'Heaping scoop of incompetence' - Pat and Stu lament 'terrible' Democratic debate

October 15, 2015

Editor

Pat and Stu filled in for Glenn on radio Wednesday, sharing their reactions to the gaffe-ridden Democratic presidential debate hosted by CNN Tuesday night.

"I seriously couldn't take it," Pat said. "It's probably the worst field ever gathered to run for a party's nomination, I would think."

Stu shared Pat's sentiments, comparing one of the candidates, Lincoln Chafee, to the eagle from The Muppets.

Later, the conversation turned toward Hillary Clinton's statement about "big government" Republicans trying to cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

"That remark by Hillary Clinton was the dumbest thing ever uttered by a human being. To say that a cut of $500 million is evidence of big government is quite possibly the worst point ever made by a politician," Stu said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

PAT: I couldn't -- I seriously couldn't take it. I couldn't take it -- it started at what, 7:30, by maybe 25 after 8:00, I'm like, okay, I can't. I just can't do it.

JEFFY: I was praying for the first commercial break.

PAT: I know. The lies. The deceit. The attacks. The deception. The communism.

(laughter)

STU: And also, let's add on a giant heaping scoop of incompetence.

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: That's a terrible field in comparison.

PAT: Wow. Oh, it's a terrible field. It's probably the worst field ever gathered to run for a party's nomination, I would think.

STU: By a major party, I think you could seriously make that argument.

PAT: If it was the Green Party or the --

STU: Or even the Libertarian Policy. I'm not talking about policy here. I'm just talking about how bad the candidates are. If you had like -- there's a party called the Peace and Freedom Party or something, that's basically a socialist party, like that's a field of candidates I could see them putting out there.

PAT: And policy-wise, they all fit in.

STU: They could all fit in and all get that nomination. It was embarrassing.

PAT: Jeez. Oh, my gosh. Lincoln Chafee is just -- I mean, what is he doing on the stage? What are you doing running for president?

STU: Well, first of all, he looks like the muppet eagle, I don't know if you noticed that.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: If you see them side by side, they're almost identical.

PAT: We have to see them side by side.

STU: I posted actually on my Facebook page. I came up with a campaign poster for them, which is Eagle Chafee 2016. And they look -- Sam the eagle and Lincoln Chafee are almost identical. That's number one.

But perhaps slightly more importantly, the man -- I've never seen anything like it. His answer as to one of his first votes.

PAT: Yeah, we have that. Let's check that out.

ANDERSON: Governor Chafee, you've attacked Secretary Clinton for being too close to Wall Street banks. In 1999, you voted for the very bill that made banks bigger.

LINCOLN: Glass-Steagall was my very first vote. I just arrived. My dad had died in office. I was appointed to the office. It was my very first vote.

ANDERSON: Are you saying you didn't know what you were voting for?

LINCOLN: I just arrived in the Senate. I think we get some takeovers, and that was one of my very first vote. And it was 95 -- 9 to 5 was the record.

ANDERSON: With all due respect, sir, what does that say about, that you were passing a vote for something you weren't really sure about?

LINCOLN: I think you're being a little rough. I just arrived at the United States Senate. I had been mayor of my city. My dad had died as I was appointed by the governor. It was the first vote. And it was 90 to 5.

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: I had hay fever that day. I put on brown and yellow. I didn't look very good.

JEFFY: I didn't even know where I was.

PAT: I think it might have even been beyond hay fever. It might have been a sinus infection.

STU: I was eating a hash brown, and some of the oil got on my shirt and it made it like clear. I was very nervous. I was self-conscious.

PAT: But there was a stain.

STU: Yeah, there was a stain there.

PAT: So I was looking at that more than I was the bill.

STU: I think you're being a little rough here, Anderson, considering that it was one of my first days. I mean, when you go in and you have a job for the first day, you walk around, you shake hands with a couple people, you have some doughnuts in the office. I wasn't expecting to vote. I just pressed a button. I didn't even know what happened.

PAT: I didn't even know there was voting going on in Congress. When did this start? Well, good follow-up would have been, well, what's going to happen on your first day of president?

STU: Look, I happened to bomb Idaho. It was my first day in office.

PAT: My wife was sick. I was worried about her. So, yeah, I sent some P52s over Idaho.

JEFFY: I think you're being a little rough.

STU: Is that one of the more unbelievable moments you've ever seen from a candidate?

PAT: Oh, it is.

STU: He was saying because it was his first day, he had no idea what he was voting for. And that was his excuse for supporting this particular bill. I mean, that's an unbelievable moment. Now, he is an absolute zero in every way, including the polls. So it's not -- he's not the guy with all the attention on him. But that field -- because it's one thing to say, okay, Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate. And she is a bad candidate. She's supporting policies -- some of the stuff she said and we'll get into it in that debate. In every other election say pre-2008 would be a complete disqualifying as a run for president -- to have any chance to win the presidency. It was that bad. But on that stage, there is no chance anyone on that stage can beat her.

They're terrible.

PAT: Although, they loved him.

STU: Bernie Sanders was laughable. They loved him in that room.

PAT: He won the debate on Drudge. And they loved him in the room.

STU: The Drudge poll is an internet poll.

PAT: And most people are saying Hillary won.

STU: Because Hillary does not have to win those debates. She just has to not be terrible.

PAT: Although she was. She was terrible.

STU: I think she was for a general election. I think she certainly was for anyone that has ever seen or heard --

PAT: She might be great for the new Democrat Party.

STU: Right.

PAT: She might be great. I mean, you've got a stage filled with people who are seriously qualified to run for the socialist or Communist Party.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: They absolutely could be running for that nomination. And the only one there who probably couldn't is Webb. And he has no place anymore. Jim Webb has no place in the Democrat Party. He's an actual Democrat like you knew them 40 years ago. Jim Webb seems to be, for the most part, a fairly reasonable Democrat. A moderate guy.

STU: Yeah, I think it was National Review who said he would have had a good chance of winning the nomination in 1948.

PAT: Exactly, yeah. Now, there's no way. He's not nearly communist enough. Not nearly. And they keep throwing out the Republicans like they're so extreme. Like they're so wild-eyed. Are you crazy? You guys are all communists. And you've got a guy who is very reasonable. He has no place in your party anymore. No place in your stinking party.

STU: Yeah. No place in your party. I mean, you have a guy here who is saying he's a socialist. And the mainstream candidate is doing everything she can to get to his left. Everything she can to get to his left.

PAT: Right. It's working out pretty well too. I mean, listen to this.

STU: Yeah, she just keeps going that way.

HILLARY: We've got to do more about the lives of these children. That's why I started off by saying, we need to be committed to making it possible for every child to live up to his or her God-given potential. That is really hard to do if you don't have early childhood education, if you don't have schools that are able to meet the needs of the people or good housing. There's a long list. We need a new New Deal for communities.

PAT: Okay. So if that doesn't send a chill down your spine. We need a new New Deal.

STU: Yeah, now, is that a newer New Deal than the new New Deal that they proposed in 1935?

PAT: Yes. We already had that new deal.

STU: Well, there was a New Deal. Then there was a new New Deal. This would be the new new New Deal?

PAT: This would be the super mega doppler New Deal.

STU: Wow.

JEFFY: And she's really concerned about childhood education. Really? How about that Planned Parenthood? At what age does child education start?

STU: She actually had, and I use this intentionally, the balls to say that she cared about the lives of children.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Is that a serious point? You don't get to make that on the Democratic debate stage.

PAT: Not if you're as pro-abortion as she is.

STU: No.

PAT: Not if you love Planned Parenthood as much as she does. And she does.

HILLARY: It's always the Republicans or their sympathizers who say, you can't have paid leave, you can't provide health care. They don't mind having big government to interfere with a woman's right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood.

PAT: Okay. Let's attack that now. They're not taking down Planned Parenthood. The government -- the big government we fight against is currently funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of $500 million a year. And they want to stop doing that.

STU: Yep.

PAT: They want the big government to stop being so big that they're funding that organization. And if they then survive, so be it. If they fail, so be it. Let them get their own private -- my guess is they get plenty of funds anyway. Because last year, what did they have? 2 billion, wasn't it?

STU: I think it was 1.5.

PAT: Yeah, it was definitely -- somewhere over one and $2 billion.

STU: Yeah. And I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but that remark by Hillary Clinton was the dumbest thing ever uttered by a human being. To say that a cut of $500 million is -- is evidence of big government is quite possibly the worst point ever -- ever made by a politician.

PAT: Stupid. And she doesn't get challenged on it.

STU: No. In fact, I was listening to CNN earlier today, and it was, this was her big moment. Where she came out and she said, the -- the Republicans love big government when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood. Are you listening to yourself speak? Defunding. You're talking about taking government money away from an organization is big government.

PAT: Right.

STU: Every time they come out and they say, they want to cut childhood education funding. They want to cut health care spending. Is that all big government too? When they want to cut those things?

PAT: It doesn't seem like it to me. No.

STU: You're shrinking the size of government in theory. Again, the proposal doesn't even do these things. It doesn't even cut the money going to women's health organizations. It just redirects it from one that's under criminal investigation or at least very well may be soon.

But you have an issue where cutting money to an organization -- a government gives free money to somebody. That's big government. That is what conservatives fight against.

PAT: Right.

STU: Big government giving money to their friends. To other -- private organizations. That is what we fight against. When we say that we don't want that. She identifies that as big government.

PAT: Big government. Yeah. Well, she also ties in. That's where they want to tell women what to do with their body. Yeah, well, we also want government to tell people what to do with other human beings that we don't want them to kill. We do allow certain things. We allow access to the government to do certain things like prevent murder. That is a function of the government.

STU: Yes.

PAT: It's not that we want bigger government. We just want the government to do what it's supposed to do. And that's protect life.

STU: And of course, this comes from a party that is telling you the size of sodas you're allowed to ingest. They don't care about the government being involved with your body. They want the government involved with every aspect of what you do.

PAT: Yeah, it's unbelievable. And she had more.

HILLARY: They're fine with big government. I'm sick of it.

You know, we've been doing these things -- we should not be paralyzed. We should not be paralyzed by the Republicans and their constant refrain, big government this, big government that, except for what they want to impose on the American people. I know we can afford it because we're going to make the wealthy pay for it.

PAT: Oh.

STU: Of course. Of course. The wealthy.

PAT: Oh.

STU: They can pay for everything.

JEFFY: She almost did it there. She almost did it where she almost went to the Hillary screech. And she pulled it back. I know.

PAT: Very close.

STU: She got close though.

PAT: Very close.

STU: She is not good with big crowds like that. Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about that at her rallies because no one has been showing up, but she is not good.

Glenn: Why Memorial Day is not just another holiday

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

They wore the uniform so you could live free. This holiday, ask yourself if you're living in a way that honors that sacrifice — or cheapens it.

Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.

Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives.

While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.

Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:

The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.

This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.

Honor the fallen

For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.

Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.

So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.

We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.

This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.

They are the best of us.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump exposes Left’s habeas corpus hijack in border crisis

Chicago Tribune / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats accused the president of declaring war on civil rights. In reality, he’s defending habeas corpus while they drown it in delays and legal loopholes.

Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Betrayal of trust: Medicare insurers face lawsuit over kickback scheme

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.

The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.

If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.

The Kickback Conspiracy

Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.

Discrimination Against the Vulnerable

The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.

False Claims and the Pursuit of Justice

The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

POLL: Does Brooklyn crash expose a cyber sabotage plot?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A Mexican Navy ship crashing into the Brooklyn Bridge has left the nation stunned, and Glenn is demanding answers.

Are recent devastating ship collisions—first Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge in 2024, now Brooklyn in 2025—really just accidents, or is something far more sinister at play? Glenn recently warned that these incidents, both involving foreign vessels losing power near critical U.S. infrastructure, could be “shark bumps” by foreign adversaries testing our defenses through cyber sabotage. With the government and media quick to dismiss concerns, Glenn is calling for urgent investigations into possible hacking, independent audits of our ports and bridges, and a serious look at whether our enemies are exploiting vulnerabilities in our digitized systems.

Glenn wants to know what you think: Are these crashes coincidental, or are we under attack? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep