Will Bobby Jindal be the next Republican to throw his hat in the ring for president?

This morning on radio, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana called into the radio show to discuss a big announcement he has coming up this Wednesday. Is Governor Bobby Jindal possibly running for president in 2016?

Glenn immediately started off the interview complimenting Jindal, but also asking him some difficult questions, such as, “What makes you different than Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, and Scott Walker?”

Listen to Jindal’s answer below and hear more of what he had to say the government's involvement in marriage and the current crisis with ISIS.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: Bobby Jindal, one of our -- really truly one of our favorite guys. I hate to say politicians. Because I don't like any politicians. But I like Bobby Jindal. He's a very smart, very gracious, God-fearing man, who is -- who has really changed Louisiana for the better and done a lot of things in Louisiana to help Louisiana out, without raising in taxes whatsoever. We welcome him now to the program.

Governor Jindal, how are you, sir?

BOBBY: Glenn, it is such a privilege to be on the air with you. And, look, I wish I had time to return all those wonderful compliments. Thank you for what you said.

The last time you and I were together was I believe with Steve Green. If you remember, he was doing his fundraiser for his Bible museum. I couldn't agree with you more on your opening comments. Now more than ever, we need to have faith. I was actually in South Carolina recently calling for a spiritual revival with many pastors and folks there. So it's so great to be back on the air with you, and it's great to be talking with you again.

GLENN: So, Bobby, are you announcing on Wednesday that you and your wife are happy and you'll stay together?

PAT: Or that you'll keep being the governor of Louisiana?

GLENN: Or is there something else that maybe you might be --

BOBBY: Glenn, I'm always waiting for that -- to do a listening tour and say, the people told me to stay at home.

[laughter]

GLENN: Please tell me you're not going on a listening tour.

BOBBY: No. On the 24th, we'll make our final decision. And, look, this is what I believe, I think we need dramatic changes in the direction of our country, not minor tweaks.

I think President Obama, Secretary Clinton, they're trying to redefine the American dream. It's something called the European nightmare. That dream has always been about freedom and opportunity. They're trying to redefine it to redistribution and government dependence. If I become a candidate, it won't be to sugarcoat anything. We can own the future. Our best days can be ahead of us, or we can recede and decline as we're doing right now. Success isn't inevitable. This isn't an exercise. Every politician says the next election is the most important one. This one really, really is. We can't afford four more years on this path.

GLENN: So, Bobby, you're probably one of our or five that I have real confidence in. In my lifetime, I've never seen a group of politicians from any walk that I have more confidence in than the Republican field. I mean, there is the Donald Trumps of the world, and, quite frankly, and I'm not going to put you in a corner here on Jeb Bush, but there's some people here who are just the same old, same old, or crazy. And then there are a few that are really, really good. Ted Cruz is really good. Rand Paul, I think, is really good. I think Governor Walker could be really good. Marco Rubio is worth consideration.

PAT: And should you decide somehow to potentially run, you'd be great as well.

GLENN: Yeah. So now, how do you differentiate yourself? I mean, I just want to go through those people. Because our audience has selected -- we ask them every month to rate all of these politicians, A through F. So the top five are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, who else?

STU: Bobby Jindal is up there for sure.

PAT: Scott Walker.

GLENN: Scott Walker. And there's one other. So let's start with those guys. What makes you different than Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Scott Walker?

BOBBY: First of all, that's a great question. I would say, it's not enough just to send any Republican -- you're right. We need to sort through the field. They told us, we give them a majority in the Senate, they would repeal this illegal amnesty. They would repeal Obamacare. They would shrink the size of the government. They haven't done that. We need somebody who is not going to play by the Washington rules.

In terms of the list, one, I'm biased towards governors. We have now a first-term senator in office. We can't afford more on-the-job training. We don't need a talker. We need a doer. So I'm biased towards governors.

I think the two things that set me apart as a successful governor is number one, many candidates are talking about repealing Obamacare. We're the only potential candidate with specific plans. How do you get rid of Obamacare, all of the spending, all of the taxes, not just some of it? We're the only one with a plan on energy independence, on education reform, on rebuilding our defense.

So we're not just talking about platitudes. We have detailed plans.

Then secondly, when you look at what we've done back home, we've cut our budget 26%. Over 30,000 fewer state and government bureaucrats. No, that's not a mistake. I'm not talking about slowing the growth of government. We've reduced the size of government. That's what we need in D.C. $18 trillion of debt and growing. And there's no end in sight. We don't need to rearrange the chairs on the debt. We need to make serious changes in D.C. I've done that in Louisiana. In doing that, our private sector economy has done very well. We're in the top ten states for job creation. More people working in Louisiana than ever before, earning a higher income than ever before. We need that kind of drastic change in D.C. as well.

GLENN: Bobby, how are you going to deal with -- I mean, quite honestly, the biggest enemy of the Constitution is not the Democrats or the liberals. It is the progressives. And we have progressives on both sides of the aisle. Right now, I got up this morning, and I saw another news story again about how the Republicans are going to save Obamacare.

How do you stop the -- the -- the progressives in your own party?

BOBBY: Well, first of all, you're exactly right. You have Republicans bending over backwards. They said, once Obamacare is now the law, now that it's passed, we can no longer ever shrink it. We can't get rid of an entitlement program. If that's true, we're done as a party. There's no need for a Republican Party. We've said, once the progressives [inaudible] out of dependence, we can never cut it back, there's no point in having two political parties. We need a conservative movement. And it's not just Obamacare.

I'm against giving this president fast-track authority. Talk about a president that already breaks the Constitution. Doesn't follow the law. We have Republicans bending over backwards to give him even more authority. Here's where I think the real breakdown is. The Republican Party has rightfully not been the party of big government. That's good.

Unfortunately there are some that want to make the Republican Party the party of big business, and that's bad. Big business has given us amnesty, Common Core. Big business, some of them are lobbying against repealing Obamacare. They say you can't do it. No, if you listen to conventional wisdom in D.C., they'll tell you you can't shrink the budget, you can't have term limits, you shouldn't say radical Islamic terrorism, you shouldn't say things that are spiritual, that's politically incorrect. That's nonsense. People in the real world, out there in America, they want term limits, they want a balanced budget, they want to get rid of Common Core. They don't want big government in bed with big business. I think a great example of this, progressives in the Republican Party, as you mentioned, look at the fight in Indiana over religious liberty. Again, this unholy alliance between big business and the radical left going after religious liberty and conservatives. Look, the radical left wants to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. They think profit is a dirty word. So these businesses need to be careful who they're making these alliances with.

GLENN: Let me ask you. Because you're talking now about the religious. There is a -- there is the possibility of -- of us completely changing the idea behind the First Amendment of us living in a world of really not having a right of conscience anymore.

What do we do there, Bobby?

BOBBY: First of all --

GLENN: I believe that -- I believe that if you're gay, and you want to get married. You can get married. Because I don't believe -- I mean, the marriage institution, the paperwork for it for the government was really started to keep blacks from marrying whites. So we didn't have this. It was all done through our churches and everything. So government shouldn't get into the marriage deal. With that being said, no one should be able to tell my church that my church has to live a certain way or marry people. Whatever. You stay out of my life. I stay out of your life. That's not happening.

BOBBY: Not at all. I don't want to see the definition of marriage change. But you're right. This is bigger than marriage. And now you have bakers, musicians, caterers, being charged thousands of dollars in fines, being forced to choose, do you want to operate a business, or do you want to follow your conscience? That's not what the First Amendment intended. That's not what the Founding Fathers intended.

America didn't create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America. And the left is trying to take God out of the public sphere and public square. I gave a talk about this at the Reagan Library over a year ago. I'm glad that we passed good laws in Louisiana. Going back to my first term for religious freedom restoration. We did an executive order this year to stop the state from doing exactly what you said, discriminating against sanctioning, going against businesses or individuals who simply want to live by their conscience.

My hope is that even those that are secular, even those that may not be Christian, may not share your or my views on marriage would respect our right to live our lives. The danger is, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, when they say freedom of religious expression, all they mean is you can say what you want in your church. Glenn, that's not religious freedom. Religious freedom is being able to live your life 24 hours a day, seven days a week, according to our sincerely held religious beliefs, according to our conscience, according to our morals. That's what is at stake here. This is a very, very important fight. The left has gotten more radicalized on this.

My hope is that even those that aren't religious or Christian or don't share our traditional views would still fight for our right to be able to have those views and live according to those views in America.

PAT: Governor, I would guess that we probably line up pretty closely on almost every domestic issue. But the Middle East is in such disarray right now. ISIS is making incredible inroads. They've taken over huge swaths of territory.

How would you handle that? How would you handle foreign policy especially when it comes to ISIS in the Middle East? Are you -- would you favor military intervention again or staying out of that mess? Where are you on that?

BOBBY: Well, there are several things that the president could and should be do right now.

First of all, leading from behind hasn't worked. Secondly, we have to name our enemies. Radical Islamic terrorists. It's not the crusades, it's not the evil Christians. It's not even trans fat. The most important enemy in front of us right now is radical Islamic Muslims.

I said yesterday, look, I'll protect my kids from Oreo cookies or microwave popcorn if the president will protect us from radical Islamic terrorists.

When you look at ISIS in particular -- let's arm, let's train, let's work with the Kurds. They've been successful on the ground. And Kobani, again in Syria this past week, when combined with allied airstrikes, they've been very successful at repelling ISIS' ground troops. Secondly, I think there are Sunni allies are willing to do more in this fight if they thought America was committed to victory.

Part of the problem is that the president drew this red line in the sand. There are no consequences. Assad (phonetic) is still in power. So many of our allies fear, if they fought ISIS, they would strengthen Assad and Iran indirectly. So we need to show our Sunni allies that we're committed to victory. I think they would be more willing to commit more to this struggle and fight.

Third, I think the president made a fundamental mistake in setting the authorization and use of military force to Congress with two restrictions on it. The ban on ground troops. The three-year deadline.

Not because I'm advocating -- I don't think anyone is advocating for a surge of ground troops right now. But rather, no commander-in-chief should ever telegraph to the enemy that this is what we're not going to do. Here's our time line. I think he needs to take the political handcuffs off. Go to the Pentagon and say, give me a plan. He now twice has admitted he has no plan. Every time he does this, it's hilarious -- not hilarious, but, you know, the spokespeople come out and say the president didn't mean what he said. It's not a verbal gaffe. He really doesn't have a strategy here.

Instead we're sending a few hundred more trainers over there. No coherent strategy. No commander-in-chief should send American troops in harm's way without the resources, the support, as well as a strategy they need for victory. This president is not doing that. And look, this fight will not stay over there. As you saw with the attack in Garland, Texas. This is an enemy that we can face here at home. That's why -- he has to name the enemy for what it is. We have to fight this enemy culturally as well. This president needs to say to Muslim leaders, look, Islam has a problem. It's called radical Islam, and clerics need to denounce terrorists by name and say -- not just condemning generic acts of violence, condemn those individuals so they're not martyrs going to enjoy a reward in the afterlife. Making it clear we're fighting this enemy on all fronts.

STU: You mentioned Oreos, Bobby. Would you consider an executive order to make sure red velvet Oreos stay on the market and are not limited edition?

BOBBY: I've never actually had a red velvet Oreo. But it sounds like it would be a good thing. Look, you can eat kale 24 hours a day. Three meals a day and live to 100 years old. I'm not going to do that.

PAT: Thank you. Thank you.

GLENN: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. Bobby, Governor, it's always great to have you. And we wish you all the best of luck. And I'd like to -- if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you and pin you down on this on the air, I'd like to spend maybe an hour or two with you with a camera. I'll fly to wherever you are. And we'll sit down one-on-one. I want to put together the five candidates that I would really consider and ask them all the same questions and let people hear them all answer the same questions and no gotcha or anything else. Would you be willing to participate in that?

BOBBY: I would love to do that. I'm honored to be on your list of five. That means a lot to me. You and I go way back. I have a lot of respect for you.

GLENN: Likewise.

PAT: If someone wanted to help out if you had any announcement to make that was out of the ordinary on Wednesday --

GLENN: You mean like join a campaign.

PAT: Yeah, or contribute to it or whatever. Where would you go to do that? There's probably nowhere to go. Right?

BOBBY: It's funny you should ask that. There is a site. You can go to BobbyJindal.com. It's very simple. B-O-B-B-Y J-I-N-D-A-L.com. We'd love for folks to come down. It's in the greater New Orleans area. June 24th for our announcement. They can find out more about what we're doing, as well as those detailed policy plans I mentioned as well.

GLENN: Why would you have that website if you're just going to announce how happy you and your wife are? I don't understand that. Thank you very much, Bobby. I appreciate it.

BOBBY: Thanks. Y'all have a great day.

GLENN: You too.

PAT: He's great.

GLENN: He's a contender.

PAT: Oh, he's a contender. He's good.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

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

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.