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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.