Student Activists Against Guns ‘Have a Right to Be Listened to’ – but Here’s the Catch

What’s going on?

After the Florida school shooting, teenage survivors turned student activists began fighting for gun control on national media. David Hogg, 17, is one of the activists, and he recently slammed NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch for supposedly controlling Congress and not doing anything – as he defended local law enforcement officers who were warned about the shooter beforehand.

What did he say?

“I don’t want to say anything until after the investigation’s done because I don’t know what happened,” Hogg said of Sheriff Scott Israel. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office is under fire for not flagging a tip about the eventual gunman and missing some serious red flags about his determination to shoot up a school.

While Hogg didn’t presume to know about Israel’s actions, he was certain about Loesch and the power he thinks she has. “She owns these congressmen,” he said.

Glenn’s take:

Glenn, Pat and Stu had a lot of questions about this clip on today’s show – including wondering why Loesch didn’t wield this incredible power over the government on behalf of TheBlaze when she worked here.

“She should have passed things for us,” Stu joked.

Glenn pointed out that while the students should be respected and treated with sympathy, they also can’t expect people not to analyze their arguments.

“They have a right to be listened to,” Glenn said. “They don’t have a right to be listened to unchecked.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I'd love to have this conversation with you, Pat. I think that we have -- I think we've come to the end of the period of enlightenment.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Everything that this country was based on was the honest search for truth. Empirical truth. You know what I mean?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I'm not going to listen to a church tell me that they have all this power, that they can do these things because God gives them the power and so I must fall in line. I'm not going to listen to a king tell me he's got all this power because of God. I'm not going to listen to magicians. I want empirical fact.

Now, if you want to go on faith, that's fine. But keep your faith out of the control of the government. The government and -- and faith should not mix when it says -- when it comes down to control of people's lives.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: And we looked for the truth. And let the chips fall where they may. We don't look for that anymore. We're not looking. We're not interested.

PAT: No. We're looking for the win.

GLENN: Exactly right. I -- I am sick of winning.

If this is what winning feels like, I am sick of winning. And we've been playing it now for over 20 years. And I'm sick of it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And no one wants to have honest conversations. You know, this is a problem. I bring the -- let me give you these two audio clips. These are specifically selected for Pat Gray's enjoyment here.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Because these two moments back-to-back in the same interview tells a heck of a story of where we've been over the last week.

Here's David Hogg, one of the students who has been on every show imaginable. Also was on the same show as you were on this week, on CNN with Brian Stelter, talking about Dana Loesch and the NRA.

DAVID: What Dana is trying to do, I believe she's the CEO of the NRA. She's trying to distract people. If you listen --

VOICE: She's the national spokesperson for the NRA.

DAVID: Exactly. She's a national spokeswoman. And as such, she's a national propagandist for the NRA.

If you listen to her speak, she's not really saying anything. She's sounding positive and confident. And that's what she wants the people in the NRA to believe. She wants people in Congress to pass laws that help out with mental health and things like that. And she says she can't do that.

Are you kidding me? You own these politicians.

You've passed legislation that enables these bump stocks. Which, by the way, aren't allowed at NRA shooting ranges because they're too dangerous. That's how bad they are. But continuing on with my point, she wants Congress to take action and says that they won't. Are you kidding me? She owns these congressmen. She can get them to do things --

PAT: She owns them?

DAVID: -- but she doesn't care about these children's lives.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So he didn't even know who she was at the beginning.

PAT: Right. But he does know that she owns Congress.

STU: And she doesn't care about children's lives, which is odd because she has children. But she doesn't care about children's lives.

PAT: That is interesting. That's interesting.

GLENN: And she owns people, even though she just started with the NRA. She was working with us. I didn't know she had all of those politicians in the pocket.

STU: Yeah. She should have passed stuff for us.

PAT: Wouldn't that have been nice? We could have been on more cable channels probably, damn it.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But again, here is a kid who is put out there as an expert by every media source. Here's a guy, he's got all the passion. He's the guy -- we have to take him seriously. We have to respect all of his views.

We can't say one word of criticism of what he says because that means you just don't care about children, you don't care about the victims of this.

Later on, he's asked not about the NRA, but about the mass disaster that has been Broward County sheriff -- Scot -- what's his name? Israel. I can only think of Sheriff Israel.

And so he's asked about that. Here's what he says.

VOICE: Are you concerned that you might actually lose support if you get too personal, too incendiary?

VOICE: Well, she's already done that by attacking Sheriff Scot Israel, who obviously there were some major mistakes made here and ones that we have to look into.

PAT: Yeah.

VOICE: And I don't want to say anything until after the investigation is done because I don't know what happened. I'm just a student that had to witness this horrifying incident. But honestly, how can you say that you support law enforcement, if you're just constantly attacking them over this?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

VOICE: -- these are the people that are trying to protect our lives. Did they make a mistake? Absolutely. Is that something that we have to fix? Absolutely. But there is a much bigger problem in Washington.

STU: So he's -- so when it's about the NRA, he knows everything about them. He knows that Dana is the CEO and owns all of these politicians, despite her just starting this position pretty recently. But when it comes to the police, wait for the investigation, he's just a student.

PAT: He's just a student. I don't know. What do I know?

STU: He's just a student. You can't ask him those questions. He's just a kid.

PAT: That was kind of my point from the very beginning.

GLENN: Here's what I -- here's what I can't -- I can't get my arms around.

So what did I say to Brian? I said to Brian, you know, to have these emotional crowds was not a good thing. You want to have them on, great. Let them talk.

And his response was, so you think we should have -- you think Jake should have just said shut up?

No, that's not what I said.

PAT: No. That's not what you said at all.

GLENN: I didn't say that. That's really disrespectful.

PAT: You were talking about the kids, in fact. You were talking about the audience.

GLENN: Yeah, the crowd. The crowd.

STU: I don't know what Jake is supposed to do once the crowd is in the room.

GLENN: No, it's too late.

STU: The problematic decision is the crowd being there.

GLENN: That's CNN's decision up front.

STU: Right. Not the representation of these families. You could have been in there, in a room like Trump did. He did a listening session with people who were victims of the shooting.

PAT: And there wasn't screaming over the top of each other either.

STU: Right. Because it was calm -- it was calm discourse.

You put in 5,000 people, all of which are there to just yell at Dana, her position at the NRA, it's a recipe for disaster, and they should have recognized that.

GLENN: Okay. So he doesn't -- he won't listen to that. And wants -- you know, if you -- did you say we shouldn't have had the arena. Then that's akin to saying, we have to tell these kids to shut up.

We have to take these kids -- they have a right to be listened to.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They don't have a right to be listened to unchecked. You had Brian Stelter.

STU: Stelter.

GLENN: I can never say his name. Because I always think of Brian Setzer.

STU: Oh, the orchestra?

GLENN: Yeah. So you have Brian sitting there. And who is sitting on the other side of this kid? Dan freaking Rather. And you hear this kid make this argument that Dana is, you know, the NRA. Which is a little ridiculous. More than a little ridiculous.

And then you have him stick up for this sheriff, who nobody in their right mind is sticking up for the sheriff. No one in their right mind is sticking up for the sheriff.

And there's no discussion at all on -- there's no pushback on him.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: On saying, how does this make sense? I thought you wanted this to stop.

And what makes you think that passing a ban on some guns is going to make any of this stop? There's no evidence of that.

And here's some things that we could take care of right now. Because there could be another shooting, in your county, if this is happening with the sheriff's department. There's no pushback at all.

PAT: Yeah, no.

STU: Well, and I think the reason why the advocacy groups and a lot of the media really like these kids that are -- you know, were victims of this, or at least at the school where this occurred, was because of that. You can't push back. You can't push back on the arguments. So the arguments get smooth sailing. They get this nice clear empty highway to just drive down and say every liberal blog statement that's ever been put out there, without anybody saying anything. Because obviously, you can't push back. The kid obviously doesn't know these points.

PAT: Right.

STU: He's just -- he's obviously reading blogs and --

PAT: He's being exploited. He's being exploited by the left.

STU: Obviously.

GLENN: He's being a 16-year-old that is being given a national platform. That's what's happening.

STU: It's definitely not a word of criticism to him personally.

GLENN: No. But you have to be able to push back on the points, or there's no point in having him on.

PAT: May I remind you though, only you can prevent forest fires.

STU: Wow. Thank you, Pat.

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 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.

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.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.