The ONE question Penn Jillette thinks the candidates need to answer

April 21, 2015

Writer

Glenn and Penn Jillette always have a great conversation, and last night was no different. Penn’s always been a big libertarian, so Glenn was really interested in what he thought of someone like Rand Paul entering the race for President of the United States. Penn shared his thoughts - as well as the one question he thinks every candidate should have to answer. What was it?

"The question I always want to ask, you know, every person who believes in big government is the simple question, 'What should the government do?' And that question never gets asked," Penn said.

"They did heating oil subsidies in New England in order to keep people warm in their homes. That was a boy, that’s a good thing. We don’t want people freezing to death, so the government is going to come in and do that. And then right after, in this state, Texas, they in their negotiating said we need air-conditioning subsidies for people in Texas. That’s also a good thing. People should be comfortable in their homes. People do die from their homes getting too hot. Where do we draw that line in what government should do?" he continued.

"And that is the single question I want to ask Elizabeth Warren and I want to ask Rand Paul," he said.

Watch the segment below, and scroll down for the full transcript:

Glenn: Anybody that you see that you like? Anybody?

Penn: I like you. I like that guy.

Glenn: No, that’s thinking about running.

Penn: Oh thinking about running, are you thinking about running?

Glenn: This is the most libertarian that we’ve had maybe in 100 years. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz is constitutional. He’s not libertarian, but he’s constitutional. You’ve got those two.

Penn: You’ve got those two. I happen to love Gary Johnson. I don’t think he’ll run again, but boy, Gary Johnson was just, you know, I want to have somebody that has such strong principles that the person doesn’t matter, you know? That’s what you need. The people moving it towards libertarian, now, Rand Paul—

Glenn: Did you like his father?

Penn: As a matter of fact, I’m going to be doing a thing with his father. I’ve never met him, but you know, to me, you’ve got to do a little bit of prioritizing. Ron Paul was so antiwar in so many ways and so much of a peacenik and so pro-freedom that I was willing to forgive when you got down the line. Rand Paul has done much more fake libertarian stuff, you know?

Glenn: That’s really interesting.

Penn: And his whole thing of religion does have a place in government, which I would like to remind him that the people who most don’t want religion to be in government are the religious people. You really don’t want. Boy, do you not want.

Before communism kind of screwed it all up, at the end of the 19th century, Robert Ingersoll, a very well-known atheist, was courted by all religious groups. Presidents had him in the White House because if you had an atheist, your atheist was the canary in the coal mine. If the Southern Baptist came in and said I’m going to treat this atheist well, then the Catholics went, “Whew, we’re okay.”

You know, what you have to understand is when Rand Paul says government can’t be part of religion, but religion can be part of government, which is what he said, when he says that, people like you should be screaming, “Excuse me, whose religion?” That’s the first question you have to ask. Whenever they say we’re going to put the Ten Commandments up here, we’re going to use the Bible here, we’re going to use religion here, I can’t believe that everybody doesn’t scream, “Whose religion?”

And that’s why before it got tied in with Socialism and Communism, which I understand why atheism got a bad rap. If you give me a choice of free-market democracy with religion and Communism without religion, I don’t think you have to think for a second which I’d go with, where I’m going to do better.

Glenn: Right.

Penn: When you had that idea, using the atheist as okay, we’re going to take over the government right now, and oh, by the way, we’re okay with Robert Ingersoll. He can come on in. Everybody, you know, every Jew in the country, every Catholic in the country, every Muslim in the country gets to go, “Oh, we’re going to be able to go to church. We can do what we want.”

So, I’m very bothered by Rand Paul saying this and that and the other thing. Who I vote for and who I say I vote for, at a very profound level does not matter. What I would love to see more than anything is the conversation publicly between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, that conversation of what should the government try to do.

Glenn: I’d really like—because I don’t think Hillary Clinton is an honest conversation there, I’d like to see Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul. I’d love to have those two have the conversation. If we could all be adults and say, “Just tell us the truth.” I don’t think you’re a communist Elizabeth. You believe in like Swedish Socialism or something. Great, that’s okay. That’s totally fine. Have that conversation. Let’s be open and honest about it.

Rand, you talk about libertarianism and small government. Let’s have that real conversation. The Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton thing is a waste of time.

Penn: The question I always want to ask, you know, every person who believes in big government is the simple question, “What should the government do?” And that question never gets asked.

They did heating oil subsidies in New England in order to keep people warm in their homes. That was a boy, that’s a good thing. We don’t want people freezing to death, so the government is going to come in and do that. And then right after, in this state, Texas, they in their negotiating said we need air-conditioning subsidies for people in Texas. That’s also a good thing. People should be comfortable in their homes. People do die from their homes getting too hot. Where do we draw that line in what government should do? And that is the single question I want to ask Elizabeth Warren and I want to ask Rand Paul.

You say the government should be a small as possible, and yet you want the government to have some say in religion? I would say you open a can of worms, but opening a can of worms is no big deal. Opening a can of bees, that’s a bad thing. Let’s say that’s opening a can of whiteface hornets, because a can of worms, we open that, we put it there, we keep talking. A can of bees changes the conversation. Can we agree with that?

So, I think that saying the government has some say—this is the crazy thing, the government needs to have say in keeping people safe, and that is automatically morality, but the government shouldn’t be seeing it as morality but seeing it as individual rights. And that is the really difficult part. And by the way, that question we want to ask, “What’s government’s role?” anybody who can answer that question is a liar, but they will say on a sliding scale, I think it’s about here. And you say well, what about this thing, you know? And that’s the point to me of libertarianism is everybody jumps right to roads and public schools. Everybody jumps right to the poor starving. Everybody jumps right to those things right away.

I say let’s not get to those. Let’s talk about corporate welfare. Let’s talk about Wall Street bailouts. Let’s talk about too much war overseas, interacting too much overseas. A lot of us can agree on that. By the time we get to public schools, we will be so happy, it’ll be a nice, easy, comfortable call. Because I’ll tell you right now, if you were to come to me and say here’s the deal you have to make with the devil, we’re going to give an amount of money you can live on to every single poor person in the country, we’re going to have public school, we’re going to have roads, but you know something, we’re not going to have the national endowment for the arts, we’re not going to have NASA, which is two things I love, by the way, which is why I choose them first. We’re going to get rid of those.

What Harry Brown used to say, pick the three government programs that you like the most. Now, ask yourself would I be willing to get rid of those if I could get rid of all the others? But we can pare it down quite a ways. So, my question that I’m asking myself now is can I feel good enough about Rand Paul’s foreign policy and money policy to not be repulsed by his absolute slap in the face to me and the people I love dearly of religion needs to be part of government? You know, that’s a conversation I’ll have with myself and not very interesting, but boy, do I want that question, “What should government do?” to be asked to everybody.

Glenn: That’s great.

Join Glenn at Donald Trump's inauguration livestream on BlazeTV

Join Glenn and Stu this Monday, January 20th, starting at 11 a.m. Eastern, for an unforgettable livestream of Donald Trump’s second inauguration. Broadcasting live from the heart of the nation’s capital, Glenn will bring you unparalleled coverage during the last hour of his radio program of this historic moment as the United States ushers in what Glenn describes as a "golden era" under Trump’s leadership. After his radio program, join Glenn for BlazeTV's live stream of the inauguration with special guests, live commentary, and the energy of being right on-site at this historic event for coverage you don’t want to miss.

Subscribe to BlazeTV+ today to be part of this historic event. Use the promo code Glenn47 to receive $47 off your annual subscription and gain access to this and more content from your favorite BlazeTV hosts. Don’t wait—this is your chance to witness history live with Glenn and the team as we look toward the future of America with BlazeTV!

4 ways Biden is SABOTAGING Trump on his way out of office

ROBERTO SCHMIDT / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden has less than a week left in the White House, but that doesn't mean he's down for the count quite yet.

Next Monday, January 20th, President-elect Trump will be officially sworn into office, marking the beginning of his second term. But after such a bitter and contentious election, the Democrats aren't ready to roll over. Instead, they have been working around the clock to ensure that Trump will face as many obstacles and challenges as possible the minute he is sworn in. These political landmines are designed to sabotage his presidency—at the cost of the well-being of the American people.

Biden's job approval rating currently sits around 38.7 percent, one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, he has nothing to lose from these reckless ploys. Here are four ways Biden and the Left are trying to sabotage Trump:

Pardoning criminals

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

In November, President Biden customarily pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey ... along with his son Hunter and dozens of other controversial criminals, including 37 felons on death row. Hunter's 11-year-long blanket immunity sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents, and we may never know the full extent of the Biden family's crimes and corruption.

Destroying U.S. energy

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

Biden has made several moves that have damaged America's ability to produce its energy independently, including canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office. Earlier this month, Biden signed another order that has dire consequences for the energy sector, effectively blocking any new drilling off the U.S. coast indefinitely. This not only further kneecaps the U.S. oil industry during a time when gas and energy prices are on the rise, but moreover, the way the executive order was written means Trump will have a much harder time undoing it. Thanks, Biden.

Escalating overseas wars

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

America's involvement with the ongoing war in Ukraine has been tenuous from the beginning, but under Biden, it has escalated to a Cold War-like proxy war. Neither pleas from Americans in need nor threats from Russia have deterred Biden. He has approved countless aid packages sent to Ukraine, totaling billions of dollars. Recently, Biden has decided to up the ante by supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles, despite Putin's warnings that Russia would consider this an act of war. It's almost like Biden wants to start WWIII before handing the reigns over to Trump.

Installing a "shadow cabinet"

It's time we borrow an idea from our British friends. My proposal for a shadow cabinet isn’t just about holding our political leaders accountable - it strengthens and protects our democracy.

Learn more from my speech today on the House floor.⬇️ pic.twitter.com/cjP8pP7fxw
— ARCHIVE Rep. Wiley Nickel (@RepWileyNickel) November 14, 2024

For years Glenn has warned of the dangers of the deep state, and its very existence has been denied ... until recently. Shortly after the election Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel made a disturbing speech on the House floor where he proposed the creation of a "Shadow Cabinet" designed to hamper the Trump administration and to step in if Trump were removed from office. This "Shadow Cabinet" would be composed of Democrat counter-picks to Trump presidential cabinet members, and they would scrutinize every act made by the Trump administration and propose alternative actions. This just proves that the deep state will do anything to stop President Trump.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.