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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.