The Biggest Swamp Has Been Drained: John Podesta and Hillary Clinton Are Out of a Job

One of Glenn's favorite authors and conservative commentators joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday. An intellectual giant, Michelle Malkin's latest endeavor is a new show titled Michelle Malkin Investigates which airs on CRTV. Her first four episodes go in-depth on topics she's covered her entire career.

Glenn talked with Michelle about a variety of issues, including who should be Time Magazine's Man of the Year, Trump's new pick for Secretary of Education and her relief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.

RELATED: Donald Trump Faces off Against Hillary Clinton, Beyonce, Vladmir Putin and Simone Biles for Time ‘Person of the Year’

"There are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC, but the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that's been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration . . . John Podesta, Anita Tandon and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job," Malkin said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Michelle Malkin. New York Times best-selling author and a good friend of the program.

Michelle, how are you?

MICHELLE: Good, how are you doing, Glenn? It's been quite a year.

GLENN: That is an understatement.

MICHELLE: Which I'm not usually prone too.

GLENN: Right. We were just talking about TIME Magazine is trying to decide who the man of the year could possibly be. I don't think there's really a choice here.

MICHELLE: No.

GLENN: I think one man has changed the world, or at least has found a way to capitalize on where the world was and is -- is being viewed all over the world as the catalyst of change. Which is it?

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, things have changed. And there are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC. But the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that's been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration.

And for those who had had reservations about Trump on whether it was character or certain policy positions or whatever he's tweeting, whenever, in the middle of the night, there is one reality that cannot be denied: John Podesta, Anita Tandon, and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job.

And it was enough for me, when I decided after the primary and even before the primary -- because I remember the last time I talked to you and TheBlaze, last year, I had said that I had no qualms if the choice had to be between Donald Trump or Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton. And that has given, you know, both the personal and political history that I had had with Donald Trump. Was it hard in some ways? Yes. But in many ways, it was probably one of the easiest political decisions I've ever made.

GLENN: Unbelievable. As you know, Michelle -- and I respect you and respect your opinion and everybody's right to disagree with things. But this was a hard year for me.

MICHELLE: Yes, I understand.

GLENN: Because I can't jump on the bandwagon of a $1.2 trillion stimulus package and say, "Oh, well, that's okay." Because it's not. That's crazy. That's crazy.

MICHELLE: Well, you know, I'm not a bandwagon jumper either. And I haven't been in the quarter century that I've been doing this. And so, you know, political reality is unfortunately about having to make cost-benefit calculations.

And when you look, even now, at some of the transition choices, it blows my mind, particularly because, you know, Glenn, that immigration and sovereignty issues have been something that have been near and dear to my heart for my entire career --

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know.

MICHELLE: That we have a stalwart hero like Jeff Sessions who is now the attorney general nominee. I never in my lifetime thought that ever would be a possibility, let alone a near reality.

GLENN: So why is -- why are you so pro on this, and yet Ann Coulter, who was in my opinion, damn near unhinged on Donald Trump, is now saying we may have a traitor within our midst?

MICHELLE: You'd have to ask her. All I can do is tell you this. I was covering immigration issues back -- as far back as 1992 in Los Angeles. My first book was Invasion which came out in 2002. And there have been a lot of Johnny-come-latelies to the cause of immigration enforcement and the need to have systemic reform, that not only puts the rule of law and the immigration laws that are on the books first, but the interests of America, American workers, American citizens, and law-abiding people who lined up and did it the right way. And so I think it's up to each and every one of your listeners and your readers to make up their mind about how authentic people really are when it comes to practicing what they preach.

GLENN: Yeah. Preach.

Can I ask you a question? I've never talked to you about this before.

MICHELLE: Yeah.

STU: The one thing -- the one book that you have written, and I haven't read it in years.

MICHELLE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That I was perplexed by and thought it was very brave, but I disagree with, is the case for internment. Because we have had that conversation.

MICHELLE: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't know how anyone can think internment, especially Asian descent, could possibly think internment was a good idea.

MICHELLE: Well, maybe you should reread the book.

In defense of internment, the case for racial profiling in World War II and the War on Terror makes a very sophisticated and history-based argument that in a post-9/11 era, the kind of national security scrutiny measures that, for example, Kris Kobach, who is the secretary state of Kansas, a hero when it comes to fighting corruption, left-wing activism that has seeped into the federal government and, of course, immigration enforcement, helped design in the Bush administration.

Of course, it is now a very relevant issue with the national security entry/exit registration system, which has been falsely characterized as, quote, unquote, a Muslim registry and has been likened to, yes, the Japanese internment.

The entire thesis of the book took a look at what happened in, yeah, a very far left, liberal FDR administration and asked a question that -- that very few people asked, the people who actually had knowledge of national security issues at the time: What was the evidence for taking these extreme measures? And what actually occurred is far different than what is taught in history books.

The magic message is from the State Department, at the time, which were later decrypted, indicated that there were real serious security threats, particularly on the west coast. I also delve into the actual history of the relocations that took place and the measures that were taken not just against people of Japanese descent, but also Italians and Germans who were interned by the thousands.

The point of the book, Glenn, for those who read it -- and I'm very grateful over the years that I heard from so many high school history teachers who now teach the book in their classrooms to give a full picture to their students so they're not just getting what left-wing Alinsky and Howard Zinn historians tell them. They actually look at the original source documents that I include in the book.

The point of it is that we want to avoid the -- the absolute extremes of that kind of policy by taking sensible national security profiling measures. And that is why I'm so vocal about the need for someone like Kris Kobach to head the Department of Homeland Security. Because he's done the hard work. He's faced the slings and arrows of being called a racist and a xenophobe and a fascist because these people are actually very serious about protecting national security in an unapologetic way, as I was when I wrote this book.

GLENN: So let's go to education. Because you just talked about how education -- you know, you're getting Howard Zinn.

Tell me about Betsy DeVos.

MICHELLE: Yes. So my grassroots friends and fellow warriors against Common Core and fed Ed, know full well that Betsy DeVos has not been a friend to those who want to limit and eliminate the overreach of the federal government in our children's lives and their classrooms.

PAT: Hmm.

MICHELLE: In Michigan, Betsy DeVos was involved in a consortium called GLEP. I believe it's the Great Lakes Educational Project -- Great Lakes Education Project, which was pushing the Common Core standards adoption in Michigan.

She now says that she's against Common Core. She now says that she has adopted Donald Trump's stance, which was very clear. And not just clear, but also much more 50 than simply saying, as everyone else has now, that they oppose Common Core. And, of course, you and I were -- were -- teamed up to illuminate the dangers in the classroom with regard student data mining, the overencroachment of the testing regime, and, of course, the ways in which these so-called federal high standards were undermining local control and local classrooms in states where the standards were already much higher than what the federal government had set.

And, of course, it's the Gates Foundation and Jeb Bush which are largely behind it. So grassroots Michigan activists and parents are very worried, and rightly so, about how committed Betsy DeVos will be.

There's -- there's -- I have mixed feelings about it. And I think that leading up to the confirmation, there are many questions that she needs to answer and that informed senators in both parties need to ask.

You cannot just preach about school choice and charter schools. And expect to have people bow down to you on the right, just because school choice has long been one of those sacred cows for us.

The more sophisticated and informed parents -- many of them in your audience, Glenn, understand that choice and fed ed and Common Core are completely incompatible. And there is an explicit cognitive dissonance involved there because espousing choice doesn't mean anything if Common Core-lined textbooks and tech and testing are being forced down the throats of independent charter schools and, yeah, school choice beneficiaries. If you still have to submit to the Common Core regime that has not been dismantled yesterday, choice is illusory.

GLENN: So -- because this is kind of what -- you know, in a nutshell, this is kind of where we have been, that I think some of Trump's picks have been confusing at best. Because his policy will say one thing, and then he'll pick somebody like this. And you're like, "Wait. No, wait." Jeb Bush celebrated her appointment. That can't be a good thing.

MICHELLE: Yes. And I did point that out.

Now, having supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton does not obligate me to jump up and down like a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader at everything he does and every choice he makes.

And just as I did with every other president, whether they were Republican or Democrat, when they deserved to be praised, I will be out there praising very loudly with my big brown mouth. And when they deserve to be criticized --

GLENN: Wow. What a racist.

MICHELLE: -- I will do the same.

(laughter)

PAT: But the problem has been -- hasn't it, Michelle -- have you noticed that so many on the right are doing just that?

JEFFY: They sure are.

PAT: I mean, it's been amazing to me that nobody has said anything about Ivanka and Donald both meeting with Al Gore yesterday. Nobody is saying anything about a trillion dollar stimulus package.

GLENN: Unless it's good.

PAT: Unless it's good.

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, I understand what you're saying. And I understand why you feel that way. But there's plenty of unhappiness about a number of things.

PAT: I'd love to hear it.

MICHELLE: You know, for me -- okay. I will tell you how I came about these decisions. Because, I mean, we've -- we've been -- I -- I appreciate that I have friends in the Never Trump camp. I have friends who are on the Trump train since day one. And there are more people who are like me, who initially struggled with this decision, but sort of stepped back and saw the bigger picture.

I was definitely -- at a certain point in this election, I was just Never Hillary, that doesn't mean I'm going to be happy that Ivanka and Donald are meeting with Al Gore.

GLENN: Right. I think you're the majority.

MICHELLE: But somehow they will defeat that machine, and that means a lot to me. It does.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Right. Does that mean -- do you think there's a chance -- because I said this yesterday.

And this is a little bit of the, "Hey, John Roberts must have a plan to really defeat Obamacare." So it's a little wishful thinking. But, I mean, do you think that he actually is buying into the global warming thing here, and Ivanka is going to run with this, or is this a way to kind of bring it into the fold and defeat it?

MICHELLE: Oh, I have no idea what they talked about. And so it might be worth asking about that.

And, you know, there were a lot of past Republican presidents who met with really shady people. You can go back and look at all the pictures of George W. Bush palling around with Al Sharpton, and Newt Gingrich palling around with Al Sharpton. And many other execrable left-wing figures. Does it mean that he's going to throw in with the climate change crowd? Well, the fact that he picked Myron Ebell from the free market environmental hard-core competitive Enterprise Institute to be the EPA nominee who is an adamant --

GLENN: You're right.

MICHELLE: -- has been an adamant opponent of the left-wing global warming crowd.

STU: We praised him for that.

GLENN: Yeah, we did.

MICHELLE: -- tells me that he means business.

Yes, I know he met with Al Gore. So it gives people a lot to fret about for a day --

PAT: Well, I will say, if it was Ted Cruz meeting with Al Gore, it would have been a nightmare. It would have been a nightmare.

GLENN: Well, but I think that's a mistake. I stand by what I said yesterday. This president -- the current president never reached out to anybody on our side. And when you shut yourself off, then you got nothing.

PAT: That's true. That's true.

GLENN: I mean, at least he is reaching out. The proof will be in the pudding on what he actually does.

I got to go. We're up against a break. Her new gig is on Mark Levin's CRTV. Does it begin tonight, Michelle?

MICHELLE: Yes. My episodes are now all available. I have four episodes that go in-depth in topics that I have covered my entire career.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And I do want to say that one of the most important stories I've ever, ever, ever covered is the subject of a first two-part series of CRTV's Michelle Malkin Investigates on a former Oklahoma City police officer who was convicted a year ago this weekend of a series of alleged sexual assaults. I dig deep into this case.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And this is the most massive miscarriage of justice I have ever experienced.

GLENN: That is saying something. And it's available now. Michelle Malkin Investigates on CRTV. Michelle, thank you so much. And we'll talk again.

Featured Image: Conservative author and commentator Michelle Malkin (Photo Credit: Jensen Sutta)

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?