Glenn smacks down NYT rumor mill

On the first day of Glenn’s vacation, the New York Times released an article (read Blaze analysis of the article here) speculating that Glenn and FOX News would be parting ways at the end of the year. Glenn had to wait a whole week before he could issue his own response, but he gave a passionate response on radio this morning.

“While on vacation I saw that the New York Times had stopped focusing on the unimportant Charlie Sheen contract and moved to the really unimportant Glenn Beck contract. In case you missed it, let me summarize. Glenn Beck is crazy. He's dangerous. And nobody's watching because he's crazy and dangerous. And now he's so crazy and dangerous that even Fox that's crazy and dangerous can't even have him or his crazy and the dangerous fans around,” Glenn said.

Among the accusations leveled at Glenn and his audience? The New York Times said that Glenn doesn’t really believe in all that “God” stuff or his stance against non-violence. Glenn also said that they equate his audience with “illiterate zombies” who only listen because they don’t realize Glenn is “faking it”.

Glenn pointed out that while the New York Times and other media outlets were calling his show too doom and gloom, they were reporting stories with the same negative tones. “The New York Times and others saw no irony in their Mr. Gloomy pants critique while at the same time they would run these stories and provide no real insight or answers to these major catastrophies.”

And, of course, they tried to attack the ratings of his show despite the fact that he is beating every single show on CNN, Headline News, and MSNBC (including primetime).

“By the time the New York Times arrived to the in ratings decline conclusion, it was strange because I was only a CBS News estimate of the 8/28 crowd of 87,000 people, away from the actual audience size that the Times themselves used to declare that I was a ratings phenomena just two years before. Isn't that weird? And that was the time before, you know, Time magazine put me on their cover declaring, of course, that I was a crazy madman. Oh, the more things change, the more they stay the same,” Glenn said.

“I've decided that the media and the American left have become nothing more than a shampoo label and should be disregarded as we disregard most shampoo labels because they all say the same thing: Lather, rinse, repeat and that's all they do. And that's why in the end they will fail,” Glenn said.

How does Glenn feel about FOX? His feelings certainly don't match up with the tone described in the New York Times article.

“Yes, my contract is up at the end of the year. Contracts do that. Fox and I have had a great relationship and the current contract does come to an end in December. My admiration for the people that work at Fox and the people that have built Fox cannot be overstated.”

“In short, Roger Ailes has built not only the most powerful name in news in America but he has built the most powerful name in news on planet Earth. And much to the left's amazement and chagrin, he's done it all without bashing America. Isn't that weird?”

“Now the same cannot be said for the new media darling Al-Jazeera, the fawning over the mouthpiece of Al-Qaeda and the defender of radical Islam should not be surprising to the average American. After all, progressives are all about progress and the next logical step from MSNBC could only be the network to which Bin Laden sends his actual terrorist tapes,” Glenn said.

“The press is reporting this is all about my desire to make more money and Fox's desire to retain me cheaper.”

“Oh, had they only listened or watched any of the thousands of hours of broadcast time. Or if it was they instead of my four million readers that they claim don't actually read my books that had actually read my books instead of living in self-imposed ignorance, they would know that I didn't negotiate my first contract with Fox. It was a deal that was done with a handshake, you know, the way cowboys that still exist in America still make a deal, with a handshake.”

Glenn warned that as his business and his relationship with FOX continues to grow and change, he will be accused of promoting “too much God” and only do things for fame and money.

“Most Americans will stop listening to those who have contempt for the ideas that built this nation, the ideas that involve values and principles. I will continue to stand where I believe I'm being led to stand and not for ratings or for money,” Glenn said.

“I'm just part of a larger group that loves this country and now feels almost forced to stand in what is now being called a radical, crazy, or foolish position. A place that millions now occupy because our lives are at last ruled by values and principles. Because we know in order to survive, our country must restore itself to sanity,” Glenn said.

“What so many in New York or Washington no longer believe, I do. And I'll bet you do, too. That God lives and God is not neutral in our lives or in our actions. I also believe I have this crazy notion that God is actively involved in preserving man's freedom. And this is what compels me to do what I do. In the end I will be counted,” Glenn said.

“Dietrich Bonhoeffer said to not stand is to stand. To not speak is to speak. We are facing issues that will be written about for generations to come and if not God, history will hold us accountable.”

“So there are no negotiation tactics, New York Times. No PR move, no ratings ploy because in the end there is only the truth, and the truth has no agenda.”

As far as what the future holds for Glenn, he said that he has very ambitious and exciting things planned, and he will continue to stand where God has told him to stand.

“Last year I outlined the direction of my company for my partners here at Mercury in New York. It is by far the most ambitious undertaking we have ever done, and we've tried some pretty big and incredible and crazy things,” Glenn said.

“If I feel in the end that I'm to build a ballpark out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of a cornfield, oh, believe me, I will do it. Because I trust the only one that really knows how this story ends.”

“I for one have done my best to awaken a slumbering and hung-over nation. Those who are awake now know the biggest thing that they can do is to take control of their own lives, accept responsibility for mistakes, learn from them, correct and move on. We know that we need to educate ourselves on history, on the Constitution, science and dare I say it, the matters of faith in God,” Glenn said.

“What? That's crazy apocalyptic talk again!” he joked.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?