‘Is there anyone else in the media who will join me?’ Glenn reacts to Nancy Pelosi’s bold break of protocol

During a debate on the House floor on Friday, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was so unnerved by the commentary of fellow Congressman Tom Marino (R-PA), she got up out of her seat and ran through the aisles of the chamber toward Marino. Marino was speaking about the immigration crisis and the role the Obama Administration’s policies have played in facilitating the lawlessness at the border.

Watch the video of Marino and Pelosi below:

On radio this morning, Glenn explained the danger this moment represents. After recounting the beating of Senator Charles Sumner at the onset of the Civil War, Glenn challenged his colleagues in the media to consider the role they may have played in today’s divisiveness and what we can all do to move in a more respectful direction.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

I want to talk to you a little bit about the state of our society. Left and right, we all want to belong to something bigger than ourselves. At the end of our life, we want to be able to look back and say, ‘Our kids live in a better world than we lived in because we did the hard thing.’ If you’ve ever gone through anything, you've ever been broken, you've ever faced a real serious challenge, you will say, ‘Give this to me. Let me take this on so my kids don't have to deal with it.’

But we have become a society that we no longer see our kids' future as real. We've bought into the lie that you can have everything that we can afford, that you deserve everything, that your kids don't really need you, that there's such a thing as quality time over just time. And I don't think any of that stuff is true, I really don't. And as a guy who has lived my life counting on quality time, I think it's a lie.

I watched the families that are great, and I've watched my kids now. My daughter is 8-years-old and my son who is 9, and I realize they are about to be 30. And where will that time have gone? I will have missed it yet again. And it matters. There are certain things that are true, and when we get to the end of our life, we will really only worry about our family and what did we do. I talked to a guy who was in a plane crash yesterday. He was in a plane crash and broke his back, couldn't get out, jet fuel was all over in this plane and spilling out on the ground, and he could hear the ignition of the engines. He thought, ‘Oh dear God, this thing is going to go up in a ball of fire.’ And nobody else was awake at the time. He had to get out. There were only three people on this plane. And the other two were relatively uninjured. He broke his back and thought that his legs were pinned in the plane. But when he really came conscious enough to realize and look down at his legs, he realized, ‘They're not pinned. There's nothing wrong with you.’ He's just sitting in his seat with nothing on his legs. He can't feel his legs. He unstrapped himself from the plane. He falls down into the center aisle. And he drags himself to the door just thinking his legs just aren't work for some reason. And he gets to the door and he tries to stand up and get himself up and there's no power to his legs at all.

A farmer had seen his plane go down, and it landed in a field. The farmer was on his tractor and drives out. This farmer and one of the pilots drag his body about 50 yards away from this plane and then he's in the hospital for almost a year. He couldn't walk. He's walking again. But it has been an unbelievable year of being broken. And he said, ‘Glenn, everything that they say about your life flashing in front of you, really happens.’ He said, ‘It's an amazing thing. You see things.’ He said, ‘Not once did I think about work. Not one scene was about my boss. Not one scene was about the quarterly profits. Nothing. It was all about my children. All about the things that I had done or didn't do in life.’

We're all like this. In the end, whether we admit it or not, we're all like this. We all believe that man should be free. Even the communists, even the fascists, convinced themselves that they're freeing people. ‘You'll be free if you live under Sharia Law because you're free to worship God the way you should worship God.’ So they even believe in freedom in a totally mixed-up, upside down world. We all believe that. And we all want to leave the world a better place for our children. We have to find a way to unite. We have to find a way to where we can live in a world where we disagree with each other.

Now, there are some things that we disagree on so much. For instance, Hamas. The Palestinians are not Nazis. But you can compare Hamas to Nazis quite easily but not the Palestinian people any more than you can say every German was a Nazi. That's not true. 30% of Germans voted for the Nazis. In the end, because they were all so afraid, some just bought into the propaganda. I mean their children were turning them in. In the end, I don't know what the percentage was, but we went over to fight the German people. But once we defeated the Nazis, we were not against the German people. The same thing with Hamas and Gaza. We're not against the people who live in Gaza. We're not against the Palestinians. We're against Hamas. We're against people who say, ‘Genocide is the way to go.’

So we have to find a way where we can talk to each other, where we can listen to one another, where we can have control of our own lives, and that we belong to something bigger than ourselves, something that means something in the end. I have been really concerned over the last 10, 15 years about what's happening in our world and in our country, and I have made some pretty bold predictions and stood alone on them. In 2007, 2006, I was talking about an economic collapse that was coming. It happened in 2008 because of TARP.

We're in the final bubble now called the ‘money bubble,’ and I predicted that in – what, 2007 – that we would bail everybody out and there would be a money bubble. And that's what USA Today had talked about last week in one of their op-eds: The money bubble.

We talked about the Caliphate. We talked about the rise of Nazis again in Europe and the old hatreds of the world. We talked about anti-Semitism on the rise. We talked about something that just made it in the newspapers last week, and this one came from Argentina. They're now blaming the United States for their inflation, and they're blaming the United States for their collapse. We talked about that four years ago. I'm really bad at timing. I don't know when these things happen. It's not that I can see the future. I know enough of history and I haven't been taught and trained by a guild.

There are certain things in history that happen and cycles repeat themselves. First, I looked for revolution around the world and I looked to the French Revolution and the American Revolution. I looked at what happened in Germany in the 1850s, in France, in the 1870s, in Russia in the teens, Cuba, Germany, China, all over the world. It's the same story, same pattern. But as we started to really fight with one another is when I first started to have this, ‘Oh-oh, wait a minute. We're in trouble internally. We are starting to hate each other.’ I started to look at the Civil War. And I told you a few years ago, it made me feel better when I did that because there was one thing that happened that we were so far away from. We had extra time.

But a soft version of it happened last Friday. If you remember, last week we were talking about Ted Cruz. They were talking about procedure. And the Democrats were very upset because of their procedure. And we were talking on the air about the Constitution. You got to care about the Constitution. Who cares about your little procedural rules? But that's a very big deal. And that's what made it in the papers, that Ted Cruz was a monster because he broke procedure when it came to the immigration debate. And what he did is he went over to the House, and he talked to the House members and said, ‘What are you doing?’ That was the crime of the century and it was in all of the newspapers about how bad Ted Cruz was.

But this was another procedure that was broken last week.

That's Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) running across the House floor ranting and raving about what Congressman Tom Marino (R-PA) is saying and he has the floor. She never asked for the floor. She just comes over and she starts wagging her finger in this face.

I don't believe that we are at this moment, but we took a giant leap toward this moment. I've been worried about an actual Civil War. And I do believe that we are a nation that is either at or near a ‘cold Civil War,’ where, thank goodness, nobody is firing shots at one another. But if you read the comment sections on the Huffington Post or TheBlaze, you hear the same stuff from left and right. Now, thank goodness it is only 5% of the population that is like that. But the vitriol is getting worse. And we can't engage in any of that. We have to strengthen our ties to people who we disagree with so we know each other, so we know that we're good people, that we don't wish them harm. We disagree, but we don't wish anybody harm. We stand shoulder to shoulder against those who would like chaos because there are those that would like the country to spiral into chaos. And whether they're communist or white supremacist, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the 80 or 90% of this country stays together – even though we disagree.

There came a time in the 1850s, and we've told you about this because, as I said, we were so far away from this. There same a time in the 1850s where both sides, the Whigs and the Democrats, both side were talking about slavery. They've been talking about slavery from the beginning of the country, and they were talking about getting rid of it. But they weren't going to do anything about it. And finally, this new party, this Republican Party started. They were like, ‘You guys are just playing games. Neither of you guys mean anything.’ The weaker of the two parties was the Whigs. The Republicans got out and they were the ones that were talking honestly about slavery, and they called it by name. They said, ‘You know, the people in the South, I don't care which party you're in, you're in bed with the horror of slavery.’ That's when somebody from the House broke all protocol, came across, and beat a guy within an inch of his life there in the well of the Senate.

Now, Nancy Pelosi clearly did not do that. But you saw the anger rise up in her so much that she broke protocol. Remember, just earlier this week, we heard how much protocol means. You don't have Ted Cruz break protocol and go over and talk to people in the House. This wasn't talking to people in the House. This is Nancy Pelosi enraged by what was said, running over and sticking her finger and then calling him inconsequential, calling him all kinds of names even after the incident. This is clearly not the beat-down of Charles Sumner.

But I warn you: This is an important event that Americans should see. And it has nothing to do with politics. If you agree with the Republican or you agree with Nancy Pelosi, it doesn't matter. This is an important moment that people need to see. When we dehumanize on the House floor, when they start being enraged and moving in that rage, we're in trouble. We're in very, very big trouble.

The good news is: There's still time. And there's time for all of us stop concentrating on ‘Glenn Beck said he was sorry.’ Is anyone else willing to say, ‘You know what? I did some things I'm not really proud of.’ ‘You know what? I've got to change my ways as well.’ Is there anyone else in the media who will join me? You don't have to agree with me. But is there anyone in the media who says, ‘Enough is enough’? We've got to stop worrying about the ratings. We have to stop worrying about the money. We have to start worrying about the things we're all going to worry about when we're on our death bed: What did we do?

Let's start to move towards a better future, one where we can at least talk with each other with respect.

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?