RADIOMarch 19, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Makes CRAZY Argument for MORE Censorship?!

During the Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tried to argue that the government’s First Amendment rights were under attack. According to her, the government should have the ability under the First Amendment to pressure social media companies to censor people. But Glenn had some other thoughts. If the government can violate your rights when there’s “trouble,” Glenn argues, then you don’t have rights. Glenn lays out how that’s NOT the US Constitution. That’s the SOVIET Constitution.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, I don't know if you heard Justice Jackson yesterday.

But woo!

Was she -- she's in tune with our system of government. Here she is, yesterday, where free speech is on trial. The government is making the claim, that their free speech is being limited, because they want to tell social media what to do.

And their First Amendment rights, are being trampled on.

Just so you know, the government doesn't have First Amendment rights. The First Amendment right goes to the people. And it says, that the government can't tell you what you can say and what you can't say.

Here is justice brown Jackson yesterday.

VOICE: Justice Jackson.

VOICE: My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways, in the most important time periods.

I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple of times, that the government can post its own speech.

But in my hypothetical. You know, kids, this is not safe. Don't do it is not going to get it done.

And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me?

Because I'm really worried about that. Because you've got the First Amendment operating.

GLENN: Okay. Sure. Uh-huh.

VOICE: In an environment of threatening circumstances, from the government's perspective. And you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems.

GLENN: Okay. Sure.

I would love to help you with that. I would love to help you with that. Let me help you.

And I appreciate your asking for help. Don't usually experience that, you know, cry for help on understanding any of the amendments, let alone the first one from a Supreme Court justice. But I appreciate your willingness to say, I really don't have a clue as to what I'm doing here.

See, we have a Bill of Rights, that was built -- our country is built, up like any other country in the world.

And our Bill of Rights came from a -- a Founding Era, where they had been really living under the thumb of a tyrant. And so they knew tyranny firsthand. And it made them very, very skittish about governments, and what they could do.

Because when governments speak, that's one thing. The government can speak, and say, hey. This is bad. You shouldn't do this.

But when governments coerce people, especially businesses, well, they've got an awful lot of power.

And that can turn into tyranny quickly.

Now, the -- the Bill of Rights was written, and especially the First Amendment, was -- was written, for those bad times.

You know, you -- I know you're worried about, well, these -- I mean, freedom of speech is great. Unless things are, you know, troubled.

Well, okay. But that's why think wrote this down.

Our documents are a negative charter of liberties.

So it means that the Bill of Rights, apply to the citizens, but not to the governments. The government cannot do anything to violate these rights. And if, you know, it changes when there's trouble, or when the government feels there's trouble, well, then, you don't really have the right, do you?

And I really don't have any shackles, on the presidency. The administration, or the government.

What you have, actually, is another Constitution, written in 1936. It was really great. Because of the way it -- I mean, it was way advanced.

All voting restrictions were taken off. Universal direct suffrage. The right to work.

Guaranteed by the previous Constitution. In addition, to 1936, and, by the way, I'm not talking about Germany. Okay.

1936. The Constitution recognized the collective and economic rights. Including the right to work. The right to rest. The health protection.

Care in old age. And in sickness. The right to housing and education and cultural benefits.

It was really a cutting edge Constitution. Because everybody wants that stuff, right?

You have a universal right to it.

And all of the government bodies, had to help provide those things, because you, the citizen have a right.

And they want right direct election, of all government bodies. And they -- they reorganized it, at 36.

And they just -- they streamlined the government. You know, so there wasn't a lot of red tape. So Article 122, in the -- in the Constitution, said that women, are accorded equal rights with men.

Now, this is 1936.

Think about how advanced this is.

Women have equal rights with men, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social, and political life.

In fact, they were really the first one to make sure that there was, you know, kindergartens, and a universal right to kindergarten, and maternity leave, and prematernity, and protection of the mom and her interests.

It was really, really good. In article 122. In 123. That was the equal rights for all citizens.

It was -- it was equity for everybody. Irrespective of their nationality or their race.

In all spheres of life. And they wanted to make sure that there was racial inclusiveness, and no hatred, or contempt. Or restrictions of rights and privileges on account of nationality or race.

And if you did any of these hate crimes, it was punishable by law. So this is now the -- the Soviet Constitution of 1936. And it was the longest running Constitution of the Soviet Union. And it was great. Article 124, guaranteed freedom of religion.

Including the separation of church and state. And school from church.

And 124, it ensured all citizens the freedom of conscience. Freedom of religious worship. And freedom of any anti-reckless propaganda, recognized for all citizens. Which was nice, and in 124, Stalin, in the face of real stiff opposition there, eventually said, you know what, maybe we should talk to the Russian orthodox church. Maybe we should allow them to exist. And he did, kind of. But it was all within the Constitution. Because see, this Constitution is a Constitution of positive liberties. Unlike ours, negative liberties. Telling the government what it cannot do. Theirs is a positive liberty. All the things the government must do.

And article 125. Remember, this is 1936. Article 125 of the Constitution, guaranteed freedom of speech in the press. And freedom of assembly.

Then they said, look, the Communist Party really needs to come together.

And we can have diversity in the Communist Party. But it's only one party in the free elections. So you could -- you could do that.

Now, this Constitution, was written in 1936.

And it was thoroughly democratic. Thoroughly democratic.

I mean, yeah. Once the writers of the Constitution. And the organizers, you know, finished it. They were imprisoned, and/or executed right after. Because they were counterrevolutionaries. And, you know, you have to get rid of those people.

There were some people that were just too radical. And they were the writers of the Constitution. But, you know, that's an old dusty document.

Sure, it was written last week. But they didn't foresee everything.

So they started the great -- the great terror.

Is what it's called.

I don't know what happened during the great terror.

But it coincided with the signing of the new Constitution.

But everybody was protected. You could say whatever you want.

You know, you could look at the great terror, or the subcategory of the great purge.

And say, hey. You know what, they're stepping on those rights. There. Those people.

But they are people that the state really doesn't. You know, the state really needs some authority to be -- sure, you have a right to speak. You know, you have the enjoyment of rights and freedoms of citizens. But, I'm just quoting the Constitution, not to the detriment of the interests of society. Or the state.

So if you saw something, you know, like Ketanji -- whatever her name is. Jackson brown. Jackson -- whatever her name is.

I love her. And she is right.

When the state has an interesting, because the state knows best, then we have to, you know, restrain people from saying things. So let me just -- let me just quote article 39. Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society, or the state.

Amen! That's what she's saying. I mean, they've been saying this since 1936 in the Soviet Union. Article 59 obliged citizens to obey all the laws and comply with the standards of the socialist society as determined by the party. So if the party said, you know, let's just say, we can mutilate your children.

You can speak out about that. I mean, you're going to have to go to jail for it.

Because it will be a hate crime.

In fact, hate crimes were even mentioned specifically, in that 19 -- they were so far ahead.

They were just -- they were just way, way, way, way, way ahead. Because they were already on those hate crimes. You know, you don't have a -- you don't have a right to say, you know.

For instance, here it is. Quote, the Constitution prohibits incitement of hatred or hostility on any religious ground.

So you couldn't just, you know, say to the Bible. Bible says this.

If it incited hatred. So -- and the Constitution, you know, gave -- you have a freedom of conscience. You can do that.

You can profess or not profess any religion.

And you can conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. As long -- and I'm quoting. As long as it's in the interest of the state. You see.

Because they know better. They know better.

So Ketanji, I just -- I'm trying to help you. Because you asked for help yesterday. Which I find just so refreshing. That a talk show host, that is a recovering alcoholic and former DJ, who is just completely self-educated, you know, knows this stuff, better than a Supreme Court justice. But I think that's great, that, you know, you're humble enough to say, I don't know my ass from my elbow. I think that's great. I really do. I really do.

So let's just remember, the government, you know -- we have inalienable rights. What does that mean?

I don't know. Something about aliens from space, Ketanji. No.

Means no man can change those rights. Alter those rights. Or take away. That's what inalienable means.

And in the Soviet Union, they didn't that have, okay?

They didn't have inalienable rights. You as a citizen can, and I'm quoting. Enjoy rights. When the exercise of these rights, do not interfere with the interests of the state, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, they alone have the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society.

What a utopia that is. Man, if we could just model our Constitution on something as open-minded as this, we would certainly be fixed. Kind of in the way, my dog was fixed. But we would be fixed all right.

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.