The War on Moms

While the left continues to accuse the right of waging a “war on women,” the Obama Administration is implementing their own “war on women” by, as Glenn put it, “treating them like morons.”

Yesterday, Democratic talking head Hilary Rosen went on CNN and basically said that because Ann Romney was a stay at home mom, “she’s never worked a day in her life,” and therefore doesn’t have any credibility regarding economic issues.

Here is her statement from CNN last night:

“With respect to economic issues, I think, actually, Mitt Romney is right, that ultimately women care more about the economic well-being of their family, and the like. But he doesn't connect on that issue either. What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country saying my wife tells me what women really care about are economic issues. When I listen to my wife that's what I'm hearing. Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the economic issues that -- a majority of issues that women are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send to them to school, and how we worry about their future."

Glenn couldn’t help but point out that Ann Romney has not only raised five children, those children were all boys – not exactly an easy task.

Stu took note of how little attention has been paid to the second part of Rosen’s offensive comment. “She has never put thought into the economic future of her children.”

“That’s a shot at being rich,” Pat said, also questioning how anyone could not be aware that most everyone is concerned with the future of their children, regardless of their economic situation.

“I bet wealthy conservatives are more concerned about their children's economic future than liberals are,” Glenn said. “Because conservatives are more likely to say, pull yourself up by your bootstraps this is my money I made it. You go make it on your own. I'll help you, but you go make it on your own. You're not going to live off daddy. The Kennedys live off daddy, and granddaddy, and gran-gran-grandaddy. Limousine liberals, that's what it is. They pass it from generation to generation, and they just become these really dependent people.

This always seems to be how the left exposes who they really are. They point their finger at the right, and accuse them of exactly what they themselves are guilty of. “This is who Hilary Rosen, and people like her are,” said Pat.

For those that are thinking that this isn’t really relevant to the Obama campaign, he can’t control every talking head out supporting him on the campaign trail, they may want to consider Hilary Rosen’s connections to this administration, like the fact that she’s made multiple visits to the White House.

“She’s been to the White House numerous times,” Stu said. “In fact the White House logs, according to National Review, say that Hilary Rosen has visit the White House thirty-five times.”

Thirty-five White House visits may not seem like a lot for a President who has been in office for over three years, but compare that with General Petraeus, who is in charge of a war operation in Afghanistan that has been going on for about a decade, and you may notice a problem.

General Petraeus has been to the White House nine times.

“So Hilary Rosen has been to the White House 35 times, and General Petraeus has been there nine times,” Stu said. “Here's the guy who's bailed out this President [General Petraeus] when he was in a really tough spot. He came in and took one for the team, stepped up for his country and didn't care about politics – and bailed out this President in these wars. He gets nine visits, and Hilary Rosen, the “hey, the stay at moms don't work” lady gets 35.”

“Hey ladies, how are you feeling about ‘stay at home moms have never worked a day in their life?” Glenn asked.

Rosen’s comments fit the pattern of the left. Glenn pointed out that unless you see the world their way, you’re going to be demonized. The left will find something wrong with your lifestyle or ideology to make what you’re doing seem worthless - notice the deafening silence of groups like the National Organization for Women.

Ann Romney doesn't seem to need the defense of any organization. She quickly came out and defended herself yesterday by joining Twitter (@AnnDRomney) and releasing a statement saying, "I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work." This started a firestorm on twitter, and had the left backpedaling so fast they couldn't help but trip all over each other.

“I think I like Ann more than I like Mitt,” Glenn said. “She’s a pretty strong woman.”

Glenn noted that she suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, something the liberal media would have quickly pointed out if a conservative had attack a mother of five for staying home and raising her children. Ann is also a breast cancer survivor.

“Will the press even do anything about it?” Glenn asked.

“Of course not,” Pat said.

“This is a bad one though,” Stu said. “As you're trying to pitch your sell to women across the United States, you're this insulting? This is the attitude they've carried throughout the campaign. They always demean the stay-at-home mom. It’s always a secondary choice and something they don’t like. And here it is, in it's most overt stance. And immediately the administration comes out and says, well this is just an advisor. We don't agree with these comments.’ Really?”

Stu pointed out the hypocrisy of this White House that didn’t seem to have any problem coming out and exploiting Romney’s advisor who made the ‘etch-a-sketch’ comment. However, when it is one of the Obama Administration’s advisors, the media backs off quietly.

This wasn’t a comment about one person running for President, this was a comment that belittled women all across this country doing the best they can to raise their kids and take care of their families.

“You want to talk about a war on women? Not only did they say this to Ann Romney. But they took everybody that works at home, and everybody who is home schooling,” Glenn said. “Every woman who is strong and stays at home, they're now adding on top of it the real war on women, which is the subtle war of the demeaning and the degrading of those women and their choices.”

RIGGED: Kamala Harris attempts to sway Fox interview in her favor, STILL falls short

Paul Morigi / Contributor | Getty Images

The election is mere weeks away and Kamala Harris just had her first adversarial interview since she began campaigning.

Last week, Harris sat down with Fox News journalist Bret Baier for an interview plagued with difficulties from the beginning. As Glenn recently pointed out, it seemed like Harris had done her best to ensure the interview was intentionally rigged against Baier. Despite being in front of Baier's diverse audience, she did not seem too interested in taking the opportunity to sell herself to a new demographic. Instead, Glenn hypothesized she was just after a quick soundbite to pander to her faltering core supporters.

However, the interview blew up in Kamala's face, and the American people took notice. Here's a rundown of Kamala's first Fox interview:

Rigged Interview

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Harris and her team did everything possible to throw Bret Baier off his game and derail the interview in her favor. It started when Harris's team informed Fox that the interview, which was originally supposed to be an hour, would be cut in half. This left Baier scrambling to reformat his interview to better fit the new time requirement. Then Harris arrived at the interview ten minutes late, further shorting the interview.

The purpose behind Harris's tardiness became apparent during the interview. Every time Baier asked a question, Harris would launch into a lengthy word salad. Baier was forced to interject just so he was able to ask more than a couple of questions. Harris even pushed back, calling out Baier's interruptions, which of course, just wasted more time. Clearly, Harris or her staff realized that she could not sustain a hostile interview for any extended period, which is why Harris tried to filibuster away as much of the interview as possible.

When the brief interview was nearing the end of its allotted time, Harris's staff began signaling to Baier to end the interview. Despite the change in plans and late arrival, her staff was determined to end the interview as quickly as possible.

Harris's Agenda

CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA / Contributor | Getty Images

From the beginning of the interview, Harris was hostile. She was immediately adversarial and would spin every question into a criticism of Trump, no matter how pointed Baier's question was. Several times Harris had emotional outbursts, spewing classic anti-Trump rhetoric, regardless of its relevance to the question asked. Glenn pointed out that this was the reason Harris took this interview. Recently, many of her core supporters have been faltering as her sudden burst of televised appearances has revealed her paper-thin platform. She took this interview to get a good clip of her passionately bashing Trump on Fox News. This would bolster her core demographic, which she desperately needs.

Harris's Fumbles

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite her best efforts to sway the interview in her favor, Baier still managed to pin Harris several times. Harris kept dodging tough questions Baier threw her way with the same tactic: she would promise to "follow the law" then deflect the question back on Trump. One of the more memorable instances of Harris's evasion strategy was when she was questioned if she supported prison inmates having access to taxpayer-funded transgender surgery. Harris insisted she would "follow the law" and then explained that Trump had followed the same law while he was in office. This response was, in essence, a non-answer. Harris was ignoring the obvious fact that as President, she would influence what the law would be and how it is enforced.

Harris's other major blunder occurred after Baier asked her how her presidency would differ from Biden's and how she would "turn the page" on our current situation. In classic Harris fashion, she immediately deflects on Trump, framing our current situation as somehow a byproduct of Trump simply existing within the political sphere. This convoluted web she spun was so twisted that Harris herself lost track of what she was saying gave up, telling Baier, "You know what I'm talking about." Baier admitted he was just as lost as she was, and she simply went back to attacking Trump.

POLL: Are your kids eating POISON?!

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

More Americans than ever are sick, life expectancy is falling, and our children are in rough shape... What happened!?!

In his newest TV special, Glenn delves into the toxic garbage that the FDA allows to be put into our food and the devastating effects it has on our bodies. The stats are staggering: nearly one-third of all Americans have at least one chronic disease, almost40 percent of school-aged kids have a chronic disease, and U.S. life expectancy is at a 20-year low and is still plummeting. Not to mention the skyrocketing rates of ADHD and Autism diagnoses in our children.

Why does the FDA allow our food to be poisoned? Glenn unveils that the FDA is owned by the monopolistic food manufacturers that put the products in the food and by Big Pharma which sells the cure. In fact, 46 percent of the FDA's budget is paid for by food manufacturers, and a whopping 6,500 FDA jobs are funded by Big Pharma. On top of that, it's up to the food manufacturers to run tests, gather data about the safety of their food, and present it to the FDA. Seems like a conflict of interest, don't you think?

Glenn wants to know what you think. Do you/your kids eat foods with toxic ingredients such as artificial food dyes? Do you trust the FDA to keep your food safe? Can the system be fixed? Let us know in the poll below:

Do you/your kids eat foods with toxic ingredients such as artificial food dyes?

Do you trust the FDA to keep your food safe?

Could Trump/RFK Jr. fix/replace the FDA?

Can Trump win THESE critical swing states?

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

The election is less than three weeks away! And if you are in a state with early voting, it may be even sooner than that!

Like most elections, the 2024 election victor will be determined largely by whichever candidate can win the most swing states, i.e. states that are nearly split 50/50 Democrat and Republican. If Trump is to win the election, he has to win a majority of the seven swing states, which are: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In order to keep you informed on how Trump is polling in these seven states, how he did against Biden in 2020 and what issues are important to the voters of each of the states, we compiled the relevant information for your convenance below:

Arizona

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Arizona to Biden by just over 10,000 votes, or 0.4 percent of the state.

The border state is up in the air again for 2024 and unsurprisingly immigration and border security is the top issue for voters. After border security, long-term water supplies and education rank at the top of Arizona voter's concerns, with inflation and cost of living coming in at number four.

Polls currently place President Trump ahead of Kamala with 48.4 percent of the votes compared to her 46.8 percent.

Georgia

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020, Trump lost Georgia to Biden by just over 10,000 votes, or 0.3 percent of the state.

Georgia voters are most concerned with abortion access (for or against), followed by environment, climate change, and the economy.

Polls currently place President Trump ahead of Kamala with 48.7 percent of the votes compared to her 47 percent.

Michigan

Scott Olson / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Michigan to Biden by approximately 150,000 votes, or 2.8 percent of the state.

In Michigan, like many Americans, voters are most concerned by the economy. The economy is trailed by renewable energy and abortion as top issues for Michigan voters this election.

Polls currently place Kamala Harris ahead of Trump with 47.7 percent of the votes compared to his 46.9 percent.

Nevada

Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Nevada to Biden by approximately 30,000 votes, or 2.4 percent of the state.

In Nevada, the top issue is for voters is the economy, which is followed by affordable housing. Following affordable housing, immigration ranks high among concerns of Nevada voters along with democracy and crime.

Polls currently place Kamala Harris ahead of Trump with 47.8 percent of the votes compared to his 47 percent.

North Carolina

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump won North Carolina against Biden by over 70,000 votes, or 1.4 percent of the state.

Like in many other state, the economy is the leading issue among voters. The economy and inflation is followed by abortion rights and illegal immigration in top concerns for North Caroling voters.

Polls currently place Donald Trump leading Kamala with 48 percent of the votes compared to her 47.6 percent.

Pennsylvania

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Pennsylvania to Biden by approximately 80,000 votes, or 1.2 percent of the state.

The people of Pennsylvania are the most concerned with jobs, wages and the economy. Behind the economy, Pennsylvanians are most concerned with the future of democracy, immigration, and gun policy.

Polls currently place Kamala leading Trump with 48.1 percent of the votes compared to his 47.4 percent.

Wisconsin

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2020 Trump lost Wisconsin to Biden by approximately 40,000 votes, or 0.7 percent of the state.

The primary concern of voters in Wisconsin is the current high cost of living. Behind the cost of living, healthcare and education are high among the concerns of Wisconsinites, with the economy as a whole coming in fourth.

Polls currently place Kamala leading Trump with 48.1 percent of the votes compared to his 47.5 percent.

Counting cookies? Here are the CRAZIEST ways people predict the election.

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Every four years, America faces the same question: who will win the presidential election?

Top political scientists and media companies devise elaborate polls, complex formulas, and sophisticated projections to calculate who will win the election at any given moment. Even Stu has thrown his hat in the ring with Plusecast, a one-stop shop for all your polling questions. But these methods aren't the only ways to predict who will be the next commander-in-chief.

From cookies to football, here are some unorthodox ways to predict the next president:

The Cookie Poll

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Can cookies really predict the next president? According to Busken Bakery, they are more accurate than you might think.

Busken Bakery, has been using cookies to predict the winner of presidential elections since Regan beat Mondale in 1984, and has only been wrong once. Their method is simple: they sell cookies with the faces of both candidates and tally the sales of each. Whoever sells the most cookies is predicted to win. The simplicity of this method is its strength, and the only time it was wrong was the 2020 election. Currently, President Trump is far outstripping VP Harris, selling 23,477 cookies compared to her 8,781 cookies (as of 8/15). Busken posts daily updates on their Instagram, here.

Busken isn't the only bakery to make presidential predictions. Lochel's Bakery in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania has gained popularity recently. Lochel's has correctly predicted three of the last four elections by selling red and blue cookies printed with the names of the candidates. The current count for Lochel's is 28,212 for Trump and 2,097 for Harris. Again, Lochel's posts daily updates on their Instagram, here.

According to the cookies, this election is looking pretty sweet for President Trump!

Vegas Odds

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

It's time to put your money where your mouth is.

It's not just political scientists who cook up election predictions. Casinos and sports betting services get in on the action. What could be a better way to predict an election than by asking people to put their hard-earned dollars on the line?

The big casinos and sports betting sites all have odds on the election, and Trump tends to be the favored candidate. If you are unfamiliar with betting odds in the U.S., the simple explanation of how they work is the smaller the number the better the odds. Here is the spread for three of the big betting sites:

bet365- Trump: -138, Harris: +110

BetMGM- Trump: -137, Harris: +110

Caesars- Trump: -145, Harris: +120

While you shouldn't take this as a sign to put all your money (or any) on President Trump, it is an optimistic sign!

The Redskins Rule

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The Redskins Rule is a well-documented correlation between the outcome of the presidential election and the performance of the Washington D.C. football team, the Redskins (now The Commanders). The rule is that if the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the incumbent party will win the election. If the Redskins lose, the challenging party will win the election. This rule is surprisingly accurate and held true for every election between 1940 and 2000.

If this rule is to be believed, the determining game is on Sunday, October 27th when the Redskins/Commanders play the Chicago Bears in Washington D.C. If the Bears win, that should mean Trump will win the election. If the Redskins win, then Harris will win.

But there is the fact that the rule has been broken several times since 2000. Has the charm worn off? And does it even count anymore if the team is no longer called the Redskins? Only time will tell!