The RNC's Problem: We have a great product, but the people in DC have no idea how to sell it

Now recently, the RNC unveiled their 100-page, 219-point plan for winning the youth and saving the party. Count ’em, these are 100 pages, 219 points. Now the RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus, ordered this report, what many are calling an autopsy report, to examine what went wrong last November. Now, he told me at CPAC, don’t call it an autopsy report. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t modify your strategy, it’s gonna be.

Not one point of this 219-point plan mentioned how to better use blogs for messaging. In fact, blog wasn’t mentioned at all, and social media was only mentioned once, and that was only in the context of fundraising, not as a platform for messaging or marketing. These omissions show me that the RNC still doesn’t get it.

And while the Peacock Press routinely trashed our candidates and our ideology all around the web, blogs and social media became the battlefield where narratives were born and where narratives died. It was the denizens of new media who fact-checked the press and made famous those reporters who grew fat and lazy off the scraps of DNC press releases. The best chance at equal treatment for our candidates came from new media. An entire generation changed its news consumption.

Now, there was a discussion on ideological purity and messaging and growing the base within this report, although I kind of get the feeling that the authors of this report, most of whom are former Bush aides, simply just had a one-sided conversation with one another on the definition of purity. In fact, they write in here, I think it’s on page eight, “Our standard should not be universal purity, it should be a more but welcoming conservatism.”

Now, the authors are correct. I’ll give some credit. They are correct in that the GOP needs to personalize policy, but on page eight of this report, they give more attention to the government as a trampoline rather than taking a moment to really light a fire and encourage the private sector to stop outsourcing the stewardship of their fellow man. Now, what a way to personalize policy and change the narrative of safety nets in one fell swoop.

Now, speaking of messaging, in an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the RNC Chairman gave the impression that he holds the few idiotic remarks during the election cycle as the sole reason for GOP losses. He admitted that the RNC outreach after these remarks was insufficient, which is examined in the earlier pages of that report. Now, again, they just don’t get it.

If the party was a healthy party, if the party wasn’t already rotting away from within due to the decay of moderate constitutionalism, manifest in policies like No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, TARP, et cetera, it would’ve been much more difficult to topple the party’s electoral chances based on a few stupid remarks. Now, people can forgive a dumb comment when the offender apologizes, but they can’t forgive the increased nationalization of their education and additional entitlement programs while the offenders behind those programs insist in telling us that it’s compassionate conservatism.

Now, here’s where the report was correct. It noted that the demographic of the country has changed. The electorate has changed. More youth than ever are voting. Romney lost the under-30 vote by more than 5 million; however, the solution isn’t to water down Conservatism, because watered-down Conservatism never works at the polls. When faced between the choice of a Democrat or a Republican trying to be a Democrat, voters are always going to choose a Democrat.

Give voters a choice. Give us a choice, politicians. Don’t cede your principles because your stuffed shirts on K Street can’t figure out how to sell liberty for the six figures you pay ’em. We need to become better marketers. Now, the president has a logo for everything, even his recent trip to Israel. Look, I bet he even has an official Obama logo for when he eats breakfast. I’m not even certain that that isn’t his logo.

Being a Democrat has become a lifestyle brand, much in the same way that people but Apple stickers on their cars or purchase a Harley. Brands are now self-expression. Brands identify people without needing a single conversation. Luxury labels, like Louis Vuitton, hire famous people like Michael Phelps or Angelina Jolie to appear alongside their products with the hope that the stars’ allure will rub off on the product.

Fashion companies send their products to celebrities hoping that paparazzi will capture an image of them with their product, and in turn the public will see this, and it’ll drive up demand. Politics is the exact same way. Democrats hobnob with Hollywood to borrow legitimacy and allure. Sometimes it’s symbiotic. Jay-Z pops some tops with President Obama, Obama looks cool and connected to culture, Jay-Z looks like his influence extends outside of the entertainment industry.

Chris Dodd is on the board of the Motion Pictures Association of America for crying out loud. Hollywood has its own lobbyist in the Senate, and of course we can’t forget First Lady Michelle Obama presented the best picture award at the Oscars this year.

Do you remember the Apple versus PC commercials? This is how the left markets. Guess which one of these guys is perceived as being GOP? The left gets branding; we don’t. They’re so good at marketing and branding that they’re able to sell federal servitude. They have a horrible, horrible product, and that’s half of the battle right there. And on this, we got ’em beat.

We, on the other hand, have a great product, but unfortunately we have a bunch of people in D.C. that have no idea how to sell it, and it’s sad, too, because there are so many conservatives who’ve cut their teeth on marketing and new media and so much more who would just love to help steer the current winnable party into a new direction. Unfortunately, I personally know several instances where younger more connected new media wunderkinds were rejected by politicians in favor of those outdated K Street brokers.

These stuffed shirts run a consulting racket, ORCA, anybody? I mean, the ultimate fail whale, and they create ads that fall into one of two categories, the I love my country ad, and the look at how bad this other guy is ad. Now, the first is devoid of a great pitch, and the second just makes candidates look like whiny, negative Nancys with no solutions. I mean, honestly, who doesn’t love their country and think that the other guy is worse?

Democrats were sprinting away from ObamaCare; yet, I don’t recall a single major Republican ad that used Nancy Pelosi’s famous sound bite:

VIDEO

Nancy Pelosi: But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.

Dana Fog – Yes, the Akin sound bite was stupid, but I didn’t see a single GOP rebuttal which asked, what is the real stupidity, a comment with no impact or choosing to not offer rape survivors protection against having the details of their case made public via vote as one former Illinois senator did? I sometimes feel like the RNC has bought into the left’s stereotype of Conservatives and through this perspective tries its outreach.

Now, I don’t agree with Paul Ryan on everything, but when he walked out on stage in Ohio to AC/DC, I almost straight up fell over. And when Marco Rubio personalized his family story and sold voters on the renewed American dream, I saw some hope, real hope. It’s not hard to sell liberty folks, not hard at all. Do you want the mediocrity of slavery or the rich opportunity of freedom? And that, ladies and gents, is the thing on which the RNC should focus.

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked? 

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant 

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.