Was the 1960s campaign more civil than it is today?

Was the 1960s campaign more civil than it is today? That's the question Glenn was asking the audience on radio this morning as he reviewed a report from Paul Wilson and the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute.

In the report posted on TheBlaze, Wilson explains:

During the 1960 presidential campaign, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy was attacked for his Catholic faith, then viewed by many as subversive and un-American. Anti-Mormon bigots are now targeting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his Mormon beliefs, which are now viewed by many “progressives” as a “transparent and recent fraud.” But in those 50 years, the role of the media has changed significantly.

June 2012 study performed by American National Election Studies (ANES) found that 43 percent of liberals would be “less likely” to vote for a Mormon candidate for religious reasons. An essential point, given how often news outlets highlight Romney’s religion.

In 1960, major media outlets refused to tolerate religious bigotry, characterizing it as “bilge” and calling its practitioners “small-minded and prejudiced persons … not representative of America.” In 2012, supposedly “mainstream” outlets have given opponents of Mormonism a platform to call the church the “Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed,” obsessively labeled Mitt Romney as Mormon, and even engaged in anti-Mormon bigotry themselves. These anti-Mormon voices have been amplified by the liberal echo chamber.

The difference is more than 50 years – the difference is politics. In 1960, media outlets defended Kennedy, who was part of a faith whose members traditionally voted Democratic. In 2012, those same media outlets are attacking Romney, who belongs to a faith whose members typically support conservative causes and vote Republican.

How did the media treat Kennedy differently back in 1960? Glenn read a passage from the New York Times on radio this morning:

As the campaign opens, there will always be in any election and between elections small‑minded and prejudice persons who have a newer rocket compulsion to feel superior to somebody or an urge to blame some racial or minority group for their own individual failures or misfortunes.  But these people are not representative of America.  They have rarely determined elections in the past and they will not determine the one that is coming.  Millions of Catholics, protestants, Jews and people of no formal faith will testify in a prejudice of faith cannot be endorsed in this country without doing political damage to the persons or candidates who endorse it.

But what is the New York Times saying now? Glenn explained, "They're calling Salt Lake City the empire of corporate greed. They're talking about magic underwear.  They're talking about, they're bashing baptism for the dead despite the fact that it's in the New Testament."

Glenn discussed the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead for anyone who didn't understand.

"You're just allowing that person to choose.  If you believe in that ‑‑ see, I mean, I think this is the most compassionate thing.  If you believe in it, that it's a gateway, that Jesus said you've got to be baptized, okay, great.  You've got to be baptized.  Okay.  Good.  So what happens to all those people, are they just going to burn in the fires of hell that went before, before Jesus?" Glenn asked.

Glenn explained that the ritual is just offering the deceased a choice, and that in no way does "baptism for the dead" force anyone to be converted to Mormonism or Christianity in their belief system.

"Let's say you don't believe in the religion and we baptize for the dead.  You don't believe in it.  It's nonsense.  How did his baptism hurt you in any way?" he added.

"You don't agree with it, so what's the big deal?"

Glenn, not wanting to limit the discussion to Mormonism, asked the audience to look at how Rick Santorum was treated by the media.

"Let's make this about religion.  Because look at what they called Santorum.  Santorum was (called) a cultist, too," he said. "He was a Papist and a cultist."

"When it's a situation with Rick Santorum or are something, the religion's scary.  It's this reason to fear him," Stu said, adding that when people bring up Jeremiah Wright the media decides to ignore it - even when he says radical things like the government developed HIV to kill African Americans.

"But that's not scary," Glenn joked.

Stu added, " But Rick Santorum wants traditional marriage.  Fear him."

"I mean, the double standard is well covered but absolutely crystal clear in this case," Stu explained. " And, you know, here we have a situation where a guy is trying to run.  It's not like this is some weird thing that might happen in the future.  Mitt Romney is running for president right now.  He's one of two guys who might win it.  And this is a story in which they continue to trash him, they continue to mock his faith. "

"If you really think that you can't vote for somebody because he's black, because he's Catholic, because he's Mormon, you really have nothing going on in your life.  And boy, are you going to be surprised on the other side of life.  You're going to be surprised.  We're in this together, gang," Glenn concluded.

 

COVID is back! Or that is what we’re being told anyway...

A recent spike in COVID cases has triggered the left's alarm bells, and the following institutions have begun to reinstate COVID-era mandates. You might want to avoid them if you enjoy breathing freely...

Do YOU think institutions should bring back COVID-era mandates if cases increase? Let us know your thoughts HERE.

Morris Brown College

Both of Upstate Medical's hospitals in Syracuse, New York

Corey Henry / Senior Staff Photographer | The Daily Orange

Auburn Community Hospital, New York

Kevin Rivoli / The Citizen | Auburn Pub

Lionsgate Studio

AaronP/Bauer-Griffin / Contributor | GETTY IMAGES

United Health Services in New York

Kaiser Permanente in California

Justin Sullivan / Staff | GETTY IMAGES

There was a time when both the Left and the Right agreed that parents have the final say in raising their children... Not anymore.

In the People's Republic of California, the STATE, not parents, will determine whether children should undergo transgender treatments. The California state legislature just passed a law that will require judges in child custody cases to consider whether parents support a child’s gender transition. According to the law, the state now thinks total affirmation is an integral part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare.”

We are inching closer to a dystopia where the state, not the parents, have ultimate rights over their children, a history that people from former Soviet nations would feign repeating.

Glenn dove into the law AND MORE in this episode titled, "Parental Advisory: The EXPLICIT plot to control YOUR kids." To get all the research that went into this episode AND information on how YOU can fight back, enter your email address below:

If you didn't catch Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, be sure to check it out HERE!

The Biden admin has let in MORE illegal aliens than the populations of THESE 15 states

GUILLERMO ARIAS / Contributor | Getty Images

There are currently an estimated 16.8 MILLION illegal aliens residing in the United States as of June 2023, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This number is already 1.3 million higher than FAIR's January 2022 estimate of 15.5 million and a 2.3 million increase from its end-of-2020 estimate. Even Democrats like New York City's Mayor Adams Mayor Adams are waking up to what Conservatives have been warning for years: we are in a border CRISIS.

However, this isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010. In the first two years of the Biden administration alone, the illegal alien population increased by 16 PERCENT nationwide, imposing a whopping net cost of $150.6 BILLION PER YEAR on American taxpayers. That is nearly DOUBLE the total amount that the Biden administration has sent to Ukraine.

This isn't the same border crisis that Republicans were warning about back in 2010.

These large numbers often make it difficult to conceptualize the sheer impact of illegal immigration on the United States. To put it in perspective, we have listed ALL 15 states and the District of Colombia that have smaller populations than the 2.3 MILLION illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration. That is more than the entire populations of Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota COMBINED—and the American taxpayers have to pay the price.

Here are all 16 states/districts that have FEWER people than the illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. under the Biden administration.

1. New Mexico

Population: 2,110,011

2. Idaho

Population: 1,973,752

3. Nebraska

Population: 1,972,292

4. West Virginia

Population: 1,764,786

5. Hawaii

Population: 1,433,238

6. New Hampshire

Population: 1,402,957

7. Maine

Population: 1,393,442

8. Montana

Population: 1,139,507

9. Rhode Island

Population: 1,090,483

10. Delaware

Population: 1,031,985

11. South Dakota

Population: 923,484

12. North Dakota

Population: 780,588

13. Alaska

Population: 732,984

14. Washington DC

Population: 674,815

15. Vermont

Population: 647,156

16. Wyoming

Population: 583,279

POLL: Should the Government control the future of AI?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Earlier this week, tech titans, lawmakers, and union leaders met on Capitol Hill to discuss the future of AI regulation. The three-hour meeting boasted an impressive roster of tech leaders including, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, and others, along with more than 60 US Senators.

Tech Titans and Senators gathered in the Kennedy Caucus Room.The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The meeting was closed to the public, so what was exactly discussed is unknown. However, what we do know is that a majority of the CEOs support AI regulation, the most vocal of which is Elon Musk. During the meeting, Musk called AI "a double-edged sword" and strongly pushed for regulation in the interest of public safety.

A majority of the CEOs support AI regulation.

Many other related issues were discussed, including the disruption AI has caused to the job market. As Glenn has discussed on his program, the potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real, and many have already felt the effects. From taxi drivers to Hollywood actors and writers, AI's presence can be felt everywhere and lawmakers are unsure how to respond.

The potential for AI to alter or destroy jobs is very real.

Ultimately, the meeting's conclusion was less than decisive, with several Senators making comments to the tune of "we need more time before we act." The White House is expected to release an executive order regarding AI regulation by the end of the year. But now it's YOUR turn to tell us what YOU think needs to be done!

Should A.I. be regulated?

Can the government be trusted with the power to regulate A.I.? 

Can Silicon Valley be trusted to regulate AI? 

Should AI development be slowed for safety, despite its potential advantages?

If a job can be done cheaper and better by AI, should it be taken away from a human?

Do you feel that your job is threatened by AI?