Glenn Beck: It's a Marshmallow World



Mark Steyn Single


A Marshmallow World


(It's A Marshmellow World.)

Glenn: All right. I just want to play this because this is a new song from Mark Steyn who is the -- I mean, you're listening to this and you're, like, didn't they just deem him some sort of a hatemonger up in Canada and try to pull his books back from telling the truth about what he saw about Islamic extremism and now he's singing It's A Marshmallow World. Mark Steyn, welcome to the program.

Steyn: Good to be with you. I believe I am the only hatemonger with a holiday single.

Glenn: What are you -- I love it, by the way, but what were you thinking?

Steyn: Well, oddly enough, once I had had that trial in Vancouver, which was back in the summer, and I flew out of Vancouver, my world was ready to explode with all of these hate crimes and I was having a drink with Jessica Martin, who is also singing on that record, over in London and we were talking about what would sort of cheer me up and the idea of actually doing a Christmas single and getting all of this out of my head was kind of a therapy for me after the hate crimes business.

Glenn: How did that work out for you, by the way?

Steyn: Well, we -- we were actually -- they acquitted us in Vancouver, wholly and properly, by the way, because it's the human right not to be offended. That's what Canada that has. They have this thing if you publish something and somebody takes offense, as these Islamist guys did, then essentially you're guilty, but they decided to acquit us on political grounds. So, we're now suing the queen to actually get this stupid law ruled unconstitutional and overthrown.

Glenn: All right. Let's switch gears here for a second. Apparently Dick Cheney, in a closed door Senate GOP lunch on Wednesday, warned the GOP, quote, that it will be Herbert Hoover time in aid to the industry was rejected for the bailout of the big three. This is exactly the same kind of stuff that they were saying about the bank bailout, but now they're saying it about GM. What do you think about what's going on right now, Mark?

Steyn: Well, I think there's no end to this bailout. It's bailout without end. We need to find a way to bailout from the bailout and actually, with respect to Dick Cheney, I think he's got it actually wrong here. You know, it's very interesting to me, speaking as a foreigner, but the Americans always talk about the great depression. In other countries, they talk about it as a depression. It started in 1929, the worth was over in three or four years. What prolonged it in the United States was both Herbert Hoover and FDR over in overinterfering in the economy to impede recovery. That's why it's a great depression in the United States and it's just a depression everywhere else.

Glenn: So, how do we get this message out, Mark, because we are -- I mean, you have -- you came over here. You love this country.

Steyn: Yeah.

Glenn: You came over here because you saw what was happening over in Europe and in England and you're like, Okay. Well, I've got to get over here. I speak to so many people who have come from Cuba or Russia or Poland or France, anywhere, and they come over here and they say, what are you guys doing? We've seen this movie before. This doesn't end well.

Steyn: No. And this is the last stop for most of us. This is as far as we can go. If you can't escape to America, there's nowhere else and as you say, we've all seen this movie before and in the 1960's, the British government attempted to prop up the British auto industry. They were big names, Triumph.

Glenn: Say "Jaguar." Say "Jaguar."

Steyn: Lovely stuff. And what happened was by the 1970's, if you wanted a new model car, you would put your name down on a list and you waited six months and they got back to you. It was the Soviet Union. The fact is you can't bail out three companies who are making cars at a price nobody will pay for them. GM and Ford and Chrysler cannot make an automobile at a price that any customer is prepared to pay for it. So, if you simply throw billions of dollars at the failed model, you've got more of the failed model.

Glenn: Mark, how concerned are you from -- you know, we started talking last year and, you know, we've talked about Islamic extremism and everything else and, you know, I've been talking about this perfect storm that's headed our way and I just -- I don't see how much more pressure can be put on this table before somebody comes and kicks one of the legs out. How concerned are you about a clicking -- a ticking clock here that is just starting to tick faster and faster and faster?

Steyn: I think that's the real issue. It's the connection between the domestic stuff and the overseas stuff is you get the sense right now that America on November the 4th consciously chose to turn its back on some of these unpleasant issues out there. I notice, if you believe what you read in the Israeli papers, that Obama has essentially hold the Israeli government he accepts the reality and the inevitability of an Iranian nuclear bottom. Mere not talking about them going numerous to you. We're talking about how to live with it. Nothing good is going to come up that and in a sense I think there is a moral issue at the heart of all this, Glenn, that when you look at the -- what happened to the big three auto bailout, they got greedy, they got comfortable, they set themselves up with pension plans and health plans that weren't sustainable. The same with the mortgage bailout. People got mortgages that were unreal. These things are very serious because they strike at the heart of the soundness of capitalism, just at a time when capitalism and free markets are one of the greatest things we've got going for us and he, up against a battle with forces who want to industry capitalism. Why we want to erode it from within is beyond me.

Glenn: Mark Steyn from Steynonline.com. We'll talk to you again, my friend. Thank you.

Steyn: Always a pleasure, Glenn.

Glenn: All right. Bye-bye.

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?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

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

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.