Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastStations
TV
Books
Show Prep
More
AboutCharityReal EstateEventsSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2018 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

This Singer Told People to ‘Love and Value Our Planet’ at a Hurricane Relief Benefit

September 14, 2017
Staff

WRITER

People are wonderful and should love each other … just as long as they all believe in climate change.

That’s the takeaway from Stevie Wonder’s comments during a performance at a star-studded hurricane relief benefit. The “Signed, Sealed, Delivered” singer urged people to set aside all “political persuasions” and care for each other.

People should value one another “as we should begin to love and value our planet,” Wonder said. “And anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent.”

Glenn pointed out two key lessons to be learned here:

1 --- We know from the hurricane aftermath that good causes don’t need celebrity names anymore since only a small amount of funding came from Hollywood.

2 --- We should expect kindness to be accompanied with politics from progressives.

Instead, “let’s actually love people. Let’s actually serve people,” Glenn said. If you’re going to reach out to people, you need to be kind without bringing in political qualifications like the need to believe in climate change.

“Let’s stop hating each other,” Glenn said. “Let’s start seeing that we are alike and start seeing humanity in each other.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So while we're here, let's talk about all of the wonderful things that Hollywood is doing to help out the victims of the hurricane.

They've just had a big gala, where they raised $44 million. Wow. They had a TV network. They had every star known to man. And they raised $44 million.

There's a football player who just raised by himself $32 million.

STU: J.J. Watt.

GLENN: Thirty-two by himself. He did that, you know, with Twitter. "I don't know, I'm thinking about raising some money. You want to help?"

Thirty-two million dollars later. You spend all of this money, all of this production. You bring in every star -- and I'm sure they all -- they were all driving the Leaf. None of them were driving anything that was -- seriously, they were all driving a Leaf. And you brought them all together. And, you know, you had the catering trucks and the catering tents. And everything else, congratulations, $44 million. What happened here? Why only $44 million.

Because Hollywood is irrelevant and they don't even know it. Hollywood -- everybody is sick -- I mean everybody on both sides. They don't need you anymore. To raise money, you don't need people like me anymore. You don't need anybody. You don't need celebrity. You don't need anything.

If you have a good cause and you have a direct way to help, you're going to -- it's great. This is technology.

We don't need the celebrities. And could the celebrities help? Yes. Yes.

J.J. Watt, he's helping. He is helping.

The problem is, they fail to look at what he did, and that is, "Wow. People need help. Let's help them."

And then, I'm not trying to make a political point, I'm not trying to make any point whatsoever, let's just help them.

Is anybody else -- is anybody else bothered, when you go to church -- and every church is like this, when you go to church, and they start talking about how you need to love people so you can bring them in to get baptized. That drives me out of my mind.

STU: Yeah, that whole loving people to join the faith sounds terrible. Hmm.

GLENN: No. No. It does to me. And maybe because -- and maybe because I've just -- I've had shields up on that for so long. And now that I'm sitting in a congregation and I hear people say these things, what it translates to me as, "How can we get people baptized? I know, let's love them."

STU: Again, this does not sound bad. You're saying it's translating to you in a way that it sounds good. If you believe in the faith, you want people to be baptized. You want people to see the light, right? And a good way to do that -- is it hate? If you don't want love, what do you want?

GLENN: I know.

No, this is the intent. Because -- and I don't think is in the intent of the churches. I think this is the -- this is how it's interpreted by some. And that is, we want to change people's minds, so let's go in and become their friends.

Well, that's good.

STU: Isn't this the entire --

GLENN: Would you listen to me for a second? Would you let me finish? Would you let me finish?

STU: Every day on the show --

GLENN: No. Let's love people. Let's actually love people. Let's actually serve people.

Now, I said, it's not the intention, it's how it sounds, especially when it's -- when it's in churches. It sounds this way.

And it's why -- it's why I think we fail. I think we fail as churches sometimes. We fail with people. Because we have another intent. Our intent is to get you to believe what we believe.

No, that's not my intent. My intent is to get you to see that I'm just like you. I just -- I'm just like you. I don't need you to believe what I believe. We just have to stop hating each other. That's my goal. Let's stop hating each other. Let's start seeing that we are alike and start seeing humanity in each other. Let's just see that, you know what, you could hate me, but why don't you hate me for real, authentic reasons. Okay?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Why don't you hate me for that?

Until that time, how about we just love each other and cut each other some slack and help one another?

And it's my belief that if you are a happy and genuine person, somebody in your life is going to say, "You know what, I can't figure this out. You seem to have this mastered. What is it that you have?" Well, I'll tell you. I'll tell you.

That's your opportunity. But we set out, sometimes, we set out with, I'm going to get them in the boat. I'm going to get them in the boat. I'm going to get them baptized. I'm going to do X, Y, or Z. You know what, do your part. And that is, love people. We're missing the love people part.

Actually do that. No other agenda. Love people.

When you love people, they will see, "Wow, I like that guy. I like those people. I may not agree with those people. But I like them." Then you have all kinds of opportunities ahead of you. Then that's the time to talk about those opportunities.

Hollywood is not -- they did not do this because they genuinely love the people in -- in Houston. Maybe some of them did. But far too many of them started doing things like Stevie Wonder. Listen to Stevie Wonder.

(music)

STEVIE: We've come together today to love on the people that have been devastated by the hurricanes.

GLENN: Great. Great. Great.

STEVIE: When love goes into action, it preferences no color of skin.

GLENN: Oh, boy. Here we go.

STEVIE: No ethnicity.

GLENN: Agenda.

STU: But, I mean, that's true.

STEVIE: Beliefs.

GLENN: Agenda. Agenda. Agenda.

STEVIE: No sexual preferences and no political persuasions. It just loves.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Okay. Good.

STEVIE: As we should begin to love and value our planet --

GLENN: Agenda.

STEVIE: -- and anyone who believes that there's no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent.

GLENN: Agenda. Okay. That sounds like --

STU: Wait. A blind guy is telling us that.

GLENN: Yeah. And that's love. That's a prayer. That's a prayer.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That's a prayer. You must be blind or unintelligent.

STU: Amazing. I mean, of course, as it relates to hurricanes, that is not what -- even the global warming thesis says, that there's going to be more hurricanes. They actually say there's been a decrease since 1880 in the number of hurricanes hitting the United States of America. You know, that's an amazing thing.

And I think you kind of look at that and you say, why apply that there? Why insert that into the middle of this? Because you're right, like the other stuff you're talking about, agenda, agenda. You're looking at it -- I mean, I hate to point this out, but you're looking at this in a cynical sort of way, right?

GLENN: It's Hollywood, yes. They deserve that. Yes.

STU: A correct cynical way. But, you know, there's nothing wrong with saying, "We embrace all races." Of course. Those are things we actually believe.

GLENN: There's not. There's not. I do.

STU: You just don't believe it from these people because people in Hollywood are constantly coming with an agenda. And then he proves the point seconds later.

GLENN: Correct. Yes. Look, if he said -- if he said everything that he said, "Look, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you have the Confederate flag, you don't want to -- or, you don't want to stand for the American flag. It doesn't matter. We have to love you and serve you. Period." That would have been great.

STU: It doesn't matter if you believe Harvey and Irma were caused by global warming or you feel like we've seen these storms a million times before and it's no big difference.

GLENN: Exactly right. We have to love you.

STU: We're there for you. And, again, it's not that way. You're an idiot. You're blind. You're unintelligent. They can't help themselves.

GLENN: No, they can't. Because -- because their agenda is more important. And, look, I want to make this really clear. Do I want people to find the joy that I have found in my faith? You bet I do. You bet I do.

STU: You should, right?

GLENN: I have found great joy -- I am alive today because of that. I would not have made it without that.

So I -- I do want to share that. But that's not my agenda. That's not what I get up for in the morning. That doesn't -- I'm sorry. But that is -- to me, I don't even think that was Christ's agenda. That was the result. He knew that would be the result of the way he lived his life and loving everyone, truly loving everyone. Where are your accusers now?

He's -- he won't stone somebody who broke one of his laws. He won't stone them.

Where are your accusers?

Does that mean he -- does that mean he was endorsing her? No.

His agenda is love. Love. And did she go back and -- and get right back into bed with somebody else? Probably not.

How many people -- we don't know this. But how many people did she change because he just showed love? He didn't stop and say, hey, by the way, and the only way is through me. He didn't do that. He said, "Where are your accusers? Well, I'm not going to condemn you either. Go and sin no more." That's it.

That's it. Oh, by the way, I did save you, so now I have to do this. Now you have to believe these things.

No, he loved. All of our love, it seems to have an agenda. All of the love in the world seems to have an agenda. An agenda-driven love will not change anything.

$44 million. That's nice. It's nice. When Hollywood stops with the agenda, maybe they'll be able to make a big impact again.

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.

Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

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?

These 5 governors are refusing to send national guard troops to the border

CAITLIN O'HARA/AFP/Getty Images

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.