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

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."

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.