WATCH: Hot Girl, Conservative Monologue

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Is the conservative viewpoint more palatable when it’s delivered by a beautiful woman? Yup. Watch the full episode of The Wonderful World of Stu ON DEMAND on TheBlaze TV PLUS!

  • http://youtu.be/R7MC2wu49Cw Sam Fisher

    Is she going to replace Stu? 

  • Draxx

    What was she talking about, all I remember is wind blown hair swirling…

    (LOL just kidding, but maybe the younger males might listen a little more, but I am sure that some women would not listen regularly simply because she was pretty.)  But I must say that it is Very Unattractive for her to Mention Al Gore, but that would go for Any Woman Out There!!!

  • New Yorker who was there

    Can we keep her?  Please?

  • Anonymous

    continue on please….

  • http://www.facebook.com/paul.redman.940 Paul Redman

    I sure hope that she is being paid fairly…workplace…unfair…labor…pay…and all of that….

  • Anonymous

         Her monologue grabbed me about a thousand times tighter than Obamass state of the Union address .  NUFF SAID  ! 

  • Anonymous

    She’s adorable…reminds me of my granddaughter.

  • Donovan Powers

    you had me at “I’d like to think that if I didnt dress…”

  • Anonymous

    Maybe, just maybe, if she gave that presentation in front of the scientists who threaten the world with global warming, they would listen to some logic. Nah, most of thse scientists are tooObama’s teleprompter messages.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stephan.bruno Stephan JackofClubz Bruno

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…no. 

  • http://twitter.com/Freedom1656 Don1656

    This works 1000% :)
    Because I will listen to her till my ears fall off and what ever she says has got to be true but that is a true example of a war on women so I say go for it and see 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Gabel/1230510846 Jeff Gabel

    LOL, had to watch twice to get the numbers she was talking about.  Well, at least part of them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jamiewalker725 Jamie Walker

    I was dubious, but dang! You were right, it WAS more interesting to have it spoken by a hot girl. 

  • Anonymous

    I find it amusing that the word “beautiful” seems to, more often than not, be used for a blonde. And more often than that, it seems to always be a fake or overlightened blonde. I swear, it’s an epidemic.

  • http://www.facebook.com/george.reagan.56 George Reagan

    Conservative women have always been and will always be much more attractive than any on the liberal progressive end of the spectrum.  Being that way just improves their outlook on life. 

  • http://twitter.com/net5000 netPRpro, Inc.

    That was soooo confusing…. Girl talking statistics, numbers, fractions. I couldn’t concentrate. Ouch

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/GW6ALM3N2YFTOT6TN3GZGAHQG4 Frank Balcer

    She is right about what she said.

  • http://twitter.com/miketdineen Mike Dineen

    I’m in tears!  The is the BEST!  Irony, juxtaposition, satire, science, sexy, effects, etc etc execution!  LMAO!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=697450933 John Blanchard

    What did she say? :)

  • Sargonarhes

    Glenn, make this a regular feature of your show.

  • Papa Smurf 5069

    Get this on You tube and all of the other new media sites that the ignorant Obamacolytes love.  this  should go “viral” and be followed up by a series of short (bear in mind the limited attention span of your target audience) clips.  Another suggestion: scroll links to websites documenting the factuality of the statements made by the babe.  Yet another suggestion: Do a version of these with a barechested macho man for the low-information female voters.

  • David Fried

    why would you rant against more eco-friendly cars? What kind of person takes an impassioned stand against vehicles trying to conserve the environment?!

  • David Fried

    why would you rant against more eco-friendly cars? What kind of person takes an impassioned stand against vehicles trying to conserve the environment?!

  • http://www.facebook.com/constance.spangler Constance Spangler

    Very very nice girl–.

  • Anonymous

    Because they really DON’T save the planet … yet.  Yes, we have been working on problem solvers for the last several decades, but haven’t improved very much.  Yes, we need to continue to try to replace fossil fuels … eventually, but not at the expense of the hard working tax payer. No, we are not contributing to global climate change (with the exception of liberals hot gasses).  Yes, our own Sun and Planet are the causes with solar heating, volcanoes, geothermal zones and wars/nuclear testing.  But, hey, we need to keep all of those PhD environmental scientist jobs so they won’t be at the corner greasy spoon flipping burgers.  Besides, the progressives need this issue to be able to complete the takeover of the USA and world with their commie beliefs.  Just ask old George Soros and his minions.

  • Anonymous

    Because they really DON’T save the planet … yet.  Yes, we have been working on problem solvers for the last several decades, but haven’t improved very much.  Yes, we need to continue to try to replace fossil fuels … eventually, but not at the expense of the hard working tax payer. No, we are not contributing to global climate change (with the exception of liberals hot gasses).  Yes, our own Sun and Planet are the causes with solar heating, volcanoes, geothermal zones and wars/nuclear testing.  But, hey, we need to keep all of those PhD environmental scientist jobs so they won’t be at the corner greasy spoon flipping burgers.  Besides, the progressives need this issue to be able to complete the takeover of the USA and world with their commie beliefs.  Just ask old George Soros and his minions.

  • Anonymous

    Party like its 1985! lol

  • Anonymous

    The projected reductions are small relative to the change in temperature (1.8 – 4.8 ºC) and sea level rise (27 – 51 cm) from 1990 to 2100 from the MAGICC simulations for the GCAM reference case. However, this is to be expected given the magnitude of emissions reductions expected from the program in the context of global emissions. This is also taken from the document sited pg 8-109 http://www.nhtsa.gov/search?q=hybrid fuel efficiency&spell=1&site=nhthqnlas187_Pages&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&access=p

    is the website for NHTSA or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    search : ” hybrid fuel efficiency”

    open pdf entitles, “final Rulemaking to Establish Green house Gas Emissions”

    go to page 8-107

    compare with http://www.nhtsa.gov/search?q=hybrid fuel efficiency&spell=1&site=nhthqnlas187_Pages&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&access=pWhich seems to suggest that the decress in emmisions under this program from now until then would result in the ‘low’ changes.What say you?

  • Anonymous

    this is so fucking lame

  • SoThere

    Another vulgar Libtard puke.