HILLARY: Despite all the challenges that we face, I remain convinced that, yes, the future is female. Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month as women organized a March that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world.
GLENN: So which is it? Is there a war on women? Or is the future female? And what exactly does the future as female mean?
Hillary Clinton and others have expended a lot of time and energy selling the war on women. So this new phrase would seem a little out of step with that effort. But it's important to note that this new phrase and effort comes complete with another attempt to pass the E.R.A. the equal rights amendment. The initial effort to get the E.R.A. added to the U.S. constitution never happened. But there are many that would say it wasn't necessary in the first place.
>> If the equal rights amendment passes, we would have no choice. Women would be drafted and forced into combat.
>> And the president is staunchly against it. The club begins a new era. That's era not E.R.A. E.R.A. supporters have a tough time keeping the debate focused on what they see as E.R.A.'s main goal. Economic equality for women who in 1982 earn 59 cents to every man's dollar.
>> As a registered nurse, Carol makes less than men who fix cars, drive buses, or trim trees. That's why Carol wants the equal rights amendment ratified.
GLENN: There were several factors that wound up dooming the movement. First of all, there were already laws on the books that guaranteed women equal rights. In certain circumstances, such as when marriages break up, a case could be made that women's rights were and are superior to men's. Yet the perception on many is that there's an ongoing war on women and women are faring poorly on it.
>> What I would say to women who say there's already equality in our country, is look at our lives. Pregnancy discrimination.
GLENN: By all, please, let's truly open our eyes and look at each of those issues. The never-ending claim of those who are supposedly fighting for women's rights is that women make anywhere from 78 to 87 cents for every dollar a man makes. In fact, the 1982 news report claimed it was just 59 cents on every dollar. If we indeed are going to open our eyes to this issue, then we will find that even the liberal Washington Post has debunked this faulty claim every year since 2012, calling it false.
Study after study has found that when comparing similar experience, education, skill level, and commitment to job length of women and men, there is virtually no gender disparity in pay. None. In fact, in 147 America's largest 150 cities, young women make 8 percent more than men. All right. What about violence against women? Huge increase of rape in America. We're told now that things have gotten so bad that one out of every five women will be raped on a American College campus. If accurate, that would be a higher perjury of rape than what occurred during the Rwandian genocide.
The good news is it's not accurate. It's an outrageous falsehood. Sexual assaults in the United States have actually plummeted since the mid-1990s, falling by nearly 60 percent. Domestic violence is down 63 percent and partner violence has dropped by a whopping 72 percent. As for pregnancy discrimination, I'm not even sure what that is, quite frankly. In general, reproductive rights and pregnancy discrimination are nothing more than euphemisms for abortion on demand. It was about these reproductive rights that a law student Sandra Fluke testified a few years ago.
>> Contraception as you know can cost a woman $3,000 during law school.
GLENN: $3,000? Condoms are like 20 cents a piece. That is -- I mean, if you want to do the math, about 15,000 sexual encounters. Law school generally takes three schools to complete. To pull off 5,000 encounters a year, a woman would have to average almost 14 sexual encounters every day. So let's say 15 on a good day and maybe just 13 on a slow hookup day. Even on the days where you can't fulfill your normal allotment of hookups on tinder, that doesn't leave you a lot of time to study case law.
Now, for those who like to scream about the war on women, nothing gets them more angry than standing in the way of a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. The fact is nothing fits the description of war on women better than the actual killing of female babies. If pro-life advocates had their way, there would be 52 million more people on earth today than there are. Slightly over half of these would be women living, breathing, life experiencing women. Take a moment and hear them roar.
If pregnancy discrimination is really about benefits available for female employees, current U.S. law dictates that a parent, nearly always the mother, can take 12 weeks of leave from her job. Some employers offered paid leave. For others, it's unpaid. But almost exclusively it is women that take advantage of that benefit. Still, it's often claimed that the U.S. has the worst pregnancy benefit of any industrialized country on earth.
However, in a nation built on liberty and person responsibility, it's ludicrous to believe that the government would or should force employers to pay women who leave their jobs for three months, regardless of the reason. It's even more full hearty to expect that in a nation built on liberty that the government would or should impose maternity leave taxes on others. On the childless, on the single adults, on the elderly, on anyone other than those who have chosen to start their family to provide the benefits to the mothers leaving their jobs.
In the 1950s, only 19 percent of mothers with young children worked outside of the home. 81 percent of mothers stayed at home with their kids. The 1960s brought about a sexual and social revolution to the United States and to the American family. Discontented women like Betty began telling moms that they couldn't be fulfilled by raising a family that, in fact, something was wrong with them if that's all they did. Women, stay at homes suddenly under siege for not wanting to be more. They could have it all. But not by raising their family. They had to leave their family and enter the corporate world.
It's truly ironic to note that even as women were being encouraged to leave their homes and enter the world of corporate America, the same feminist movement as with so many other movements at the time quickly became mixed with the need for other women to do something outside the home, the anticorporate message of Marxism was also added to this mixture.
>> How did you account for women subordination? What was your opinion why women were suppressed?
>> We thought it was a mixture of men in capitalism. It seemed to me if you were going to change women's position, you needed to change the society.
GLENN: So somehow doing more than changing diapers became intermingled with Marxism.
>> I was in those small consciousness raising groups. But first with my characteristic arrogance I thought I was in them because I was suppressed. But because they needed real politics. They needed an economic analysis. And thank the goddess they got to me before I got to them.
>> I was in a group which was rather swaty group, actually, because we wanted to read about anthropology, and I had the idea that somehow anthropology provided some mystery key. Anyway, we all sat down and read angles. So we read things and discussed them, and then we would have these heart-rendering sessions about saying we're not a proper consciousness-group like the Americans. We need to talk more personally.
GLENN: So as with many movements in the 1960s and '70s, Marxism and radicalism poisoned the direction that this movement would take. What may have started out as a way for women to discover new talents that they never knew they had, and to spread their wings to fly a little, morphed into yet another way for radicals to infiltrate American society.
For those radicals, this movement had the added benefit of striking at the very foundation of American life. The American family. Whereas in the 1950s, 81 percent of mothers stayed home with children. By 2000, that number had dwindled to 23 percent. And in the meantime with no one, no mother or father in the home full-time, nearly every aspect of American life has suffered as a result.
But there is a silver lining in the story. In the recent years, the downward trend of mothers choosing to work inside the home has been reverse. As of the latest year that statistics are available, 29 percent of American mothers with children have chosen to stay at home and raise their young families. It just may be that a significant number of American parents are realizing that there is a war being waged in this country. And it is a war on children. And that someone needs to fight the battle in the home.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- / 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
