NO, the midterms WON’T BE EASY for Republicans. Here’s why.

It may be easy to look at the economy and President Biden’s AWFUL approval ratings and therefore assume the midterm elections will be a piece of cake for Republicans. But that’s actually NOT the case. In fact, because of how the 2022 midterms are broken down structurally, winning a Senate majority could be an uphill battle for the GOP. Glenn and Stu explain why it won’t be an ‘obvious home run’ for the right. PLUS, Glenn details a possible theory as to why Democrats now are choosing to focus on President Trump once again…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, I saw some really disturbing things. Here's -- here's one headline. This one is coming from the Guardian.

The Republican Party has reason to fear the midterms. Oh. Okay. And then, 2022 Senate election forecast from FiveThirtyEight.

Democrats win 61 in 100. Republicans win 39 in 100.

STU: Yeah. That's not good.

GLENN: No. That's not good.

STU: That's not good. And the Republicans were ahead on that breakdown earlier. It's always been close. And we did our first Senate preview a couple months ago, on Stu Does America. In which I said, look, this is not easy. Like, what -- I think it feels easy, because I talked to a lot of my conservative friends who look at Biden and his approval rating, and think, obviously, this is a home run. You take the house and Senate back. Part of it is structural, in which seats don't line up particularly well for Republicans this cycle.

This goes back and forth. In 2024, it's a very good cycle for Republicans.

So they have a real advantage structurally in 2024. That's not the case here. In 2022, the Democrats have an advantage structurally. It's just a matter of which seats are up, in which states.

So it's harder for Republicans to -- to take those -- those purple opportunities, those blue-leaning opportunities, and grab them. In a the climate, in which they are favored.

GLENN: Yes. However, the House is the opposite. Where the House is basically all climate. That's how it's decided every single time. Now, individual candidates can affect races.

And you may lose a race or two, because you nominated a crappy candidate. But generally speaking, that should be much easier for Republicans to win. Now, they have to win up of these two. If they don't win one of these two. That's really, really bad.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, I don't want to say end of republic. But end of republic kind of stuff.

STU: It feels that way.

GLENN: We talk about this every election. People say, most important election of our lifetime. I think this is the last one of the republic, if the -- if the Democrats win both houses and have the presidency. And there is no stopping them. There's no speed bump. It's just all going to be left up to the states.

STU: Well, speed bump this time has been their own party. Joe Manchin. Kyrsten Sinema.

GLENN: Yeah. That worked out well.

STU: And as we promised you from the beginning. Joe Manchin will never save you. He'll never come to your rescue. He'll never be on a horse there, to make sure you're just a-okay in the end. He will always screw you, every single time. That's how this story ends. Just want to remind voters in West Virginia, who voted for Donald Trump by 39 points last election! That maybe Joe Manchin should not be the choice next time, if he chooses to run again. Just a little request from the rest of the country. We have tons of crappy senators all around the rest of the country, but really, we shouldn't have any from West Virginia. That shouldn't be an option.


STU: So hopefully, that one gets rectified.

GLENN: While he's on that the topic. I would just like to say, next election, will someone please run against Mitt Romney. And throw him the hell out too?

STU: That would be nice. That would be nice.

GLENN: Your turn.

STU: Okay. Now that we're done with our bitching.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So the Republicans are favored to win the House. Again, it's a 4:1 type of thing. It's about 80-20, according to FiveThirtyEight. Which again, it's no sure thing. Though it is -- there are heavy favorites at this point. There has been some -- a big media push, to try to come up with reasons why this is going to turn around, and Democrats are going to win. One of the big ones is the abortion thing. They're trying to make the Kansas election into this beacon of hope for Democrats.

That they will be able to get all that energy behind their base. And they will all come out and vote. Because they're so sad, that they can't kill children anymore. That they'll wind up winning this election. I think the Kansas thing. We talked about this right after. I think the Kansas thing was a very isolated, weird answer. It wasn't particularly written well. It was right after the overturn. Which was not planned. It was supposed to happen before an overturn of Roe vs. Wade happened. That was the idea behind it. The energy was all with the Democrats, in an on off election, during a primary. Where not everyone is focused on it. Blah, blah, blah. I think if you brought that same thing up in Kansas in two years, it will pass on our side. But we'll see. Because they will try it again surely. I don't think on an Election Day, where everyone is going to be focused on it. That you'll get more energy out of the left on abortion, than on the right, for Biden's performance, for inflation, for the economy, for raiding the former president's house. For all the things that Republicans are fired up about. I don't think there's any chance that that works.

GLENN: So I heard speculation, that over the weekend, they wanted Donald Trump to win.

They want Donald Trump. They want him. They want him up in the polls. They want his people, very excited. And they said that they thought -- this person that I was talking to, thought that this was intentional from the left.

Because they wanted to make this campaign as well, about Donald Trump.

STU: I don't think that that is crazy. Now, I don't know that you would say -- it doesn't make any --

GLENN: Stu. Stu. It's 2022. Nothing is crazy.

STU: That's a good point. There's two ways to look at this, right? If you're a Democrat. Number one, you have Donald Trump, who is a known quantity. You know for sure, that 45 percent of the country hates his guts. And will never vote for him, no matter what. Like, that is the starting point of this election, okay?

You also know that 45 percent of the country, will walk through a wall of fire to vote for the guy. So you take your chance with the few people in the middle, and hope that you can squeak out a relatively close election, with those people, generally speaking, in the suburbs. And generally speaking, women, who in 2016, lean towards Trump. In 2020, lean towards Biden.

And you say, they're not going to go back to Trump. The things that turned them off from Trump in 2020, have not gone away. He will be decisive as he's ever been. And we can walk that same line.

The other side of this is, in support of your friend's theory here. Is the idea that we don't know how to fight that battle against Ron DeSantis. We have shown no ability to put a dent in what he's tried to do in Florida. Now, they -- this is a risky strategy for Democrats.

Because, again, if you believe Democrats, they will tell you that Donald Trump is actually Hitler. So to promote his candidacy, would be something that is against every human --

GLENN: Well, I have read, Ron -- Trump is Hitler. Ron DeSantis is worse.

STU: Is worse, of course. Every single --

GLENN: It's every single time. So I don't know who -- I mean, Lucifer, I guess.

STU: Right. Now, we do not have. Looking at the DeSantis option, they don't know how to beat him. They have not shown the ability to beat him. They took a situation, where they probably should have beat him for the first the time, when he was running for governor. And lost.

And they have not been able to put a dent in him. He will win this election easily, by all appearances here in Florida for governor. So they don't really -- they don't have a great strategy on this one yet.

The other thing is though, they don't have 45 percent of people, who see Ron DeSantis as a movement. A lot of conservatives like him. But even just in name familiarity, he's nowhere near the situation Donald Trump is. It's a risky strategy, if they believe that Donald Trump is uniquely dangerous. That's their case on all this stuff.

We should be able to do this stuff. You shouldn't worry about us raiding a former president's home, because he's so uniquely terrible and dangerous to the country. That's their entire case. Yet, here they are, theoretically, wanting to run against him, because they think they can defeat him. Now, look, they made that same bet in 2016. They did -- I mean, MSNBC aired every single one of his rallies in full, in 2016.

The same thing with CNN. They went out and gave this guy an incredible amount of free media, during the primary. Which was a big reason why he wound up winning the primary. I mean, you know, that's been well-covered. Then they wound up getting burned by it, in a big, big way.

GLENN: How -- let me get back to the House and Senate race.

How are the people that would vote like Trump -- and I mean that are really dedicated to, all right. Let's abolish. Let's abolish the Department of Education. Let's use every constitutional thing that we have, and I'm tired of Mitch McConnell, and all of this crap.

How many people are running and who are winning, that appear to be those kinds of people. Is there any kind of sense of that yet?

STU: It's pretty mixed. It's mixed on the type of race they're in. We're seeing people who Trump has endorsed doing really well in the places where you kind of expect. Right?

Where more red states. You know, the obvious example of the alternate, is Dr. Oz, who is not doing well against a man who is barely alive. A man who --

GLENN: Oh, he's still alive?

STU: I think. I've seen footage of him recently. And I'm starting to question it. But I mean, Fetterman. You know, the man had -- he wasn't good before this. But he had a massive stroke. He's hidden from the public in Pennsylvania, for months.

GLENN: Do you mean like, he's in his basement?

STU: Like, he's running the Joe Biden 2020 campaign all over again.

GLENN: It's crazy, isn't it?

STU: Sometimes. And it certainly so far, has worked for him. Staying out of the spotlight. And not reminding people who you are. Works really well sometimes. Especially with someone like Dr. Oz, who is so well-known. And, again, immediately sets a giant percentage of the population into two camps.

And unlike Donald Trump, who has a big movement behind him. In support, I'll walk through a wall of fire. There isn't that sort of movement for Dr. Oz.

GLENN: No. Because the people who really knew him, were kind of opera fans. And I don't think the Venn diagram of Oprah and Trump.

STU: To cross over.

GLENN: I would like to see that. It might be 10 feet apart.

STU: So the polls in Pennsylvania show Fetterman up by double digits most of them.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Now, if you look at the overall Senate, the easy way to understand this, at this very moment. Is to basically start out -- start your process at 46-46. Okay? The seats that aren't up for election. Plus, the ones that should be easy for both sides. There's some -- there's possibilities, that there could be a couple of these races, that would move in future months. But if you start right now, you're at 46-46 with eight races left in the middle. That are theoretically winnable for either side. That would include Pennsylvania, by the way.

GLENN: That's not winnable. Between that and the corruption in Pennsylvania. I'm not convinced they've cleaned that up.

STU: If you take that one and leave the one for a moment, Republicans would have to win five of the eight races to take control. Now, in that race, you're talking about Pennsylvania. You're talking about Wisconsin. You're talking about Nevada. These are not necessarily hard-core red states, that should be easy. Though they are all theoretically winnable. Arizona is another one. Georgia, we talked to Herschel Walker the other day. That race, polling showing him slightly behind. I thought he had a good appearance the other day on the show. And it's important that he win that race, it's crucial.

New Hampshire is one that in a wave election, is winnable for Republicans

And it's a close race. The polling should be very close. But will they be able to pull that off?

You have North Carolina in there as well.

You mentioned Ohio. Ohio is one that they will win.

GLENN: That's one.

STU: If you look at Arizona, it could do go either way. Georgia, I think should be one that they be favored on. But they've really gone off Herschel Walker. And they've hurt him. It's a close race. New Hampshire is typically one that you assume would lose. But is winnable and looks like it's a tight race. North Carolina. Again, it's a purple state. It's one of the closest states in the 2020 election.

Nevada, you're trying to take out A Democratic incumbent, but I think it's winnable, especially if this is a Republican-leaning year.

Pennsylvania, I think really was winnable if the primary went the other way. Now is really a question. Then you have Wisconsin and Ohio.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the message from all this: Write it down on your calendar. Make reason you -- I've never said, go pick people up and take them. I've never been. Hey. Maybe we should get a bus.

Get a bus. Everyone you know has got to vote. Has got to vote. Or it doesn't stop.

Glenn Beck reads Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion's 'Bongos' and regrets EVERYTHING

Glenn Beck reads Cardi B & Megan Thee Stallion's 'Bongos' and regrets EVERYTHING

What's more cringeworthy: Listening to Sen. John Kennedy read the explicit "children's" books that the Left wants to put in school libraries or listening to Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion's just-as-explicit new single, "Bongos"? Glenn decided to put these two head-to-head and gives Cardi B's new song a dramatic reading remix that nobody asked for.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

STU: Cardi B. She built her career on incredible lyrics and songwriting.

GLENN: No. I'm not going to.

STU: Along with Megan Thee Stallion.

GLENN: No. I'm not going to be roped into this. No.

STU: No, I believe you said I could pull the Cardi B ripcord at any point during this programming.

GLENN: Okay. Would you rather here -- stop, no, I'm not. You're cheapening this art.

Would you rather hear Senator Kennedy reading from a pornographic children's book?

STU: No. I've seen this video. Only in video form. Where they describe what happened. And I don't want to hear it.

GLENN: I think we should play a little bit of it. And go in with an open.

VOICE: Let's take two books. That have been much discussed. The first one is called All Boys Aren't Blue.

And I will quote from them.

STU: I don't know that we need to hear his --

VOICE: I put some lube on. And got him on his knees.

STU: I've had --

GLENN: You've had enough?

Then why do you want the Cardi B thing?

STU: That's a great question.

I really don't have an answer to that.

I really don't.

I don't know why.

Partially because I just that, I can't listen to Senator Kennedy doing that. Look, I respect what he's doing here.

It's important that he's doing this.

However, it makes me cringe for him.

And I will then -- when you're doing the Cardi B thing. I will cringe for you. I want bad things to happen.

GLENN: Ladies and gentlemen.

Cardi B. Megan Thee Stallion.

The lyrics from Bongos.

Bong, bong, bong, bong, we good? Bong, bong, bong, like a drum. Bong, bong, bong, bong, this is fire. Bong, bong, bong, bong, bong, bong. N-word. Eat this A like a plum. Plum. This P-word, tight like a nun. Nun. Better chew it up like it's Yum gum.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: You don't think that this is --

STU: Do you still have that Senator Kennedy video? Pull it up?

GLENN: We were talking about this earlier. Stop the music.

Because I -- we were talking about lyrics. There is nothing in any song today, that doesn't revolve things that go inside of you.

STU: That's really the only option of song writing.

GLENN: It is. Love songs. Nothing.

Nothing. And how does anyone listen to this and think this is good?

STU: Well, we don't even know what happened in the song. How would we question that?

GLENN: Well, that ain't your N-word?

He is both ours.

STU: Why are you saying N-word so much still?

GLENN: P-word? Tight like a nun.

Counting hundreds up with my thumb. Thumb.

I don't care where you're from. From.

Better beat this S like a drum.

Oh, girl.

Don't be talking S like you know me.

Woo. I ride D like a pony.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Girl that N-word look like a brokey.

Real hot girl S.

Go and F with his homey. He's a -- a -- that's all I have.

Ladies and gentlemen, the lyrical stylings of Cardi B.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: And Megan Thee Stallion.

STU: Go, Megan.

GLENN: Megan. Megan. Megan Thee -- she is. Wow.

STU: That's -- that's...

GLENN: I don't think our culture has gone downhill. Not at all. Not at all.

STU: It's well written. You may not like the music, but you can tell -- that is a lyrical masterpiece.

GLENN: At this point, I am rooting for AI to take over.

Rebecca writes in about --

STU: AI legitimately would not allow you to come up with those lyrics. Because they would say, there's all sorts of racial slurs.

At the very least, they would stop you at that.

GLENN: Oh, now you've challenged me.

STU: You think you can get --

GLENN: I think I could get --

STU: No way.

GLENN: I just I'm -- hmm.

STU: No way.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: You cannot get AI to -- up to produce.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Something like that. With those words in it.

Those are naughty words.

GLENN: I believe I've been challenged.

Congress must STOP THE SPENDING before it's too late

Congress must STOP THE SPENDING before it's too late

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned at the Barclays Global Financial Services Conference that the U.S. is "spending money like drunken sailors around the world and that an economic "soft landing" is probably not coming. Glenn reviews the real state of the economy and insists that Congress must stop the spending before it's too late. He also argues that every presidential candidate needs to be asked what they would do to curb inflation. Is any candidate willing to dramatically downsize the government? Glenn and Stu discuss.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Jamie Dimon.

He has -- he has been warning about the risks to the economy.

He just was speaking at the Barclays global financial services contract. Conference in New York.

All of the best people are there. It's -- it's unbelievable. We went to New York. And there's these places called delis. And they have all kinds of sandwiches.that regular people eat. Oh, I felt like I was a regular person. Anyway, at the global financial services conference, Jamie Dimon said, you know, I've been saying that there's some headwinds coming. Kind of like a tornado is coming. Including, geopolitical tensions. Government spending. Monetary policy tightening by the central banks. And our government has been spending money like drunken sailors around the world. And that -- drunken sailors. You need to -- you know, I -- I -- I just want to say. This government, people claiming that they spend like I spend.

I don't spend like that. That's an insult.

To say the consumer is strong today means you will have a booming environment in the days ahead, a huge mistake.

He said, all this talk of a soft landing, is probably not coming.

You think?

And, you know, so there you have it, from an expert. In you let a boob tell you.

We're in a good part.

Okay. All right.

If we are -- speaking of Corn Pop. If we were popcorn, not the same as one bad dude, corn pop. Same letters. Just -- just -- okay?

If we were popcorn, the economy was popcorn.

It is still in the cupboard, waiting for you to go get it, and put it in the microwave.

That's how far along the line we are in this tough financial system we're in. Maybe it's been taken out. And you're like, I have to open up this plastic bag. It may be there.

STU: Yeah. And they're telling you, hey. Don't you want to eat some popcorn?

And you say yes. Because you like popcorn. Then they give you the colonels, and expect you to chew them.

You know, without them ever popping. This is a -- you're ruining your teeth with this particular.

GLENN: He said, everything that is being done right now, we will not see the full effects of for 12 to 18 months from now. So all of the spending that's going on, and, by the way, next hour. I am going to go into what we're doing in Ukraine. It is, to me, it is the clearest case of corruption. Of why the impeachment matters. What was that really all about? The lies of, we've got to fight Russia now. Otherwise, we will fight them later.

I'm reading this book on the -- on Kennedy.

And his problems with the generals, and all the neocons.

And one of the main generals, that was in charge of, I think it was a strategic air command. SAC.

You know, he's revered in the military. He actually wrote and said, in the 1960s, like 1961, it's inevitable, that we will have a nuclear war with Russia.

We should do it now.

And he actually -- they found out later, he was actually doing things, without the president's knowledge or anybody else, to provoke the Soviet Union, so they would start to gear up. And we would have the excuse of a first strike.

But his words were, it's inevitable, we will have to fight a war with them. We should fight it now, otherwise we'll be fighting a worse one later.

The same thing!

And as I'm reading that, I'm thinking, this is insanity. Whoops. We're doing the same thing right now.

STU: Similar thing happened in Spies Like Us, with Dan Aykroyd and Tim Chase. Almost the same. Same risk. And I think we need to take it seriously.

We've been warned for decades. And no one is taking this seriously.

GLENN: DeSantis said, yesterday.

If this is what -- he was asked on the CBS Evening News.

Which apparently is still on.

He said, he was asked, what would you do for inflation?

He said, I love this. Stop spending so much money!

Yeah. That's his first -- stop spending so much money.

And then open up domestic energy production. Those two things alone. But I honestly.

STU: Just those two.

GLENN: Not enough. But a lot.

Every candidate needs to be asked this. I have not heard Donald Trump give a real answer to the question of, tell me about inflation. What causes it?

And how would you stop it? What would you do it turn the economy around?

And, you know. We know.

Well, we will do what we did before. No, no, no. You can't now.

Because we have $8 trillion, is what you added to the debt.

We're there in spades now, just in -- you know, by the end of this one, it will probably be 10 trillion.

STU: He didn't discuss this with Megyn Kelly yesterday?

GLENN: I didn't see the Megyn Kelly interview either.

STU: I know Megyn does a great job with this stuff.

She's very good at doing this. I'm very interested to watch it. But I wonder if it was addressed at all there.

GLENN: I wonder. Because I want a real answer from him that. Want a I real answer.

The next president is coming in, if we don't -- you know, hopefully, we have least corn pop.

But the -- if there is a change, and there will be one way or another. Because he ain't making it longer.

What is the plan for inflation?

Because this is not good. And the only plan, that should be considered right now, is one, stop the spending.

Stop it. You -- you are being robbed.

They're now saying, their target is 3 percent inflation.

Why would we put up with that. The fed targeted 3 percent inflation.

I lived with that my whole life. Why? Why should there be inflation.

Why are you inflating the money 2 percent every year?

If you do three percent, in 10 years, I've lost almost 40 cents of every dollar. No. No.

Well, wages are -- are rising. At the same pace of inflation?

I don't think so. That's why everybody is short. And this is going -- you're going to learn about hyperinflation, the worst possible way. One of these days soon. Vivek -- Vivek said, I don't know why I say Vivek. Like cake. I know.

Vivek has said that he is going to cut 75 percent of the federal workforce. Fifty percent of those cuts will be made in his first year.

STU: I mean, he knows what to say.

GLENN: You had me at hello.

STU: Yeah. It's very Coolidge-esque.

GLENN: But Coolidge did it.

STU: I know. He cut 50 percent of the federal budget. What was it? One year?

GLENN: One year. Then the next year, he did another 50 percent. I mean, that's crazy.

STU: Again, very similar to what Vivek is talking about. Would he actually be able to do that?

GLENN: I don't know.

STU: That's the thing with Vivek's campaign. A lot of people are saying, he's promising too much. He's throwing this stuff out here. But he is being bold.

GLENN: This is what has to be done. We're at the time where we all knew this was coming. JFK talked about it.

FDR talked about it when he first passed Social Security, and said, these things must be paid for along the way. Otherwise, it will get out of control, and we'll never be able to pay it. It could be the ruin of our country. JFK said that. Ronald Reagan said it. We're there now. All of these entitlements, because we didn't actually have the money, we put it on to a debt sheet. And just our interest is going to kill us. It's going to kill us.

You've got to make massive cuts, right now.

And, by the way, you want to stop the Deep State? Cut 75 percent out.

Now, here's the one thing that I have said for a long time. And I will leave it at this. My free gift for Vivek and anybody who wants to use it. I really care about the real estate market. I really care. We will make some moves, that put the free market back in place.

And so your real estate. I -- I am going to make sure, that everything I can, to make sure it's a free market. So everybody can afford it.

Except in the Washington, DC, area. Your real estate is going to plummet, the day I'm elected. You might want to consider selling it now. Because there's going to be plenty of housing available, in the Washington, DC, area. Because I am going to fire 75 percent. Everybody else, don't worry about it. You live in the area. Around the Capitol, prepare for a -- a hemorrhaging on the price of your home.

How is it 'EXTREME' to STOP reckless government spending of YOUR money?!

How is it 'EXTREME' to STOP reckless government spending of YOUR money?!

Real median household income just had its worst decline since 2010 — and the true numbers are much worse than the government is suggesting. But instead of curbing spending to fix inflation, the Biden administration wants Congress to continue spending at its current levels to avoid a government shutdown. And some in the media are branding the House Freedom Caucus and other conservative groups as "extremists" and "terrorists" for demanding LESS spending. Glenn defines "extremist" and "terrorist" and explains why continuing this reckless government spending (which added $2 TRILLION to our national debt) will only hurt American families MORE.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Stu, define the word extreme. What does it say?

STU: Extreme. Reaching a high or the highest degree, furthest from the center or a given point.

There you go.

GLENN: All right. Give me extremist.

STU: Extremist.

A person who holds extreme or fanatical, political, or religious views. Especially one who resorts to or advocates an extreme reaction.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on. Extreme, political, or religious views.

STU: Uh-huh. Especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

GLENN: They have any examples of that?

I would like to know what an extreme action is. Is that terrorist?

Look up the word 'terrorist.'

STU: Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims.

GLENN: Unlawful violence.

Or --

STU: Or? And intimidation, is the way they phrase it. especially against civilians.

In the pursuit of political aims.

GLENN: Okay.

Here's why I want to bring these up.

And I just -- I want you to remember, if you believe this, I do. Words matter.

If you can change people's words and their language, you can change everything.

That's why they have replaced so much of our language, and we all are just saying. First, let me give you the lay of the land.

What you're facing.

The last time America saw a drop in household income. As large as we did in this last year, Barack Obama was president.

The change, according to the Census Bureau, the change in real median household income, it fell 2.3 percent.

That's the worst decline since 2010.

That means, what you actually are bringing home.

You know, they say, oh, jobs. We're creating all new great union jobs.

And pay is going up. But what you're actually taking home, is down by 2.3.

And that's before taxes.

If you calculate the taxes. And the subsidies, hand it out.

So not only what they take, but what they give.

Household income fell 8.8 percent.


Real median earnings, of all workers, which includes part-time and full-time workers. Declined 2.2.

Median workers of those who worked full-time fell 1.3.

Now, they're wondering why Biden's numbers are so low.

Like, it's -- like it's, I don't know.

Like, it's a Cheshire cat, whose stripes are only appearing in a tree once in a while.

It's really easy.

People are getting poorer. Because inflation is eating away at your income.

Family household income fell even more than the median. Dropping 2.9 percent.

Older Americans saw an income decline of 2.1, worse than the 1.4 decline for people under 65. So families and the elder have suffered the most.
Native born incomes. You're born here in the United States. You fell 2.5 percent.

But if you weren't born here in the United States, you edged up .2 percent.

Region that was hit hardest. What a surprise. The Midwest.

Incomes fell by a stunning 4.7 percent.

In the northeast, median households fell 3.8.

In the West 3.2. And in the south, income trickled down to buy -- I'm sorry. By .1 percent.

Why is that?

Why is that?

Why is the South doing so well?

Weather? Maybe taxes.

Governments kind of doing what's right for the people. Maybe.

Not so crazy. All the time.


Now I want to talk you to about extremists.

I want to talk you to about extreme extremists.

And terrorists.

The House Freedom Caucus and conservative groups held a press conference Tuesday, appointing opposing any deal to continue government spending, at its current levels, hurries before the House reconvened after a week long reassess. To tackle the task of keeping the government open. Past September 30th.

The White House, eager to stave off a shutdown.

Has proposed a clean extension of the current spending levels.

So you know, the spending levels, that we're spending right now, this year, we were supposed to be a trillion dollars over what we had.

So we were going to add a trillion dollars to the debt.

But somehow or another, we spent an additional trillion dollars.

So we are $2 trillion, adding to the debt. That's the current spending.

Do you find that reasonable?

Let me take you back. Why is your income going down?

Why are these things happening?

Why is it that you're looking at the grocery store. And you're saying. You're looking at the price of eggs. And milk.

And you're saying, what the -- now, gas, you can kind of understand. Because that goes up and down.

But all of the stuff in the grocery store.

How come the paper towels and the toilet paper are smaller? I mean, they're even cutting them now so they're not as wide.

So it's not as big. But it's also not as wide. How come that's going down. And yet, the price is going up.

How come I'm getting less for my dollars packaging. I'm not giving the same product I had.

And I'm paying more money.

Because your that are isn't worth as much.

That's why. When people talk about. You're going to understand hyperinflation.

At some point, you're going to understand hyperinflation. And we don't want to learn that lesson.

That's what Venezuela went through. And nobody wants to talk about this.

Nobody wants to think about it. Oh, I know there's somebody in their car right now. Going, I don't want to think about that.

You must think about this.

You must!

Because if you don't, it's guaranteed to happen.

What causes that?

Out of control spending.

So the White House doesn't want a shutdown. But they'll just continue, with a clean -- a clean bill. Exact same spending levels.

Well, with the addition of $40,000 in Ukrainian aid. Some disaster relief. Some border funding.

You know, but other than that, it will be clean.


So you're $2 trillion in debt more this year.

And we're another 2 trillion next year.


All in four years.

I'm sorry. All in two years.

The more money they spend, the higher the inflation. The less your dollar is worth.

Now, in story after story, the Republicans who are standing up and saying, no more. We cannot continue this.

We're not going to have a gun held to our head.

We have time right now, to work out a budget.

But that's not what's happening.

The budget is being made behind closed doors.

And then what do those leaders, McConnell, Schumer, McCarthy. Jeffries. What do those leaders do?

Those leaders, who think they know better than everyone else, that you elected, you sent them to Congress.

They get the blame.

But are they to blame on this?

Because they don't have a choice.

Now, they're called terrorists. They're called extremists.

And an extremist, is the furthest from the center.

How many people do you know, that are actually fighting for in budget, to actually -- you know, pencil put to paper. And work this out?

How many people do you know, that are saying, pass it in the middle of the night, and no one read it?

Do you know anybody. Left or right. Do you know anyone?

Because I don't.

Do you know anybody who says, we can continue -- besides the current administration.

We can spend like it's -- it's raining money.

Just keep spending the bomb trillion dollars a year. It should be $3 trillion a year.

Do you know anyone that thinks our current level of spending is good?

I don't. Do you?

If you do feel that way, I want to hear how you got there. I really do.

I'm not going to make you feel stupid or anything else.

I just want to know, how you got to that thinking.

And it would be refreshing to hear. Because I don't meet those people.

I don't know who those people are. I think those people are the ones furthest from the center.

And then, what do they do?

Well, they try to intimidate people.

They are currently telling our congresspeople, you elected to do this job.

Those four people are telling the 431 exactly what they have to do. You have to pass this right now.

This is coming, in two weeks.

You have to pass this right now. We've already worked it out. No amendments. No reading it.

Just pass it right now.

Or you're going to get the blame for the government shutting down.

Now, you're on the road, you're going some place important.

You love your car. You got to get to the place.

But your car starts to overheat.

And your car blows a tire. Two tires.

Now, you could keep going. But you could blow the engine.

And you'll destroy the rims. So you won't have a lot left, when you get there.

Nobody wants to stop the car. Nobody wants to wait for the tow truck.

Nobody -- everybody wants to go to wherever it was, you were going.

Everybody. But who is the unreasonable one?

The one that says, I don't see any -- I don't see any problem. Keep going. Keep going.

Or the rest of the family, who is like, no. We're not going to have anything left, Dad.

I mean -- I mean, as much as I would like a new car, can we afford a new car?

No. Then maybe we should stop. Even the kids know. Stop.

Stop the car. This is dangerous. And it's going to put us in a very bad situation. And if we do it, we may never be able to make another trip.

Who is the extremist here?

I don't want to shut down the government. But, quite honestly, if you want to save America, it is better for them to do absolutely nothing. Than put us another $2 trillion, in debt!

Remember, if I pay you, what was it? A dollar a second. That's $31 million, by the end of the year.

And it only takes you to get to a trillion dollars. If I pay you for every second of every day, of every year, it only takes you 32 billion years. No, million years. 32 million years.

32 million years.

Okay. Don't -- I'm thinking, that maybe we shouldn't spend that money. Because I don't know how we'll ever earn that money.

And I would like something left for my children.

Did RINO Texas politicians ACTUALLY impeach an elected Attorney General with ZERO evidence?

Did RINO Texas politicians ACTUALLY impeach an elected Attorney General with ZERO evidence?

Something is very wrong in Texas, Glenn says, and if it's happening there, what could happen in YOUR state? The Texas state legislature is holding an impeachment trial for Attorney General Ken Paxton. But is this a legitimate trial or a RINO Republican hit-job? Texas Scorecard Managing Editor Brandon Waltens has been keeping an eye on the trial and he joins Glenn to explain how shockingly LITTLE evidence - if any - Paxton's accusers have brought.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I'm going to talk you to a little bit about what's happening in Texas. But I'm talking you to about this, because if it's happening in Texas, God only knows what's happening in your state.

I wanted to bring somebody on, who really watches this for a living. His name is Brandon Waltons. He does the Texas scorecard. And every day, he does, you know, headlines. Of what's about to go. And he watches us every weekday at 5:00. YouTube X, and podcast platforms. There is an impeachment going on of probably the strongest attorney general in the nation.

The one here in Texas Ken Paxton.

He's been on this show several times. I know Ken.

But I don't have a horse in this race. If he's guilty of a crime, he should be punished.

But it is really beginning to look, and I stayed off this story, until the testimony was out.

And I have to tell you, something is very wrong in Texas.

And Texans better pay attention to this. Brandon, welcome.

BRANDON: Thank you so much for having me, Glenn.

GLENN: So overall, can you quickly just say, you know, what this is supposedly about? And then let's talk about the actual witnesses?

BRANDON: Yeah. So how did we get here?

Essentially, three years ago, we had this group of employees at the office of attorney general, who accused Ken Paxton of wrongdoing, of abusing his office to help a friend, essentially. And they went to the FBI. They recorded him.

And that sort of set into motion, what we now have three years later. This impeachment process, which many of those impeachment charges are based off of.

Back in May, over Memorial Day weekend. Well, a lot of people were maybe grilling out or at the lake, whatever.

The House met on a Saturday.

They voted to impeach Ken Paxton. Based on testimony that wasn't sworn testimony. Ken Paxton wasn't made aware of their investigation, until it came out. Forty-eight hours before the vote.

And the House members themselves weren't able to actually look at their testimonies. They had to rely on the word of the House investigators.

GLENN: And, Ken, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't allowed to respond in his own defense.

BRANDON: Right. Right. And so you had a lot of these sorts of things, that people will look at this, like, this is odd.

Well, just like DC, you know, the House does the impeachment, goes over to the Senate to determine whether or not they would convict, which would actually remove him from office. So for the last few months, there has been a lot of talk, from those pushing the impeachment. Who are saying, wait until you see this testimony.

Wait until you see the evidence. You will be blown away by what we have.

And yet, this trial happened last week.

And so far. And we're more than halfway through this.

The testimony has really, really been weak.

GLENN: I would say, a little beyond weak.

There's no evidence of a crime. I mean, this is -- let me just read something. This was the third whistle-blower.

The concern began, when Paxton advocated for the AG's office to open investigation, into Nate Paul.

That see his friend and donor. Alleged mistreatment by the FBI. And Texas DPS. During a raid.

Paul's contention was that the Fed did him dirty by illegally altering his search warrants, after the fact to expand their scope, just to get him.

His technical experts theorized that there was altered meta data in the digital versions, that proved the documents had been changed.

Maxwell quickly developed the opinion, that the whistle-blower, the opinion that Nate Paul was a criminal, that we should not be associated with. Accordingly, he had dragged his feet.

And ultimately refused to open a formal investigation, into the alleged FBI and TBS misconduct. Paxton, convinced of the idea, that the FBI was untrustworthy. Well, that's farfetched.

He eventually hired outside counsel, to help explore and adjudicate Paul's claims, an act that would eventually become a primary catalyst for the whistle-blower complaints.

Now, did anything come of that outside investigation?

BRANDON: No. And the thing is, when you see these people testify, I mean, numerous of these former employees of the office of the attorney general has talked about how insane, literally that's what one of these people said. It would be insane to investigate the FBI.

Essentially, they trust them whole-heartedly. That there would been nothing. I mean, literally, one of them was asked, is there anything that maybe happened over the last two, three, four years, that might change your trust in the FBI?

They said no. Of course, that's in odds with Texas voters. I mean, Republican primary voters.

We have a poll after the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Shows that 73 percent of Texas primary voters have a negative opinion of the FBI.

GLENN: What a shock.

So I'm reading this. And my first thought was. And I dismissed it out of hand.

And I don't even know why it came at me.

But I'm reading all of the testimony. And I'm thinking to myself, this is George Bush. This is -- this is the George Bush wing of the party, that is -- that trusts the FBI. Is denying that there's a problem in America.

The problem is the Republican voters. All of that crap.

And then I continue to read on. And it looks like the whistle-blowers do have a relationship with George P. Bush. Is there anything to this, that this is a Bush ambush?

BRANDON: You know, there's been a couple moments during the testimony of the past week, where the Bush family has been invoked. And it looks like perhaps they were somehow involved in this.

One of those things, that when the whistle-blowers went to the FBI and reported Paxton.

And, by the way, without even asking him or talking to him beforehand, and then they also said they had no evidence when they went.

But when they were preparing to go to the FBI, on that same day, George P. Bush was reactivating his law license.

He would eventually challenge Ken Paxton and the Republican primary last year.

GLENN: Lose.

BRANDON: Lost in the runoff.

And then you also have the case, where Johnnie Sutton, who was a Bush lawyer. Somebody who was a US attorney under Bush, and very close to the Bush family.

He's been representing some of these whistle-blowers for the last three years, and hasn't sent them a bill. Hasn't been paid, essentially they're representing them pro bono.

So that's just another piece of the puzzle, people are looking at and saying, hmm, it looks like someone else. Some outside force is involved here.

GLENN: I -- honestly, the people who brought this impeachment the way they brought it. Should be impeached themselves.

I don't -- you know, the one thing I do hear about Paxton, is he's just a freight train.

And he's not good at playing the game. And making friends and influencing people, whatever. Well, neither is John Adams. And I'm not comparing him to John Adams.

I'm just saying, temperament-wise, John Adams is not a popular guy. But you do not bend the rules to get rid of somebody, if he is -- if he is a criminal. If he did something criminal, then I am for his impeachment.

But if this is just because he has made the right friends.

Or a Bush wants him out.

Or whatever it is. The people involved in this, because it's been so shady, the way they did this.

I think they should be impeached.

BRANDON: Certainly, there's been a lot of anger. Especially among Republican voters.

You know, it's one thing where we see what's happening with the president. Where we see Democrats going after. Using the justice system.

It's another one, here in Texas. And you have Democrats. And establishment Republicans, going along with it.

GLENN: It's really bad. Really, really bad.

Anything to the thought that this happened the week that Paxton said, you know, hey.

Why -- why is our speaker of the House giving, you know, chairmanship to the Democrats?

We don't need friends like this.

And then it was later that week, that the impeachment thing happened.

Was there any connection?

BRANDON: Well, I think absolutely, there has been a divide.

Dave, the establishment guy, that runs the House, who puts Democrats in power.

He has been at odds, with not only Ken Paxton, but the conservative grassroots, who have repeatedly elected Paxton.

So certainly, there's no coincidence there.
There's certainly been a lot of bad blood between the establishment and Ken Paxton.

It just shows why they worked so hard, to try to essentially overturn the election and get him out of office.

GLENN: And quickly, what do your sources tell you, how will this fare? How will this turn out?

BRANDON: Yeah. So they need two-thirds, to permanently remove him from office.

That vote is supposed to take place, maybe Friday and Saturday, and later this week. You know, it's a little tough. You have to do aftermath. The senators are under gag orders.

I would say, especially after people testifying that they essentially had no evidence, which is what we repeatedly saw this week.

I hear a lot of the senators are getting very, very frustrated that House members put them in this situation that they have to sit through this.

And I think that ultimately, that will be something that they will be considering there, when they make those decisions.

GLENN: But you will get all the Democrats. So how many Republicans do you need?

BRANDON: I think you need ten. Ten, if I recall.

GLENN: Ten weasels.

All right. I hope not.

Thank you so much for reporting on this.

And bringing us the story. I appreciate it.

BRANDON: Absolutely.

GLENN: You bet. Brandon Waltons. He's Texas scorecard. You can find Texas scorecard. Wherever you get to your podcast. And YouTube and X every day at 5 o'clock.

STU: And just one quick thing. In case you missed the show yesterday.

It sort of rolls off the tongue. To say, oh. This was brought without any evidence.

Those remember the words of the people, who brought the accusations.

GLENN: Yeah. We have no evidence.

STU: They were asked specifically, do you have any evidence, when you were brought this case? And the guy said no.

GLENN: The most credible said, no. It's just my feeling.

STU: Right. We thought we had some legal activities we brought to their attention.

Did you have any evidence? No.