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.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?