What Made Marco Rubio Stumble in New Hampshire?

February 10, 2016

Writer

Now is the time to vote on principle.

The Context

Coming off a strong surge of support and a surprising third place finish in the Iowa caucuses last week, Marco Rubio was poised for another strong outing in New Hampshire. Not only did Rubio fall out of the top three, he tumbled all the way behind Donald Trump, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush to finish in fifth place, leaving Glenn scratching his head wondering what just happened.

“Rubio stumbled badly,” Glenn said Wednesday on the Glenn Beck Program. “I don't know what's going to happen. I mean, I don't understand the Rubio fall here. I don't think he's a strong candidate for some reason. I don't understand it.”

Glenn may have been confused but Stu was, well, stupefied.

“Well, the guy finished --- he almost beat Donald Trump in Iowa. And he was polling at, what, 14 percent? 13 percent? He got 22 percent. He outperformed his polls dramatically. He had all of the media momentum. Everyone was saying he was the guy,” Stu said.

‘Regretful’ in New Hampshire

Rubio’s inability to seize the momentum from Iowa was confusing to some, but for Melissa who called in from New Hampshire, she left the polling booth kicking herself for not sticking to her guns.

“My husband and I, you know, we've been supporters of Ted Cruz. We were going back and forth between Ted Cruz and Rubio just because I guess we just bought into listening to everybody say that Cruz is going to come in fifth or sixth. We wanted our votes to count, so we ended up literally walking in and voting for Rubio. And we were literally kicking ourselves last night because we could have put our votes to Ted Cruz,” Melissa said.

“And I just never thought that somebody like Ted Cruz would come in how he did, just based on the majority of people up here. I really didn't think that there was any point in voting for him. And we just really, really regret that now.”

Rubio’s stumble just might be the silver lining in this year’s election for Ted Cruz supporters. With Rubio being the "electable" one and finishing behind Cruz in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the voters just might turn the corner on Cruz’ electability issues and start voting their convictions.

Voting Your Conscience

Stu jumped in on the conversation to point something out Glenn has been calling on the audience to do for some time now, vote your conscience and convictions. The three then exchanged thoughts on how things may have gone differently in New Hampshire had more people followed that advice.

“This is a good lesson, I think, Melissa, if I may,” Stu said. “In that, you can't try to strategically vote and try to figure out how to manipulate the process with your one vote.”

“Exactly. You have to vote for your conviction. You really do,” Melissa agreed.

“How many people do you think felt that way?” Glenn asked.

“I think he would have come very close to Kasich, if not better, if people truly voted the way --- you know, to their convictions,” Melissa said.

It wouldn’t be a serious conversation on the Glenn Beck Program without a prediction, and Glenn did not disappoint.

“Now is the time now is the time to do that. And what we have at stake is --- please listen to me. The revolution that is coming. Bernie Sanders is a revolution of socialism. Donald Trump is a revolution of cronyism, I think personally fascism. But cronyism.”

Principled in the Desert

Matt calling from Nevada was one step ahead of Glenn in 2012 and voted third party rather than compromise his principles.

“But in 2012, we were so dedicated on principle that we just could not pull the lever for Romney,” Matt said. “We actually voted third party for Gary Johnson. And I did not want to see another four years of Obama, but I had to vote for principles.”

“Good for you,” Glenn said. "I will say this, I'm trying to be that man.”

The conversation turned toward Donald Trump when Scott in Utah called in to discuss how the “conservative” media has treated Cruz and embraced Trump.

“Rush loves Ted Cruz. For some reason, they've allowed this Donald Trump train to run off the rails. There is absolutely --- I would like all of these guys to say, if Ted Cruz is not your number one guy, Rush, Sean, conservatives on Fox News, give me the one reason you don't like Ted Cruz? Or they do like him. What's the one reason why you would rather have Donald than Ted? Because I don't get it. And it's driving me crazy,” Scott said.

Scott’s honest questioning prompted a strong response from Glenn.

“I'm going to make a pretty bold statement. And I'll back it up from something I have in from the media here in a minute. If Donald Trump wins the nomination of the party, it will be in large thanks to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Because you're exactly right,” Glenn said.

Common Sense Bottom Line

Whether it was just a bad performance in the last debate or something deeper, Marco Rubio appears to be on the downslope of his wave. Now is the time for voters to stick to their principles and pull the lever for the candidate that best fits their values so they can lay down and night and not kick themselves for voting the lesser of two evils.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Rubio stumbled badly. I don't know what's going to happen. I mean, I don't understand the Rubio fall here. I don't think he's a strong candidate for some reason. I don't understand it.

STU: That's so weird though. It was the exact opposite literally Friday.

PAT: It is.

STU: Friday was this -- here he is --

GLENN: But how much of that was media hype?

STU: Well, the guy finished -- he almost beat Donald Trump in Iowa. And he was polling at, what, 14 percent? 13 percent? He got 22 percent. He outperformed his polls dramatically. He had all of the media momentum. Everyone was saying he was the guy.

PAT: He was polling second or third in New Hampshire.

STU: Yeah, he was.

PAT: And I didn't think he was that bad at the -- at the debate.

GLENN: Yeah, I didn't think so either.

PAT: But everybody is making it out like Chris Christie crushed him. I don't know that that's the case. I mean, everybody has the memorized speech they use. I mean, good golly.

GLENN: Yeah, we defended it yesterday.

PAT: Chris Christie himself with the federal prosecutor thing, that drives me out of my mind. And as we've talked about, every single time he goes to, "See, that's what I'm talking. These two senators over here. They're senators. They don't get anything done. I'm a governor. You don't want senators. You want a governor." Shut up. It's the same thing every time.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: So why is that so bad with Rubio and not Christie and certainly not Trump? I mean, Trump's repeat thing -- I think we played that yesterday. It's outrageous how many times he talks about the big, beautiful wall. In the same stupid way he talks about it every time. And it's embarrassing to listen to, and yet he does it every step.

GLENN: No. I don't know what happened to Rubio.

PAT: I don't either.

GLENN: But I think there's a chance that Rubio -- that Rubio folds now. That Rubio is over.

PAT: Well, he'll wait until after South Carolina.

GLENN: No, I'm not saying drop out.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I'm saying this wave of Rubio. That Rubio had his moment and it for some reason passed.

PAT: Well, it does happen quickly in these things.

GLENN: It does.

STU: It's so frustrating in this election process that seemingly this happened to a lot of candidates. And a lot of good candidates. You know, Scott Walker this happened to.

GLENN: But you can explain it. Here me out for a second. This doesn't explain New Hampshire. But who is voting for Rubio? Who I think is voting for Rubio are these people who say, "You know what, he was a Tea Party guy, and he's Hispanic. And he can win. And he's a good speaker. And he's young." But there's not a lot of depth there. Okay. I don't see anybody that is like, "He's the guy that can change the world." He's the guy that can win; that's what they all say. Rubio can win. Not the guy that changes the world.

STU: I think the argument for him and the caller earlier who voted for Rubio in New Hampshire and kind of regretted it because she really likes Cruz more, but thought Rubio could win kind of outlined the path for Rubio, which is a guy who is conservative enough, but can win. Where people would say Ted Cruz, he's too conservative. He can't win.

GLENN: That's what they said about Ronald Reagan.

STU: Right. Of course. Obviously I disagree with that analysis. But, I mean, I can understand -- like I don't understand the electability argument with Donald Trump. I do understand it with Marco Rubio. He polls very well against the other side. And he was doing everything that would go down this path until that debate. And it seemed to completely turn around there, for some reason.

GLENN: You know, when we come back, I want to talk a little bit -- we have a guy from Nevada that I want to talk to. And then I want to share a little -- people are comparing Ted Cruz to the Ronald Reagan years. I think that's a wrong comparison. I think people should compare him to Calvin Coolidge. And it's a more accurate description and even a more powerful win than what Reagan -- what Reagan did in the 1980s. I'll explain, coming up.

(OUT AT 9:32AM)

GLENN: This is a never a good thing when somebody on the staff says, I have an announcement to make. But Jeffy has an announcement to make today. And you're going to make that a little later on in the program?

JEFFY: I do have an announcement to make. And I'm excited for it.

STU: A major announcement, would you say?

JEFFY: Yes, it's a major announcement. For this program, it's a major announcement.

GLENN: So he'll be doing that coming up in a little while.

JEFFY: I don't even want to tell you what it is yet. You'll be excited.

GLENN: Let me go to Matt in Nevada. Hello, Matt, you're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Good morning, gentlemen. Glenn, it's an honor. Thank you for taking my call.

GLENN: Thank you.

CALLER: There was a time where you saved my life, man. But I know time is limited. I'll get right to it.

GLENN: Well, now, you can't say that. You saved my life. I don't remember pulling you out of a burning truck. What happened?

CALLER: Pretty much, man. In a spiritual sense, man. You just could never know what you've done to change my life, man. And I could never repay that. And thank you enough. And thank you.

GLENN: You can start with a 100-dollar check.

(laughter)

CALLER: So the reason why I'm calling this morning is because my wife and I, we're pretty Libertarian. We've been involved on the ground game here in Nevada. The last two elections, we were big Ron Paul people. This time around, Rand cast his hat in the game, so we got involved to try and help Rand. Now, from the beginning, there were really two candidates that I saw as constitutional, that I really believed I could get behind and support. And obviously that's Rand, but also Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz -- you've shown his record -- is just so solid on the Constitution.

So when Rand announced that he was suspending his campaign, my wife and I -- and we were torn the whole way. We weren't sure, you know, if we were going to go all-in on Rand. But we knew when he suspended his campaign, that we were going to go for Cruz.

So last night, we both got this random text message from an individual, claiming to be a part of the Rand Paul campaign, saying that Rand's name is still on the ballot for the caucus that we're going to have here in Nevada on the 23rd. And this person was saying that, you know, Rand could still win. And that they have us down as supporting Dr. Paul and we need to come and show up for him.

GLENN: Don't do it.

CALLER: So I responded to this person and said, "Hey, that's great. But Rand is out of the game. He doesn't have a chance at doing it anymore. And with cults of personality like Donald Trump, I can't see voting for anybody at this point besides Ted Cruz." And I won't tell you what this person texted me next. But needless to say, my wife and I got pretty nasty text messages from this person.

GLENN: I would like you to read it.

STU: Well...

GLENN: Just delete the foul words.

CALLER: Well, let me see -- she got it worse than I did. But basically this person tried to disparage Ted. Says, "If you and everyone else that supported him before was supposed to show up, then he can win Nevada. If you need a paid campaign to sabotage him, then don't vote for him. And don't vote on principle."

I had to edit that up a little bit. Basically, this person is saying I'm not principled. Now, I beg to differ on that. For example -- Pat is probably going to be mad at me on this one. Sorry, brother.

But in 2012, we were so dedicated on principle that we just could not pull the lever for Romney. We actually voted third party for Gary Johnson.

GLENN: Good for you.

CALLER: And I did not want to see another four years of Obama, but I had to vote for principles.

GLENN: Good for you. I will say this, I'm trying to be that man. Pat has already bailed on that man.

PAT: No, I haven't.

GLENN: Yes, you have. You've already said you would vote for anybody. You'd vote for anybody.

PAT: I did not say I would vote for anybody. When did I say that?

GLENN: Well, okay -- oh, my God.

PAT: Oh, you pull the tape, my friend. You pull the sound. I did not say, "I'll vote for anybody!"

GLENN: Last week --

PAT: What?

GLENN: You didn't say anybody. But you were like --

PAT: What did I say?

GLENN: You'd vote for Jeb. You'd vote for any of the guys on our side.

PAT: Over Hillary or Bernie?

GLENN: Over Hillary and Bernie. You will not pull third party. I think you said you'd vote for Trump over Hillary --

PAT: I think I felt that way, that one day.

GLENN: Oh. Okay. All right.

(laughter)

PAT: I would not vote for Trump under any circumstances.

GLENN: Okay. I want that on tape. Shh.

PAT: I will not vote for Donald Trump under any circumstances.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

So, anyway, Matt, good for you. We're trying to be that man of principle now.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Anyway, go ahead.

CALLER: Well, I'm going to pull the lever for Ted. I don't see what pulling the lever for Rand would do at this point. He's got a really tough --

PAT: He left the race. It would be a waste. Is that even from his official people? I doubt what you got was even from Rand's people because Rand is not running anymore. Is he?

GLENN: No.

CALLER: Well, the response we gave to them was, if you're trying to convince me -- I mean, this person was very rude. And I was like, "If you're trying to convince me, you're not doing a good job." Like, I asked some questions. What would be the point? I mean, Rand does have a very strong ground game in Nevada. A lot of it was built by his father. So he had a lot of the same supporters come out. I mean, we've been involved here on the ground. We have a lot of great friends. But, you know, I -- I think, Glenn, you've touched on this a few times. This election is too important to throw away your vote. I mean, we have a guy who is constitutional. We have a guy that is rock solid on the Constitution.

GLENN: So here's the reason that Rand would say this to you. The reason why the Rand people would say this to you is because there is something about having delegates, that you can come to the convention and broker those delegates and get something that you want from one of the candidates. You come up and you say, "Okay. I've got X-number of delegates from Nevada. Who is the highest bidder here? Which of the candidates --

CALLER: I'm not sure if you know or not, but they actually changed that rule at the convention in 2012. And it was because Ron Paul, his strategy was to try and scoop up as many delegates as he could. And there's actually a really scandalous video clip -- you can find it on YouTube -- where John Boehner comes out, and they passed it. The yays and the nays, and it sounded pretty sketchy, man. It sounded like the nays had it, but he still passed it anyway.

GLENN: I remember that.

CALLER: And you can see cell phone footage of him reading from the prompter.

GLENN: Remember that?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I remember that now. So there's no reason that I can come up with.

PAT: There is none.

GLENN: The only thing I can say -- I talk to both Rand -- I consider both of them friends. I talked to both Rand and Ted, before, during, and after this race. And as God is my witness, and the three of you guys know this too, that all the -- at the very beginning, I sat down with both of them, and I said, "Please, guys. You're both constitutionalist. Please don't kill each other."

CALLER: Right.

GLENN: Aim your guns at other people, but we need one of you guys to win. And I don't know why -- I really don't know why -- and I can give you my guess, I think that Rand kind of feels like it was his turn and he was going to be the constitutionalist and he's kind of pissed at -- at Cruz because he feels like Ted kind of came out of nowhere and elbowed his way in when he had the real chance of winning.

CALLER: Yep.

GLENN: And that's just my feeling.

CALLER: Oh, I think you're absolutely right. And I have to give Ted credit because, you know, I watched the debates, and I can't tell you how bad my skin was crawling when I saw Rand going after him. And the thing that impressed me most was Ted didn't fire back. He -- he never once --

PAT: He usually doesn't.

CALLER: I haven't heard Ted say one thing negative about Rand Paul. And I wish that Rand hadn't have done that. I really hope that people who are in the Rand Paul camp like I have been -- I mean, we are ardent Libertarians. Ron Paul supporters. Rand Paul supporters. But if you can't see the value of Ted Cruz at this point, I don't know what -- what you want because, I mean, Ted is it, man. He's the guy. And, you know, and we need Rand to keep his Senate seat.

GLENN: If the roles were reversed, I would be saying the same thing that I'm saying about Ted Cruz that I'm saying about Rand Paul.

CALLER: I know you would, Glenn.

GLENN: I would be taking the same exact stance. We have to restore the Constitution. I mean this sincerely. This is our last chance. If we play party politics, if we play, gee, who can win? Who can't win? We play those games and we lose, we get either, I don't know, Kasich or a Jeb Bush or, God forbid, a Donald Trump.

CALLER: Oh, good grief.

GLENN: We're toast. We're toast.

CALLER: Yeah.

GLENN: And if we can't band together on -- both those guys were great on the Constitution. Both of them. One of them is leading the pack. It's time for everybody -- and this means not just Ron Paul people, but I think this means Carson people. It is time to wake up and realize the sorry state of the situation and realize there is one guy that will stand for religious freedom, one guy who will stand for freedom of speech, one guy that will reduce the size of government in a dramatic way, one guy who will stop Common Core in its tracks, one guy who will stop the IRS in its tracks, one guy who will restore the Constitution. The other guys don't have a chance of winning now. This guy does. And if we don't pull together, you're going have somebody slip right between and win and take it, and then we'll lose the republic. This is the moment the republic decides whether they're going to -- whether they're going to live or die.

This is the moment that Franklin talked about. When he was walking down the street, "Mr. Franklin, what did you give us?"

"A republic, if you can keep it."

This is the moment we decide if we can keep it. And playing those games are infantile and futile.

So thank you very much, Matt. I appreciate it.

By the way, I'm going to be in Nevada. I'm going to be in South Carolina Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. And hope to see you there. Just check my Facebook page or GlennBeck.com. You can find out where.

Let me go to Scott in Utah quickly. Hello, Scott, you're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Well, unfortunately what I have to say is not quick. But I do agree 100 percent with what you're saying. If Rand Paul can't get behind Ted Cruz and allow Donald Trump to continue this march, (?) because Rand Paul's people could help, I lose a lot of respect for him, Glenn. I don't care if he's your friend or not. It's time to coalesce behind Ted Cruz.

GLENN: I agree.

CALLER: The reason why Donald Trump is where he is, it's very simple. People don't think anymore for themselves. People don't have time to watch all the debates. So they watch the Fox News coverage after the debates. I'm talking Republicans. I'm talking smart people. I'm talking passionate people. And they parrot everything they hear on Fox News the next day. It used to be (?) because he was at 5 percent in August. Now since Thanksgiving in December or Christmas, it's Ted Cruz can't win because he's not likable. I don't think he can pull the party together. It's what they're hearing on Fox News negatively about Ted Cruz. And now Fox News doesn't even criticize Donald Trump anymore. You've got six hours of talk radio, between you and Mark Levin every day, that is a pom-pom waving (?) of Donald Trump. And what is this Marco Rubio electability thing that Hannity says over and over -- when did we start doing that? I think Marco -- what about electability? I never thought Hannity would ever say that. Rush's old line was conservatism wins every time it's tried.

GLENN: Where are they?

CALLER: Rush loves Ted Cruz. (?) for some reason, they've allowed this Donald Trump train to run off the rails. There is absolutely -- I would like all of these guys to say, if Ted Cruz is not your number one guy, Rush, Sean, conservatives on Fox News, why not is this give me the one reason you don't like Ted Cruz? (?) or they do like him. What's the one reason why you would rather have Donald than Ted? Because I don't get it. And it's driving me crazy.

PAT: They'll all tell you they're not for Donald Trump. They will all tell you --

GLENN: They'll all tell you. They are friends. They go golfing with him. (?) they're not for him. They're just telling it like it is. But I'm telling you --

CALLER: Yeah, but you understand, the people that listen to them are the majority of Republican voters unfortunately. They're my friends. They're my friends from all over the country. And they don't pay a whole lot of attention. But when they hear Rush defending Donald Trump day in -- I mean, this is eight months, guys. This is not a -- all day, every day for eight months.

GLENN: I'm going to make a pretty bold statement. And I'll back it up from something I have in from the media here in a minute. (?) if Donald Trump wins the nomination of the party, it will be in large thanks to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Because you're exactly right. And I'm going to back this up (?) with something I found in a media website today coming up in just a minute.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) talks with reporters on his charter flight from Manchester-Boston Regional Airport February 10, 2016 en route to Spartanburg, South Carolina. Rubio placed fifth in the New Hampshire primary, behind fellow GOP candidates Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Donald Trump, who swept away the competition with 35-percent of the vote. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

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

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.