Glenn Beck: Know! Your! Czars!




Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...


VOICE: It's time for another episode of everyone's favorite show, Know! Your! Czars!

GLENN: Yes, that's right. As I told you yesterday, the White House is very upset with me and the information that I've been giving out all week on the czars. They are not denying things like, you know, Van Jones' history as an admitted radical communist and the fact that he's never disavowed that. They're upset that we're calling him a czar. That's their complaint. I've shown the history of a guy who is literally founding revolutionary communist organizations around America and they don't like what I have been putting on his virtual business card. He's not a czar. He's a special advisor.

Yesterday the liberal blogs became very upset with this little old radio segment on the radio. Why? Shocking surprise: They had the exact same complaint as the White House. Yesterday in this segment I called Peter Orszag the budget czar. The budget czar. Weird how the White House and liberal blogs are worried about the same thing at exactly the same time. But at least they're consistent because I'm sure you can remember the outrage on the left when the Christian Science Monitor was calling him the budget czar. Or when CNN was calling him the budget czar. Or all of that incredible outrage from the left when Rachel Maddow called him the budget czar during an interview with the budget czar. Oh, and do you remember the picket lines on the left when Business Week was using the term budget czar under the Bush administration, or the left just hated it when Bush was treated unfairly. I think I've hit a new high point here. I can get attacked from the left even when I'm quoting Rachel Maddow. That is impressive.

Anyway, let's get to today's czar. He's the sort of guy who understands a really good meal although, you know, he can be a bit of a downer at a dinner party. You know, when you grill up a nice steak on the grill, when it's seasoned and sizzling just in that perfect way. And when you slowly place those grilled onions right on top. Yes?

STU: I have a guess.

GLENN: Yes?

STU: Is it Bobby Flay?

GLENN: No, it's not. Sorry, I don't think you guys understand what a czar is. Is it ‑‑ no? Even Rachel Maddow understands that. Anyway, you have this pile of perfectly sizzling steak smothered with grilled onions. You walk over to the table and set them down right there on the...

STU: Right. Is it Emeril Legasse?

GLENN: It's not time to ‑‑

PAT: Bam!

GLENN: So you have this steak, you bring it to the table and this is where that czar is sitting during the dinner party. And he's likely to say something like this:

(Audio plays)

GLENN: Okay. In case you missed what he was saying there, and applauded for, was quoting our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen as a form of unconscionable barbarity, morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings. Can anybody pass the A‑1?

Okay. Do you know the name of the czar? Yes? Stu?

STU: Is it Paula Deen?

GLENN: Ooh, sorry, sorry. No, the name of the czar.

PAT: Chef Boyardee?

GLENN: Okay, no, it's not. Today's czar is Cass Sunstein, our fabulous regulatory czar. Will surely his comparison between your steak and the Holocaust couldn't possibly leak into his job writing just about every regulatory control we have on pretty much everything. But at least you'll know what's coming when you know your czars ‑‑ I'm sorry, sorry, when you ‑‑ when you know your special, special ‑‑ I got it, I got it. When you know your special advise‑czars.

VOICE: Ooh, sorry. Just like everyone who plays this game, you lose. But at least you'll die a little smarter just for listening to... Know! Your! Czars!

GLENN: By the way, do we have the Bill Maher audio from yesterday? You remember yesterday Bill Maher had just a burst of honesty from the left. He said that Obama should just force healthcare through, whether people wanted it or not because they were too stupid. Listen up.



Bill Maher calls Americans stupid on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien


MAHER: But yeah, I mean, you know, they're talking about 60 votes. Forget this stuff, 60. They can't get Americans to agree on anything, 60%. 60% of people don't believe that evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they're stupid. Just drag them to this. Get healthcare done, you know, with or without them. Make the gang of six an offer they can't refuse. This Max Baucus guy, he needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern's head in his bed.

GLENN: Okay, stop. Whew. We're just too stupid to understand it. And then what we should do is we should make an offer the gang of six can't refuse. And if that's not mob enough for you, then we should just have somebody wake up with an intern's head in their bed.

Now, the clip from Rachel Maddow where she called the budget czar a budget czar, we were looking for this yesterday because the White House is upset with me, and the liberal media is upset with me for calling czars czars. The budget czar in particular has come up from the White House and now from the liberal press. Well, the budget czar, when she called him the budget czar, has another moment of honesty, although not quite as blunt. Listen up.

STU: Actually this is a transcript here, Glenn.

GLENN: We don't have the audio?

STU: There's no audio on this one.

GLENN: Okay, here it is. The brewing conservative attack on this new budget is that you're soaking the rich to pay for all of the spending, that sort of reverse class warfare, to pay for the spending and to pay for this sort of down payment on healthcare plans. What is your response to that both politically and as a budget czar? Orszag says, well, this is exactly what the president campaigned on: Soaking the rich to pay for all this. That's exactly what the president campaigned on. Again as we emerge from the recession, we are ‑‑ we need to get these deficits under control. That's going to require some shared sacrifice. Again this is fully consistent with what the president campaigned on. There's the budget czar, as Rachel Maddow called him, basically admitting that they ran their campaign on soaking the rich. Well, they ain't lying. They told all of us this was gonna happen before he was elected. They told us that they were going to fundamentally transform America, and they are. Now, we deserve the government that we get. Are we awake enough now to make new choices?

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?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

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.