BLOG

WaPo editor who advocates the ‘right’ to abort Down syndrome babies: ‘The Nazis agreed with you’

Ruth Marcus, an editor with “The Washington Post,”  is under fire after writing an opinion editorial Friday titled “I would’ve aborted a fetus with Down syndrome. Women need that right.”

Marcus, a mother of two, began the piece by saying,”There is a new push in anti-abortion circles to pass state laws aimed at barring women from terminating their pregnancies after the fetus has been determined to have Down syndrome. These laws are unconstitutional, unenforceable — and wrong.”

She goes on to say that if she had found out during either one of her pregnancies that her unborn child had Down syndrome, she would have terminated the pregnancy, “without hesitation … tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been.”

Children with Down syndrome have “limited capacity for independent living and financial security; Down syndrome is life-altering for the entire family,” wrote Marcus. She added, “That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company.”

Glenn’s take:

“Yes … she’s in good company,” agreed a very sarcastic Glenn. “All the Nazis agreed with [her.] The Nazis passed a law in 1939 that you could kill these lives that ‘weren’t worth living’ … They started with the Down syndrome babies, those were prime targets.”

“But listen to this,” added Glenn. “By 1941, the German people stood up against the elites, the doctors, the hospitals and the nurses, and said you can’t kill children with disabilities and Down syndrome. So, no, she actually doesn’t have a lot of people who agree with her. She does have the Nazis, but not the German people of 1941.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So glad that you've tuned in today. Thank you so much.

I was really disturbed this weekend, all this weekend. I -- I read an op-ed in the Washington Post about abortion and -- and people who are standing against laws that say we shouldn't kill those with Down syndrome.

I don't -- I don't understand it. Look, if you don't want to take care of a child with Down syndrome, okay.

But there are people that would take a child with Down syndrome. There are. Lots of them.

To just say that it's -- hey, it's my right. I don't want to have this child. Okay. All right. This is a child. It's a child.

And I think we're so much worse off without a child. But because we're living in this post HEP modern world where there is no such thing as reason, there is no such thing as questioning, there is no such thing as truth, there is no such thing as reality, well, then, we can do whatever we want.

And this is really coming from the -- the universities.

They've been pushing it. But they've been pushing these kinds of things for a long time. Remember, the eugenics movement came from Germany.

And the reason why it came from Germany over here -- the reason how, in the 1880s, we started going to, you know, our elites went to school over in Germany. Our doctors went to school in Germany. And they were into this nihilistic, God is dead kind of thing. Misunderstanding what Nietzsche was saying.

Nietzsche actually was warning the people. God is dead. We've killed him. We've killed him. Now, what's our God?

That's a really important question. Now, what is our God? Because we are serving other gods. We are. Whether it's a political party or money or our jobs or whatever, we're serving another God. People who are saying, I think I can abort a Down syndrome child, you're serving the God of yourself. I want my time. I want my life that I was promised.

You weren't promised anything. And I think we're worse off without these children.

I'm going to do a special tonight. I want you to watch at 5 o'clock. I want to show you the history and where this leads. Where this leads. Because I did a lot of homework this weekend. Because it was really -- it really bothered me.

But I want to go back to -- Stu, do you have the professor from --

STU: Yeah. Some of the audio from that.

GLENN: Yeah, do you have that?

STU: Roger HEP Scrutin.

GLENN: Yeah. Roger Scrutin. Okay. So Roger Scrutin is a professor that says, you know, we've got a problem.

Now, he's speaking in Australia.

And he's saying, we have a problem. And I want to talk to you about it. But I can talk to you about it here, kind of, if everybody will stay rational. But I definitely can't have this conversation in America. So let's play cut one.

VOICE: One of the first things that happens when a totalitarian government takes over, is that the universities are cleaned up. That's to say, people who are doing that kind of thing, get thrown out. This is what happened when the Nazis took over the German universities and when the Soviets took over -- the communists took over the Russian universities.

And it was the case in eastern Europe in my day, with the sole exception of Poland, which had universities, which were the only universities where every professor was on the right. That was because the communists were everywhere.

But on the whole, this is the first move that the totalitarian mentality makes, to stop that kind of free-minded open scholarship in pursuit of truth. And it may be there has to be something like that.

You know, maybe after all in the Middle Ages, maybe theology was like that.

But the interesting thing about medevial theology is that it encouraged the intellectual method, despite its requirement of orthodoxy.

GLENN: So it's really interesting what he's saying is, whenever there's a totalitarian regime anywhere in the world, the first thing they do is take the universities. And the universities are meant to question, hold to the facts, and use scientific standards to be able to decide. And he is saying that we have rejected that, just the way they in some Europe, just the way they did in Russia, just the way they do in China, rejected those scientific standards. And we're entering a new dark age.

And, you know, that might sound like hyperbole, to those who might be listening on the left. But it's -- can you honestly say that scientific standards have been adhered to -- boy, this is controversial -- for -- for climate change.

I mean, I'm willing to look at the thermometer and say, okay. The thermometer is going up. The thermometer is going down. I'm not willing to project a weather pattern out over 100 years.

I'm not willing to look at weather or climate over 100 years because you've already been wrong.

STU: Well, you can look at it, you just to have apply the appropriate level of skepticism and uncertainty, which is not allowed.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. Then also you cannot shun those who have a different opinion. Scientific standards rely on you to say, okay. Wait a minute. Question. Question. Question. Is there any new data? Is there anything that's changing? Question. Question. Question.

We're not questioning anymore. And that should scare everyone. We need to question these things.

Now, I'm willing to -- I'm willing to say, okay. Global warming is happening. It makes sense to me that maybe man is playing a role in that. I don't think man is insignificant.

But I also don't think that the planets -- the planet will destroy us before we can destroy it. And I don't want that to happen. I want to do the things that we can do.

I'm willing to do those things. If you -- without even proving. It's good to take care of the planet. But if you prove to me that we are doing things, okay. So then, what's the next step?

What's the most effective thing we can do?

Well, stop eating meat. Get rid of farms. Okay. How come I'm not hearing that.

STU: Yeah. You very rarely do. And that's the same source, the UN, that gives us all the rest of it.

GLENN: So it doesn't happen because it doesn't entail $14 trillion of wealth being redistributed. That's why. There's no wealth redistribution when it comes to the farms. None.

STU: You don't need laws. You don't need more control. You just do it, right?

GLENN: Just stop. Just stop eating meat.

STU: And, of course, they won't. I mean, very rarely. It took Al Gore, what? Five or six -- it was longer than that. Ten years before he supposedly converted.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It would be interesting to know if that's actually true. But instead of being in a place where you can question things like that, we are in a place where the Australian government has provided a 19,000-dollar grant, to a playwright, who has written a play, entitled Kill Climate Deniers.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: The plot, a classic rock band takes the stage in parliament's house main hall. And 96 armed eco terrorists stormed the building and take the entire government hostage, threatening to execute everyone, unless Australia ends global warming.

GLENN: Is that more akin to the Dark Ages or to the Enlightenment?

STU: Of course, the Dark Ages.

GLENN: Of course. Of course it is. And that's exactly what we're being dragged back into.

We fought hard Asman. We fought hard (?) to get out of the Dark Ages, where somebody said, I know the answer, and you don't.

And I'm basing it on what was then known as something that you didn't use any of your senses, you couldn't see it, taste it, feel it, hear it. It was called nonsense.

And so we rejected all things that were nonsense. We fought hard to get out of the Dark Ages. And we are going back into it. And we are being led to slaughter.

And we -- we got to turn this around. Now, listen to what he says about women's studies, et cetera, et cetera.

VOICE: So we have been lucky (?), but is it the case that we still have them? We have seen the growth of an extraordinary number of new subjects in the university, in which the pursuit of truth seems to be secondary to something else. The other thing being the pursuit of some kind of political conformity.

If you take a subject like women's studies -- now, I know this is a controversial issue. But perhaps it can be talked about freely in this room. You can't talk about it freely in America on the whole.

Anyway, there is a subject, it's very difficult to imagine, that you would succeed in that subject, if you didn't have either at the outset or certainly in the conclusion, feminist opinions.

Now, there is -- it's a subject constructed around an ideology. It might be that this ideology is grounded in truth. Who knows? But to question it is something which is essentially made impossible, both by the curriculum and by the way of teaching it. And I think you'll find that there are quite a lot of subjects like that, growing in our universities, in which conformity to an orthodoxy takes precedence over intellectual method.

GLENN: He talks about, so what is the solution, that you replace the male hierarchy with female hierarchy? You replace the white hierarchy with the black hierarchy?

That's not -- that's not scientific. That's not thoughtful. That's nothing. That's truly nothing.

RADIO

Who is controlling THESE mentally incapacitated Democrats?!

Joe Biden — whether due to illness or age — seems to be mentally incapacitated which, according to Merriam-Webster, means ‘an absence of mental capacity.’ But it’s not just Joe. In fact, Stu argues that the mental abilities of current Senate candidate John Fetterman may be even worse. Plus, Kamala Harris can barely string together a cohesive thought, and Nancy Pelosi incoherently babbles as well. This leads Glenn to a very important question: With these mentally incapacitated Democrats, WHO THEN IS RUNNING AND CONTROLLING THE PARTY?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So let's take a look at the upcoming elections. How are things shaping up in the Senate, Stu?

STU: Very, very closely, Glenn. Very, very close races. A lot of toss-up states. A lot of very tight back and forth.

GLENN: Can we start with Fetterman, please?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Is it still really, really points? Is he still like three points ahead, or five points ahead?

STU: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: How is that possible?

STU: Thank you. Thank you.

GLENN: How is that possible? Sara, do you have that clip?

VOICE: The Eagles are so much better than the Eagles. Oh, my gosh. This guy can't function. Now, look, I mean, I'm wondering, who is really running the show? Who is running the Democratic Party?

Because you have Joe Biden who is -- I mean, he's there occasionally. You know what I mean? He's mentally there, occasionally. Other times, no idea.

Kamala Harris, no. She's not --

STU: She just blathers on and says nothing. We have an entire thing at Veepthoughts.com, of all her idiocy. She continually tries to talk, but can't say anything.

GLENN: Right. But Feinstein, gone.

STU: They've basically admitted, she isn't even doing the job anymore. Nancy Pelosi is hammered, half the time, allegedly. When she's making any speech.

GLENN: Hammered. Either that, or she just doesn't know what he's talking about. But I think it's hammered.

STU: And Fetterman is -- we constantly beat on Joe Biden's ability to get through speeches. He's remarkably better than John Fetterman at this, right now. John Fetterman can't speak. This is a deliberative body.

GLENN: So can I ask you a question?

And no offense meant here, by people, who are in this. But I don't want a special ed. class running my country. And that's pretty much what we have right now in the party right now. People who can no longer think clearly, for one reason or another.

STU: Yeah. They're all different reasons.

GLENN: But you can't run a country like this. You can't run a country like this.

STU: We've seen what happens when you try it. Right?

We've seen the last two years. We've seen the results of what happens when you attempt to do it this way. It doesn't work.

GLENN: And you have to ask yourself. Who is making the policies? Who is making the policies? I mean, I'm asking that rhetorically.

STU: The Taiwan policies are a good example of this. Who is making the Taiwan policy? Joe Biden keeps coming out and saying, over and over again, that we are -- our troops are going to go defend Taiwan if China attacks it. That's Joe Biden's policy. And then five minutes later. The White House and five other organizations, within our government, come out and say, that's not actually our policy. We swear. We swear. Then Joe Biden comes out and does another interview and says it again, and then he does it again and again. He's done it four or five times.

GLENN: Well, Lindsey -- this Lindsey Graham abortion bill, which we will get into some other day. This Lindsey Graham abortion bill, Joe Biden came out and said, it's stricter than my church's --

STU: No. The Catholic Church --

GLENN: How can that be stricter than the -- Catholic Church is no abortion? How can you be stricter? Death for abortion?

Well, I mean, how could it be stricter than that?

STU: No.

GLENN: That's not.

STU: No. This is just craziness. I mean, they're trying everything they can to throw you off of the scent of what you should actually be voting for.

GLENN: No. They are trying -- they're not trying -- they are lying to you. That's all that this is. They are lying to you. Stricter? It's a 15-week ban on abortion. It's after 15 weeks, you can't have abortions. That's more lenient than France! Okay. France has 13 weeks. This has 15. So to get people to vote for these clowns, they just have to lie to you.

How many times do they have to lie to you, before you wake up?

Some countries, it doesn't -- they never wake up.

GLENN: You mention the abortion policy. Let me just at least -- because this is a big election issue here.

There's a big story that's happening in Arizona right now. Which is one of the -- the biggest states, when it comes to the Senate. And, of course, the governor as well in Arizona. And there's a law from 1864, I think it was, that passed. That basically said no abortions for any reasons. Except, I think there's the life of the mother exception. And it can be penalized with something --

GLENN: Whipping. Horsewhipping.

The Border Patrol comes and whips you with your horses. While she's still laying in bed.

STU: And like, I think it's three to five years in prison, for someone who facilitates one of these abortions. Now, of course we got into the Roe vs. Wade era. This law was still in the books. Never got repealed. They never did anything about it. Now we're on the other side of it. It's Roe vs. Wade gets overturned. And they about it to -- they run it through the courts. And the courts say, yeah. This is still law. If you want to change a law, you can change a law. But currently, this is the law of the land. I must apply it. That's how the law works. You can repeal a law opinion you can pass a new law that overrides that law. Now, since then, Arizona has tried to go through with a 15-week ban. But as of right now, it looks like the law of the land is still this 1864 law.

GLENN: It can't be 1864. I don't think Arizona was a state --

STU: It was not a state when this was passed. It was a territorial.

GLENN: Territorial. Okay. So we go back to literally the Cowboy and Indian times.

STU: So -- but this is the law, and this is the way the law works.

GLENN: And you will not tie your horse up on the door of my saloon either.

STU: Now, of course, what we're talking about, is you'll have to go to California or somewhere else nearby, if you want to get your abortion, if you needed an abortion. If this law were to stay in place. So this is a back and forth. The left is trying so hard to make abortion the entire election here. Because, of course, they see this as -- some of the polling shows that the majority of people are against the Supreme Court decision, blah, blah, blah, blah. They only have a couple of issues here, they can run on. One is, they think they can run on Donald Trump, because half the country doesn't like him. They can run on abortion. That's all about all they have, right?

So they're trying to make it seem like. Now, no one will lock down when the Democrats have any lines on abortion. They never have to express their lines on it. Only Republicans have to come up with their lines on abortion. Democrats never have to say, they want it all the way to birth. Only Peter Doocy is the one who asks them about it.

GLENN: Because they don't have a line. It's not up to birth. It's not up to birth.

STU: No. Their opinions are far more unpopular than the Republican positions on this. But the media is assisting them on this.

And so there's a slew of Republicans, that are trying to find this middle ground, quote, unquote.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Lindsey Graham being one of them. Hey, let's pass a 15-week abortion ban. I'm sorry. Did we just spend the last 50 years, fighting over Roe vs. Wade so we could eliminate 8 percent of abortions. Is that what we did? I want to make sure I understand, this whole Roe vs. Wade fight all these years was, hey, if it works, across the entire country, we can eliminate 8 percent of abortions?

GLENN: May I just ask you a question, the Supreme Court said the federal government has no -- has to go to the state.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So why wouldn't this be overturned as well as unconstitutional?

STU: I think it probably would. Especially with this Supreme Court. But, again, what is the point of winning elections, if -- what is the point of welling an election. If you win election after election after election, and get all the Supreme Court justices in, and then they overturn Roe vs. Wade. And your big idea is, hey, what if we mess around at the very edges of the fringe, and eliminate a few super late-term abortions. Well, I mean, that's great. It's better than nothing. But clearly, that can't be the reason why we spent a half century battle to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Obviously, that can't be the end of this, right?

GLENN: No. Because at 15 weeks, we'll get better at technology, and we'll be able to save children before 15 weeks. We'll eventually be able to grow them in a jar, okay?

STU: Whether you can save them in a jar or not, it's still life, right?

GLENN: Right. I know. But as it gets closer and closer, to being able to just put that embryo and put it in a jar. And grow it in a jar. We know it's life. It's like --

STU: It gets harder and harder to deny.

GLENN: Now it's 15. What's it going to be in the future. This doesn't make any sense.

RADIO

Glenn: Why this man’s SHOCKING FBI arrest matters to YOU

Mark Houck, pro-life author and father of seven, was arrested in Philadelphia last year for allegedly shoving a pro-choice protester away from his young son. The charges were dropped, which makes his recent arrest story that much more terrifying. In this clip, Glenn details the shocking way Houck recently was taken into custody by the FBI for supposed FACE Act violations. But whether or not you agree with Houck’s pro-life stance, Glenn explains, this story has HUGE implications for every single American: ‘Is this the America you want?’ Glenn asks. ‘Because once YOU get out of line, you’ll be the one finishing the poem: When they came for me, there was no one left.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mark Hock, along with Ryan Marie Hock. Seven children. Mark's a well-known pro-life author, sidewalk counselor, father of seven. And thank goodness the S.W.A.T. team came into his house. Yes. Yes. Came into his house. Broke the door down.

Scared the hell out of the family, and he is in jail today!

Apparently, he violated the Face Act. Now, I wanted to understand exactly what the face act is. So I looked it up. Let me see if I can find it here. Face act. No. It was moved.

That's helpful. So the Face Act, basically what the Face Act is. I don't know where it was moved to. But basically the Face Act is something that the local governments and even the federal government, can bring up charges on, if you are trying to block somebody from going into an abortion clinic.

STU: Freedom of access to clinic entrances.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Freedom, yeah. What is -- can we stop naming them stupid names?

STU: Are we so dumb, that we need to summarize --

GLENN: We are. Okay. So you can't block somebody from having access. Well, he didn't block anybody from having access. There was another street performer, somebody else who was screaming at the other side.

And he and his son were there, and they were praying. And this activist, who was not going into the Planned Parenthood.

Wasn't escorting anybody. He starts screaming at mark and his son. And not sure exactly, what happened.

But it got to a place, where this guy had cornered Mark's son. And Mark said, back off. Back off. The guy doesn't back off, so he shoves Mark.

Now, word is, this guy is -- what do they call him, a tumbler? I think.

He's a guy who, if you touch him, he falls down. Oh. Oh, my gosh --

STU: A flopper. A flopper. He's like the Lebron James of the abortion clinics.

GLENN: Apparently. Apparently.

STU: Allegedly.

GLENN: Allegedly.

Okay. Thank you. So the police come, and they arrest the father of seven, for pushing this man to the ground. Planned Parenthood has got it all on tape. They got it on tape. So it goes to trial. And the case is dismissed.

Wait a minute.

I haven't heard that part of the story. The case was dismissed. I thought the FBI. Oh. Oh, yeah. The Justice Department, heard about this case. And thought it was so egregious, that if the local police and state police won't do anything about it, we certainly will.

So they went in, kicking and screaming, into this house, of this family.

They -- 25 or 30 FBI agents swarmed the property, 15 vehicles. It's 7 o'clock in the morning. They surround the house with rifles, in firing position. And they start pounding on the door, yelling for the family to open up the door.

And he approaches.

Now, the kids are upstairs. Everybody is screaming and crying.

And he's telling them to calm down, and he's trying to calm the FBI down as well. He says, please, I am going to open the door. But please, my children are in the home. I have seven babies in the house. And they just kept pounding and screaming. The FBI did.

When he opened the door, according to him, they had big, huge rifles, pointed at him and pointed at mom. And then they went into the house, and were pointing them throughout the house.

When they came in, they ordered the kids to stay upstairs. The staircase is open. So the kids were all at the top of the stairs, which faces the front door.

I was on the stairs as well, coming down. Kids were all just screaming. It was very scary and traumatic. After asking why they were at the house, the agents said, they had to have been there to arrest Mark. When mom asked for their warrant. They said they were going to take him, whether they had a warrant or not.

When she said, that's kidnapping. You can't just come into a person's house and kidnap them at gun point, they agreed to get the warrant from -- for her, from one of the vehicles.

Oh. Good. At this point, Mark asked her to get him a sweatshirt, and his rosary beads. When she returned, they had already loaded him up into the vehicle.

Now, what did this guy do again, that warranted this?

Our friends, who voted for Democrats, is this the America that you want? Any friend who votes differently, any American citizen that votes differently, do you want a guy getting his door kicked in, after the charges were dismissed in court? Do you want the FBI kicking down his door for pushing a guy, who was yelling at his son. Pushing him down for the ground?

I'm not for violence. He's not for violence. He's reason been violent before.

It was a dad responding. The court dismisses it. Is this the America that you want?

Because once you get out of line, once you decide, if we don't all stand together now, you're not going to make it. You'll be the one finishing the poem, when they came for me, there was no one left. You will be the one finishing the poem. You have to stand up now. We have to stand up together. And say, the Department of Justice. And the FBI is completely out of control.

I don't think the Postal Service, should be spying on American people.

Another whistle-blower has come out from the FBI. To warn about the politicalization of the FBI. Saying, the bureau is spying on law-abiding citizens and that many of its domestic counterterrorism cases are tantamount to entrapment. Another FBI agent is coming out and saying this now. This is an interview with the Washington Times. Quote, my team was deployed 20 or 25 different high profile national terrorist organizations. Investigating what I saw, is the -- the counterterrorism and investigations. Is always and unequivocally morally equivalent to entrapment, even if there's legal definition that allows them to skirt that. They are using every tool.

Isn't this what people did to Martin Luther King?

Isn't this what people did when the government was completely out of control in the past? And isn't this exactly what others did to their political enemies in every country that has ever been run by thugs?

I still believe in America. I still believe in my neighbor. I still believe in the neighbor that votes differently than me.

I -- I think that there are a lot of people, that are feeling it now. But they don't know what to do. And they don't know if they want to lose all their friends. Their status. Because they're not really sure. Reassure them, that you're not the crazy one. Reassure them. Don't try to change their mind.

Just ask them questions. Are you really -- are you really for the transgender -- you're really okay with hospitals mutilating young children, when there is no scientific proof that this is good? In fact, if you're trying to stop suicides, this makes suicides worse. You really -- I don't understand. And even if you're for that. Help me out on the trans library parties. I'm not for banning books. I don't want to ban books at libraries. Books where, in the children's section at a school. Yeah. There are books. I'm not going to put a Playboy there. You wouldn't put a Playboy there. Then why would you put this? It's much more explicit than a Playboy. And it's showing kids how to engage in all kinds of different sex. For first grade, third grade. Really? You're for that now?

Wake your friends up. Wake them up. Because first they came for the January 6 protesters. Even the peaceful ones. And they charged them with parading. And I didn't speak out. Then they came for the gun rights supporters, and I didn't speak out. Because I wasn't a gun owner. Then they came for the pro-life activists, and I didn't speak out or stand up because, yeah, I'm pro-life. But I'm not an activist. Now they come for people who voted for Trump, but I didn't vote for Trump. I got news for you, that's 50 percent of the nation. You add in the hatred of white people, Asians. Cisgender, and gays that don't support trans, shown in libraries, that's an awful lot of people.

Who will be left to defend you?

RADIO

NO, Italy’s new prime minister is NOT a fascist. Here’s why.

The mainstream media is going into OVERDRIVE trying to convince the world that Italy’s newly elected prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, is a fascist. In this clip, Glenn explains what Meloni ACTUALLY believes, breaking down her ‘radical’ views that have put the far-left into a tailspin. But if you know the real definition of fascism, Glenn explains, you may realize that Meloni actually is against fascism and has vowed to stand against it. So, who are the real radicals?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Have you guys noticed anything?

Because I have. The prime minister. The new prime minister of Italy. Yeah. That was a triggering event for the left apparently. Now, I want -- I just -- see if any of these sound anything alike. CNN has described her as at least most far right minister since Mussolini. The New York Times, the country's first far right leader since Mussolini. Variety, most far right minister since Benito Mussolini. See, it's completely different.

LA Times, she's the first far right leader since Mussolini. The Daily Beast. The first far right leader since Mussolini. The Washington Post. She's going to set up the first far right government since Mussolini. The Atlantic. The return of fascism in Italy. NBC News compared her to patriot front, and said her party, the brothers of Italy, can trace its roots back to a fascist party, founded by supporters, of Mussolini. The guardian called it a party with a neofascist origin.

Wow! She must be as bad as Mussolini!

Okay. Wow. What -- what exactly is she for? Because they hate her.

I mean, almost as much as they hate Donald Trump, who is just like, say it with me, Adolf Hitler.

The main characteristics of actual fascism, is widespread media propaganda. Okay?

That's one side. Widespread media propaganda. In the origins of totalitarianism. This is by Hannah Arendt. She describes fascism as a totalitarian organization, that is designed to translate the propaganda lies of the movement, woven around a central fiction, into a functioning reality. A society whose members act and react according to the rules of this fictitious world. I don't know what she's talking about!

I haven't seen anything like that since I don't know, this morning. Now, this isn't new to the media. They call Trump a fascist. They label Ron DeSantis a fascist.

Everybody is a fascist!

Unless you agree with the state. Okay. So what does she stand for?

Her slogan is, God, father land, and family. A-ha! The old father land creeps in, yeah?

In other words, God, country, family. In her words, I am Georgia. I'm a woman. I'm a mother. I'm an Italian. I'm a Christian. And you can't take that away from me.

Long answer is: She's concerned about saving the country from its energy crisis. And listen to this.

The government's high debt and avoiding dependence on the European Central Bank. There I said it.

Oh, my gosh. The central bank. You know what that's code for.

Jews! Yeah. That's what fascists always want to get rid of. The banking committee is always run by Jews. And all conservatives, and fascists know it.

Yet, that's not what she's saying. Surprisingly. Not what she's saying. She's saying, the central banks are controlling the world.

Now, I know that comes as a complete and total shock, to almost everybody. Well, it would as a shock to everybody, who isn't listening, and they're the people who get pissed off at me more than anybody else. All those people who don't listen.

So, anyway, the dependence on the European Central Bank, which is causing all sorts of problems. Just as, oh, I don't know. Our central bank, the fed is causing problems. She championed the promise to maintain fiscal discipline. She's opposed to increasing government spending. In other words, she's a fiscal conservative.

Italy has the third largest economy in the European Union. She wants to keep it that way. She is a threat to the EU, which is a threat to the New World Order. Klaus Schwab!

Oh, my gosh. Is that what she is? One of her biggest fights is to end Italy's recent history of technocratic governments. In other words, she wants to fight fascism.

How could she be a fascist, if she wants to fight fascism?

But you're not going to hear about these positions. The Wall Street Journal is one of the few sources, talking about the real reasons that she appeals to it's not. Like most in the sane world, they have shifted towards parties with clear pro-western stances. Huh.

Clear pro-western stances.

Do you mean the Italians are tired of hearing about how their culture is just humdrum?
How there's nothing really special about Italians? That they should ply the European Union flag proudly, and forget their little green and white and red. Flag Mexico has one. Why do you need one too?

People love that. Newsweek said, her victory is Putin's best-case scenario, which is kind of puzzling, considering she's pro-Ukraine. And has advocated sending aid to Ukraine.

She's against abortion, euthanasia. And radical gender ideology.

In -- according to a speech in Reuters, Reuters are described her -- her voice, raising to a crescendo of, you will comply!

Wow! In that speech, she was so angry, she said, let's say yes to natural families. No to the LGBT lobby. Yes to sexual identity. No to gender ideology. Yes to the culture of life. No to the abyss of death. Wow. She's a hater.

No to the violence of Islam. Yes to safer borders. No to mass immigration. Yes for work for our people. No international finance. Hmm. Sounds like another win for someone who is not a fascist. But is being called a fascist. So what it is fascism? Well, for one, it doesn't actually exist in any one form. It hadn't been in practice for about 40 years. It's starting to look a little like America.

But it hasn't held sway since World War II. The doctrine of fascism, from Mussolini, he called it the third way.

Fascism, totalitarianism.

It's a union between the spirit of the people, and the power of the state. So almost like a public/private partnership. With pronounced nationalism supported by a robust military infrastructure, where the function of a citizen and a soldier are the same.

Now, Mussolini describes it as everything in the state, nothing against the state, and nothing outside the state.

So let's see, everything is the state. So that would be like football?

Would be kind of run by the state. Or at least you would have to be, you know, for the state. Nothing against the state. So you couldn't say, hey. No, I -- I -- I don't hate America. I don't want to put, you know, a Black Lives Matter in every end zone.

You see. You couldn't do that. In a fascist country, you couldn't say, no. This doctor is against masks, because he knows that this is complete and total bullcrap. See, in a fascist state, you wouldn't be able to have that. You would have those people eliminated or silenced. Yes? Yeah?

A little bit of silence for you. So let's see. I'm confused. We were nothing outside the state. Everything in the state. Nothing against the state. Okay. I think I have that. Fascism. Listen to this one. Makes everything political.

Huh. Huh. You mean like art and television, and sports?

And history? And sex. Wow.

It's almost like everything is political. Health, as a reason for an emergency.

Every part of society serves the state. Science, for instance, according to Mussolini, is only useful when it confirms fascistic ideas.

You mean like climate change and vaccine mandates and gender surgeries!

Oh, my gosh. This is crazy. Who would have known?

Fascism is partly motivated by a disdain for socialism. But Mussolini also saw democracy as a failure, because it equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number. He believed the purest form of democracy, the nation is considered from the point of view of quality, rather than quantity. They have no time for individualism.

You know, that's a right-wing belief, isn't it? To them, what matters is the collective. But the collective led by an authoritarian in conjunction with the state.

Oh! FDR used to go by this definition. Fascism is ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any other controlling private power.

So if our government was owned by let's say, oh. A partnership between government officials in a party. And like big business. Then that would be fascism according to FDR. Oh, it's a good thing we're a long way away from that. Fascism doesn't believe in God given rights. Because they generally don't believe in God.

Oh, she does. I do. That's weird. Also, because rights are something they get from the state. I don't believe that. Do you? Does she?

And the state decides who gets rights. By the way, Mussolini was an atheist. Strangely, so was Hitler. So, in other words, Glenn, what you're saying, is that it's not really right-wing.

No. It doesn't really sound like it to me. It's also not really left-wing. Mussolini saw it as beyond left and right. Which is why it's called the third position or third way. An alternate path, between capitalism and Eastern bloc communism.

Now, here's the great thing: I'm going to wrap it up with this. Can you imagine living in this world. In fascism, there is no objective truth. What kind of crazy world would that be?

It's only their lived truth, which they then turn into law. They control the media, and they control it through a party of elites.
(laughter)
Oh, man. Wow. I can't even imagine a country like this. Or a party, that would be advocating for those things. You know.

Dodged a bullet in the head on that one. Because we're nothing like fascists.

RADIO

Intel expert EXPOSES FBI leadership for ‘WEAPONIZING POWER’

Richard Grenell is no stranger to government corruption. In fact Grenell, former Acting Director of National Intelligence, tells Glenn how he witnessed corruption within the FBI firsthand. The deception that’s plaguing the D.C. swamp, he says, is thanks to department leaders weaponizing their power, not the rank and file agents below them. Grenell discusses how those leaders are using their stature or ‘crush dissent,’ and he explains why he believes the FBI — and U.S. agencies like it — CAN one day be rid of such politically partisan deceit…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Richard Grenell. Richard, how are you, sir?

RICHARD: Thanks for having me, Glenn. Is one of my favorite times, is to have a long conversation with you.

GLENN: I appreciate it. You're welcome on this program, any time.

I've got so much to talk to you about, but let me start here first with your thoughts on what is happening with the FBI, between Mar-a-Lago, and now the pro-life advocate, who had the -- the FBI come into his house. Even though his attorney said, he'll come in, any time, just tell us when.

RICHARD: Yeah. It's really outrageous. Look, we have to start and finish this conversation, by saying that the rank-and-file FBI agents are very good patriots, who love their country. Who do not want partisan politics involved in the investigations. No weaponization of the tools of the FBI and DOJ. But unfortunately, the leadership, I saw firsthand, the leadership is not like that. Look, we have a system, whether it's DOJ, or the FBI, or the State Department, or the Department of Defense, in order to get promoted in the swamp, you have to do certain things that the swamp wants you to do. You just tonight get promoted up the chain. Which means pay increases. Which means better retirement. It means a bigger salary and a bigger office. All of those accouterments that we value as humans. And so Washington, DC, has created a system, that unless you abide by their rules, which is woke rules, which is always going after Republicans. This is the system that is created in our bureaucracy, and people are eager to climb that ladder, so they play that game. But I will tell you, we have a crisis, at DOJ, and at the FBI because they have weaponized their power against people they don't like. It's crushing dissent. And look for further, Glenn, then first and second generations, who are the canaries in the coal mine. They have left fascism and totalitarianism. They're the ones on the front lines, screaming about the Democratic Party.

GLENN: I know they are.

RICHARD: The media. And the problems in Washington, DC. They see it. They left it.

GLENN: So can we rid ourselves from it? I mean, you were front and center in this fight, when Trump was in office.

You know it from the inside as the DNI. So can we crush this?

RICHARD: Yeah. We can. And the reason why I say that, is because I -- I staged the rank-and-file. Look, I will tell you a really quick story. When I was declassifying certain transcripts and certain information, I looked at the information. And it was clear to me, it was not a source of how we collect intelligence. And it was not a method on how we gathered it.

And I went straight to the DOJ, and FBI leadership. And I said, I have the authority. I'm going to declassify this information. And both Barr and Ray just really said no. Not a good idea. They started by doing the bureaucratic thing of delaying me. Asking, you know, stupid questions, that just were clearly a bureaucracy. Shoving me off on their deputies, who would then create more bureaucracy. I was no dummy. I knew what they were doing. So I pushed forward for a meeting with the rank-and-file FBI agents, whose names had then clearly attached to the redactions and to the -- and to the classified information blocking, and I -- and I had a meeting. I pushed forward. Looked them in the eye. And I said, why did you classify -- why did you redact this information?

It's clearly -- they looked at me, across the table at the Department of Justice, and said, we didn't -- we don't agree with that.

We didn't want to do that. Our bosses did.

GLENN: Hmm.

RICHARD: There were wimpy people in leadership, who hide behind the top decisions, by throwing other people under the bus. As soon as I heard that, I said, I'm unredacting this. This is an outrage. This is a cover-up.

And, of course, you know, the leadership was not supportive, but I didn't care. They threatened to -- to sue me, or expose me as someone who is sharing classified information. I said, oh, baloney. I'll challenge you. And, by the way, once I did it. Once I unredacted it, once I released it to the public, and everybody saw that there was a cover-up of the Russian collusion hoax, no one sued me. They threatened to. They tried to stop me. But the reality is, in telling you this story, is that the rank-and-file, know there's a problem. They hate it. But this is their life. They live in Washington, DC. And this is their career. And, you know, everything they know, and their family needs, is in this job. And they will be thrown out. And it will be very difficult for them. So we need leadership change. The long answer to say, yes. It can be done. We need leadership change.

GLENN: Do I have -- do I have Attorney General Barr wrong?

Because I met with him. And I really liked him. I thought he was an honest guy. And, but there were a few things that didn't quite make sense to me. And we've seen nothing come out of the investigations that, you know, he was supposedly protecting. Do I have him wrong? Is he a bad guy?

RICHARD: Look, I'm somebody that recognizes that there are a gray patterns. Everything is not black and white. I sat next to Attorney General Barr in the cabinet. He was incredibly nice to me. He was incredibly complimentary of my brave and courageous work. And I think relatively supportive. But there were times, when he as someone who values Washington, DC, he is somebody who wanted to have a life, still in the Washington, DC, legal circles.

Couldn't get past tradition.

GLENN: Right.

RICHARD: And I think that's the best way to say it. Is there are people trapped by tradition, who don't want to support the outsiders. And to me, Barr failed that test too many times.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you. With the DOJ and Donald Trump, I mean, it -- it seems as though, the DOJ was very nervous about what Donald Trump had. And they have gone after him, because he's got something on them. Right?

RICHARD: Because of tradition. Look, the record acts people are total hypocrites. You look at how they treated Obama. And it's completely activity than how they treated Trump.

GLENN: Correct.

RICHARD: Think of the records act people, as the ultimate swamp creatures to control.

Here is a group of people, who are literally saying, we bureaucrats, must collect and approve what the president of the United States does.

I'm sorry. That's crazy. The president of the United States, doesn't report to anyone, when it comes to classifying information, or declassifying information.

This is clear in the law. But it's not clear in the tradition of Washington, DC. These traditionalists. These people, well, everybody believes to the record X people. And, you know, we are people that get to control this. It's a control thing.

Washington, DC, doesn't do well, when people throw out tradition, and try to fight for the people, rather than for the process.

GLENN: So did -- was the FBI trying to cover their tracks?

RICHARD: Yeah. Look, on a daily basis, all of the agencies in Washington, DC, including the FBI and DOJ, they classify information when they look bad, so it doesn't get out to the public. You have people like Adam Schiff who play along with this. And who only leak certain information that helps the Democrats. It happens on the right as well.

But what we're seeing is that the swamp attitude, is a protection of the system. And so, yeah. They don't want the bad PR, that they made -- a really bad decision early on with the FISA warrant. There was so many -- there were so many warnings early on, that the Russian collusion hoax was a hoax. Perpetrated by Hillary's people, throughout the government. Victoria new land, who was the assistant Secretary of State for Europe at the time.

GLENN: Right.

RICHARD: Who ushered in the Steele dossier in London. And guess who else was the station chief at that time in London?

Was Gina Haspel, who became the CIA director.

GLENN: Jeez.

RICHARD: So you've really got this swamp mentality of protecting Hillary, early on. Trying to come up with every way they can, to make sure that Hillary wins.

And DOJ leadership, FBI leadership, playing along, because the system in DC wanted Hillary. She's been Secretary of State.

GLENN: Right.

RICHARD: She was somebody they knew. And she had a team. And the team was --

GLENN: It was also though, because this -- at least it seems to me, that this great reset. This ESG system, is in play, all over the world.

And, you know, I think this is why they're going after anyone -- I mean, look what's happening. Look what happened with -- what was it? The Swedish elections. Now the Italian elections.

People are starting to say, we don't want your central bank telling us what to do. We don't want the government to collude with business and the central bank. It's -- it's not what we're looking for.

RICHARD: And, by the way, by the way, if the European Union or the Central Bank or the Fed were making decisions about the people, I don't think you would see the pushback.

GLENN: You wouldn't. You wouldn't.

RICHARD: But over time. Let's just take corporate America, Glenn. You and I know Republicans have been very supportive of corporate America. Lower taxes. Lower taxes. And chamber of commerce events. And then the corporate America went the way of the media. And our universities.

They're completely woke. They're not for the people. They're for their own power. We all see it. Why are Republicans still wanting to fight, for corporate America, and lower taxes for corporate America?

I'm not there. I'm done with it. I'm done with this woke. Look, I think the counterculture is now conservative.

Because the big man controls the universities. The media. Wall Street. Corporate America. Everything.

If you want to be a '60s hippie that goes after the big man, and does your own thing, you better be a conservative, to this day. This is what Bill Maher is like abandoning the left.