Michelle Malkin Interview




Stay up to date with Michelle Malkin at her website, http://michellemalkin.com/

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. I'm glad you're listening today. I will tell you that the staff at the Glenn Beck program has had an intervention on me about a half hour ago because I'm a little testy, quite frankly. It might have to do with internal bleeding that we haven't been able to find yet or, you know, the anemia or any of the other things going on in my life right now, the lack of sleep, et cetera, et cetera. Or it could just be boiled down to John McCain. And when I say John McCain, my frustration comes from I don't understand America that can say, look at how wrong John McCain has been. 70% of America says John McCain is wrong about immigration. They believe in securing the border, et cetera, et cetera. And he says he has an epiphany.

Well, now, when you listen to the American people, okay, great, I had an epiphany, I listened to the American people. The reason why I'm so upset is what you're going to hear in the next few minutes. It is something that most of America doesn't know and when you hear the facts laid out before you about John McCain, it should make your blood boil. Whether it will or not, I don't know, but it should. Michelle Malkin is here and she's gooding to lay the whole story out. Hi, Michelle.

MALKIN: Hi, Glenn.

GLENN: Have you ever seen such an audacious slap in the face to the American people as this?

MALKIN: I haven't felt one like this in a long time, Glenn. I'm still reeling from it. But I do hope that as more people find out about McCain's open border roots that they won't buy the dye job that he's given himself and the instant immigration makeover that he's trying to sell to conservatives and Republicans.

GLENN: Okay, I want you to lay it -- two pieces of audio, one from John McCain being asked about it and then another piece of audio from the gentleman that is now working with him. So you tell me the best time to play it while you explain what he's doing right now behind everybody's back.

MALKIN: Sure. Well, last month I received a tip from a concerned reader and she had listened to John McCain speak to the Hispanic Republicans in Nevada at a conference and apparently at this conference McCain was trying to tout his connection to a man named Dr. Juan Hernandez who has been named the national director of Hispanic outreach for the McCain 2008 campaign. This reader of mine was appalled when she learned of this hire and it had exactly the opposite effect that apparently McCain wanted it to have. This was supposed to be reassuring to Hispanic Republicans that this guy had been hired as outreach.

My colleague at hotair.com, Bryan Preston, confirmed this staff hire and, in fact, on John McCain's daughter's campaign website, there's a lovely, cozy picture of Juan Hernandez pivoting with Meghan McCain and Mark MacKinnon who is the campaign guru for John McCain. Well, who is this guy? I'm quite familiar with him. I've debated him several years on the cable TV circuit because he's one of the most ubiquitous ethnocentric open borders zealots on the scene.

GLENN: I have never -- you know what, Michelle, he's been on my show quite a few times. In fact, I've banned him from the show. I'm just not going to give the guy any more airtime.

MALKIN: Good. He is an expert at filibustering and he is an expert at crooked talk. He talks a smooth game about how, of course, he supports our immigration laws but at the same time he had served as a Mexican cabinet official under Vicente Fox where he worked diligently to do nothing but undermine sovereignty and our laws. Yeah, it would be a great time to go ahead and play one of those audio clips because --

GLENN: Let's play, Stu, let's first play the John McCain and then we'll play the second clip of Juan Hernandez.

STU: Right, this is the answer because someone actually asked about Juan Hernandez.

GLENN: Here it is, here's John McCain.

VOICE: I wonder if you agree with those policies. If so, explain it to me. And if not, why is he on your staff.

McCAIN: He's on my staff because he supports my policies and my proposals and my legislative proposal to secure the borders first, that no one will receive Social Security benefits who is in this country illegally. I don't know what his previous positions are, other previous positions are but he supports mine. I have nothing to do with his. And he has volunteered to help me with outreach to our Hispanic citizenry as that is his reach as I outreach to every citizen in America. I've made very clear my position on immigration, made very clear on my position on Social Security and, of course, I am grateful that we have so many people who came from Ireland to the United States of America and anybody else who can come here legally under the right system and that's the only system that I would ever support and I have no idea but I will check into the information you've given me. But I want to promise you I will secure our borders. I will not allow anyone to come here illegally. I will not allow anyone to receive Social Security or any other benefit because they have come here illegally and broken our laws.

GLENN: Okay. That's John McCain. Now, it's so disingenuous to say he doesn't know who this man is or his policies. This is a guy who used to work for Vicente Fox. He is the most open border guy you could possibly imagine. Here's just one clip of Juan Hernandez, and we've got tons of them and we'll be playing them over the next few days. Here's just one clip of Juan Hernandez on TV.

HERNANDEZ: I don't think that we need to build walls to control immigration. We are the 21st century now and we're a country that has always broken down walls. Once again with regard to securing the borders, we need to work with Mexico. We're never going to have a secure border. We're not going to put a wall up for these hundreds and hundreds thousands of miles. We have to work with our neighbors. We need to think now for the future. Canada, the United States and Mexico as a block.

GLENN: Canada, Mexico and America as a block. That's who this guy is. Michelle?

MALKIN: A block, not a region. He said it many times. He also, when he worked for this Mexican bureaucracy called the presidential office for Mexican abroad, what he did was he spent his time traveling all across our country lobbying local, state and federal officials for driver's license for illegal aliens. He defended his operators who were carrying illegal aliens to the country and who promoted extending banking privileges here in the United States to illegal aliens, lobbied to get lower rates for them so that they could send home billions of dollars in remittances back to their country. The guy does not believe in borders. He is a senior fellow at something called the Reform Institute which is a think tank that John McCain founded and it has come under scrutiny by the mainstream media because it underscores John McCain's hypocrisy not just on open borders but also on campaign finance because he's used his supposedly nonpartisan, nonprofit thinking to solicit donations from big donors who he then goes and crusades for while he's sitting on Senate committees. At this reform institute which is in part funded with George Soros money, Juan Hernandez was in charge of leading the lobbying campaign for John McCain's amnesty effort last year. And this reform institute also sponsored an art contest for students where they spent their time demonizing the border. And you can go and look. I linked this on my website, to all of the art that compares the walls our borders and our border fences to the Berlin wall which keeps people in instead of walling people out to prevent invasion, to prevent undermining our sovereignty, to prevent encroaching of our laws. And for McCain to have the gall to stand there and tell that voter in Florida who, by the way, learned about this Juan Hernandez thing by looking at our research on the Internet, for him to say that he supports securing the border first when he's got a guy outreaching to illegal aliens to persuade them to make John McCain President? It's more than nauseating. I have an ulcer.

GLENN: Michelle, I mean, I don't think -- I just don't think I have ever seen, well, at least on the GOP side I don't think I have seen anything more insidious than this kind of stuff. I mean, this is Bill Clinton insidiousness. This is somebody who is taking and wrapping themselves around an issue and trying to convince the American people that he's doing one thing and he is doing exactly the opposite behind our back.

If John McCain would get into office and this stuff would happen, I really honestly think, Michelle, and talk me down from this tree, I think John McCain is more dangerous even than Hillary Clinton because at least Hillary Clinton has Bill Clinton to make her triangulate eventually. There will be no stopping between John McCain and the Progressives of going down a road that is massive internationalists. Right or wrong?

MALKIN: I'm with you on much of that. I think it's fascinating to --

GLENN: But hang on, Michelle. My point is if you have Hillary Clinton try to pull off what John McCain is going to try to pull off, I mean, and I don't believe he doesn't know this guy's policies. This guy is a leader. If he tried to pull this off and you have a Progressive Democratic congress, there's no one to stop it because there's enough John McCain Republicans in congress that it would sweep through. They're going to sweep through all kinds of treaties, all kinds of internationalism and there would be no stopping it. I mean, you've got -- how did we get welfare reform? We got it with a Democratic President and a Republican congress. They swept it through. You want to have gigantic international global warming treaties or gigantic treaties that are signed for setting up a block of Mex-Ameri-Canada, you put John McCain in office.

MALKIN: Yeah, I understand your point about triangulation and I'm very down. I'm very depressed about the rise of John McCain. But I don't completely believe that we wouldn't be able to stop it. Look, we had a globalist open borders Republican President try to push amnesty through with the Progressive left, the open borders left. His name was George W. Bush and he did not get his way and that's thanks in large part to the conservatives and talk radio and in the grassroots who John McCain has the same hostility to. The point is we don't want to repeat history here. I don't want another George W. Bush open borders type in the White House. And, you know, I'm galled by all of the Republican establishments who think we should shut up about it. Yes, everybody should know about Juan Hernandez. Everybody should know about Jerry Perenchio who is the billionaire founder of Univision who is a national campaign co-chair of John McCain. People should know about it.

GLENN: What is his -- besides him being the head of Univision, what is, you know, what's so devious about him?

MALKIN: He's also -- I mean, he's Juan Hernandez with a billion dollars. Let's put it that way. He's led the campaign to fight an English emergent initiative which was hugely popular and won overwhelmingly in California with the 227 that abolished so-called bilingual education which is keeping students hostage and basically forcing them to learn a foreign language instead of English and it was included popularly and overwhelmingly especially by Hispanic parents, law-abiding Hispanic parents who were appalled at the public schools with teaching their kids Spanish instead of English. Well, Perenchio, who is the national co-chair for McCain, poured millions of dollars not only directly into the opposition campaign but he put hourly public service announcements on Univision claiming that this was just -- it was not about helping Hispanic families, he was about helping his bottom line an keeping people from watching Univision instead of putting it into American culture. He's also given tons of money to Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council and you can see these are birds of a feather, Juan Hernandez, Jerry Perenchio, John McCain who, you know, isn't just a guy, the open borders type but also happens to be one of these stop global warming fear mongers. So it all says, and people should know the company that he keeps and the outreach that he is doing now to Reagan is, you know, completely cynical move to try and get into the office and nobody should buy it. This is the New York Times' favorite Republican.

GLENN: So Michelle, we were doing the math today on the election. How do you reverse this?

MALKIN: Well, I said last night that it is a Mt. Everest battle for Mitt Romney and, of course, Mitt Romney has this problem but one problem he doesn't have is he doesn't have a record of crushing his shoe heel into the face of the conservatives. I would rather have someone who has, you know, had an epiphany and is now coming to court conservative votes because he wants to represent them than to somebody who even, as he now claims that he's the conservative frontrunner, continues to insult and spit in their faces.

GLENN: Michelle Malkin, I've got 30 seconds. If it's John McCain, Hillary Clinton, do you pull the lever for John McCain?

MALKIN: Not at this moment I don't. I'm running a poll right now on my site and you can see that there are a majority of my own readers who are going to sit home. And I think it's a big warning to the conservative movement out there. We still have time to fix this.

GLENN: Michelle Malkin, thank you very much, appreciate it.

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.