Al Gore down with eugenics?

Al Gore has been making the media rounds to promote his latest exciting book about the future or something - but his vision reeks of the disturbing science of eugenics. Yes, the ‘science’ progressives of the early 20th century promoted that featured breeding ‘undesirables’ out of existence - Al Gore is bringing it back!

On Morning Joe, Gore told the MSNBC hosts:

The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, wait a minute, not too fast.

"Do you know what this is? Do you know where this philosophy comes from?" Glenn said. "I can take out the books. You know what? I wonder if I have them here or at the library at home. I can take out the eugenics books that he is quoting, he is quoting from right now. Whether he knows it or not. This is genetics. This is eugenics nonsense that was discredited in World War II. This stuff, this stuff is extraordinarily dangerous."

"This is extraordinarily dangerous. This is the most dangerous ‑‑ look, we've been talking about abortion, we've been talking about the sanctity of life, we've been talking about all these things. But I'm telling you this is a gigantic warning sign. Because now you're ‑‑ now you're taking it on political philosophy. And now you're saying that that is now genetic, and we all know ‑‑ and what he's saying is that if you are a liberal, you want to ‑‑ you want to push forward. But you're an Neander ‑‑ you are born and termed at birth to be a Neanderthal and be a conservative and say you want to harm progress."

"Listen what they're doing. They are devaluing life, they are devaluing all life. You just had last week saying all life isn't equal, all people are not created equal. Already have that. Some people are worth killing. This is all the same eugenics stuff. And now you're born as either somebody who moves us forward or somebody who moves us back. When you know eugenics, when you know the history, you know that that's exactly how it started with Margaret Sanger."

Watch the video of Gore's comments below:

Glenn went into further detail on this story when he came back at the start of the second hour of radio. Below is the transcript of that segment:

GLENN: I would like to be less definitive and more exploratory on this Al Gore statement that I find unbelievably shocking. He was on MSNBC and he's talking about the human makeup, and I'm sorry but I have heard this language before. This is the language of eugenics.

PAT: Margaret Sanger.

GLENN: Margaret Sanger.

PAT: This is ‑‑ and what's‑his‑face, George Bernard Shaw.

GLENN: Get the George Bernard Shaw audio too ready, will you?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you don't know, the progressives are the ones who came up with eugenics, and you have to excuse some of them in the early 1900s because science had just ‑‑ you know, in 1870, 1880, you had people like Edison saying there's no reason to wire everybody's houses with anything but DC battery power, you know, DC electricity because you'll never have anything in your house that is electric really except for lights. I mean, even Edison didn't see what was coming. Within ten or fifteen years, the whole world had begun to change and now there was science and that's where electric shocks came in: Let's do electric shock therapy. And you had Darwin and all these things were happening all the same time. And Marx. So you had Nietzsche, Marx, electricity, technology. Everything was changing and converging into one. So you had a bright, beautiful tomorrow. You had a beautiful better living through eugenics.

I have the books. Tomorrow ‑‑ or I mean, next week we'll do a special show on this because I ‑‑ you have to know this history. And in one of them by the guy who, I'm trying to remember his name. Shoot. It's a phantom, the Phantom Public is the name of the book by Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann is extraordinarily loved by the media. He is the father of modern media. He was one of the fathers of CBS and CBS News. He was part of the Wilson administration. Really dangerous guy. He helped put together the Council on Foreign Relations. And in his book called the Phantom Public, he talks about people who are just too stupid and they'll never get it and they will never ‑‑ they vote and they think they're doing the right thing but they just don't know and it's because ‑‑ because of genetics. Genetics just show that they'll just never get it, and they'll continue to push us into the background.

But he's ‑‑ he talks about how eugenics and scientists are now looking to ways to build the perfect voter, and someday we'll be able to weed out these genetic flaws in people and we'll have people who are all progressives. But in the meantime what we're going to have to do is brainwash and trick some of these people.

This was the great hope of the progressives during the Wilson administration and the Theodore Roosevelt administration from the turn of the century up until it was wildly discredited by the Germans.

We also, I'll bring in next week, letters from the Nazis to the progressives in California saying, "You brought all this progressive stuff over, you brought all this eugenics stuff; you guys, we can't thank you enough. May you never forget what you've done in Germany because you have now put the state on this track, and the things that we're going to be able to do because of what you taught us scientifically will never be forgotten." Oh, that's true. I mean, we even have ‑‑ we even have signs that say "Never forget."

They were responsible. It came. These ideas that happened in Nazi Germany came from the progressive movement in the United States of America, secondarily from the Fabian Socialists in England. It was a poison from the West that went east. And there are those who still believe it.

We had a ‑‑ we told you a story of a big lefty in Salon that wrote just last week that all, all men are not created equal. All life is not equal. She said, "Let's be honest. We all know that a baby is..." she said, "When I was carrying my children, I always knew that was a baby in there. So let's stop this bogus argument. We all know it's a baby. Let's just be up front and let's use the real argument: All life is not equal." That goes against everything that Americans used to stand for. But David Barton gave me an extraordinarily wild fact. Does anybody remember last night? I think it was 60% of the American people that voted didn't know that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, this last November. In exit polls, 60% didn't know. I mean, how do you win? How does America survive if you don't even know, not know the Constitution; not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is terrifying. So not all people are created equal.

You now have the president through executive order doing studies on who should and who shouldn't have guns. He's demonizing anybody who's on the other side, saying there's something wrong, and I will not have these people stand in the way of progress. He's coopting and now controlling our doctors and our hospitals. They have a death panel. It wasn't in the healthcare bill as we told you at the time; it was in the stimulus package. They are right now having a hard time getting anybody to go on this death panel because those are the people who are going to decide who lives and dies. And if you have an attitude that not all life is created equal, if you are funding death camps by the name of Planned Parenthood, forget about your FEMA camp. Your death camp in America is Planned Parenthood. And you're funding it. When the world is going towards no value on life and when your world is going towards a place where it's so egomaniacal, there is no one but them. No one but the individual. No one else matters. "I want mine, Grandma. You had yours. I was promised this." When you have a world that is so inner twined and in five years from now you will not recognize our society. The beginning of the singularity is already here. The merging of man and machine. The merging of reality and total virtual reality, but a reality you will not be able to tell the difference between.

Stu, do you remember when I said to you back in the Nineties there's going to come a day where you won't believe your eyes because they will be able to make any image on camera, any picture? It won't matter? You could just ‑‑ we're there now.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Would you agree?

STU: Oh, sure.

GLENN: I'm telling you now you will not be able to tell the difference between virtual reality, real reality sometime down the future, probably within the ‑‑ in the next ten years. That changes everything. All of this technology that is going on right now, do you know who's teaching ethics on technology? No, that's not a rhetorical question. We can't find anyone. They're not teaching ethics. When it comes to technology, they're not teaching ethics. And so now Al Gore comes out and he says on NBC for all the world to hear, and if you know anything at all about eugenics, if you know about the early 20th century progressives when Hillary Clinton said she is cut from that cloth, "I am one of the early 20th century progressives," all eugenics, all Marxist want‑to‑bes, just they're not Marxists; they just want the Marxist utopia without the revolution. That's the 20th century progressive, early 20th century progressive. And they're almost unanimously cheerleaders for eugenics and weeding out the week. If you know anything about that, listen to what Al Gore just said.

GORE: The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, "Wait a minute, not too fast." And when these natural tendencies are accentuated with political ideologies or for that matter religious factions and the other divides that are sometimes used to ‑‑ for advantage, then it can get out of hand.

GLENN: Can it? And then what do you do? So you are born just only able to understand the future or dragging us back into the past. And then people will put a label on that. You'll either go into religion or you'll become a conservative.

PAT: Well, if you're one of those that are holding us back, of course you'll go into religion.

GLENN: Yeah. Or conservative.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Otherwise you're a Democrat, a liberal, and you're an atheist. You're a scientist.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Extraordinarily dangerous. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Maybe I've read too much history.

STU: I found the story, the study he's talking about. This is ‑‑ it comes from New Scientist, British weekly scientific magazine. The title: Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative. Delves into the research on the formation of political opinions. I remember us talking about the story when it happened because it talks about how conservatives are dogmatic, routine‑loving individuals while liberals come across as free‑spirited and open‑minded.

GLENN: That's how they come across, yes.

STU: Yeah. According to the emerging data, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. These views are deep‑seeded and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be a liberal is like trying to persuade someone to not have brown eyes. We have to ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, let's ‑‑ oh. Maybe we should get some twins.

STU: Then it goes on, dogmatic types, more conservative, those who express interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: And an interest in different cultures.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: People with high openness scores turned out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.

PAT: Openness? How do you describe liberals as open to anything? They're not open.

GLENN: They are not open to ‑‑

PAT: ‑‑ anything but their own opinions.

GLENN: You know, can I tell you something?

PAT: That's it.

GLENN: ‑‑ Penn Jillette is ‑‑ and I'm sorry I keep talking about him but I find him one of the most fascinating men I know. Penn Jillette is just fascinating. When Penn Jillette and I met, and I'll tell you, I say this over again, I really respect him, blah, blah‑blah, but I think he's a bigot. Old information. He's not. He's not. Penn wrote to me last week, last week or a couple of weeks ago. Because we were ‑‑ we have these fascinating ‑‑ I'd love to do a book just on our e‑mail exchanges.

STU: The Penn and Glenn letters.

GLENN: They are truly remarkable because I'm trying to understand his point of view and he's trying to understand my point of view I think. And we're coming back and forth and we have these just all‑day exchanges. I'm not kidding you, one of them was just on that guy in Florida that was having sex on ‑‑ pleasuring himself on a donkey, not in a ‑‑

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay. And that's how it started, 8:00 on a Saturday. At the end of the day ‑‑ we just kept going back, you know, about, you know, 300 characters maximum and just keep going back and forth on it. Fascinating. At the end I kind of joked with him. I said, you know, I don't know if ‑‑ I don't know if we're closer or farther apart. I'm not really sure. I have to digest this whole conversation over a very long period of time, I said, but then again I'm a guy who would never be invited to your house. Going back to a reference that he said about the second or third time I met him at CNN and he said to me, you know ‑‑ I said, you're fascinating. I'd love to get together with you sometime. And he said, I'd love to. He said, of course you're never coming over to my house. And he was serious. He said, you know, because you're a religious freak. And he said, I'm never going to have you religious people over. He said it's like, why would I put a poison in my house? And I was shocked. And I said, boy, I thought, I thought you were a lot of things but I never thought you were a bigot. And he walked away and we've always ‑‑ we had for a while still a relationship but it was a weird relation ‑‑ it was terse. He wrote to me and he said, I apologize that I have never told you this, he said, but you changed me. He said, yes, I used to be bigoted against religious people, he said, but you've changed me. I'm not. He said, I apologize for all of that and I am sorry and I am trying to fight my closed‑mindedness on anybody that I don't understand or I don't agree with. He said, on all fronts. He said, so I apologize. And now he's become a really, a big defender of people who are religious even though he's not. And he doesn't understand it. That's an open‑minded person. And I'm sorry, that is not ‑‑ he doesn't call people enemies. That is not a liberal. That is not somebody who says, "You know what? I'm somebody who's going to, you know, we've got to wipe these people out or we've got to find out if we can ‑‑ no. I respect them for who they are. Everybody is different. And as long as we try to play nice and I don't try to shut you down or call you names, you don't do that to me. We all live together. It's like a family. Just, there's billions of us. You live in the house and you all try to get along, even though you don't agree with each other. We all try to get along. We don't try to wipe each other out. And I would never as a dad go and say to one of my daughters, "Well, genetically, you know, she's born like that. She only believes those things and she's going to fall into a religion" or she's going to fall into some ‑‑ she will fall into some atheists. If I'm a conservative, she will fall in with some atheists or she will fall into some liberals because she was born that way, you know." Oh, my gosh. What are we turning into?

The Associated Press has issued a dire warning for abortion providers ahead of the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade.

According to an article titled "'Heightened alert’: Abortion providers brace for ruling," abortion clinics nationwide are expecting an increase in "protests, harassment, and other violence ... in states where abortion remains legal" if Roe v. Wade is overturned — as a draft opinion leaked in May suggested is likely to happen.

"On the night of last winter’s arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could end the nationwide right to abortion, people gathered outside a clinic in New Jersey with lawn chairs, a cooler and a flaming torch — a sight that brought to mind lynchings and other horrors of the country’s racist past," the AP article began.

The article did go on to cite two incidents of extreme anti-abortion violence — "the 1993 killing of Dr. David Gunn outside a Florida abortion clinic [and] the 2015 fatal shooting of three people inside a Colorado Planned Parenthood." But there was almost no mention of the ongoing attacks on pregnancy crisis centers by pro-choice activists, including the violent group that calls itself "Jane’s Revenge."

On the radio program, Glenn Beck noted that the closest the current administration has come to calling out Jane’s Revenge was when the Department of Homeland Security published a terror advisory warning of crime on both sides of the Roe v. Wade debate earlier this month. But when was the last time you heard about violent attacks on pro-life centers in the corporate media? There have been several instances of violence by pro-choice proponents, and the Biden administration remains silent.

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn Beck. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

GLENN: Now the righteous generation of the woke has reached such a level of holiness that it cannot possibly be contaminated by name of a less righteous monster like George Washington. Student insists the university must break its ties with white supremacy and systematic racism by canceling its 200 year old name and renaming it. Are you ready? Malcolm X University.

Disney-owned Pixar's latest animated film "Lightyear" was expected to blast off last weekend, but ended up falling way short of box office expectations.

Box office analysts expected the "Toy Story" spin-off to gross $70 million and $85 million domestically and $50-60 million in offshore markets, despite having been barred in at least 14 countries over a controversial same-sex kissing scene, but the film's total haul worldwide wound up at $85.6 million.

Earlier this year, the controversial kissing scene was apparently cut from the film, but the Disney corporation made a show of reinstating it in March amid outrage over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' (R) Parental Rights in Education bill.

Now, why would such a woke movie flop at the box office on its opening weekend?

"Blame the fact that it doesn’t appeal to girls, blame Disney+ for stealing family moviegoers, blame the lack of an ensemble Toy Story cast, heck, blame everything as Disney/Pixar’s Lightyear didn’t do its magic by internal studio or industry standards this weekend with $51M, close to a third below its lowest $70M pre-release projection," said Deadline.com.

"Variety" lamented that the film's lofty "ambitions were thwarted by heightened competition from Universal’s behemoth 'Jurassic World: Dominion' and Paramount’s high-flying 'Top Gun: Maverick,' as well as little intrigue to watch a slightly esoteric origin story about Buzz Lightyear."

AV Club guessed that maybe "longtime fans have simply grown up and moved on and/or gotten tougher to please."

Both Vanity Fair and Movie Web seemed to think the problem was with the movie's "high concept premise" of making a film based on a film that was supposed to have inspired the Buzz Lightyear toy in "Toy Story."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Pat Gray weren't afraid to call out the obvious reason Disney's latest film fell flat: Parents are just tired of woke politics in their children's movies. It's really not that hard to figure out, Disney.

Watch the video below to catch the conversation. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

It’s now common knowledge that America’s mainstream media will do what it can to help the Democrat Party. But a recent op-ed from The Washington Post just took far-left pandering to a whole new level. The article, titled ‘Here’s what voters will get if they cast their ballots based on gas prices,’ tells Americans Democrats are NOT to blame for our sky-high inflation rates and gas prices: ‘There are relatively few tools that the president and Congress can deploy to help boost oil production or moderate overall inflation.’ HOLY COW, Glenn says. In this clip, he unveils the rest of The Washington Post’s INSANE Democrat defense, and he asks and important question: How do they sleep at night?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Here we are with the Washington Post. And they have a new very important piece out today. That says, here's what voters will get. If you cast your ballot based on a gas price. Okay? Americans are mad about inflation. They're especially outraged that the gasoline average now is $5 a gallon, nationwide. And history suggests that they may act on that furor. By voting the bums out. But voters should think carefully about what they'll get, if they cast their ballot, base on a gas price. Have you ever -- ever heard this, ever before?

The unexpected inflation tends to cause voters to punish incumbents at the polls. Yeah. Exactly like it's supposed to. The cost of gasoline looms especially large in the public consciousness. If also weighs heavily on presidential approval ratings. But the president doesn't have some super-secret special dial on his desk, that can adjust gas prices. But many voters believe otherwise. Well, let me just give you the rundown on the history of this. Because it seems ironic coming to the press. 1996, the press reported, not Clinton's fault. It's capitalism, and Newt Gingrich's fault. Then 2000. Bush blames Clinton. But it's really Bush's fault. This is typical of an administration that refuses to accept responsibility. Here's another one from CNN. 2001. It's Bush's fault. Then 2004. It's all Bush's fault. Then 2008. It's Bush's and Cheney's fault. Then CNN 2012. Stop blaming Obama. It's not his fault. Then in 2012. Sure, gas prices are high. But it's not as bad as you think. CNN, 2012. America, quit whining about high gas prices. 2018, it's Trump's fault. 2020, now it's Trump's fault. Low oil prices are causing oil company bankruptcies. Then CNN 2021, Biden can't do anything about it. It's not his fault. Okay. All right.

So back to the Washington Post. Republicans hope this widespread confusion will turn the midterms into a referendum on painful economic conditions. And by extension, Democratic leadership. They're counting on voters to protect their homes and dreams. Including their wildest fantasies about cheaper gas. I don't know about you, but I'm not thinking of, you know, the people behind the counter at the gas station all dressed up in something Lacey and revealing. It's not exactly a fantasy for me. You know, gas prices, being low. No. We had that just a year and a half ago. I don't know if anybody else noticed. But when Trump was in, we were for the first time in my lifetime, energy independent. We didn't have to worry about Saudi Arabia, or anybody else. Because we were independent and had cheap gas. For the first time in my life. And who got that done? Oh. Donald Trump.

But wait a minute. He doesn't have any levers to do that, does he? Hmm. There are relatively few tools, said the Washington Post, that the president and Congress can deploy to help boost oil production. What?

Here's an idea. End ESG. End the administration's war on oil. Here's another idea. You really want to get rid of oil? Fine. Get rid of oil. But how about we take a quick break. How about we just break for a minute, slow this down, until we have the other things that are going to replace oil. They also can't control or moderate overall inflation. Isn't that what the Federal Reserve's job is -- that is -- that is their only job. I know they've taken on so much more. That is their job. Their job is to keep inflation under control.

Well, the things that they do have, probably won't make a huge dent in price growth. But they could help a little on the margin. Unfortunately, these are not the things that either party is proposing right now. Democrats are grandstanding about greed, and considering silly stuff such as export bans and price controls. Meanwhile, by the way, those price controls won't seem silly when they happen. Republicans demagogue about President Biden's supposed war on fossil fuels. And socialism. His supposed war on fossil fuels.

That's what he campaigned on. Washington Post says, neither party has a serious plan for dealing with inflation. Overall, or gas prices, specifically. You know what, we don't need the Republican Party. All you need to do is just listen to the people. Are we a republic? Do we have representatives of the people? Because I can tell you, most of the people in America would say, you know what, let's start producing more of our oil. Most of America would say, I want to go green, if we can. That's great. But let's not sacrifice ourself on the God of global warming. I would like the country to continue. I would like my children to be able to eat. Oh. And inflation, here's an idea. Stop spending money. You don't have it. No one is borrowing it. Nobody is giving us the money anymore. We're borrowing it from the fed. Meaning, we're just printing more. Assuming that Russia's war in Ukraine continues to disrupt every energy market, that is such bullcrap, I can't take it. Then voters realistically face a choice, between high gas prices and the rest of Democratic agenda. War, high gas prices, and the rest of the Republican agenda. So what it's worth. Let's consider what the rest of the agenda is, for each party: Biden and fellow Democrats once promised a cradle-to-grave expansion of the safety net. Plus, measures intended to combat climate change.

Love or hate this program, I very much like it. But it's no longer terribly relevant to the choices the voters face this November. Yes, it is. Climate change. That's what's causing all of this. This, and the hostile takeover of the free market, through something called The Great Reset. But Democrat infighting has considerably scaled back their ambitions. Giving constraints laid out by senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Who wield critical votes for getting anything done. Democrats have at best had a shot at more modest packages, focused on climate, prescription drugs, and maybe some tax increases on high earners and corporations. But what do the Republicans stand for? Their national leaders won't say. Yeah. I know.

Keep it secret. You know why? Because our national leaders agree with a lot of this stuff, that is going on with the Democratic Party. They don't represent the people. Anyway, even when asked directly, they keep it secret. Their state level rising stars are mostly focused on fighting with Mickey Mouse and drag queens. Really? Are we? Is that how you put it? When -- when our parents are called terrorists for saying, hey. I don't want this Marxist and sex stuff in school.

You dismiss it by saying, we're fighting with Mickey Mouse in drag queens. But if you look at G.O.P. actions taken over the last several years. Including, when they had unified control of the federal government. You get a sense of what Republicans are likely to prioritize. Republicans mostly seem to care about tax cuts for the wealthy. And corporations.

Don't even start with corporations. Do you think the corporations are the friend of anyone, who is on the right? Anyone who doesn't believe in all of this progressive bullcrap? I mean, check the ad campaigns. But if you look at the G.O.P. actions, they just want to find ways to repeal Obamacare. Or otherwise reduce access to health care. Huh. For example, by slashing Medicaid. I know. As somebody who has voted Republican, and I myself am not a Republican. Because I don't want to be tainted with the -- with the -- with the smell of all of the death. But I am all for cutting back on -- I say, we close hospitals, in poor areas. You know, let's just close them down. Kids' medicine. Please, at any time if they're defective. Oh, wait a minute. That sounds like a progressive agenda. They only care about installing judges, who will roll back reproductive rights. Hey, listen to this. They care about supporting a president, who has used the powers of the state, to further his own political and financial interests. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. Let me give you a couple of quick stories here. Just to -- I just -- let me just point them out real quick here. Story number one. Headline. Buttigieg says the fed -- the feds have power to airlines to hire more workers, amid travel delays. Let me see here. I remember the republic -- or, the Democrats were very upset at Ronald Reagan. Because he forced union workers to go back into work, so we could keep the skies open, because none of them would work the control towers. So they had a real problem with that. Buttigieg is saying, he can tell the airlines, you don't have enough workers. Hire them.

Where, in the Constitution can you find that? That's fascism. Oh, here's the other. This one from the Washington Examiner. Biden's bid to expand Obamacare. The Biden administration is unlawfully trying to expand Obamacare. The Internal Revenue Service has published a proposed regulation. That would make an additional 5 million people eligible for premium subsidies. The IRS proposal is unlawful, but the administration will do it anyway. Here's the background. Obamacare statute created premium subsidies for people who buy insurance through exchanges. Congress restricted those subsidies for people with low and moderate incomes. Or at no other source of health insurance. In addition to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, 155 million Americans with job-based coverage are prohibited from claiming the credits.

The law carved out one exception. If a company plan required a full-time employee to contribute more than 9.5 percent of household income for self only coverage. Then the worker and his or her family members are eligible for the subsidies. So this has gone back and forth with Congress. And they won't do it. Because it will add $45 billion to the deficit. Just in the next ten years. It's called the family glitch. The urban institute, estimates the regulation would reduce the number of uninsured, by around 190,000. Because why? At an average cost of $4.5 billion, taxpayers are going to pay 23,000. 684, per newly insured person each year. Which is kind of not so good. So it would never pass Congress. And so now the IRS is going to do it, even though they know it's illegal. So what is it they care about supporting a president who used the powers of the state, to further his own political and financial interests? Financial interests, China. Please.

They care about supporting a president, whose few purported diplomatic achievements. Few? Few? The world was headed towards peace. The Middle East was having peace. Like I've never seen in my lifetime. In retrospect, they largely look like an excuse to meet potential investors who can might fund Trump aides' new private equity. Are you kidding me? This guy who is schlepping his son with him, everywhere he goes. And you're blaming this on Trump?

They care about defending at all costs, a president who cheered on the mob. Seeking to hang his own vice president. Speaking of mobs, how about the people who are threatening to kill our Supreme Court justices? Because that kind of sounds like the same thing to me. And what is the White House saying? Nothing. What are the Democrats doing? Reluctantly voting to give the Supreme Court justices and their family security. And then they have this one. And then they care about undermining the integrity of our election system. And overturning the will of the voters. If and when tallies don't go their own way. Oh, my gosh. I think I'm going to start vomiting blood. I mean, holy cow. Election deniers are already laying the groundwork to overturn the will of the voters in the future. Through legal and administrative changes at the state and federal levels. They're only changing it back to what it was. The special exemption for covid!

Oh. I can't -- I mean, how do they even -- how do they sleep at night? How do they sleep at night? Well, I guess if it's in the winter, they probably sleep well. Because it's very warm in hell.