Props to Chuck Todd for Exposing Chuck Schumer's Agonizing, Hypocritical Game

April 03, 2017

WRITER

Could there be a glimmer of hope in the mainstream media? Sunday on Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd interviewed Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and did something we rarely see. He actually held the senator's feet to the fire, pointing out the hypocrisy on the Gorsuch vote.

"It's ridiculous what they're doing to the Supreme Court nominee. But I also want you to hear Chuck Todd actually punching the clock and showing the rest of journalists what it's like to be a journalist," Glenn said Monday on radio.

Todd grilled Schumer on the rules change Democrats made in 2013 to confirm judges --- and the senator's displeasure with it now.

Let's give credit where credit's due. Chuck Todd actually behaved like an unbiased reporter searching for the truth.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Yesterday -- last night, I tweeted this out because I think it's important audio for you to hear with Chuck Todd and Chuck Schumer, to show you how unhinged the Democrats are. It's just -- it's ridiculous what they're doing to the Supreme Court nominee. But I also want you to hear Chuck Todd actually punching the clock and showing the rest of journalists what it's like to be a journalist.

CHUCK: You expressed regret earlier this year for the rules change that was made on judges in 2013. Why did you go along with it if you regret doing it?

SCHUMER: Well, let's look at the history. Our Republican colleagues had been holding back on just about all of so many lower court judges, including very important DC circuit. I went to Lamar Alexander, one of my dear friends in the Senate, and I said, "Look, if you keep holding back on scores and scores of judges, my side is going to want to change the rules. Go to Mitch and tell him. At least let us have some votes on a few of these, many of whom had gotten bipartisan support."

The answer was no. And we changed the rules. But the one thing that stands out here, Chuck, is we did not change it for Supreme Court for one very important reason: And that is, on -- on the most important of decisions, 60 votes is called for. That's why you go to mainstream, that's how you get a mainstream justice.

PAT: Can you believe the hair he's splitting here? That they changed the rules. Sure, but we didn't do it on the Supreme Court. That's just because there was no Supreme Court justice coming up for a vote at that time.

STU: That they needed the help for --

PAT: Right. Right.

STU: They didn't need it.

PAT: They didn't need to do that.

STU: You know why? Because Republicans, too many of them, by the way, did not oppose, Kagan or Sotomayor.

PAT: Yes. They just caved.

Sotomayor is not mainstream. Kagan was not mainstream. But he wants a mainstream justice.

SCHUMER: Just about every -- Mitch calls it a filibuster. We call it the 60-vote standard. Most Americans believe in the 60-vote standard.

CHUCK: But, Senator -- that's fine. But there is no rule that says that it has to be 60 votes. There's no part of advice and consensus that says it has to be 60 votes. And, in fact, there's currently two members of the Supreme Court right now that did not get 60 votes: Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas.

SCHUMER: Well, actually Clarence Thomas is the only one. Because when the filibuster came up with Alito, there were 72 votes to go forward. So there was just one. Just about every nominee gets 60 votes because in the past, presidents actually consulted the other side before picking someone.

PAT: What a bald-faced lie. That is such garbage. Like Barack Obama went to conservatives and said, "Hey, who would you like me to appoint?"

GLENN: Sotomayor.

PAT: Sonia Sotomayor. You like her? Yeah, me too. So -- come on.

STU: By the way, according to the New York Times, Sotomayor is to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

PAT: Right. She's not --

STU: She's mainstream. She is the most --

PAT: So bad.

STU: He actually has the balls in this clip to actually cite the exact thing I'm talking about. Because he says, well, the New York Times said he would be the second most conservative justice, Justice Clarence Thomas. He actually says that in the story. That same article says the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court is Sonia Sotomayor to the left of Ginsburg.

PAT: Jeez, man. And that's hard to believe. It's hard to believe anybody could be that -- what is -- the only thing left of Sotomayor is Joe Stalin. And he's gone. He's gone.

GLENN: We lost him.

VOICE: In this case, Donald Trump consulted the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist society, hard right groups with extreme special interest-oriented views. And it didn't leave much chance for compromise.

PAT: My gosh.

VOICE: You know, Heidi Heitkamp, one of the Democratic senators in your conference, she came out in favor of Neil Gorsuch and in favor of cloture. She said she's not happy about it. She didn't like the way Merrick Garland was treated. But she ended her statement by essentially saying, two wrongs don't make a right. Why not give Neil Gorsuch an up or down vote, Senator Schumer?

VOICE: Let me make a proposal to maybe break the problem that we have.

PAT: I'm sure this will be reasonable.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: It looks like Gorsuch will not reach the 60-vote margin. So instead of changing the rules, which is up to Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority, why doesn't President Trump, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, sit down and try to come up with a mainstream nominee?

PAT: And finally come up with a nominee that I like? Why don't they do that? How about I just tell Trump who to nominate?

GLENN: Yeah, we did this with Sotomayor.

PAT: Sotomayor. Yeah, oh, they did that.

GLENN: They did.

VOICE: Look, when a nominee doesn't get 60 votes, you shouldn't change the rules. You should change the nominee, and let's just take one minute here --

PAT: The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

VOICE: -- because this is important. Let's just look at the history. Okay?

PAT: Okay.

VOICE: Our nominee was Merrick Garland. Mitch McConnell broke 230 years of precedent and didn't call him up for a vote. It wasn't in the middle of an election campaign. It was March.

PAT: Which is the middle of the election.

VOICE: Second, now it looks like we have the votes to prevent Gorsuch from getting on.

Now, that -- that doesn't mean you have to change the rules.

PAT: Yeah, it does.

VOICE: Each side didn't get their nominee. Let's sit down and come together.

GLENN: You got your nominee.

VOICE: Our Republican friends are acting like, you know, they're a cat on the top of a tree.

PAT: They expected -- what they're saying about the Merrick Garland thing is that they expected a hard-core conservative to be replaced with a liberal. And, of course, the Republicans weren't going to bring that up for a vote. Of course not. Come on.

GLENN: And it was in the middle of an election.

PAT: Yes, it was.

GLENN: I remember tweeting, this may change the course of the election.

PAT: You can't allow that to swing the entire court in the direction of the left-wing.

GLENN: No.

PAT: I mean, that would be -- that would have been a horrible, horrible move.

STU: And this is -- you want to talk about a good argument for Gorsuch, what you're seeing here from Chuck Schumer is, he knows he's not getting a liberal. What he wants is someone he thinks he can win later. The Kennedys of the world. I always think of Briar, but the other guy that was in New Hampshire.

PAT: Souter.

STU: He wants a Souter, right? He's hoping he can get someone who looks kind of conservative at the beginning, but you're not really sure. Then you can win him over on big things. Roberts, you can win him over on certain issues. And he doesn't think he has that in Gorsuch, which is a positive, by the way.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: A very big positive.

PAT: This is why Gorsuch should be hammered through no matter what. Change the rule and just get it done.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Get, what? Fifty-four votes now. And that's -- so, what? It's not 60. Like Chuck Todd said, no rule says you have to have 60. There's no law.

STU: And we all know this standard is going away. Because if it doesn't go away here, if they don't do it with Gorsuch, the next person who comes up is going to do it. Whether it's Democratic or a Republican president, the next justice that comes up is going to slam these guys through with 50 votes no matter what.

GLENN: Boy, I hope they do. I hope they do.

STU: Because this standard is dead. It's dead. So I think, so far, the initial idea with Democrats was, let's not do it to Gorsuch when they have an obviously good nominee. Let's wait for the next one. We can really vilify them. Because that's going to be the balance of the court. We can vilify them. Really go after it. And we'll have credibility, because we let Gorsuch go through. Now, I think with the health care failure, they're feeling a little momentum. They're thinking they might as well just go for this now.

GLENN: Wrong move -- wrong move strategically, I think. Wrong move strategically.

PAT: And he keeps saying that Gorsuch is not mainstream. Nobody could have been more reasonable --

STU: Yeah.

PAT: During a hearing, than Neil Gorsuch was. He was absolutely mainstream. He sounded completely unbiased on many issues. He actually said Roe v. Wade was settled law, along with the gay marriage thing. I mean, almost everything the Democrats would want, he said, yeah, it's settled.

STU: He said if Trump asked him how he would rule on Roe vs. Wade during the interview, he would have walked out of the room. Now, of course, Trump promised that he would ask his nominees that questions. So apparently he didn't do that.

PAT: He should. The Democrats certainly do.

STU: Yeah, I honestly have no problem -- everyone makes that out to be, oh, how dare you. Well, isn't that, I don't know, a fundamental question you should know about your justice?

PAT: Yes, yes.

STU: We're like -- we're supposed to play this weird telepathic game with these guys.

GLENN: What they're saying is trying to appeal to, you know, their sense of reason and independent-minded action for the specific case. But I can't think of the case where it overturns Roe vs. Wade that doesn't involve the choice, is this a blob of tissue, or is it a child?

STU: Well, privacy. I mean, they try to find indicators, right? Gorsuch has never had a ruling on abortion. He has had -- he did write a book about euthanasia. He is shown to be very favorable towards issues that would indicate --

PAT: Does he not like senior citizens in Asia, what's the deal?

STU: Yeah, no, it's true. It's a different thing. But, yes, he does not like citizens? Citizens in Asia. That's just separate.

PAT: That's weird.

STU: But every indication is that he will be very good on this issue.

PAT: Yeah, but you don't know for sure. And you would ask. Because certainly Barack Obama asked Sonia Sotomayor and Kagan if they were in favor of abortion or not. You know that happened.

STU: I mean, maybe it was so obvious, he didn't to have ask.

JEFFY: Didn't have to.

STU: Not much of a debate on that one.

PAT: Never would a Democrat nominate a Supreme Court justice who wasn't pro-choice.

GLENN: Never.

PAT: You know that wouldn't happen. Would not happen.

So this little game Schumer is trying to play is asinine.

GLENN: Is there anymore left?

PAT: Yeah, there's some more.

VOICE: And they have to jump off with all the damage that entails. Come back off the tree, sit down, and work with us, and we will produce a mainstream nominee. It will be -- one more point. One more point.

VOICE: Hang on here.

VOICE: It will be a Republican nominee. But, remember, Democrats voted for Roberts and Alito. And both of them got the 60 votes.

VOICE: All right. But there are already two Democrats for Neil Gorsuch. So there already is a bipartisan majority -- and, look, two is two. It's more than zero, for what it's worth.

But why should senator McConnell work with you guys on this when you changed the rules first, when you decided to do this?

And, again, a change that you yourself said this week and two months ago that you regret and it was a mistake.

VOICE: We never -- but I don't regret not changing it for the Supreme Court.

Let me read you a quote of Mr. McConnell. You like to put up quotes. He said, I think we can stipulate -- and my good friends on the other side of the aisle stipulated from time to time over the years, when they were in the minority, that in the Senate, it takes 60 votes on controversial matters. That has been the tradition of the Senate for a long time. This is nothing new.

PAT: Tough.

VOICE: Then why did you change the rules in the first place? I go back to this because now we're going down this slippery slope.

PAT: Good.

VOICE: And everybody has hypocrisy on their side to point the finger.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

VOICE: But you guys are hand in hand sliding down the slope. Tell me this, in ten years, do you think the filibuster will still be alive for anything?

VOICE: Yeah. That's one of the few things that my dear friend Mitch said on the show that I agree with.

PAT: So disingenuous. Your dear friend Mitch. Okay.

VOICE: I don't think there's any thirst to change the legislative rules. Sixty votes for that.

PAT: Such a lie.

VOICE: Most Democrats and most Republicans have served in both the minority and majority and know what it means. But why not -- you know, you can do a lot of finger pointing. Each side has some right here. Let's stop this now. And the way to stop it is the way I mentioned. You know, other --

PAT: And the way to stop it is to do exactly what he wants and nominate somebody he's fine with --

GLENN: My way. As long as we do it my way, we're fine. Give me a justice that we want and we'll be fine.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Forget about you.

PAT: Exactly.

GLENN: I mean, they didn't care a lick about what the Republican said.

PAT: Not at all.

STU: Of course not. And, you know what, honestly, they shouldn't. You know, they shouldn't.

If you have control of all three branches -- or, not all three branches, but all three -- you know, you're going through House, Senate, presidency, you have all three of those, you shouldn't be consulting with the other side. You should go pick somebody you think is good for your side, just like they got --

PAT: And that's the situation Republicans are in right now.

STU: Yeah, and it was just like the one the Democrats were in last time. Not the whole time.

PAT: Make it happen.

STU: Not the whole time.

GLENN: Well, I believe that's where we first heard elections have consequences.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And what they do, you should be able to push through your own Supreme Court justice if you're the president of the United States and you have control of the House and the Senate. Yes, you should be able to do that.

Trump is INDICTED: Here are the TOP 5 questions about Trump's indictment ANSWERED

Brandon Bell / Staff, J2R | Getty Images

BREAKING NEWS: Trump has been INDICTED.

Today marks the first time in U.S. history that a President has been criminally indicted—but what does that actually mean? Unless you have a legal or political background, it is difficult to follow what will actually happen surrounding Trump's indictment.

Glenn will provide more clarity in coming days as this story continues to unfold. In the meantime, Americans are wondering what Trump's indictment means and what comes next.

Here are five things you NEED to know about Trump's indictment.

1. What does "indictment" actually mean?

To "indict" someone is the formal term used when a person is notified that they have been officially charged with a crime. In this case, the Manhattan grand jury found that the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, brought forward enough evidence to criminally charge Trump with a crime.

2. What crime is Trump being charged with?

Though the story is still developing, at the time of this article's publication, Trump was apparently being charged with mislabeling campaign finance funds. A week before the 2016 Presidential election, adult film star Stormy Daniels claimed she allegedly slept with Trump years prior and threatened to go public with the story. Trump's then-advisor Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 and labeled the fee as "legal fees" in their campaign finances. Trump repaid Cohen once he was elected to office.

Mislabeling legal fees is a misdemeanor—not a felony—yet Trump is being federally charged. Hillary Clinton was guilty of the same misdemeanor, mislabeling funding for the Steele Dossier as "legal fees" in her campaign finances. Why did she get away with paying $130,000 to the Federal Election Commission, while Trump is facing federal criminal charges?

Mislabeling campaign finances can't be considered a felony unless there is evidence it was used to shield a federal crime. So what was Trump covering up? Even NBC admitted that Bragg's case to prove this point was flimsy to begin with. It has not been revealed what evidence was presented to the grand jury to determine that Trump is guilty of a federal crime.

3. What is a "grand jury" and how are they able to indict Trump?

A "grand jury" is a type of federal jury that evaluates criminal cases. A U.S. prosecutor has to submit evidence before a grand jury, who will determine whether there is “probable cause” to believe an individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial. In this case, the Manhattan grand jury ruled that the evidence submitted by Manhattan DA Bragg was sufficient enough to believe that Trump had committed a federal crime.

Grand jury proceedings are closed to the public, thus, we don't have access to the evidence Bragg submitted before the jury.

4. Will Trump be arrested?

The simple answer is: yes.

Trump's arrest won't look like your typical crime shows with police officers busting through Trump's door and handcuffing him. The district attorney’s office will ask Trump’s attorney when he plans to come to New York to be arraigned, which means to appear before a court to face criminal charges. Once Trump arrives in Manhattan, he will likely surrender himself at the courthouse where he will be formally "arrested," taken to get fingerprinted, get a mugshot taken, and even a DNA test. He will then await his trial to defend himself against the charges.

5. Will Trump appear in court?

Yes. Once Trump is arraigned, he will await his court date to defend himself against his charges. Trump will likely pay bail to avoid being confined to the courthouse or a jail cell.

Buckle up, America! Be sure to tune into the Glenn Beck Program to stay up-to-date on all the developments surrounding Trump's indictment. And if you haven't already, be sure to check out last week's episode of Glenn TV where Glenn dove deep into the "big distraction"—the REAL reason they're going after Trump.

Message to America after the Nashville massacre: We are worshiping a FALSE GOD

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor , DEA / A. VERGANI / Contributor , Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images.

We had yet another tragic school shooting. There is only one way to begin to address this tragedy, a tragedy that has repeated itself all too often. We must begin by mourning with the families of the victims. Our hearts break for the victims, their families, and the entire community affected by this senseless act of violence.

I'm a parent, and I mourn with you as one.

I'm also a concerned citizen deeply concerned with the profound brokenness that pervades our current culture. All of us fear for the safety of our children and our loved ones. We share the same goal of creating a safe and secure environment for everyone, especially for our children, in our schools, in places of learning and growth.

It is natural for all of us to feel anger and fear during these times, and it may seem unnatural to rise above it. But we must. It's essential to remember that we have to come together as a society, together, and address the root causes of violence. Let me state it plainly: the root cause is not the gun, but rather, the misuse of them by individuals who are mentally ill or have criminal intent. I, for one, want to address the problem of gun violence. I am worried about this with my own children. Every American, regardless of who you voted for, feels the same.

But enough is enough.

When will we address mental health? Do you know the damage we have done to our children, just because of COVID? We have destroyed the mental health of our children. Our country's suicide rate is proof enough that something has gone deeply awry within the soul of our nation—the souls of our children. What is causing all of this? It is the loss of the old guards of our civilization.

Something has gone deeply awry within the soul of our nation.

There are several groups that we need to address. First, to the parents and families of the Nashville victims, I'm sorry. We love you. Our society is sick—it is sick and unrecognizable to most of us. Your loved ones have paid the ultimate price for that illness. I'm sorry because I'm part of the society that has an unwillingness to see the truth, apparently.

Second, to the mother of the 27-year-old shooter, we mourn with you as well. I've read your old posts. You've been fighting against guns in school. While we disagree, we both want this violence to end. I've also read your posts about your children, and how proud you are. There were so many moments of beauty. You feel the same way every mom and dad feels about their child, and you were right to feel that way.

Today, I can only imagine how confused you must be. You should know, we love you too. You lost a child as well. You lost a child to the same society that has an unwillingness to see the truth. You should also know, you are part of our community, and we mourn with you as well.

You lost a child to the same society that has an unwillingness to see the truth.

Now, lastly, to the political class and the media elites. You have been dividing us for years. At first, I think I was a part of that. I've tried really hard not to be. However, you're not sincere in anything you do. At first, maybe you thought you were right in your motivations, but then every time society proved you wrong and you just dug your heels in.

Why do you continue to divide us? Is it just to win over your opponent? Is it just to crush the other side? Is it because you believe that everyone who doesn't vote your way is evil? Or is it that you just no longer care? I'm one American among many who no longer believe in you.

I can understand how easy it is to think people who vote differently than me are the problem. I really can, and those people aren't the problem. The problem begins with people, like you, who only care about money or power, or are so arrogant that they think they know better than the rest of us. You make yourselves and your system into a false god. The arrogance.

You make yourselves and your system into a false god.

You go after the disaffected, the weak, and the hopeless, and you prey on these people, promising to be their savior, hoping they will help you gain power over those who you call your enemies. You have lied. You have lied through half-truths. You have lied through omission. You have lied through fabrications. You have distorted the truth to the degree that it's no longer recognizable.

You call men women, and women men. In your world, our children are legally children until 25 for insurance purposes. Yet you also consider our children "adult" enough to alter their own bodies at eight years old. You have called evil good, and good evil. We do not have a gun problem in America. Per capita, there were more gun owners 50 years ago than there are right now, yet they didn't have these problems. Is it the gun, or is it the people?

What we have in America is a TRUTH problem. We have turned ourselves inside out. We have turned ourselves against the basic principles that gave us life and freedom, and the promise of a fuller life. Our women have no more children, and our men have lost all meaning, reason, and faith.

What we have in America is a TRUTH problem.

Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal released a poll that showed what principles the American people value most. Children, God, family—the values that used to define us as Americans—were LAST on the list. What was on the top? Money was in the top three. Money? Since when has money become a principle?

Perhaps it is because money is the god that so many worship—money over principles every time a corrupt bank is bailed out, money over principles for those who never want to pay their school tuition, every time we make someone who didn't go to school pay for someone else's tuition.

What kind of god do we worship, that makes children so allegedly flawed that we lay them on our metal alters to the gods in the surgical gowns, who can mutilate and sterilize them to make them "just the way they were intended?" That's an ancient god I don't recognize.

We all know the words that were written in the summer of 1776: "We hold these truths." But other words were written later that year when things weren't so sunny. It was December 21st: "These are the times that try men's souls." These words turned our nation around. These truly are the times that try men's souls, and the modern-day patriots—the lovers of truth and justice—must stand firm in the face of an ever-growing storm of disinformation and division. The weak-hearted are not going to be able to weather the storm, but those with the courage to fight for what is true will emerge victorious.

Lovers of truth and justice must stand firm in the face of an ever-growing storm of disinformation and division.

We live in a time when our faith in institutions, our faith in everything we know, is at an all-time low. Our republic is under siege, and the only way out is to remember our founding principles. We are drowning in a sea of lies. Cling to the life raft! Cling to the enduring belief in life and liberty, truth and justice. We'll only be able to find our way out if we can rekindle the flame of unity and embrace the American spirit that carried us through so many crises before. We have been here before.

But this time, in our current American crisis, we have to constantly remind ourselves that our fight isn't against an external enemy that we conquer. Our enemy is causing the internal divisions that are threatening to tear us apart, divisions that are created by monsters of men. These monsters are not just tearing us apart individual to individual, but tearing us and our children out from the inside out.

Cling to the enduring belief in life and liberty, truth and justice.

America, it is high time to reaffirm our commitment to the values that define us as a people. It is our collective responsibility, as free people, to stand up for those principles of truth. The seeds of division have been sewn by those who seek to manipulate and exploit us for their own gain. They shatter our trust in one another to instill fear and hatred where there should be understanding and compassion.

Truth is now clouded by conspiracy. The lines between fact and fiction have been blurred. Truth is a light. Everything we face is not insurmountable, but now is the time to return to truth and decency and justice for all.

Our kids are the ones who are going to pay the highest of prices for what we do now.

What's on Glenn's desk? THIS graphic novel's dystopia has TERRIFYING similarities to our world.

Matt Battaglia

Imagine a global health crisis. Everyone is ordered to "stay-at-home" and only to venture out for "essential" purposes. Travel is regulated by government surveillance, with only permitted workers allowed to go into the city. Inflation is at historic levels, and basic necessities, such as food and gasoline, become invaluable commodities.

Sound familiar?

As the COVID pandemic begins to recede into our cultural memory, it is harrowing to remember the sheer breadth of power we surrendered to our government in order to "keep us safe." We would be foolish to think that the pandemic wasn't a repetition of an age-old tale in the west, and we would be even more naive to believe that we aren't at risk of repeating it in the future: the government's manipulation of a crisis to secure its complete control over its people.

We would be foolish to think that the pandemic wasn't a repetition of an age-old tale

Filmmaker Matt Battaglia published a first in what is likely to become an emerging genre of post-pandemic apocalyptic literature, bringing to life the harrowing consequences of what could happen if we continue to surrender our liberty to the government for the sake of "safety and security."

Battaglia's graphic novel, House on Fire, brings this world to life in an even more vivid dimension through pictures, telling the story of a single day of a man living in this apocalyptic world that doesn't seem too distant from our own.

The setting

Imagine there is another global pandemic of a respiratory virus that is similar to COVID. The government implements COVID-like lockdowns and restrictions from their 2020 blueprint, but this time, the regulations are here to stay. After all, this pandemic isn't the only threat allegedly facing the American people. The future of our planet is at stake. On top of the pandemic regulations, our government restricts the types of food available for consumption, implements individual carbon quotas, mandates electric vehicles, eliminates gas-powered heating, cars, stoves, etc.

Of course, the pandemic and climate change policies require major government funding, so the President uses his emergency powers and executive orders to push through a multi-trillion-dollar proposal that secures the funding necessary to finance the "clean and safe transition." Yes, inflation will be an issue, but that is a small price to pay to secure our health and the future of our planet. Don't forget to include foreign aid for our warring allies in the multi-trillion-dollar packages as well.

Inflation is a small price to pay to secure the future of our planet.

Now fast forward 20 years of living under these all-too-familiar draconian policies. This is Battaglia's apocalyptic world where we meet our nameless main character, causing the reader to question whether our world could devolve into Battaglia's in such a short amount of time.

The plot

Battaglia's story begins with our character kissing his wife goodbye and leaving their country home on a one-day mission to the city in search of a cure for his wife's most recent bout of the illness that is, presumably, a result of the pandemic.

All of the themes that contribute to the apocalyptic nature of Battaglia's world are familiar to us, disturbingly so. Our character drives through country roads, passing by gas signs that list $20 per gallon prices. His radio reports on another invasion of Poland, while country fields transform into steeple-like towers of run-down factories, like old monuments to former industries of a time long past.

Our character reaches the city limit, a border-like security checkpoint where he is required to scan his identity card to enter the city, the likes of which we see in China today. Masks required. He then drives through empty streets of a once bustling city, save for several suspect people who seem to blend into the crevices of alleyways and corners, shrouded by their masks.

Finally, our character meets with his "contact," who gives him some type of canister, supposedly a remedy for his wife's ailment. He barters with several cuts of meat, a rarity more valuable than inflated cash in this "Green New World." From this point onward, things take a turn for our character—for the worst.

Glenn's warning

Many of these scenes bring to life themes that Glenn has been warning about for years, from the government's use of a pandemic to seize control over its people, the depleted dollar and record-high inflation resulting from government spending and foreign conflicts, the Great Reset's goals to eliminate meat, gas-powered products, and other "high emissions products." All of these will be done in the name of seemingly righteous goals: "health," "safety," "security," and the "future of our planet" come to mind. However, we won't realize our freedoms will be a faint memory of the past until it is too late.

All of these measures will be done in the name of seemingly "righteous" goals.

House on Fire's poignant ending leaves the reader with a terrifying yet vitally important question: are the issues plaguing our society latent within society itself, or do they stem from the troubles within our own souls? Does society mold the human soul, or is society, as Plato puts it, the human soul "writ large?"

Battaglia's short yet powerful graphic novel brings to life many of the themes that Glenn has been warning his listeners. It is sitting on his desk, and we hope it will sit on yours too. It gives the reader a glimpse into our society after years of decay and oppression, calling on the reader to halt its progression before it's too late.

Click HERE to get your own copy!

Elon Musk comments on Glenn's podcast with David Sacks, takes jab at U.S. foreign policy

Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Elon Musk chimed into Glenn's conversation about foreign policy with PayPal's founding COO David Sacks on the most recent installment of the Glenn Beck Podcast.

Musk tweeted, "US foreign policy is bronze tier on a good day!" He hit the nail on the head, as Glenn and Sacks discussed the deterioration of U.S. foreign policy and the rising probability of war with Russia and China.

None
— (@)

Glenn asked Sacks, "How likely do you think it is that we'd be headed towards war?" Sacks responded that he has been warning about the imminent threat of war since the Ukraine situation started and lamented that we have entered into a "proxy war of choice" with Russia.

"We engaged in a series of actions going back to 2008 that the Russians have viewed as highly provocative," Sacks said, decrying the continued expansion of NATO into Ukraine. Russia has continually warned the U.S. against expanding NATO into Ukraine, yet the State Department "crusaders" have persisted in their NATO-driven objective, which is "unacceptable to the Russians," Sacks said, "in the same way the Soviet Union trying to put nukes in Cuba was unacceptable to us in 1962."

If NATO expansion isn't enough to provoke a response from the Russian bear, our ongoing and escalating aid to Ukraine certainly is. As Sacks explained, "We're not just providing [Ukraine] with money and weapons. We are providing them with intelligence, we have commandos on the ground" and we are even directing Ukrainian soldiers on how to use our weapons on how to hit specific Russian targets. As Sacks said, "We are providing the kill chain" for Ukraine.

To put this in perspective, that would be equivalent to Russian soldiers instructing Taliban members on how to use Russian weapons to hit specific U.S. camps in Afghanistan. In that situation, wouldn't we accuse Russia of engaging in an act of war? The term "proxy" is increasingly diminishing in its relevance towards the U.S.'s involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. We aren't engaging in a "proxy war" anymore. As Sacks said, "We are effectively a co-belligerent in this conflict."

It is no wonder that we are driving Russia into China's arms while both Putin and Xi continue to forge ties with sworn enemies of the U.S., including Iran and North Korea. If we continue to "poke the bear," it is only a matter of time before Russia finds its confidence with its newly-forged allies to retaliate against its aggressor.

Musk rightly said, "US foreign policy is bronze tier on a good day." But U.S. foreign policy has not even had a "good day" in some time. We are not only jeopardizing our own international reputation with ongoing aid to Ukraine; we are jeopardizing the whole world order by marching NATO increasingly toward war. Elites in the Biden administration and the military industrial complex may benefit from aggravating Russia towards war, but it certainly doesn't benefit anyone else, in the U.S. and abroad.

There are few tools in the conservative's kit to fight back against the elites' dangerous agenda. However, Musk mentioned one of these vital tools in a comment he tweeted on Glenn's interview with San Fransicko author and Twitter Files contributor Michael Schellenberger back in January: "Citizen journalism is vital to the future of civilization."