Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

'Heaping scoop of incompetence' - Pat and Stu lament 'terrible' Democratic debate

October 15, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Pat and Stu filled in for Glenn on radio Wednesday, sharing their reactions to the gaffe-ridden Democratic presidential debate hosted by CNN Tuesday night.

"I seriously couldn't take it," Pat said. "It's probably the worst field ever gathered to run for a party's nomination, I would think."

Stu shared Pat's sentiments, comparing one of the candidates, Lincoln Chafee, to the eagle from The Muppets.

Later, the conversation turned toward Hillary Clinton's statement about "big government" Republicans trying to cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

"That remark by Hillary Clinton was the dumbest thing ever uttered by a human being. To say that a cut of $500 million is evidence of big government is quite possibly the worst point ever made by a politician," Stu said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

PAT: I couldn't -- I seriously couldn't take it. I couldn't take it -- it started at what, 7:30, by maybe 25 after 8:00, I'm like, okay, I can't. I just can't do it.

JEFFY: I was praying for the first commercial break.

PAT: I know. The lies. The deceit. The attacks. The deception. The communism.

(laughter)

STU: And also, let's add on a giant heaping scoop of incompetence.

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: That's a terrible field in comparison.

PAT: Wow. Oh, it's a terrible field. It's probably the worst field ever gathered to run for a party's nomination, I would think.

STU: By a major party, I think you could seriously make that argument.

PAT: If it was the Green Party or the --

STU: Or even the Libertarian Policy. I'm not talking about policy here. I'm just talking about how bad the candidates are. If you had like -- there's a party called the Peace and Freedom Party or something, that's basically a socialist party, like that's a field of candidates I could see them putting out there.

PAT: And policy-wise, they all fit in.

STU: They could all fit in and all get that nomination. It was embarrassing.

PAT: Jeez. Oh, my gosh. Lincoln Chafee is just -- I mean, what is he doing on the stage? What are you doing running for president?

STU: Well, first of all, he looks like the muppet eagle, I don't know if you noticed that.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: If you see them side by side, they're almost identical.

PAT: We have to see them side by side.

STU: I posted actually on my Facebook page. I came up with a campaign poster for them, which is Eagle Chafee 2016. And they look -- Sam the eagle and Lincoln Chafee are almost identical. That's number one.

But perhaps slightly more importantly, the man -- I've never seen anything like it. His answer as to one of his first votes.

PAT: Yeah, we have that. Let's check that out.

ANDERSON: Governor Chafee, you've attacked Secretary Clinton for being too close to Wall Street banks. In 1999, you voted for the very bill that made banks bigger.

LINCOLN: Glass-Steagall was my very first vote. I just arrived. My dad had died in office. I was appointed to the office. It was my very first vote.

ANDERSON: Are you saying you didn't know what you were voting for?

LINCOLN: I just arrived in the Senate. I think we get some takeovers, and that was one of my very first vote. And it was 95 -- 9 to 5 was the record.

ANDERSON: With all due respect, sir, what does that say about, that you were passing a vote for something you weren't really sure about?

LINCOLN: I think you're being a little rough. I just arrived at the United States Senate. I had been mayor of my city. My dad had died as I was appointed by the governor. It was the first vote. And it was 90 to 5.

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: I had hay fever that day. I put on brown and yellow. I didn't look very good.

JEFFY: I didn't even know where I was.

PAT: I think it might have even been beyond hay fever. It might have been a sinus infection.

STU: I was eating a hash brown, and some of the oil got on my shirt and it made it like clear. I was very nervous. I was self-conscious.

PAT: But there was a stain.

STU: Yeah, there was a stain there.

PAT: So I was looking at that more than I was the bill.

STU: I think you're being a little rough here, Anderson, considering that it was one of my first days. I mean, when you go in and you have a job for the first day, you walk around, you shake hands with a couple people, you have some doughnuts in the office. I wasn't expecting to vote. I just pressed a button. I didn't even know what happened.

PAT: I didn't even know there was voting going on in Congress. When did this start? Well, good follow-up would have been, well, what's going to happen on your first day of president?

STU: Look, I happened to bomb Idaho. It was my first day in office.

PAT: My wife was sick. I was worried about her. So, yeah, I sent some P52s over Idaho.

JEFFY: I think you're being a little rough.

STU: Is that one of the more unbelievable moments you've ever seen from a candidate?

PAT: Oh, it is.

STU: He was saying because it was his first day, he had no idea what he was voting for. And that was his excuse for supporting this particular bill. I mean, that's an unbelievable moment. Now, he is an absolute zero in every way, including the polls. So it's not -- he's not the guy with all the attention on him. But that field -- because it's one thing to say, okay, Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate. And she is a bad candidate. She's supporting policies -- some of the stuff she said and we'll get into it in that debate. In every other election say pre-2008 would be a complete disqualifying as a run for president -- to have any chance to win the presidency. It was that bad. But on that stage, there is no chance anyone on that stage can beat her.

They're terrible.

PAT: Although, they loved him.

STU: Bernie Sanders was laughable. They loved him in that room.

PAT: He won the debate on Drudge. And they loved him in the room.

STU: The Drudge poll is an internet poll.

PAT: And most people are saying Hillary won.

STU: Because Hillary does not have to win those debates. She just has to not be terrible.

PAT: Although she was. She was terrible.

STU: I think she was for a general election. I think she certainly was for anyone that has ever seen or heard --

PAT: She might be great for the new Democrat Party.

STU: Right.

PAT: She might be great. I mean, you've got a stage filled with people who are seriously qualified to run for the socialist or Communist Party.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: They absolutely could be running for that nomination. And the only one there who probably couldn't is Webb. And he has no place anymore. Jim Webb has no place in the Democrat Party. He's an actual Democrat like you knew them 40 years ago. Jim Webb seems to be, for the most part, a fairly reasonable Democrat. A moderate guy.

STU: Yeah, I think it was National Review who said he would have had a good chance of winning the nomination in 1948.

PAT: Exactly, yeah. Now, there's no way. He's not nearly communist enough. Not nearly. And they keep throwing out the Republicans like they're so extreme. Like they're so wild-eyed. Are you crazy? You guys are all communists. And you've got a guy who is very reasonable. He has no place in your party anymore. No place in your stinking party.

STU: Yeah. No place in your party. I mean, you have a guy here who is saying he's a socialist. And the mainstream candidate is doing everything she can to get to his left. Everything she can to get to his left.

PAT: Right. It's working out pretty well too. I mean, listen to this.

STU: Yeah, she just keeps going that way.

HILLARY: We've got to do more about the lives of these children. That's why I started off by saying, we need to be committed to making it possible for every child to live up to his or her God-given potential. That is really hard to do if you don't have early childhood education, if you don't have schools that are able to meet the needs of the people or good housing. There's a long list. We need a new New Deal for communities.

PAT: Okay. So if that doesn't send a chill down your spine. We need a new New Deal.

STU: Yeah, now, is that a newer New Deal than the new New Deal that they proposed in 1935?

PAT: Yes. We already had that new deal.

STU: Well, there was a New Deal. Then there was a new New Deal. This would be the new new New Deal?

PAT: This would be the super mega doppler New Deal.

STU: Wow.

JEFFY: And she's really concerned about childhood education. Really? How about that Planned Parenthood? At what age does child education start?

STU: She actually had, and I use this intentionally, the balls to say that she cared about the lives of children.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Is that a serious point? You don't get to make that on the Democratic debate stage.

PAT: Not if you're as pro-abortion as she is.

STU: No.

PAT: Not if you love Planned Parenthood as much as she does. And she does.

HILLARY: It's always the Republicans or their sympathizers who say, you can't have paid leave, you can't provide health care. They don't mind having big government to interfere with a woman's right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood.

PAT: Okay. Let's attack that now. They're not taking down Planned Parenthood. The government -- the big government we fight against is currently funding Planned Parenthood to the tune of $500 million a year. And they want to stop doing that.

STU: Yep.

PAT: They want the big government to stop being so big that they're funding that organization. And if they then survive, so be it. If they fail, so be it. Let them get their own private -- my guess is they get plenty of funds anyway. Because last year, what did they have? 2 billion, wasn't it?

STU: I think it was 1.5.

PAT: Yeah, it was definitely -- somewhere over one and $2 billion.

STU: Yeah. And I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but that remark by Hillary Clinton was the dumbest thing ever uttered by a human being. To say that a cut of $500 million is -- is evidence of big government is quite possibly the worst point ever -- ever made by a politician.

PAT: Stupid. And she doesn't get challenged on it.

STU: No. In fact, I was listening to CNN earlier today, and it was, this was her big moment. Where she came out and she said, the -- the Republicans love big government when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood. Are you listening to yourself speak? Defunding. You're talking about taking government money away from an organization is big government.

PAT: Right.

STU: Every time they come out and they say, they want to cut childhood education funding. They want to cut health care spending. Is that all big government too? When they want to cut those things?

PAT: It doesn't seem like it to me. No.

STU: You're shrinking the size of government in theory. Again, the proposal doesn't even do these things. It doesn't even cut the money going to women's health organizations. It just redirects it from one that's under criminal investigation or at least very well may be soon.

But you have an issue where cutting money to an organization -- a government gives free money to somebody. That's big government. That is what conservatives fight against.

PAT: Right.

STU: Big government giving money to their friends. To other -- private organizations. That is what we fight against. When we say that we don't want that. She identifies that as big government.

PAT: Big government. Yeah. Well, she also ties in. That's where they want to tell women what to do with their body. Yeah, well, we also want government to tell people what to do with other human beings that we don't want them to kill. We do allow certain things. We allow access to the government to do certain things like prevent murder. That is a function of the government.

STU: Yes.

PAT: It's not that we want bigger government. We just want the government to do what it's supposed to do. And that's protect life.

STU: And of course, this comes from a party that is telling you the size of sodas you're allowed to ingest. They don't care about the government being involved with your body. They want the government involved with every aspect of what you do.

PAT: Yeah, it's unbelievable. And she had more.

HILLARY: They're fine with big government. I'm sick of it.

You know, we've been doing these things -- we should not be paralyzed. We should not be paralyzed by the Republicans and their constant refrain, big government this, big government that, except for what they want to impose on the American people. I know we can afford it because we're going to make the wealthy pay for it.

PAT: Oh.

STU: Of course. Of course. The wealthy.

PAT: Oh.

STU: They can pay for everything.

JEFFY: She almost did it there. She almost did it where she almost went to the Hillary screech. And she pulled it back. I know.

PAT: Very close.

STU: She got close though.

PAT: Very close.

STU: She is not good with big crowds like that. Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about that at her rallies because no one has been showing up, but she is not good.

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.