Glenn talks with O'Reilly about his new book, the NSA, Rand Paul, and more

Glenn and Bill O’Reilly don’t always see eye-to-eye on everything – this morning was no exception – but they had a great conversation about some of today’s most pressing issues. On radio this morning, Glenn spoke with O’Reilly about his latest children’s book, Kennedy’s Last Days, the NSA whistleblower, Senator Rand Paul, and much more.

O’Reilly’s new book, Kennedy’s Last Days, is a kid friendly adaptation of his bestselling Killing Kennedy. “I mean, Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, Killing, you know, McKinley and Garfield and whatever else, I've read them. I've actually read them… And I think they're really, really good,” Glenn joked.

“The book that comes out today is the kids book of Killing Kennedy called Kennedy's Last Days,” O’Reilly explained. “Our goal on the children's history books is basically to introduce the kids to people that they may have heard of but, of course, know nothing about because the public school system doesn't teach history anymore.”

With all that is currently going on in the news right now, Glenn switched gears to get O’Reilly’s thoughts on what is happening with the NSA. While the reaction to the whistleblower’s actions continues to be mixes on both the right and left, O’Reilly explained that he believes the PRISM program is unconstitutional and he supports Edward Snowden’s actions if the government overreach proves to be true.

“The PRISM program is unconstitutional if it's actually happening,” O’Reilly said. “See, we haven't seen any evidence that emails are being bundled and sent out to Utah where they're stored. That is clearly unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court, it would take them 10 seconds to forbid that, and it's a violation of the law to do it. But we don't know yet because the whistleblower who is now apparently on the run hasn't really put out anything to back that up.”

“I have to tell you, Bill, I am proud to call you friend on that,” Glenn responded. “You're usually – I mean, you're never mealy mouth or wishy‑washy but you're usually not one to jump ahead of the game. And as you say, ‘Well, he hasn't, you know, he hasn't proven anything, he hasn't – yada, yada, yada.’ But for you to be this strong, I'm pleasantly, I'm just proud. I'm proud to call you my friend.”

O’Reilly reiterated that he is always consistent in his analysis, and the Constitution clearly states what is legal and what is illegal when it comes to government intrusion and privacy rights.

Glenn pressed O’Reilly on why so many on the right – including Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham – have come out against the whistleblower. Speaker Boehner went so far as to call Snowden ‘a traitor.’

“There's a lot of denial, you know, in that area. But again, we haven't seen any evidence that the government is doing that, if they are bundling e‑mails, seizing e‑mails from Americans and putting them, storing them for use in their own way as we you is an over at the IRS, what they did with private information, then it's clearly unconstitutional,” O’Reilly said. “And I think Graham and McCain would admit that if the evidence was put forth. I think they're operating in a theoretical world now, the war on terror world. I think that's where they are. I could be wrong. I got Rand Paul on tonight. You know, I'm going to ask him that question: What about your colleagues McCain and Graham, why are they on the opposite side. Maybe he will have some insight on that.”

It is no secret that Glenn is a big fan of Senator Rand Paul, and while O’Reilly said he generally doesn’t like politicians, he applauded Sen. Paul as an independent thinker.

“I think he's an independent thinker. I mean, I wouldn't say he's part of the establishment, no,” O’Reilly said. “But he's got to be sane about Iran and things like that. You know, if he's going to follow his father down the yellow brick road to insanity he's not going to get anywhere, you know. You've got to recognize the danger when the danger is hitting you in the head.”

TheBlaze broke a story this morning about the State Department considering a formal request from the United Nations to take in Syrians as refugees and allow them to settle in California, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.

Glenn believes the refugees will be allowed to enter the U.S., but O’Reilly was not convinced. “How do you think the Boston bombers got here? That's how they got here. So, you know, is that a smart thing to do? Probably not,” he said. “There is a humanitarian situation going on over there. Turkey can't take them all. But I think, you know, with our problems with the jihadists that would be a very controversial thing. I do not think Kerry is going to do that.”

Ultimately, O’Reilly asked Glenn to bet him his Texas ranch that the Syrian refugees will not be allowed to enter the U.S.

“That's jealousy, ladies and gentlemen,” Glenn quipped.

But he did have one word of advice for O’Reilly. “I tell you what: you just consider one thing: Get the hell out of New York and the Northeast because the people are going crazy. And there's two kinds of people: There's half of them that don't mind if you spy on them, if you give, just give me free stuff and I'll live in any totalitarian state you want. It doesn't matter. And the other half of the country that says, I want some freedom, and you're in the wrong half. Just sayin'.”

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?