‘We Live in Two Americas’ – but the Dividing Line Isn’t What You’re Thinking

How did we get here? Why do so many people just not care about the facts anymore?

On today’s show, Glenn talked about why the gun debate and so many other issues show that our country is divided into those who are willing to listen to logic and reason and those who are not.

“This is the problem,” Glenn said. “There are two Americas, and it is not left and right. It is those who are willing to engage in logical conversation and actual thinking and those who want to do Common Core, ‘2 plus 2 equals 5 if you can show me how you got there.’”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I've been reading a lot of history. I've been reading a lot of philosophy. I've been reading a lot of Jesus. I've been reading a lot. Trying to figure out, how the hell did we get here?

Now, I -- I know the Progressive Era. I know the movement of post modernism.

I know history. So I know where we're headed. But what happened? How is it so many people just don't care about facts anymore? What is that?

I believe we have come to the end of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was a period of the 1700s that was the -- the death of religion and the death of the king.

It was the death of people ruling over other people. Because people had an opportunity to read, to think, to pray, to read their Bible. To listen to science.

And so they said, no more nonsense, no more nonsense, no more -- no more people telling me, I am your king. Because God told me I was your king.

Well, I can't sense that. I can't feel that. I can't taste that. I can't see it, hear it, smell it. I'm not going to buy into that. Because it's nonsense.

And so we put an end to nonsense, and we came to common sense. There is something in all of us called common sense.

And we're going to base our lives on common sense and the search for truth. Being right isn't the important thing. The actual search for truth is the important thing.

And we're not going to take the truth, hand it down to us, from some king, from some priest. We're going to find it ourself.

That was the enlightenment. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and question with boldness even the he very existence of God. For if there be a God, he must surely honest questions over blindfolded fear.

Tell me the last time you saw an honest question come out of somebody on TV. Tell me the last time you saw an honest question being uttered by a politician.

I mean, when I say honest question, I mean one where the person is actually seeking the truth and it could change their mind. They're willing to ask a question, where if the person on the other side has a really great answer, they might say, huh. I don't know. I -- I don't know. I've never thought of it that way. I can't respond to that right now. I might have to get back to you.

When was the last time you saw that? That's the spirit of the enlightenment. That is what set America apart.

But we have replaced our churches with our parties, with our ideological dogma. We have replaced our church and our God with the planet and global warming. Fix reason firmly in her seat.

Is global warming happening? Well, it was for a while because I can read a thermometer. .7 degrees in the last 100 years. So is global warming happening? Well, it was.

Yes. Now, no. Will it start again? Maybe.

Do I believe in global warming? Let me check the thermometers. It's pretty easy. Do I believe that it's man made?

Hmm. I don't know. I -- my reason tells me that you can't just trash the sky and the water and the -- and the forests and the land and everything. Just trash it and everything is going to be great.

So, yeah, I think man does affect the planet. Does he affect it enough with -- with CO2, something that trees breathe, something that plants breathe? I don't know. Maybe. I don't think so.

I've seen the science. You can make a case. You can make a stronger case the other way. $14 trillion to fight it. Does any of it work? No.

If you believe in CO2, well, then, common sense would say that you need to stop eating all animals. Stop eating farm animals.

If you stop eating beef, you will do more to help, quote, the planet, than getting rid of all of the cars and everything else combined. It is the biggest factor.

So if you fix reason firmly in her seat, I'll have a conversation with somebody that believes in global warming. I'm going to have a hard time if it's your religion. But if you're opened to a rational conversation and you're a vegetarian, a vegan, I'm cool. Okay. At least you're consistent.

Now, let's have a discussion. But I will not listen to somebody who has burger breath and telling me that we are -- we are five years away from not being able to turn things around. You should be going after the meat industry, not the car industry, if that's what you believe.

Let's try this one: If you believe that we have to stop children from picking up sticks and pretending that it's a gun, that we must stop -- in fact, you've gone so far to classify finger guns, which all kids have played with forever.

That we have to fix our society because we are teaching our kids to be violent, with the class two lookalike firearm. That is now in the code book, as a finger gun. You know, like you used to as a kid. That's a class two lookalike finger gun. Okay. All right.

You believe that that is so dangerous, that our kids are pointing their fingers at one another, that that teaches them to be violent. Well, I'm -- I don't believe that, but I am with you, if -- if you are leading the way in Hollywood to stop all violence in movies. Because certainly, if a kid points his finger with a finger gun, that's training him, certainly watching all that violence with big, impressive stars, has got to be doing something. And God forbid, Hollywood, let's talk about games, where we can -- gaming our kids can be in virtual reality, with a machine gun. They can be a sniper and shooting people in the head.

And you don't want to have a conversation about that at all. Oh, you just -- what, are you some Neanderthal. Oh, yeah, like the games are making it -- wait. The class two lookalike finger gun. That does, but games don't?

I can't have a conversation with you. I cannot have a conversation with you. This is the problem. There are two Americas. And it is not left and right. It is those who are willing to engage in logical conversation and actual thinking. And those who want to do Common Core. Two plus two equals five, if you can show me how you got there.

You want to ban all guns. Let's think this through. We're the only country on earth that has the right to bear arms in the Constitution. So to get all guns taken away, to get ARs -- ARs have been around since Vietnam. Why is it that all of a sudden, we're having shooting with AR? Why are ARs a problem now? They weren't a problem in the '70s, but they are suddenly now.

If you fix reason firmly in her seat, that will tell you something has changed within us. Not the gun. However, you want to take away all guns. That will take you possibly a Civil War. But it will take you years to get that done. But you want to make sure that we never have this problem in school again.

Okay. Well, then we probably shouldn't start with the guns. We can talk about that, as long as we fix reason firmly in her seat, but are you aware that out of all of the mass shootings since 1950, all of them, only two have happened in the place where people can carry guns.

98.9 percent of all mass shootings in America have happened in a gun-free zone. That should tell you something.

How about this one? I don't want my kids living in a prison. Well, I don't want my kids living in a prison either.

Well, that's what it will be if you have armed guards around our schools. A prison?

I don't know. I've gone to a football game recently. They practically gave me an anal cavity search. It's a football game.

I didn't feel like I was living in a prison. I go travel at the airport. That's pretty intense. I don't feel like the airport is a prison. I feel it's nonsense, but I don't feel like it's a prison.

I go to megachurches. Megachurches have security everywhere. Armed personnel. I don't feel like that's a prison. I go to a concert, they check my wife's bag. I walk through a metal detector. I'm wanded. I don't feel like the concert is a prison.

I go to a bank. There's armed guards there, cameras everywhere, alarm systems. I don't feel like I'm in a prison. I feel like I'm in a bank. Why is it we protect everything?

We make sure you're wanded for everything. But God forbid we do that to protect our children. Is the stuff in your bank worth more than your child? Is a concert a higher priority to protect than our children in schools, everywhere, across the country?

I'm just trying to -- just trying to figure out what we're actually trying to accomplish here. Because I don't think -- I don't think we're actually trying to accomplish anything, except win.

That's it. We're not actually trying to solve a problem. Both sides just want to be right. That's it.

They just want to make sure that we get guns off the street, because they're right. No.

No, I don't think that's been decided, except for you in your mass. In your -- in your church service, wherever you hold that strange, I hate the Second Amendment church service. Wherever you hold that ceremony, that's what you've decided.

Now, I don't know if we can pull you out of your church long enough to fix reason firmly in her seat. But the problem with our country is that we have a officially -- officially unpegged ourself from the -- from the first principle of making this system, this grand American experiment, that man can rule himself. We have unpegged -- we have drawn up the anchor. And we have pulled out of the port of reason.

It is the enlightenment that gave this experience -- this experiment breath. It gave it life. Man cannot -- cannot rule himself without reason.

We're better than this. We know these things to be self-evident. We have just put on jerseys.

I will tell you what I've told the NRA since the day I joined them. I don't join clubs. I don't join groups. The only two groups that I think I belong to, my church, and I question all the time. I'm in trouble all the time because I question all the time. Good.

Same with the NRA. The minute they would violate and start to become a political source that was betraying the Second Amendment in any way. I'm done with it. That's the only reason.

I don't join for the discounts. I join the NRA because they stand to protect the Second Amendment.

And they do it with reason. The problem is, our society has unbegged from reason. I urge you today, fix reason firmly in her seat, and question with boldness. Question to the point to where you're open to changing your mind. Ask honest questions. Because that's the only way we're going to save our children.

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?