thousand and six and two thousand and seven, you would have found that I was a lawyer in private practice. I won this case, I lost that case, never political. I got hired at the end of two thousand and seven. It was really the two thousand and eight campaign, Obama versus McCain.

That got me political.

And I started my website in October two thousand and eight, a year after I started at or NOEW, and within two to three weeks before the end of October, I was already getting the nasty grams and the hate mail emails to the university. How dare they have someone like me on faculty only because I was supporting McCain and I was pointing out that Obama's got some problems here. And that continued for the better part.

Of a decade.

That continued for eight plus years, not every day, but consistently harassment from off the campus attempts to get me fired. The university was always very good about it. They always backed me up, and it always came from off campus until George Floyd. So post George Floyd, I saw protesters in the streets with their hands up saying hands up, don't shoot. And I knew that that was from the Michael Brown case that created Black Lives Matter, because we followed it at the website, and I knew that that was a fabrication and Michael Brown was not shot with his hands up saying don't shoot. He was shot because he punched a policeman in the face and tried to steal his weapon. So I wrote a post that I'd written many kinds before, saying, hey, you know, all you people are marching hands up, don't shoot. Do you realize that's a fabricated narrative from the Michael Brown case, and that the Obama Justice Department investigated and found there's no credible evidence that Michael Brown was shot with his hands up saying don't shoot.

And people lost their minds.

Then the complaints came from within the building, and there were attempts to get me fired, petitions to get me fired. Twenty one faculty members denounced me, fifteen student groups declared a boycott of my course.

But I didn't back down.

I got a lot of outside support and they didn't end up firing me.

But yeah, it's been uncomfortable.

I don't have a huge amount of tact with my colleagues since they signed a letter denouncing me. But I am one of the only people on Cornell's campus who speaks out contrary to the prevailing narrative. And there's a price to pay. And what happens is people just end up leaving. They don't wait to be fired. They just say why should I live in an environment like this? And I understand that it's a question I ask myself all the time. And that's why there were so few conservatives left on campuses, because they make a life decision that this is now not how I want to lead my life. And they're not hired anymore. And so, yeah, it's been a difficult road. But I wouldn't be on your show, you know, talking if I didn't speak out, And I would hate to be somebody just sitting on the sideline fuming you know about what's happening without trying to do something about it.

I think people who've never done it underestimate the level of courage it takes to actually stand for your beliefs when the society around you is deeply hostile, and I commend you for having the courage to do this. I think it's really important, and I think people like you around the country are sort of a little bit like the Minutemen at the beginning of the American Revolution. You're the standard bearers for freedom in a way that is really really important, and I hope that to a little extent, this particular podcast encourages you to believe that what you're doing is worthwhile and atribution to the survival of America and the survival of freedom within the rule of law under our Constitution. I want to thank you for joining me. I think our listeners are going to find this fascinating and very very timely conversation, and I hope they will go and take a look at your website and take a look at your writing as it evolves over the next few years. So Bill, thank you very much for being.

With us great and thank you for having me on I appreciate it greatly.

Thank you to my guest William Jacobson. You can learn more about the rise nantisemitism in college campuses on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld is produced by Gingish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingrish three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up from my three free weekly columns at Gingrish three sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Neutsworld.

In 1 playlist(s)

  1. Newt's World

    821 clip(s)

Newt's World

Join former House Speaker, professor, historian, and futurist Newt Gingrich as he shares his lifetim 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 814 clip(s)