Making the 'Original Argument'...with idiots

Get The Original Argument here

"It came out today that Newt Gingrich had a million dollar credit line at Tiffany's. And I mean this sincerely. Is he independently wealthy?" Glenn asked.

Is that some new kind of perk you get from having been in Congress? After all, outside of a few books and his former role as a Fox News Contributor, it's not clear how Newt has a million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's!

"So what if our leaders have some special privileges. They were elected and they are the ones leading us. They deserve it. You think the Founding Fathers didn't have lots of perks? They did whatever they wanted," Stu said in his role as the "idiot".

"The House of Representatives can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that commune you know of interest and sympathy of sentiment of which few governments have furnished examples - but without which every government degenerates into tyranny," Pat said in his role as a "founder".

Glenn translated the message. "The founders' greatest evidence as to why the House of Representatives wouldn't be at odds of the people is that they would have to live with the same laws that they passed. In all of world history if you were privileged, you lived by a different set of rules and different set of laws. You had exemptions. You had caveats, you had a preference. You had maybe a waiver for ObamaCare," Glenn said.

"Madison and our founders said, no, that is not what the Constitution stands for. We don't do that. Our founders said no. Today we say no man is above the law. Yeah. Yeah. That came from the minds of our founders. The difference is they lived it."

UPDATE: Who has the power? The states or the federal government?

UPDATE: The latest original argument deals with the idiots saying that most of the founders were atheists. Uh, no they weren't.

James Madison wrote, "It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive it, in it a finger of that almighty hand which has been so frequently and singly extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."

In other words:

"The founders recognized they weren't perfect but they did their best. And the only way they could create something that had never been done before is by direct help from God. Divine providence. It might not be real to MSNBC, but even though it was added later, it really is truly one nation under God."

Get Glenn's new book 'The Original Argument' here

UPDATE 1: What's the latest argument Stu presented to Glenn? "Well, the big problem today is that we ‑‑ people are just too stupid to understand how to handle problems.See, we need a smart council of people to just decide these things for us.  It would be so much better."

What would the founders say? "Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter," Pat read.

But what does that mean today? Glenn explained, "There's the thing.  There was the key, that we have a prohibition of titles of nobility.  So in other words, what they're saying is we don't want people to act like kings.  The whole goal of this government is to make sure that people don't act like kings, that there is no one over anyone else."

On radio this morning, Glenn introduced his new book, "The Original Argument", to listeners and explained why he felt the need to put the Federalist Papers into a more accesible, modern day language. But when Pat said that the Federalist Papers were fine just the way they were, Glenn decided to do a little on air experiment that compared the original Papers and the ones that have been translated into modern language - with Pat playing the original papers and Stu being the idiot friend who needs to be convinced by the original arguments of the founders.

Stu presented the idiot progressive friends question, "All my friends say the rich are getting poorer and the poor are getting poorer. And that those rich people are just selfish bastards.  Shouldn't we just hang all the rich people in the public square?"

What did the founders say? Pat read, "The perpetual changes which have been rung upon the wealthy, the well born and the great have been such as to inspire the disgust of all sensible men and though unwarrantable concealments and misrepresentations which have been in various ways practiced to keep the truth from the public eye have been of a nature to demand the reprobation of all honest men."

What's he talking about? Glenn translated and read from his new book, "Vilifying the rich doesn't benefit anyone.  Every man was created equal.  But what you do after that is up to you.  If you have all the money in the world and you want to hoard it like a selfish maniac, then that's up to you.  You might be a dirtbag and everybody else might call you a dirtbag, but it's not the government's role to convert you into an upstanding member of society.  This country was built on a foundation of treating everyone equally, not guaranteeing equal outcomes."

That makes a little more sense, doesn't it? Look for more of these segments in the next couple of days as Glenn answers the problems of today with the original arguments of the founders.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.