Glenn Beck: Prominent Dem supports McCain


Lynn Forester de Rothschild

GLENN: Lynn Rothschild is with us now. Hello, Lynn, how are you?

ROTHSCHILD: I'm fine, Glenn. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: You know, I read the quote from you back in, I think it was June. You're a baroness, aren't you?

ROTHSCHILD: No. No, I'm not. I am a girl from New Jersey.

GLENN: Come on.

ROTHSCHILD: Middle class family. I made my own fortune and I married a wonderful man who is from a very prominent European family.

GLENN: Yes. He's a baron, right? So when I read this back in June that you were saying you thought Barack Obama was an elitist, I thought that was hysterical coming from somebody with the last name Rothschild.

ROTHSCHILD: You know, we get so lost in labels, it is really sad in this country. You know, I do have that title. I have lived the American dream.

GLENN: I know. I'm

ROTHSCHILD: It's not about me.

GLENN: I know. I'm giving you

ROTHSCHILD: Don't attack the messenger.

GLENN: I don't mean to attack you. Honestly I found it very, very funny and I'm just joking with you.

ROTHSCHILD: You are not alone, including my children.

GLENN: I want to ask you, because I thank you for speaking out. You're not coming over to the Republican side. You are who you are and you describe yourself as a progressive, right?

ROTHSCHILD: I do.

GLENN: I understand Progressives, at least the early, you know, last century progressive, as a party that was really pushing socialism and I think that's where Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they have gone way left. Where do you separate yourself?

ROTHSCHILD: Well, I okay. We have a different idea of progressive. To me, what I mean by being a progressive is that I want to live in a country and a society that tries to bring along everyone in it, a society that lifts the boats for all people. That is not a left wing ideology. That's the American dream. I live the American dream. I grew up in a middle class family and now I have the life that is a dream.

GLENN: Right.

ROTHSCHILD: And that's why I want the right person in the White House, somebody who will preserve that for my children and my children's children.

GLENN: And you're saying now because you were a big Hillary supporter. You were a big fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Did you tell her you were going to come out against Barack Obama?

ROTHSCHILD: No, of course I didn't. Of course I didn't. I said it publicly, because what I said is what you led with. Is I said in the New York Times in June that I love my country more than my party and I'm going to vote for the person who I trust most to do the right thing for ordinary Americans.

GLENN: You know, I tell you, Lynn, I saw the Country First slogan from John McCain and it dawned on me how right that was when I realized you can hope for change, but I don't even know what that means. The change people want is someone putting their country first, not themselves and not their party.

ROTHSCHILD: Absolutely. And if you look at Barack Obama, when has he ever done anything that wasn't completely in his own best interests. Barack Obama earmarked more than $830 million to pet projects, including I might say $1 million to his wife's employer, including the Bridge to Nowhere. He also voted for the Bush energy plan that was a huge giveaway to the oil company. Because where does Barack Obama get his money? From oil companies. And all of that really upsets me as a Democrat. As a Democrat I feel about the Democratic party the way you did about the Republican party. I think they have left their values behind. I am a centrist Democrat. I want a strong growth economy, I want strong foreign policy. Most of all, I want a party that works for people from the family that I came from, regardless of my name. Don't forget where I came from, you know, Glenn.

GLENN: No, I tell you, Lynn, I disagree with so much of Bill Clinton's policies, but Bill Clinton, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Barack Obama. It is a radical, radical change, a Barack Obama presidency, from what we even are as a country. Agree or disagree?

ROTHSCHILD: Oh, I totally agree. Barack Obama only became the nominee by running against the Clinton legacy. And the question is what part didn't you like, the peace or the prosperity. Bill Clinton won because people understood that he spent every waking hour thinking about how to make their lives better, and we have lost that as a party. The Democratic party is so up to their eyeballs in vested interests. Look at what Joe Biden did. Joe Biden ushered the bankruptcy bill through congress. Even Ariana Huffington from the left said that it was a morally corrupt bill. It hurt the working class so badly. And in this economic crisis, there are going to be people who are not going to be able to pay their bills and will not have protection of bankruptcy law because Joe Biden ushered it through to help the credit card companies that are located in Delaware. That is wrong.

GLENN: So Lynn, how first of all, are you even going to be welcome in the Democratic party? Because who's running the Democratic party right now? They're listening to people who I believe are so vitriolic like Keith Olbermann that will force you to shut up and sit down. That's not the American way. But look what they've done to Joe Lieberman. I mean, you're done when you disagree with

ROTHSCHILD: I don't care. I don't care. You know what? I've got to do the right thing. This is an issue of conscience for me. Claire McCaskill was just attacking me on Fox and Friends and attacking, like you starred, attacking me because I'm Lady de Rothschild.

GLENN: Wait, wait, Lynn, I wasn't attacking you. I was joking.

ROTHSCHILD: I am about as rah, rah American, as normal a person as you can get.

GLENN: I apologize that you have misunderstood my joke. I was not attacking you. Sincerely, I may disagree with your policies but I respect you. That's the only reason why I'm having you on. I respect you for having the courage to stand against the machine that both parties have created, and I really, truly believe until Republicans stop being Republicans and start being Americans and until Democrats stop being Democrats and look and say, "Wait a minute, where are these parties taking us," the only way we're going to survive is when people like you stand up.

ROTHSCHILD: Well, from your mouth to God's ears, I am so much on your side, and you have to say then that John McCain is your man. Look at how he stood up to George Bush. He was the most critical person on the execution of the war in Iraq. He voted against the Bush energy plan. He pushed immigration through with Ted Kennedy because he thought Ted Kennedy had a better idea than George Bush. He

GLENN: Who do you who else like you, is there anybody else, is there anybody that is going to stand up? I've wondered this. When I watch what's happening in congress, is there anyone that's willing to stand up against Nancy Pelosi? Is there anyone else of authority that you think is going to stand up and say, I mean, honestly?

ROTHSCHILD: Well, look. What I think is going to happen, when Barack Obama loses, all of these people who pushed him over the finish line to make him the nominee, led by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean against the wishes of 18 million people are going to have a wake up call. And if the Democratic party does not start exercising and living by the values that it claims to have, it's going to continue to lose.

GLENN: Lynn, may I ask you a question. I said this right after Hillary didn't really endorse Barack Obama at the convention and I

ROTHSCHILD: Now, that's not fair. She really did. And you know what, they're going to try to put Barack Obama's loss on Hillary Clinton.

GLENN: No, no.

ROTHSCHILD: And that will be a gross injustice and it's total sexism, by the way. Hillary Clinton it is. It is.

GLENN: May I finish what I said?

ROTHSCHILD: No.

GLENN: Here's what I said. She did what she had to do as a good little foot soldier, but I don't believe that she wants him to win. I don't believe I believe that she will win Barack to quote, when Barack loses, she will then step into the power vacuum in the Democratic party and say, "It's because you moved too far left and I told you this before." She did the bare minimum to be able to be a good Democrat but not she has no credibility if she hoists up the flag and says, vote Barack Obama, he's the savior of the universe. Because she's going to have to come out and say, you moved too far left.

ROTHSCHILD: Look, no one has done more for a candidate than Hillary Clinton has. Remember Ted Kennedy did not endorse Jimmy Carter and nobody said that he was not a good Democrat. So it is grossly, it really is grossly unfair to put this on Hillary. She is working for him. You know, of course we know from looking at her, she is a centrist and the Clintons are centrists. They govern from the center. You know, NAFTA came through, work fair came through. We created not we he, Bill Clinton created millions of jobs by his policy of being in the center, and the left hates them for it, and it's payback time.

GLENN: Yes.

ROTHSCHILD: And that's why I am not feeling at all guilty about not voting Democrat in this election. I'm happy with John McCain.

GLENN: Lynn Forester de Rothschild, thank you so much for being on the program.

ROTHSCHILD: It's great to talk to you. It's an honor.

GLENN: Good to talk to you, thanks. All right. Bye bye.

We made it. It's Friday. This has been a tornado of a week. We endured the nonstop commotion of the migrant family separation policy and, best of all, we saw a near-immediate resolution, with President Trump's reversal of the policy. Whatever your stance on the policy, you have to admit, it's a good thing the chaos is over.

RELATED: Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Apparently, not everyone feels the same. Time magazine, for instance, has chosen to focus on the now-resolved matter for their July 2nd issue. They've released the cover. It features a cutout of the sobbing 2-year-old Honduran asylum-seeker — you've likely seen the image — captured by Getty photographer John Moore. Only, instead of featuring the original image, Time has chosen to photoshop an oversized image of President Trump, postured to appear like a bully standing over the crying girl. The background is solid read. The caption reads: "Welcome to America."

It's not enough to blame Trump for the whole debacle. We can't even have that conversation. No, the mainstream media feels the need to literally plaster him on the cover, to photoshop him into an awful situation, to make him look like a villain however they can. What good does that accomplish? And how long is the media going to demonize the President—what does he have to do?

The cover story is titled "A Reckoning After Trump's Border Separation Policy: What Kind of Country Are We?" Excellent question. What sort of country are we? Are we the sort of country that can pull it together and make this thing work despite our differences? Or are we the kind of country full of ungrateful people who throw tantrums even when everything goes their way?

President Trump reversed the policy, shouldn't that get some attention? Shouldn't he get some credit for affecting change in a way that his predecessor — contrary to what you'd surmise from the media — was unable to? No, instead, lately, we're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

We're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

Nietzsche noted that the severest punishment you can inflict on a person isn't to punish them after they've done something wrong or bad. In many ways, that sort of punishment can actually foster relief. The severest punishment is to punish someone when they've done something good, because you lessen the chance that they'll continue to do good.

And we need good.

I know at the heart of things, we're the kind of country that can come together for the good of mankind. We've proven that. But we need everybody.

The Left has been protesting and throwing tantrums since the day Trump was elected. They don't like him, we get it. At some point they need to change from diapers to undies so we can move forward.

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

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

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.


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.