Glenn Beck: Wall-E

GLENN: Stu, stop the music. This is important stuff. Is it possible, do you know, is Wally starting this weekend?

STU: I believe it is starting this weekend.

GLENN: Oh, I can't wait to teach my kids how we've destroyed the Earth.

STU: Well, it's not you teaching as much as a robot.

GLENN: Yeah, I know, as much as, you know, Pixar is teaching. I can't wait. Just, this is great. You know if your kid has ever come home and said, "Dad, how come we use so much styrofoam," oh, this is the movie for you. I love that. "Dad, how come we don't recycle as much as we should?" "We do recycle." "Well, teacher says we don't recycle enough." "Oh, really? Is that what teacher is saying? What's the teacher's phone number?" I'm becoming one of those people, I really am. I am this close, and I haven't said anything on the air. I've said it in other states during the stage show, what's been going on in my life under the surface, all kept quiet, bottled up inside since January, but I'm coming this -- I'm about to spill the beans. You know, within three weeks if there isn't something changed, oh, I'm going to become one of those people.

Stu, I actually am thinking about building a gigantic billboard -- I'm sorry. A gigantic fence which I can build at any size on my property as long as it's 60 feet away from the road, I'm thinking about building a giant fence that I paint once in a while, little slogans like "This town council sucks" or "Bad neighbors 50 feet ahead," things like that.

STU: You're having some problems with your property, aren't you? It's like eminent domain except they don't take it, they don't let you use it.

GLENN: The law says I can do what I want to do. The law says it but they won't hear of it. They are trying to convince me that, well, that doesn't matter. Excuse me? What do you mean the law doesn't matter? I told them, yeah, I did. Two days ago when I was heavily medicated and on a lot of medication and in a lot of pain, the city decided to show up at my house. I backed them down the stairs into the street. Wasn't really pleasant. I wasn't really in a good mood that day.

STU: And you are saying these people are giving you a hard time?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. Well, I never -- no, I was pleasant at first. I was very pleasant at first. I was just trying to understand. And then when they started to get into, well, that's, sure that's what it says, but there are a lot of people on the council that just don't want this to happen. Well, I don't really care now what they want. I'll see you in court. I'm becoming one of those people. I really am thinking about painting maybe my house black because I can, black with purple and orange shutters. Oh, yeah, yeah. You worry about property values? Oh, you have no idea.

STU: What's the town ordinance on lighting, Glenn? Because I don't know if you can -- I mean, if you have a light --

GLENN: Can't, can't. I already thought.

STU: Really bright lights pointed at your neighbors?

GLENN: Can't, can't.

STU: Lasers?

GLENN: Looked that one up, yeah. Because I was thinking about the bat signal.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean? Really, seriously, Stu, I really did think about, you know those giant arc spotlights, the kind for movies?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I actually thought about -- I'm not kidding. If it were legal, I looked it up. I wanted to have one in my side yard, went it for like a week and like at 3:00 in the morning, just start her up and just have that thing burn right into my neighbor's window. Anna was out walking the dog with me yesterday and I'm walking the dog and the neighbors are out in their backyard and I just raised my hand and I said, hey, bad neighbor, and they just looked at me. And they had company over and they were barbecuing. They're like (laughing). I said, yeah, good to see you, bad neighbor. Bad neighbor, bad neighbor, bad neighbor! My daughter just laughed. She said, you're insane, Dad. I said, oh, yeah. You haven't begun to see my insanity.

STU: Well, you have to look at it. Washington D.C. wanted to ban handguns. They did for quite a long time and then someone stepped in and said there's a higher order here. There's the Constitution, there's the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And I think, you know, there's a really famous smart guy that said let there be light, and I think you can kind of maybe use that argument to say, look, I've been reading this fancy book and it says let there be light, so there was.

GLENN: Light there shall be. And on the first day, on the first day... there was light. I want an arc one, too. I don't want any new kind of fangle -- I want the one that's actually burning carbon to be able to light it up. I in fact would like carbon lights for my entire house if I could get it. You know, you just have to go out and replace the little carbon sticks? I'm burning actual carbon to light my flower beds. How do you like that? I'm going to find out -- I haven't done this yet, but I'm going to try to find to see if there's any way I can put an oil rig on my property. You know those -- what are those called, those things that go up and down? Are those oil derricks? Does anybody know? Pumps.

STU: Yeah, pump it right out of the ground.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't have any oil. I'll pretty sure I don't have any oil. I'll going to drill for it. What the hell. I might find some. I just want a big -- I mean, you're worried about property values, really? How do you like the big huge house with the oil rig on it, huh? You like looking at that one? Yeah. Hello, bad neighbor. Okay, I'm sorry. We were talking about Wally. Stu?

STU: Yes, Glenn. Very highly reviewed, by the way.

GLENN: Is it? What a surprise. This is about how man destroyed the Earth.

STU: Well, I haven't seen it yet, but yes, that's exactly what it's about. It has to be.

GLENN: I saw the preview. I'm sitting in the movie theater. This is, I don't know how many months ago. And I just see Wally and he's on the Earth and he's cleaning stuff up and I looked at my wife and I said, it's a frickin' global warming movie, it is how we destroyed the Earth.

STU: Yeah, you actually called this one on the air and you were 100% right on it in that it appears to be Wally is the story of one robot who was a trash collecting robot and there's apparently a lot of these. The spaceship -- because they couldn't -- unfortunately the robots weren't efficient enough to clean up the Earth before it was going to kill all humans. So the humans had to leave in a spaceship but Wally gets left behind to clean up the trash that's still there.

GLENN: I think that would be great. They got a big enough spaceship, let's all get on board. Come back, we'll all party until it's 2099, get back on the spaceship, let the robots clean everything up, come on, kind of what we do with stadiums, isn't it? Why don't we -- I mean, we don't live in the trash in stadiums. We go, we have a good time, we have, you know, some drinks, we leave, get in our cars. Why don't we just do that with the Earth, get in the giant spaceship.

STU: Yeah, let a couple of Roombas go around, we'll come back, they go to the edge of the continent, turn around and come back.

GLENN: Let me tell you something. The Roomba is going to change the world.

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.