Sen. Jeff Flake Pens Blistering Op-Ed, Says GOP In Denial Over Trump

A GOP lawmaker is speaking out against both the president and Republican leaders, saying that anyone who thinks the state of things under the Trump administration is normal must be in “denial.”

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona has written a book criticizing not only President Donald Trump’s lack of conservatism but also the lack of principles among GOP leaders titled Conscience of a Conservative: A Rejection of Destructive Politics and a Return to Principle.

Flake turned his attention to Republican leaders who haven’t fought for conservative policies and seem to be pretending the tumultuous White House has been business as usual the past six months.

“It was we conservatives who rightly and robustly asserted our constitutional prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government when a Democrat was in the White House but who, despite solemn vows to do the same in the event of a Trump presidency, have maintained an unnerving silence as instability has ensued,” he wrote in an excerpt of the book published by Politico.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn agreed but expressed skepticism that any politician can be trusted.

“I’m politician-agnostic now,” Glenn quipped.

GLENN: And so where does this even fit? Have you seen the Jeff Flake -- you know, my party is in denial about --

STU: Yeah, it's amazing that, you know, this is -- it's an op-ed he wrote, which is actually a part of his book. Saying he's in denial about Donald Trump -- the party is in denial about Donald Trump. And he signed his name to it. There's been a lot of these comments that have floated throughout the media since he was elected from unnamed officials. This is --

GLENN: Now, Jeff Flake. I'm trying to remember where we lost track of Jeff Flake. When Jeff Flake sold his soul.

STU: We were not a fan of his stance on one of the gun bills, I remember.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And immigration.

GLENN: And immigration. Yeah.

PAT: Terrible on both.

GLENN: Yeah, he was really, really great. And then he started selling his soul to the party.

STU: To be fair, he still is good on certain things.

GLENN: Is he?

STU: Spending, he was good on.

GLENN: Was he ever for Trump?

STU: I would say he's --

GLENN: Agnostic?

STU: No, I would say he was more on the I'm not a fan of Trump side. He was more consistent on that. However, he was -- you know, public officials, particularly senators taking public positions against the president is pretty notable. It's not -- it's not as notable as if like one of his big allies came out and took him on. It's -- he's definitely on the side -- he's not a fan of Trump's.

GLENN: Our forbearers knew that keeping a republic meant, above all, keeping it safe from foreign transgressors. They all knew people could not live and work freely and develop national institutions conceived -- conductive to freedom, except in peace with independents. So where should Republicans go from here?

First, we shouldn't hesitate to speak out if the president plays to his base in ways that damage the Republican's party ability to grow and speak to a larger audience.

So listen to that. I mean, he's putting his -- the party -- second, Republicans need to take the long view when it comes to issue like free trade.

Populist and protectionist policies may play well out in the short-term, but they handicap the country in the long-term. Third, Republicans need to stand up for the institution and prerogatives like the Senate filibuster that served us well for more than two centuries.

We've taken our institutions conductive to freedom, as Goldwater put it, for granted. And we have to engage in one of the more reckless periods of politics in our history. In 2017, we seem to have lost our appreciation for just how hard-won and vulnerable those institutions are.

Well, it's nice to have you to the party, Jeff.

STU: You seemed almost dismissive. I almost got a sense that that was dismissive.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: I'm so done -- I'm so done -- I'm really so done with all of the politicians. I mean, honestly, should we have any politician on here? I'm politician-agnostic now. With the exception of very, very few.

PAT: You're not sure you believe they exist?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No, I'm unfortunately -- I know they exist. I'm not sure how --

JEFFY: This is a struggle we've had for a while, right?

GLENN: I know they exist. I'm agnostic on how many good ones exist. I know one. I know Mike Lee. I would -- I would swear by Mike Lee. But what does that mean?

STU: I mean, there's certainly a few.

GLENN: Yeah, there are a few.

STU: There's no doubt.

GLENN: And I like a few of them. But the only one I know personally really well I feel is Mike Lee. And unshakable.

STU: And he has been --

PAT: Ben Sasse. We don't know him that well. But we know Ben Sasse.

GLENN: Ben Sasse? Yeah, I like Ben Sasse.

PAT: Like him a lot.

GLENN: I think there's several of them.

JEFFY: Louie Gohmert.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. There's several of them. I'm not throwing all of them out.

PAT: Hank Johnson. His concerns for Guam.

JEFFY: That goes without saying.

STU: Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

GLENN: Okay. You guys aren't helping.

STU: But obviously there are some.

PAT: Yeah, there's a few.

GLENN: There are many there, and I hate to abandon them. But I'm just so done. I'm just so done with them.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would I stick my neck out for any of you? Why would I endorse or help or anything? Because I don't know what you guys are going to do when you get in?

STU: You know, you're never going to know that. People are flawed.

GLENN: I know. I know. I know.

STU: The problem here is, the second you take that attitude or all of us take that attitude --

GLENN: Then you're done.

STU: -- then there is an unrestrained move to the dark side.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: You have to have people who are at least standing up. And, you know, you get some things. And you lose a lot of them. You just hope to slow that roll a little bit towards the progressive side. That's really all you can do. But we can't -- it's like the Second Amendment. There was a time -- because I'm not a gun guy. I didn't grow up in gun culture by any means. Though I agree with the Second Amendment. And there was a time where I would hear some of the arguments, you know, made by gun advocates, and they were just -- they seemed almost irrational to me. Like, they were -- as a guy who has never dealt with guns. Like, why are you defending that kind of gun? Like, to me, on its face, without thinking about it deeply, it just kind of seems irrational. You're just defending anything that has to do with guns.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: You have to defend anything that has to do with guns. Because the second you let them pass that barrier, they go to the next barrier. So you better stand up there and defend every single freaking thing.

PAT: That's right.

STU: Because the second they get past that wall, they are onto the next one. And they'll trample the next 50 walls past it. Wherever you set up your -- you know, your defense is where they will stop for the time being.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So you better set it up as aggressively as possible.

'The Handmaid's Tale' got it right, just with the wrong religion

Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

Just in case The Handmaid's Tale's heavy-handed message wasn't already heavy-handed enough, a recent episode made it clear there's always room for further hysteria. Particularly, in relation to depictions of a “patriarchal society" run by Christian doctrine and determined by men — oh those dastardly men.

RELATED: Christian privilege is the new white privilege

The show appropriates Margaret Atwood of the same name, depicting a totalitarian society led by Christian doctrine in which women's bodies are controlled, and they have no rights. The story sounds familiar, but not in the same way Atwood and the show's creators have so smugly assumed.

Just as tone-deaf as 4th wave feminism itself, and tone-deaf in all the exact same places. Most notably, the show's heavy-handed indignation toward Christianity. Toward the patriarchy. Toward conservatives and traditional values. And just like 4th wave feminism, the show completely overlooks the irony at play. Because there is a part of the world where women and children are being raped and mutilated. In fact, in this very real place, the women or girls are often imprisoned, even executed, for being raped, and they are mutilated in unspeakable ways.

Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life.

There is a place, a very real place, where women are forced to cover their entire bodies with giant tarp-like blankets, which is all the more brutal given the endless heat of this place. There is a place where women literally have one-third of the rights of men, a place where women are legally, socially and culturally worth less than men.

They cannot drive cars. They cannot be outside alone. They cannot divorce, they cannot even choose who they marry and often, they are forcibly married at a young age.

They are raped. A lot. Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life. This is the life of tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of women. And, I'll tell you, their religion isn't Christianity.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.