Glenn Beck: A Call to Action



Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

What a week.

The president said he was going to fundamentally transform America. Since January 20, he's been racing full steam ahead toward doing just that. This week, can you feel a pivot point? Doesn't it feel like, as a nation, we are waking up?

We've showed you some amazing, frightening facts and the White House hasn't challenged any of it.

Unfortunately, I guess that means they agree with the information we've presented on people like green jobs "czar" Van Jones. He's an avowed communist and radical activist who co-founded the communist group STORM — a group that describes themselves and their activities as:

"We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral."

The White House hasn't bothered to even spin the information we presented on FCC diversity "czar" Mark Lloyd. This guy actually lamented the fact that non-state-run radio stations prevented the "incredible" revolution in Venezuela:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LLOYD, FCC DIVERSITY CHIEF: In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we're going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

That pesky private sector! It's just littered with that non-propaganda talk.

Lloyd has talked about balancing out the airwaves — and that's not just conservatives, that's everyone who doesn't agree with the state. Again, the White House is not disputing any of this. That should frighten you. Especially in light of the story on Drudge today about the bill that would give Obama emergency control of the Internet. Wait, that sounds familiar... oh yeah, that's "czar" Cass Sunstein's idea.

How about the New York chair of the Apollo Alliance — the people who designed the stimulus package? His name is Jeff Jones. Before deciding who to give your tax money to, Jones co-founded the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers. The Weather Underground is a domestic terrorist group that came out of the communist revolutionary group Students for Democratic Society of the 1960s.

Does that bother the White House? Apparently not because they haven't denied any of this, nor have they fired anyone or even denounced these radical backgrounds. And the radical Jones is currently helping New York spend more of the stimulus.

Yet, the White House does seem pretty concerned about you.

The Department of Homeland Security warned of the rise in "right-wing militia" groups — their report said if you are concerned about "legislation on tighter firearms" you could be in a "white supremacist militia movement."

They are name-calling you.

Saul Alinsky's big strategy was to take the enemy out of their comfort zone. Van Jones and all of these "czars" know this; they are radicals. To quote Van Jones: "We need to be about the whup-a**. Somebody's f****ng up somewhere. They have names and job descriptions. You have to be creative about how you engage the enemy, because if you do it on his terms, the outcome is already known."

You are fighting on their level. We're taking it. We're being called greedy hate-mongers who only care about profits whatever else and we cower.

Tonight, I am going to lay out a plan.

Step 1: Fear not and take them on.

We've been fighting on their terms — afraid to say anything. It's time to forget that! Let's make them uncomfortable with the facts:

— You think I want to starve inner-city children? Really? Let's look at the policies where radical progressives have had control. The cities with the top 10 poverty rates in America have been run by Republicans only 8 percent of the time since 1965 and eight out of the 11 have been run by Democrats 100 percent of the time.

— Am I the one that hurts education? Washington, D.C., has long been controlled by progressives. They spend $15,000 per student (the national average is $10,000), yet they are still ranked among the worst in the country: Only 60 percent of the kids graduate and only 9 percent will complete college within five years of graduating.

— Am I reckless for supporting gun rights? In England they banned guns in 1998. For the next seven years, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes increased 340 percent — because, guess what, criminals aren't going to wait on a background check on their way to shoot someone.

— I'm "unpatriotic" and "cold-hearted" and even part of "the mob" for opposing government-run health care? When was the last time, in America, you saw patients in hospitals so thirsty they had to drink water from the nearby plants or 4,000 new moms being forced to give birth in hallways because of a shortage of rooms or see someone have their supposedly removed spleen suddenly rupture? Because all of those things did happen in the U.K., where they do have government health care.

The argument isn't about the facts anymore. When the shouters — on either side — are wrong, instead of admitting it, they just call you a hatemonger. They try and shame you into silence.

We need to screw our courage to the sticking place and, without fear, force them to face the tough questions — no matter what name you're called or what threat you face because the truth shall set you free.

Sure, groups will come after you. If you disagree with man-made global warming the radicals will attack you and call you a flat-Earth believing, Holocaust-denying, selfish jerk who would rather drive an SUV than save the planet from certain destruction.

But the IPCC report that they so love to quote says the best way to fight global warming isn't by getting a Prius, it's by not eating meat. How many of your Earth-loving green friends are vegans? From here on out, when they start lecturing you about the planet, ask: Do you eat meat? Do you have leather shoes? If they say anything else other than "absolutely not," tell them to sit down and shut up. And when they stop doing more supposed damage with their steak, then you can talk to me about my SUV.

And maybe we'll also talk about the green jobs "czar," who sees green jobs like this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS 'CZAR': We want a green economy that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty. We're not leaving anybody behind. We don't want an eco-elite economy.

We're talking about people that don't have a home. How do they get to be part of this green economy?

What good is a green economy if at the end of the day, it's just eco-apartheid anyway?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Which is it: We need green jobs because the Earth has a temperature (like Al Gore said) or we need green jobs for social justice?

By the way, that's Marxist code language. Social justice equals "take from him and give to him."

America, don't you see it? This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is about Republicans and Democrats and Independents against radicals, revolutionaries and anti-capitalist nut jobs.

Almost all Americans love the Constitution and we may disagree with this policy or that, but the fundamental transformation — the change that 80 percent of America was looking for — was a driving out of the money changers — those in bed with special interests, global corporations, Wall Street fat cats and political party hacks.

In the coming weeks on this program I'm going to ask you to continue to watch with a piece of paper because I'm going to continue to expose these connections and plans that are out of step with almost everybody in this country — unless you live in the basement of Nancy Pelosi's house in the most radically progressive neighborhood in the country while eating arugula and roast beef sandwiches!

But we're also going to arm you with facts. It's time to be unafraid and stop fearing name-calling, because sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

And just so you know, for those of you who are working for this revolution at the White House and SEIU and ACORN and Americorps, you should go back and listen to The Beatles' "White Album." Listen to a song, co-written by your progressive friend, John Lennon — who got it.

Even during the peak of 1960s radicalism, the Beatles understood:

"You say you want a revolution.


Well, you know,


We all want to change the world.


You say you'll change the Constitution,


Well, you know,


We all want to change your head.


You tell me it's the institution,


Well, you know,


You better free your mind instead.


But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,


You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.


Don't you know know it's gonna be all right."

• Is Beck right? Click here to sound off

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

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?