GLENN: Hello, America. So Bill Maher is on CNN, and he's talking to Jake Tapper. And he says -- you know, they're talking about Hillary Clinton coming out again and whining about why she lost and not having any self-awareness at all. I suck. I suck. Nobody likes me. They like me because of Bill. But if Bill wasn't around, I would have never been a politician or anything that had gone possibly a mayor.
PAT: That would be woke Hillary.
GLENN: That would be woke Hillary.
PAT: But she's not.
GLENN: But she's not woke.
PAT: No.
GLENN: Nobody around her has enough courage to say, "Hillary, you need to let this go, baby, because you played a role in this. Nobody likes you, and you've just overstayed your welcome." And if -- I mean, honestly, we've said this from the beginning, my shoe could have beaten Hillary Clinton. And I think that was proven out with Donald Trump. Somebody that even most people on the right will say, "I mean, I found it really hard to vote for the guy, but I can't go for Hillary." I mean, that's basically saying, "I've got a shoe. And, well, my shoe isn't Hillary."
A lot of what happened here was you had two of the most flawed candidates in American history running against each other. And it was a Sophie's choice in the negative. You wanted to put them both on the train, but you had to select one that stayed with you. And that's what it was.
I want this one to go away, and I don't want to see them again. And that's the way everybody on the left felt about Donald Trump. I'd like to put him on the train, and I never want to think about him again.
So she's not self-aware enough to see, it's just time to go away, Hillary. It's time to go away. You had your chance. You blew it.
And until people can be honest and say, "Look, she was a really flawed candidate," they won't be able to move forward.
Now, listen to what Bill Maher says. This is fascinating.
VOICE: When Bill Maher was asked at the event if misogyny played a role in her loss, she said yes. Do you agree?
BILL: Of course. Absolutely. I think we learned a lot about this country, and we're learning more about it as we watch what goes on with Fox News every day.
VOICE: That is a pretty remarkable turn of event. But you think that's about a misogynistic problem in American corporate culture and not just a few bad apples, I'm guessing.
BILL: Not just corporate culture. You know, I think race is more on the surface, and people talk about it. And there's movements like Black Lives Matter. And I'm glad there are. But I think -- I think we thought we were further along on the woman issue than we are. And I don't think we are.
GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second. I just -- I want to point this out that, okay. Maybe we aren't as far as I thought we were with women because we're not as far along as I thought we were on things like the Constitution. You know, we're not as far along as I thought we were on our principles that bring us together. We're not as far along as I thought we were on -- on anger issues and identity politics. I thought that was one side, but it is also the other side. It's our side too.
So maybe he's right. But I don't -- about some of that. That, you know, maybe we're not as far along as I think we are.
However, to condemn America as this blind country, this jingoistic blind race-hating, Muslim-hating country, you have a guy who grew up in -- outside of America. Has the name -- chosen name of Barack Hussein Obama, while we're fighting a guy named Hussein.
STU: And Osama.
GLENN: And Osama. Who is black.
Now, when, you know -- has -- has the prime minister of England been black? Has the prime minister of Italy, Germany, France -- let's use some of their countries. Cuba, Russia, China, have they've had black guys? No.
PAT: Uh-uh.
GLENN: Okay. So here's a country that not only elected a black man and even his most vocal foes, me, when he was elected, the very next day, I got on and said, "Let's just take a minute here and just celebrate the fact that we're not who everybody says we are." I am thrilled that that barrier is now gone. I'd be thrilled for the barrier -- for a woman to be present.
Who thinks that way? Who thinks that way?
STU: Your chosen candidate, the vice president of that ticket was Carly Fiorina.
GLENN: Yes. Yes.
STU: I mean, that was the one you were rooting for.
GLENN: Yes. I mean, you just don't think this -- you don't think this way. I don't think the vast majority. Now, some do. Okay? But there's always a group of people in any size group that have weird beliefs or wrong beliefs on something. But now listen to what he says. Do you have the rest?
BILL: I mean, there's something like 80 countries who have had a woman leader. Pakistan has had a woman leader. But not the United States of us. Somehow we lag behind that. And I know a lot of people say, "Yes. I'd vote for a woman. I just didn't want to vote for that one."
GLENN: Stop. Hold on just a second. Have they had a Christian leader? Have they had a Jewish leader? Has Pakistan had a white leader? Have they had an Indian leader?
I mean, I just want to throw out.
PAT: A Jewish leader.
GLENN: A Jewish leader. This is our world. That's their world. Well, they've had a woman leader. Okay. They've had a woman leader.
STU: We've never had a Pakistani leader. But Pakistan has. Yeah, so?
GLENN: You're not comparing -- it's culture to culture, dude. Culture to culture.
STU: Ridiculous.
GLENN: Now, listen. There's more.
BILL: Well, let's see next time when there's another woman put up for president, and I don't know how -- I don't know when that's going to happen. It doesn't look any time soon.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina.
VOICE: Well, it might be Elizabeth Warren, we don't know.
GLENN: Carly Fiorina. Now, stop, stop. Instead of Carly Fiorina, it might be Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren, another person that even people not on the hard left, but on the Democratic side, say is too hard-core left.
STU: Uh-huh. Bernie Sanders. But, you know --
GLENN: Bernie Sanders, who is a woman, and younger. There's a lot of people who think Bernie Sanders is too far. Go ahead.
VOICE: 2020 possibilities, any Democrats that you like that you hope get into the race?
GLENN: Listen to the sexist.
BILL: I still like Bernie Sanders.
GLENN: Okay. Stop. What an unbelievable sexist.
PAT: Everyone else is a misogynist, but he still wants Bernie Sanders. He didn't name a woman.
GLENN: Now, if there was a race between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton --
PAT: Oh, man.
GLENN: Oh, wait a minute. There was. Who was he pushing for?
PAT: What a misogynist.
GLENN: Was he pushing for the old white guy?
STU: So great.
GLENN: Or was he pushing for Hillary Clinton because he's not a misogynist.
STU: That's awesome.
PAT: No, he is a misogynist. He pushed for the old white guy.
GLENN: I mean, it is amazing. Completely amazing.
PAT: Complete unawareness too. They are so self-unaware. It's --
STU: By the way, Bernie is only eight years older than Elizabeth Warren. So I think you would have a very similar profile.
GLENN: No, I'm just saying the old white guy.
STU: It's -- yeah.
GLENN: I mean, I'm tired of the old white guy.
STU: I'm just saying the age isn't too much of a factor.
GLENN: Right?
Oh, my gosh. Stu, why do you hate --
STU: You said younger. I guess technically. Yeah, eight years.
GLENN: Eight years.
And why are you always defending the old white guys? You just want a culture full of old white guys, started by old white guys.
PAT: He's a misogynist.
STU: Well, what candidate would you like if you had a choice of any candidate?
GLENN: I would like -- I don't know if you have met Rodgey Hussein Mao.
(chuckling)
STU: Uh-huh. I haven't.
GLENN: But it is a wonderful unit. I don't want to say person.
STU: Sure, of course not.
GLENN: And I'm going to assign gender. But that's my -- that's the one that I think if America wants to prove itself.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: And redeem itself, it will vote for that.
STU: Okay. Good. Okay.
GLENN: Okay. So there you go.
Now, there's more because what I want to show you is they're overplaying their hand. While they're overplaying their hand, they are saying they're overplaying their hand. Do you have the other piece from Bill Maher? Now, listen to this.
PAT: Yeah.
VOICE: So what should Democrats do to win over Trump voters?
BILL: Well, I was just going to say, a bit of it is ease up on the identity politics.
GLENN: Okay. Now, he just played identity politics.
PAT: Identity politics.
GLENN: And then he's saying we should ease up on it. Now, when we come back, I'm going to show you culturally, comedy, television shows, art, that always leads the way. It always -- when you start to see art going a certain way -- and I use art to cover a lot of things -- you see culture start to move. Culture is always ahead of politics. And I want to show you a couple of things that show, again, the culture is being moved away from the identity politics, all of the political correctness, all of the things that you could be woken up in the middle of the night and ask a question and went, "What? What are you talking about? Go back to sleep. You're not making any sense." You in a dead sleep could be able to say, "You who are supposedly awake aren't making any sense. Go to sleep." They're overplaying their hand. And the culture is starting to change. We'll give you that here in a second.
After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."
Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.
If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:
Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.
Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.
Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.
Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images
Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.
ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images
Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.
PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images
Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.
Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.
PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images
To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.
Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?
During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.
The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.
The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:
THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images
For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.
After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.
The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.
OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images
While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.
Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.
mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images
In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.
With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.
Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.
This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.
The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.
But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?
Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.
The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.
Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images
Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.
Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.
Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.
Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.
