Glenn Beck: Even more crazy Czar audio

GLENN: 888 727 BECK. 888 727 BECK. We have new video from oh, so long ago. It was youthful indiscretions in 2008. The White House's own words, they have been following him for years, since he has been in Oakland. When he was in Oakland, he was a communist. But the White House's own words, they have been following him for years. Let me find the brand new audio that was found by Breitbart and sent to me last night. Here it is, Van Jones in his own words. It will be in the e mail newsletter today. Listen carefully, and I want to pull it apart piece by piece.

VAN JONES: One of the things that has happened I think too often to progressives is that we don't understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals.

GLENN: Stop. Minimum goals and maximum goals. He's going to explain this, but I want you to realize this goes to remember when I talked about Gandalf and I said, "You shall not pass!" I've been telling you for a while there's things in this framework. They are building something. I don't know what they're building, but they're building something. Don't allow anything else to go through. Listen to how he explains minimum and maximum goals.

VAN JONES: Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, okay, now, we

GLENN: Stop. This is Rosa Parks. He is now tying the civil rights movement to three very important things. The civil rights movement he is now saying, at least the way I read it, that the goal was this. Listen.

VAN JONES: Reparations for slavery

GLENN: Stop. We want reparations for slavery. Two.

VAN JONES: We want redistribution of all wealth.

GLENN: Stop. We want redistribution of all wealth. Redistribution of all wealth. And three.

VAN JONES: And we want to legalize mixed marriages.

GLENN: Stop. I was that the goal in the 1950s and Sixties?

PAT: That's not the goal now.

GLENN: I mean, I

PAT: For blacks, they were the largest voting Block against Prop 8 in California. 67% of blacks voted against Prop 8. For

GLENN: Wait, wait. Mixed marriages?

PAT: Oh, we're thinking the other kind of marriages, all right.

GLENN: All right. So mixed marriages, white and black. You think that's what he means?

STU: That's what I took from that because I could be wrong.

GLENN: I wonder, I believe

PAT: Well, they weren't illegal, were they? In the south maybe?

STU: I don't know. I'm not

GLENN: That I don't know. I don't know. Well, give him the benefit of the doubt that he means black and white marriages. I don't think that's what he means but let's give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Okay. Go ahead.

VAN JONES: If they come out with a maximum program the very next day, they would have been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum program: You know, we just want to integrate these buses. The students a few years later came out with a very minimum program, we just want to sit at the lunch counter. But inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954 to 1958, you know, complete revolution was on the table.

GLENN: Stop. Inside that plan was a very radical kernel. Inside that plan was a very radical kernel. What have I been telling you? There are things inside of these bills. It's why they have been overwhelming the system because inside these gigantic bills there are radical kernels. Now, Van Jones is only one piece of this puzzle. Cass Sunstein is the other. Cass Sunstein is the nudge guy. He is, he's the regulatory czar. This guy is a genius at flipping switches. He can move this one up by 5%, this one up by 5%, this one up by 8%, this one down by 10%, and nobody knows. But it fundamentally transforms America. See, we don't know what the structure is that they they have not articulated. This is why people could make the claim that this is a Velvet Revolution because they're not telling us who they are. They are telling us one thing. But inside that one thing is a radical kernel. Now listen.

VAN JONES: For this country. And I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we're saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco capitalism.

GLENN: Stop. Okay. Capitalism. Suicidal gray capitalism. He's a capitalist? When did he become a big capitalist? When he was describing in 2008 capitalism as suicidal? Suicidal gray capitalism. The key words are really not even that. The key words are the two words in that sentence. It leads the sentence. What was it? "Right now." We're talking about going from suicidal gray capitalism to some sort of eco capitalism. Right now. That's what we're talking about. But remember the paragraph before: Inside there is a kernel of radicalism. Right now we are talking about going from suicidal gray capitalism to some sort of eco capitalism. But then he goes on.

VAN JONES: Where, you know, at least we're not, you know, fast tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Well will that be enough? No, it won't be enough.

GLENN: Stop. Will that be enough? No, it will not be enough. Please help me out. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me how to read this any other way. I will tell you that the forces against me and the forces against me getting this word out are biblical almost in nature, and I fear they are going to get much, much stronger. If this guy resigns or is fired or whatever, I can't imagine how this administration keeps this man on. But understand that this exposes, because of who introduced him at the audio that we played for you a minute ago, the woman who vacationed with the Obamas. Good friends. Known them forever. She says we're excited, we have known him and been watching him since his days in Oakland. He was a communist when he was in Oakland! This is not about Van Jones. This is about the true intent of this administration. You now have the path, but I'm telling you that I fear that my voice will be snuffed, my voice will be silenced. I will tell you, the forces arrayed agains t in the other direction are awfully darn powerful and awfully darn committed. But I ask that you keep us, this program, our affiliates, Fox News in your prayers because these are revolutionaries. Make no mistake about it. Can we play the last part when we come back about something else I have been telling you for a while now that my gut has been screaming, screaming. He has, I believe, verified it. You decide, next.

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


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?


How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?


And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?


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?