GLENN: Yesterday I told you that, you know, I have a lot of hope for America. Today I want to bring you that I have a lot of hope in you. But you're being fed a bunch of lies every step of the way. And I think it's all starting to come together for me. Let's talk about healthcare. That's where everybody is -- you know, "We've got to have healthcare, healthcare is unaffordable in America. The Canadians, the Canadian healthcare system, that's fantastic." Really? You know the guy who designed the Canadian healthcare system now admits that it's in a crisis? The guy who designed the Canadian healthcare system says it's in a crisis and he's now advocating private control of much of the system and we're going towards that? What the heck is wrong with us? He said, "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it." This is the guy who created the Canadian healthcare system. "We thought we would solve the problems by rationing services." Oh, that's fantastic. I love rationing healthcare. He now says it means a radical overhaul. "We're proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so people can exercise their freedom of choice."
Meanwhile in the U.K., the U.K. is restricting access to the use of drugs it knows it will work because the U.K. can't pay for them. There is a drug out, Tarceva, I think it is. It's for lung cancer. Listen to this. "Despite numerous studies showing that the drug significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients and the unanimous endorsement of lung cancer specialists throughout the U.K., the government has determined that a drug is too expensive to cover." Oh, well, that's fantastic. How about this. There's an arthritis drug out there. It's the only drug clinically proven to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis. The National Institute of Health and Clinical Effectiveness, or NICE, as that's called in the U.K., decided that it would not be cost-effective to give this drug to patients. How do they come up with these decisions? Comparative effective research is so easily misused because it looks only at the average patient. Not you. Just the average patient. They focus on which drugs on average are the cheapest and most effective. So they don't look at you as an individual anymore. You are literally a number. If you fit into the average, well, you're going to be fine. If you are outside of the average, sucks to be you, huh? They overlook important factors like age, race, gender, lifestyle. So even if your doctor says that this drug for your lung cancer is the right one for you, the government says, not going to pay for it because it's not cost-effective for the average patient. Hopefully, hopefully I have faith in the American people that when the chips are really down -- and almost all of the chips are out on the table now. When the chips are really down, they are going to wake up. I've got to believe that. You have to believe that, that when the chips are down, that's when America gets up. Because if you don't believe that, there ain't nothing. I can't get out of bed in the morning because I've seen what's happening to the country and you see what's happening to the country. So what is happening? Why is it? Why is it that we think to ourselves, oh, my gosh, it's almost like they are intentionally doing this. Well, there is a great story from real politics. Realclearpolitics.com. It's about cap and trade. After I read this article this morning, I thought, oh, my gosh, here is the answer. It was on cap and trade, and the article is that it's not inevitable even with McCain or Obama. Only 48 senators voted to allow the bill to proceed, far short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Even that number is deceptively high because 10 of the 48 were cast by Democrats who oppose cap and trade. They flipped their votes only after they knew the legislation will not go forward in order to save the Democratic leadership from the embarrassment of having a bill fail 46-38 vote against it.
Now, here's what you have to understand. Here's where it's starting to all make sense to me. The old left and the new left. The Marxist-influenced old left believed in industrial socialism. They believed that the old Soviet Union could make a better car. They believed that Marx was right and you didn't need to have private enterprise. If the government just owned everything and ran everything, it would work. Well, because that hasn't worked, have you noticed, has anybody noticed that -- I know we've said it on this program a million times. Has anybody noticed that that doesn't work? Why are we still going towards socialism? They have noticed, but here's the difference. The old left and the new left. The old left still thinks it works. They are like, oh, yeah, no, it's great. When it became clear to most people that an industrialized state won't work, the new left came in and the new left, the new left has rejected industrial prosperity as a goal. The new left is now looking at it and saying this is the wrong way to live. You will understand everything if you can get your arms around the new left. You've heard them actually say these things. You've heard them say how obscene our lifestyle is. You have heard them say we need to go back to the way we were. They don't want to take the third world and bring it up to our lifestyle. They want to shut our lifestyle down and push it down. We need a more primitive lifestyle. The new left declares that a primitive lifestyle is the ideal, we should try to emulate it here, we should not ever buy anything that's within 40 miles of our house. We should buy everything like we used to buy everything, make everything like we used to make everything, go back to the wagon train days. The new left rejects our lifestyle. The old left wanted to have it as an industrialized state. Now that it has failed, the new left says great, well, it should fail because this is obscene to live this way. So if you have ever felt, my gosh, it's like these people are trying to dismantle us intentionally, they are. They don't see -- you know how everybody says, hey, look, it's always gotten better. Every generation it's gotten better. Well, that's not true. It is true in America, but we haven't had people that have been trying from the inside to take us down. Nobody is going to take us down from the outside. It's from the inside.
If you were designing a plot to take America down, the only way you could do it is from the inside. Plant the virus within. Well, the virus went in and infected the Democrats. The Democratic party has been hijacked. The only hope the Democratic party has is the blue dog Democrat. Those Democrats that stood up against cap and trade, those Democrats who still get it.
See, the Democrats in the giant cities, the Democrats from places like New York, you can't even relate real life to New York. It is a different world in New York. They don't see it. They don't relate to you. They think they are the center of the universe and that really everything happens in New York, the rest of the country should feed New York. "We have problems here the little people can't understand."
They have been plotting, they have been working hard for a very long time and it's come in dribs and drabs. Peter Singer, I've told you about Peter Singer before. Peter Singer is a guy who has apologized. He has the chair of ethics at Princeton University. This guy has apologized for his stance on abortion. He originally came out and said a child can be aborted 30 days after birth. He apologized for that. He said I shouldn't have put a number on it. It's closer to two years. The child doesn't know it has a future until it's about 2 years old, and until it can realize, hey, there's going to be tomorrow, it's not really a person; it can be killed. Well, Peter Singer is responsible for what happened in Spain. If you looked at the Drudge Report last night or this morning and you saw it and you thought to yourself, oh, boy, here we go again, I'm waking up in crazy town, the country of Spain has given apes rights, human rights. It's the Great Ape Project. Well, if you know anything about the Great Ape Project, you know it was started by Peter Singer, a guy who doesn't think humans are human. Hmmm. But apes are human. The right of the great ape. This is what it said. Spain's parliament voiced its support yesterday for the rights of great apes, for life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislator has called for such rights for nonhumans.
Two reasons for this being the first time any national legislator has passed a certain issue like this and made it into a big deal. The first reason would be because it's something long overdue and it's the right thing to do. The second reason would be because it's the worst idea in history, and I think this one falls in the second category. Their environmental committee over in Spain disagrees. Jeez, their environmental committee. This is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest things humans have ever done. "It is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights in the defense of our evolutionary comrades who will doubtless go down in history of humanity." That's the director of the Great Ape Project. "There are no known instances of great ape abuse or medical experimentation. There's currently no law preventing that from happening, but still there's no case of that happening over in Spain. Some of the historic rights achieved, apes will not now be allowed in circuses, they cannot be on television, they can't be on television commercials and they cannot be filmed," but because Spain is so forward thinking, they are still allowing 315 of the apes to be kept in zoos, which, sure they're going to love their newly found freedom as they sit there in a caged area and fed three square meals a day. They're just like humans. Shouldn't we let them out? This kind of thinking leads us, the evolved thinking, leads us to what happened yesterday in our Supreme Court where you can't execute a pedophile.