Glenn Beck - Schumer: traditional values are 'over'




Related Video: Schumer talks about the Right

GLENN: Anyway, so being a member of the hard right, let's look at those.

STU: Because this is ‑‑ I mean, if you are a member of the hard right.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And he said traditional values arguments are done along with a strong foreign policy, which is ‑‑

GLENN: Yeah. It's so ‑‑ I am so glad that that strong foreign policy thing is done.

STU: What's the opposite? I mean, we have to ‑‑ I guess if the strong foreign policy's dead ‑‑

GLENN: I know the answer.

STU: What is the opposite of that, Glenn?

GLENN: Transnationalism.

STU: Well, I was going to say weak foreign policy.

GLENN: No, it's transnationalism.

STU: I guess they are in the one and the same.

GLENN: I have such a clear understanding and we'll get into it later ‑‑ oh, yeah, we'll become Charlie Rose soon. But I understand. I get it. I get it. I really ‑‑ you know, I've been looking for a while. I think we all ask ourselves, why is this happening? How did we get here? How did this all happen? It so congealed in my head, it was actually, it was Friday morning at 5:00 or 4:00 a.m. and I was just finishing up working on a book that's coming out and I was just finishing it and it's 4:00, 4:30 and Joe was there, my chief researcher, and he was there and we were going back and forth and I said, Joe, I get it. It's not a Star Chamber, there's no conspiracy. I understand it. I really truly believe not all of the detail yet but I know exactly where it happened, where the country went off track. And I know how we look at left and right, why we do. I know why people make fun of libertarians, I know it all, I get it. I get it. I'm going to share it with you later. But it is the left in this country, they done want a strong foreign policy. They want transnationalism. They want the United Nations. The right wants a strong foreign policy. The libertarian says, hey, hey, guys, every time we get involved, it really kind of gets screwed up. You know what I mean? What do you say we just kind of hang back here for a while? Somebody attacks us, we bomb the bat snot out of them, you know? Somebody takes a hostage, you know, a pirate or something, we shoot them in the head. Congratulations, President Barack Obama. You would have gotten the blame had it gone poorly, you get the credit today for doing the right thing. Would have liked to not have it takes five days, but congratulations, you did the right thing.

So why is it we only discuss really aggressive foreign policy? "Boy, that strong foreign policy is dead. We're going to give it all to the United Nations. " Hang on just a second. I think there's a third choice here. I'm sorry, was I using traditional values?

STU: You were.

GLENN: That was crazy. Those things are over. Okay, so some of the traditional values, just go ahead and give them.

STU: Honesty.

GLENN: That's out.

STU: It's dead, he's right.

GLENN: That's dead.

STU: He's right on that. Reverence.

GLENN: Reverence, let's see. Reverence, reverence, reverence.

STU: Pretty much dead.

GLENN: Now let's look for a way we can be reverent on things. Nope, can. Okay, it's dead.

STU: Hope is definitely not dead.

GLENN: Nope, it's not dead.

STU: It's changing, it's hoping all the time, more change and more hope.

GLENN: Hope, hope, hope, hope. Hope.

STU: That's alive and well.

GLENN: And that one's a traditional American value. We're hoping.

STU: So Chuck is wrong there.

GLENN: Chuck is wrong on one.

STU: Thrift.

GLENN: Thrift, dead, dead. Hang on just a second. Let me get a hammer. We've just got to put some really big railroad spikes into this coffin called thrift

STU: Humility.

GLENN: Humility, dead

STU: Charity.

GLENN: Charity is quickly being killed.

STU: It's being killed but it's in the process of being ‑‑

GLENN: It's in the process of being ‑‑

STU: Brutally slaughtered.

GLENN: It's not killed. It's dead with the progressive class. I mean, charity only counts when you are running for president. You know what I mean.

STU: Exactly.

GLENN: Then you are like, I am so charitable right now. I'm crazy charitable.

STU: And then when you get the presidency, you take away the deduction so people done give to charity as much.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And then they have to come to you.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Which is because as you've pointed out many times, two days from now everyone is going to feel so charitable.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Didn't you wake up this morning ‑‑ last night I signed my income tax forms and I didn't sign them with a hot poker, I didn't, no. Wanted to but I didn't. And the reason why I didn't, I thought, look at all of the people that we're helping, with about 4 cents on every dollar that I spend. About 4 cents, honey, of every dollar that I give to the government is going to help someone, and I feel so warm and cuddly inside. Tax day, tea parties, what?

STU: Well, I'm going to need another show for you to prove to me that 4 cents actually does that. We don't have that sort of time here.

GLENN: No, no. No, don't have to do it because honesty is dead.

STU: No, that's perfect. There you go. How about sincerity.

GLENN: Sincerity.

STU: For example, if someone were to say preach bipartisanship to the public while not actually intending to do anything bipartisan.

GLENN: No, no, no, no, no, no. That's ‑‑ can we play the new clip from Chuck Schumer here? Let's just see how many times we can count, how many times we can count where he is being sincere. Go ahead.

SCHUMER: The hard right which still believes when the federal government moves, chop off its hands, he will be ‑‑

GLENN: Stop. Do you believe they were sincere on that?

STU: The hard right believes that when the government moves, you chop off its hands.

GLENN: That was sincere. Go ahead.

SCHUMER: Still believes that traditional values kind of arguments ‑‑

GLENN: Stop, stop. Believes that those traditional arguments and stuff. Okay, next.

SCHUMER: Arguments and strong foreign policy, all that's over. And I think President Obama has a pretty smart strategy. He's going to talk bipartisanship to the American people but ‑‑

GLENN: Stop, stop.

STU: How is he admitting this?

GLENN: Because they don't care.

STU: They just don't care. Goes back to humility.

GLENN: It does go back to humility. These guys are so unbelievably arrogant, so unbelievably arrogant because they know. We can stick hot pokers in their eyes and they won't do anything. What are they going to do? What are they going to do?

STU: We've been doing this and now we have more control than we've had.

GLENN: Yeah. We've been screwing these people since 1912.

STU: And we just keep getting more and more power.

GLENN: More and more power.

STU: It's like when you go to pick up the hot girl. When you go to pick up the hot girl, you've got to be a jerk because they only respond to the jerks. That's the way it always is. You always go to the bar, the guy who blows them off is the one who gets them. That's what the politicians are. They just blow us off, they ignore us all the time, they get more and more power and more and more votes. Let's throw a party.

GLENN: I'm not sure if I agree with you on the hot girls.

STU: Trust me, that's how it works. That's how it works in society, Glenn.

GLENN: I don't think ‑‑

STU: No, trust me.

GLENN: You know what, I forgot. Traditional values are out the window. You are right. You are exactly right. Okay. So what's the next one?

STU: Moderation.

GLENN: Moderation, moderation. Moderation, trying to use that in a sentence in Washington other than moderation in Washington is dead. Honesty is used with extreme moderation in Washington.

STU: That's excellent. So he is wrong on that one.

GLENN: He's wrong.

STU: Hard work.

GLENN: Mmm‑hmmm, I think that's dead.

STU: George Bush did say it a lot.

GLENN: Yeah, we've got a lot of hard work to do, hard work, hard work.

STU: Courage.

GLENN: Courage.

STU: This Washington.

GLENN: Gone.

STU: Personal responsibility. No, that's definitely gone.

GLENN: You think of these in the framework of Washington. They are all dead. He's right. He just is wrong that it's dead in the rest of the country.

STU: Right, yeah.

GLENN: It's just dead in Washington. He is absolutely right. All of these are dead, except for moderation, when used in conjunction with honesty.

STU: And then gratitude is the last one. They do give a thank you speech after every election.

GLENN: God bless America. That goes for the reverence thing, too.

STU: There you go.

GLENN: So you know what? He's tragically right. Now, the question is, is he tragically right in your neighborhood? See, these guys completely misunderstand. They complete misunderstand, for instance, the tea parties. There's a story today. Let's see. Beale's attack ‑‑ they are calling me Howard Beale again. Beale's attacks were not bipartisan. Beck by contrast unleashes his anger against and whips up dark scenarios about the new president of the United States. There's a big difference. If he were burning effigies of Bush to protest the massive debt we now face, I might take his word in good faith and take it more seriously.

STU: Way to pay attention.

GLENN: Yeah, you didn't pay attention. You just didn't happen to be watching me at the time. You know what I mean? I was saying those very things. I wasn't burning an effigy but I don't believe I've burned Obama an effigy, either.

STU: Only at your home behind closed doors.

GLENN: Shhh, quiet. Honesty is dead. Don't you remember?

They don't understand you and they don't understand the tea parties and it is because the chattering class, as Chuck Schumer likes to put it, just is out of touch as the ruling class.

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?