Jake Tapper has tense interview with Marcus Luttrell

CNN’s Jake Tapper caused a stir over the weekend after he characterized the deaths of the Navy SEALs who died in the 2005 mission Operation Redwing as “senseless.” Tapper made the comments during an interview with Marcus Luttrell and Mark Wahlberg, who played Luttrell in the film adaptation of Lone Survivor. A visibly frustrated Marcus pushed back at Tapper’s commentary. On radio this morning, Glenn explained that he is giving Tapper the benefit of the doubt - even if it wasn't his finest moment.

“All right, so on Friday I think it was, [CNN] ran an interview with Marcus Luttrell and Jake Tapper… And [Tapper] says something that I think is understandable,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “But he's talking about an event that happened in 2005, with the guy who is the lone survivor. And the last thing you say to the lone survivor, is what you know, ‘It's kind of like all those deaths were senseless.’ Excuse me? Now, Jake – I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think it was a stupid thing to say, but I mean, I haven't said stupid things? Please.”

When discussing how he felt while watching Lone Survivor, Tapper had this to say about the message of the film:

TAPPER: One of the emotions that I felt, while watching the film is first of all the hopelessness of the situation — how horrific it was and also just all that loss of life of these brave American men. And I was torn about the message of the film in the same way that I think I am about the war in Afghanistan itself. I don’t want any more senseless American death. And at the same time I know that there were bad people there and good people that need help.

Marcus, however, was quick to hit back:

LUTTRELL: I don’t know what part of the film you were watching, but hopelessness really never came into it. I mean, where did you see that? Because there was never a point where we just felt like we were hopelessly lost or anything like that. We never gave up. We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.

After a bit of back and forth, Tapper conceded his feelings watching the film were informed by his civilian life, whereas Marcus lived through the tragedy as a soldier. Wahlberg, who sat quietly through the exchange, summed up the argument rather nicely.

TAPPER: Maybe it's just the difference between what a civilian feels when he watched this and what a solider does.

WAHLBERG: Absolutely. I completely agree. But his opinion is never going to change. That's his job. The more time I spend with the Marcus, the more I really understand who they are and what they do for us. And it's pretty amazing.

Watch the entire conversation unfold below (applicable video begins around the 3-minute mark):

Tapper received some pushback on social media from people who were offended by his analysis of the deaths, but Tapper took offense to TheBlaze’s coverage of the story. Specifically, the first paragraph of Oliver Darcy’s story that reads:

Former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell pushed back at CNN’s Jake Tapper after the host suggested in an interview that the “lone survivor’s” fellow veterans died for nothing.

Tapper took to Twitter to issue this response:

“I understand, you know, if he was upset with the reporting on TheBlaze,” Glenn said. “And there were several that were upset with the reporting on TheBlaze, but we did not retract that story because we believe we got the story right.”

When you look up the definition of the word senseless, it means “without discernible meaning or purpose.” When you are speaking to a man who lost his entire unit and nearly his own life, ‘senseless’ was probably not the best choice of words.

“You can't say that to anybody,” Pat said. “But especially not to Marcus who lost his brothers in that battle.”

Glenn believes that Tapper was looking at this interview from a 2014 perspective, in which it has become harder and harder to understand why we are continuing to put our service man and women in harms way for a war that we do not seem to be winning. But if that is indeed what Tapper meant, it should have been presented in a different way.

“I think this is what he means: How do we stop this war? Because I don't even know what it means anymore. I don't want another person to die because I can't attach meaning to it right now,” Glenn surmised. “[But] you don't even say that today. If you're sitting next to a soldier who just came back and was on a mission and lost all of his buddies, you don't say to him, ‘By the way, did they die for anything?’ You have in a conversation separately.”

Ultimately, Stu chose to give Tapper the benefit of the doubt in this case because he has been such a strong supporter of the troops in the past.

“I think the larger part of this, of course, is people are looking at this as well, Jake Tapper is another member of the liberal media. [But] I cannot be more effusive in my praise of Jake Tapper… As far as Tapper goes… he been great taking on the President – not now when he's got a 45% approval rating, but when he had a 70% approval rating he was doing it as a journalist,” Stu explained. “Not only that, but he's been incredibly good on the troops, on the valor of the troops, how brave they are. He has been done nothing but been incredibly fair to them… Maybe it’s the wrong question at the wrong time. But that's a minor criticism of a glowing record for this guy.”

3,000 migrants just crossed the Honduran/Guatemala border en route to the United States. President Trump threatened both countries yesterday with pulling all financial aid if the two countries don't do something to stop it. Every year we give about 100 million to Guatemala with a good majority going to their military and security services. Over the last two years we've given Honduras over 260 million. Again, a vast majority goes to keep their military and security apparatus up and running. In short, if we stop writing those checks, both the Honduran and Guatemalan governments are going to have some very big problems.

FLASHBACK: Trump send troops to stop migrant 'caravan' headed for US — but here's who's funding the migrants

It's such a big issue that the Honduran President made a public address to his country yesterday. The foreign ministry also made a statement saying the government:

Urges the Hondurans taking part in this irregular mobilization not to be used by a movement that is clearly political.

Political? What does that mean? Well, it turns out that this caravan is different from the one coming from Mexico back in April. That previous caravan had serious backing in the form of manpower, organization and money from George Soros. It was a strategic political stunt that - at the time - dominated the media. That caravan was directed at causing waves here in the United States, but this current one isn't directed at us at all. This is all about radical left wing politics in Honduras.

As the three thousand migrants crossed into Guatemala, the Guatemalan government detained one man. His name is Bartolo Fuentes, and he's the organizer of this entire charade that - just like back in April - is beginning to get massive coverage... and even a tweet by President Trump. And this is exactly what Fuentes and his merry band of Leftists want.

Fuentes is the ex-deputy of the Honduran Liberty and Refoundation Party. Their members are supporters of the former Honduran President that was ousted by the military in a coup back in 2009. Saying they're Leftist doesn't quite give it justice. They wanted to form a partnership with both Hugo Chavez and the Castros to create some kind of South American Communist mega alliance. The former president was ousted on the eve of a special election where he wanted to rewrite the constitution to make sweeping changes. His followers, like this current caravan organizer, never forgot. They've been staging political stunts ever since to try and undermine the more right leaning government.

They want a showdown at the U.S. border. And you better believe they want the cameras rolling when it happens.

The use of these "migrant caravans" is only going to get worse. Leftists like Soros, and even this group in Honduras, have no qualms at all with using men, women and children in incredibly dangerous situations to further their politics. They don't really care about these people. They're doing the same thing that Hamas is doing with the Palestinians in Gaza.

They want a showdown at the U.S. border. And you better believe they want the cameras rolling when it happens.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Glenn Beck on Monday's show to refute the progressive narrative that America's founding documents, in particular the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, are irrelevant in modern-day America.

"Fact or fiction?" Glenn asked.

"Absolute fiction. It's the anti-truth. It's a false doctrine of the first order," replied Lee. "The Declaration of Independence is sort of the spiritual founding document of our country. It provided the feeling of the American people and still supplies that to this day."

"The Constitution is also important because it provides the structure," he continued. "The spirit of our country, what it means to be an American, is still in the Declaration of Independence."

The conversation turned to the question of slavery and how our Founding Father's could have believed that "all men are created equal" when many of them owned slaves. Glenn shared that he has acquired an 1830 engraving of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. According to this draft, Thomas Jefferson originally made a strong case against slavery, but the passage was removed in the final version.

"How is this not being taught in school?" Glenn asked. "How come we don't know that? Because it changes everything, does it not?"

"It certainly does," Lee answered. "I think it gives meaning, first of all, to the early lines within the Declaration of Independence, that these truths are self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted among men to promote and protect these ends."

Watch the video clip above to catch more of this conversation.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Well, it's officially official… Michael Avenatti is the worst lawyer in the history of ridiculously bad lawyers. I'm trying to figure out what "National Day" this should be, because with Avenatti it really could go either way. Right now it's a toss up between "The No Good Very Bad Lawyer Day" or "The No Good Very Bad Political Operative Day."

A federal judge yesterday seemed to be confused on that as well. Avenatti has been representing Stormy Daniels in a defamation lawsuit against President Trump. It all started when Avenatti, with his infinite superstar lawyer awesomeness, decided to build his case off of - get this…. A TWEET from the president. Trump tweeted this back in April regarding a man, allegedly sent by Trump, that had threatened her not to come forward with her story:

A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!

BOOM, Avenatti let loose the hounds of… well, a defamation suit.

But the judge yesterday couldn't tell if this was just bad lawyering or some kind of game of political football. Either way, he opted to rule it as both. The judge stated that the president's tweet was "rhetorical hyperbole", protected under the first amendment, and all or part of the quote "politics and public discourse in the United States."

So forget for a moment that a federal judge has just highlighted that a defamation lawsuit between a sitting U.S. President, a pornstar, and a political activist - masquerading as a lawyer - is now considered normal and business as usual. Consider for just a second that this "lawyer", is actually considering running for president. A man that has shown no qualms at all with parading women (first Daniels and then Swetnick) in front of the entire world, embarrass them, and do it all for his own ugly political greed.

To everyone that donated, you just paid President Trump's lawyers over half a million dollars.

The federal judge ordered the case closed, and Stormy Daniels to pay for all the president's legal fees. And this might be the funniest thing to come out of all this. Daniels set up a Crowd Justice page, kind of like a Go Fund Me, back in April to pay for all her legal fees. As of today that page has raised five hundred and eighty-six thousand dollars. So, to everyone that donated, you just paid President Trump's lawyers over half a million dollars.

As the kids these days say… L-O-L

Wait, 'white woman' is now a disparaging term? I can't even.

Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images

Feminism began in the 1830s as a revolution by affluent white women who wanted birth control and the right to vote. As feminism developed, it expanded its focus so that women of every sort were included. It has even expanded further beyond women, to "marginalized communities." Lately, it's gone a step further and started doing some "marginalizing" of its own.

The madness of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was a watershed event. The entire country got an up-close view of what feminism has come to. It has become remarkably anti-truth, or at least unconcerned with truth. Instead, it's about destruction.

RELATED: Kavanaugh might be the force to turn back the blue wave

A lot of women sided with Dr. Ford, because they saw Ford as a symbol of womanhood, just as many people saw Kavanaugh, not just as a man, and not just a white man, but as the symbol of the system they claim to fight, the patriarchy.

For many reasons, the term "white man" has become derogatory, an honest-to-God insult that is not applied to any other race or gender, not in that openly insulting way. The indenting-obsessed feminists and activists have led an untiring charge against white men, and, until now, he's faced the outrage alone, quietly. White women, on the other hand, were part of that struggle against white men. They, like their fellow marginalized people, were the victims of white straight cis-gendered men. But postmodernism and social justice don't stop until the entire house collapses, so now they're going after white women as well.

A recent article in National Review titled "'White Women' Becomes a Disparaging Term" examines this shift.

Today, white women are being lumped together into a giant bloc subject to absurdly broad stereotyping and vitriolic condemnation. They're being told to step back and know their place by writers in the New York Times ("white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain"), The New Yorker ("despite the enduring legacy of testimony by black women, white women have often played the protagonists in the history of sexual violence, and black women have been relegated to the supporting cast") and NBC News ("white women who voted for Trump . . . clearly have no issue with the president's openly misogynistic behavior, his demeaning of female reporters and his mocking of [Christine Blasey] Ford).

The author adds that:

A writer for The Root castigated Taylor Swift because "like some white women, she uses her privilege to not be involved until she's directly affected." Talia Lavin, the New Yorker fact-checker who resigned in June after erroneously suggesting that an ICE agent (who turned out to be a combat-wounded Marine Corps veteran) had a Nazi tattoo, continues to contribute to The New Yorker and tells her 51,000 Twitter followers, "patriarchy won't protect you no matter how hard white women fight for it." "White women use strategic tears to silence women of colour," ran a headline in the Guardian. On the basis of five phone calls, plus the story of what happened to Emmett Till in 1955, Rolling Stone published an essay entitled, "Why White Women Keep Calling the Police on Black People," blaming them for "a new 21st-century version of Jim Crow."

The mainstream media, like 4th wave feminists—and, believe me, there is a serious overlap—has become interested in activism. They want to destroy everything that they disagree with—the most horrible person to them would be the cis-gendered straight, able-bodied, financially-independent white man who is politically conservative and Christian, especially if he voted for Trump and listens to Kanye.

The Left's kind of activism is dangerous, too, because it's a postmodern form of activism, so truth doesn't matter and language is a weapon used to attack whoever is deems "oppressors," which has, until now, been mostly white men and anyone who tries to defend them and anyone who disagrees with the postmodern politics of the Left. Anyone who has tried to stand up and say, "This isn't right, you're being sexist and racist by accusing 'white men' of all these things, and calling them sexist and racist." But that doesn't matter. And it doesn't work. These people have literally accused Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, of antisemitism, and called Candace Owens and Kanye West, who are black, white supremacists. They call Christina Hoff Sommers, who is a feminist woman, a misogynist. We could spend all day going through examples, but you know plenty already.

These activists can say whatever they want and attack whomever they please and nobody can stop them.

These activists can say whatever they want and attack whomever they please and nobody can stop them. As anyone who has so much as disagreed with them will tell you, they are ruthless. White women used to be part of their tribe. But now, they are finding out how ruthless their former allies can be. Hopefully, there's enough sanity left among enough people in that tribe to realize what's going on. Hopefully, they realized that maybe they'll be next.