RADIOAugust 18, 2022

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

EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy Explains His FIERY Rejection of Spending Bill

According to the media, there’s a big fight going on between Republicans over the House’s new slimmed-down continuing resolution spending bill. Some, including President-elect Donald Trump, wanted the bill to pass. But others, like Texas Representative Chip Roy, argued that it still wasn’t ready. However, is the Republican “unity coalition” really crumbling, like the media claims? Rep. Chip Roy joins Glenn to explain what’s really going on. He argues that he IS trying to give Trump and DOGE a 100-day “runway” to fix the country. But he makes the case that, by increasing the debt ceiling by $5 trillion without agreeing on other cuts, this bill gives bad actors the ability to be an “obstacle” to Trump’s agenda further down the line. Plus, he reveals to Glenn that he believes some of these bad actors LEAKED false information about his stance to Mar-a-Lago.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

I think we have a great opportunity today. To show you how to have a -- tough conversation, with friends, friends. Where you deeply disagree on something.

But you know that their intent is good. They know my intent is good. Or our intent is good.

And we actually have the same end goal, but we disagree on the path. And we're going to walk away friends.

Chip Roy is joining us today. And, Chip, I love you. And I always will. And I agree with your, we've got to cut spending. We have to. But Liz Wheeler is with me. And we've been talking about it all morning. It's the -- the -- the -- the system of DOGE and Trump, the call-out to the world, in saying, you've got to surrender the Capitol. You know, the bad guys are in and about to take all the money.

Surround, and tell them, come out with your hands up. And that happened. And we scored a massive win, in an entirely new way.

Ask then you stood on principle, one we both agree with.

And it failed!

And so here's -- here's what Liz and I were talking about. Here's what we want to say to you.

And then get your response.

LIZ: Hi, Congressman Roy, this is the way I see it. I want your take on it. I love you. I think you're one of the best members of Congress. I disagree with you on the process that's happening. And I think that is the difference. The process. We elected Donald Trump to be a disruptor. Because Republican members of Congress for decades have been telling they're fiscal conservatives. They want to decrease the debt SEAL. It hasn't happened.

It hasn't -- it hasn't been done. And so Donald Trump comes in with Elon Musk, and uses this DOGE process to first identify these pieces of garbage in the first 1500-page bill. And take those things to the people. We took them to members of Congress. Congress said, okay. We'll listen to you.

So that new process was very effective.

And my question to you is: Once that process was proved to be effective. Which I think is exciting and wonderful.

How do we bridge this divide, with you, to say, okay.

Let's put some faith in this new process. And trust Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the Dow Jones process, to eventually address the debt ceiling, but get this done right now?

GLENN: And not blind trust. Chip.

CHIP: So appreciate you guys. Appreciate being on the show. Particular order. I have to go through a couple of things.

GLENN: Yep.

CHIP: Number one, it's important to remember that my job and my duty is to the Constitution, to God, and the people I represent. I told them, when I came to Washington, I would not -- I would not let the credit card and the debt ceiling and the borrowing of the United States without the spending restraints necessary to offset it.

GLENN: Okay.

CHIP: Right now, all we have are promises and ideas and notions. What I know, that neither of you respectfully no, and that none of your listeners respectfully no are the people that are in the room, that I was in with yesterday. And the day before, who are recalcitrant.

And do not want to do the spending cuts that we need to do.

That I believe the president and the DOGE guys. And everybody want to do.

My job, is to force that through the meat grinder. To demand that we do our damn job. Okay?

GLENN: Okay. So hang on. Okay. So wait. Wait. You're right. You're right. You're right. Go ahead.

CHIP: Number thee, when we were going through the bill, I'm glad the bill dropped from 1,550 pages to 116 pages. Three-quarters of Twitter or X or whatever you want to call it, have been out there spreading false facts that we supported a bad bill and didn't like the better bill.

That's not true. But let's be Lear. The 1400 pages that were cut out. It's a panacea.

There were some good stuff in there. There were some bad stuff in there. There was a lot of disinformation.

There wasn't a $70,000 pay raise. There was a 3,000-dollar pay raise.

I didn't support any pay raise. I didn't support a lot of the stuff in there.

But there's a lot of misinformation. And here's the thing: The 116 pages that were left, and I opposed violently the first bill. I was leading the charge on fighting and killing the first bill.

GLENN: And I love you.

LIZ: The second bill for 116 pages. Turned off -- turned off the pay go requirement. That we slash 1.7 trillion automatically.

And added a 5 trillion that are increase.

My view was, I could not support that, without a clear understanding of what cuts we would get, in mandatory spending next year. And undo any of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The undoing of the student loans. The undoing of the crap with the food stamps.

And everything else. I yield back.

GLENN: Okay. I yield back.

Chip, you're not in a hostile room. We love you. And we agree with your end goals. It's our end goal too. We didn't make that promise that you made to the people that voted for you. So we have more wiggle room here.

But you say -- I think our big difference is, you say, I know the guys in the room.

You're right. You do. And we -- we ceded that earlier today on the show.

You are -- one of us is wrong on trust.

I don't trust any of the weasels in Washington.

But I think Donald Trump and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have earned enough trust, to get a grace period, here for the first -- maybe the first year.

Or at least six months.

To turn the economy around, and also reduce the size of the government.

And totally flip this thing.

And I know, as somebody who is -- you know, run a company, mainly into a ground. But run a company, and have to switch it, in the middle, and totally reshuffle. That -- that actually costs money, while you're doing it, to bridge the gap.

Because you have to fill up holes while you're filling in the gap.

You don't trust the people in the room. Neither do we.

But we do trust the system that worked on Wednesday with DOGE and Donald Trump.

Where do we disagree?

Can you give them --

CHIP: We don't disagree. And yesterday morning, I was making that precise argument in a room full of conservatives and then a follow-up room with people who will call it, less conservatives.

GLENN: Republican. Yes.

CHIP: And so we were making this argument. And then someone infamously. Something leaked out of the room, somehow out to Mar-a-Lago. That I was being resistant. Because I was negotiating trying to get the agreement to achieve the objective that you just said. I was trying to get, okay. In fact, yesterday morning, I made the argument to a group of conservatives. We need to give the president runway. We need to give him his first 100 days. We need to appreciate JD, and Vivek, and all the people -- and everybody involved. For the president to achieve the objective.

But to get there. We have to make sure that the guys in the room, that are an obstacle to that, don't have the ability to block it.

Because information flow matters. And when those guys tell the president, they can't achieve X.

Then the president will not achieve X. Our job was to force and demand, guys, we need actual understanding of what the cuts will be.

And because otherwise, we're asking us to accept a 5 trillion-dollar limit in our credit card increase. In exchange for nothing!

Literally, in exchange for nothing, but -- but hope.

So our job was to force that change.

Unfortunately, while I was trying to make the argument that we needed something in order to get the votes, someone leaked that down to Mar-a-Lago, and the president reacted.

But now I have to now manage that.

GLENN: Right. I know. I know.

CHIP: They're trying to enforce change in town.

GLENN: So hang on.

We have to leave this. Because I'm going to run against the clock.

I could talk to you all day about this. You were in a meeting this morning about J.D. Vance. Can you tell us anything about that meeting?

CHIP: That meeting happened, because despite what happened yesterday, I'm trying to get this done. Last night, talking to JD, we worked to get this meeting done. We had some good progress this morning.

But there still remains people concerned about spending. That we can work out, what agreement we can reach. On what spending cuts. We can actually get next year, in exchange for giving the vote on a debt ceiling increase.

So it remains fluid. Progress was made. But we have to keep working on it.

And I left that meeting to talk to you. Soil get an update in a minute.

GLENN: Thank you for that, by the way.

I hear there is a new bill that may be coming today.

Is that the one you're talking about?

Or is this another bill that could be another nightmare?

CHIP: Despite other people leaking crap, I refused. I can't say, because it's not been decided by the speaker.

And it's not right to talk about things they're talking about in private meetings.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's -- it's this speaker. I mean, is he really the speaker anymore, Chip, really?

CHIP: We need to hear what bill we need to get forward. And I can't talk about the private meetings. But, look, I'm going to keep fighting for what I promised people that I represent.

I'm going to fight to cut spending. I am going to represent article one.

I'm going to support the president's agenda, but we've got to do that together.

GLENN: Okay.

Chip, thank you.

I think we can -- I think we agree, but I await to see what that means to you. Because we may just have to agree to disagree on this.

But I love you. And I still want you to replace Cornyn.

CHIP: The short version is, for inflation's sake, we cannot increase the debt ceiling $5 trillion without knowing what we're getting for it.

And I don't think anybody should disagree with that.

GLENN: But you don't disagree that Elon Musk and Trump and Vivek are serious about gutting the system.

CHIP: I believe that is their objective. I believe there are obstacles to that objective. And I need to know the sincerity of how we deal with those obstacles, both structural, and human. And we have to figure that out. And that's my job.

America's Favorite Villain Is Ready for Nuclear Fallout. Are You? | Glenn TV | Ep 401

In this episode of Glenn TV — a theatrical how-to guide to survive the breakdown of society after a nuclear attack, according to the new movie “Homestead” from Angel Studios. Glenn Beck interviews the movie’s star and executive producer, Neal McDonough, who plays the head of a family trying to survive as society is breaking down in a postapocalyptic world. You’ve probably seen Neal in everything from the hit TV shows “Yellowstone,” “Suits,” and “Justified” to movies like “Captain America,” “Minority Report,” and the groundbreaking mini-series “Band of Brothers.” Glenn asks Neal what it’s like to play a villain so often, how TV and movies are changing, and how he survived Hollywood as a devoted Christian and husband who refuses to do onscreen kissing scenes with any of his female co-stars. They also discuss his battle with alcoholism, what it’s like working the legends like Sylvester Stallone and Kevin Costner, and the cultural craving for Western cinema. Note: Angel Studios is a sponsor of “The Glenn Beck Program.” Get your tickets for “Homestead” at https://Angel.com/Beck.

Biden FLOODED the Government With DEI, But Trump Has ONE Way to Win

With just weeks left in office, President Biden (or whoever’s actually calling the shots) has decided to hire 1,200 DEI officials. Is this part of a plot to undermine Donald Trump’s plans and make it harder for him to rid the government of woke Deep State bureaucrats? Glenn and fellow BlazeTV host ‪@lizwheeler‬ discuss how other Democrats have recently proposed things like this, including a UK-style “shadow cabinet” that would oppose Trump. Liz also gives her advice to Trump on how to deal with these new DEI officials, who will be paid hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to focus on things like “health equity” …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Where were we, Liz?

LIZ: The Biden administration. Although, not Biden. Because he can't tell the difference between a nickel and a dime, trying to sabotage the Trump administration.

GLENN: Yeah. So the latest on this is now Biden is hiring 1200. Biden is not doing it.

But he's hiring 1200 DEI officials, and putting them just under the appointed official. So there will be 1200.

Some of these people make almost $400,000 a year. $400,000 a year! That's your tax dollar!

Will you -- in your -- in your life, your average person, I don't know if you'll ever even -- if you'll ever even pay $400,000 in taxes?

So you could be working your whole life, for that one hire.

And he's hired 1200 of them.

And all he's trying to do is make sure the DEI positions just can't get cut.

I've got news for you.

Donald Trump is going to cut those positions.

He's going to. And it's going to get ugly.

I mean, the ACLU was all over this, saying, oh, we've got plans. We're going to -- we're going to -- this is obscene.

This is absolutely obscene. What the Democrats are trying to do. By thwarting the president.

And honestly, thwarting the will of the American people. Remember the speech that was given by I don't know, some boob from -- well, one of the Carolinas.

I don't want to besmirch the other one for electing a boob. But he was -- he was giving a speech in the well of the Senate. And he said, we need a shadow government. What?

Hold it. You mean a Deep State. Because we already have one of those. And he said. This is a quote.

One of the most obscene things I've ever heard from an elected representative. We failed to make our case. That our policies are better.

Now, in my world, growing up in America, the next sentence is: We need to sit down and talk and find out why we're out of step, with the American people.

His was, but we know we're right. So we need a shadow government, to make sure we put our policies in, anyway.

There's nothing more un-American than that.

By the way, Ted Cruz also said, he thinks there's criminal charges that could be lodged against Biden and his administration for the selling of the steel and the walls for the border.

I think so too. I think so too. He'll probably end up blanketing or pardoning everybody that has either lived by a Biden. Or a Democrat.

Worked for the administration. Everybody will get a pardon at the end.

Honestly, it's like, hey. Everybody, Oprah is here.

Look under your seats.

Because you've got a pardon. You've got a pardon. And you've got a pardon.

Ugh!

Now...

PAT: The Department of Health and Human Services on November 15th. This is posted immediately after President Trump has been reelected.

They advertised for the following position. A deputy assistant secretary for Minority Health. With a salary of up to 221 thousand dollars. This is the goal of this position.

Or this is the purpose of this position.

To, quote, promote health equity.

To promote health equity.

What does that mean?

It means racial criminalization in health care.

It means, if you are seeking, I don't know.

Think about during the pandemic. When there was limited resources. Limited beds in the emergency room.

Limited amounts of drugs and therapeutics, that people could access, in order to treat COVID when it's at its worse.

Well, now you will be screened based on the color of your skin.

That's what health equity is. Health equity is a word used to disguise the reality, that it's just -- it's socialism.

It's discrimination.

It requires, a government official to look at you, and make a decision about whether or not you are going to have access to health care that you might need, based on what you look like.

Not based on the severity of your illness. Not based on your ability to pay. Not based on your request for care. But based on the color of your skin. That's not only wrong and immoral and completely absurd, that a bureaucratic in that position would make over $221,000. That's evil. The left likes to pretend, that you're a racist. Or I'm a racist. Just for voting for Donald Trump. This is evil racism. This is the kind of stuff that we eradicated from our country.

And Biden is trying to plant the Trump administration. With these evil little minions before he leaves.

GLENN: I mean, why are we -- why are we surprised?

How many anti-slavery amendments do we have, to the Constitution.

I mean, it's amazing to me. With very few exception, after ten, most of these seem to be like, oh.

Yeah. Okay.

You're so stupid, you don't understand.

Slaves need to be free. Okay.

Then the next amendment is like, okay. All right.

Let me limp up to explain this once more.

That means, they're Americans, and can vote!

How many amendments are -- are just one after another, especially on slavery.

And, by the way, who was it that didn't understand that slaves should be freed? The Democratic Party.

It -- I swear to you, these amendments are just, God, we didn't think you would be this stupid.

It's already covered!

But let's lay it out clearly, for you.

You cannot discriminate by color! By race! By religion.

We thought that had already been covered, but apparently, not.

LIZ: What I would do if I were the Trump transition team. This is obviously a deliberate effort by the Biden administration. Because within the first ten days after the election, 33 of these jobs were posted on government websites.

So this was -- they were like, okay. Trump is coming in. Let's start ceding the deep state with these races. What I would do if I were Trump transition is I would say, we take racial equality, very seriously. We take civil rights very seriously.

In the administration, of the 47th president of the United States, and anybody who engages, especially a government official who engages in racial discrimination will be prosecuted. And prevent these people from even accepting these jobs. Because they will be threatened with legal action if they do.

GLENN: You can make a legal case. A solid, legal case, that that is exactly right. And that's what should be done.

They would be doing that to us, if we were -- if we were discriminating on race. If we were like, you know what, we're only going to hire white people.

We would go to jail.

Oh, you know what. We're just going to shuffle the deck here.

We're going to look at everybody.

But we lean towards white people.

Did you have Wheaties for breakfast?

If you had Wheaties as a childhood, you're in a different category. Okay?

I mean, we would go to jail. We would be shut down.

It's the same thing.

But don't expect the Democrats to get it.

Did you see the new -- or the DNC chair front runner?

The one they're thinking should be the head of the DNC?

He said, the problem with the election is, the convention should have featured pro-Hamas activists.

LIZ: I totally agree. That absolutely should have --
GLENN: At least they would have been honest.
LIZ: Think about how many Democrat voters, and really prominent people too.

I'm talking about Joe Rogan. I'm talking about Elon Musk. I'm talking about RFK Jr. These were fairly hard-core Democrats, who not only converted to being like, okay. We'll tolerate a Republican. Because it's not Joe Biden.

It's not Kamala Harris.

These people are the biggest supporters of President Trump right now, because of that kind of garbage. So DNC, if you are going to be radical, please be honest and tell us.

Thank you. It's just ushering new Republican voters right into our arms.

GLENN: I respect you, more than I respect people like Mike Johnson.

Mike Johnson doesn't tell me what -- he doesn't tell me what he really is.

What he really believes.

He tells me what I want to hear. I don't believe it. Then he's elected. Then he gets in.

And then he rapes you.

You know, I have much more respect for -- for people who are like, yeah. I'm pro-Hamas.

And you should elect me.

Well, I don't think I'm going to do it.

But thank you for telling me who you really are.

LIZ: Yeah. Great. Let's take all of the Democrat members of Congress. And let's Jamaal Bowman them, let's Cori Bush them.

Because as soon as they were honest about being pro-Hamas, voters were like, actually, we're good.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

By the way, Hochul has come out. And she has now tried to stir up support to end the electoral college.

Because no offense, Wyoming, according to her words, New York voted for Kamala Harris.

You know, it is so dishonest. And this would -- this would have no space, if -- if we were actually teaching you students, what the electoral college is for.

You want to talk about fairness. Here's fairness: Should New York City dictate what all of New York does?

No!

They have representation. Of all the small towns.

All the farming towns.

Everything else.

New York City, should not be the one that tells everyone else, exactly how to live!

I think there should be electoral colleges in states now.

Because the cities are just devouring, all of the communities outside of those mega cities.

The electoral college is to make sure, that New York, California, and let me say, Texas, doesn't run over all of the other states!

And force how they're living in those cities, and those big states. In Wyoming!

Or Idaho!

Or Alabama!

Yeah. I don't have to live like you do in New York City.

I don't want to live like you do in New York City.

And we have completely different values than you do.

We should have a say, and an even, equal seat at the table.

That's why we have the electoral college. And we have the popular vote.

So you can see. And it's usually pretty close.

This time, however, Hochul, you lost the popular vote!

So you don't really have a case here, on the electoral college.

But you don't have a case.

If you're an American, you don't have a case on the electoral college anyway.

LIZ: Wait a second. Have we war gamed the scenario that you just proposed.

If there was an electoral college on the state level in California or on the state level in New York, what would the -- have we actually looked at a map here. If anybody has done this. Tag me on social media.

Because I am fascinated by this idea. I've not thought of this before. But I -- would we actually swing those states Republicans, if there was a state level?

STU: I bet we would. I bet we would.

You know, every time. Look at Wyoming.

Jackson Hole now controls Wyoming. Just controls it.

Who is -- who is so close to controlling Texas?

All the big cities.

You know, you don't have a chance. When these cities grow so large, they tip everything.

That's why we have an electoral college.

And it didn't used to be this way.

But our cities are becoming mega cities.

Almost states in and among themselves.

You -- you have to balance. Otherwise, the farmer and everybody else, that makes your life possible, in a city, gets screwed.

GLENN: And also think about cheating for a second. If you have a popular vote across the whole country, versus an electoral college system, it's a lot easier to impact the outcome of the entire presidential election because you can have one county somewhere with corrupt election officials.

And if they cheat by 10,000 votes, that could change the outcome of the election.

But if you're an electoral college, it doesn't necessarily.