Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Could Democratic Leaders’ Choice for SOTU Rebuttal Be More out of Touch?

February 01, 2018
Staff

WRITER

Why can’t the Democratic Party let go of the past?

Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) was chosen to give the Democrats’ response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, a puzzling decision that shows a toxic attachment to political dynasties.

“If you’re going after white, wealthy and privilege, you don’t pick a Kennedy to deliver the message,” Glenn said on today’s show. “Democrats continue to claim that they are the party of diversity and the poor, but last night, the grandson of Robert Kennedy was hand-picked of course by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I just -- I -- we assigned this out. We assigned this out.

STU: Full disclosure here.

GLENN: To watch Kennedy last night.

Did you notice, there was something wrong with -- maybe it was just the way the lights were on him, I don't know.

So Joe Kennedy last night delivered the address. And, you know, it -- I don't think anybody was watching by that time. And here to talk about it, the man we assigned is Jeff Fisher. Hello, Jeffy, how are you?

JEFFY: I'm fine. Thank you. And, you know, hey, this country from textiles to robots is a place that knows how to make great things. I mean, he told us that.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFFY: And, you know, we believe that.

STU: It's amazing to have someone actually watch the -- the -- to watch this and not have to actually deal with viewing it myself. Because I did not -- I did not want to hear any of the content of it. I kind of figured it would be, oh, textiles.

GLENN: I'm kind of disappointed because -- you know, because it was Kennedy. It was -- at least was he any good at it, Jeffy?

JEFFY: Look, it would be easy to dismiss the past year as chaos, Glenn. Partisan politics. But for them, dignity isn't something you're born with, but something you measure by your net worth, your celebrity, your headlines, your crowd size.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: Because the Democrats have not played any identity politics when it comes to celebrity. They didn't have the first celebrity president or anything.

That's not how they promoted Barack Obama with his giant rallies or anything like that. No, this is all new. This is only -- only Donald Trump, a brand-new for Republicans.

GLENN: Right. So what else did he talk about?

JEFFY: Look, they're turning American life into a zero sum game, Glenn, where in order to win, another must lose. Where we can guarantee America's safety, if we slash our safety net. Coal miners, our single moms --

GLENN: Uh-huh. You know, can I just ask a question? Is it like Jeffy even watched this, or is he just quoting everything?

STU: It does sort of feel like potentially Jeffy -- well, he certainly is -- he definitely -- he definitely -- I could say this --

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: He definitely saw the video of it. I'm sensing from -- as we talk to him, I'm getting -- he definitely saw the video.

GLENN: I didn't see the video.

JEFFY: Well, look, we choose an economy strong enough to boast record stock prices and brave enough to admit the top CEO is making 300 times the average worker is not right, Glenn. You know that.

GLENN: Right. Right.

JEFFY: And I would just like to say to all the dreamers, let me be clear --

GLENN: Look in the camera when you say that, will you? This camera over here.

JEFFY: This camera here?

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: I'd like to just say to all the Dreamers, (foreign language).

GLENN: Oh, he did not.

STU: No, he did not.

GLENN: No, he did not. No, he did not.

STU: Oh, you want to talk about pandering.

GLENN: No! He did not.

STU: He actually went to -- so you're saying he -- this is amazing, he actually broke into the Spanish to pander even more to the Dreamers. Which, again, we already found out in the Trump part of the speech, that saying that Americans can be dreamers too is incredibly offensive. And now apparently so offensive, that they had to double pander to the Hispanic audience by actually breaking into -- I just --

GLENN: I do have to -- I do have to point out. I do have to point out that last night -- I mean, I -- I saw a little bit of it this morning. I didn't watch the whole thing. But it was like -- it was like Joe Kennedy had a Chapstick accident.

STU: It did --

GLENN: Did you notice that, Jeffy? Do you think people --

JEFFY: I don't think anybody noticed. I think everybody heard the words that he said about proudly marching together.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: Thousands deep in the streets of Vegas, Philadelphia, Nashville. I think they all heard that. They paid -- I mean, looks, you're not supposed to pay attention to that.

STU: When people quote Joe Kennedy's words, they tend to have -- they tend to have a little bit of a -- I don't know if I would call it an accident. But they seem to have an issue with Chapstick when they quote his --

GLENN: Jeffy, did you see any of that?

JEFFY: I did not. Look, politicians can be cheered for the promises they make. Our country will be judged by the promises we keep.

GLENN: All right. Jeffy, thank you so much. It's been --

JEFFY: You build a wall. We'll tear it down.

GLENN: All right. Thank you.

STU: I will say this, I wouldn't normally recommend people view a Jeffy segment, instead of just listening. But --

(laughter)

GLENN: But this is -- yeah, thank you for the update. I appreciate it.

JEFFY: You're welcome. I'm happy to do it. I'm happy to do it.

STU: Joe Kennedy.

GLENN: If you think you may have missed some of that, we just gave you the information, so we've fulfilled our obligation here.

But there might have been a little mocking going on visually.

STU: Possibly.

GLENN: Visually, a little bit of mocking.

STU: You look great though, Jeffy. You look great.

GLENN: So seriously, the Chapstick thing, what happened? It just started spreading all over his face. Almost like in clumps.

STU: It made it actually worse in a way.

GLENN: It did. It did.

First, I thought, is he drooling? Is it spital? No.

JEFFY: No one heard a word he said. The entire country just --

STU: That is what happened. Because this happened once to Ted Cruz.

You remember this? During one of the debates, he had a little bit of spittle on his lips. And he was having a great debate at the time --

GLENN: He had that little white spittle. And you remember, what was his name?

STU: And that was it.

JEFFY: Bobby Jindal.

GLENN: Bobby Jindal, he had a drink of water.

JEFFY: He was sweating and stumbling. And, oh, man.

GLENN: Yeah. That's right. I minimized the Bobby Jindal.

(laughter)

Thank you, Jeffy. I appreciate it.

Hey, by the way, what did you think of this -- did you watch the speech?

JEFFY: I did.

GLENN: What did you think?

JEFFY: I thought it was pretty darn good. He pulled it off. He stayed strong. Focused through it. You know, he slowed down a little bit.

GLENN: I thought that was the best speech I've ever heard him give.

JEFFY: You know, one person called last night. We were broadcasting it on TheBlaze radio network. And they reminded us that it was, you know, pretty humble for Trump. There wasn't a lot of eyes. It was all about the country. It was all about us. It was pretty strong.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He hit exactly the right tone.

JEFFY: Look, if you're for a job, the African caucus, the African-American caucus gave him no credit. Nothing.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. They looked like radicals.

JEFFY: No credit. Nothing. The other Democrats of the other caucuses gave him nothing. It was terrible.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I'm not saying I'm having a difficult time taking it seriously right now. But there's a little -- there's a small part of me that's having --

GLENN: That's funny. I could talk to him like this. I've never taken him seriously. So it doesn't change.

JEFFY: Wait.

GLENN: Thanks, Jeffy. I appreciate it.

STU: That was awesome.

(music)

STU: Sorry.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. There was --

STU: Jeffy is just like -- he goes all in on that stuff, man. Jeffy is the man.

GLENN: He has about 6 inches of Vaseline on his face now.

STU: Very similar to Joe Kennedy.

GLENN: Yeah.

Oil prices are going up from the amount of Vaseline used in the last few minutes.

STU: We have to put that on Facebook and Twitter today. You'll need to see that one. We also have a bunch of audio that we need to get to at some point, from the actual speech.

GLENN: Let's go through it now. Tonight at 5 o'clock, we'll go through a few things. One, were you -- am I alone in the way I felt -- I mean, don't get me wrong. I loved the speech.

I was -- I was blown away by it. I thought it was the best speech he's ever given.

I think it's one of the best speeches politically I've heard in a long time.

He hit Barack Obama -- I think Barack Obama will feel like he hit him in the face for 45 minutes. But I don't -- that wasn't his intent.

It was just the opposite of Barack Obama.

STU: Yeah. So much more effective than, you know, calling Barack Obama a name or saying he was a disaster.

GLENN: Yeah, there was nothing of that. It was just a repudiation of everything he did.

STU: Of everything he did.

GLENN: And it was amazingly satisfying. He got into spending which is, you know, over $2 trillion of spending. Which I am absolutely not for.

However, what was amazing to me was the Democrats. They were given everything they say they want. I mean, the only thing he didn't say was, and, you know what, free universal education.

STU: And they wouldn't have clapped for that either.

GLENN: And they wouldn't have clapped.

It made them look so radical, I think to the average person. 46 percent of Democrats thought this was a really good speech. Approved of it.

STU: Yeah, 43, I believe it was. But that's incredibly high for something like this. For Trump especially.

GLENN: For him. For Trump, oh, my gosh, yes.

STU: Ninety-seven percent of Republicans. But overall, was 75 percent approval for a speech like that is incredibly high.

GLENN: That's big. That's big. For this guy, that's huge.

STU: It's really big for anybody though.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: I mean, even the highly praised by the media Barack Obama speeches didn't have 75 percent approval ratings, typically.

GLENN: So I really liked the speech all the way through. I liked the way he handled it. And I can praise him, not for the policies, but for what he was trying to do in reaching out to the left.

But they wanted no part of it. It was remarkable. But am I the only one -- because I haven't heard anybody say this today. I was really freaked out by the war thing.

STU: Yeah, you brought that up. I know you wanted to go over this today at 5:00 p.m., really dissecting it.

GLENN: Yeah. It's kind of like new war and classic war. You don't want classic war coming back.

STU: No. No.

GLENN: Like New Coke, Classic Coke. Yeah, yeah. Let's say with the new war. And I'm going to compare. Because this is not the same.

This is not what people my age have lived through. If we go to war with North Korea, it will probably be much more like World War II. Don't want to do it.

And it's really concerning. You didn't pick up that vibe?

STU: You know, I was not surprised to see him hit North Korea. Obviously, it's been a big topic. And it was right after the ISIS section. So it felt like there was a natural flow to it.

You know, if you think about it, I didn't pick it up at the time. As you laid out the case, and I know you'll do it again tonight at 5:00 on TheBlaze. Not only did he focus on it, he used very I think precise language.

GLENN: Precise.

STU: And then he illustrated it emotionally with multiple guests to show you how bad North Korea really is.

GLENN: Yep. Yep. It's one thing to do the -- the guy on the crutches. Because that was -- that was emotional. And it was really powerful. And if you're my age, it reminds you of the Cold War. And he was sending a message to the people who lived through the Cold War, this hasn't stopped. This evil is still here.

And then with the -- the family of -- you know, the Warmbier family, whose son went over, was arrested on a stupid charge of taking something off of a bulletin board that he wanted to keep as a souvenir, they charged him as an enemy of the state. They tortured him for a year. Dumped his body over here in the United States. And he died a few days later.

That one -- quite honestly, that is act of war stuff.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And the way it was presented last night was, look, here's the evil. And here's what they did to us.

It was -- I'm hoping that --

STU: Powerful.

GLENN: -- it is posturing for North Korea, but it is also historically speaking, that feels like laying the foundation of, we're going for these guys. We're going for war.

STU: You felt like it was an axis of evil type of case, right? He's laying out exactly --

GLENN: Yeah, not even an axis of evil. This was, this is an evil empire. It was Reagan's evil empire speech. Which I support. And I support what Donald Trump did.

You know, I've always said I want a president with a twitchy eye. Which means I want somebody that the foes don't know. This guy could do it. The problem is that Donald Trump has like two twitchy eyes and like a -- and a twitchy leg. I think he has restless leg syndrome too. So nobody knows exactly what he's going to do. So it makes me a little nervous.

If he's just doing this to scare North Korea -- which is the case I'm going to lay out tonight, that's good. And he's -- he does that really well.

But there is also a chance that we are preparing for war. And I'm also going to lay out the case tonight, that is an entirely different thing than the wars we have seen in the last 30 or 40 years.

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:

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?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.

What we DO and DON'T know about Thomas Matthew Crooks

Jim Vondruska / Stringer | Getty Images

It has been over a week since 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks narrowly failed to assassinate President Trump while the president gave a speech at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennslyvania. Despite the ongoing investigations, we still know very little about the would-be assassin, which has left many wondering if the agencies involved are limiting the information that Congress and the public are receiving.

As Glenn has pointed out, there are still major questions about the shooter that are unanswered, and the American people are left at the whim of unreliable federal agencies. Here is everything we know—and everything we don't know—about Thomas Matthew Crooks:

Who was he?

What we know:Thomas Crooks lived in Bethel Parks, Pennsylvania, approximately an hour south of Butler. Crooks went to high school in Bethel Parks, where he would graduate in 2022. Teachers and classmates described him as a loner and as nerdy, but generally nice, friendly, and intelligent. Crooks tried out for the school rifle team but was rejected due to his poor aim, and reports indicate that Crooks was often bullied for his nerdy demeanor and for wearing camo hunting gear to school.

After high school, Crooks began work at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center as a dietary aide. In fact, he was scheduled to work on the day of the rally but requested the day off. He passed a background check to work at the facility and was reportedly an unproblematic employee. Crooks was also a member of a local gun club where he practiced shooting the day before the rally.

It was recently revealed that sometime before his attempted assassination, Crooks posted the following message on Steam, a popular computer application used for playing video games: "July 13 will be my premiere, watch as it unfolds." Aside from this, Crooks posted no warning or manifesto regarding his attack, and little other relevant information is known about him.

What we don't know:It is unclear what Crook's political affiliations or views were, or if he was aligned with any extremist organizations. Crooks was a registered Republican, and his classmates recall him defending conservative ideas and viewpoints in class. On the other hand, the Federal Election Commission has revealed he donated to a progressive PAC on the day Biden was inaugurated. He also reportedly wore a COVID mask to school much longer than was required.

Clearly, we are missing the full picture. Why would a Republican attempt to assassinate the Republican presidential nominee? What is to gain? And why would he donate to a progressive organization as a conservative? This doesn't add up, and so far the federal agencies investigating the attack have yet to reveal anything more.

What were his goals?

What we know: Obviously we know he was trying to assassinate President Trump—and came very close to succeeding, but beyond that, Crooks' goals are unknown. He left no manifesto or any sort of written motive behind, or if he did, the authorities haven't published it yet. We have frustratingly little to go off of.

What we don't know: As stated before, we don't know anything about the movies behind Crooks' heinous actions. We are left with disjointed pieces that make it difficult to paint a cohesive picture of this man. There is also the matter that he left explosives, ammo, and a bulletproof vest in his car. Why? Did he assume he was going to make it back to his car? Or were those supplies meant for an accomplice that never showed up?

The shocking lack of information on Crooks' motives makes it seem likely that we are not being let on to the whole truth.

Did he work alone?

What we know: Reportedly, Crooks was the only gunman on the site, and as of now, no other suspects have been identified. The rifle used during the assassination attempt was purchased and registered by Crooks' father. However, it is unlikely that the father was involved as he reported both his son and rifle missing the night of the assassination attempt. Crooks' former classmates described him as a "loner," which seems to corroborate the narrative that he worked alone.

What we don't know: We know how Crooks acquired his rifle, but what about the rest of his equipment? He reportedly had nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bulletproof vest, and several homemade bombs in his car. Could these have been meant for a co-conspirator who didn't show? Did Crooks acquire all of this equipment himself, or did he have help?

There's also the matter of the message Crooks left on the video game platform Steam that served as his only warning of the attack. Who was the message for? Are there people out there who were aware of the attack before it occurred? Why didn't they alert authorities?

We know authorities have access to Crooks' laptop and cellphone that probably contain the answers to these pertinent questions. Why haven't we heard any clarity from the authorities? It seems we are again at the mercy of the federal bureaucracy, which begs one more question: Will we ever know the whole truth?