Glenn Beck: Chairman Anita




Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p and 2a ET on the Fox News Channel...


GLENN: The other pressure that he is receiving is from our side. Now, I want to play the audio of Anita Dunn. This is what we released yesterday. Anita Dunn is the woman who was put in charge by Rahm ‑‑ by someone in the White House to watch Fox News and destroy. That was her job: Seek and destroy, smear, take him out. It came out into the Washington Post yesterday in the style section, and I believe this was a, this was a ‑‑ who does a news story in the style section on Anita Dunn, the woman who is set to take out Fox News?

STU: Well, if you've seen the video of her, she's very stylish.

GLENN: She is very stylish.

STU: When I think style ‑‑

GLENN: I got it, I got it. So who puts that in the style section? That is someone in the White House, that's Rahm ‑‑ that's somebody in the White House calling the Washington Post and saying, "I need to, I need to have this story in. They are not going to put it in the regular news section because that way the White House can't massage it. Because even bad journalists at the Washington Post have some standards. So they put it in there, and this was, I think, a shot saying, "Okay, okay, this was a bad idea." "Okay, okay, stop with the red phone. All right, that was a bad idea." Because what they said in that is she's a genius, she's a genius. But she's going away very soon. We're just going to ‑‑ she's going away. She was expendable. In the article it also says that she was the only one that could afford the blows. They said that in the same sentence where they were talking about she's going away soon. So in other words, we're going to go try to slug Fox and take them out but it doesn't matter anyway because she's going away. So if it doesn't work, she's going away. That w as a message from the White House in the Washington Post, I think, that says, don't worry, okay, okay, okay, stop with the red phone, we're okay, okay.

So I don't really care what the message is from the White House, I mean, unless it's ‑‑ you know what? Hang on. Hang on. We're going to stop and read the Constitution. That's what we're going to do. That message I'd like to hear. A message that says, "Hey, okay, okay, okay, we're going to stop hiring Marxist revolutionaries." That message I'd like to hear. Other than that I don't really give a flying crap. I'm about the truth. Watchdogs who I believe at their own self‑peril reached out and gave us videotape of Anita Dunn giving a talk in, was it, Washington? I can't remember where it was.

PAT: Yeah, it was Bethesda, Maryland.

GLENN: At a Catholic high school giving a talk for graduating seniors. So this is a high school. Now, I want to preface this with, this was given to me at this time so I could expose it on the air. The media has not responded to this. The White House has. I'll play that response for you. But the response to Jake Tapper from ABC, he asked Anita Dunn, what about this Marxist Mao stuff that you did? Her answer was, oh, I was just kidding.

PAT: Oh, boy.

GLENN: Listen to it, and you tell me if this sounds like she was kidding.

DUNN: But the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai‑shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.

GLENN: I am.

DUNN: You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war.

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Oh, oh! Now that I've got it in context that she was kidding, you are right, it is so funny. (Laughing).

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait, I think I ‑‑ she says, what I learned from Mao, the guy I think of most often, one of my political, my favorite political philosophers ‑‑

PAT: One of two.

GLENN: I think you don't have to follow your own path. If you want to shoot somebody in the head or thousands of people in the head to gain power, you could go ahead and do that! (Laughing).

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: All right, seriously, seriously, kids, I'm here all week. I'm here all week with the waiters and waitresses because they're people, too.

STU: I totally get it. I totally get it.

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: That was a joke? All right, Pat, I ‑‑

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: See, he killed, he killed as many as 70 million people.

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Hang on, hang on, hang on.

PAT: That's rich.

GLENN: Hang on. And he set up gulags!

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait.

PAT: I can't take it anymore!

GLENN: He said, this is Mao, this is Mao ‑‑ Anita's, one of her two favorite political philosophers that she thinks about all the time, okay? Mao said, we're willing to sacrifice 300 million Chinese.

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: He said ‑‑ wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait. Wait. But then he looks at the people and he says, hey, if somebody's trying to commit suicide to get out of here, you go ahead. You don't stop them because, hey, with this kind of population, it's not like we can't spare a few!

PAT: (Laughing).

PAT: I've always loved the comedy stylings of Mao Zedong. Oh, I saw him one time. This had to be back in, I don't know, the early Fifties at laugh stop in Beijing. And he slayed like 3800 people! (Laughing).

GLENN: Oh, man, did he ever ‑‑

PAT: I mean literally slayed them!

GLENN: Oh, man. Make sure you join Mao Zedong in the cat skills this ‑‑

STU: Is he going to have milk out your nose?

GLENN: Yeah, milk out your nose.

PAT: So ridiculous.

GLENN: Wow. She was kidding. That's her defense. She was kidding.

PAT: Clearly not, clearly not.

GLENN: Now, at least she has one. I'd like to ask what the defense of the media is for not covering this. We had it yesterday. Besides Jake Tapper who tweeted about it, who tweeted about it.

STU: We really should come up with a sounder that says besides Jake Tapper because we always have to say that, the media didn't cover it besides Jake Tapper because he actually is one out there asking real questions.

PAT: He is.

GLENN: Well, Jake Tapper is doing it on tweeter, you know, on Twitter.

STU: Well, yes.

GLENN: So he tweeted about it.

STU: And obviously ‑‑

GLENN: And I don't think that's necessarily ‑‑ I mean, God bless him. I'm saying the media overlords over at ABC.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Jake Tapper is at least asking and he's at least tweeting about it. Where is the ABC apparatus there? When is somebody just going to say, when is somebody going to stand up and say, I walk? When is somebody going to stand up and say in the administration, you know, I'd love to see the people who love George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson. I keep finding them that love Mao, that love Marx, that love Chavez, that love Cuba. Is there anybody there that, you know, will take John Adams over Castro? I'd like to see them. And I ‑‑ you know, they will come out now. I'm sure Rahm ‑‑ I'm sure somebody in the White House will dig up somebody that is going to say, "Oh, I... oh, I love John Adams." Really? I'm going to quiz you on them. You tell me why you love them. I'd like to see the passion for the founding fathers, off prompter. They can't do it. Barack Obama studied them, but he's also studied Marxism and Saul Alinsky. I mean, I'll save it for next week.

Here is the interesting thing. So yesterday we do this show and we play that, and do you have the D block by any chance where I say I'm tired? I don't know if you can find it. But I said, if you watch the show ‑‑ in fact, we had somebody call and say, Glenn, you've got to stop crying. And I know. But in that block I said, look, I'm tired, you're tired, we're all tired. We're busy with our jobs and we come home and we're ‑‑ what's happening in school with our kids? And then the indoctrination videos. And then you watch the TV shows and you're like, you've got to be kidding me; what the hell's going on? Your bank account is dwindling around ‑‑ dwindling away. I'm tired; you're tired. But we're going to make it. So this is what I said. After I exposed yet another Marxist and said you can't let any of these things pass, you've got to stop these people dead in their tracks because they're building framework. Marxist, Maoist framework. And I'm tired. And you're tired. But we've got to do it.

Now, you tell me ‑‑ do you have the two cuts? Do you have the mop and the other?

PAT: I've not found the audio of the mop, just the printed word, but I have the other one.

GLENN: Give me the printed word first. This is the printed word first, and we'll get the audio soon of the first part of this. And I can tell you this was off prompter. I'll bet you this was off prompter. Go ahead. What is the printed?

PAT: He said ‑‑ let's see. We need a mop with cleaning up ‑‑ When I’m busy, and Nancy’s busy, with a mop cleaning up somebody else’s mess, we don’t want somebody sitting back saying, ‘you’re not holding the mop the right way’ … ‘you’re not mopping fast enough’ … ‘that’s a socialist mop. Grab a mop; we need help.

GLENN: Okay. So that's the first thing was, that's a socialist ‑‑ we don't need people sitting around saying, that's a socialist mop, first. Now, the night I say I'm tired and I take down the person who has paid with your tax dollars to monitor my show, monitor Fox and take us apart, on the same day that I say I'm tired but we'll make it, the same day that he sends a message to the left, you tell me if this just is ‑‑ this is, you know, meaningless.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me tell you, those folks who are trying to stand in the way of progress, they're all ‑‑ let me tell you: I'm just getting started. I don't quit. I'm not tired. I'm just getting started.

GLENN: I'm telling you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, but I think it is important for those folks to understand I'm just ready to go. I am ‑‑ we're just going to keep on going.

GLENN: I'm telling you, I'm telling you. Look, I don't think ‑‑ and I wouldn't have believed this a year ago because I wouldn't have, I wouldn't have thought twice about an Anita Dunn story in the Washington Post in the Style section. I didn't know how the media worked. I didn't know how the White House worked. I didn't know all of this stuff. You know, five years ago, no idea. A year ago? Figuring it out. Now, I got it.

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.