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

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.

In one of his first executive orders, President Joe Biden reversed the Trump administration's ban on critical race theory training within the federal government.

Christopher F. Rufo, director for the Discovery Institute's Center on Wealth and Poverty, joined BlazeTV's Glenn Beck to discuss what this means moving forward and how you can help defend America's values in your local governments, businesses, and schools.

Rufo, whose research inspired former President Donald Trump's ban on critical race theory training in federal agencies last year, said he's gearing up for a classic David vs. Goliath underdog fight and taking this "Marxist takeover" to the courts, where he's optimistic it'll be ruled not only anti-American, but outright unlawful.

"We're going to wage decentralized, relentless, legal warfare against critical race theory in every American institution, and really flood the zone in the courts," Rufo said. "I think that when we get up, hopefully, to the Supreme Court, I'm confident that we'll win because this stuff is just so toxic, it's so divisive, it's so harmful. I have faith that at the end of the day, the folks within the judiciary — and even the court of public opinion — will be on our side."

Watch the video below to catch more of Glenn's conversation with Christopher Rufo:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Remember when rooting for your favorite sports team felt patriotic? It's no secret that the sports world has become extremely leftist over the past few years and is now even preaching anti-American ideals in many ways.

This week on "The Glenn Beck Podcast," Glenn spoke with veteran sports journalist Jason Whitlock about where he believes this all started — and Whitlock tied it back to former President Barack Obama, Nike, and China.

Whitlock first talked about how professional football and baseball used to have a healthy rivalry over which was the most patriotic.

"The military fly-overs, the national anthem before the game, and all of that — the NFL tried to make you feel like the most patriotic thing you could do on a Sunday is go to church and watch football. It was a brilliant business strategy that catapulted football to where it's America's favorite pastime. ... It's something that I authentically believe in: Sports do teach the values that best exemplify America," he said.

"Then China and our competitors figured out, if you really want to influence American culture, you have to get into the sports world," he added.

Whitlock also told Glenn why he believes President Obama and Nike both played significant roles in moving left-wing political rhetoric into the world of sports.

"I'm not some super-harsh Barack Obama critic, but I'm just going to let the facts speak for themselves. Barack Obama intentionally partnered with ESPN because he wanted to speak to that sports audience," he said.

"It was a process of 'let's move left-wing stuff into the sports world,'" he added. "And Nike is a much bigger business, five to six times more lucrative than the NBA. Nike actually runs the NBA. The NBA is a marketing arm of Nike. Nike's relationship with China is the key to all of this."

Watch the video clip below, or the full podcast with Jason Whitlock here:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

IN PLAIN SIGHT: COVID and mental health

NotesfromPoland.com

A lot of times, people drown in plain sight. Largely because most of us haven't been taught what to look for. We're accustomed to the movie version of a person struggling in the water — flailing their arms and shrieking and gymnastic — but in real life drowning is quieter, something you could see and not realize. It's never been harder than it is now, in 2020, as we're all locked indoors, alone, out of sight.

Every year, an estimated one million people worldwide kill themselves. A death every 40 seconds.

America is in the throes of a suicide epidemic, with the highest suicide rate since World War II. Suicide rates have risen 30 percent since 1999, and the number keeps climbing. There were 45,000 suicide deaths in 2016 alone. In 2017, there were 47,000. Roughly 129 people a day.

In 2018, 10.7 million American adults seriously thought about suicide, 3.3 million made a plan, and 1.4 million attempted suicide. There were 48,344 recorded suicides. That's roughly one person every 11 minutes. And that's 1,171 more people than the year before. The average American knows 600 people. Meaning, the increase of suicide deaths in one year was more than double the number of people you know. And that's just the difference.

Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in this country. It is the second leading cause of death among children, and since 2000, there has been a worrying jump in the suicide rate of 15-to-24-year-olds.

In January, USA Today ran an article about the rising suicide rates, "More and more Americans are dying by suicide. What are we missing?

That was January. Three months before the pandemic sent all of us indoors.

An article in The BMJ, a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal, points that "Widely reported studies modeling the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide rates predicted increases ranging from 1% to 145%." In other words, "We really don't know."

So we can't prove exactly how much damage the pandemic and the lockdowns have caused, or how many suicides there have been this year compared to last year because those numbers will take a while to assemble. But we can get an idea by measuring the scope and prevalence of the conditions that lead to suicide, and they are significantly higher in 2020. Because what's not in doubt is that the pandemic has gravely affected people's mental health.

Affect on Adults

For starters, while suicides tend to drop at the start of pandemics, they quickly increase in response to the conditions of quarantine. It's also true that suicide rates increase during recessions.

A study in Science Advances journal noted that "as the rates of COVID-19 positive cases and deaths increased substantially across the United States, COVID-19–related acute stress and depressive symptoms increased over time in the United States." A CDC report from August found that in 2020 compared to 2019, adults' symptoms of anxiety have tripled and symptoms of depression have quadrupled (24.3% versus 6.5%). Compared to 2018, two different studies concluded that symptoms of depression and "serious psychological distress" are triple the level they were. In fact, the rates of anxiety and depression have been higher throughout the pandemic than "after other large-scale traumas like September 11th, Hurricane Katrina and the Hong Kong unrest." Ten percent of Americans surveyed in June said they had seriously considered suicide in the past 30 days.

French philosopher Albert Camus once wrote that "In the depths of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

Well, we find ourselves — literally and figuratively — in the depths of winter.

Well, we find ourselves — literally and figuratively — in the depths of winter.

Lockdowns

A number of studies warn about the danger posed by lockdowns. One in particular, published in Lancet, summarizes it well: "Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects."

The report is very clear about how to minimize the harm of quarantine: Give people as much information as possible, reduce boredom, improve communication, emphasize altruism, and keep lockdowns as short as possible.

Affect on Children

The pandemic and the lockdowns have been especially difficult, and even fatal, for one group in particular, but you might not have heard about it because the media is too obsessed with identity politics to stop for a moment and look at the bigger picture. I'm talking about the most important population: Children.

But they aren't dying of Covid. In fact, children are more likely to die of homicides, drowning, or even fires and burns, than they are to die of Covid. The Academy of Pediatrics reported that, as of December 3rd, children accounted for slightly more than 0% of all COVID-19 cases, and even fewer deaths, about 0.11%, about 160 in total. There are still 15 states with zero reported child deaths. They don't even catch it as often: They account for less than 2% of the total confirmed COVID-19 cases globally. Even here in America, the nation with the highest infection rates, that number is the same: 2%. And, when they do catch it, the overwhelming majority of them experience either no symptoms or mild symptoms. Another recent study found that, compared to the flu, children play a minimal role in spreading Covid-19, and most children who contract it actually get it from their parents.

So they rarely catch it, they almost never die because of it, and they don't spread it. Yet, according to data from the CDC, the rate of children visiting emergency rooms has skyrocketed. Compared with 2019, the number of 5-11-year-olds is 24% higher, while the rate for 12-17-year-olds is 31% higher. This surge is due to mental health reasons.

According to a ton of studies (Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here), during the pandemic, children of all ages have "had high rates of depression, anxiety, and pos-traumatic symptoms as expected in the aftermath of any disaster."

The reality is unequivocal: The lockdowns and quarantines are bad for children. Certainly much, much worse than the disease itself, a point Donald Trump was heckled by the media for making. We waded through a sea of studies, reports, and articles, and the consensus was so consistent that we shifted our focus to looking for studies that said otherwise.

The International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction released a study this month that found that three in four children have reported having depression, and that "the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on children's mental well-being is worrying 60% of parents, according to a survey by parents with primary-aged children and 87% reported that their children were missing school and less than half stated that their children were feeling lonely, which altogether affects their children's mental health and wellbeing."

One study found that children of all age groups "showed more clinging, inattention, and irritability. However, 3-6 year-olds were more likely to manifest clinginess and fear that family members might contract the infection, while 6-18 year-olds were more likely to show inattention and persistent inquiry." Another study found that "In many households, children who end up staying indoors become restless and, in some cases, violent."

Children need predictability... and they need to believe that their parents are in control of things.

Uncertainty, social isolation, and parental angst. Children need predictability, they need activities, and they need to believe that their parents are in control of things. But, as a result of draconian lockdowns, they have spent much more time in front of screens. They are also more susceptible to sleep disruptions, or "somatic symptoms." And they are at a much higher risk for sexual abuse and domestic abuse, and, without school, unable to escape it.

Like us, they'll be dealing with the long term effects of the pandemic and lockdown for the rest of their lives. The difference is, we're more equipped to handle it.

One report refers to the undue harm lockdowns cause children as "collateral damage," adding that "we all have a responsibility to promote the health and well-being of children at home, and to ask questions and fight for service provision in areas where clinicians are not needed to fight COVID-19 but are needed to protect children."

As a society, it is our duty to protect the defenseless, and there is no group of people more defenseless, yet more important, than children.

German philosopher Kant wrote a lot about suicide. His argument can basically be boiled down to two parts:

1) I ought to do my duty as long as I am alive; and

2) It is my duty to go on living as long as possible.

He used the anecdote of civilization as a human body. We must only harm our body if it's necessary for self-preservation. If a toe is necrotic for whatever reason, we amputate it, so that we can preserve our body, our person, as a whole. Suicide, on the other hand, is an act of destruction. It is harmful, not just to the person it removes from humanity, but to humanity as a whole. Each of us plays a role in making sure that body remains in motion. So, when a person resorts to suicide, they are harming the body, the whole, they are depriving society and humanity. They are severing limbs or slicing our arms. They are robbing us of every good that they would bring.

School

Most European countries have closed their schools. According to UNESCO, 91% of children worldwide have been affected by school closures. A study from Bangladesh found that Bangladeshi children were suffering from higher rates of depression, anxiety, and sleeping disorder. In Italy and Spain, one study determined that 85% of parents have noticed negative changes in their children's emotions and behaviors since the pandemic. In England, deaths by suicide among children increased shortly after the country's first lockdown. In Holland, a study "found that young people reported a significant increase in severe anxiety and sleeping problems during the country's lockdown period." Numerous studies from China found that roughly a quarter of children were suffering from the same symptoms. In India, like many other countries, children are spending so much time in front of screens that experts fear it will lead to "psycho-social problems, like lower self-esteem."

Meanwhile, in Sweden, where schools and childcare centers have remained open, the spread of Covid as a result of children attending school is practically nonexistent. Over the next few years, research will show us exactly how Sweden's no-lockdown approach affected their youth.

The research concludes that children should remain in school.

Overwhelmingly — and I mean overwhelmingly — the research concludes that children should remain in school. Academic articles are known for their boring, long-winded, incomprehensible titles, but not these. Like this one: "Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak."

Children need physical activity, which is crucial to minimizing depression and anxiety. Schools provide structure. Schools are a consistent source for children's nutrition, and a lapse in nutrition can have psychological effects. Schools also provide healthcare.

School closures have also put children at a higher risk of domestic violence or sexual abuse, because "school is a safe space where children can report problems and where signs of abuse can be detected."

Children need community. They need friends. While many adults are at home with their kids, most of us are working, and children left alone on workdays are more likely to have anxiety or depression.

Teenagers

According to the CDC, of every demographic, 18-24-year-olds have been most affected, with 75% of respondents in that age range reporting at least one negative mental health symptom. One-quarter said they were using more drugs and alcohol to cope with pandemic-related stress, and another one-quarter said they had "seriously considered suicide" in the previous 30 days.

No prom. No graduation. No church. No dates. No birthday parties — birthdays spent alone. No games. No homecoming. No extracurricular clubs. No sports. No Spring Break — no vacations at all. No funerals, although there are plenty of people being buried.

Teenagers in lockdown are more concerned about their more basic needs. They feel less connected to other people. They are learning less and spending less time on school work. In other words, they are hurting, and bad.

The number of studies that back this up is daunting.

Three papers (Here, Here, and Here) determined that older adolescents suffer more symptoms of depression than younger ones and children. Another study describes the "collective trauma" that the lockdowns have had on teenagers.

The National 4-H Council found that:

●81% of teens say mental health is a significant issue for young people in the U.S., and 64% of teens believe that the experience of COVID-19 will have a lasting impact on their generation's mental health.

●7 in 10 teens have experienced struggles with mental health.

●55% of teens say they've experienced anxiety, 45% excessive stress, and 43% depression.

●61% of teens said that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased their feeling of loneliness.

●82% of teens calling on America to talk more openly and honestly about mental health issues in this country.

Life has always been hard for teenagers, but even before the pandemic, it has been especially rough on American teenagers, who are twice as likely "today to have more anxiety symptoms and twice as likely to see a mental health professional as teens in the 1980s.

Here's how the conversation went on radio:

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: The politics of COVID-19 is DESTROYING our children youtu.be


On "Glenn TV" this week, Megyn Kelly, host of the "Megyn Kelly Show," told Glenn Beck she believes the Democrats' talk of unity is "all nonsense" and forecasted the "death of journalism" under a Biden administration.

Megyn cited President Joe Biden's unwillingness to make concessions that would help unify Democrats and Republicans as an example of how much he actually cares about unity, and added that, while she's all for lowering the political temperature in America, she also believes there are some personal freedoms that are worth fighting for.

"What's happening substantively is worth fighting for and it's not going to go away just because [Biden] gave a nice speech," Megyn said.

"I will object. I will protect my family and what I think is right over Joe Biden's need for unity, which is false anyway. 'Unify behind my agenda' is not a real call for unity," she added.

Megyn said she believes the Left has reached too far and "awakened a sleeping giant" in reference to the silent majority who should speak up, speak out, and refuse to be silenced any longer.

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation:

Because the content of this show is sure to set off the censors, the full episode is only be available on BlazeTV. Get $30 off a one-year subscription to BlazeTV with the code "GLENN." With BlazeTV, you get the unvarnished truth from the most pro-America network in the country, free from Big Tech and MSM censors.