Why does Glenn Beck hate Jesus?



Scott Baker from Breitbart TV

GLENN: Now, I have to tell you there are several people that help this program out. In research there are people that work around the clock. Literally they have worked around the clock doing research on things different times of the year. Scott Baker is one of those guys from Breitbart TV and, Scott, you were when did I e mail you? About eight weeks ago or so about a new advisor on the president?

BAKER: Yeah, you, I think it was maybe six, eight weeks ago saying, you know, Jim Wallis. And I didn't know him personally.

GLENN: Right.

BAKER: But I've heard him speak and I had 25 years of watching him. And so I knew exactly what your areas of concern would be. It was very clear to me.

GLENN: It doesn't, it doesn't take a genius.

BAKER: Yeah.

GLENN: Although he has cloaked himself so very well into, into just a, oh, he's just a spiritual advisor for the president.

BAKER: I think it's kind of like, you know, you've talked about this on your programs before, that there seems to be a new marching order for progressives. You know, it's like we're not going to sell this stuff if we look like hippies, right?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

BAKER: And so it's like dress it up, put the suit on, slick it up.

GLENN: Van Jones.

BAKER: Exactly.

GLENN: Van Jones, he is an avowed communist and yet nobody will ask him that question and if they did, I can guarantee who would say, "Look, I'm a green jobs guy."

BAKER: Right.

GLENN: I am looking for social justice.

BAKER: Right.

GLENN: I think this economy is out of control. I mean, capitalism, it's not working the way it's running right. That's the way he will answer it. And it happened strangely all at once with all of these radicals. They all of a sudden decided to change their language, independently. Am I wrong?

BAKER: No, I think you are absolutely right. I think they did and, you know, Jim Wallis is a very effective spokesman for his set of ideas. And I did ask him, by the way. I interviewed him on Friday for about 40 minutes and I said, what do you, what do you call yourself? Are you a Christian Marxist or something? And he's like, "I'm not left, I'm not right. Don't go liberal, don't go conservative. Go deeper." Right? That's sort of his

GLENN: Deeper? Deeper?

BAKER: Mantra.

PAT: Oh, please.

GLENN: And you know what? Jim, I want you to know this is not a personal attack on you. I really don't care about you or your church or anything else. You know, I don't, I don't mind if anybody goes to a church that I don't go.

BAKER: Right.

GLENN: I'm not trying to, you know, change your mind or anything. I just want an open and honest conversation happening in America.

BAKER: Right.

GLENN: And that's not what you want. That's not what your ilk wants. You hide. And if you had the courage of your conviction, you would Stott bearing false witness against your brother and you would actually just say what you mean and mean what you say. That's what Jesus did. That's, of course you know, you don't want to take the chance that you might lose. Jesus was crucified because he said what he meant and meant what he said.

BAKER: I wait. I thought Glenn Beck hated Jesus? That's what I saw in Time magazine.

GLENN: I know. That's amazing. So I don't want to talk about him because

BAKER: Can I give let me give you just one because when you said that phrase

GLENN: You're dieing.

BAKER: bearing false witness.

GLENN: Yeah.

BAKER: Well, no, it's like, you know, a horse in the gates ready to go.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

BAKER: And I know you want to keep your focus on healthcare but I'm telling you there is a lot to get here.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

BAKER: And it's not peripheral stuff. This is when I heard you talking to the mother of the girl at Wheaton College last week, Wheaton College was my college and these debates were big debates for us back when we were at school in the Eighties. And when she was talking about kind of that feeling of the loss of her daughter, what happened to this bright girl that went off and now has kind of bought into this. That's what I used to think when I was there and I would see the people rallying and all this kind of stuff. How are you people buying this crap? You know, and so here when I and I sent that phrase bearing false witness to you because that's what I tried to press on outside of all these issues to say there may be people that are less religious, that don't follow the debates about social justice and all of that, that might not know what Glenn Beck was talking about. But if there's anybody in America who really does know exactly what Glenn Beck is talking about, it would be Jim Wallis. He knows that for a century there's been debates in Christianity about social gospels and personal gospels and his issues have been very divisive within the church. And so for him to come out and say this is what Glenn Beck is speaking against, caring for your neighbor and loving your neighbor as yourself, absolute bull. And I said

PAT: And he knows it.

BAKER: But he wouldn't come to. I asked him three times. I said, you know that's not what he's talking about because and the problem was he said, yes, well, I yes, back I grew up in the Plymouth brethren and these were great debates. I was like, exactly. You know that they're great debates and you know that's what he was talking about. So why are you bearing false witness?

PAT: What did he say?

GLENN: What did he say?

BAKER: He just says, I have no idea what he's talking about and he needs to he's offended people and he needs to apologize.

GLENN: Yeah. Jim, that's not going to happen. Gosh darn it.

BAKER: He will be upset about that.

GLENN: I know he will, and I hate when Marxists get upset because yeah.

PAT: Now, you would have to be preaching redistribution of wealth to be called a Marxist.

GLENN: No, he wouldn't no, he wouldn't preach that, would he, Pat? Would he preach that?

PAT: I'm sure not. I'm sure he's he's been asked about it. I'm sure he's absolutely not!

VOICE: Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?

WALLIS: Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about.

GLENN: Oh. Oh, I didn't

PAT: Wait. Hold it.

GLENN: Hmmm. The widow's mite.

PAT: I was waiting for "Absolutely not." Not "Absolutely."

GLENN: I'm waiting.

PAT: Now, was the widow's mite, that came from a government agency, right?

GLENN: No, no. But I do remember in the gospel that I read Jesus saying you only had one might? That guy over there, he's got too many mites! Get his mites and we can give it to you! Do you remember that scene? No, I don't, either. I don't, either. Isn't that weird? But that's absolutely what

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: That's absolutely what he believes the gospel is about. You know better than that. If you want to give your wealth to someone, that's what you do. Jon Huntsman is more what the gospel is about. He's made billions of dollars. He's going to die broke because he chooses to give it away.

BAKER: But Jim Wallis says that voluntary charity is not enough.

GLENN: You don't happen to have that audio?

PAT: We do.

GLENN: Gosh darn it, we'll have to take a break and come back for that audio. But I don't want to, I don't want to say this is a you know, I don't want to get, you know, onto the Jim Wallis bandwagon today because, oh, Jim, I have a plan, you see?

BAKER: I'm just going to put my computer away then because I've got all of these clips and all the

GLENN: Oh, no, no. No, no, we've got oh, no, I've got a special way to debut all of this, Jim, and educate America. Because I know you're for education, too. I am as well. So we're going to educate America on this together and it will be great. And you just keep listening, Jim, because I've got a special way to do that. But I'm not going to get pulled off of healthcare because that's almost like what an adviser to the president would like me to do this week is be focused on something other than healthcare. Now here's the good news. It's the good news according to Glenn, not to Jesus. But I'm not sure you recognize the good news according to Jesus. The good news according to Glenn is we're going to spend a lot of time talking about social justice in the coming days. Could happen at any time. So you just keep listening. But we're going to do it in a special way because I'm not going to help you sell books. We're going to do it in a special way. And we're, we're going to you are going to like it. You are going to like it a lot. You are going to like it a lot. So just stay with us, okay, Jim? And that goes for you at moveon.org and the Huffington Post, you just stay with us. You just keep listening because we've got some really, really special coming.


 

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?