Glenn Interviews Texas Gov. Greg Abbott: The Best and Most Efficient Governor EVER

February 14, 2017

WRITER

Glenn has lived all over the United States, and he calls his current governor the best.

"There's been no governor that I think is as good as Greg Abbott. And, yeah, you can throw up Sam Houston. Whatever," Glenn said.

Not only that, Gov. Abbott is extremely efficient, having proposed to his wife on Valentine's Day 30 years ago, which earned the admiration of Glenn's co-host.

"That's really smart. And you combined two present opportunities, so you don't have to do it twice. You've got the engagement and Valentine's Day . . . that's efficiency. That's how he's running the state --- efficiently," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program.

The governor joined the program to discuss his recent State of the State address, where Texas stands on a Convention of States and his thoughts on the Lone Star State ever hosting another Super Bowl.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: We've said it before. We'll say it again. The best governor I have ever had in my life, and I've lived all over the country. There's been no governor that I think is as good as Greg Abbott. And, yeah, you can throw up Sam Houston. Whatever. Meet Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas.

Greg, how are you, sir?

GREG: Doing good. I'm perplexed. I didn't know you knew Sam Houston.

GLENN: I didn't. But we're doing the history of Texas on radio in a few weeks. So we've been doing a lot of research on him. And I don't think he had anything on you.

PAT: He was pretty awesome though.

GLENN: He was pretty awesome. But you are -- you've assembled a great team around you, and Texas is in good hands.

GREG: Texas in great shape.

Before we get going, let me follow up on that last caller. Today is Valentine's Day. Let me give a shout-out. Happy Valentine's Day to my wife. It was on this day 30 years ago she and I got engaged.

GLENN: How did you do it?

PAT: Nice. What a romantic.

GREG: Did it on the River Walk in San Antonio, Texas.

STU: That's really smart. And you combined two present opportunities, so you don't have to do it twice. You've got the engagement and Valentine's Day. You can just combine -- that's efficiency. That's how he's running the state, efficiently.

GLENN: Efficiently. Really smart. So, Greg, we want to talk to --

GREG: She and I also have the same birthday. So that takes care of that also.

STU: Nice.

GLENN: Holy cow.

We wanted to talk to you about a couple of things. Let's start with the most pressing. And that is the bathroom situation with the NFL, where they say that if we don't correct our bathroom situation, we'll never get another Super Bowl.

GREG: The NFL is walking on thin ice right here. The NFL needs to concentrate on playing football and get the heck out of politics.

PAT: That's for sure.

GREG: Let's go back, first of all, to their last previous political statement they made, which is allowing NFL football players to kneel during the national anthem. These are people, especially with the quarterback for then San Francisco, taking a knee when the national anthem is being played. He's getting paid $100 million to play a game, complaining that he is oppressed. He needs to be standing up in respect for the men and women who died fighting in the United States military so he had the freedom to go out and play a game and get paid $100 million.

I got to tell you, I cannot name or even count the number of Texans who told me that they were not watching the NFL. They were protesting the NFL this year because of the gross political statement allowed to be made by the NFL by allowing these players who are not oppressed, who are now almost like snowflake little politicians themselves, unable to take the United States national anthem even being played. And now, most recently, for some low-level NFL adviser, to come out and say they are going to micromanage and try to dictate to the state of Texas what types of policies we're going to pass in our state, that's unacceptable.

We don't care what the NFL thinks. And certainly what their political policies are. Because they are not a political arm of the state of Texas or the United States of America. They need to learn their place in the United States, which is to govern football, not politics.

GLENN: But tell us how you really feel.

The amazing thing is --

GREG: It's a family show, so I've toned it down a little.

GLENN: I know. I was watching the Super Bowl. And if you look at the way they image themselves as all about fathers and sons and the rah-rah America and the troops and everything else -- they know who their audience is. Their audience is middle America. And yet it seems as though they're on this suicidal bent as a corporation.

GREG: For one -- listen, there's something easier here. And that is, if the NFL -- this is a heartfelt policy of theirs, if they really want to do something about, then they can install all these special bathrooms that they want that live up to their policy, as opposed to trying to dictate to states what types of policies they have. You know me, Glenn, I sued the federal government 31 times because I thought the federal government, a governmental body, by the way, was wrongly trying to tell Texas what to do.

Who is the NFL thinking they can tell Texas what to do politically?

GLENN: Let's switch gears. We have so much to talk to you about. Let me switch to sanctuary cities.

The Dallas -- what is it, the Dallas commissioner -- Dallas County courts or something came out.

JEFFY: Dallas County.

GLENN: And said they support the -- the sanctuary cities. We had the mayor of Irving on yesterday. She was outraged by it.

What's going to happen to sanctuary cities in Texas?

GREG: First, we need to understand that these are people -- unlike the NFL, these are people in Dallas County -- same thing happened in Travis County. For your listeners, Travis County is the county seat for Austin, Texas, which is a very liberal bastion.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

GREG: These are people who take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as the state of Texas. And they are violating their oath of office by refusing to follow federal immigration law that dictates two local officials, two state officials, that they must cooperate with ICE and the immigration services. And if they fail to do so, they're in violation of federal law.

And so it is abhorrent that we have local officials saying that they are not going to apply the law.

Listen, they don't have the ability to pick and choose which laws they will apply. And hence, I believe that it should be a criminal penalty. I believe that they should be defunded. I believe that they should be fined for this conduct.

Now, Glenn, I've already started this process. Because when the Travis County sheriff announced a sanctuary city policy by refusing to comply with immigration services, by refusing to provide them information about who they were holding, these dangerous criminals behind bars, I as the governor of Texas, defunded governor grants to Travis County, to the tune of more than $1.5 million. If this in Dallas turns out to be more than talk and turns out to be action, I will defund them also from the governor's grants, which will add up to -- I haven't seen the amount. But I would assume it's going to be more than Travis County. It should be more than millions of dollars.

But we already -- I called sanctuary city policies, an emergency out in Texas. And the Texas senate has already passed out my bill out of their chamber. And what does is exactly what I said, is it imposes criminal penalties. It imposes fines to the tune of 25,000 a day, every single day a violation is taking place, as well as defunding the sheriff's offices or any other offices from any funds that they receive from the state of Texas.

And so we are going to bring the hammer down on anyone who thinks they can impose a sanctuary city policy.

Now, let's tie this back to football. This last fall, there was a man who was leaving a Dallas Cowboy game, going back home. He stopped in Cedar Hill, which you may know -- your listeners may know. It's a suburb of Dallas. And he stopped at a gas station there. And he was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant who went on a crime spree. This illegal immigrant had been arrested multiple times. Deported three times. Was back into the state illegally. And we have to send a message that we are not a welcoming state for these repeat violators, these people who have been repeatedly deported, these people who now turn into mass murderers because this guy -- the murderer, Juan Rios, not only killed this man in Dallas County, but killed someone else and went on a crime spree across the entire state of Texas before he was arrested. We don't want any Kate Steinles in the state of Texas. And we are going to make sure that our law enforcement officials are going to follow and apply existing immigration law. And if they fail to do so, there will be heavy consequences to be paid.

GLENN: We're talking to America's governor, Governor Greg Abbott, from the great state of Texas.

Governor, you know and I know that the vast majority of Democrats may disagree with us on things. But they're not radicals. They're not -- they don't want to see the end of the country or anything like that. But there are radicals, on both sides, that do want chaos.

And if -- just play this out for me. If -- if we defund the -- the cities, and there are those radicals that want that to happen, and crime starts to rear its ugly head and things start to get bad, Donald Trump has already said he'll send in federal troops. We don't want federal troops in our cities.

How do you balance this? How do you make sure that the cities are -- are running and the people are safe?

GREG: Well, it goes back to the -- if you would, the tax structure of the state of Texas. We won't fully defund the cities. A lot of their funding -- really, the majority of their funding comes from local and property taxes as well as sales taxes. So it's not going to defund their operations. What it will do is it will put such heavy financial consequences on them that one of two things will happen, either one, they will go ahead and say, "Listen, the penalty is too much. I'm going to overturn our sanctuary city policies." Or two, the local citizens are going to be fed up with the irresponsibility, lawlessness, of these local officials, and they will kick them out of office. But a third is, because of the criminal penalties, we will put these noncompliant sheriffs behind bars. They will lose their job, and they will be followed up by somebody who will apply the law. If they don't apply the law, we will put them behind bars also.

So, in other words, we can continue going through the turnstile of sheriffs who refuse to comply with the law, until we find one who does comply with the law. And at that point in time, they will be in compliance. They won't be losing any money.

GLENN: All right. Let's go to -- let's go to something that I feel strongly about. And I'm afraid that there are a lot of Republicans now that have Donald Trump in office, they will say, "Oh, things aren't so bad. We don't really need this."

And that is the Convention of States. In your state of the state speech, you spent a good deal of time talking about the Convention of States and why we need this.

Are we going to -- are we going to be added to the list? Are we going to be a state that is involved in the Convention of States?

GREG: There is such a strong movement in the state of Texas right now. I began talking about this when I wrote a book on it and started touring around the state of Texas talking about it. And there are well over 100,000 -- I'm told, hundreds of thousands of activists. Not just people who have supported -- but people who have actively engaged in the political process, who are taking the capital by storm. Educating the members of the House and Senate, that it needs to be done.

Remember this, and that is last session we had here in the state of Texas, the Texas House of Representatives did adopt the Convention of States platform. We -- at that time, we were only a vote or two short in the Texas senate. I think we will have enough votes in both the House and the Senate to finally get this done and make Texas a leader in this process of the Convention of States.

Let me follow up as kind of a comment you were suggesting about Trump. And that is, remember this, for your audience, the problem that we are in now nationally is not a problem caused by one president alone. Yes, Barack Obama did more than his share to depart from the Constitution. But this is something that's been going on for almost a century now.

It goes back well before FDR who was one of the leaders of getting away from the Constitution.

But it goes back into the 1800s. So it's been a process of erosion. Just the way you would see a river erode over time. Our Constitution has been eroded over time. So this wasn't a problem caused by one president. It cannot be fixed by one president. Simply because Donald Trump is in there, doesn't mean our constitutional flaws are going to be fixed.

Let me give you the most easiest example. And that is, I know you and many of your listeners will know the Tenth Amendment. We want a Tenth Amendment to be upheld. And that is that all powers not delegated to the federal government and the Constitution are reserved to the state and sort of the people. Well, there's a problem in the way that provision is written. It doesn't specifically say who gets to enforce the Tenth Amendment. All we want to do is to add a clause or a sentence that says, "States have the power to enforce the Tenth Amendment." That's easy. That's common sense. That's something we can get 38 states, which is three-fourths of the states to agree upon. And it restores power to the states to enforce the Tenth Amendment.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: We would like to have you back on. I know you have to go because you're a governor I guess of an important state. But we'd love to have you on again. Because there are just so many things that need addressing. And you distill them so well. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, we appreciate your time, sir. Thank you so much.

GREG: My pleasure. Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. You know, it's interesting to me. And I wish we had time to talk to him about what's happening in California. California, remember, they all made fun of us for saying we wanted to secede. Texas wanted to secede. And now, Slate and Atlantic and all these left magazines are all saying --

PAT: That's not so outrageous. That's not so bad.

JEFFY: Why it makes sense for California to leave.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No. What makes sense is the Convention of States so you as a state are not being held with a gun to your head, depending on who is elected.

We've got to stop this, now. Because I've got news for you. Trump can reverse all this stuff. You think the other guy is not going to come in and reverse all this stuff when they get in, of course.

PAT: And how about a constitutional amendment to take away some of that power.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Take that power away from some of these people. And just term limit them.

STU: Yes.

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn Interviews Texas Gov. Greg Abbott: The Best and Most Efficient Governor EVER

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?