You’ll Never Guess Which State Has a Confederate Monument to Take Down

Montana officials have directed the removal of a Confederate fountain in Helenafollowing the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville last weekend.

Native American lawmakers petitioned the city council of Helena to remove the fountain, which was commissioned by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. While Helena Mayor Jim Smith formerly opposed removing the fountain, which was dedicated in 1916, he said his change of heart came after recent events.

“I believe the time has come for the removal of the fountain,” he told the Independent Record.

The Helena City Commission has directed the city manager to remove the granite fountain. Officials haven’t yet decided what will be done with the memorial or if it will be replaced.

Pat, Stu and Jeffy looked at the story on radio Friday.

Pat wondered how on earth a Confederate memorial made it all the way up to his hometown in Montana.

“A) Montana wasn’t a state at the time, and B) it doesn’t get any more North … that’s a Northern state,” he pointed out.

“Is it possible it was just a shipping error?” Stu theorized jokingly.

STU: Do you think statues honoring the leaders of the Confederacy should remain as a historical symbol or be removed because they're offensive to some people? Now, you'd see, of course, Republicans would be on the side of keeping them up. You would expect that. Eighty-six to six, they want to keep them up. Now, independents should be in the middle of this, right? Independents are the ones -- you're not going to get the party stuff here. Independents support keeping the statues up, 61 to 27.

PAT: Wow.

STU: It's not a close call. This is a blowout, keep the statues up. And you might think, well, Democrats though, are really going to oppose it. No.

They are split on the issue: 44 percent say keep the statues up. 47 percent say take them down because they're offensive.

So the Democrats aren't -- I mean, they're saying that people who are opposed to removing these statues are bad people. Well, let's be honest, you have half of Democrats who say keep them up. You have two-thirds of independents and almost every Republican. So the issue here is not whether you're a racist if you -- if you think statues should remain up. Because across-the-board, there's a lot of people -- the overall, 62 percent of people overall say keep the statues up. And so this is not a particularly close argument. Most people say, "Look, we understand that there were bad things in our history. We -- it's important to keep this up so we remember it." And as Jeffy said earlier in the break, "You walk by one of these statues and it's offensive to you, tell your kid why it's offensive." What a great teaching tool.

JEFFY: Yeah. Absolutely.

STU: And tell them, this is offensive because this person did this, this, and this, and you should know about it. That's a really good way of handling it.

And I can't believe I just complimented Jeffy's parenting style. That is -- wow, I should --

JEFFY: I didn't say I was going to do it. I just said you should.

STU: Good. Good. Okay.

PAT: This -- we're on such a dangerous path to tearing down everything that is offensive to people, to silencing people, to saying that you can't -- that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. I mean, we're on a really dangerous path right now towards losing our freedom. If we don't stop this madness, this snowball that's rolling down the hill, we're going to be sorry. And there's not going to be a Constitution that stands.

They're setting fire to it right now. But we're going to have to decide what to do with these Confederate monuments because there's still more than 700 of them throughout the United States.

JEFFY: There's a lot.

PAT: 700. Including one in my hometown, on the mean streets of Helena, Montana.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Now, what it's doing in Helena, Montana, I don't know.

JEFFY: Commemorating the Confederacy.

PAT: Yes, it is. But, A, Montana wasn't a state at the time. B, it doesn't get anymore north in the 48 contiguous states than Montana.

(laughter)

STU: That's a very --

PAT: That's a northern state.

JEFFY: Yes, it is.

STU: Is it possible that it was just a shipping error? They gave it to FedEx?

PAT: We meant this for Alabama.

JEFFY: They dropped it off. And Bill said, "You know what, just put it over there." Just put it in the park.

STU: It's too heavy to ship it again. I don't want to box it up. Leave it over there.

PAT: I mean, how does that happen? Pretty weird.

STU: I don't know. This is your hometown. Do you remember seeing it?

PAT: I don't.

STU: Because the map is odd. And, of course, obviously, 98 percent of -- I mean, there's one in Iowa. Is the -- is the next furthest north?

PAT: Jeez.

STU: I mean, there's not a lot.

PAT: That's crazy.

STU: Maybe there's two in Iowa. Outside of that, there's like one in Pennsylvania. But overall, they're all, you know, south, where people generally --

PAT: Where you would expect them to be.

STU: Where you would expect them to be. And then there's just one up there in Helena. Just like, you know what, right here.

PAT: So weird. And apparently, Helena's mayor was originally like, no, we're not going to go remove that. But after Charlottesville, he's now saying, "Yeah, maybe it's time." So...

STU: That's weird. And I don't think we mentioned this: Baltimore just -- in the middle of the night, which is what they do in Baltimore -- they remove NFL teams in the middle of the night and statues in the middle -- why not just remove all the statues, like, yeah, we don't want them.

PAT: Exactly right.

STU: No debate. They didn't have any rallies. And they didn't have any protests, which I'm sure is what they were trying to avoid. But that's an interesting way of doing business.

Yeah, now they're gone. The thing that you saw yesterday, not there now. Huh. Yeah, there you go. Buh-bye.

PAT: Not there. And there's -- there's quite a few places around the country where it's being considered, that they're going to remove them.

And then -- but there's hundreds and hundreds of them where they still exist and nobody is saying they shouldn't, but it will happen. Right?

JEFFY: Oh, we got a rally going on here in Dallas, on Saturday. Right? A big rally for -- in downtown Dallas this weekend.

PAT: Are they rallying for it, to keep it up, or rallying against it? Probably both, right?

JEFFY: I think they're rallying probably both.

PAT: Yeah, probably both. Probably both.

JEFFY: But the main focus of the rally, I believe, is to make it go away.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: Good luck.

STU: And, look, it's not -- it's not -- it's not uncommon in these moments.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: It's an interesting thing. It seems to be new. Like I would have told you ten years ago, there's no way places like, you know, South Carolina are going to take the Confederate flag off.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: It was something so untouchable. In fact, if I remember correctly, and this has been a year or two since this happened. It was engrained in their Constitution that basically you couldn't do it. I can't remember what the actual law was. You couldn't do it. And they just wound up doing it, anyway, because of the shooting, which was a terrible, terrible incident. But it was mainly based on the fact that there was one photo with the shooter with the flag. Like, it wasn't even that he came in there with the flag and said, "I'm doing this for the flag," or anything like that. There was one picture of him on Facebook with the flag. And because of that, they took the flag out of where it was.

PAT: That's where we are. That's where we are.

JEFFY: And then they changed the law. Oh, you know what, we need to change the law again.

STU: And it worked. You know, this is amazing. This goes back to every piece of progressive ideology, as to how to move things around. And I'm not saying -- like, I have no reference for the Confederate flag myself. But the way you move these things is you don't let crises go to waste. There's a crisis. You have an advantage. You have an emotional moment where you can take a couple steps in the direction you want to go. You take it at that time.

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.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.