The 'big winner' for Glenn in Thursday's debate

August 07, 2015

WRITER

With Glenn off radio for a month, last night's debate was a great way for him to see some of the GOP candidates in action. Let's face it, Glenn has made it very clear that certain candidates (*cough* Ted Cruz *cough*) are strong front runners. That's why Glenn's revelation of who he thought won the debate was so surprising.

Before Thursday's debate, Glenn considered Senator Marco Rubio kind of a "question mark" as a candidate.

"You're not really sure who he is. You haven't seen a lot of him," Glenn said on radio Friday.

Glenn went on to declare Rubio not only the winner of the debate, but also someone he might consider supporting.

"I think he really truly believes things. Because of what he said last night and what he said on CNN this morning," Glenn said, referencing Rubio's interview with Chris Cuomo talking about his stance on abortion.

Watch the video or read the full transcript of the segment below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors.

GLENN: I said earlier that the big -- the big winner from last night, I thought, because he was so likable and he was so strong on things, that he went up in my head on placement. I didn't change who -- I'm for Ted Cruz.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But I'm looking -- okay, if Ted Cruz doesn't get the nod, who can get it. All right. Number two for me is Rand Paul. Now, Marco Rubio was one of those guys who I was like, okay, if Ted doesn't get it. Who else is there?

GLENN: Marco Rubio moved up a lot last night for me. One of the things he said -- and I think Stu is right on this. Stu said earlier today, I think he's not a guy who is playing politics. I think he really truly believes things. Because of what he said last night and what he said on CNN this morning.

This is not going to be popular in the popular -- in the general election. And it's really kind of -- I don't know if it's that popular with all of the Republicans as well.

PAT: He's not worried about that though.

GLENN: I know that.

PAT: Like you were just saying, this is his position. He's proud of his position. He's not ashamed of it in any way. And he defends it really well.

GLENN: Here he is this morning on CNN with Chris Cuomo talking about his stance on abortion.

MARCO: Science has decided when it's human life.

CHRIS: Science has not decided it's at conception.

MARCO: Let me correct you. Science has -- absolutely it has. Science has concluded absolutely it has. What else can it be? It cannot turn into an animal. It can't turn into a donkey. The only thing that can become is a human being.

(cross-talk)

CHRIS: Look, of course, I understand the logic, but it's a little too simple.

MARCO: It's a human life. It cannot be anything else.

CHRIS: Senator, I understand that. But that's oversimplifying it a little bit.

(cross-talk)

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. He's exactly right.

PAT: Oh, he's crushing Cuomo here.

GLENN: There's nothing else it can be. So when does life begin? When does it become a human? It is at the moment of conception. Because there's nothing else -- it won't grow into a shoe. It won't grow into a tumor. It's a child, period.

CHRIS: -- this is a presented argument of science. In having a DNA map, so does a plant. It's about when it becomes a human being. I'm not saying what I think in answer to that question. That's not my position. But don't you think if you want to be a leader of the future, that's a question that deserves an answer that is definitive beyond your faith. When does life begin? None of you are calling for any type of panel for conception.

MARCO: At conception. At conception.

CHRIS: That's your faith. That's your faith. That's not science.

MARCO: No, it isn't.

CHRIS: It is not definitive science.

MARCO: It absolutely is.

CHRIS: I'll have scientists all morning from all walks of life who will say, we cannot say it is definitely human life at conception.

PAT: What?

GLENN: Stop. Stop.

PAT: What else could it be? I want one scientist who will tell you it's not human life. One -- I want one. Because I would love to have the argument with that scientist.

GLENN: What else could it be?

PAT: What could it be? What could it be?

STU: Never anything else.

GLENN: He says, well, it has a DNA map. So does a plant. Yes, of a plant.

If I took the DNA from a tree and I said is that a tree? You would look at the DNA coding and you would go, that's a tree.

STU: Right. Yeah, it's plant life. And this is human life.

GLENN: Right. When there's --

PAT: If you take a seed and plant it, like you take a seed of a tree and you plant it, well, I don't know that that's a tree. Prove that's a tree.

GLENN: Give me some time. It will sprout very soon. And if you want to look at it scientifically, you could take the DNA and say, yes, that is an oak tree.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It's just a very young oak tree. It is the seed of an oak tree. But it is the oak tree. It won't grow into anything else.

STU: This starts after about three minutes of this, by the way. It goes on and on and on.

GLENN: By the way, Chris Cuomo, what are they looking for in space? What are they looking for in space? Life.

STU: The signs of it.

GLENN: The conditions that could create life. If we find bacteria on Mars, they will declare it life.

STU: They sure will. They sure will.

GLENN: So how do you say that bacteria on Mars is life, but the baby inside is not?

STU: Is not. Yeah. That's incomprehensible.

PAT: That's a good argument.

STU: And Rubio in a tough position. In a very hostile interview, sits there and defends this over and over again.

PAT: He's fine with it.

STU: He's fine with it. He believes it. He's confident. I got the sense listening to this interview and kind of what happened in the debate last night, that if he winds up losing because of this, he's totally fine with it. Fine.

GLENN: He is. I met with him on vacation, and we have to have him on the show and spend some time with him. I met with him on vacation. He is that guy.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: He just believes what he believes, and he's willing to say what he believes. And if he loses, that's fine. I got that feeling from him.

JEFFY: That's what got him in office in Florida as a senator. And before that. But as a senator for sure.

GLENN: Yeah.

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?

5 videos that reveal the WOKE GARBAGE being taught to our kids

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.