Interview shocker: Debra Medina




Debra Medina

GLENN: I want to talk to you about your state elections for a second. I've got calls. I get hammered every single day from all sides. This has not been a friend nor has it ever been a show that has friends. We don't have any friends. I mean, I still have some friends, but we don't and that is because we don't pull any punches, we don't we're not out to make friends. We're here to tell the truth. And sometimes people are good, sometimes people are bad. I don't ever endorse anybody, nor do I want to. I'll tell you what I think about individuals but I don't endorse them. I don't lend my credibility to anybody. I struggle to keep my credibility with myself. For instance, Jim DeMint, I like the guy. I think he's the real deal. Could Jim DeMint would I like to recommend that we never let Jim DeMint go to Argentina? Yeah, yeah. Do I think he's going to be, you know, do you think he's got some babe on the side in Argentina? No. But I didn't think Sanford did, either! I mean, you don't know the heart of an individual. The way you can judge them is really through their record.

Now, we've got a lot of people coming up out of the out of nowhere that have no record at all. So now what do you do? How do you judge these people? For instance, in Texas Rick Perry who's always been kind to me, always been nice, I think I've been the same to him, I think I've been fair, he's been fair with me. The things that I have witnessed firsthand on Rick Perry I like. For instance, we were standing backstage and at one point we were talking about the guy, you know, the guy who's getting the death penalty. What was the guy's name that killed all those people in Houston, the illegal immigrant, Pat?

PAT: There's several. Are you talking about Angel what's his face?

GLENN: Yeah, got the death penalty, Bush tried to push it off. And Rick Perry said to me, "I'll throw the switch myself. He is going to die." And I loved him for that.

PAT: And he did.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: He did.

GLENN: He's bad on the border. You know, I think he talks out of both sides of his mouth on that. However, he's great right now talking about the Tenth Amendment. States rights. I want to believe that he's right on that, that he would do it. But you are in a campaign, so you don't know. Now we have somebody who had 4% of the vote, has no money for ad campaigns and now she's up to in three, four weeks she's up to 24%? I know Kay Bailey Hutchison, forget about it. That's just, I'm sure she's a very nice lady. I've had her on the show before. I just, I'm not impressed with her at all. And again I don't mean anything about her personally, I just don't think she's the answer for Texas. So I guess for me it would be between Debra and Rick. Wanted to get Debra on the phone because I don't know anything about her.

Welcome to the program, Debra Medina. How are you?

MEDINA: Great. Good to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Tell me a little bit about yourself because, you know, the tea party people, they are coming out of the woodwork. People are just popping up, and I think that's good but it's also a little dangerous because we don't know anything about you. Tell me who you are.

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, long time Republican Party grassroots activist from South Texas, entered the gubernatorial race a year ago today, which was before the first tea parties because I saw neither Kay Hutchison or Rick Perry bringing conservative constitutional government to our state. Had been watching both of them in office for a long time and I've got to take issue with you saying the governor's strong on states rights. He has said we're not going to nullify, we're not going to interpose. He hasn't done anything to stop the federal government as it steps time and time again outside the Constitution. He's been in office for nine years. And even in the first debate when he was specifically asked whether or not he would stand to stop healthcare, he declined to do that. We're looking to see what's going to happen. All of America knows there's no constitutional basis for nationalizing healthcare. He's singing a song for the campaign and I think most of Texas sees that. I've been very gratified to have people from all over the state standing shoulder to shoulder with me. That's how we take back our country and that's what's happening here in Texas.

GLENN: Okay. The question was tell me about you. Who are you?

MEDINA: Registered Nurse, grassroots activist, 20 years in Republican Party, grassroots politics from south Texas, businesswoman, wife, mother, rancher, farmer, grew up on a farm, learned the value of hard work early, married, two kids.

GLENN: What did you you say small business person. What did you do in small business?

CALLER: I'm a Registered Nurse. I worked in and around corporate healthcare since 1984, private for profit healthcare. I opened a small business in Wharton which is a town of about 12,000 people just southwest of Houston, Texas. I do medical billing and consulting for a living. My clients are physicians and ambulance services, insurance companies and attorneys looking at the pricing, revenue, payment of healthcare as well as quality issues. So still actively practicing Registered Nurse in the State of Texas.

GLENN: Why is your what are your policies? I mean, what do you say, this is what we've got to do right now?

MEDINA: Oh, I say that we've got to understand first what protects freedom and what destroys it. And I believe that the two essential elements of freedom are private property ownership and gun ownership. They are as essential to freedom as air and water are to life. We don't own our property in Texas. We've got one of the highest property tax rates in the country and we've had tremendous abuse of eminent domain under Governor Perry's leadership. I'm sure you've heard about the trans Texas corridor, the NAFTA superhighway, but there's others. There's lots of disrespect and disregard. I think even the border, the immigration issue, the illegal immigration issue bubbles up into private property rights. That land along the Texas border is someone's farm or ranch. It is private property. And you cannot trespass on someone else's property. Come through the gate, the legal port of entry. So we've got to restore private property ownership in Texas. We need to eliminate property taxes here.

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait.

MEDINA: That's been the cornerstone of this campaign and then we can get into talking about all the things we're going to do to reestablish a proper relationship between a sovereign state and a limited federal government.

GLENN: Okay. Debra, help me out. You don't have any income tax in Texas.

MEDINA: Correct.

GLENN: So if you are going to reduce the property tax or eliminate the property tax, what are you replacing it with?

MEDINA: You are going to find the government with the thing that is the best model of funding government. That's a consumption or a sales tax. It is the tax that creates the least amount of drag on the economy. It's the tax that is most fair and most easily borne by the citizens. So we need legislation in Texas that will rescind the authority to levy a property tax and create or broaden the authority to raise the necessary revenue. I'm all about cutting spending, but I know people get very nervous when you talk about changing funding structures and mechanisms. Even in Texas when you look at eliminating property tax and doing a revenue neutral, getting the same dollars out of a sales tax, we will see a $3 billion increase in net personal income and add 150,000 real jobs to the Texas economy.

GLENN: What kind of sales tax

MEDINA: They have talked about the new jobs and the great jobs situation that we have in Texas, but the reality is we have lost 14,000 jobs in the private sector in Texas. We have added 156,000 government sector jobs. Our job growth has come entirely in the government sector. 14,000 few private sector employees supporting 156,000 more government sector employees. That's not a healthy economy in any free society. Get property tax eliminated, do revenue neutral sales tax, and you will see 150,000 new jobs, $3 billion net personal income increase in the first year.

GLENN: I have when I said that I was going to have you on, you can't imagine the mail pro and con that I received. There was a theme that ran against you and that is you are a 9/11 Truther.

MEDINA: Well, there's lots of mud that people would like to throw at Debra Medina and make stick. The truth is I'm an everyday ordinary person. I am fighting for the things that our founders fought for, those very basic principles of a constitutional republic, and I'm going to champion people that hold their government accountable, hold me accountable but that's the first time I've heard that accusation. So that's an interesting one.

GLENN: Right. Here's then let me be more frank and ask you the question: Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?

MEDINA: I don't, I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.

GLENN: I think the people of America might think that might be a yes.

MEDINA: Well

GLENN: Do you have advisors, do you have advisor

MEDINA: I'm not going to take a position.

GLENN: That's fine.

MEDINA: These questions have been raised and they are not answered.

GLENN: Do you have advisors that advise you or people that are around you that are 9/11 Truthers?

MEDINA: Not to my knowledge.

GLENN: Would you, if you found out that there were, would you disavow them like the president should have but I mean, he escorted them out in the middle of the night. Van Jones was a 9/11 Truther. If you found out that people around you are advising you were 9/11 Truthers, would you disavow them or allow them to continue to advise you?

MEDINA: Well, you know, that's a federal issue. We're very focused on issues in Texas, on Texas state government. I'm certainly not into mind control or thought policing people.

GLENN: No, that's a pretty big one.

MEDINA: We've got a very diverse team in this state and that's because Texans are standing shoulder to shoulder to support and defend the Constitution. I frankly don't have time, you know, to go through and do psychological testing on people and know every thought or detail that they have.

GLENN: No, I don't think it's psychological at all.

MEDINA: I don't see us having a team of radical individuals, if you will. I think that there are certainly some that are looking, trying to use scare tactics. I you know, are there people?

GLENN: No, I don't think they're scare tactics. Debra, you've answered the question.

MEDINA: Yeah, are there people that have tried to come and be a part of our team

GLENN: Right.

MEDINA: that have not gotten on the team? Absolutely there are. But I can't

GLENN: Yeah, I understand. Debra, you've answered the question.

MEDINA: You know, I don't know. That's so out of context, it's difficult for me to answer.

GLENN: There's

MEDINA: I think it would depend on, you know, how vocal they were about that and how much I thought it colored whatever other talent they brought to the table.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay, Debra, thank you very much. I appreciate it and best of luck to you.

MEDINA: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Bye bye. I think

PAT: Problematic?

GLENN: While I don't endorse anyone

PAT: Problematic?

GLENN: I think I can write her off the list. Let me take another look at Kay Bailey Hutchison if I have to. Rick, I think you and I could French kiss right now.

PAT: Let me tell you something. He's a damn handsome man.

GLENN: He's a damn handsome man.

PAT: Looks good in a pair of jeans.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: He's a handsome man.

GLENN: Wow. The fastest way back to 4%.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: I mean, and we're going to I'm going to hear from people in Texas. How can you take her we just asked the question!

GLENN: Asked the question.

PAT: Because we got all the rumors, I expected her to say oh, absolutely not.

STU: Even if you are a Truther, there's an easy answer to that

PAT: That is not what she said.

STU: which is of course not; what are you talking

PAT: Absolutely not, I am not a 9/11 Truther.

GLENN: I mean, but at least give her credit.

STU: Give her credit, she told the truth.

GLENN: Give her credit for telling the truth.

PAT: She didn't lie. Yeah, she didn't lie.

GLENN: But you know what? If you believe the United States government blew up the World Trade Center, there should be no other higher priority, no other higher priority.

PAT: And I don't want to hear from you if you are a 9/11 Truther on her side.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Save your e mails.

Avenatti arrested: The lawyer now needs a lawyer

David McNew/Getty Images

At this point, I think there are about - oh - four thousand potential Democrats that may try and run for president in 2020. But we can probably take one off the list. "The creepy porn lawyer", also known by some as Michael Avenatti, was arrested yesterday afternoon in Los Angeles. And the reason why he was arrested kind of makes you think there's some kind of invisible force out there that's making sure either irony or maybe even karma is receiving it's daily offering. Michael Avenatti was just arrested for… Domestic Violence.

The alleged victim filed the complaint on Wednesday, but the incidents began on Tuesday. The woman involved is said to have bruising and swelling on her face and was kicked out of Avenatti's Los Angeles area apartment. Avenatti could be heard screaming, "This is BS, this is effing BS! She hit me first!"

RELATED: THIS spotlight hound masquerading as an attorney just got laughed out of court

Yeah, I don't think the whole "she hit me first" line is going to be a good strategy to use in court. He might want to revise that… I'm just saying.

You know, I wonder if the media - specifically CNN and MSNBC - are going to be doing any mea culpa's over the next 12 to 24 hours? They basically became Avenatti's PR wing over the past 8 months. From March to May, the two networks had Avenatti on the air over 100 times. He gave 147 interviews on both cable and network TV. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell actually said quote, "Michael Avenatti is becoming my co-host. I've got to say."

And this was actually before he dragged Julie Swetnick into the limelight to attack Kavanaugh. You know I wonder, will this teach networks like CNN and MSNBC to maybe take a step back on over hyping and exposing every crazy, and even salacious, person or claim that comes out simply because it may be anti-Trump or GOP? Could this be a learning moment? Yeah… probably not, but one can dream.

And speaking of Kavanaugh, I've got to read this twitter exchange between one user and Avenatti on October 5th that said:

Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and it's Michael Avenatti's fault. Seriously.

And then Avenatti replied:

You are right. I should have turned my back on my client. Told her to "shut up" and stay quiet because people like you apparently believe assault victims are to blame. This line of thinking is disgusting and offensive to all survivors.

Well that was then and this is today. Here is Avenatti's statement last night.


Michael Avenatti: 'I Have Never Struck A Woman' | NBC News youtu.be

Umm, in the court of Avenatti, #metoo and public opinion now a days - by the standard that he helped create - is this statement not "disgusting and offensive to all survivors" as he tweeted back in October? Is he not immediately guilty as accused? I wonder if all the men and women screaming at Kavanaugh and GOP Senators in elevators can now see the pandora's box that they wanted opened.

The answer is no… he's NOT guilty as accused. Avenatti is innocent of this crime… UNTIL he's found guilty. We have to presume he's innocent until all evidence comes out proving he's not. That's how this works. Let's lead by example and do something radical here… let's actually wait for all the information and evidence to come out before we convict someone of a crime.

And that right there is the real irony here. Avenatti will get the due process that he deserves, but I doubt neither he - nor anyone screaming for Kavanaugh's head - will realize what happened.

It's been a busy week for former First Ladies, and for current First Lady Melania Trump. It has also been busy for one woman who, twenty-odd years ago, while working at the White House for then-President at the age of 21, shot to fame in the most embarrassing way possible.

Monica Lewinsky has released "The Clinton Affair," a docuseries that premieres this weekend on A&E;, a six-part series examining those cringe-inducing days and months surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton.

RELATED: The #MeToo movement proves to be too strong for the Clinton apologists

In an article for Vanity Fair early this year, she wrote:

Some closest to me asked why would I want to revisit the most painful and traumatic parts of my life — again. Publicly. On-camera. With no control of how it would be used. A bit of a head-scratcher, as my brother is fond of saying. Do I wish I could erase my years in D.C. from memory, 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' style? Well, is the sky blue? But I can't. And in order to move forward in the life I have, I must take risks — both professional and emotional…. An important part of moving forward is excavating, often painfully, what has gone before. When politicians are asked uncomfortable questions, they often duck and dodge by saying, 'That's old news. It's from the past.' Yes. That's exactly where we need to start to heal — with the past. But it's not easy.

She added:

Filming the documentary forced me to acknowledge to myself past behavior that I still regret and feel ashamed of," she explained. "There were many, many moments when I questioned not just the decision to participate, but my sanity itself. Despite all the ways I tried to protect my mental health, it was still challenging. During one therapy session, I told my therapist I was feeling especially depressed. She suggested that sometimes what we experience as depression is actually grief… Yes, it was grief. The process of this docuseries led me to new rooms of shame that I still needed to explore.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton—a man who has been accused of all sorts of terrible things, a close friend of Harvey Weinstein—recently admitted that he didn't feel the need to apologize to Lewinsky. Lewinsky disagrees.

I'm less disappointed by him, and more disappointed for him. He would be a better man for it… and we, in turn, a better society.

The #MeToo movement has been a wrecking ball to so many men, yet Bill Clinton, perhaps the most prolific of them all, has escaped unscathed.

One man undoes shocking climate change study because... math

Pierre Leverrier/Unsplash

The left cries "science" about anything they want to consider a settled matter. Those who disagree with the left's climate change narrative question this "science." So, the climate change crowd are branded hysterical tree-huggers, and the anti-climate change crowd are naïve hicks.

The truth about climate change, like the truth when it comes to many issues, probably falls somewhere between the two extremes. But when it comes to climate change, it's hard to have a conversation about the "science" when the scientists running the show are already convinced they're absolutely correct and they have the unquestioning major media to back them up.

RELATED: 🤣😂🤣: WaPo claims climate change is the real reason for migrant invasion

Just two weeks ago, a study published in the scientific journal Nature claimed that the oceans are warming much faster than anyone previously thought. Cue the panic and blame the President! It was a high-profile story splashed across major media outlets who were eager to promote more science that confirms one of the left's fundamental doctrines.

The study claimed ocean temperatures have risen around 60% higher than the estimate by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But Nicholas Lewis, a British mathematician and climate-change critic quickly found a "major problem" with the study's conclusion.

Then yesterday, the two scientists who wrote the study admitted Lewis is right about the mistakes they made in their calculations. Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported. Climate scientist Ralph Keeling, who co-authored the report, says they miscalculated their margin of error – which is 10 to 70% – much larger than they originally thought.

Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported.

A 10 to 70 percent margin of error? I thought this climate change science was absolute. Imagine if your job had a margin of error that generous.

Keeling said:

Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.

The whole incident is being laughed off as a minor error. But if it wasn't for some British dude poring over this research in his basement and willing to cry foul, this latest climate change "science" would continue to be broadcast as absolute truth. Just like it always is.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.


Ocean Warming Research “Mistake" youtu.be


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, from California, is doing everything she can to make sure she is re-elected in January to her spot as House Speaker.

Reasons Nancy Pelosi could give: Because she led the Democratic caucus for 16 years, and under her the House shifted hands. In fact, she was House Speaker for four years under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

RELATED: Sorry Nancy Pelosi, Apple's record-shattering buyback program is proof positive tax breaks work

Reason she actually gave: Because she's a woman.

During an interview on CBS Sunday, Pelosi said:

You cannot have the four leaders of Congress [and] the president of the United States, these five people, and not have the voice of women. Especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers in campaigns, and now part of this glorious victory.

The pink wave, they're calling it. A rise in women politicians, supposedly in reaction to Donald Trump.

Here's the general argument, as described by Politico:

Push her out, and men may take over the party at a time when more than 100 women are heading to Capitol Hill and after female voters have been thoroughly alienated by President Donald Trump. Embrace her, and she'll prioritize legislation empowering women on issues ranging from equal pay to anti-harassment legislation.

Of course, she has a reason to use identity politics instead of merit: There's a concerted effort to have her un-seated.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out. Filemon Vela said:

I am 100% confident we can forge new leadership.

Led by, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), these are the representatives who have openly called for Pelosi's outing: Reps. Bill Foster (D-IL), Seth Moulton (DMA), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Conor Lamb (D-PA), and Filemon Vela (D-TX). Campaign staff for incoming Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Jason Crow (D-CO) have said they won't vote for Pelosi.

If they have a single ounce of dignity left, they won't, at least not just because she is a woman.