Arguing with Idiots - Jon Stewart



Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government


by Glenn Beck


 - Pre-order from Amazon


 - Pre-order from Barnes & Noble


GLENN: That's right, coming soon to a bookstore near you, very near you. Arguing With Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government. It's a way to use common sense, reason, logic and humor to win arguments against all of the idiots in your life. It's specifically designed for your idiot friends, your idiot coworkers, even those few times when the idiot is you. You know the conversations I'm talking about like when your friend comes up to you and says...

PAT: Hey, Glenn, you know what? You always say that we have the best healthcare system in the world.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yet, this time you made a YouTube video a while ago saying that you had a nightmare experience with your butt surgery? Remember? That butt is huge, by the way. You might want to lay off the jelly doughnuts, fatty Fat Fatso, the best healthcare system in the world, huh? Yeah.

GLENN: So to a 45 year old man with a wife, four kids, who have dealt with the medical system hundreds of times in their lives, your main argument to debunk the quality of our entire healthcare system is to bring up my one bad experience?

PAT: Well, yeah. But I mean, it wasn't just that one thing. You said our healthcare system is a nightmare. Aha! I have you. I have you.

GLENN: Sure. Sure, you do, and I stand by that. The idea of being drugged and cut open to avoid dying of, you know, something else, then waking only to deal with paperwork and recovery is a nightmare, but like our legal system, or our political system, it's the worst system in the world... except for all of the others. This reform is basically saying congress is broken; let's implement a ruthless dictator. No, no, I don't uh uh, I don't think we're going to go with that. Our healthcare system, which is far from perfect, is much more effective and more salvageable than congress ever is.

PAT: Yeah, yeah, but Jon Stewart said you made a YouTube video and then he looked into the camera with a puzzled sort of look, you know, on his face. That's when I know he's telling the truth, and it's time for me to laugh. And I saw him do that, and I laughed.

GLENN: I'm sure you did.

PAT: A lot.

GLENN: But my argument for our healthcare system revolves around facts. For instance, try this fact. Look into my eyes.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: This terrible healthcare system has produced half of all new major medicines introduced in the last 20 years.

PAT: Can I look away now? It's really creepy.

GLENN: No, keep looking at me.

PAT: Really creepy.

GLENN: The fact that over the past three decades an American has won the Nobel Prize for medicine 80% of the time. We have 5% of the world's population. See, that's part of my argument. His argument is a YouTube video of a highly drugged and unattractive talk show host.

PAT: Yeah, but Jon Stewart said it, while looking puzzled into the camera.

GLENN: Did you ever stop to think that maybe Jon Stewart just looks into the camera and doesn't bother trying to make sense of his arguments? I mean, you know, not because he's a comedian but because he's 100% sure his audience wouldn't put a second thought into what he's saying?

PAT: You know, I always meant to think about it but then... reruns of Scrubs comes on, which reminds me, how can we expect to have adequate healthcare when our doctors are always pulling pranks on each other and flashing back into hilarious situations? Answer that one, you big fatty Fat Fatso! Fat liar, lying fat liar. Fatty fatso.

GLENN: I will tell you I think we have the best book we've ever done. It has taken us over a year to write.

STU: It's good.

GLENN: It is good, isn't it?

STU: It's great.

GLENN: For instance, the second chapter is the Second Amendment. It has chapters on the Constitution. It has everything I will tell you this, that when I went over a year ago to Simon and Schuster, this is before we got our own, you know, publishing deal where we make the decisions, I went to them and I said, I want to call it commies. And I thought I wanted to call it I was remembering it the other day. I think it was March to Socialism and I thought, no, no, it was commies. Do you remember, Stu?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And everyone said nobody's going to and I said

PAT: I'm surprised.

GLENN: I know. And I said, trust me, at the time this comes out in September 2009, this is maybe July of 2008, everyone is going to be talking about socialism and communism and what are we and what is supposed to happen. "No, no, no, no, no." So we renamed it Arguing what is it?

STU: Arguing With Idiots.

GLENN: Arguing With Idiots. Commies.

PAT: I like commies. That's got a ring to it.

STU: It does.

PAT: It would have sold a few copies.

STU: Arguing with idiots does describe what the book does.

GLENN: It does. Here's what it is. I started to tell you, for instance, the second chapter is the Second Amendment and it is the best argumentative ever encountered, isn't it?

PAT: I've already

GLENN: Every single one of us. See, what we did with this book is we went to experts. For instance, the Second Amendment. We said we went to William Heller, the guy from the, you know, the

PAT: Heller case.

GLENN: The Heller case. The guy who's made who overturned the D.C. gun ban and we said, okay, you argued in front of the Supreme Court. What are we missing? And he came and gave us no, it's not Heller.

STU: That was his attorney.

GLENN: Yeah, what was his name?

STU: Off the top of my head.

GLENN: I can't remember his name. I apologize. Apologize to the guy who really helped us out.

STU: Who saved the Second Amendment. Sorry about that.

GLENN: Whatever, whatever, oh, grab your gun, freak. But we went to these experts and we said, okay, what are we missing? Help us make the case. And I'm telling you there are things in this book that you won't read any place else and they are the best arguments. And we're trying to come up with a system now. Do you know, do we have the system of e mail?

STU: I don't know yet.

GLENN: We're trying to have we're trying to make this interactive so when you've read the book and then you're standing there and you're at a town hall meeting and they're like, yeah, well, healthcare... you just dial some digits and the arguments will come right to you because you'll read it if you don't take it with you all the time, you'll read it and you'll be like, oh, my gosh, I've got to remember that. So we're trying to give you a way where you can just dial digits and they will be e mailed to you instantly to give you some of the arguments. But it's coming out I don't even know when it's coming out. Do you?

STU: September 22nd, I believe.

PAT: And that chapter, that chapter in particular has virtually any argument on the Second Amendment you've ever heard and some you probably haven't. And it's got it has great explanations for all of them. It's just really great.

GLENN: There's some of the chapters are breathtaking.

STU: You know, you're right. But there's not enough of, "Hey, you big fat, fat fatty" in there. And I think we should have worked that in more.

GLENN: I think there is.

STU: You are right.

GLENN: This one is patterned after "An Inconvenient Book," and I want to tell you why. I truly believe that the youth are almost gone. They didn't grow up. You know, this next generation coming online never experienced the Soviet Union. They don't know. And they are being taught in school that communism is neat. There's nothing wrong with it. Socialism's fantastic. Capitalism, well, there's the problem. And so they don't know. When you read and I've been recommending this for years. When you read the 5,000 Year Leap, you will learn things that you didn't know, and it's the best weapon in your arsenal, the 5,000 Year Leap. This book was set out specifically to cover not only you, I mean, I swear to you you will learn things in this book you had no idea. We have spent over a year on this book and I believe it is our best book we've ever done by far. But I specifically again designed it for the youth for college educated. You can go into your high school student, your college. It's riddled with ADD. It is easy to read. It is in full, what, four, five color print and it not only has ADD so they can digest it and they can read it but also it has 25 pages of fine print footnotes because I wanted you to know exactly, I wanted you I learned from "An Inconvenient Book," "Well, yeah, but where do you get all this information"? We didn't have the time on that one to put all the footnotes in. This one we did. So your kids can use it as a school book where they want to make a debate, they want use an argument, they don't have to quote me. Everything is footnoted in this thing so you can go to the original source and find out exactly, that way your kid doesn't have to say, "I learned that from Glenn Beck" and immediately be discredited. "Oh, I learned that on Page A 25 of the New York Times, August 17th, 2005." It's Arguing With Idiots. It will be in bookstores everywhere in September. It's available for presale now I think on Amazon.com.

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.

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

RELATED: Trump is following through on his campaign promises. Here are the top 10.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.