Latest Articles Videos Hands-On History

Live Podcast Serials Stations

About Charity Real Estate Sponsors Shop Contact

RADIOJuly 13, 2022

The SHOCKING ways Democrats want to ALTER the Supreme Court

A new poll reveals the SHOCKING ways some Democrat-likely voters wish to fundamentally alter the Supreme Court. In fact, 39 percent of likely Democrat voters favor a constitutional amendment to allow the UNITED NATIONS power to reverse any SCOTUS decision that UN member nations feel violates human rights. Um, WHAT?! In this clip Glenn and Stu discuss why giving sovereignty to the UN makes NO sense and the other INSANE changes some Americans want enacted onto our judicial branch…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Hey, I just got a new poll in. Which is great, from the Heartland Institute.

It's -- hmm. It's going to come out tomorrow. Tomorrow, afternoon. The results are pretty terrifying. The poll was done by Rasmussen to see how Americans, how they feel about the Supreme Court.

Yeah. So here's what we have: Majority of Democrat likely voters. Not just registered Democrats. But likely voters, believe the Supreme Court is fundamentally racist. 56 percent. And fundamentally sexist, 67 percent.

That's not good. That's not good. Further, 53 percent of Democrat likely voters, want to abolish the current Supreme Court and establish a new Democratically elected Supreme Court, with justices chosen by the American people, directly. Can you even imagine, what a nightmare scenario that is?

39 percent of Democrats would strongly or somewhat favor a constitutional amendment, that would give the United Nations the authority to reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions, that UN members believe violate human rights.

Could -- I mean, who are the Democrats?

Who are they? I -- I -- really? I mean, I've met this many dumb people, but that would mean all the dumb people in America are Democrat, and I don't believe that.

But I'm beginning to. I mean, 53 percent? 56 percent say it's fundamentally racist. Sixty-seven of Democrats say, fundamentally sexist. But 53 percent of those who are likely to vote, say they want to abolish the Supreme Court, and hold elections for the -- I mean, why don't we just -- why don't we just do America's Got Talent. America has judges.

STU: Look, that idea worked really well with the Senate. Look how great our Senate is doing now. Now that we elect them directly.

It's really improved that process quite a bit. You can kind of understand. Okay the fundamentally racist thing. Well, Democrats think literally everything is racist. Okay. Maybe. Fundamentally sexist. Maybe they just went through the Roe vs. Wade thing. A lot of Democrats are angry about that.

GLENN: I can cut you some slack on that. Maybe.

STU: No one is even proposing, that the UN is taking over vetoing our Supreme Court decisions. And still a giant chunk of Democrats believe that that's the way we should go. That is remarkable.

GLENN: So 39 percent of Democrats would strongly favor a constitutional amendment that would give the United Nations the authority to reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions that UN members violate -- that's 39 percent. Here's the crazy part:

48 percent of all voters aged 18 to 39.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Favored giving the United Nations the power to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court cases.

So wait. You want to give up our sovereignty?

To that group of people? Can you tell me what that group of people have done? One good thing! Honestly, one good thing. Audrey Hepburn was -- was -- was an ambassador for them.

And I loved her. She was great. That's it. That's as far as I can go.
(laughter)

STU: It's -- it really is amazing. Why would you want to do that, of all things? I guess at this point, they just want to overturn everything. Because they see the Constitution being upheld. And that's the problem here. Is that, again, the Supreme Court did not take away a right. They said, the right didn't exist the whole time. Which is true. And they took the power away from themselves. The Supreme Court initially created this right, out of thin air. Which is their argument, by the way.

Not my argument. Their argument is, they acknowledge it wasn't around during the time of the 14th Amendment. Because almost everybody had banned abortion at the time of the 14th Amendment. They can't argue that it was the initial intent. They just said that later on, they believed that updating standards. It's a living document. Now that power of the 14th Amendment, includes abortion. They, the Supreme Court, a bunch of men, created the right. And then a later Supreme Court, said yeah. You can't just create rights like that. That's not what you do. So we took the power out of their own hands. And people are still incredibly angry at them.

It really is ultra amazing.

GLENN: So I don't think people understand the second part of that. They took it out of their hands, because they said, it's not a right in the Constitution.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's not like they said, nope. That's not a right. They said, that's not a right, that the federal government has purview over.

The federal government has certain things that they have -- all the Bill of Rights. All those. That's what the federal government cannot do. Okay?

They can't violate any of those. Well, they're violating all of those right now. Nobody seems to care. It's what the government cannot do. Any other right, not listed there, goes to the people, and to the state. So you might have the right.

I haven't heard a good case on it.

You might have a right for an abortion. But that's for the people and the state to decide, not the federal government.

STU: And some state Constitutions allow for that right. Again, I think that's morally reprehensible. That's in several state constitutions. And you can get those abortions there, for the time being at least. You know, the whole point of this, and this is in several of these.

It was also in the EPA and several others in this session.

It was a theme. We are not the ones that are supposed to make these decisions.

If you guys want to do these things, pass laws.

Start passing laws, if you want these things to be done.

Go within the constitutional bounds of your power, and pass laws. Stop acting like we're going to do all this stuff for you. That's not our job. That's them saying, hey, we aren't going to take the power. We are actually going to cede the power, which for some reason the left wants us to have. We're going to cede it back to the legislatures, where it belongs.

That is what they've been doing over and over again. That's how this is supposed to work.

GLENN: So what is -- what's crazy. Let me do one more thing here. On abortion.

If you look at the numbers, more than one in three, 37 percent said their state should allow abortion only in cases of rape and incest. 37 percent. Another 12 percent, favored allowing abortion only in the first six weeks of pregnancy. And that's when you can detect a baby's heartbeat.

STU: 16 percent you said?

GLENN: Twelve.

STU: We're at half, basically.

GLENN: Yeah. We're at 49 percent of the country that would say, six weeks, that's it.

STU: Six weeks or less.

GLENN: Half of the country.

Yeah. Okay?

Another 23 percent would support a ban at 15 percent, meaning 72 percent of the country agrees with what Mississippi brought in front of the Supreme Court.

Because they said, they wanted a 15-week ban on abortions.

Women are more pro-life than men. And I think that's absolutely -- absolutely explainable. It's a woman's body. You don't have a right to say anything. I completely disagree with that. But how many guys, A, I'll keep the options open?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And, B, just been bullied into not having an opinion?

STU: I think that's true. I think, look, think of this stereotypical situation, that you would think of in these situations.

Guy goes out, hooks up with a girl he finds at a bar. They go back to the house. They do their thing. She's pregnant. And he's the one that is like, oh, I don't even want to talk to her again. Let alone raise a child with her, so, yeah, please, yeah. Abortion is great. Women's rights. Please, oh, my gosh. Women's right to choose. It's so important to me. What a fundamental right this is. They just want to get out of what they've done. Right?

They want to avoid the responsibility. So stereotypically, you assume that the guys would be the ones pushing for this. By the way, I might remind you, it was seven guys who brought the right to you.

So, you know, for all the thoughts that men shouldn't have an opinion here, the only person involved in a major abortion case, that actually decided it, that was a woman, really was -- was Amy Coney Barrett.

I mean, I guess in Casey, you can make the argument. Amy Coney Barrett is the one who is involved here. She's a woman. There were no women involved in the Roe vs. Wade decision at the Supreme Court level.

GLENN: Here's the most telling part of the poll: Majority, if I felt 5 percent said they opposed overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Even though, 72 percent would support a law, that Roe would have struck down. What's more, 25 percent, only 25 percent agreed that the Supreme Court, as opposed to state or federal lawmakers, should set the standards on abortion.

So wait.

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: 72 percent support the law, that it just overturned?

Or, that it just made possible by overturning it.

And only 25 percent say the decision should be in the hands of the Supreme Court. Which is what the Supreme Court said.

STU: Yeah. So basically, what that tells you is that people just don't know what Roe vs. Wade means. They think Roe vs. Wade means, if you overturn it, abortion goes away completely.

They, of course, will learn very soon, that that that's not the case.

Because 72 percent support the Mississippi law. And, you know, 25 percent. Like want the Supreme Court to make these rules. Well, that's what Roe vs. Wade was.

So you can't support Roe vs. Wade. And oppose the Supreme Court coming up with the rules.

Their whole argument in Roe vs. Wade was, you guys are really kind of at odds here. Why don't we come in and say, we'll just make up a standard, and that will kind of solve the problem.

And then Casey came along and they said, hey, that Roe vs. Wade thing sure didn't solve the problem. We'll give you a new standard. A new idea. And that's going to be viability. And that will solve it for you guys. And it didn't solve it at all. And then this Supreme Court said, hey. Maybe we shouldn't be giving us you the standards. Maybe you guys should solve this on your own. Through the normal process. Instead of us coming up with a universal solution for everybody. That's what everybody seems to want in the poll. They have no idea what Roe vs. Wade is, other than people who oppose it, are evil.

GLENN: Yeah. And the people who are for it, apparently love children and women. Even though now, New York has gone crazy. Absolutely crazy. Not only their new gun concealed carry permit. What do you call it? I don't even know.

Bureaucracy. It's worse than it was. It's worse than it was now. And there's no way this stands up in court. No way this stands up in court.

STU: No.

GLENN: And New York also said, they need to crack down on the pregnancy centers, that are offering life. Because they say, they are offering disinformation by saying that it's a baby already inside of you. And the other disinformation is, you're already a mother. You're carrying your child right now. So you already are a mother.

Those are the two pieces of misinformation or disinformation, they say, that they have to crackdown on. So they are now cracking down -- it doesn't matter. No longer. You can have all the abortions you want.

Celebrate all the abortions. We'll send you cakes. Just all the abortions you want. That's not good enough. They have to stop those 20 percent, that go to these pregnancy centers, and have their minds changed.

Interesting times, we live in. You will be forced to participate.

How progressive 'puritans' are DESTROYING FUN for us all

Noah Rothman, author of ‘The Rise Of The New Puritans,’ details just how ‘miserable’ the lives are of today’s progressives. And the worst part? They don’t even REALIZE IT! But these progressive ‘puritans’ are ‘pursuing a moral framework and have imposed it on EVERY ASPECT of life,’ Rothman explains, just like the totalitarian philosophy on which their ideology is based. Glenn and Rothman discuss how this kind of moral absolutism — that takes no prisoners — could cause our society to cease to function normally…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Noah Rothman. A guy who I think really gets it. He's the -- just written the book, The Rise of the New Puritans. The war on fun. Really. Noah, welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

NOAH: Very well. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.

GLENN: You bet. You bet. So Stu and I are in the midst of reading your book. We haven't gotten all the way to the end yet. But I have to ask you: Do -- do progressives know that they're almost embarrassingly unfun right now? Do they know this?

NOAH: No. They absolutely don't. They would reject the premise. And they sort of recoil at the assertion that they're pursuing some sort of a moral framework. That they have imposed this moral framework on every aspect of life. Especially the apolitical aspects of life. They don't see themselves as less fun, less chill. Less accommodating than their parents or grandparents. But they most certainly are. They're having less fun. They're having less sex. They're enjoying life less than their elders.

GLENN: They're having less sex?

NOAH: Oh, yeah. You haven't gotten to that chapter? That's a good one.

GLENN: No.

NOAH: So that is my very salacious chapter on sex and booze. It's called -- it's titled Temperance. All of these chapters are organized around unimpeachable moral values. Because they are pursuing a moral ideal, about how society should organize itself. So when you think of progressives, you don't think they have sexual prescriptions, right?

But if you dig into the literature around the many proliferating sexual identities. It's not about self-gratification or self-fulfillment. It's about the political program associated with these things. This has to pursue and advance a political agenda. And couple that with the labyrinth theme of consent requirements now, in statute, in places like California, but mostly in dorms and college campuses.

And you have this unnavigable labyrinth that has been erected around consent. Which absent consent is obviously a crime. But we created now, real legal and moral, and social consequences, if a Q is misread or a signal is overlooked, or it's just human behavior that's intervened in the process. The complicated process. The result is less sex, people are reporting, especially young people are reporting have much less casual intercourse than their parents did.

GLENN: Okay. I have to tell you, first of all, it is a religion. It is a religion. So you have Puritans absolutely right. And they are imposing it on all of us. But I look at people who are like this. And I think to myself, how could you not be just miserable, if you believe all the things that they believe, it's just a life of misery.

NOAH: Yeah. They don't see themselves as miserable, but they are making their compatriots miserable. I think nine out of the ten people I spoke with are -- who -- most of them wouldn't go on the record, for fear of consequences, saying the things that they actually think.

GLENN: Which is weird.

NOAH: Yeah. Well, there are real social and professional consequences for going against this movement. It's not a big movement, but it punches way above its weight. And so these guys are Democrat. They vote Democrat. They wouldn't vote Republican with a gun to their head. But they didn't get into the business of making delicious food and writing screenplays and broadcasting sports because they wanted to do politics. They don't. They've just been drafted into this movement. And it's sapping them of enthusiasm for their life's work. And they really, really resent it.

STU: Can you go over some of these? You have so many examples of this type of thing. The hummus place is one.

GLENN: I would like to hear about the burrito truck. Tell us about the burrito truck.

NOAH: A truck that was in the Pacific Northwest, these two women went down to Mexico. Fell in love with the food, interviewed chefs, picked up some recipes, brought them back to the Pacific Northwest, and it was a profound success. They were very commercially successful. In fact, a lot of people targeted by this movement are successful. And their success engenders quite the resentment. But they brought it to the Pacific northwest. And the media environment down there, which is beholden to this progressive set of ideas, just went about destroying the thing, because they had stolen this heritage from -- from the hard-working people of Mexico. They hadn't given them any credit. They weren't giving them the proper remunerations that were due.

It was a very nebulous idea of what they violated. What prescriptions they ignored.

But this thing was destroyed. These two women were driven out of business. And the burrito truck, which was feted, which was loved, which was driven under -- out of business. In part, also because I think it was so good. But they had violated some unspoken, unwritten ideals about whatever culture appropriation is, it's very difficult to define. But it's believed to be some form of theft, as though culture is a 0-sum game. And it's commodified in some way.

GLENN: So when I read that, and I thought about it, I had just seen the new Elvis movie. Have you seen the new Elvis movie?

NOAH: I haven't. I heard it's good.

GLENN: It's very, very good. But it taught me something about Elvis that I didn't know. I didn't know that he was so poor after his dad died, that he and his mom lived in a black community in Memphis. Which never happened. He was like the only white kid in this black community. So he grew up in that culture. He grew up with the music. That's why he moved the way he did. And the -- at the time, the programmers of radio, many of them would have loved to have played the black music. But they couldn't put a black man on the air. And when they heard his music, it was the black culture and black music sung by a white guy.

And, you know, it shows B.B. King and all of these legends who were friends of his, going, man, take it. Take it. I'm glad people are listening to it.

Now, you would look at that, and it would be cultural appropriation. And they would hate. I think they probably do, hate Elvis and anybody like him, because he was just stealing that. No, he wasn't.

He was popularizing it. He was breaking a barrier.

NOAH: Yeah. Popularizing it and creating synthesis. And there's this idea abroad that synthesis in music, in culture, in cuisine, is some sort of form of theft. Is there needs to be -- there's a racial essentialist element that's put to this.

That suggests that any creativity in creative works of art and amalgamating and synthesizing various influences into some finished product represents some form of attack on culture, even though what you just said is absolutely correct. In art, in food, and in music, you're exposing new audiences to this thing. You're creating a broader understanding and acceptance of these cultural traits, albeit, perhaps, amalgamated. Not necessarily adulterated. They confuse the two, probably deliberately. But the expansion of broadening the exposure to these ideas. These cultural traits. Used to be something that we would celebrate and accept as an unadulterated good. It's not anymore.

GLENN: Right. I know there was a guy who I grew up listening to on the radio.

He was very, very good. His name was Charlie Brown. He was originally at KJR in Seattle, and then CUBE. And I studied at his feet. I was lucky enough to work with him when I was very, very young. And I watched him, and I talked to him. When I started doing my own show, I called him up and I asked him. Hey, Charlie, can I -- can I steal this and this and this from you? And he just laughed, and he said. And I think this is true, with almost everything.

Because it's not -- you're not living in a vacuum. And he said, Glenn, you steal from me. You have stolen twice.

And that's what we don't understand, that it all is just kind of -- that's where you get your inspiration. And you take it. And you make it your own. And you move -- not stealing things word-for-word, et cetera, et cetera.

Let me ask you, because I'm watching -- I mean, I know you're -- your IQ is a lot higher than mine. And I don't know if you're -- if you're watching like The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, which I think is fantastic.

But it centers around this woman in the 1950s, early 1960s, who wants to be a comedian. And one of the running characters is Lenny Bruce. And Lenny Bruce would absolutely be in progressive jail right now, if he lived today. And you had all of these great comedians, that were there to push back, on the man. Whatever it was, they pushed back. These people like Ricky Gervais, make it, I think, because they don't apologize, and they don't stop.

Can you talk a little bit about the effect of apology, and what's happening in comedy.

NOAH: Yeah. The very same sentiments, policing of public morality, that took in Lenny Bruce. George Carlin and Richard Pryor are at work today. The executors of this campaign are not on the right. They used to be.

You know, the tendency that saw something that would corrupt you into great society and innocent cultural fare, used to be a tendency native to the right. In part, because we are all heirs to this puritanical tradition, has found a home in both political coalitions over the years.

On -- when it comes to comedy, one of the things you see now among this particularly puritanically inclined progressives is to emphasize the pain that someone had to endure, in order for you to enjoy something as trite as a punch line. You know, I see this in the fans of the comedian Hannah Gatsby. An anti-comic. And who is funny when she wants to be. She doesn't always want to be. Sometimes she will build the same tension that would otherwise lead to a punch line, give you that release, and doesn't break the tension. Just lets you sit and marinate in it, and absorb her pain. And maybe interrogate you about that joke that you told five minutes ago, and ask you, why you thought that was funny. Why was my suffering funny?

And that's what they love so much. They love the language. They love the ardor. Because it's a sign of your prudent understanding. That suffering exists in this world. And if you don't dutifully dwell on it every second of your life. You're sacrificing a moral mission, to advance a progressive project and make the human experience just a little bit more, you know, tolerable. This is a very puritanical ideal.

GLENN: I've never heard -- go ahead. Well, hang on. Hang on. I have to take a quick break. I want you to get to the apology. And I want you to explain a little bit deeper this anti-comedian. I've never heard that term before. Anti-comedian. And, you know, it's different than like Andy Kaufman. Who just, for his own entertainment, would make people wildly uncomfortable. But that's a completely different look. As I understand it. We're talking to Noah Rothman. He's the author of the rise of the new Puritans. A great book. You want to understand what's going on with the left and this new religion, and how it affects everything? The rise of the new Puritans, by Noah Rothman. Back with him in 60 seconds.

You can't talk your way out of pain. If you happen to be living with it, you can't reason your way out. And you have to play that delightful game, where you keep trying things, until either something works. Or you're just like, okay. I have to live like this. I got to that point. And my wife maybe took Relief Factor. They were a sponsor of many of my shows. But I never endorsed them. Because I didn't think it would work. And I had never tried it. And my wife said, why aren't you taking that thing that advertises. And I said, Relief Factor?

And she said, yeah. I said, because it's not going to work. It's an anti-inflammatory. Hey, I'm on Ibuprofen 800. Look out. I'm a little loopy. Don't let me drive.

And I said, those things never work for me. She said, just try it. So I tried the three-week Quick Start. And I was shocked. Shocked that it worked for me. This is where most of our pain comes from, is inflation -- sorry, not inflation. Inflammation. Can you see what I have my mind almost all the time? Inflammation is the source of most of our disease. And it's also the source of much of our pain. That's what they target with Relief Factor. In four different directions. Please just try it. In three weeks. Do the three-week Quick Start. You can find out more about it at ReliefFactor.com. ReliefFactor. You can get the three-week Quick Start, 19.95. ReliefFactor.com. Or call 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. ReliefFactor.com. Feel the difference. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Noah, I would love to do a podcast with you and spend, you know, at least an hour with you on this -- this topic. You've really nailed it. The book is the rise of the new Puritans. Tell me about the apology.

NOAH: So we are often bombarded with demands that you will apologize for your conduct. The apology provides you no absolution. And that's where I differ from a lot of the very brilliant scholars. Who have called this a purely secular faith. I don't see it entirely as a faith. Because in a faith in the western condition, there is deism, that expiates sin. There can be no absolution for sin in this particular faith because there is no deism. And because it is such an all-encompassing social code, I liken it more towards Puritanism. Because Puritanism wasn't just a phase. It wasn't just congregationalism. It was a way of life. It was a totalitarian philosophy by definition, because it was total.

When it comes to the apology, the apology as we've all observed, makes you just a more delicious target, and trains more fire on you. This isn't just true in comedy. There's several examples of that in the comedy chapter. But there's a particularly interesting anecdote that I lead off the book with, about a grocery -- about a grocer in Minnesota, that was, again, very popular. Very successful.

It was vetted by Keith Ellison on the floor of the House of Representatives. Diners, drive-ins, and dives. Guy Fieri featured it.

So it turned out, the owner of this grocer had a daughter, who in her youth, 14 and 18, respectively, made racially insensitive remarks online. This was picked up by the online community, that they attempted to him, to -- to apologize. And -- and to make absolution for his sins. He had to fire his daughter. That was not good enough. He pledged that she would devote herself to good works for the community. That was not good enough. Eventually, the holder of his lease terminated the lease.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

NOAH: Because that was the penitence that was deserving of the sin he had committed. The careless parentage of a willful daughter. And this is as moral a code as you can find. It goes back to the founding of the country. When you are apologizing in any other tradition, you would find some absolution. This particularly uncompromising tradition offers no -- no absolution for offenses against it.

GLENN: It is. I will tell you, you're right about this. As a completely different kind -- you don't call it a religion. I do. I just think it's an Antichrist-style religion. There is no forgiveness. And without forgiveness, we cease to function normally as a society. You just can't live in a society, where there is no forgiveness. Where you're held accountable, not only for everything you've ever done, but also anything your ancestors have done. That's a pretty shallow pool of good people that can be swimming around.

Noah, thank you so much for being on the program today. I would love to have you back. Love to do a podcast with you. The book is the rise of the new Puritans. Fighting against progressive's war on fun. Noah Rothman is the author

WARNING: The far-left will put CHRISTIANS 'on trial' SOON

The far-left is coming for Christians, Glenn says. In fact, they’re targeting ANYONE who disagrees with their dangerous ideology, but Glenn believes Christians will be put ‘on trial’ next. But that ‘trial’ will only be a kangaroo court, Glenn says, with the far-left calling only the witnesses who agree with them to testify. In this clip, Glenn explains why Christians MUST understand what’s coming next…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: That audio that we just played, on the spokesperson at the White House? Not really able to -- really able to explain why they called it the Inflation Reduction Bill. Here it is.

VOICE: But if you passed a bill called the Fill Every Pot Hill Act, I mean voters should expect you to fill every pothole. So should voters measure the success of this bill, on how much you reduce inflation in the next couple of years?

VOICE: So this bill spreads out over several years. And so the tax provisions. For example, some of the tax revenue will happen immediately. Some of the benefits, in terms of deficit reduction, will materialize over time.

So, again, this is really an investment, in our economy. It represents the president's economic vision for transitioning to an economy that works better for American families. By generating the kind of growth that's based on stable, steady, productivity gains in the language of economists. So that kind of growth that we know we need to be making, in order to ensure that we continue progressing for the decades to come.

VOICE: Yeah, but a name is just a name. But there are definitely a lot of other names you could have named this bill.
(laughter)
STU: We just lied.
(laughter)
It's so funny how you lied to the American people.

GLENN: You lied. You raped us. And you left us for dead. Oh, man, that is funny.

STU: Oh, that's so funny. That's a problem that's affecting real people and ruining their financial lives, and you acted like you were addressing it.

GLENN: You put a sign on the door that it said, safe space. And we all went in, and there were killers and rapists in the room. That's funny that you put safe space on the door.

STU: What a joy you are.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. These people are evil.

Anyway, the CBO came out yesterday, and were talking about how it's not going to reduce inflation. It's not going to reduce the deficit. In fact, it's going to add to the deficit. It's not going to help the GDP. In fact, it will hurt the GDP.

STU: And it will raise taxes on the middle class, as they promised it would not do.

GLENN: Yeah. The whole IRS thing. Yeah, that's -- yeah. That is coming out. They're going to come out after you. Because they have to. This is what the CBO said yesterday. Thank you for the timely update.

And, by the way, the CBO is known for making things look better than they actually become. So that fills me with -- we're in for a hell scape.

STU: I will say, Glenn, I did hear some pretty important things about the IRS. And this is important. Because they said, before, I don't know if you ever called the IRS before, which I'm sure you have.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, no. I called him back in 1986. I'm still on hold.

STU: Okay. Well, that was the big selling point on this bill.

They said, because they were hiring 80,000 new employees, someone might answer the phone when you call.

GLENN: Well, that is fantastic. And you know what is really great? Is they're going to be so efficient, you're not even going to have to call them. They'll call and come visit you.

Anyway, this is all about -- the -- the United States government has a -- no. I shouldn't say that. The United States president, the administration includes the Department of Education, agriculture. Commerce. All of it. They all have -- they all have private armies. Let me ask you: Why does the Department of Agriculture have armed officers.

I mean, sure, sure. I mean, the -- the very well-known wars that go between the corn farmers and the Amish, you know, when they -- when they get their extremist yogurt feud going on with the Amish, there's nothing that will quell that, other than a United States Department of Agriculture army. What -- they are developing things, and they are putting you into the extremist position. Look at -- over in Europe. They're -- they're already forcing the farmers to live on these ESG rules. Which are, by the way, completely nonsensical. That is not -- that's not even happening. This is a conspiracy theory. These aren't the droids you're looking for.

They're already protesting. And the farmers are being called the extremists. Have you forgotten who grows your food? Grows food?

No. I gave my food from the supermarket. Oh, okay. Well, then don't worry about the farmers. They are targeting anyone who disagrees with them, as an extremist. And this is why the special tonight, on TheBlaze TV, is so important.

You have to understand what is coming for you as a Christian. Now, as somebody who is in a faith that's not the most popular, I will tell you, you're going to -- you're going to look at these days, if you were let's say, a Mormon. Or a Jehovah's Witness. You're going to look at these times, for those -- for those people, as those days don't come back.

I mean, it's not going to be easy to be a Christian soon.

And it all starts with white Christian nationalism. They are making Christians into extremists. And they are lying about our faith. Christians are the next one in line, in line. And your faith is now on trial.

But it's a -- it's a kangaroo court. They're not calling any witnesses on the other side. They're calling witnesses that agree with them. It is so misleading, and so dangerous. You need to understand, how they are painting Christianity in America.

That's what we're going to do tonight. Show you where this all breaks down. Give you the rebuttals to these things, so you can share them with your friend, to -- and I did -- I didn't say friends. I did say, share it with your friend. Because if you're actually Christian today. And willing to stand up for it. You probably have one friend. But you need to be able to answer and tell your friends. And have them share with others. This is an amateur smear campaign. But it is going to be relentless. CNN came out with an article last week. We're going to debunk that tonight. And also, look at this one. Catholics weaponized the rosary. From the Atlantic.

The AR-15 is a sacred object among Christian nationalists. Now, you would ask yourself, what is a Christian nationalist?

Stu, if I asked you this, I said, what is a Christian nationalist, what would you say?

STU: A Republican.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. Wow, the brainwashing has worked even on you. What would you -- honestly, what would you say a Christian nationalist is?

STU: There's a vision of a Christian nationalist, that basically is an idea of -- an America that is built on Christian principles, but is closer really to a theocracy, and is exclusionary toward other faiths. Other races. Usually is included in that as well.

The idea that --

GLENN: Can you give me a country in history, that might be labeled a Christian nationalist country? Labeled. Not actually won. But one labeled that.

STU: An example that was named -- I mean, certainly, they liked to say that, about Hitler, back in the day. Germany. Of course, it's completely ridiculous. We've covered that many times. We don't need to go back into it. Hitler, not a Christian. Not a fan of Christianity. Wanted to end all of the churches. Was literally outspoken, throughout his -- not only comments -- commentary with close advisers. But, you know, admitted much of this publicly. That this was a long-term goal. Of fascism. But --

GLENN: Wiped it out.

STU: But let's call it Christian nationalism, anyway, I think is the approach of the --

GLENN: Okay. So Christian nationalism, they've defined this. And you'll find out all of this tonight on Blaze TV. If you are not a member, may I ask you to join us: We are in the fight for our life, right now.

And I would ask that you would join Blaze TV. And I know your money is tight. I know. I know. I think and pray about you all the time. I -- I honestly -- every time I go to the grocery store, or -- or go fill up a tank, I wonder, how are you making it? How -- how is the average person making it? And so I know it's tight. But we really try to give you much more than your money's worth on Blaze TV. And even if you just watch our Wednesday night special, you get so much more and so many more talent. You get Mark Levin and Steven Crowder and everybody else. But we really depend on you.

It is going to get harder and harder for all of us to survive soon. And if we can stick together, we will -- we will be able to make it. We will be able to make it. But you need to know the truth. And my staff, I think we do more research on my staff, than any other talk show on radio or television.

And we sure would like your support, at Blaze TV. Just sign up now. Become a member of the family. You'll save 10 percent. Use the promo code Glenn. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. So tonight, we're going to be talking about this. And you need to arm yourself with it. But let me continue with this, from the Atlantic. The AR-15 is a sacred object among Christian nationalists. Is it? Now the radical traditional Catholics, are bringing a sacrament of their own to the movement.

On this extremist fringe, rosary beads, have been woven in to a conspiratorial politic, and an absolutist gun culture. You know, I have to tell you, I can remember -- I can remember Sister Shavon and Sister Uno and Sister Julie, as they would be whispering the rosary on their knees.

I remember walking in to the church as a kid. Candles. The smell of the church. Incense. And they were there. You could just barely hear them. And I would walk up behind them, because I didn't want to disturb them.

But then one of them heard me, and they were surprised. And all I heard was (sound effect), and they took their ARs out. And they were like, stand down. Stand down. And I was like, oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh, I'm sorry, sister. I'm sorry. I didn't know.

Oh, they're so radical. Those rosary people. The armed radical traditionalists have taken a spiritual notion that the rosary can be a weapon in the fight against evil.

Now, this is a new thing? Because I am pretty sure. I mean, maybe it's just me. I was raised Catholic. I always thought the rosary and doing things like praying was a weapon in the fight against evil.

Yes, but now they're taking it literally. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

It's a Garat. That's what it really is. I've seen him. I've seen him before.

Jason Bourne. I mean, they've changed it from reality. But the real Jason Bourne. When he goes and he chokes people out. He uses a rosary. And what do you think the pope is doing?

When he has to kill people, he uses a rosary. Anyway, social media pages are saturated with images of rosaries draped over firearms. How many times have you seen that?

STU: Oh, I hate that. This is the thing they do now, to show a movement, when they can't find one. Like the other day, they were saying, after the raid on the -- the Mar-a-Lago residents of Donald Trump. They said, the words Civil War were being tweeted once a minute.

Now, there are 400 million people on Twitter. You're getting one tweet every 60 seconds. This is not a news story. Okay?

Any combination of words is being tweeted once a minute, on Twitter.

GLENN: Not hot cheerleader.

STU: No. Yeah. You couldn't find that.

GLENN: Nope. Not hang.

STU: This is so ridiculous. But this is what they want to do.

GLENN: All right. So here's something. And I just want to point this out. If you are a non-traditional Catholic theologian. So you're for this, you know, new more open progressive, hey, everybody can be whoever they want to be. And we should marry everyone and everything.

You should not be written about, and you might want to reconsider your name. The theologian, Massimo Faggioli has described a network of conservative Catholic bloggers. And commentary organizations as the Catholic cyber militia, that actively campaigns against LGBTQ, and the acceptance of them in the church. These rad trad -- this is a new word.

Rad trad. Their radical traditionalists. These rad trad rosary as a weapon memes, represent a social media diffusion of such messaging. And they work to integrate ultra conservative Catholicism, and other aspects of online far right culture. The rosary in these hands is anything, but holy, says Mr. Fagoli. Wow. It's like Dr. Seuss. But for millions of believers, the beads which provide -- provide for a sequence of devotional prayers. That have always been traditionally looked at, as a source of strength. Now take on a new meaning.

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…

Transcript

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.

GLENN: No.

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.