Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview

December 06, 2011

Writer

Glenn is back on TV! Watch Glenn's new two-hour show available live and on-demand Monday through Friday on GBTV.com! Start your two week free trial HERE!

Below is a rush transcript of Glenn's interview with Newt Gingrich this morning. A full article and video of the interview is not available HERE!

GLENN: Lot to do today, a lot to do. And we begin right now with Newt Gingrich. Look, this is ‑‑ so you know, I am... I am increasingly disinterested in Washington because I don't believe the answers lie in Washington. However, we all have to be responsible and we all have to do, you know, the right thing and pay attention to politics and vote. Now is the time to ask the questions of each of the politicians.

Newt Gingrich is a man that I've met several times. I've had dinner with him when we were in Washington, D.C. He seems like a very nice man. We don't know each ‑‑ we're not buddies, but I have been around him enough to know that, you know, he's a ‑‑ he's an honest guy, a decent guy that has always shot straight with me. I want to make sure that you understand and that he understands that this is not a gotcha interview. I have serious concerns with Newt Gingrich, but it's not a gotcha interview. This is just, I'm asking questions because I truly, deeply care about the country just as much as Newt Gingrich does but we differ on the answers, I believe. I'd like to have him convince me that I'm wrong. I would love to have him convince me that I'm wrong. Mr. Newt Gingrich, how are you, sir?

GINGRICH: I'm doing well. How are you?

GLENN: I'm very good. Let's start with ‑‑ let's start with a piece of audio here where you were talking about healthcare and you went down the progressive road with Theodore Roosevelt.

GINGRICH: And for government to not leave guarantees that you don't have the ability to change, no private corporation has the purchasing power or the ability to reshape the health system, and in this sense I guess I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my ‑‑ on health where I come from, I'm a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay.

GLENN: Regulation and the government scares the crap out of me and I think most Tea Party kind of leaning conservatives, and Theodore Roosevelt was the guy who started the Progressive Party. How would you characterize your relationship with the progressive ideals of Theodore Roosevelt?

GINGRICH: Well, that depends on which phase of Roosevelt you're talking about. The 1912, he's become a big government, centralized power advocate running an a third party candidate which, for example, Roosevelt advocated the Food and Drug Act after he was eating ‑‑ and this supposedly the story, after he was eating sausage and eggs while reading up to Sinclair's The Jungle, which has a scene in which a man falls into a vat at the sausage factory and becomes part of the sausage. And if you go back to that era where people had ‑‑ dealing with the Chinese where the people had doctored food, they had put all sorts of junk in food, they ‑‑ you know, I as a child who lived in Europe and I always marveled at the fact that American water is drinkable virtually anywhere.

So there are minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety that are I think really important.

GLENN: Okay. So you're a minimum regulation guy on making sure the people don't fall into the vats of sausage?

GINGRICH: Yeah. What I'm against is the government trying to implement things because bureaucracy's such a bad implementer, and I'm against government trying to pick winners and losers. I mean, there's no accident that the Smithsonian got $50,000 from the Pierre plane and failed and the ‑‑ from the Congress, and that the Wright brothers invented the airplane because ‑‑

GLENN: Okay.

GINGRICH: But I do think ‑‑ and I think almost everybody will see this, I believe. You want to make sure, for example, if you buy certain electric things that they don't start fires in your house.

GLENN: Got it.

GINGRICH: You know, that kind of thing.

GLENN: But you're not into picking winners and losers. So you would not have done the GM bailout?

GINGRICH: No. No, absolutely not. I think they would have ‑‑ I think they would be better off today ‑‑ remember you can have ‑‑ you can have a bankruptcy for reorganization, not for liquidation.

GLENN: Right. But you are ‑‑

GINGRICH: They go through a reorganization bankruptcy, they would be much better off than they are today.

GLENN: Sure. But you have selected a winner when you are for, quite strongly, the ethanol subsidies.

GINGRICH: Well, you know, that's just in question. When Obama suggested eliminating the $14 billion a year incentive for exploring for oil and gas, everybody in the oil patch who's against subsidizing ethanol jumped up and said, hey, you can't do that. If you do that, you're going to wipe out 80% of exploration, which is all done by small independent companies, not by the majors. I supported, I favored the incentive to go out and find more oil and gas. Now, that's a tax subsidy. It's a bigger tax subsidy than oil ever got. But I want American energy to drive out Saudi Arabia and Iranian and Iraqi energy and Venezuelan energy. And so I am for all sources of American energy in order to make us not just independent but to create a reservoir so that if something does happen in the Persian Gulf in the Straits of Hormuz, the world's industrial system doesn't crash into a deep depression.

GLENN: Why would we, why would we go into subsidies, though? Isn't ‑‑ aren't subsidies really some of the biggest problems that we have with our spending and out‑of‑control picking of winners and losers?

GINGRICH: Well, it depends on what you're subsidizing. The idea of having economic incentives for manufacturing goes back to Alexander Hamilton's first report of manufacturing which I believe was 1791. We have always had a bias in favor of investing in the future. We built the transcontinental railroads that way. The Erie Canal was built that way. We've always believed that having a strong infrastructure and having a strong energy system are net advantages because they've made us richer and more powerful than any country in the world. But what I object to is subsidizing things that don't work and things that aren't creating a better future. And the problem with the modern welfare state is it actually encourages people to the wrong behaviors, encourages them not to work, encourages them not to study.

GLENN: All right. You said if you are a fiscal conservative who cares about balancing the federal budget, there may be no more important bill to vote on in your career than in support of this bill. This was what you said about a new you entitlement, Medicare prescription drug program.

GINGRICH: Which also included Medicare Advantage and also included the right to have a high deductible medical savings account, which is the first step towards moving control over your health dollars back to you. And I think is a very important distinguishing point. On the government, my position is very straightforward. If you're going to have Medicare, which was created in 1965, and was created at a time when practically drugs didn't matter. There weren't very many breakthroughs at that point. To take a position that we won't help you with insulin but we'll pay for your kidney dialysis is both bad on a human level and bad on financial level. Kidney dialysis is one of the fastest growing centers of cost and we spend almost as much annually on kidney dialysis as the entire National Institute of Health research budget, about $27 billion a year right now. If we say to you we're going to pay for open heart surgery but we won't pay for Lipitor so you can avoid open heart surgery, it's both bad (inaudible) but it's also just bad financially. So we ‑‑

GLENN: But aren't you starting with a false premise here? If we're going to have the Johnson Act, then well, then we should do this. Isn't that starting with a false premise? Shouldn't we be going the other direction instead of building on ‑‑

GINGRICH: Which is why ‑‑ which is why they had both Medicare Advantage, which is the first (inaudible) diversity and choice in Medicare, and it's why they put in the health savings account model, which is the first big step towards you being personally in charge of your own savings. And I think that that's a ‑‑ your point's right. The question is how do you manage the transition so it is politically doable. And I ‑‑

GLENN: But you believe ‑‑ no offense, but you believe voting for something that is ‑‑ you're trying to transition into smaller government by also supporting a bill that has in it a gigantic giveaway?

GINGRICH: Well, you've already given away ‑‑ that's my point. I don't see how one defends not having the ability to avoid the requirement for surgery, which is what this is all about. And the question is can you live longer and more independently and more healthily with the drug benefit than without it, and I think that if ‑‑ and you can make the (inaudible) and say, well, Medicare. A, you won't win that in the short run. So you're going to have Medicare. And the question in the short run is, so you want to have a system that basically leaves people with bad outcomes, or do you want to, in fact, maximize how long they can live and how independently they can live.

GLENN: All right.

GINGRICH: And that's just a fundamental difference.

GLENN: All right. Well, and I think this is where we fundamentally differ is it seems to me ‑‑ and let me just play the audio here ‑‑ that you are for the individual mandate for healthcare and you have been for quite some time. Let's play the audio.

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That's 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It's a variation on it.

GLENN: Here's about Paul Ryan trying to fix Medicare.

GINGRICH: I don't think rightwing social engineering is any more desirable than leftwing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.

VOICE: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting which is completely changing Medicare?

GINGRICH: I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon. I don't want ‑‑ I'm against ObamaCare which is imposing radical change and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.

GLENN: Okay. Yet you seem to always be ‑‑ this is long‑term individual mandate stuff. You seem to be very interested in the government finding the solution.

GINGRICH: Well, let's go back to what I just said. What I was asked was if a program is unpopular, should the Republicans impose it anyway. We can go back and we can listen to exactly what I was asked on that show and what I said I stand by, which is in a free society, you don't elect officials to impose on you things that you disagree with. We just went through this slide over ObamaCare.

Now, I also, ironically, I would implement the Medicare reforms that Paul Ryan wants, I would implement them next year as an optional choice and I would allow people to have the option to choose premium support and then have freedom to negotiate with their doctor or their hospital in a way that would increase their ability to manage costs without being involved, you know ‑‑ but I wouldn't impose it on everybody across the board. I think that's a very large scale experiment. But I think you could migrate people toward it. I'm proposing the same thing on Social Security. I think young people ought to have the right to choose a personal Social Security insurance savings account plan and the Social Security actuary estimates that 95% of young people would pick a personal Social Security savings account over the current system but they would do so voluntarily because we would empower them to make a choice. We wouldn't impose it on them. That's a question of how do you think you can get this country to move more rapidly toward reform, and I think you can get it to move toward reform faster.

GLENN: All right.

GINGRICH: By giving people the right to choose.

GLENN: Let me just ‑‑ I just want to get to a few things. You've supported the ‑‑ you voted for the Department of Education, you in 2007 said very cautious about changing Fannie and Freddie. On global warming, with sitting down on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, and I would agree with you that was the dumbest moment ‑‑ you know, it would have been the dumbest moment of my life. And I agree with that. But when you look at, it's not a moment of your life. In speech after speech, in your book Contract with the Earth, even with John Kerry in a debate, you said this.

GINGRICH: Evidence is sufficient, but we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere.

VOICE: And do it urgently?

GINGRICH: And do it urgently, yes.

GLENN: Now, you have John Kerry in this debate sticking up for the private sector and you say the government should help pay.

GINGRICH: I think there has to be a, if you will, a green conservatism. There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, all right, here's the right way to solve these as seen by our values system. And now to have a dialogue about what's the most effective way to solve it. First of all, I think if you have the right level of tax credit, it isn't just exactly voluntary. My guess is there's a dollar number at which you would have every utility in the country agree they are all going to build private and sequestering power points. So I think this is a definable alternative.

KERRY: This is a huge transition. You actually want the government to do it. I want the private sector to do it.

GINGRICH: No, no, no. I want the government to pay for it.

KERRY: You want the governor to pay for it with a big tax credit.

GLENN: Help me out. This is a multiyear stance. It's not a moment in your life.

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, I fought in those (inaudible) and I believe in the environment in general and I think ‑‑

GLENN: So do I.

GINGRICH: Okay. Second, I think that there is evidence on both sides of the climate change argument, and the point I was making was in a situation where, for example, having a larger nuclear program reduces carbon in the atmosphere, it's a prudent thing to look at nuclear as one of the actions.

GLENN: But you ‑‑

GINGRICH: It's a prudent thing to develop a green coal plant that takes the carbon and puts it into carbon sequestration to use it to develop oil fields more deeply and can be actually economically done. We do it right now in West Texas.

GLENN: All right. So you believe that you can't, you can't really change fundamentally? You would have to vote for the prescription drug bill because you couldn't move, but you believe that you can get nuclear power plants built in a Gingrich administration?

GINGRICH: Oh, sure. I also think you can reshape Medicare but I think you have to do it in a way that people find it desirable and that people think ‑‑ and that people trust you. I helped reform Medicare in 1996 in a way that saved $200 billion and we had no major opposition to it. And people concluded that we had thought it through and we were doing the right thing and they were comfortable with it.

GLENN: Do you ‑‑ do you still believe in the, you know, the Inconvenient Truth as outlined by global climate change advocates?

GINGRICH: Well, I never believed in Al Gore's fantasies and, in fact, if you look at the record, the day that Al Gore testified at the Energy and Commerce Committee in favor of cap and trade, I was the next witness and I testified against cap and trade. And in the Senate, I worked through American solutions to help beat the cap and trade bill. Cap and trade was an effort by the left to use the environment as an excuse to get total control over the American economy, centralizing a Washington bureaucracy. In the end it had nothing to do with the environment. It had everything to do with their desire to control our lives.

GLENN: Newt, I have to tell you, I ‑‑ you know, because, you know, it's obvious it was very clear in advance and I hope my staff made this very clear that this isn't going to be an easy interview but I think you've ‑‑ you know, there was no gaffes here by any stretch of the imagination. I didn't expect any. But I appreciate the willingness to come on and answer the tough questions, and I wish you the best.

GINGRICH: Well, sir, you and I have always had a great relationship and I admire your courage and I admire the way in which you've always stood up and told the truth and I think you've had a huge impact as I go around the country with Tea Party folks in maximizing interest in American history and interest in the Founding Fathers and I think much of what you've done, you know, you and I don't have to agree on some things to have a great deal of mutual respect and I think you've been a very powerful force for good and I wish you well in your new ventures.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Newt Gingrich, thank you for being on the program. Back in just a second.

Glenn is back on TV! Watch Glenn's new two-hour show available live and on-demand Monday through Friday on GBTV.com! Start your two week free trail HERE!

Glenn: Government workers bought luxury cars with YOUR tax dollars

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

The deep state isn’t a conspiracy theory — it’s a reality. And the corrupt, free-spending Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is just one example of how Washington insiders enrich themselves.

A little-known agency in Washington perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with our bloated, corrupt government: the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. It should be the poster child of everything that Elon Musk is exposing.

The agency was established in 1947 under the Labor Management Relations Act to serve as an independent agency mediating disputes between unions and businesses — a noble mission, perhaps. But like so many government institutions, it has rotted into something far removed from its original purpose.

The FMCS goes beyond mismanagement into blatant corruption and theft.

What was once a mechanism for labor stability has morphed into an unchecked slush fund — an exclusive playground for bureaucrats living high on taxpayer dollars.

The FMCS is a textbook case of government waste, an agency that no one was watching, where employees didn’t even bother showing up for work — some hadn’t for years. And yet they still collected paychecks and spent government money — our money — on their personal luxuries.

Luxury cars and cell phone bills

The Department of Government Efficiency discovered how FMCS employees used government credit cards — intended for official business — to lease luxury cars, cover personal cell phone bills, and even subscribe to USA Today. The agency’s information technology director, James Donnan, apparently billed taxpayers his wife’s cell phone bill, cable TV subscriptions in multiple homes, and personal subscriptions.

FMCS officials commissioned portraits of themselves and hung them in their offices, and you footed the bill. They took exotic vacations and hired their friends and relatives to keep the gravy train rolling.

The FMCS goes beyond mismanagement into blatant corruption and theft — and it went on for decades, unnoticed and unchallenged.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order to abolish the FMCS — a necessary and long-overdue move. But the FMCS is just one of many agencies within the federal government burning through billions of taxpayer dollars. How many more slush funds exist in the shadows, funneling money into the pockets of bureaucrats who produce nothing? How many government-funded NGOs operate in direct opposition to American interests?

Perhaps the most disturbing question is why Americans tolerate such corruption. Why do so many Americans tolerate this? Why is the left — supposedly the party of the people — defending the very institutions that rob working-class Americans blind?

Corruption beyond bureaucracy

The recent rallies led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and their socialist acolytes claim to be a grassroots uprising against corruption and greed. But GPS data from these rallies tells a different story. The majority of attendees aren’t ordinary citizens fed up with the status quo. They’re professional activists — serial agitators who bounce from protest to protest.

Roughly 84% of devices tracked at these rallies were present at multiple Kamala Harris events. A staggering 31% appeared at over 20 separate demonstrations, tied to Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and pro-Palestinian causes.

Many of these organizations receive federal grant money — our tax dollars — and they’re using those funds to protest the very policies that threaten to cut off their financial lifeline.

This isn’t democracy in action. This is political theater — astroturfing perfected. And the American taxpayer is funding it.

Rooting out corruption

Trump was a battering ram against this corrupt system. Elon Musk is a surgeon, meticulously exposing the infection that has festered for decades — and that’s why the leftists hate him even more than they hate Trump. Musk threatens to dismantle the financial web that sustains their entire operation.

When we allow the government to grow unchecked and our leaders to prioritize their own wealth and power over the good of the nation, figures like Trump and Musk are necessary. Rome didn’t fall because of an external invasion but rather due to internal decay that looked an awful lot like what we see today.

We must demand better. We must refuse to tolerate this corruption any longer. The FMCS may be gone, but the fight to root out this deep-seated corruption is far from over.

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

Did the CIA hide the real truth behind JFK's assassination?

Bettmann / Contributor, NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Many were disappointed by the recent release of the JFK files, frustrated by the apparent lack of answers to decades-old questions. The problem? They’re asking the wrong question.

Everyone wants a "who"—a smoking gun, someone to blame. It’s understandable; Americans crave justice for a slain president, to hold the culprits of one of the 20th century’s greatest crimes accountable. But the real answer isn’t a "who"—it’s a "what." That "what" is the CIA and proof of their nefarious dealings since the 1960s.

In his most recent TV special, Glenn delves into the JFK files, where he found the crucial information that everyone else seemed to miss. Be sure to watch the TV special here.

The CIA's Dirty Fingerprints

Did Oswald act alone? I tested the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" narrative and discovered something SHOCKING.

Watch the full experiment TONIGHT at 9PM ET only on https://t.co/Ki1CX633fq pic.twitter.com/DwNSUFXJ1r
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) March 26, 2025

While the recent JFK files don’t explicitly pin the assassination on the CIA, the evidence between the lines is compelling.

If you follow Glenn on X, you’ve seen his newest artifact: an exact replica of Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle. Glenn tested it at the range, attempting to replicate the notoriously difficult shot Oswald allegedly made that fateful day in Dallas. While Glenn shares more takeaways in his TV special, one thing stood out immediately: the rifle’s abysmal quality, its shoddy scope, and the odd caliber of ammunition it uses.

Oswald’s rifle, a Mannlicher-Carcano, is chambered in 6.5mm—an unusual caliber. Much like today, the average gun store in the ‘60s didn’t stock 6.5mm rounds. The largest known supply was owned by the CIA, who had shipped the ammo from Greece after World War II. Suspiciously, there’s no record of where Oswald got his ammunition, but the JFK files confirm that the gun store where he bought the Mannlicher-Carcano had CIA connections.

It’s well-known that Oswald defected to the USSR and lived there before returning to the U.S. The JFK files reveal that from the moment he touched down stateside, the CIA tracked him like a hawk. They followed him across the country and even to Mexico City—but, conveniently, seemed to lose him in Dallas just as President Kennedy arrived. What a coincidence.

Whether by design or gross incompetence, the CIA greased Oswald’s path, letting him slip unhindered into that sixth-floor Book Depository window.

The Cover-Up

SAUL LOEB / Staff | Getty Images

If the JFK files aren’t the smoking gun many hoped for, why did the CIA fight so hard to keep them buried?

The answer is trust. Hard as it may be to imagine today, Americans in the ‘60s trusted their government—at least more than they do now. This cover-up preserved that trust longer than it might have lasted, allowing the CIA to pull off more scandals before the public caught on. From Benghaziand 9/11 to COVID-19 and January 6, the same dirty marks found in the JFK files stain these events. It’s about saving face. The files make the CIA look incompetent at best, complicit at worst.

This might feel like common knowledge today—especially to Glenn’s audience—but 40 or 50 years ago, saying such things could land you in the loony bin. It’s taken 60 years of growing suspicion to reach this point. Imagine if the JFK files had been available back then. Could we have stopped six decades of CIA shenanigans in their tracks?

The thought is chilling.

What Now?

Fotosearch / Stringer | Getty Images

The files don’t name a mastermind or explicitly confirm the darkest JFK assassination conspiracies that have swirled for decades—but they’re far from empty. They expose a disturbing truth: the CIA’s unchecked power in the ‘60s echoes into today.

In one of his most exciting TV specials yet, Glenn delves deep into the files, proving why we can’t ignore these revelations. Stop chasing a "who" and start demanding accountability for the "what." Only by confronting this can we hope to rein in the agency that’s dodged scrutiny for too long.

Glenn: The magazine they don't want you to read

Blaze Media

Frontier isn’t just another magazine — it’s a handcrafted, premium publication featuring bold, thought-provoking stories you won’t find anywhere else.

Frontier isn’t just another flimsy, kitschy magazine like the ones lining the checkout aisle of your local grocery store. It is a premium, handcrafted publication, telling you stories that actually matter — about people blazing new trails in technology, reviving forgotten architectural wonders, and forging new pathways for meaningful cultural change, just to name a few highlights from past and upcoming issues. Every page is curated with intention, offering a level of depth and substance that’s increasingly rare in today’s media landscape.

For the second issue, I welcomed Frontier’s team to my Idaho ranch for its feature, “The Architecture of Memory and Meaning.” My ranch is more than a home — it’s a testament to faith, family, and legacy. Every detail was designed with intention, and every artifact inside has a purpose. This piece shows how you too can turn your home into a space for legacy, beauty, and a testimony to things that really matter to you.

Frontier will set you apart from everyone else who doomscrolls through the same routine stories in the mainstream news cycle.

Frontier’s team also sat down with Michael Malice for an in-depth profile, “The Miseducation of Michael Malice.” Whether you love him, hate him, or are just trying to figure him out, Malice is one of the most fascinating voices in our culture today. This piece goes beyond the snark and the tweets, diving deep into what makes Malice tick.

For the late-night radio junkies, “Live From the High Desert” is a must-read. This piece is a tribute to Art Bell and the millions of late-night listeners who faithfully tuned in to his masterful storytelling as he unraveled the mysteries of the universe, inspiring an entire generation of truth-seekers. From government conspiracies and UFOs to the unexplained, Bell’s legacy is alive and well in these pages.

Readers of Frontier’s first issue are already familiar with the magazine’s caliber and quality. If you haven’t grabbed your copy, it’s not too late. The first 500 subscribers to Frontier’s second issue will also get a copy of the premiere issue.

Frontier is only available through Blaze Unlimited, which, in addition to Frontier’s trailblazing stories, includes VIP access to exclusive events, exclusive member-only content, and top-tier customer support. This membership will set you apart from everyone else who doomscrolls through the same routine stories in the mainstream news cycle. Blaze Unlimited gives you access to the stories that matter most — and the people and events who will challenge you to think bigger, probe deeper, and push the limits into new frontiers. Using promo code GLENN500 will give you $40 off your new Blaze Unlimited membership.

This isn’t just about reading Frontier — it’s about living it. Don’t miss your chance to be part of it.

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

The Left's war on Tesla owners

Kansas City Star / Contributor | Getty Images

Across the country, Teslas are being torched by the very people who, just a few years ago, championed them as the future of sustainable transportation.

Recently, Glenn highlighted the heinous actions targeting Tesla owners and dealerships. He reached the same conclusion as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi: these are acts of domestic terrorism. Tesla owners are being doxxed; a dealership in Las Vegas was firebombed, vandalized, and shot at. Similar attacks have struck South Carolina, Oregon, and Colorado, where Molotov cocktails destroyed multiple Tesla vehicles.

But this isn’t really about cars—it’s a symptom of a deeper rot that has eroded any principles the Left once held. Just as they celebrated the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the attacks on Tesla reflect a lust for destruction—a self-righteous anger that disregards decency and the sanctity of life.

For them, the ends justify the means.

A Pattern of Lawlessness

Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

The attacks on Tesla owners and dealerships aren’t random; they form an emerging pattern that exposes the Left’s true motives.

A quick look at the alleged grievances of the protesters, vandals, and arsonists harassing electric vehicles and their owners reveals a thin veneer masking their deeds. Their motives range from semi-rational—disagreeing with Elon Musk’s actions and the goals of DOGE —to outlandish, like labeling Musk a Nazi or fascist. Yet, rational or not, their actions far outweigh the severity of their complaints. Their crimes include keying and spray-painting privately owned Teslas, vandalizing dealerships (including firing rounds into a Tesla service center in Las Vegas), and using Molotov cocktails to ignite Teslas in cities nationwide. As noted, these aren’t the acts of disgruntled voters but of domestic terrorists.

Glenn recently tied this Tesla terrorism to the brutal murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last December. Just as liberals rejoice over burning Teslas today, they cheered when Thompson was gunned down in New York’s streets, leaving his children fatherless days before Christmas. Much like the Tesla attacks, the Left justified their jubilation with half-baked critiques of the U.S. healthcare system, sandwiched between callous jokes about the slain CEO. It’s not about cars or insurance—it runs deeper.

Hypocrisy Exposed

TOBIAS SCHWARZ / Contributor | Getty Images

Rules for thee, not for me.

This theme keeps resurfacing. Remember when the Left was obsessed with climate change? “It’s the biggest threat to humanity,” they declared, warning we couldn’t drive cars or eat beef because their emissions would doom us all. They once praised Musk, hailing Tesla as the future of transportation. But now that Musk defies their ever-shifting liberal orthodoxy, Tesla must die—environment be damned. It’s a replay of the pandemic’s peak: while they preached staying home, wearing double masks, keeping six feet apart, and “following the science,” they burned, looted, and rioted through nearly every major U.S. city—rules for thee, not for me.

Owning a Tesla no longer earns eco-warrior cred—it marks you as a closet Nazi, liable to get your car keyed. The same crowd that once fretted over cow farts endangering the planet now sets electric cars ablaze. One can hardly imagine that the fumes from hundreds of pounds of burning lithium, plastic, and chemicals in a Tesla are eco-friendly.

Tyranny of Anger

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

What’s the takeaway? What’s the common thread?

The Left isn’t bound by values—not even their own. Nothing is sacred to them; destruction is all they crave. Climate change, the sanctity of life, and “following the science” are mere excuses for outrage, discarded when they obstruct their lust to destroy. Their twisted ideology preaches that building, improving, or creating is evil—only taking and tearing down matter. They seethe at the sight of creation. From Tesla’s burning hulks to Thompson’s blood on the pavement, their anger trumps your rights every time.

Glenn has been warning of the collapse of our common values for years. If we don’t fight this moral rot and defend the values that built America—law, life, liberty—we’ll lose them to the flames of their rage.

Glenn's Show Prep