How you can get involved in community organizing

Dear Family and Friends,


 


 Hope.  For change.  For the first time since Barack Obama came to power, I actually have some.  Yes, I too, like the mindless Obama minions last fall, long for change.   In fact, most Americans didn't know what change he was talking about.  Change was just a rallying-cry that meant whatever the listener wanted it to mean.  And in fact, he was right, most Americans DID want change…including me.  Just not THIS kind of change. 


 


 But just because we've made the mistake, doesn't mean we can't admit it.  We must put the parties behind us.  I can't say this enough, this is NOT about Obama.  This is about the system…the system I talk about in "Common Sense"…an out-of-control government.


 


 The change we now need, and quite franky, needed when Bush was in office, is to change our course back to the one charted by our Founders.


 


 That won’t be easy.  We will all have to unite, in order to accomplish that goal.  My critics keep saying, “Glenn Beck is building an army!”  Apparently completely unconcerned with the army Obama has spoken about building or the one ACORN founder Wade Radke talks about building in his new book.  The one he, himself, claims also includes AmeriCorp.


 


 But I, am not building an army.  All I am is a humble, “community organizer”, organizing a radio and television community.  And I'm trying to learn how their system works.  As I mentioned, they are building an army, but what I will tell you is a big, central power structure will fail.  The only thing that will stop the gears of whatever it is they're creating, is small, individualized groups of Americans.  That kind of grassroots effort was celebrated when Obama was doing it during his campaign, and is certainly celebrated by those who believe in what ACORN is doing.  Those same people aren’t exactly breaking out the confetti for us now though.


 


 So what must we, as a “community” do?  First, we have to identify our critical stands, where we cannot fail in our efforts.  We have to draw a line in the sand over several make or break issues, in order to keep the progressives from fundamentally transforming America.


 


 What are those issues?  Well, I would really like to get your input, as Constitutional “Watch Dogs”, as to what you think those things are, but let’s start with these.


 


 Health care reform.  The overhaul being proposed is an absolute disaster.  Obama has taken such a hard stand over this because he knows that it could drive a stake through the heart (what’s left of it) of our current Capitalist system.  The three sell-out Republican Senators who are uniting with three Senate Democrats to find an acceptable government health care “compromise” are badly misguided, and are doing a great disservice to their country.  Maybe they’ve seen the “Princess Bride” one too many times and believe that a Capitalist system that’s just “mostly dead”, is preferable to “all-dead”.  Unfortunately, unlike the movie, our nation doesn’t have a “Miracle Max” available to resuscitate us after we’ve been tortured to death...or, to “mostly death”.  This catastrophic bill can’t pass in any form.   That’s stand number one.


 


 Cap and Trade.  Yet another death blow.  This would be the kill shot to our already fragile economy.  In Obama’s own words, if his plan passes, electricity rates would “necessarily skyrocket”.  Whether that means 50%, 100% or more, who knows?  But by his own admission, it would be devastating to Americans’ budgets.  He doesn’t care.  And whether he ascribes to the Al Gore hoax that the planet is burning up, or that, as I suspect, it is just another way to gain power and remove freedoms, it doesn’t matter.  This bill must not pass.  Stand number two.


 


 Card check, or any of it’s ugly step-sisters.  I told you months ago that this union-backed, card check bill was just a way to focus our attention on something we all knew was horrific, while they tried to back-door their actual agenda through…binding arbitration.  All this is part of the “Employee Free Choice Act”.  Gosh, how could anyone not be in favor of “free choice?”  Well, the problem is, we already have it, and through their “1984” type double-speak, this would actually eliminate it.  It can’t pass.  Stand number three.


 


 Let me know which issues you feel are critical.


 


 So, what I’m asking of you, is that you become a Constitutional Watch Dog.  My staff and I can’t be everywhere at once, and as hard as we try, we can’t catch everything.  But with the power of ten million of us being ever vigilant, I like our chances to stop them. 


 


 A couple of weeks ago, our new watch dog, Bofie, arrived with her trainer.   I know, no self-respecting man would ever have a dog named “Bofie”.  But hey, no self-respecting man would break down and cry like a three year old girl over a Kleenex commercial on national TV either.  Let’s move past that.


 


 Anyway, we spent two days going over commands and getting the new dog familiar with our old dog...the manly named, Victor.  At one point, the trainer put on his protective suit, and in order to see how the dogs would work together, got them all riled up and asked me to give the attack command.  Both dogs sprinted toward him and then suddenly, stopped.  I thought, what kind of crappy, yet ridiculously expensive dogs are these?  I mean, I might as well go down to the pound and pick up a pair of Chihuahuas, instead of these two sissies.  But as I was headed toward the phone book to find the nearest pound, the trainer stopped me and explained that they had reacted exactly as they’d been trained.  “They’re trained to be worthless woos-cakes”, I asked?  No, he said, their job is to get between the attacker and me, and if the attacker doesn’t move, they just make sure he stays there until help arrives.  If the person is stupid enough to move, they tear his face off, but if he stops…they stop.


 


 That’s why I’ve chosen the name Watch Dogs.  I’d like for you to fiercely guard and defend the U.S. Constitution.  Whenever you see someone attacking it, get between them and it.  Bark like crazy.  Send me “twips”tips on twitter, email me, call me on the show.  We will then amplify your bark to a national audience.


 


 My family and I always felt safer when we saw our watch dog patrolling our property.  What I’ve noticed in the last two weeks is that two watch dogs, sends a much more powerful message.  Imagine how powerful that message will be with TEN MILLION.


 


 Be vigilant, stay strong,


 


 glenn

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?