Best of the Program | Guests: Rep. Thomas Massie & James Lindsay | 5/31/23

How does PWC take your company to the leading edge?

They bring the sharpest minds in tech to your team so you can bring the ideas that will transform your business.

They're passionate about your industry, so you can walk into any room with every advantage.

And they're with you every step of the way, so you can know you're headed in the right direction.

PWC builds for what's next so you can get there now.

Get started at pwc.com/slash uslash leading edge.

What was your favorite thing in today's show, Stu?

My favorite thing in today's show?

Yeah.

The downfall of civilization?

I thought that was a really, I thought we had some really good information today.

Not that well.

Sure.

Yeah, we did cover the downfall.

I just remember the Thomas Massey interview.

That did, that may not have gone as well as he had hoped.

But,

you know,

I'm a friend and I am a tough friend.

I mean, I speak my mind.

Is that so wrong?

No.

Is that so wrong?

You guys are adults and are able to talk about minor disagreements, and

that's supposed to be the way it works in this country.

But I did want to hear from him because he has a really good record, particularly on spending.

And yet he was the guy who allowed this spending bill to go to the floor.

Yeah, he did.

So we get into that with him.

Also, have James Lindsay on the program.

Really good.

With a very

important

warning about what is going on.

And I will say, Mimi, you know what?

I can amend my answer.

My favorite part of the show today is we actually found someone who dislikes George Soros more than you.

That is an amazing thing.

That wasn't.

I mean, there's nobody that hates George Soros as much as me, except this guy

on the program today, Alan Dershowitz.

All right, let me tell you about Relief Factor.

Relief Factor, you know, when you try to explain people what it's like to live in pain and they don't get it and they're like, oh, pull yourself up.

Fuck up, buttercup.

Okay.

I've lived in pain and there are things that I have tried.

I've done

everything

and nothing was working for me.

I did not think Relief Factor would work.

My wife made me take it.

Thank God for her.

And within three weeks, I'm noticing huge differences.

I take it every day.

It is amazing what it has done for me.

Three-week quick start.

Just try it for three weeks, see if it makes a difference for you.

1995 trial pack, relief factor.com, or call 800 for relief, 800 for relief.

1995, three week quick start, relief factor.com, 800 for relief.

Feel the difference.

You're listening to

the best of the blend back program.

So this is great, Stu.

The House Rules Committee gave the green light for the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

I love these.

Whatever the name says it is, it's always the opposite.

This is not fiscal responsibility.

Hey, you know, we could spend anywhere between $4 and $6 trillion in the next two years, you know,

over what we can bring in.

I don't think that's a good idea.

That's not fiscal responsibility.

Anyway, the panel advanced the bill to the floor for debate.

They could be voting on it tonight in a narrow 7-6 vote.

This was Thomas Massey of Kentucky, a GOP hardliner and fiscal hawk.

He voted in favor of the rule.

He said, today's bill is a product of compromise and reflects the realities of a divided government.

He said that he

was not trying to,

let's see here.

I'm not trying to do anything ideological on this committee.

That's not what committees are for.

Well, I kind of disagree with that.

Now, McCarthy came out and

they were like,

hey, dude, looks like you were outsmarted.

He's like, outsmarted?

Joe Biden can't even find his pants in the morning.

Yeah, that's probably why we're a little upset.

He said, how are we outsmarted?

It's the largest tax cut in the history of Congress.

Okay.

Could we stop there for just a second?

First of all, Stu,

do you know how anyone's calling this a tax cut?

I mean, I'm sorry, a spending cut?

Well,

the stated part of this, and we can talk to Thomas about this, but it's a cut as to future projections and spending.

So it's a slowdown of spending.

It's not a cut.

Like they say, we're going to be spending $1.5 trillion less over 10 years from what measure, right?

What benchmark are you talking about?

And it's

projections made previously, not what we're actually spending today.

Correct.

Correct.

Now,

let me just ask this.

If it's a, let's just say.

I feel like you're luring me into something here.

Let's just say you're using the 1%.

Okay.

1%.

We're keeping it cap 1%.

That's the largest cut in American history.

And we feel like

I think they just went to plastic straws because paper straws are starting to get expensive.

Okay.

If it's the largest cut in American history, that should tell you something because Calvin Coolidge cut the budget by 50%.

50%.

That's a big cut, but it's nowhere close to this because we're spending so much money.

If 1%

of our budget is cut, and that's bigger than a 50%

budget, and then the next year another 50% cut from the budget, that's a problem.

We're spending way too much money.

Now, Thomas Massey is on, and I'm not happy with my friend, but he is my friend.

And

your argument here, Thomas.

What?

Okay.

What the hell were you thinking?

Just to clear up a few things.

Okay.

I do believe committees are for imprinting your ideological preferences, with the exception of one committee, that's the Rules Committee.

What we do on that committee, if we're doing our job, is to make sure the House follows its own rules.

Let me give you an example.

All right.

We have a 72-hour rule that says you have to have 72 hours to read a bill.

That's been in place for 10 years, and the Rules Committee always waived it for the first 10 years.

When Chip Roy and Ralph Norman and I got on that committee, we said, you're not waiving this rule.

That's why you've had from Sunday at 7 o'clock until today at 7 o'clock to read this bill before we even get to vote on it.

So that's what the Rules Committee does.

Okay.

All right.

It's true we could have stopped this bill, but

we can stop anything.

You can rewrite legislation in the Rules Committee.

You're not supposed to, but I'm on there to make sure they don't.

They didn't do any of that malfeasance.

So he couldn't, in good conscience, use my position on the Rules Committee to stop this bill.

Now, everybody gets it.

I agree with you on all of that.

If that was your reason, I agree with you.

Okay.

Now, let me go on to the bill.

Some of the people opposed to this bill are overstating their case, and some of the people supporting this bill are overstating their case.

There are caps on discretionary spending.

There are work requirements.

I'm not litigating any of that.

The biggest part of this bill that appeals to me is they included language that I suggested.

It wasn't in the first debt limit bill that passed the House.

It was in this one.

It says that if we get to January 1st and we're still operating on a CR because the Senate wouldn't take the House's 12 separate appropriations bills up.

We do a real, honest to goodness, 1% cut of everything.

Military, Democrat programs, all of it gets cut 1%.

Why is it 1%?

Why isn't it 10% or 50%?

Because I've seen these guys.

When sequester happened, they were willing to do unnatural, unholy, and unclean acts to avoid a big cut.

But I think a 1% 1% cut is enough to just drive them back to the table and do their freaking jobs, 12 separate appropriations bills.

So that's language in this bill.

Now, it may never become operable because maybe we get the 12, maybe the Senate brings up our 12 bills before January 1st.

But it's hanging out there and they know it's there, and

I hope they will avoid it.

Now, I know you had some of my friends on yesterday.

Yeah.

Super close friends.

And I'm not.

And you guys love each other.

You're on the same side.

Just we don't always have to agree with each other.

This one is kind of a big one, but I respect you.

Thomas, you are not a rhino and all those things.

Your logic is usually very, very sound.

Well, here's where, now let me let the engineer in me speak and do the logic part of this.

My friends,

they're saying, are not saying they wouldn't vote for a debt limit increase.

In fact, almost all of us in the House already have when we voted for the cut, save, limit, grow, whatever they called it act.

So they are not saying they wouldn't vote for a debt limit increase.

They are saying this bill isn't good enough, or maybe they're saying this bill is bad, even if it didn't have a debt limit in it.

They think it's still bad.

I hear their complaints.

And many of them are valid.

But the question is,

what are we we going to get if we blow this up in the House?

And I've been here long enough to tell you what I think comes next.

This is where I disagree with my friends.

Some of them think you blow it up in the house and you march Kevin back over to the White House and you put him back in the room with Biden and he comes out with something that's miraculously better.

I don't think that's the next step.

I think what happens next is McConnell and Schumer say, okay, well, you guys are done playing around.

We're going to get this done.

And they create another pair of negotiators.

They've done this before.

And those two guys have

great latitude.

They'll pump out something that's darn near a clean debt limit increase.

They'll send it over to the House.

You have 10 Republicans who will cross the aisle and vote with Hakeem Jeffries,

and you get a clean debt limit increase.

So, what we're talking about here is a disagreement, not on ideology, or even I'm not here to say this is the best bill ever.

It's a disagreement on

how we go forward and what we get if we blow this up.

So I actually

probably agree with you on what comes next.

And that is because McCarthy blew it.

He was holding all of the cards, all of them.

Now you go back and they will absolutely paint the Republicans exactly the way they always paint the Republicans.

And he didn't have to do that.

All the polls were showing that America was on your side for the first time.

They're on the Republican side on this issue.

And he blew it.

You know what?

If this bill passes,

I think McCarthy should be gone.

He blew it.

He blew it.

Well, he got my provision in there, so I can't say he blew it.

But I do agree that the 435 people in the House designating one person to go into a back room and cut a deal with the president is a real crappy way to do business, which is, but everybody agreed to do that business that way.

It kills me.

We should have been debating and amending stuff in the Senate and the House, and then you would have a product that's valid.

But that's what we're going to do on the appropriations bills.

And I think that that limit fight is a scrimmage, and I think the appropriations bills that are coming up is the Super Bowl.

And,

you know, I was a part of all three efforts to get rid of John Boehner.

I co-wrote with Mark Meadows the motion to vacate.

And if you go back and read it, we listed a long train of abuses that John Boehner had undertaken.

If you disagree with Kevin on this, it's not a long train.

It would be the first car in the train.

No, I don't think Americans look at it that way anymore.

Thomas, I'm sorry.

The Republicans have so, hang on just a second.

The Republicans have so damaged themselves.

This is a long train because every time you trust the Republicans to do something and stand, they fail.

Every time they fail.

And

it's not because they're outsmarted.

I mean, are they really this stupid that they lose every single time?

No,

it's because they don't say what they mean and mean what they say.

They don't look at these issues the same way the American

public, especially Republicans, view these issues.

So I'm sorry if it's not so fair that you go after McCarthy on this one train of abuse.

It's enough.

It's enough.

It's enough.

I understand if you're on the outside looking in,

that's the way it looks.

But we call it the Old Testament and the New Testament.

On January, we created the New Testament.

There was a new covenant with Kevin.

And I'm willing to stick this out a few innings.

I'm not ready to start.

you know, punching the umpire on the first inning.

Okay, I don't agree with the call, but let me take a few more swings at these pitches and let's see if we can score something.

So

it's a New Testament.

Let's try it.

I am not for, I think it's premature to say that we should vacate the chair or something like that.

John Boehner abused us for quite a while.

This is a judgment call.

What I disagree with my friends on is that if we blow this up, we get a better deal.

I don't think we get a better deal if we blow this up.

And I agree with you on that.

Because

your house, because your house leader blew it.

That's why.

That's why.

But I agree with you.

Now it's too late.

He got my provision in there.

1% cut on January

if the Senate hasn't done.

I can't believe the White House agreed to it, but they did.

1% cut on January if we're still operating under a CR when we get there.

You know, it would have been better if you would have left the Reigns Act in there.

What I'm just saying.

We'll be voting on the Reigns Act next week, I believe, here in the House.

And I may be managing that bill for the Rules Committee.

Well, so

you know what?

I think you'll be celebrated from coast to coast if you can get the Reigns Act through.

But

Thomas, I want to make it really clear.

I am not mad at you.

I disagree with some things.

I hope that you know you are my friend and I am your friend, but this is the way America used to be.

I will fight for your right to say and to do things that you believe are true.

You fight for my right to do that.

We're going to disagree because we're humans.

But I'll tell you, the patience of the American people is running very, very thin.

Very thin.

Well, I'm not infallible.

Maybe I got duped on this.

I don't think I did.

I've seen enough of the tricks they play.

But I respect your opinion and I understand the frustration.

That's the same frustration that drove me to come here.

I know.

And I'm trying to see a way through this.

And we'll see what happens after this.

I would just say don't judge us and don't judge Kevin on this thing alone.

It's like sighting in a rifle.

You don't look at where the last bullet went.

You look at the pattern and where the grouping is to determine what you need to do to correct a rifle.

Yeah.

And this may be a flyer.

It may be, but I don't think it is.

You can sight in the rifle, but when you're in war and the enemy is almost on top of you, sometimes you just start to shoot.

I'm just saying.

Thomas, thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Congressman Thomas Massey.

from the great state of Kentucky.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

Thank you for listening to the Glenn Beck program.

You are an amazing group of people.

The world really didn't know about ESG.

We started talking about it when it was just a conspiracy theory.

And I think because of this audience and the audience of Russell Brand, that people now know what ESG is and they're standing up against it.

The other thing that this audience, and I did it out of stupidity, I just didn't know you don't touch this rail.

I began talking about George Soros 20 years ago and speaking out loudly about him and found him to be a very dangerous person.

Because of that, a lot of money was spent through media matters and everything else to, in particular, target me and my voice.

And

he has rallied people to say that I'm an anti-Semite for it.

Nothing could be further.

it.

I won the Defender of Israel award.

I mean, I'm just saying.

But you always claim that he is, that you're an anti-Semite if you speak out about him.

I don't care what his religion, what his creed, what his race, I don't care about any of it.

I don't care.

He, and America is now seeing it firsthand, is systematically dismantling the West.

Look at what he's done to some of our cities.

His influence is dangerous.

Alan Dershowitz has just written a very brave article.

It's not going to.

Alan, welcome to the program.

Well, thank you so much.

I think I was there when you got the Defender of Israel award, and I stood up and I gave you a standing ovation.

Yeah, thank you.

You deserved it, and you're not only a defender of Israel, you've been a defender of the Jewish people, you've been a defender of religion.

How dare anybody call you an anti-Semite?

The only anti-Semite that we've discussed on this show so far is George Soros, who was a self-hating, he's not even a Jew.

I mean, you know, he started his life by collecting the property of Jews who were being sent to the concentration camps.

That's how he made his first money.

He's devoted his life to hurting Jews, to hurting Israel, to hurting America.

And nobody's attacking him because he's a Jew.

Obviously, he's hardly a Jew at all.

As a friend of mine would put it, he's Jewish only on his parents' side.

And his mother, his mother, he brags, his mother was an anti-Semite, an anti-Semite.

So how dare anybody suggest that criticizing George Soros is anything but good for America, good for the Jewish people, good for Israel?

I'm going to continue to criticize him, as I've been doing along with you for the last 20 years.

Let people call me an anti-Semite.

This is not going to make you more popular.

Can I be any less popular?

I am so surprised today.

I used to be one of the most popular guys around.

I know.

And I defended Donald Trump, so all the Democrats hated me.

And then I decided not to vote for Donald Trump, so a lot of the Republicans hated me.

It's me and my wife and my kids and you and a few of you.

So

you make the point.

I mean, I don't know what it's going to take because the media is all in for George Soros.

He funds so many things.

And his son, I believe, is worse.

And he's got control, I think, of $17 of the $19 billion of these funds.

But no one in the media will say anything about George Soros.

And he is dismantling our country.

Well, and it's worse than that.

The Jerusalem Post had an article saying every Jew must support George Soros.

And I wrote back and saying, not this Jew.

I'm not going to do it.

I see evil where I see evil.

I see good where I see good.

I support Christians when they do the right thing.

I oppose Jews when they do the wrong thing.

And you do the same thing.

I mean, you're not going to defend somebody just because they're a Christian.

Nope.

Obviously, some of the worst people in the world have come from various backgrounds and various ethnicities.

You don't ask the question, you know, what's your religion?

First of all, Soros isn't religious, but you don't ask the question, what is your religion?

You ask the question, what did you do?

What have you done to America?

What have you done to fund prosecutors who are not doing their job and politicizing the criminal justice system?

What do you do when you take an organization like Human Rights Watch, which was a wonderful organization, neutral, unbiased, and you turn it into a hate America, hate Israel, hate human rights, and just use human rights as a weapon against conservatives and in favor of the hard left.

That's what George Soros's legacy is.

I know his son.

He has a house on Martha's Vineyard.

I know one of his sons.

I don't know the other one.

He seems like a nice enough guy.

And, you know, for all I know, George Soros can be a nice guy in person, too.

But you judge people by their actions.

And by his action, George Soros is an evil.

I mean, you know, I think that

Elon Musk got it right.

He's a super villain.

He's a super villain.

He may not be a cartoon character, super villain.

Well, you said in real life, he's done an enormous amount of harm.

In your op-ed,

you said you won't call him Magneto because you don't really know who Mr.

Magneto is.

However, I've always said I thought he was more like the Emperor in Star Wars.

Oh, you think your friends will save you?

Anyway, you know,

there are a couple of countries, I think one in Asia, I think Hungary may be the other one, that has banned his,

you know, Open Society Foundation and his NGOs from coming into the country.

I mean, I think we should do that here.

I don't agree with that.

And I also think that there are some countries and in

Poland and in Austria and in Hungary, there have been some people who have used sources, Source's Jewish heritage against him in order to promote anti-Semitism.

We all condemn that.

We all condemn that.

In the same way we would condemn if anybody used somebody's Muslim heritage or Christian heritage to condemn them.

You condemn the person for what they did, not for what they are.

And so, you know, I'm going to continue to condemn those Europeans who point out Source's religion, who compare him to, for example, the Rothschild family.

And the Rothschilds were real Jews.

They helped establish Israel.

They, for the most part, were great, great people.

And in that case, they only used their Jewishness to demonize them.

But that's not the case with George Soros.

And I'm going to continue to criticize him, and I encourage others to criticize him without reference to his religion.

So how I've never referenced his religion.

And I've actually given him the benefit of the doubt on his childhood during the Second World War.

Because, I mean,

I wasn't in that situation.

I don't know what I would have done.

And I don't want to judge somebody for that.

What has bothered me about that is he said he's never given it a second thought.

He's never had any question about what he did.

And he said, if I hadn't done it, somebody else would have.

That's what everybody said.

Yeah.

Doing horrible, horrible things in Germany.

No, you stand up for what's right.

And, you know, I still love to hear him explain his statement, his bragging statement that his mother was an anti-Semite, as if that's something to be proud of.

I mean, you know, my father was a hardworking guy.

I'm very proud of him.

He put me through college and law school.

I'm proud of my father, but the idea of saying your mother was an anti-Semite, there must be something about that that makes him gloat with glee.

You know, what he argues is he doesn't like particularism.

He likes universalism.

It's just an excuse.

That's just an excuse.

What he doesn't like is Israel.

He never has.

What he doesn't like is America, the country that saved him and saved so many of us and our parents and our grandparents.

You know,

my grandmother, who came from a little shtetl in Poland, was such an American patriot.

She would take us on July 4th to the Statue of Liberty, make us pledge allegiance, and then sing in her broken accent the Star-Spangled Banner, including the second verse, which nobody knew but my grandmother with a big accent, knew the second verse because she just loved America and she loved Israel.

And, you know, she, I'm so proud of her.

She made it from nothing.

And, you know, George Soros, bless him, he made a lot of money.

That's okay.

That's the free market.

But to use his money in the way he does in such a destructive manner is

appalling and deserves to be criticized.

And I'm going to continue to criticize it.

I got a lot of plack for doing it,

but I'm going to continue to do it.

So, all right, so let me ask you this.

So the only solution to, and I'm asking you sincerely, I don't have an answer, the only solution to his use of money, the way he uses it, for instance, in all of our cities, is just to expose him and talk about it?

I think so.

I mean, you know,

there are ways of limiting expenditures, but they run into the Constitution.

And generally, I don't support, you know, money is free speech.

And so

let him do what he wants to do.

But,

you know, let's condemn him for the way he spends his money and the way he tries to influence America.

for the worse.

So I wouldn't, you know, take away his money or take away his ability to

influence, but I would hope that people wouldn't be influenced by his money to defend him.

I think a lot of the people who jump to his defense and who criticize us are probably direct or indirect beneficiaries of his money.

Oh, yeah.

And that's why Meek Vatters and other organizations like that jump to his defense immediately because they want his money.

Thank you so much, Alan, for everything that you do.

And just

another notch there on the popularity poll

for Alan Dershowitz.

Thank you so much, Alan.

I appreciate it.

My pleasure.

You bet.

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor emeritus, host of The Dirse Show, which is a great podcast, and the author of Get Trump.

Not that he was saying Get Trump.

Anyway,

I don't think

we've ever had a guest on that's been more negative on George Soros than you.

I think we just set a new record.

That was an impressive.

And I guess you can.

Can you call Alan Dershowitz an anti-Semite?

Is that what the next step in this little charade is?

No, that's where we're going next.

They will ignore it, or they will just say he's going senile or whatever it is.

They will find their attack.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

So James Lindsay is with us and he's hacking everybody off

online

because

I'm not sure that people understand what he is trying to warn against.

Welcome to the program, James.

Hey, Glenn, always good to talk to you.

Good to talk to you.

He is the author, by the way, of the Marxification of education and new discourses founder and president uh he says political warfare is coming during pride month and i fear you're you're right and i also fear that you're right about the warning to christians so uh

james where do you want to where do you want to start

I think maybe we'll start kind of big picture.

I think we're going to see what political warfare is, first of all, is when you use

basically intelligence kind of tactics against a population to get them to act and behave in certain ways that you can then take advantage of for political purposes, to drive an agenda, to get the DOJ to crack down on something, whatever.

So now we know what that is.

I think we're going to see two attacks through Pride, using LGBTQ, as they call it, issues as the wedge.

One of those will be to get our corporations that skew as American brands, Ford, Target, Bud Light, you know, Americana brands, to take this up full blast so that conservatives will turn around and boycott and target these corporations as we should and almost as we must, so we cut off ourselves at our own knees.

And Marxists would like nothing better.

But secondly, they will attack religious icons.

They will go after children.

We've seen this with the so-called sisters of perpetual indulgence or whatever they call themselves in Los Angeles, going after very religious, offensive behaviors.

And the goal will be to they know that conservatives and particularly a lot of conservative Christians are getting angry, that they're getting desperate.

It's almost like they've woke up a dragon and they're going to feed the dragon and get them to do something stupid that will then turn around and get used against them to whether it's investigate churches, shut down churches,

come down on conservative Christianity just from a political perspective so that they're the domestic terrorist hotbeds of the country, and then come around in a few months and offer some new fake state-approved Christian churches that'll fill in the space that gets left by bulldozing what exists now.

So you really think it'll go that I mean, I don't know why I'm surprised at this, but I mean, that is a huge statement to make that

they will shut down our churches?

Well, you know, the federal government can only do so much with that, but they can start doing investigations.

They can start digging in.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is some large Christian reaction that's not strategic, that's not thoughtful.

I'm asking nobody, by the way, to sit on their hands and do nothing.

This is a common misconception of what I'm saying.

But if it's not strategic, if we're not thinking intelligently about how we approach this, there are already large dossiers written for the federal government saying that the cause of January 6th, which of course is their favorite thing to go to, was in fact not even MAGA or Trump.

Believe it, how crazy is it that they say it's something other than Trump?

It's Christian nationalism, which is a rising domestic terror threat.

So if they can use some excuse to label churches as breeding grounds for domestic terrorism, you can bet the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and maybe the IRS are going to be cracking down and spying on churches.

You can bet they're going to try to push something like a Second Patriot Act that allows them to spy on churches and do whatever else that they have to do in order to try to limit that alleged threat of domestic terrorism.

This is well linked already in the federal government.

This isn't just some media narrative, although that's happening too, to give it legs in the population.

This is something that they'll get the public to demand, that they're going to say white supremacy tied to Christian nationalism, white Christian nationalism is the biggest threat.

It's a very serious concern, and they will use the unbelievable provocations that they're going to put forth in the next month or two for pride to trigger Christians into giving them the reaction that they need so that they can justify these political moves against both Christians and conservatives, but also all Americans.

So, in one survey conducted between 2007 and 2017,

52%,

this is the claim, support some form of Christian nationalism.

Later study, Brookings Institute, Public Religion Research Institute, says only 29% of Americans fall somewhere on the Christian nationalist spectrum.

Over half Republicans reportedly show some degree of support, with 21% counting as adherents and 33% as sympathizers.

What exactly is a Christian nationalist?

You know, Glenn, I wish I could tell you because it's a very wide and I think deliberately wide spectrum of beliefs that ranges from things that are as innocuous as that we need to have kind of a broad cultural revival and bring Christian values back to the public square, meaning at the level of individuals coming back to God, coming back to the church, getting

their Christian principles right and living them, all the way to the other side where we're talking about, and say the book that's titled A Case for Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolf.

A Christian prince bestriding the land is the highest official, not just in the United States, but in the world.

And so this Christian prince is, of course, a Protestant recreation of the Pope.

And this person is supposed to become the ultimate civil magistrate right out of kind of old philosophy you know we talk old philosophy sometimes Glenn right out of Hegel's philosophy of right where we're going to have this new kind of brilliant magistrate leader who's going to you know have the correct ideals and principles and lead the country so it's a huge spectrum of that anything in between and they're playing in a sense both sides against the middle by putting out a wide spectrum of different views so that if one's unpalatable or one's too soft, they can point to the others and bounce bounce around between the definitions and get people, especially Christians, to dip into their values and say, well, you know what, I'm a Christian and I believe in this country.

So I actually align with something in this and I'll use the label, which, like I said, I believe is actually a gigantic federal government trap being set for Christians to step right into and lose their liberties.

So let me just give you some headlines.

Politico.

Most Republicans support declaring the United States a Christian nation.

This is from the Washington Post.

Americans are growing more

accepting of Christian nationalism.

NPR, more than half of Republicans support Christian nationalism.

Well, I will tell you that

they will put me and my collection

of historic items into Christian nationalism because I do believe the founding fathers founded this

through their belief, the help of God.

And we are a Judeo-Christian nation.

That's where we get most of our laws and the ideas.

They came from the pulpit.

That doesn't mean we hate other religions or anything else.

It just means that's the truth

of our founding.

So that makes me a Christian nationalist, I'm sure, according to them.

Right?

Absolutely, Glenn.

Yes, absolutely.

You know how the left works.

They work through insinuation, dissociation, and salacious claims so that they can take the softest possible expression, something like what you just gave, that might convince somebody it's Christian National, and then tie it to the most extreme behaviors.

And this is exactly what the dossier that was presented to the House Unselect, if we might quote President Trump on it, House Unselect Committee about January 6th.

It's a 56-page document written by a lawyer named Andrew Sedell.

And

he goes as far on the one hand as giving kind of very extreme examples and tying it to neo-Confederacy and people carrying Confederate flags through the Capitol.

And then on the other hand, he says, here's proof of Christian nationalism being so widespread.

And it might be something as innocuous as quoting somebody giving a prayer that's something like, you know, Lord God, bless this nation.

In Jesus' name we pray.

And so now all of a sudden, because you're saying bless this nation, that counts.

So your collection, certainly, your views, certainly are going to get roped into this.

In fact, what you'll find is most of the conservative side of the aisle will get roped into this.

I, according to my Wikipedia, I'm not even a Christian.

I work with a Christian nationalist, so I'm Christian nationalist adjacent.

But it turns out that the guy that I work with, his name's Mike O'Fallon, you know him, is not even a Christian nationalist and is on the front line fighting against this movement and this trap with me.

So

the facts will not matter to the left is what I'm saying.

They will rope people in.

They will use insinuation, association to rope people in and to discredit them, to make them the new deplorables, the new unvaccinated, the new whatever can't be listened to, and to justify a large public scare campaign to get Democrats, to pressure Democrat politicians to come out and push a Second Patriot Act, to investigate churches, to demand a mandate to figure out where this domestic extremism is allegedly coming from out of our churches.

So, here is something from the Joint Committee report on January 6th: that white Christian nationalists were more likely to eschew safety measures and prioritize the economy and liberty over the vulnerable.

They're also more likely to hold anti-vaccine attitudes, oppose any federal gun control restrictions due to the belief that the Second Amendment was divinely inspired.

They're more likely to fear immigrants and endorse anti-immigrant policies, and they oppose same-sex marriage and transgender rights.

Holy cow.

I'm telling you, Glenn, this is what Mao Zedong did in China and work.

Not specifically with Christians, although that's relevant too.

What he did very successfully was he wrapped up this campaign he called Unity Criticism Unity.

He said, we're going to have unity on a new basis here in China.

And then he criticized viciously, unfairly, just like what you just read, anybody who might be able to be painted, not even somebody who is, but somebody who can be painted as a impediment to that new basis and unity under it.

And then when everybody that's still allowed to have, you know, a voice, a vote, et et cetera, when everybody agrees, everybody who counts agrees, now they'll have unity under a new basis.

We see this with the pushes for belonging.

You see this with the pushes for inclusivity.

You see this right here with what you just said.

Every bad thing they can think of gets tied to this label Christian nationalism.

And sadly, if they turn to some of these hardercore guys that are both talking online and they're writing books and they're doing podcasts, they have ample evidence of people saying that they want to overturn the Constitution.

They want to undo the 14th Amendment.

They don't believe in the Equal Protection Clause.

They want to get rid of the 19th Amendment.

They want to get rid of free speech entirely and forced belief.

They have ample evidence.

Stephen Wolf, who wrote this book, has a podcast out there that I've seen multiple times because people send it to me frequently where he says atheism will be stamped out in America.

Well, what about Judaism?

What about Mormonism?

What about Buddhism?

What about, you know, that is not American.

See, that's the deal.

Christian nationalism, if that describes him, then he's neither Christian nor American because both of those go against Christianity and the American justice for all, freedom for all.

All men are created equal.

You can follow

the dictate of your conscience.

Those things,

they're in direct opposition to what

most people who would be labeled a Christian nationalist would agree with.

I don't agree with anything that he just said.

Right.

And like I said, this is probably a minority of the people that are part of the movement, but the left doesn't need most people to believe the crazy stuff.

They need one person.

That's it, which is, they have plenty now.

And it's not even, by the way, that this isn't American.

If I might be so bold, it's not even Christian.

I mean, the idea, if I understand Christianity correctly, is that Jesus came, Jesus offered his message, and Jesus...

is about you come to me if you choose on your own volition.

This isn't about go out and force people to convert or stamp out this or that belief or whatever else.

And what's happening is that people are justifiably and rightly frustrated.

They are demoralized.

They're afraid for their country.

And they're starting to get desperate.

They're saying it's too late.

The Constitution's already dead.

The law is already captured.

We don't have any other options.

And I don't,

everything but God.

Have faith.

Raising someone from the dead, a little difficult more difficult than bringing America back to its sane place, not even its world standing, just where sanity and reason are once again followed.

That's not a big magic trick for God to do.

Raising dead, that's kind of a big thing.

What do you say?

We stop saying we're out of time, there's no hope, and start aligning yourself with the actual principles of Christ and Christianity.

You know, I ask these fellows all the time, these Christian guys, I say, why do you doubt God's timing?

If you have faith, why do you doubt God's timing?

The American people are waking up to this.

They're waking up to this now.

People have spoken about it for 30 years, some longer.

There are books from the early 1980s talking about this march through our institutions, and people couldn't hear it or see it.

But now people are waking up fast.

They're understanding the ESG is kind of at the heart of something that's going on.

They understand that social-emotional learning is the heart of the brainwashing happening in our schools.

We're learning the targets.

We're learning what's going on.

We're learning it very quickly.

And we are actually, as you mentioned, with the boycotts, we're willing to stand up and take a stand.

Maybe we should trust in the timing of this because it's meant to be this way.

Maybe that's the case.

Olivia loves a challenge.

It's why she lifts heavy weights

and likes complicated recipes.

But for booking her trip to Paris, Olivia chose the easy way with Expedia.

She bundled her flight with a hotel to save more.

Of course, she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

You were made to take the easy route.

We were made to easily package your trip.

Expedia, made to travel.

Flight-inclusive packages are at all protected.