Glenn: Ferguson "the very beginning" of what will happen in America if we don't change course

Last night, the grand jury declined to indict police officer Darren Wilson on any charges related to the shooting of black teenager Michael Brown. Events surrounding the shooting have heightened racial tensions in Ferguson, MO, and across the country the protestors have held the case up as a high profile example of a racially biased justice and law enforcement system. Protestors took the streets in several major cities, and Ferguson descended into riots. On radio this morning, Glenn called for peace while also chastising those who would use the grand jury decision and the protests to further divide the country, including President Obama.

Glenn: Last night, we were all together for Thanksgiving. We were watching Godzilla. And halfway through, I said to my family, I'd rather live in this world. I'd rather live in the world where giant lizards are climbing out of the sea because I think I would understand this a little more. It would make sense to me. And nobody would be saying those big things that crushed Las Vegas would be good. We would all have some idea of what good and bad, right and wrong. Right now, the world is so screwed up. You don't know what up is and down is. You have no idea what good and bad, right and wrong is.

Last night, when Ferguson came out and we started setting things on fire, when you're watching Fox News and you're seeing one of their reporters just try to report the news and somebody in a Guy Fawkes mask comes up and they pull the camera down to the ground, you wonder and you worry about the reporters. You wonder and you worry and you start to think, if you're me, is this when they're starting to pull reporters out of their seats in the newsrooms? Is this the beginning of that?

Because I'm telling the press, you think when you put a sign on your back that says "press," that's always meant 'friend, don't bother me'. I'm telling you now, the rebels and the revolutionaries that want to be on the streets, they don't look at you as an ally or as a friend. That's why they're pulling your cameras down. This is the very beginning of what will happen to the press.

This is the very beginning of what will happen to our cities if we don't change course. If we don't do what Abraham Lincoln did right after the Gettysburg address, and that is, turn our faces to God at Thanksgiving. At Thanksgiving is when he did it. And it turned the war. We were losing everything up at to that point, but it turned the world. Because he said, we need to humble ourselves. Are we not a nation that needs to be humbled? My gosh, I don't even know what we stand for anymore, except for money and power and greed and corruption. That's not the America I know or love.

People out on the streets -- the president gives a speech last night -- Pat, do we have the audio of the president? Can we play a little of this?

PAT: Yeah, he was terrific. As usual.

GLENN: You know what went through my mind?

'And Barack knows we have to change our traditions'.

You know what we've changed our traditions to? It's Thanksgiving week where we don't have to worry about anything. We just worry about the upcoming food fest. We worry about, will we be able to make it to the mall and get the things we want to make? If we're struggling because of our finances -- which happens in every economy -- you're struggling and you worry about Christmas and what it will be like for the kids. Those are our traditions.

But Barack knows. Here we are -- if we all try to gather with our family, we now have to talk about politics. We now have to talk about what he's done. He's already -- he's just started to release the illegals. He's now started that this week. So we have to talk about that, and we have to talk about Ferguson, and we have to talk about what one senator is calling a race war. Perfect.

OBAMA: First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury's to make. There are Americans who agree with it and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry.

PAT: This week we're a nation of laws, last week, not so much. Not so much a nation of laws.

GLENN: That's the way it works.

STU: It's a flip of a coin. They happened to say he was innocent, but it could have gone either way. If you think that it's a complete BS decision, you're just as right as someone who looked at the facts.

PAT: That's how he presented it.

OBAMA: We need to recognize this is not just an issue for Ferguson. This is an issue for America. We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course for the past several decades. I've witnessed in that in my own life, and to deny that progress, I think, is to deny America's capacity for change.

But what is also true is that there are still problems. And communities of color aren't just making these problems up. Separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it's being applied in a discriminatory fashion.

PAT: Why would you say that in this case, when that is clearly not the situation here? Why would you even bring that up? That's not the case here.

GLENN: This is so unbelievably outrageous. This president -- first of all, I think this is the first time I've heard him say, hey, we've come a long way, and I'm evidence of it. I'm evidence of it. Have you heard him say that before?

PAT: I haven't.

GLENN: Neither have I.

By the way, this is the most time any president has had to prepare a speech, so this should have been the best speech, the most well-thought out, most eloquent speech of all -- this could have been his Gettysburg address.

There was no rush to a speech here. All of us knew what the verdict was going to be because all of us could see the evidence as it was presented. We didn't even have access to everything the grand jury had, but we had enough to know it's probably not going to prosecution.

Not because of some race thing. The president should have gotten up and said, look, this is the system. And, yes, despite what I did last week where I made myself emperor, we are a nation of laws. And because of that, we believe in the system. And it's never perfect. In this case however, it looks like the grand jury may have gotten this one right. Now, sometimes in the past it has been wrong. And he can even talk about some of the cases, the civil rights cases, where you had grand jury members who were on the grand jury who were clearly intimidated or part of the clan. But those cases happened in the 1960s. And I'm evidence that this nation is not a racist nation.

Now, here's the thing, if you look at the evidence that the grand jury apprehend, you will see that this guy, the cop. There are witnesses. Black witnesses, that said they saw him charge the cop and say, you're too much of a cat to do anything about it. You're too much of a "cat" to shoot me. (He didn't actually say cat). You'll have to figure it out. He was taunting the cop.

And why was he he taunting the cop? He was taunting the cop because the streets have turned. The same reason that Europe has a problem with no-go zones. We've created no-go zones. If you're of a specific race or religion, you're already in a no-go zone, America. There's no such thing as equal application of the law anymore. All men are created equal and endowed by their creators. The president could have, since he's a constitutional scholar, could have said all men are created equal. Which means you're born equal. You have an equal shot in America. But you have to do something about it. It depends on how you react to life. Not what happens in life, but how you react in life that sets the course of this nation.

Now, how we react to it, because all men are created equal, but we don't have equal outcomes and we obviously don't respond the same way. So now is your moment of choosing. How will you respond to what life has dealt to you. And I'm specifically talking about the Brown family, and the Brown family has so far behaved admirably. They're hanging out a little too much with Al Sharpton for my taste, but they're saying peace on the streets.

Now, let me ask you, besides the Brown family, how have you been affected exactly? How have the Palestinian activists been affected in Ferguson?

I'm sorry. How have the communists, how has Occupy Wall Street personally been affected? There's something in our law called standing.

I can't bring a lawsuit against someone I don't have a standing. If someone sells somebody a car and it's a piece of crap, I can't go and sue the car dealer or the car maker. I don't have any standing. I didn't buy the car. I don't have the car. It didn't affect me. Where is your standing?

Well, all men, all men -- really? Show me the evidence that any wrong has been done here. Because the grand jury just deliberated and said it didn't. Now, that doesn't mean grand juries get it right all the time, but show me the actual evidence in this case that shows you, you should be burning down a city.

The President of the United States by not being outraged, by lecturing us -- and that's what he did. White America, black America, conservative America, liberal America, he got on last night and he lectured us.

See, you don't understand. I understand. They're not making this up. They're burning down our city for a reason. What reason? What reason, Mr. President? Mr. African-American president, what reason? You were elected twice. You were elected the first time by offering hope of change. Real change.

The second time you were elected out of fear-mongering, out of spite, out of divisions. But you still were elected, Mr. President. So tell me how racist this country is. Tell me -- tell me how racist it is.

Were you elected by only Hispanics? Were you elected by only black people? Were you? Were there any Jews? Were there any Mormons that voted for you? Were there any Catholics that voted for you? Were there any evangelicals that voted for you? Were there any black people that voted against you? Were there any Native Americans that voted against you? Who voted for you, Mr. President? Because right now you're supposed to represent all of us.

See, this is the biggest problem with our nation right now. We have no healing time because our parties have figured out, if we continue to divide, we can continue to grab power. So there's no healing power. There's no time where the president becomes everyone's president. They tried to do this under George W. Bush, but a tragedy lead us all together. A tragedy brought us all together. You know what, I didn't vote for that guy, but I don't care. He's my president. And it lasted for a while. Do we really need a tragedy to do it? That's the wrong way.

Tragedies lead progressive presidents like Woodrow Wilson and FDR to round people up. I would suggest with a progressive president, and that would include someone like Newt Gingrich or John McCain, I would suggest we avoid tragedies because you never know what those guys will do.

At least we didn't know what the two big progressive presidents were going to do during World War I and World War II. God help us all if we have a progressive president and it's World War III, which brings me to Chuck Hagel, but we'll wait.

Anything you guys want to add before we take a quick break?

STU: Let me add this: The stupid idiot that I am, I sat there and watched the president make the speech and thought, I wonder if this time he'll come out and say something uniting. I wonder if he'll come out and say, sure, there are injustices, but this isn't one of them.

PAT: And he probably had more access than the grand jury did to all the evidence. He knows what happened here. He knows.

STU: Well, Eric Holder was involved in this investigation. He was on the ground constantly. The prosecutor mentioned --

PAT: Well, he knows there was a witness who said that Michael Brown ran at the cop with his head down like a football player. And even though there were three bangs -- three shots rang out, he just kept coming. He didn't have his hands up. He didn't have his hands in the air. He was running headlong this officer -- he already scuffled with him in his car and beaten him there and two shots went off there. He had all this evidence. He knows this isn't one of those cases like during the civil rights era, there were absolutely miscarriages of justice. This wasn't one of them. He never said that.

GLENN: Do me a favor, Pat. See if you can find the Francis Fox Piven where she was saying, where are all the riots in the streets? Where are the riots in the streets?

This is all this is. I want you to know, America. They're trying to ignite an American Spring. That's all they're trying to do. If we can get the American people to riot, if we can just get them to stop being who the American people truly are. Don't you see?

Everything about what they're trying to do to us is to rip us away from the good, peaceful, charitable, kind people we truly are. That's not how we always are. But historically America always rights itself. It always leans back towards decency, courage, and kindness and charity. We always right ourselves.

For the love of Pete, look at our history and see who we truly are. Don't see just the mistakes. See the good things. All they're trying to do is separate us from the good things. This is a prime example early on of why we must reconnect with God. We must reconnect with ourselves. We must reconnect with history. We must know who they are because they're trying do separate us from our history. They're trying to separate us from the goodness in our heart by making us angry. They want us -- they want us to rise up.

We must rise up with hearts full of reconciliation. Go ahead, brother. Strike me down. To quote 'Star Wars', you will only make me more powerful. Strike me down. Strike me across the face. I will turn the other cheek.

You tell me, which would have more power, which would the American people stand up for right now, if people were locked arms, singing hymns walking down the streets of Ferguson, would the American people -- because the case is not on their side, the facts are not on their side, it would really be hard to get the American people to stand with them.

However, if they were all standing together shoulder-to-shoulder marching like Martin Luther King and singing hymns and talking about the real problems in our country, do you think maybe a few people would listen to them more than the people burning businesses down.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

The REAL questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Democrats don't want the American people to know who they are voting for. It has been well over a month since Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala was hastily installed in his place. During that time, Kamala has not given a single interview.

The Democrats' intention is clear: they have spent the last month gaslighting the American left into believing that Kamala is their new "super-candidate." Now that they've taken the bait, they can allow Kamala to take a softball interview to combat accusations from the Right.

Kamala's first interview will be hosted by Dana Bash on CNN and is scheduled for 9:00 p.m. ET tonight. Kamala will be joined by her running mate, Tim Walz, for an unusual interview. Between the tag-team approach and the more-than-sympathetic interviewer, it's almost certain that this will not be a particularly substantial interview full of easy, soft-ball, questions.

The American people deserve to know who is on the ballot, and that means that they should be able to see how their candidates stand up against tough questions. Here are five questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight:

Will she build a border wall?

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

After years of bashing Trump for his proposed border wall, Kamala has suddenly changed her mind. During the DNC, Kamala pledged to support a bill that included money for a border wall and other border security measures. This change seems like a knee-jerk response to recent criticisms made about her abysmal performance as the "border czar." The question is: how genuine is it?

What is her stance on the Israel-Hamas war?

BASHAR TALEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has been mushy on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war so far. She said that she would support Israel while simultaneously expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. With mounting pro-Hamas support within the American left, just how far is Kamala willing to go?

How does she explain defending Biden against allegations that he was too old for office now that those allegations have proven true?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

For the last four years, Kamala and the entire mainstream media have vehemently defended President Biden's mental fitness, despite countless incidents that indicated otherwise. After Biden's senile performance at the June presidential debate, the truth couldn't be hidden any longer, and Kamala was quickly swapped into his place. Now that the cat's out of the bag, how does Kamala justify her lies to protect the incompetent president?

How does she plan on fixing the economy, and why hasn't she already done it?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has claimed that she could lower consumer prices starting on the first day of her administration, accompanied by other promises to fix the economy. So why the wait? If she knows how to fix the economy that is causing so many Americans to suffer, can't she do something right now as the Vice President? Why has the economy only gotten worse within her three-year tenure in the White House?

Why does she keep flipping on her policies? Where does it stop?

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

As mentioned above, Kamala has already changed her stance on a border wall, but it doesn't end there. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Kamala vowed to end fracking, a controversial method of drilling for oil, in the name of climate change. But now it seems her position has softened, with no mention of a fracking ban. Why does she keep changing her stance on these major policies? What other policies has she changed without any indication? Why has she so far failed to produce a clear campaign platform?