The French at Wimbledon Were you to ask anyone at SW 19 when was the last time a Frenchman won the All-England Championships at Wimbledon, classiest tournament in tennis, you would get a blank stare.  Without a copy of Bud Collins’ classic History of Tennis at hand, I am confident in asserting it has not happened since before World War II, unless you count the ladies, which of course you must. Two classy young ladies, Amelie Mauresno and Marion Bartoli won here in the oughts and ‘teens of this century. [T]he left-wing La France Insoumise (“France Unbowed”) party led by Jean-Luc Melenchon explicitly calls for a “refounding” of France and its regime. The waterfront Brooklyn neighborhood of Dumbo organized a virtual Wimbledon, with giant screen and strawberries and cream, and all the swells are dressed in fine flannels and summer dresses, just as they ought.  A shame the Tories were crushed by the Socialists in parliamentary elections a week ago, but England is England and as Winston Churchill said after losing an election — after winning the war! — “Trust the people.” (READ MORE from Roger Kaplan: Elections in France Could Bring Extremists to Power) Jimmy Connors stood up the Queen of England at Wimbledon one time, not nice, but the All-England Club would not offer a membership to Fred Perry, England’s greatest tennis player in his time, because he was not a public school boy, not nice either. But you can recall Churchill’s words and figure things will work out in their own good time. And this includes Frenchmen winning the Championships. On Sunday (today) Ugo Humbert gave Spanish defending champion Carlos Alcaraz a run for his money in the round of 16, and there are two 20-year olds going into the second week,  Arthur Fils and Giovanni Mpetshi-Perricard, the latter with the biggest serve since America’s John Isner, 135 mph average. As I am neither there nor in Dumbo, it will merit a trip to a local sports bar when they play their matches tomorrow. Not to get ethnic about it, but in view of the shock Tory loss last week, you cannot but notice that Fils and Mpetshi-Perricard happen to be products of France’s quite generous but now controversial immigration policies.  This, by the way, is not, or should not, be newsworthy. The last Frenchman to win on their own home court, at Roland Garros in 1983, was Yannick Noah (he now captains France’s Davis Cup team), and two of the previous cohort’s greats are Jo Tsonga and Gael Monfils (still here, lost in second round), who are regularly listed in the category of “best players to not have won a Slam.” The truth is, this is secondary to something else: France’s player development system, which is known to spot talent early in the local clubs (or “federations”) and send them for graduate studies at the national federation. This is why they consistently produced deep benches in both singles and doubles. France Is Unhappy But if sports programs, which of necessity function on meritocratic principles, produce world class athletes, other institutions in France are by all accounts not doing all they should. Voters are unhappy, feel the leaders of the traditional governing parties pay no attention to their needs and anxieties, which include failing public schools, spikes in crime, a sense of the country being adrift and lacking confidence in its identity, its place in the world, its destiny. Consequently, votes are cast for what President Emmanuel Macron has branded an “extremist”  party, whose aims and programs threaten the Republic. It might even be “fascist.” A snap election for the National Assembly on Sunday focused on how to “stop fascism.” And President Macron, in his wisdom, thought the best way to do this — and presumably keep his lease on the Elysee Palace for at least a while — was to join forces with another party, which only two weeks ago he had also branded as extremist and a threat to the Republic. As Irwin Shaw, who lived in France for some years, used to say, “Go figure.” For if there are fascists in France, and indeed at the gates of power, it is not at all clear they are the ones identified as such by the media and the leftist coalitions that were hastily formed to stop them, namely the Rassemblement National (National Rally). This party for years has promoted a nationalist, France-first platform, including tighter controls on immigration, though by no means a rejection of immigrants who choose France, its laws and customs.  A case can be made that the economic and financial premises of the RN’s program are incoherent and unsustainable. But in itself, this is not fascist; moreover, the party has indicated it is anything but inflexible on budgetary questions, or on contentious issues such as control of the common European currency (the euro), the executive power of the EU itself, and participation in NATO. On the other side, the left-wing La France Insoumise (“France Unbowed”) party led by Jean-Luc Melenchon explicitly calls for a “refounding” of France and its regime, on the basis of the an alliance with the Islamists who have profited from French democracy to transmit to a growing Muslim population an attitude of outright hostility to France.  The resulting “Islamo-leftism” which is the driving force of the left-wing electoral coalition called the “New Popular Front,” rode the crest of hysteria regarding the National right “fascists” in the balloting on Sunday and, evidently, they may emerge with a plurality in the Assembly.  To form a majority, however, they will have to bully Macron’s centrists into letting them dominate a coalition government.  Macron having, in fact, made electoral pacts with the New Popular Front on the principle of “stopping fascism,” this is precisely what may happen. (READ MORE: Woodrow Wilson: A Madman, or Merely Misunderstood?) Macron’s Mephistophelian pact legitimizes anti-Semitism, for the Melenchon-Islamist alliance makes no secret of its support for Hamas with its view that Israel is due for extermination. The irony here is that Marine Le Pen and her nationaux have been the staunchest supporters of Israel, whom they see as heirs of the Frankish armies that stopped a Muslim takeover of France at the Battle of Tours. They say sports builds character; Macron, at one time a fairly avid tennis player, made an electoral pact which if anything shows a deficiency in judgement, perhaps in character as well. Whereas the National right has made it clear it would respect his executive prerogatives, the Melenchonistes are already calling for his resignation. But then, French politics have been treacherous for as long as anyone remembers, and in this game the match is not necessarily over when the last point is called. The post French Racquets appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

I heard Bible stories at Sunday school. Especially at the early grades, with Mrs. Goldstein and Mrs. Berkowitz, both of whom were great storytellers. Nothing is more important than telling stories. Douglas clearly implies that opposition to religion is itself sectarian and is not entitled to preferential support from the government. Real school, public school, began each day with the reading of a Psalm and a prayer that contained no references to any clearly anti-Jewish doctrine, though it came from Christian sources. Then we recited the Pledge of Allegiance. But there was no Bible study. That wasn’t the same sort of thing as science, math, English, and social studies. That was the message I got. The stories were now from American and English literature, first the special stuff written for schoolkids, then from real books. (READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin: Welcome to Venezuela, America) That changed at ninth grade when I went to a private Quaker school not too far from where I lived in southeastern Pennsylvania. Aside from the science, math, English, and history (no social studies there), religion was on the agenda: there were regular Quaker meetings for worship and a regular weekly religion class. The Friends had a history of religious tolerance, so I was not treated in any lesser way for not being a professing Friend. Some of the religion teachers were mediocre; one had some real problems that manifested outside of class; and one was really smart, funny, and interesting, an ex-Episcopal priest. That last was one of the better classes in a high school that gave me many high-quality classes. I am in touch with some of my Class of 1969 classmates on Facebook. I have fond memories of them, and our exchanges are almost exclusively friendly. Many have headed in a different political direction than I have, but mostly, differences have not led to resentment or cancelation. Friendship, blessedly, seems to trump politics at least here. But remembering the important religious component of our education, I was just a little surprised to read what felt like boilerplate talking-point response to recent developments in public education. For just recently, Louisiana passed a bill requiring a poster of the Ten Commandments to be posted in all state classrooms, and Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction, mandated Bible study in Sooner public schools from grades 5 though 12. My friends’ posted objections to this are not nuanced. These posts take it for granted that Bible study must necessarily be a religious act that, as such, cannot be endorsed by the government under the First Amendment. In this age of exaggeration and catastrophizing, this is portrayed as part of the overthrow of democracy that has been a major left theme this go-around. These arguments and their like work by premising a Manichean duality that is endemic to woke thinking. It is a stark battle against an evil so complete that even to listen to the other side’s argument makes one as suspect as wearing a Trotsky for Premier button at the Moscow Show Trials. Anything other than wholehearted affirmation of the woke position is evidence of fundamental evil. And for today’s wokeists and those who unreflectively support them, religion is fundamentally evil, with the exception of the solipsisms of the Lawn Sign Catechism and, apparently, the Teheran mullahs’ brand of Islam. I remember when public school Bible readings and school prayer were stopped. We had great discussions in my public school’s social studies classes about the landmark Supreme Court decision that declared that mandated Bible reading and prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. My teacher was good — we went into deep discussion about what made it a debate, to understand the very real ideas that motivated law-abiding citizens on both sides of the question. So, in the spirit of those good discussions from my youth, I went back to look at the Abington v. Schempp opinion banning Bible reading as well as the earlier landmark Zorach v. Clauson case that upheld New York’s released time program for religious instruction. As I had remembered from decades ago, the Abington decision left plenty of room for study of religious texts. It forbade directly the devotional act of a daily Bible reading which was not treated as academic material — no questions, no discussions, no papers, no marks. But as for study, Justice William Brennan, concurring with the majority, wrote: The holding of the Court today plainly does not foreclose teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history. Indeed, whether or not the Bible is involved, it would be impossible to teach meaningfully many subjects in the social sciences or the humanities without some mention of religion. To what extent, and at what points in the curriculum, religious materials should be cited are matters which the courts ought to entrust very largely to the experienced officials who superintend our nation’s public schools. The last sentence sounds somewhat naïve today, when the trust our institutions enjoyed 80 years ago has been largely squandered. Here, my friends dismiss the bona fides of the officials in Louisiana and Oklahoma without considering the prominent place that the very liberal Justice Brennan carved out for study of religion and religious texts. I would admit straight up that the Bible could be taught in a way that indicates governmental support of one particular religion. But I differ — and Justice Brennan differs — with the the argument that it is impossible to teach Bible in a way that one teaches great literature. Reading great books in English class was what I liked the best in high school. The teachers were exhilarating, the texts were powerful, and the discussions required careful reading and consideration, not ideological profession. All the texts had something to say and we weren’t required to agree with any of them. But we had to understand the author and the power of his or her art and argument and we had to listen to each other with respect and make our criticism constructive. (READ MORE: All Are Bound by the Law) That was exactly what had made Mr. Hammer’s religion class fantastic, and what works in any discussion of serious matters. These are skills we need to have in a constitutional democracy; our tendency to want only affirmation on the one hand and to critique destructively on the other are germs in the plague of civilizational decay. The issue of real Bible study ought not to be an issue that divides left and right. The very, very progressive Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the majority opinion in Zorach: [We do not] find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. What is stunningly right here is that Douglas clearly implies that opposition to religion is itself sectarian and is not entitled to preferential support from the government. The government cannot take a stance hostile to religion, as that itself is a sectarian claim to ultimate meaning. In today’s discussion, the stance of Douglas and Brennan, both supporters of banning devotional Bible reading in school put to shame the wokeists’ sectarian thoroughgoing rejection of traditional American religion. The very opinions by which they establish their disestablishmentarian views judiciously defends a proper place for religion. They tell us that we dare not reduce the debate over the highest of things, the superordinate principles of life, to the level of a squabble between two-year-olds. Don’t Ban the Bible The solution is not to ban the study of the most influential book in human history, or at least the book on anyone’s short list of the most important. It should be, rather, to know it and understand it in the same way that schools are capable of teaching any important and influential book, fully respecting all well-considered opinions. It’s a terrible sign in any age when we lose the words to share our insights. It’s all the worse when those words are about the most important of things, which this surely is to all involved. Let’s bring ourselves together by teaching how American democracy can still bring us all together in pursuit of the truth, in our schools and in our homes and houses of worship, in blessed freedom. The post Bible Stories in School appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Dr. Anthony Fauci is out with On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service, but even before the new book, ABC’s Jonathan Karl had a question. “I have to ask you about all this talk about — about Biden’s health,” Karl said. “You’ve worked with seven presidents. You know what the job entails. Why would someone in their 80s want to do another four years of this?” Dr. Fauci seemed to be taken off guard. Once again, political considerations blocked Dr. Fauci’s medical judgement. “You know, I think it’s just an individual choice, and you really can’t generalize,” Fauci said. “You have to take each individual person, you know, how they feel, what they feel they can do, you know, what their passion is, what their energy is. Those are the kind of things.” (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: K-12 Parents Need Same Choices as College Athletes) Karl then wondered, “were you surprised? I mean, you worked with him. You worked closely with him … Were you surprised by what you saw in that debate?” “Well, you know,” Fauci responded. “I don’t want to comment on anything that would have any political implications. You know me, over many years. But the one thing I can say and feel comfortable about is I have dealt with President Biden, and in my dealings with him, it’s been really very positive. He asks probing questions. He’s right on point on things. So my personal experience has been quite positive with him.” Dr. Fauci Politician Dr. Fauci’s concerns about “political implications” overrode the medical implications. That recalled an episode in 2021, when Dr. Fauci was the government’s chief spokesman on the Covid pandemic. A Jan. 30 report by New York Attorney General Letitia James revealed that thousands more nursing home residents may have died from Covid than New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had publicly acknowledged. On Feb. 15, Gov. Cuomo defended his pandemic response and the next day Dr. Fauci appeared on CNN with Jim Sciutto. Gov. Cuomo had argued that New York was following federal guidelines when he ordered long-term care facilities to accept patients returning from hospitals, and the CNN host wondered if Dr. Fauci could clarify that claim. “You know, Jim, I can’t,” Fauci responded. “I mean, excuse me. I really am — I’m honestly not trying to erase your question, but I’m not really sure of all the details of that, and I think if I, if you make a statement, it might be wrong or taken out of context. So, I prefer not to comment on that.” In reality, Fauci had already clarified the details. In July of 2020, Dr. Fauci told reporters that unlike other states, New York responded “properly” and “correctly” to the pandemic. For his part, Gov. Cuomo said, “If you think there was a mistake, then go talk to the federal government. It’s not about pointing fingers or blame, this became a political football.” Once again, political considerations blocked Dr. Fauci’s medical judgement, and that should come as no surprise. If he ever actually practiced medicine it was only for a short time. Dr. Fauci Tenured Bureaucrat In 1966, Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree from Cornell but in 1968 he took a job with the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fauci’s bio showed no advanced degrees in molecular biology or biochemistry, but in 1984 he became head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), believed that Fauci “should not be in a position like he’s in.” Dr. Fauci declined the offer of President George W. Bush to head the National Institutes of Health, which would have imposed a limited term. As NIAID boss, Dr. Fauci controlled public health policy and spending on medical research, a huge concentration of power. In effect, Dr. Fauci’s MD functioned as an Ed.D., basically a bureaucratic credential. A ballpark figure for the number of patients Dr. Fauci treated during the pandemic is zero, and his reluctance to render a post-debate medical opinion on Joe Biden was entirely political. A government bureaucrat for more than 50 years, Dr. Anthony Fauci wielded executive-level power without ever having to face the voters. The task of Congress is to prevent that brand of white coat supremacy from happening again, and this is not a difficult matter. (READ MORE: Fauci and His Minions Are Still in Control) The NIAID and NIH directors should be limited to a single four-year term. No single person should control public health policy and medical research spending. All NIAID and NIH grants should be revealed online in real-time and in downloadable form. NIH and NIAID directors must be held accountable for all actions in office. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. The post Dr. Fauci: Unaccountable Power-Laden Bureaucrat appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from USAWatchdog: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics: The French LEFT is rioting over LePen’s victory in the first round. This is what we should expect in the United States, for regardless of who wins the election, neither side will accept the result. The West is crumbling for politics has become so polarized that civilization is no longer […]

The chorus of Democrats calling for Joe Biden to step down continues to increase…. The latest to call for his step down (or removal) is Jerry “I don’t know how to properly wear pants” Nadler. Take a look: Jerry Nadler has just asked Joe Biden to step down! He’s the most senior Democrat thus far to call for Biden to step down! pic.twitter.com/uTjK05Q0tg — Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) July 7, 2024 In fact, Nadler is only one of four new Democrats to call for Biden to step down. The other three are Adam Smith, Mark Takana and Joe Morelle: BREAKING: Four more Democrats in Congress call for #Biden to step aside in the 2024 race. The House #Democrats who said Biden should drop out of the 2024 race were Reps. Adam Smith of Washington, Jerry Nadler of New York, Mark Takano of California and Joe Morelle of New York. pic.twitter.com/EFmEAkjwVw — Tom Bibiyan (@realtombibiyan) July 7, 2024 Jerry Nadler, Adam Smith call on Biden to stand down from reelection bid https://t.co/MROIuxQDg7 — POLITICO (@politico) July 7, 2024 Here’s more from Politico: Several more senior House Democrats called on President Joe Biden to abandon his reelection bid during a private call convened by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday afternoon, according to several people participating. Among those forcefully calling for Biden to stand down during the nearly two-hour call were Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), according to two people familiar with the private session. Other members on the call voiced concerns about Biden’s path to November, including Reps. Jim Himes (Conn.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Don Beyer (Va.) and Rick Larsen (Wash.). It’s a poor omen for the Biden campaign as the entire Democratic elected apparatus prepares to return to Washington on Monday evening where lawmakers will face tough questioning about their party’s standard-bearer. Aaron Fritschner, Beyer’s spokesperson, posted on X to push back on reports that Beyer called for a new nominee: “To be clear [Beyer] supports President Biden and said so on this call and any reporting to the contrary is a misunderstanding of what he said and what he believes.” The additional calls for Biden to stand aside from senior Democrats come after the president’s interview last week with ABC News did nothing to assuage concerns among rank-and-file lawmakers about his continued viability in the race. Members have repeatedly urged the president to quickly schedule more unscripted events and town halls to continually demonstrate his vitality and energy. It’s not just the House either. A group of Senate Democrats are reportedly planning a discussion of Biden’s path forward, led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), once that chamber returns to Washington on Monday. Five House Democrats have publicly urged Biden to stand down, while numerous others have expressed concerns about his viability in private. And if you think I’m only covering this to give myself an excuse to revisit Jerry Nadler crapping his pants live on stage and being seemingly incapable of wearing pants correctly…..you’d be 100% correct. Remember The Time Jerry Nadler Crapped His Pants LIVE On Stage? It’s Friday afternoon so we’re having a little fun around here…. Flashback Fridays! I hope this brings a smile to your face. Does anyone else remember the time Jerry Nadler crapped his pants live on stage and then had to awkwardly waddle off?  Allegedly, of course. I do. Pepperidge Farms remembers. Watch here: Who remembers when Jerry Nadler pooped his pants on live TV? Fun Times pic.twitter.com/BkhMHVNbk0 — A Man Of Memes (@RickyDoggin) November 1, 2023 Longer clip here (sound added for comedy): FLASHBACK to the time Jerry Nadler crapped his pants live on stage and then had to waddle off. Allegedly. I can’t imagine how bad that room must have smelled…. @DailyNoahNews pic.twitter.com/12MlFnGUH6 — DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) March 8, 2024 My favorite part every time is watching Nancy Pelosi adjust her mask after she has to walk in the waft of what he leaves behind! While it remains up for debate about whether he did or did not truly drop a load in his pants and then have to awkwardly waddle off, what is not in dispute is that the man does not know how to properly wear pants: It’s about time we had a serious conversation about the height of Jerry Nadler’s pants…#PantsOverNipples pic.twitter.com/UYWG4NTLLz — Gain of Fauci (@DschlopesIsBack) January 12, 2024 Come on, man! Your pants belt is not supposed to come in contact with your nipples! In no circumstances should that ever happen Jerry! And no, it’s not just that one picture. Remember this? Yes, the man who doesn’t even know how to wear pants properly… This clown thinks he should govern YOU and me… How ridiculous! And even more ridiculous is apparently they have been debating for 30 minutes over whether or not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Watch this: JUST IN: Jerry Nadler REFUSES the Pledge of Allegiance… pic.twitter.com/gk9YmkUMrZ — DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) February 1, 2023 Do you buy his excuse? That he just doesn’t want to do it twice? I don’t. I think he truly hates America. I love this: Ronald Reagan once said that if we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under. I applaud my Republican colleagues for supporting our nation and the brave men and women who served in our armed forces. Say the pledge of allegiance. https://t.co/jTUwFy9Pj9 — Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) February 1, 2023 So true! And this wins the internet for today: Let’s be honest, Nadler’s fat ass just doesn’t want to stand up. Nothing more to it. — Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) February 1, 2023 Bravo Breanna, you nailed it!

I truly miss having Bill O’Reilly on Fox News. And apparently so does Glenn Beck, because he just said as much. So Glenn had Bill on his show recently to get Bill’s take (and inside sources) on whether Joe Biden will step down, how, when and who replaces him. Oh, and most important: since Joe is clearly largely incapacitated most of the time, who is actually running our country? It was a fascinating interview and Bill had a very clear answer. In short, it’s 3 people but 1 in particular over the other two. And it’s not who you think. Watch here: Full transcript: Glenn Beck: You know, today is the kind of day that you miss people like Bill O’Reilly, and I don’t say that lightly or often. But you miss the days where you could flip on the news and you would have a guy who you know is credible and would have some sources, or at least know because of his contacts what’s really going on in Washington, DC. Well, Bill O’Reilly at BillOReilly.com today is going to be one of the shows that you really are going to miss. You’ll miss a lot if you don’t see it. He’s on with us now. He tweeted the decision has been made: the president will quit the campaign. Now he tweeted that yesterday. Bill O’Reilly joins me now. Hello, Bill. Bill O’Reilly: Who is this? Glenn? Glenn who? Glen B? Glenn Beck: Wow, wow, I got my first name Bill O’Reilly. That’s a first to use my first name. First time. How are you, B? I haven’t talked to you in a while. Bill O’Reilly: I know, I’m great. I’m great. I saw your tweet, and then I think you reached out to me, and then I reached right back out because I was going to reach out to you. All right, spill the beans. What do you know? Bill O’Reilly: Okay, so the two people in charge of this are Barack Obama and Ron Klain, the former Chief of Staff of Joe Biden for the first two years. So they huddled and they actually talked to Joe. I don’t know whether it was on a Zoom or in New York. Obama was in New York at a fundraiser and so was Biden. But it’s really tamped down, and both Klain and Obama, and this is what my tweet was, have decided that it’s over. Glenn Beck: So when you say that, what does that mean? Bill O’Reilly: It means that the two most powerful men in the Democratic party right now—they are the two most powerful people—have said to Biden, “You can’t win. You cannot beat Trump, and he’s the Devil, he’s evil. But if you don’t get out, you are helping evil.” That’s how… Glenn Beck: Okay, hang on just a second, hang on just a second. I don’t think that would faze Joe Biden. He knows that. He’s got a son. Anyway, this reminds me of Nixon, where the tables turned on him and he lost the support of key members of the Senate. They walked in and said, “You got to go. You got to go now.” Are they going to offer any carrot or stick if he doesn’t go? Bill O’Reilly: EdenPURE is having their famous buy one get one deal on the thunderstorm air purifiers. No matter how many thunderstorms you buy, you’ll get an equal amount for free. There’s nothing worse than having odors in your house. If you’ve ever walked into somebody’s house and you’re like, “Oh wow, you either have a cat or a teenager,” thankfully, you can get rid of any bad smell now when you get the EdenPURE thunderstorm air purifier. Whether it’s odor from cooking, cigarettes, litter box, trash cans, or teenagers, it doesn’t matter. Thunderstorm will knock it out. It starts working in seconds to clear a room of smells, and you don’t ever have to replace a filter. And it doesn’t cover the odors; it actually purifies the air. They’ve sold hundreds of thousands of thunderstorm units so far, and they have thousands of five-star reviews online. I want you to go right now to EdenPUREDeals.com and use the discount code BeckBOGO. Glenn Beck: Well, that’s an excellent analysis, Beck. You got a lot smarter since we last talked. I was worried about you. Bill O’Reilly: Well, but it is older, very, very similar. So the Nixon people were telling the American public, “Oh, he’s not going anywhere. This is just, yeah, he made a couple of mistakes, but you know, he’s a great president, blah, blah, blah.” But behind the scenes, the Republicans are saying, “Hey, if you don’t get out, they’re going to arrest you. They’re going to charge you with crimes.” And that’s why Nixon went to the helicopter and waved to everybody. Now it’s being presented to Biden: if you don’t get out, you’re going to go down in history as a villain because Trump is going to win. It’s going to be all your fault. Glenn Beck: 100%. Now, Biden, as you rightly pointed out, is not really capable anymore of actually digesting that. So it’s his wife that’s making all the calls. So they go to Camp David over the weekend. They’re still there, I think. Their helicopter shows up in about 20 minutes. And she is going, “No way, no way we’re leaving. We’re fighting this to the end.” Jill Biden, Joe Biden, just sitting there eating his sugar Frosted Flakes. It didn’t have anything to do with this. So the fight now is between the party elders and Jill Biden, who’s digging in and saying, “No, no, Joe does everything I tell him to do and he’s not going to leave because we think we can overcome this.” Bill O’Reilly: Now let me give you the point that they’re not going to overcome it. The Bidens will leave, and they may leave very quickly. By the way, they’re trying to figure out now, the Democrats, when to make this announcement. They gotta obviously get the Bidens on board, but they also have got to go to some kind of plan B, right? So we’re going to go to the convention with these people. They don’t have that yet. Glenn Beck: Okay, well, how do they do that and say they respect democracy? I mean, there’s no way to do that. Bill O’Reilly: No, no. Yes, there is. Oh, absolutely there is. There’s the superdelegates. All Biden has to do is say, “I’m retiring for health reasons,” which you’re going to see, and “I’m going to give my delegates to whomever the party wants.” And then Biden will be totally out of it. And they’ll tell him, “Give the delegates to Kamala, to Newsom, to Whitmer,” whatever. And it’s not that complicated. LBJ did it, and it’s ironic because he did it, and then the convention was in Chicago and all hell broke loose in ’68. Well, where’s the Democratic Convention this year? Chicago. And all hell is going to break loose. All the anarchists and the pro-Mass people are going to be there. Glenn Beck: Okay, okay. So the reason that this is, in my opinion, but it’s more than an opinion, incontrovertible is that Biden’s support was thin to begin with. He doesn’t have a core support. It’s all hate Trump support. Bill O’Reilly: Yes. Glenn Beck: Okay. And so there aren’t many Democrats, if you believe the CBS poll, that care if Biden’s the nominee. They don’t have an emotional investment in Biden. Bill O’Reilly: Correct. Glenn Beck: They just want to see Trump lose. Bill O’Reilly: That’s huge. Glenn Beck: So he doesn’t have a cadre of people outside of Jill and maybe Hunter. I don’t know who, but he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have Congress. I mean, the Congress people are running around undermining the hell out of him. Bill O’Reilly: And his own people. You saw Jamie Raskin do that. My God. Glenn Beck: So he doesn’t have a core support in Congress or among the folks. They say they raised a lot of money from the debate. I’m suspect, but I don’t think they’re going to raise a lot of money going forward. Bill O’Reilly: Right. Glenn Beck: Okay, so Joe… So Bill, who do you think is most likely to replace him? Bill O’Reilly: All right, I don’t know, but I will tell you who wants it. So Kamala wants it. Kamala’s not going to go quietly into the night, and she’ll play the race card. Glenn Beck: Okay. Bill O’Reilly: Gender and race card. That’s what she’s got. She’ll play it. Glenn Beck: Newsom, I understand, just ordered hair products. A lot more. So he obviously wants it. Whitmer in Michigan wants it. So those are three right there. Glenn Beck: What about Big Mike? What about Big Mike? Bill O’Reilly: Big Mike? Glenn Beck: Big Mike, who’s Big Mike? That would be Michelle Obama. Big Mike. Bill O’Reilly: I’m sorry, Beck. I just didn’t get the Big Mike reference. I have never in my 50-year career in journalism seen any famous person locked down like Michelle Obama. You can’t get a whisper out of that anywhere. So obviously that would be the savior, right? But there isn’t any indication one way or the other that she wants to do it. And those of us who know Michelle Obama, and I know a little bit, she is a very strong woman. Barack Obama is not gonna go in there and go, “Hey Michelle, you’re running.” No, no, you don’t say that to Big Mike. Glenn Beck: Listen, let me ask you, Bill. Let’s not talk politics, let’s talk security of the country first. Who’s running the country right now? Bill O’Reilly: Go ahead. Bill O’Reilly: The three guys there in the White House. The Chief of Staff, the National Security guy—that’s the Irish guy. Glenn Beck: Yeah, look at this. This is what we voted for: the Irish guy, right? Bill O’Reilly: Yeah, I’m… I’m… Glenn Beck: Jake Sullivan, thank you very much, everybody. And his councils. But there’s a triumvirate in the White House. Nobody ever heard of these people. They get no pub. All they want in a while go out, but not often. And there’s an alert, by the way, very serious alert on US bases overseas and embassies about a very serious terror threat. So we have an incapacitated president. Go ahead. Glenn Beck: You’re right. We have an incapacitated president. What the heck? Who ordered our nuclear sub to surface in the Norwegian Sea this weekend to send a message? I mean, it’s kind of important to know who’s actually running the show there because we’re on the verge of war if we’re stupid. And I can’t gauge who’s actually making the decisions. Should the president step down from the presidency? Bill O’Reilly: Yeah, that would be Sullivan. Look, this is a very, very chaotic White House. You know, I got a book coming up, “Confronting the Presidents,” where we evaluate every president. And I sent that to you, Beck, and I’m going to hire someone to read it to you. I’m going to pay somebody to follow you around and read you this book because it’s unbelievable about the difference in some presidents. And Biden’s the second worst president in our history. And Trump exaggerates, saying he’s the worst. Nobody’s worse than James Buchanan, who actually lit the fuse of the Civil War. But Biden is second, and it is so to me because I do know what’s happening on a day-to-day basis in that White House. This man, three out of five days—and Axios has about 50% of this—today, he’s not even in the Oval Office. He didn’t even make it down from the residence. That’s how incapacitated he is. And Jill Biden makes that call. If you look at his schedule, and on TheBlaze News, my TV broadcast, we report it every day. Most of the time, he has nothing on his schedule but a fundraiser where he reads a teleprompter. That’s it. He doesn’t do anything. And everybody in his administration knows this, which is why, after the debate catastrophe, it’s just unbelievably shocking that they won’t tell the truth to the American public. The Democratic party will not tell the truth. This has been going on for a year. This doesn’t just happen. Glenn Beck: Okay, last question. I’ve got to get this in. Is this better or worse for Donald Trump if Biden leaves? Does it change it enough to change the game and people will just then say, “I’m just going to go with somebody new”? Bill O’Reilly: Trump would defeat Joe Biden now, no question. That’s number one. No question, right? He beats Biden. When Biden steps aside, if it’s Michelle Obama, that’s trouble for Trump. Anyone else he can barely handle at this point because remember, Trump got 72 million votes in 2020. I estimate the most he could lose on the 72 million would be 10%. That brings him down to 65 million. Biden’s nowhere near going to get that. RELATED REPORT: BEATDOWN: Dan Bongino Absolutely SAVAGES Bill O’Reilly In Epic Rant There is a reason we have a rule around here about using hyperbole too much in headlines…. Things like “So and So DUNKS ON So and So”. I’ve always found those headlines to be so lame. They maybe said one cross word about the person and all of a sudden they “Dunked On” them. Stupid. And we’re not playing basketball here anyway, so don’t act like Shaq just showed up or something. But from time to time, something is so big and so incredible and so unique that a big headline is merited. And that’s why we like to save them, so we use them when truly appropriate and we don’t become the “Website Who Cried Wolf.” Enter Dan Bongino and we all learned today that Dan does NOT like Bill O’Reilly. Not in the slightest. Bongino just went on an epic 10 minute rant absolutely trashing Bill O’Reilly up and down. I’m not going to say he “dunked on him” but whatever is worse than getting “dunked on” is what Dan Bongino just did to Bill O’Reilly. This is pretty wild, take a look — WARNING: some very bad language in here, Bongino was FIRED UP — watch at your own discretion: Backup video here if needed: Dan Bongino absolutely SAVAGES Bill O’Reilly pic.twitter.com/dnjf0God96 — DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) June 21, 2024 Holy crap, that is one epic takedown. I gotta say, I’ve always kind of liked Bill O’Reilly. I have no doubt in private he is mostly an “asshole” as Dan Bongino says, but I always kinda liked him. Although it’s not as if we didn’t see it coming…. Bill O’Reilly is perhaps most famous for his “F*ck It, We’ll Do It Live” outburst on Inside Edition. I’ve always found this clip hysterical, but you can see how anyone working with him might come to the conclusion that he’s a horrible human being: Still hilarious if you ask me. That’s one of the all-time clips right there. Legendary….if perhaps not for the best reasons. RELATED REPORT: Dan Bongino’s Warning: You’ve Angered the Bear of Trump Supporters! Dan Bongino has had it! And he wasn’t afraid to express it. Nor did he hold back. So, on Thursday, our man President Donald Trump had a tough day when a jury in New York City found him guilty. But hey, Trump being Trump, he said that the ‘real verdict’ will come out this November. The MAGA base then went online to voice their disapproval about this rigged system. Many of them coming to the same conclusion, which is… 2024 election was basically won yesterday! A little message from Dan #Bongino to the hacks in New York who targeted a political opponent using a kangaroo court and a corrupt DA. It’s time for all Americans to stand against these commies! #Trump #GuiltyOn34 #revolution pic.twitter.com/fxahf1pJos — PatrioticStandard (@P8triotSTANDARD) May 31, 2024 HuffPost reports: Thursday was a hard day for Donald Trump after a jury in New York City found him guilty of falsifying business documents to cover up an alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. It was no surprise that Trump called the trial “rigged” after leaving the courtroom, and said that the “real verdict” will emerge this November, referencing Election Day. Meanwhile, it seems like the jury’s decision caused many prominent members of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement to have a mega-meltdown, including the 2024 presidential candidate’s own son Donald Trump Jr., who wrote that Democrats “have succeeded in their years long attempt to turn America into a third-world shithole.” Others in the MAGA crowd quickly turned to social media to show fealty to the GOP’s now-convicted fearless leader, with right-wing radio host Dan Bongino promising liberals that the former president’s supporters would be “drinking your delicious tears in November.” The verdict in New York is a complete travesty that makes a mockery of our system of justice A political show trial conducted by an openly pro-Biden judge whose daughter makes money off the case, a jury from the most liberal county in America, absurd and ridiculous charges and… — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 30, 2024 Dan Bongino let it fly on his podcast: “The energy is different. You know it. You feel it. They know they f**ked up yesterday. The smart ones. The moron commie f**kwad liberals banging pots and pans, they have no idea what they let loose yesterday. The smart ones… Did you notice a slightly muted response? Why? Because the smart tactical liberals, the institutional commies… They know damn well that they stuck that stick right in the bear’s eyes and they’re like sh** what do we do now? You think they’re dumb? Trump raised 35 million dollars from small donors alone. No one even knows what the super pac numbers are yet. You don’t think they see what’s going on Twitter? Celebrate now you liberal commie fu**wads. Celebrate all you want. Enjoy this moment. You have no idea what’s coming because we are going to be licking up your delicious tears on election day.” Dan Bongino on the Trump guilty verdict: They f**ked up yesterday and they know it. “The energy is different. You know it. You feel it. They know they f**ked up yesterday. The smart ones. The moron commie f**kwad liberals banging pots and pans, they have no idea what they let… pic.twitter.com/4ygJEf6m7z — DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) May 31, 2024 I love what Jesse Watters said, ‘We will vanquish these evil forces that are destroying this republic.’ Well said! Trump was found guilty, because he beat Hillary and because he’s about to beat Joe Biden. We may be wounded as a country right now, but we’re not going down. We’re going to get back up and vanquish the evil forces that are destroying this republic. pic.twitter.com/SulVlxovMN — Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) May 30, 2024 This verdict reminds me of a quote. In this case, replace ‘strike me down’ with ‘declare me guilty’. “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” – Obi Wan Kenobi

The radio station that hosted President Joe Biden’s first post-debate interview cut ties on Sunday with the host who conducted the interview after she admitted to asking Biden questions that were given to her by his team. The questions reportedly were drafted by officials at the White House and were then sent to the radio station by Biden’s presidential campaign. Andrea Lawful-Sanders, host of “The Source” on WURD in Philadelphia, told CNN that “the questions were sent to me for approval. I approved them.” “I got several questions, eight of them, and the four that were chosen were the ones that I approved,” she added. Here’s the CNN video of radio host Andrea Lawful-Sanders admitting she “approved” Biden-scripted questions, which led to the end or her employment at WURD. She was upset that media outlets only pulled the clip where Biden seemed to say he was a black woman. pic.twitter.com/X3K1vsBh3L — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) July 8, 2024 Sara M. Lomax, President and CEO, WURD Radio, said in a statement that the interview was arranged and negotiated without the “knowledge, consultation or collaboration” of WURD’s management. “The interview featured pre-determined questions provided by the White House, which violates our practice of remaining an independent media outlet accountable to our listeners,” the statement said. “As a result, Ms. Lawful-Sanders and WURD Radio have mutually agreed to part ways, effective immediately.” “WURD Radio remains an independent voice that our audience can trust will hold elected officials accountable,” the statement continued. “As Pennsylvania’s only independent Black-owned talk radio station, WURD Radio has cultivated that trust with our audience over our 20-year history. This is something we take very seriously. Agreeing to a pre-determined set of questions jeopardizes that trust and is not a practice that WURD Radio engages in or endorses as a matter of practice or official policy.” Lomax added that the radio station was “not a mouthpiece for the Biden or any other Administration.”