Media Bias? Glenn compares Ann Romney's and Michelle Obama's interviews on "The View"

October 19, 2012

Writer

Ann Romney entered the hostile territory of The View yesterday and was greeted by

a confrontational Whoopi Goldberg. Unlike Michelle Obama, Ann was met by questions on abortion and Mormonism.

"I'm watching the highlights of The View and I thought to myself, this is crazy," Glenn said of Whoopi's comments on the faith.

Here is the exchange between Goldberg and the potential First Lady:

Whoopi: As First Lady if you get the job, it's going to entail a lot of things, and one of those things is going to be talking to the mothers whose children are coming home in bags, you know, from wars. Now, I know ‑‑ I believe that your religion doesn't allow you to go fight?

Ann: No, that's not correct.

Whoopi: Okay. So ‑‑

Ann: We have many, many members of our faith that are serving in armed services.

Whoopi: Okay. Well, I say that because when I read about your husband, what I had read, and maybe you can correct this, is that the reason that he didn't serve in Vietnam was because it was against the religion. That's what we ‑‑ that's what I read.

Ann: No, that's not ‑‑ that's not correct.

Clearly The View co-host didn't bother doing any research prior to her interview with Ann Romney. But even if you try to give her the benefit of the doubt and think, 'maybe she was just trying to be fair and balanced,' if you look back at previous segments The View has done with the current First Lady, Michelle Obama, that is obviously not the case.

And that's exactly what Glenn and Pat did this morning on radio.

Last Spring, Michelle Obama made a solo stop on The View, so Glenn and Pat decided to pull the first ten questions/follow-up statements, from each interview: Ann Romney's and Michelle Obama's.

"Let's see if we can detect any discernible difference in the way the two ladies are treated here," Glenn said. "Because that should, should, speak volumes."

"I mean, there's no better example than comparing apples to apples," Pat responded. "You have two, one is a First Lady, the other is a potential First Lady, and they've both been on the exact same show. And so how are they each treated?"

"Right," Glenn answered, "so let's look at the questions — just, the questions, not the answers. Let's look at the questions of the ladies on The View."

They started with the First Lady's interview:

1. Barbara Walter's asks, "In an interview just recently, you said, and I quote, that you are sometimes unsure if you are a classic First Lady and if the things you do are okay. So why do you feel this way and who is your idea of a classic First Lady?"
2. Referring to her not being a "typical First Lady" Walters asks, "Do you say to yourself maybe I've gone too far [from being a typical first lady]."
3. (Glenn notes that #3 is "technically not a question." but it does set up the next one.) "You're very popular, too, you know. So it's working. You're very popular," Joy Behar.
4. "We've talked about this before because your husband is our first black president, you are our first black First Lady. Do you think in this campaign which is getting fairly ugly that racism is still going to be a part of it?"
5. "I wonder if you are as upset as people like me?" Joy asked next.
6. "When he's getting these attacks that people don't believe he was born here, all sorts of lies are out there. What do you do?"
7. "What the president does for the world, but I heard that he does something special for you at night. President Obama, your husband, he tucks you in at night."

Number 8 comes from Elizabeth Hasselbeck, so it will be tough, right? Wrong.

8. "Obviously there's a lot of political pressure, but as a family how do you talk to the girls now? Because they're older, their perspective's probably a little different than it was four years ago. What do you say to them about practically what could, what could not happen, moving into November? Do you talk about it?"
9. Whoopi asks the hard-hitting question about the president, "Does he tease you?"
10. "I'll ask you, because we do want to have time to talk about the gardens and so but there have been rumors that if the president is not reelected or even in the future that you might consider running for political office?"

You can watch Michelle Obama on The View here:

So… not exactly a brutal interview. It didn't consist of a lot of controversial topics and everyone seemed very happy, nice, and excited to be involved.

Now lets take a look at Ann's:

1. "So we have been talking primarily about the women's issues and one of the things with your husband was that when he was a governor, he was pro choice and now is against abortions except in the case of rape and incest and the life of the mother. I wonder where your views are. Were you the same way when he was a governor?"
2. "Have you changed?"

So, Barbara Walter's started the interview of on the friendly topic of …abortion? Really? Clearly, there's no bias here.

3. "Let me ask you something to the economic point: Do you think that access to contraception and abortion is an economic issue as I was saying in the hot topics?"
4. "So, as First Lady, if you get the job, umm, it's going to entail a lot of things, and one of those things is going to be talking to the mothers whose children are coming home in bags, you know, from wars. Now I know your religion doesn't allow you to go fight?"

Incorrect, hostile, and somewhat offensive.

5. I had read, and maybe you can correct this, is that the reason that he didn't serve in Vietnam was it because it was against the religion?
6. When you're facing these mothers whose children have not come back, how will you explain to them that your sons haven't gone when you talk about the missions that they've gone on?"

"I don't know. They might handle it the same way Michelle Obama does whose husband didn't serve," Pat reacted.

The softball questions should be coming any moment now…

7. We had a lot of people during the convention who talked about the compassion of your family and the compassion of your husband. We're going to get to you, Josh, because your brother said that ‑‑ I think he said he would like to take a swipe or a swap or a punch or something — swing at president. So I want to know how you ‑‑ we all want to know how you feel. So you think you're going to have an easy ride here?

"Okay. So that's a threat to Josh who's sitting in the audience watching his mother. And so she takes a swipe now at him," Pat said. "Now your brother said he was going to take a swing at the president."

8. "So Ann, we mention Josh before is the audience here, son who actually has five kids of his own, four sons, one little girl Grace, right? Adorable. I know that there's been some sort of, like, family intervention in terms of campaign, new stuff that's going on. You're involved. What are those? And then also, do you have aspirations of a political career at all?"
9. "I know you've [Ann and Mitt] been together, what, 43 years of marriage? That is exceptional. And a bunch of grandkids as Barbara mentioned. There was one point, though, I think that, did you guys almost break up?"

And last but not least, a question that should offend all stay at home mothers.

10. "This is what I want to know, and I'm so glad it's only 17, 18, and 19 that your boys are at a selfish age. Good. Okay, three years. But you know, I heard, Mrs. Romney, that you don't watch any TV. What do you do all day if you don't watch TV?"

Watch the full interview here:

So not only has the left accused Ann Romney of "never working a day in her life" because she is a stay-at-home mom, they've now accused all stay-at-home mom's of doing nothing but watch TV all day. It's safe to say the ladies of The View are a little out-of-touch.

"My gosh, these women are despicable," Glenn said. "And I say that with firsthand knowledge. I've been on that show before. They are despicable witches. Ooh, did I say that out loud? Let me say it again. Despicable witches."

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck's 'No King but Christ' merch: Will faith STOP the chaos?

On Saturday, June 14, 2025 (President Trump's 79th birthday), the "No Kings" protest—a noisy spectacle orchestrated by progressive heavyweights like Randi Weingarten and her union cronies—will take place in Washington, D.C.

Thousands will chant "no thrones, no crowns, no king," claiming to fend off authoritarianism and corruption.

But let’s cut through the noise. The protesters' grievances—rigged courts, deported citizens, slashed services—are a house of cards. Zero Americans have been deported, Federal services are still bloated, and if anyone is rigging the courts, it's the Left. So why rally now, especially with riots already flaring in L.A.?

Chaos isn’t a side effect here—it’s the plan.

This is not about liberty; it's a power grab dressed up as resistance. The "No Kings" crowd wants you to buy their script: government’s the enemy—unless they’re the ones running it. It's the identical script from 2020: same groups, same tactics, same goal, different name.

But Glenn is flipping the script. He's dropping a new "No Kings but Christ" merch line, just in time for the protest. Merch that proclaims one truth: no earthly ruler owns us; only Christ does. It’s a bold, faith-rooted rejection of this secular circus.

Why should you care? Because this won’t just be a rally—it’ll be a symptom. Distrust in institutions is sky-high, and rightly so, but the "No Kings" answer is a hollow shout into the void. Glenn’s merch begs the question: if you’re ditching kings, who’s really in charge? Get yours and wear the answer proudly.

Truth unleashed: 95% say media’s excuses for anti-Semitism are a LIE

ELI IMADALI / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the rising tide of anti-Semitism, and you delivered. After the Boulder attack, you made it clear: this isn’t just a news story—it’s a crisis the elites are dodging.

Your verdict is unmistakable: 96% of you see anti-Semitism as a growing threat in the U.S., brushing aside the establishment’s weak excuses. The spin does not fool you—95% say the media is deliberately downplaying the issue, hiding a cultural rot that’s all too real. And the government’s response? A whopping 95% of you call it a disgraceful failure, leaving communities exposed.

Your voices shatter the silence. Why should we trust narratives that dismiss your concerns? With 97% of you warning that anti-Semitism will surge in the years ahead, you’re demanding action and accountability. This is your stand for truth.

You spoke, and Glenn listened. Your bold response sends a message to those who’d rather ignore the problem. Keep raising your voice at Glennbeck.com—your input drives the fight for justice. Take part in the next poll and continue shaping the conversation.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

JPMorgan Chase CEO issues dire warning about America's prosperity

Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Jamie Dimon has a grim forecast for America — and it’s not a recession. He sees a fragile nation drifting into crisis while its leaders fight over TikTok.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase — one of the most powerful financial institutions on earth — issued a warning the other day. But it wasn’t about interest rates, crypto, or monetary policy.

Speaking at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California, Dimon pivoted from economic talking points to something far more urgent: the fragile state of America’s physical preparedness.

We are living in a moment of stunning fragility — culturally, economically, and militarily. It means we can no longer afford to confuse digital distractions with real resilience.

“We shouldn’t be stockpiling Bitcoin,” Dimon said. “We should be stockpiling guns, tanks, planes, drones, and rare earths. We know we need to do it. It’s not a mystery.”

He cited internal Pentagon assessments showing that if war were to break out in the South China Sea, the United States has only enough precision-guided missiles for seven days of sustained conflict.

Seven days — that’s the gap between deterrence and desperation.

This wasn’t a forecast about inflation or a hedge against market volatility. It was a blunt assessment from a man whose words typically move markets.

“America is the global hegemon,” Dimon continued, “and the free world wants us to be strong.” But he warned that Americans have been lulled into “a false sense of security,” made complacent by years of peacetime prosperity, outsourcing, and digital convenience:

We need to build a permanent, long-term, realistic strategy for the future of America — economic growth, fiscal policy, industrial policy, foreign policy. We need to educate our citizens. We need to take control of our economic destiny.

This isn’t a partisan appeal — it’s a sobering wake-up call. Because our economy and military readiness are not separate issues. They are deeply intertwined.

Dimon isn’t alone in raising concerns. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has warned that China has already overtaken the U.S. in key defense technologies — hypersonic missiles, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence to mention a few. Retired military leaders continue to highlight our shrinking shipyards and dwindling defense manufacturing base.

Even the dollar, once assumed untouchable, is under pressure as BRICS nations work to undermine its global dominance. Dimon, notably, has said this effort could succeed if the U.S. continues down its current path.

So what does this all mean?

Christopher Furlong / Staff | Getty Images

It means we are living in a moment of stunning fragility — culturally, economically, and militarily. It means we can no longer afford to confuse digital distractions with real resilience.

It means the future belongs to nations that understand something we’ve forgotten: Strength isn’t built on slogans or algorithms. It’s built on steel, energy, sovereignty, and trust.

And at the core of that trust is you, the citizen. Not the influencer. Not the bureaucrat. Not the lobbyist. At the core is the ordinary man or woman who understands that freedom, safety, and prosperity require more than passive consumption. They require courage, clarity, and conviction.

We need to stop assuming someone else will fix it. The next crisis — whether military, economic, or cyber — will not politely pause for our political dysfunction to sort itself out. It will demand leadership, unity, and grit.

And that begins with looking reality in the eye. We need to stop talking about things that don’t matter and cut to the chase: The U.S. is in a dangerously fragile position, and it’s time to rebuild and refortify — from the inside out.