The story behind Obama’s doc “The Road We’ve Traveled”

The Obama campaign has enlisted the help of Hollywood to make a mini-documentary on how awesome Barack Obama’s Presidency has been. Of course, he’s been so horrific a president it makes sense he’d need to recruit people who make stuff up for a living to promote himself. Why’d they select that name? Glenn covered the story on radio this morning!

Read the transcript of the discussion below:

GLENN: Well, hello, America. Welcome to the program. There is a lot to discuss. There is some amazing, some amazing things that nobody could find, you know, that was a problem for the president in the new Tom Hanks documentary which I think is ‑‑ Tom, you must be so proud. You must be so proud. You're so neutral in this, you're making a campaign film, it really is a propaganda film for Barack Obama. The problem with it is the filmmaker said, you know, the only thing that we could really find bad about Barack Obama is that it was just so good. I've never ‑‑ huh.

PAT: Yeah, here's what he said with Piers Morgan the other night.

MORGAN: These documentary makers, you know, balance these movies with the negative as well as the positive. What are the negatives in your movie about Barack Obama?

VOICE: Well, I mean, the negative for me was there were too many accomplishments. I had, you know, 17 minutes to put them all in there but I think ‑‑

MORGAN: Oh, come off it. Come ‑‑ you can't say that with a straight face. Come on.

VOICE: I'm looking at you right now with a straight face. I mean, look, I mean ‑‑

MORGAN: The only negative about Barack Obama is there are too many positives is this

VOICE: That was a negative ‑‑ excuse me, a negative for me.

MORGAN: Oh.

VOICE: Which is, you know, I ‑‑ the challenge for me was I wanted to put more in there, I really did.

MORGAN: Are there any negatives in there?

VOICE: I think they're negatives in the sense that the challenges when you're trying to pass healthcare in a really toxic environment, they're negatives in terms of the opposition he's had.

PAT: That is Debbie Wasserman Schultz‑worthy right there.

STU: It is, that's almost Debbie Wasserman Schultz syndrome right there.

GLENN: After four years the only bad thing they found about their time in office was... it was just too good.

STU: I'm glad, too, they got the guy, Tom Hanks, who also brought us the documentary about how we were all just racists in World War II 6789 wasn't that the same?

GLENN: Yeah, it is.

STU: That's right.

GLENN: It is.

STU: All it was was about our Japanese racism.

GLENN: Yeah, mmm‑hmmm.

STU: Certainly nothing to do with, I don't know, Nazis and stuff.

PAT: And being attacked.

GLENN: Or being attacked.

STU: And being attacked.

GLENN: By the empire of Japan.

STU: It certainly had nothing to do with that.

GLENN: It had nothing to do with that.

STU: It was our racism.

GLENN: It was our racism.

STU: Uh‑huh.

GLENN: You know what? Tom Hanks, how do these guys dupe us? And, you know, I apologize to the family members, unless they're all communists, too, of Jimmy, Jimmy Stewart. Because I've always thought that Tom Hanks was our Jimmy Stewart. He couldn't be further from Jimmy Stewart. Jimmy Stewart and Hank Fonda, they were all decent Americans. They loved the country. They were decent, good Americans.

STU: I don't know that ‑‑ yeah, I mean, that last ‑‑ this thing, I mean, he's just a crazy Hollywood liberal which you'd sort of expect, though I feel like for a long time he wasn't out there making a big deal out of that.

GLENN: Oh, no. I mean, of course no.

STU: I don't know why it's changed.

GLENN: They all hide. I mean, look at Barack Obama. By the way, the name of this, the name of this documentary is The Road We've Traveled, right?

STU: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Could you do me a favor? Could you look up Stuart Chase? I believe Stuart Chase is the guy who coined the term The New Deal. I'm pretty sure. There's this book from the 1930s that was written by Stuart Chase and I thought of it this morning as we were thinking about the movie The Road We've Traveled, Stuart Chase, have you seen?

STU: It has been suggested he was the originator of the expression A New Deal.

GLENN: Okay. Progressive?

STU: I mean, I'm just reading a sentence here.

GLENN: I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. I think this guy was a big FDR guy. And he wrote this book called The Road We are Traveling and it was written in 1942 and he said we're on this road and after the war is finished ‑‑ he wrote this book in 1942. After the war is finished, we're going to have to clear up this mystery. But what we are now is no longer, it's not socialism, it's not capitalism. He just called it in his book X. And he said, we'll have to define it later, but it's X. We don't know what to call it yet.

But there's some major characteristics, and it's replaced our system of free enterprise and it will all over the world. He said we could call it communism, we could call it fascism, we could call it state capitalism. We just don't know what it is.

Now, he said ‑‑ try this on for size. This is what it is. This is how you would describe it: A strong centralized government.

Would you say we have that?

STU: Check.

GLENN: An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Got that? The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.

STU: Yeah. Jeez.

GLENN: The underwriting of employment through armaments or public works.

STU: Yeah, absolutely. Stimulus package and so much more.

GLENN: The underwriting of Social Security by the government.

STU: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care by the government. The use of deficit spending to than the these underwritings.

STU: We're 100% so far.

GLENN: The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.

STU: Obviously.

PAT: Been there.

GLENN: The control of foreign trade by the government. The control of natural resources. The control of energy sources.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: The control of transportation. The control of agricultural production. The control of organized labor unions. The enlistment of young men and young women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service, and ideologies consistent with those of the government authorities.

PAT: They're kind of working on that right now.

GLENN: Heavy taxation with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.

STU: (Laughing.) Is this ‑‑

GLENN: State control of communications and propaganda.

STU: This is like a mission statement for the Obama administration.

GLENN: May I? This book was not an indictment of it.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: It was saying "This is great." Remember this is the guy who coined the term The New Deal. This is the road we're traveling. Now, is it a coincidence? I'm sure it is. Is it a coincidence that anybody who has studied progressivism ‑‑ I mean, when I heard the name of this, this documentary, I mean, you were with me, Pat.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Immediately.

STU: Perked up right away.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I have that book. I had it wrong. I thought it was the Road We Traveled. The name of the book is The Road We're Traveling.

PAT: That makes so much sense because we were traveling that road then. Now we've traveled it.

GLENN: We've traveled it.

PAT: And now it's past tense. We're there. It's great.

GLENN: This is yet another ‑‑

PAT: It's amazing.

GLENN: Another knife in the back to anybody who doesn't know and a wink to anybody who does know the history. Everybody who ‑‑ anybody who is a Cass Sunstein, I mean, Cass Sunstein wanted this job because he's a fan of Edward Bernays. He knows. He salivated over this job. He couldn't wait. Those guys would absolutely know. I mean, remember when they were talking to us about Father Coughlin and they're calling me Father Coughlin and we're like, who the hell is Father Coughlin? They knew. They know these players. They know who Stuart Chase is. I really believe that whoever did this, they know exactly what they've done. They've said, "Yeah, yeah, it was X." They couldn't identify what it was. It's state capitalism.

See, we were trying to do all these things in 1942 and Stuart Chase says, "If we do it right... this is 1942: "If we do it right, if you get it right, you will not be able to turn this ship off of that course." Now the name of this movie is The Road We Traveled?

STU: Well, certainly by the standard they set up, they're definitely guilty. If you remember back in 2010, we did that rally, you know, Restoring Honor in Washington and they immediately accused us of stealing the speech date of Martin Luther King as if we had any idea.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: They immediately accused us of that. So by their standard clearly this has to be intentional.

GLENN: So who is Stuart Chase? Who's the guy who said he was going to change the free market enterprise, that this is state capitalism? Who was he? He was a Fabian Socialist, a member of the Fabian Society at Harvard, a friend of Walter Lippmann. Water Lippmann is the guy who every journalist in America has studied and hails as a hero. He was a eugenicist, a eugenics guy, he was a progressive, he was a member of the Woodrow Wilson administration.

STU: (Laughing.) Sometimes I feel like they do this stuff just to give you monologues.

GLENN: I mean, I ‑‑ I can't believe it.

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: That's amazing.

PAT: That's amazing. I mean, but that's what they do.

STU: So they were traveling it in 1942, this road, and now ‑‑

PAT: We've traveled it.

STU: ‑‑ we've finally traveled it.

PAT: Yeah, we've arrived.

GLENN: And he said the war is going to give us a chance to actually finish this and you won't be able to turn it off the course, you won't be able to turn it around. They did turn it around some ‑‑ somewhat. But now the question is can we turn it around now. The Road We've Traveled. The name of the book from 1942 is The Road We're Traveling. You decide. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, I'm sure it is.

VP debate recap: A Vance victory

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This might have been the most consequential VP debate in recent memory.

For those of you who missed the debate, it was a decisive victory for J.D. Vance and the Trump-Vance team as a whole. Vance presented a calm, collected, and considerate side of the Republican party that compliments Trump and helps to make their platform more palatable. Meanwhile, Tim Walz had a lackluster, though certainly not catastrophic, night. He had a few embarrassing gaffes and came across as overly nervous, but like Vance, kept it civil.

Both VP candidates entered the stage as relative unknowns to most Americans, and by the end, both men had given an accurate representation of their characters. Here is a brief recap just in case you missed the debate:

J.D. Vance looked great

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance came out of the gate swinging, with a stellar opening statement that helped set the stage for the rest of the debate. He delivered a concise yet compelling recap of his life, which framed him as everything Walz claims to be: a relatable veteran from humble beginnings who earned his position through hard work and service. He then went on to deliver a clear and palatable defense of Trump's platform and mission while cooly drawing attention to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration.

Overall, J.D. Vance looked incredibly presidential. He presented himself not just as a capable vice president, but as a strong successor to Trump and as a valid replacement if anything should happen to the former president between now and the end of his hypothetical second term. Vance also successfully dispelled the notion that he is "weird" as Walz called him, and if anyone looked strange during the debate, it certainly wasnot Vance.

Tim Walz's gaffes

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

While Tim Walz certainly didn't have an awful night, he did not stack up well against Vance. Walz had a major gaffe around halfway through the debate when asked to explain the change in his position on assault weapon bans. Walz then claimed that he had befriended school shooters during his time in office. While that was clearly not the intention of what he was saying, it was embarrassing nonetheless.

Another weak moment was when the moderators asked Walz to explain a claim he had made regarding being in Hong Kong during the infamous Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, which has since been proven false. Walz gave a long-winded, rambling answer about taking students to visit China and how Trump should have joined in on those trips, before being called out by the moderator for dodging the question.

Vance fact-checked the fact-checkers

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

One of the conditions of the CBS debate was that the moderators would not fact-check the debaters live, but instead rely on after-the-matter fact-checking. But, CBS couldn't keep to its own rules. While Vance was describing the migrant crisis that has swelled during the Biden-Harris administration, one of the CBS moderators, Margaret Brennan, chimed in with a "fact check." She claimed that the Haitian migrants in Ohio have legal status, to which Vance clapped back by calling Brennan out for breaking the rules of the debate, then proceeded to correct her, explaining that they only had legal status due to overreach by the Biden-Harris administration.

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At midnight on September 30th, dockworkers across the East Coast went on strike, effectively cutting the country's import and export capabilities in half.

Don't go out and panic buy a pallet of toilet paper and instant ramen just yet. It's going to take some time for the full effects of the strike to be felt and hopefully, the strike will be good and over by then. But there are no guarantees, and this election cycle could get significantly more insane as we draw near to the election. And even if the strike is settled quickly, it shows growing cracks in our infrastructure and industrial capacity that needs to be addressed if America wants to maintain its global dominance.

Here is everything you need to know about the dockworker strike:

What do the dockworkers want?

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

As with most strikes, pay is the driving factor behind this situation the country now finds itself in. The longshoremen want more pay, and with rising inflation who can blame them? After all, working the docks is hard and dangerous business, and fair compensation only seems... fair. But when you compare the wage of a dockworker, which is around $100,000 to $200,00 a year to the average income in America of $56,000, suddenly they seem significantly less sympathetic.

How much money are they asking for? For most Americans, a three percent raise is considered high, but the unions are asking up to 15 percent, depending on location. On top of that, they are asking for a 77 percent raise over the next six years. The West Coast dock workers recently made off with a 36 percent raise and were considered lucky. These increases in costs are just going to be transferred to the end consumer, and we'll likely see a jump in prices if these terms are accepted.

The other major ticket item is protection against automation. Autonomous ports are quickly becoming a reality, with major ports in China that are capable of handling vast amounts of cargo being run by a single office, not an army of dock workers. Naturally, the longshoremen are concerned that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by machines that can work harder, longer, for cheaper, and without risk of injury.

How will it affect Americans?

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Don't panic yet!

It is going to take some time for consumers to feel the effects of the strike and it is possible that a resolution could happen at any time.

Week one should be pretty much business as usual. It might be a good idea to stock up on fruit and other perishables, but there is no need to go COVID-lockdown-crazy yet.

Week two is when you'll first start feeling the pinch. Fresh fruits and veggies will become scarce, along with other imported goods like shoes, toys, and TVs. Prices will start to creep up as the shelves will start to look a little sparse. The supply of tools, lumber, and other hardware materials will also begin to dry up.

By week three, the cracks in the system will really start to show. Entire industries will begin to slow down, or even stop. Factory workers will get furloughed and sent home without pay. Stores will have to ration items, prices will be sky-high, and online orders will come to a standstill. At this point, the strike will have escalated into a full-blown crisis, and even if it was resolved immediately, it would still take weeks to restore everything to working order.

At the four-week mark, the situation will have developed into a national security crisis, and as Glenn describes, a poly-crisis. Small business will be closing their doors, entire brands will be out of stock, and everything that remains will be so expensive it is unaffordable. By this point, the holiday season will be drawing near and there will be a rush on any sort of gift or decor items left. At this point, irreparable damage to our economy will have occurred and it will be months if not years before it can be mended.

While that sounds bleak, with the election just around the corner, it seems unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration will let it get that bad. That being said, their administration has not been characterized by good decision-making and reasonable policy, so there are no guarantees.

What can be done?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The big question is "Why hasn't Biden already done something?"

President Biden, who ran on the image of a blue-collar, union-worker, has been uncharacteristically absent from the issue. Despite his earlier involvement in a train strike, Biden has declared that involvement in union fights is not a presidential issue unless it getsreally bad.

So where's the line? At what point will he step in? He has to understand that an economic crisis right before the election will reflect poorly on Kamala.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Join Glenntonight for Vice Presidential debate coverage you do not want to miss!

Tonight is the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, and it will be hosted by CBS News. But don't be reliant on CBS News or any other mainstream media channel for their biased coverage. Join the BlazeTV live stream tonight to get the uncensored truth alongside top-quality commentary from Glenn and the rest of the world-class panel.

Glenn is joined by Megyn Kelly, Liz Wheeler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Jill Savage, Dave Landau, and more to cover the CBS News Vice Presidential Debate. Blaze Media subscribers gain access to live chat with the fantastic panel of hosts! If you subscribe today by visiting BlazeTV.com/debate you will get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount ever offered, so take advantage NOW!

See you TONIGHT at 8 PM ET for an event you do NOT want to miss it!

POLL: Can the VP debate affect the election?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor, Dia Dipasupil / Staff | Getty Images

The first (and likely only) Vice President debate will be held on CBS News on Tuesday, October 1st.

The debate takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will be the first time we see J.D. Vance and Tim Walz face off in person. Typically, the VP debate is little more than a formality, and rarely does it affect the election in any significant way. But this is no ordinary election. The stakes are higher than they have been in years, and Trump and Harris are still in a razor-thin race, according to the polls. Both Vance and Walz are relative newcomers to the national stage and still have room to make an impression on the American people, and with the race as tight as it is, that might make all the difference.

So what do you think? Can this VP debate make an impact on the election? Are you going to tune in? And what sort of questions and issues need to be brought up? Let us know in the poll below:

Will this VP debate be important in the overall election?

Are you going to watch the VP debate?

Should the debaters be asked about the Biden-Harris administration's failing economy?

Should the debaters be asked about climate change and energy policy?

Should the debaters be asked about the rise of globalism?