Glenn Beck: Teleprompter King


Related Story


Giant Teleprompter Telegraphs Obama Caution


GLENN: I saw the Barack Obama speech last night anytime telling you blood shot out of my eyes which did -- first of all, let me just, may I have an ADD moment here before we get into the meat and potatoes of everything. Is it bothering anybody else about the TelePrompTer? The TelePrompTer is really, really, really bothering me only because I have never seen -- I mean, we're looking for a guy who's real, who's himself, who's just like -- well, I got news for you, gang. I do three hours a day without a TelePrompTer. You know, the president is worried about, you know, well, one word can, you know, trip him up. Well, you don't think people like me or Rush or Sean are worried about that as well? You don't think people in talk radio know that there are people that have been hired to transcribe every word I say to be able to distort it, to take it out of context and use it against me.

STU: Their entire form of governing has been targeting words taken out of context of Rush Limbaugh.

GLENN: Yeah. So I mean, it really bothers me, this TelePrompTer thing. Last night I said -- I was watching it and in the middle I said, because I know a little bit about TelePrompTers because on television I do use a TelePrompTer from time to time and I'm watching, I'm watching his eyes. Did anyone notice that he wasn't looking at the camera? And I said, "They put the TelePrompTer down on the ground." And somebody who was with me said, "What are you talking about?" And I said, that TelePrompTer is not a regular TelePrompTer because he's not looking at the camera. I believe -- and this is -- I put it on pause for a second and looked at his eyes. He wasn't even looking at the camera. And I said, I believe this is to combat -- and I don't know this part. I don't know if this is to combat the fact that he keeps looking off to the side and never at the camera. You know, when he's giving these speeches lately, have you ever noticed he never looks at you. He looks to the left, then he looks to the right, then he looks to the left, then he looks to the right. He's never looking at you. That's the problem. Because he needs to look me in the eye. Well, last night this was my conjecture that they were trying to overcome that and get him to look right at a camera. There are cameras that are built with the TelePrompTer on the lens. He didn't use that. We found out after the speech that he used this giant flat screen television just under the camera. It bothers me that this man doesn't -- this man is always on prompter. I mean, can you imagine if any other president -- if George W. Bush was always on TelePrompTer, can you imagine what people would have said? Have you ever heard a president compared to first JFK, then FDR, then Lincoln? Have you ever heard of any president that just went through all of them? I mean, the only thing he hasn't been compared to is, well, Tyler, he wasn't been compared to Taft yet. My theory on that is because we don't know who he is, because he may not know who he is, or he knows who he is but every time he reveals a little bit of that, nobody wants him to say that. I don't know what the answer is but we don't know who he really, truly is, and that bothers me. Imagine -- I mean, have you ever heard any other president do that? They're only comparing him to others because they're trying to say, "Yeah, well, he's kind of like that guy." Well, no, I don't want to know who he's kind of like. I want to know who he is. How do you get to a man's -- I don't know. Just bothers. There's something wrong. There's something wrong, something wrong. Yeah?

STU: On the TelePrompTer thing, though, is there some degree of -- because I think it's -- I like it and it's a funny story to me because this guy was sold to us as so much smarter than everyone else.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And, you know, but there's, to some degree is there a tendency to overreact on that because every speech is written for these people.

GLENN: Look --

STU: They are all quoting words of other people. They are all reading speeches. Now, it's not to the degree of Obama.

GLENN: Yeah. I am totally fine with him -- like at the beginning of this speech, this press conference last night, I'm totally fine with him having a TelePrompTer. I really am. When he has an address to the nation, I have no problem. He's doing a state of the union, he's doing an oval office, he's doing the beginning of a press conference, I have no problem. But I never see this man off of a TelePrompTer unless he's taking a direct question from the stars and stripes. I mean, no offense to the stars and stripes. I've gotten several stories from the stars and stripes. Nothing wrong with the stars and stripes, but can you imagine if George W. Bush avoided taking questions from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times and asked questions of a blog and the stars and stripes? Hello? At the same time he's saying how important newspapers are, at the same time we can't lose this critical link to newspapers, he goes to the Politico.com. He's proving the opposite point, which he's right on, but he's proving the opposite point.

Which is he? Is it the land of new media or are newspapers vital to a country's existence? Which one is it? I don't know because the TelePrompTer keeps telling him what to say. So don't get me wrong. I have no problem being on TelePrompTer. I mean, all of the words that I say on television, all of them I've written. So -- and like last night the monologue at the beginning, part of it was in TelePrompTer, part of it wasn't and I said you know what, when I got on, you know what, just cut all that stuff out because I'd just rather say it off the top of my head. I've written the words. But I want to make sure -- because I'm so riddled with ADD, I want to make sure that it's all there. There are other times I can just say, turn that thing off; I don't want it. And it's not because I'm worried about anything. I do three hours of national broadcast every day without a single TelePrompTer. So I'm not afraid of it. I just want to make sure it's right. And the president has to make sure it's right. But not in every scenario, not in every case.

I swear, why doesn't he just -- he should have like a belt around him with, like, little bars that come off of his hips with TelePrompTers so he can just walk around. He can be in the kitchen: Well, I'd like a cheese sandwich, please. And then look to the other TelePrompTer: And a glass of milk because you're just like the average American.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.