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.

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.