Anarchy v. Totalitarian: The new right-left scale?

This morning on radio, Glenn talked about the importance of defining the real right and left in American politics. It might seem simplest to think of the right and left as Republicans and Democrats, but, as it turns out, the best right-left scale does not necessarily have anything to do with party lines.

“People think that, you know, the left is the Democrat and the right is the Republican. That's not true. Everything is upside down and that's just a lie,” Glenn said. “When you look at the real scale... On one side is anarchy and the other side is totalitarianism.”

When you look at this scale in terms of television coverage it becomes clear that whether you are watching Fox News or MSNBC, all of these networks are covering the same group of people. For example, people like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Bill Clinton, and Chris Christie are accepted by all sides because, as Glenn put it, they are “an extremist on one end or the other… they go from one side to another.”

The fact that these men have a tendency of casting such a large net when it comes to what policies they choose to support, it becomes difficult to determine where they fall not on a right-left spectrum but on an anarchy-totalitarian scale.

“You know, we sat here at the chalkboard yesterday, Pat and I,” Glenn said. “I'm like, where does Chris Christie go? Where does he fit? Forget about left and right. Who does he fit with? I contend he fits with Bloomberg, Sunstein, Al Gore, and Newt Gingrich.”

Pat, on the other hand, had a slightly different interpretation of Christie. “He’s got some redeeming qualities and his redeeming qualities are really redeeming,” Pat said. “You know, look at the way we cheered for him at the beginning before we found out just how moderate he really is. But the things on which he's good, he is exceptional.”

On the chalkboard Glenn used on last night’s 5PM show, Christie was placed next to Newt Gingrich on scale. “I think Chris Christie does do some really good things and I think Newt Gingrich does as well,” Glenn said. “But the bottom line is: overall they see themselves as a bit too progressive in their vision of what government should do.”

Based on chalkboard, the establishment of the Republican and Democratic parties are all muddled in about the same place, but the most important people, the people Glenn feels could be the future of the GOP, are on a different chalkboard all together.

“We should actually be down in the other scale, past the edge of the Republican Party. And I put the edge of the Republican Party with Rubio and Paul Ryan,” Glenn said. “Those guys are accepted into the tent of the Republicans but not all the time. They could, they might be good on freedom, you know, but they could easily be sucked in the other way, don't you think?”

With Rubio and Ryan on the fringe of the establishment GOP, it will take people who fall to the right of them to actually affect any sort of change. “Then you move down the scale and you have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul… Then after that you have Ron Paul. I don't really put Ron there, but I put his supporters there… And then, then you have Penn Jillette. I know he's not political at all, but he's the guy who I think is at the edge of that line of, ‘No, I'm a libertarian and I don't care what happens" but he's still reasonable. He still knows there has to be some sort of a framework to be able to hold things together… He's not an anarchist.”

If the GOP’s comfort zone does not extend past Rubio and Ryan, as Glenn suggests, the race for 2016 is going to be a tough challenge.

“I think all these people, you know, you've got the, you know, the McConnell and the Boehner and the McCain and the Lindsey Graham and the Chris Christie. I've written those guys off. Written those guys off. We have 18 months before the political machine starts again. And if you really want to have a place at the table, I'm telling you now that Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, Paul Ryan and Rubio will either be destroyed by the machine in the next four years or sucked into the machine, one of the two,” Glenn said. “In the next 18 months, maybe even 12 months, we have to populate that area between Paul Ryan and Penn Jillette with people who we think will really stand, will buck the system and they don't care.”

“You know, Ted Cruz said there needs to be a third party. I think there does. We have to have a new party,” he concluded. “I would love to be able to use the structure and the framework of what they've already established, but what they've already established is garbage. It doesn't stand for anything. So I think we should start taking phone calls, I think we should start to these politicians.”

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.