Atheist Gamer Attacked for Tweet Defends Faith, Free Speech and the Constitution

March 13, 2017

WRITER

Colin Moriarty, gamer and cofounder of KindaFunny.com, recently found himself in hot water with gaming industry colleagues over a tweet he meant as a joke.

Ah. Peace and quiet.#ADayWithoutAWoman
— Colin Moriarty (@notaxation) March 8, 2017

Apparently, no one has a sense of humor anymore --- on the left or right (just ask Sam B).

A longtime fan of Glenn's, Moriarty joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about the brouhaha and why his political viewpoints confuse people.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Colin Moriarty joins us now. He's the cofounder of kindafunny.com. And he's a gamer. And welcome to the program, Colin. How are you, sir?

COLIN: I'm well. Thank you so much for having me. It's very surreal. I appreciate you taking the time.

GLENN: Why do you say it's very surreal?

COLIN: Well, my father and I -- well, I grew up with my father listening to talk radio and kind of listening to all sorts of people. And when I told him I was going to be on with you, he said he got chills actually because we used to listen to you and watch together.

GLENN: Oh, that's wild. That's wild.

Well, I am so glad that you have joined us. I saw you on Dave Reuben's show. And was fascinated by you, because you say you're a Libertarian, but you're also a proud conservative. And if this was visual, you're all tatted up. You live in San Francisco. And I can't imagine -- it's one thing to say Libertarian, it's another thing to say conservative in San Francisco. How is that going for you?

(chuckling)

COLIN: Not very well, as you can see.

GLENN: Yeah.

COLIN: Yeah. But, no, I kind of take -- you know, I think the good parts of both sides. And I think even the good parts of liberalism to come up with some amalgamation that makes sense to me. So I think -- socially, I think I'm very Libertarian. In fact, I think I'm more Libertarian than many progressive liberals.

But at the same time, I believe in the Constitution. I believe in deference to the Founders. I believe in a small government that stays out of your business. The thing is that I marked those altogether. So a government that stays out of your business, to tell you you can have a gun, for instance, is the same government that I think should stay out of your business if a man wants to marry another man. And I think that's where my Libertarianism comes into play.

GLENN: Yes. Colin, it's why I was in this strange position ten, 15 years ago of saying, look, you know, morally my religion teaches one thing. But my constitutionalism tells me I have no place to tell anybody who can marry and who can't. The government should be out of this entirely. Don't affect my church. And I won't affect your marriage. Just leave each other alone. And that creates some really strange bedfellows that we're currently trying to chase out of the public square. And that's the answer.

COLIN: I agree with you. You know, this is where -- I think people have a hard time identifying people like me, Glenn. Because I'm actually an atheist. But I grew up in a Catholic household, a very devoutly Catholic household. And people of faith have a very great ally in me because I believe that faith is a good thing. I believe it's good for polity. I think it's good for people to have faith in something, in a higher being. I just don't. But I would always protect to the very last a person's right, for instance, to believe.

Just because I don't believe doesn't mean, as you said, you can't believe. And so I also respect -- you know, I'm pro-choice, but I respect the pro-life argument. I think it's a very principled argument. I think it's good that there are people out there that are challenging my beliefs. And so this is the kind of the confusing thing, this kind of -- this kind of thought policing that's happening. This very -- you know, I'm considered an enemy to liberalism, even though I share many of their values, because I believe the government should stay out of your business. So I'm the enemy.

GLENN: Isn't it strange to see how people have flipped on almost every point just because their guy is not in office? Now liberals are concerned --

COLIN: Yes.

GLENN: -- they're concerned about, you know, executive orders. But they weren't under Obama. And now the people who were concerned about executive orders under Obama are fine with it now. It's crazy.

COLIN: To me, I agree with you. It's insane. You know, people that listen to me and know me -- I go off on politics often. And, you know, I was disgusted with the Republican Party. I was a registered Republican. And, you know, I'm not a Trump fan at all. I was sickened by how people took what I thought Republicanism was and, you know, morphed into something that it wasn't, simply to win. And to me, that's not -- that's not principled. And I'd rather lose and retain my principles. So when it was clear Trump was going to win, here in California -- we vote very late, as you know -- I voted for Kasich as a protest vote. And then I disavowed the party completely.

That doesn't mean I'm a conservative -- or, I'm sorry, that doesn't mean that I'm not a conservative. It means that I think the conservative principles and the free principles that we stand upon were actually kind of taken away by people that don't really share our values. And it seems like it's all in the name of winning. It's all in the name of being better than the other side. There is no one talking to each other. There's no gray area. It's just all orthodoxy. And it really makes me sick.

GLENN: So help me out what conservative -- I know what Republicanism means right now. It means the same exact thing as being a Democrat. It means I'll do whatever it takes and whatever it has to, to win. But conservatives, what does it mean to be a conservative? I mean, you're 32 years old. You're out in San Francisco. You're a gamer. You do -- you know, you do a gaming kind of blog.

So who are -- the people you relate to, what does that word even mean to them and to you?

COLIN: Well, I think -- you know, as you said, things are changing. I think we're at an inflection point. And, to me, conservatism simply means -- in my mind, and everyone might have a different opinion on this, I'm sure they do -- you know, a deference to the Constitution. If the government can get out of something, it should get out of something. If the state or local government can take care of something over the federal government, I think that's ideal. To me, it's personal freedom, responsibility, the right to succeed, and the right to fail. And the right to express yourself freely, without having to worry about being called a bigot or being called a sexist, as I was for making a silly joke. And I'm glad you brought that up specifically because there are so many people that play video games, there are so many people that enjoy entertainment that don't have anyone speaking for them.

GLENN: Yes.

COLIN: The video game industry in the United States is out of San Francisco. The media, which I come from -- I used to be the senior editor of the biggest video game website in the world. And two years ago, I quit to do my own thing with my friends.

But it is exclusively liberal. I am the only real conservative voice out there in what I would call mainstream media. Obviously there are people on YouTube that do that as well in the gaming space. And you would be shocked about how many people talk to me every day, and they're like, you are the only person I can relate to. I am a gun owner, for instance. You know, I'm not. But they're saying, I'm a gun owner, for instance, and I would be ridiculed and labeled by these other people. But you support me. Or I'm a man of faith. Or I'm Christian. Or I'm Jewish. Whatever it might be. And you don't judge me for that. So I think that there's a conservative bent to gaming and a conservative bent -- or an independent bent -- or a Libertarian bent to those things that people support.

GLENN: But what I'm asking you is, does the word conservative -- the word itself. Because what you're saying -- to me, conservative has been so bastardized that it doesn't mean anything that we almost -- and this is not the right word because it's so misunderstood, but almost classic liberalism. Because I think -- you know, everything -- I hope. And maybe this is wishful thinking. You will be able to tell me. Is anybody in San Francisco waking up to the point of, "Hey, safe spaces is a restriction on speech. And we're really starting to go down on the roads of fascism, and it's really kind of the progressive side that's pushing hard?"

COLIN: Yes. There are some people. And I want to keep it in the scope of reality. You know, there are people here that are waking up. That said, only 10 percent -- and I'm not saying a vote for Trump is a good thing. But just as an illustration, only 10 percent of San Francisco voted for Trump. So you're dealing with a very hyper liberal society here in San Francisco.

GLENN: Right. Right.

COLIN: That supports those things more than anything. But there are people, even in the gaming industry that are waking up to this and think this stuff is so silly.

And, Glenn, I've expressed it in the past. I went to Northeastern in Boston, and I studied American history. And I couldn't imagine -- you know, I graduated in 2007, and I couldn't imagine being in college now where people are restricted. I took a bunch of classes on Nazi Germany, for instance, or the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict, as I'm sure you know, as you're very learned, in American history. And I couldn't imagine how they might teach those things now to kind of placate people or to make sure that they're coddled.

So, yeah, there are people waking up. But what's disappointing to me is I'm one of the only ones speaking outwardly, and I'm the proxy for a lot of people that are afraid to talk. They talk to me. People at gaming companies, all the way up to CEOs of gaming companies, down to the lowest trenches, as I told Dave, will talk to me and tell me, I believe what you say. But, man, I'm afraid to say it. Because they're going to get ridiculed in the public population.

GLENN: So then what makes you -- what do you say to people like that? What makes you heroic and them not willing to do something that is now considered heroic?

COLIN: I think, you know -- I try not to judge anyone for that. I think that there's a real fear for people's jobs. These people have families. They don't want to be basically blacklisted from the industry, as people have -- you know, de facto kind of tried to do to me over the years. And as you see with this joke, people came down on me -- nobody is offended by that joke, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, I know. I agree. Nobody is offended by that.

COLIN: They see an opportunity. They see an opportunity to take down someone that speaks a different language than them.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

COLIN: So to me -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

GLENN: So to you --

COLIN: I was going to say, so to me, it's just, I understand people's fear, but I'm also kind of getting exhausted by being their proxy because I know they're out there. And, you know, I was so happy that a few people came to my defense in such a way. And people that are not even conservative.

A buddy of mine, David Jaffe, who is a well-known game developer. He makes the game -- he was responsible for the games Twisted Metal and God of War. These are very big games. Came out and said -- basically, I'm just paraphrasing. But, what is everyone's problem here?

So there are even people on the left. He's a very liberal person. That are concerned about that as well. But San Francisco, specifically, is as cartoonish, if not more so, than people think it is.

GLENN: Hey, I would be -- it would be wrong of me to have you on because a lot of people that listen to you don't like me because I have said, quoting, colonel -- I'm trying to remember his name. He wrote On Killing. And he is one of -- he is the leading expert on killing and has developed all these programs for the Pentagon to be able to get people to have a positive shooting experience. How do we get guys to shoot when they first get off the back of an airplane? Et cetera, et cetera.

And he has said -- and his research shows that video games help break down a mental wall that -- they don't make you into a killer. But they break down a mental wall where it makes it easier for you to kill.

And that is somehow very controversial for me to even say. I don't believe video games make you into a killer. I think you have something inside of you or don't have something inside of you. But it does break down a wall.

Do you want to tell me off for that? I want to give your fans an opportunity to say, "Yeah, all right. You told him."

COLIN: I mean, I have no interest in telling anyone offering a differing opinion or whatever like that. But to me, I'm not an expert, and I haven't read the work you're talking about.

GLENN: Yes.

COLIN: What I will say is that, it doesn't -- it doesn't I believe -- for me to say that if a person plays Grand Theft Auto 5 and he might already have some preexisting mental condition or some preexisting propensity, as you said, to do something already that, running around in a car, murdering people with it, might set that person off, is that possible? I'm sure that it probably is.

But I try keep the numbers in balance. This is actually a similar argument to what I use with the right to own a gun, which is to say Grand Theft Auto 5, which is a very violent, very provocative game, had sold 70 million units around the world, one of the best-selling games of all time. If there are five people that play Grand Theft Auto 5 and go on to kill someone because they're inspired by that, I know it sounds kind of strange, but that's a really almost mathematically insignificant number of people, if that makes any sense.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

COLIN: Similarly to a person that has access to a gun. Should none of us have access to a gun because a mentally unstable person has access to a gun and kills himself? I always defer -- you know, it's like an old Benjamin Franklin quote, you defer to liberty over kind of security, in that regard. And so I take a similar stance there. Can something like that set someone off? Of course. I'm sure that's possible.

GLENN: Colin. Colin, I would love to talk to you again. Colin Moriarty. He is the cofounder of kindafunny.com.

It's great meeting you. Really great meeting you. Thanks, Colin, I appreciate it.

COLIN: Thank you so much, Glenn. I appreciate it.

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.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn'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."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

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."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

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

Atheist Gamer Attacked for Tweet Defends Faith, Free Speech and the Constitution

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

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

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?