Glenn Beck talks with Ann Coulter



Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America by Ann Coulter


GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. I'm glad you're here. Coming up, I've just got to share what's on Page A-7 of the New York Times, a half-page ad for Al-Jazeera, getting to the heart of the story. I can't decide. Have things gotten that bad for the New York Times that they have to take Al-Jazeera ads, or is this just business as usual? I'm afraid to know the answer to that because I think I know what it is. But first we go to Ann Coulter who I guess just, you know, treated me a little like, you know, the Today Show. How are you, Ann?

COULTER: I'm so sorry, Glenn. My only solace was that you had just been on a book tour and you know sometimes things are out of your hands. I'm so sorry.

GLENN: I understand, you know, you didn't mean it and no big deal. So Ann, tell me the situation with The Today Show. You were supposed to be on Tuesday, and I'm skeptical on this. You were supposed to be on Tuesday and then they bought you --

COULTER: I was skeptical, too.

GLENN: Tell me what happened.

COULTER: I was supposed to be on Tuesday, you know what it's like a book coming out, you are not supposed to do anything else. Only in the past few years do they let you go on, for example Hannity and Colmes because that advertises their show the next morning. So -- but they definitely are the first morning show, you can't book Good Morning America or the Early Show or Fox and Friends or anything else before them, and I didn't really notice until they -- and I was going to be both 7:00 hour and their new fourth hour. And I didn't really notice that much except my friends were saying, wait, what day are you going to be on because all these other friends are listed and you are not mentioned, I TiVoed it and you are not listed on any of the days as the guests. These random gossip columnists were mentioned but not me and then Monday afternoon they cancelled me for both hours, not remembering apparently that they had a show on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday until eight hours later when the Drudge Report called and got Insiders to say, yes, she's banned for life.

GLENN: Banned for life.

COULTER: Well, that wasn't my language, Glenn.

GLENN: Right, okay. So --

COULTER: And then they remembered they had a Wednesday show. So now I love them, I love them so much.

GLENN: So let me ask you this: What are the odds that it was -- I mean, this is the way it happens? I mean, that it didn't, that it wasn't a conspiracy, they weren't really --

COULTER: There is zero. And moreover in their press release Monday night which is totally hilarious, I imagine it being written by NBC executives, you know, with their explanation it was that they needed to cover the war in Gaza and Ann should understand that, doing a lot of TV, we had to cover the war. And then Tuesday when, God bless them, the blessed Matt Lauer did show up to interview me, he said it was for an -- they had to bump me because they were interviewing Tony Blair. So they can't get straight why it was I needed to be cut. But the gossip columnist wasn't cut and they did get Rachel Maddow, and I understand, tough to get someone from MSNBC to appear on NBC.

GLENN: All right, now let me ask you this, because I'm not -- I mean, NBC is -- I mean, let's just call a spade a spade. It's GE, and GE is not going to do anything to piss off the liberals in Washington because they stand to make way too much money on wind turbines and, you know, new fancy light bulbs that nobody wants, et cetera, et cetera. And, you know, GE's going to be standing in line, you know, with their hands out, you know, "We need a bailout" and everything else. I'm not a fan of NBC. But let me play devil's advocate here. The name of your book is "Victimhood."

COULTER: No. Guilty.

GLENN: I'm sorry, Guilty. But it's about victimhood and it's about people saying --

COULTER: That's why victims is in quotes. It's about fake victimhood. It's why they play the victim when they are in fact victims. That's the point, that the fake victims go around creating real victims.

GLENN: Okay, I'll go with you on that.

COULTER: But that's how -- I mean, that's basically, when you read these morality plays or hear about them being told in the mainstream media, you can tell who the real victim is because the real victim is always being portrayed as the oppressor. You know, like the Duke lacrosse players, like millions of unborn babies: Oh, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy. Single mothers, single motherhood, there is --

GLENN: You know, hang on just a second. I want to stop you at single motherhood and I want you to explain the victimhood of single mothers because there are mothers out there -- well, here. Here's one. I mean, let's play it straight. I got a divorce. My wife was a single mom. Her life, you know, wasn't that sweet. We both decided to do it. It was both of our mistakes, et cetera, et cetera, but she didn't -- you know, she was, you know, struggling at the same time I was struggling as well.

COULTER: Right, right. Well, two things. One is I do distinguish. One thing for widows, I hate how all forms of single motherhood get thrown into the same category. It's the same thing liberals do when they talk about the GI bill as, you know, a welfare program: They are a successful welfare program. It's not welfare. Come on. Then they describe the Pentagon as a successful government program. Nobody thinks of the military as a government program. And it's the same thing with single mothers when they throw in, A, divorcees and, B, widows. For one thing, widows, there's no evidence they do anything, or widowers, anything different any in life than the children raised in a happy nuclear family. Divorce, okay, that happens. My suggestion is just that instead of venerating, you know, single motherhood that we venerate, for one thing, people who get married in shotgun marriages; for another thing, people who struggle and maybe it works, maybe it doesn't work but try to stay together for the sake of the children; and thirdly, who have illegitimate children and give them up for adoption. And that was one of the most interesting things I found out. Adopted children actually do better than nonadopted children. Probably --

GLENN: Why do you suppose that is?

COULTER: I think it's because, well, two things. One is the rate of illegitimacies has gone up 300% since 1970. So not all of the children being raised in single parent families is just, "Oh, it had to be this way." When it goes up 300% in that amount of time, there's something else going on. A lot of those something els I describe in the chapter. But the most horrifying thing is while the illegitimacy rate has gone through the roof, the percentage of children being given up for adoption has gone down from a quarter of outline illegitimate babies to less than 1%. So for one thing the babies that are being given up for adoption tend to be coming from better families, more highly educated where the parents are married. And for another thing, the families they go into tend to be -- you know, have better education and be happy nuclear families. You are not giving -- you are not allowing that tiny percentage of babies who are allowed to be adopted, they are not going into, you know, crappy, unhappy families.

GLENN: You know, my son is adopted and he was given up by somebody I consider an absolute superhero.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: A teenage girl who it took everything in her to give him up. She gave him up and we were there at the birth and we didn't even think that we would get him, you know, because she had the three-day waiting period in Texas and it was very difficult for her. But I tell you, there is a --

COULTER: She is a hero, though.

GLENN: She is, she is.

COULTER: That's what I'm saying, instead of the baby mamas being venerated, it ought to be women like that who are putting their children in the best possible environment. For all of their opportunities.

GLENN: So what is the -- because I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, Ann. So what is the solution at the end?

COULTER: Well, basically roll back everything liberals have done over the past 30 years. And this has been a plan by liberals, as I point out. This isn't just, you know, an accident that the ill legitimacy rate has gone up by 300%. I have all these quotes from the great thinkers of the left, Hillary Clinton remember comparing the family to slavery and Barbara Ehrenreich writing for Time magazine and the New York Times attacking the traditional family as dysfunctional, a personal hell, blah, blah, blah. And then you have the courts, and this was really the most despicable thing. In the Seventies the Supreme Court removing what the purpose, in a lot of ways the purpose of marriage is and allowing unwed fathers to go in and disrupt the adoptions of the children that all they did was donate the sperm for. Well, for thousands of years of law, an unwed father would have no rights to a child unless he was married to the mother. And contrarily the mother would have no right to the paycheck of the father unless she was married to the father. That is the point of marriage, to create this warm, you know, nucleus for a child to grow up and develop all the possibilities and this all the opportunities in life. That's the purpose of marriage. The Supreme Court got rid of that. We had all those hideous cases in the Seventies. Remember the Baby Richard case and Baby Doe where babies had been given up for adoption, they lived with the family for four or five years and then the father comes back and demands his rights on the basis of his sperm. Now there are a billion laws to try to recreate the whole point of marriage. Now most states have some form of paternity registry where if you have sex with a woman and there may have been a child, you have to sign into the registry if you are going to bust up an adoption later, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Millions of stupid laws and more social workers when if we just went back to the law of marriage, none of this would be necessary.

GLENN: You know, you said something a second ago. You said that this has all been designed, all these things have been designed by the liberals, and I separate liberals from progressives. Maybe I'm foolish to do that, but I think progressives are the real spooky group. The progressives have had a plan for a very long time. You go back to Roosevelt and Wilson and you start to see these progressives rear their ugly heads, and they are absolutely control freaks. When you look at what's happening today, Ann, and you look at what happened yesterday over in France where Germany, France and even Tony Blair said, you know, we need a new kind of capitalism where government has a big role, Merkel said that she wants the UN to have a new security council that would okay the laws governing economics in each country.

COULTER: Oh, no.

GLENN: And then you have Obama and quite honestly many of the Republicans doing the same thing.

COULTER: Right.

GLENN: Coming in and pushing us to a point to where our dollar, I just don't see a way our dollar is going to be able to handle this. It almost appears as if we are being pushed into a dire situation where somebody can scream "We have got to fix this globally."

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: And we all have -- forget about the Constitution, forget about the rights, and we're still America but we are going to be saved by a global economic plan and a global government.

COULTER: Yeah.

GLENN: Does that sound crazy?

COULTER: No. I mean, it's straight out of Saul Alinsky's handbook who was, you know, mentor directly or indirectly to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Create a crisis and use the crisis to increase the size of government, to swoop in with government solutions. And unfortunately I mean, both in the case of marriage and in the case of the economy, with marriage it's just something we've lived with so -- or have lived with so long, people took it for granted and I mean, I thought I can understand the part for the gays, they are like the last ones, the sexual revolution "Destroy the institution of marriage" window and, you know, we want some help, please. And suddenly, you know, the culture rebels although, you know, we never voted on allowing unwed fathers to have rights to their offspring. And with the economy it's the same thing. We're so used to living with the prosperity produced by a free market and free people and entrepreneurs that people aren't in the habit of remembering how to defend marriage, how to defend the free market. And freedom generally and capitalism. But the idea which you always hear that, you know, Republicans don't care about the poor and, oh, all these Christian ministers, "Yes, we're dropping abortion, we're moving on to caring about the poor." Yes, I care about the poor. That's why I support capitalism. They are the fewest poor people under capitalist systems. How many times do we have to prove this. I mean, it was only, what, a decade ago -- well, I guess it was two decades ago that the Soviet Union collapsed but we have to explain it over and over again.

GLENN: It's amazing to me what -- you know, they talked about Russia this week putting ships back into ports all around the world and rebuilding their Navy. They collapsed under socialism and communism and then opened up and became a free market, recovered, and now they are putting ships in ports as we start to move towards socialism and communism, and we're collapsing economically. What fixed Russia, what put them in the position to now re-embrace a dictator.

COULTER: Right.

GLENN: Was capitalism.

COULTER: Right, right. Right. Well, we'll see. I mean, Americans are freedom-loving people and we'll see how much Democrats and some foolish Democrat-like Republicans can get away with now. As we found out watching the last campaign, you know, McCain, he can't, he doesn't believe in the things conservatives believe in. So we can't express it from the heart. Sarah Palin comes along and you look at the reaction she gets because she speaks directly to the heart of the American people. She understands freedom. Joe the plumber understands freedom. It isn't selfish, it isn't self-based as you see in the case of someone like Joe the plumber. But boy, if you speak the truth to the American people, they will understand it.

GLENN: But what they don't understand now is I think, you know, there's 70% of America that really agrees on fundamental principles. Common sense.

COULTER: Yeah.

GLENN: But they are being convinced now that the problems are so massive that only the government can solve it, that these problems are so massive that you don't really understand the fixes.

COULTER: Right.

GLENN: But the fixes really do come from just boiling it down to the individual again.

GLENN: And using common sense.

COULTER: Yes, and sometimes markets go up and markets go down as I think has been pretty conclusively demonstrated at this point. FDR's New Deal programs extended the depression.

GLENN: Yeah.

COULTER: Markets go up, markets go down, you just get through the cycle. But if you have liberals jumping in with big government programs, that's just going to drag it out longer. What finally overcame both the Depression and the worsening policies of FDR was World War II.

GLENN: The name of the book is "Guilty: Liberal victims and their assault on America." By Ann Coulter. It's out in bookstores now. Always good to talk to you, Ann. We'll talk to you again, soon.

COULTER: Great to talk to you, Glenn. Bye.

GLENN: Bye-bye.

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?