‘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.

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.