Three Things You Need to Know - January 24, 2018

Vetting Fauxcahontas

Elizabeth Warren has a problem.

As 2020 approaches, the Democrats are trying to solve the mystery of her Native American heritage.

All her life, Warren has listed herself as Native American. She claimed she was a “minority” in the legal directory of the Association of American Law Schools.

She is listed as Native American in federal forms at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

She even contributed to the Native American cookbook “Pow Wow Chow” and listed her name as “Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee.”

But for some reason, Warren has not officially reported her Native American ethnicity to the Senate’s historian office.

And that reason is apparent to every person on planet Earth.

Elizabeth Warren isn’t really Native American.

She is the whitest white woman ever.

She claims family ties to Oklahoma going back to before it was a state, but that doesn’t mean she’s part Indian.

Warren says she grew up hearing tales from her mother’s side of the family that they had Cherokee and Delaware blood in them.

A thorough examination by genealogists has proved otherwise.

They poured over her family’s birth, marriage, and death records and could not find any conclusive proof of Native American ancestry.

Oopsie.

But does Elizabeth Warren lying about her heritage really matter to people anymore?

Can’t she simply get away with “self-identifying” as Native American? It seems like everyone else on Earth can claim they are something they’re not and we’ll go along with it, so why can’t she?

Or do we still value authenticity in a person?

I think we do, or else the democrats wouldn’t be so worried about her unsubstantiated Native American claims.

And that’s actually a really good sign.

The Oscar for Best Hypocritical Film goes to...

Call Me By Your Name is probably the most hypocritical movie ever nominated for Best Picture. And that’s no easy feat for Hollywood.

If you haven’t heard of this movie, you’re in good company because most of America hasn’t either. That’s what Hollywood hopes to change by nominating it for Best Picture yesterday.

Call Me By Your Name is a new-fashioned romantic weepy about a 17-year-old boy who is seduced by, and has a sexual relationship with, an older man who spends the summer with the boy’s family in Italy.

Critics are contractually obligated to love this movie. The LA Times calls it, “Ravishing filmmaking and piercing wisdom.”

Huffington Post says of the actors who play the lovers, “some of the richest chemistry I’ve ever witnessed in a movie. It’s sublime.”

Esquire says this movie has, “Some of the most emotional moments in film history.”

There are two major problems here. First, the plot romanticizes what would qualify as statutory rape in most of the U.S. But the movie is set in Italy, so I guess that makes it okay.

Besides that, just a few months after the #MeToo movement began, followed by the Roy Moore accusations, and the end of Kevin Spacey’s career, Hollywood is celebrating a story about an older man seducing a teenage boy. Yet, Hollywood literally deleted Kevin Spacey from the movie business because he seduced teenage boys.

We can generalize about the Hollywood community here because the whole Academy votes for Best Picture nominees, not just a small committee. Hollywood is not only excusing a movie about sex between an adult and a teenager, but praising it.

As a business community and a cultural force in this country, Hollywood has zero credibility. How do you type your hashtags and wear your black protest dresses and then nominate The Kevin Spacey Story for best picture?

Here’s the thing Hollywood – you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If #MeToo and #Time’s Up are really more than slogans or a fad to you, then you must prove it through your choices. Who you choose to work with. Your story content. And the movies you nominate for awards.

Right now, all we see is #Hypocrisy.

Reporting Live from Pyongyang

NBC News has been given rare access inside North Korea. A mainstream news outlet with a high profile anchor will FINALLY be able to show the truth about life inside the Hermit Kingdom. Let’s take a look at what they’re exposing:

Seriously? You get rare access into one of the most secretive countries on the planet, and you come back with a report on the “modern” ski resort and how beautifully colored the city is?

Is it beyond journalistic prowess to point out that you’re basically the ONLY person standing in that beautifully colored city? Maybe mention that you’re only allowed to go where your GUARDS ALLOW you to go. You know, anything at all that might actually expose the reality rather than regurgitating state narrative.

If you’re not willing to tell the truth, why even go and report on anything at all? At what point does your work become pure propaganda for a ruthless dictator? I mean, if there’s no follow up to this piece, all you’ve accomplished with this report is allow yourself to be used. Was it worth trading this “rare access” for your credibility?

Doing a stand up in North Korea must have sounded cool, but if NBC was that terrified of offending Kim Jong Un by doing their ACTUAL jobs, why didn’t they just stand Lester Holt in front of a green screen with some cool looking BRoll? At least then it wouldn’t have looked like the North Korean propaganda minister wasn’t directing their broadcast.

In 1944, Kurt Gerron was commissioned by the Nazis to fool the world into thinking that a concentration camp was actually a Jewish paradise. The movie he made was called The Fuhrer Gives a City to the Jews. It showed Jews laughing, playing and enjoying life, but when the cameras weren’t rolling they were all being tortured, murdered and shipped off to Auschwitz.

This NBC News report is dangerously close to Gerron’s movie. Evil exists when good men do nothing. Darkness reigns when people, and especially the media, fail to speak up.

MORE 3 THINGS

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.

President Donald Trump has done a remarkable job of keeping his campaign promises so far. From pulling the US from the Iran Deal and Paris Climate Accord to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the president has followed through on his campaign trail vows.

RELATED: The media's derangement over Trump has me wearing a new hat and predicting THIS for 2020

“It's quite remarkable. I don't know if anybody remembers, but I was the guy who was saying he's not gonna do any of those things," joked Glenn on “The News and Why it Matters," adding, “He has taken massive steps, massive movement or completed each of those promises … I am blown away."

Watch the video above to hear Glenn Beck, Sara Gonzales, Doc Thompson, Stu Burguiere and Pat Gray discuss the story.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."