Double Down author Mark Halperin reveals secrets of the 2012 election

Mark Halperin, co-author of Double Down, joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss some of the behind-the-scenes insight his book provides into the 2012 presidential election.

“One of the guys who I think tries to tell the truth and that is very rare. I have no time, nor will we give any time on this program to anybody who… [has] an agenda and [is] not at least trying to be honest,” Glenn said. “Mark Halperin is a guy who wrote the book Double Down, Game Change 2012, and it has raised some eyebrows because he let's the axe fall where the axe falls and is not trying to cut it one way or another. And he can tell us exactly what happened in the election of 2012 in some of the really important moments that we all watched, but we didn't know what was going on behind the scenes.”

In the book, Mark explains the President has not left himself many allies. But, as Glenn pointed out, President Obama enjoys a very favorable press. “So what’s the secret sauce here?”

“I have said throughout my career, particularly when the President was running in 2008, but beyond that there's a obvious slant in much media towards Democrats,” Mark admitted. “And even as I tell liberals who balk when I said that, even if you don't believe that, recognize that half the country or so feels alienated from a lot of press because they perceive that kind of lies and bias. It's not good for the country. It's not good for democracies to have people feeling like the press is slanted in one direction.”

Double Down explores the inner workers of the 2012 election, including the fact that First Lady Michelle Obama really didn’t want her husband to run for reelection, but she ultimately decided that it was important for him to be a two-term president so that people wouldn’t dismiss his time in office as some sort of ahistorical aberration. To that end, the First Lady was able to use her popularity, which in many cases was higher than her husband’s, to his advantage. One particular instance – the aftermath of the disastrous first debate in Denver.

“I mean it was a major performance failure,” Mark said of President Obama’s debate performance. “In part because there's this myth, Barack Obama is a great debater. He's never done good at debates. Look at his debates with Alan Keys in the Senate race in Illinois. He's not a great debater. In addition, he had in his head a lot of no-contest towards Mitt Romney and a lack of respect. And his aids were just really beside themselves leading up to that debate saying, ‘You don't want to show how much you disdain the guy.’ And they kind of told him just lay low.”

Why did President Obama have so much animosity toward his Republican opponent?

“He thought Mitt Romney was a phony. And that Mitt Romney was running for all the wrong reasons – was disavowing his record in Massachusetts as governor,” Mark said. “You saw just a ridiculously bad performance by the President that led them to feel like he could lose election and while they were publically saying everything is fine, privately, as the President rehearsed for the second debate, they got really worried he might lose the second debate and they thought if that happened, the election could swing the other way.”

“I'm sorry, it's like you hit me in the head with a frying pan or a telephone pole,” Glenn said exasperatedly. “The President thought someone else was a phony? Wow. That is saying something. I mean [he is] the king of phonies.”

Another one of the big revelations in the book is the vetting process the Romney campaign used to find its vice presidential candidate. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was once believed to be the front runner, but, according to Mark, Romney was not comfortable with Christie’s style.

“Well, Governor Romney at first though, ‘Maybe I'll pick Chris Christie,’” Mark explained. “Then he looked at some of his things in his background – little scandals, little controversies, some of them, if you Google, you'd see them but weren't known nationally. He thought that it was a little too much… to take on that potential controversy.”

“Then one of his advisors said, ‘Look, we're getting killed every day in the media. Barack Obama is, is dominating this race. We need a street fighter because we're in a street fight.’ And so he urged him to reconsider Christie,” he continued. “They looked at his background closer, and they found a bunch of stuff. Chris Christie used to be a lobbyist and one of his clients was an organization at the time was headed by Bernie Madoff. That's a 30 second ad that writes itself. He also, when he was a U.S. attorney in Jersey, the inspector general was looking at his spending habits when he went on the road for business. All of this stuff is nothing like a huge smoking gun. But Mitt Romney thought this stuff was a little controversial in the glare of a national campaign.”

The now infamous bear hug on the beach between President Obama and Gov. Christie in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy was the icing on the cake for the Romney campaign.

“They were crazy. One of Romney’s advisors was telling people, you know, people talked about it as a bear hug. You saw it more as a French kiss,” Mark said. “You know look when a governor has a disaster, they tend to look for help anywhere they can get it. It's often from presidents. Romney thought, ‘I understand Chris Christie is a governor. But he's being a little exuberant.’ Why does he need to go as far as he did?”

“The name of the book is Double Down by Mark Halperin,” Glenn said. “And Mark, we appreciate the fact that you're coming on the program. We appreciate the fact that you do let the chips fall where they may. And we wish you the best.”

Watch the entire interview below:

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.