Glenn Beck: When Is an Extremist Not an Extremist?




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

See the full length video...


 

I've been down for a couple of days, so I may have missed this, but, has anybody over at the White House labeled Nidal Malik Hasan — the terrorist who killed 13 and wounded 30 more at Fort Hood — an extremist?

I've heard him referred to as a "shooter" and a "gunman." He's been called "troubled" and "harassed." We know he didn't want to be deployed and his cousin called him a "good American." But extremist?

No, we can't say that; we wouldn't want offend anyone.

Are we that politically correct? I guess so. But there is no hesitation by Barack Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, to send out an e-mail calling tea party goers extremists:

"Across the country, members of Congress who support reform are being shouted down, physically assaulted, hung in effigy, and receiving death threats. We can't let extremists hijack this debate, or confuse Congress about where the people stand."

So, that's extremism, but killing 13 people isn't?

If there was anyone who could be labeled "extremist," you would think it would be someone who spoke of Islamic jihad to his fellow soldiers and then acted on those feelings by picking up a weapon and killing his fellow soldiers with it.

But no, there are real extremists picking up a sign and protesting big government.

Sarah Palin — she fought this horrendous health care overhaul, ran for vice president espousing certain principles and she prays. Extremist!

And, I'm an extremist because I dare expose what no one else will: That there are anti-free market officials, admirers of Mao, Marxists and socialists in and around the White House.

But Nidal Malik Hasan is just a picked upon, misunderstood, quiet, "good American," who "snapped" and murdered 13 Americans? He talked openly about his feelings before acting on them.

Did the guy snap? I don't know and I don't care. He murdered Americans in cold blood in an act of bald-faced, extremist terrorism. Maybe he acted alone, then again, maybe he didn't. What do you say we nurse him back to health, question him, have a non-government investigator look into this? Find out what happened. If he's guilty, execute him and move on America; one less dirtbag to deal with.

Oh and speaking of executions: Remember the D.C. sniper? On Wednesday night at 9 p.m. he was executed.

Good. I look forward to celebrating swift justice, that if he is guilty should end in execution. Oh, I'm sorry, is that insensitive of me? Good. I don't care about his childhood. Millions of people have messed up childhoods and they don't kill people. I had a pretty messed up childhood; I bet you did too.

Mommy didn't love me as much. Daddy didn't play with me.

Look at what they're doing to us. Look at how far the discussion has shifted. And, you're going to see and hear this everywhere now. Anyone and everyone who effectively stands in the way of the progressive agenda of the fundamental transformation of America will be labeled an extremist.

Frank Rich and the rest of the Obama-minions at The New York Times will gladly do the bidding of the administration; acting as the propaganda arm of the White House. Rich and the rest will continue to oblige in print and the trolls at MSNBC will eagerly spew the company line on TV: You're extreme; he's extreme; she's extreme; you're dangerous; hateful; outrageous and frightening. Meanwhile, the truly hateful, frightening dangers go unobstructed along their merry way.

When did words and ideas replace fists and bullets as tools of violence? Read a little George Washington, it's called the battlefield of ideas: If you don't fight it there, it will be fought with guns. Don't you see what they are creating? They are leading us to a cemetery. Society cannot survive like this.

No one at the White House or The New York Times has referred to the beat downs issued by SEIU members recently as violent or extreme.

The SEIU thugs caught on video beating down the African-American tea-party goer haven't yet been charged. Meanwhile, last weekend, there was another beat down in California. A Democrat who disagreed with the union thugs is now in the hospital. Is it extremist to beat someone because they disagree with you on health care?

Let me be clear: The terrorist Muslim extremist murderer accused of shooting the Army recruiter dead in Arkansas last summer wasn't even discussed in the media, let alone called an extremist. But, I say America can't afford another trillion dollar entitlement program? Extremist!

So, as long as that's our new reality, let's go with it. Let me make my extremist demands:

Stop spending money you don't have!

Tell us how you plan to pay for a trillion dollar health care plan!

Listen to the people; after all: You work for us!

Get rid of the corruption before you spend another dime!

Audit the Fed!

Term limits and no lifetime benefits for those 12 years of work!

Lower taxes!

Return to the principles embedded by our radical, extremist Founding Fathers!

Wow, pretty extreme, huh? Let me quote another extremist, who said: "If you want to help the poor, help them feel uncomfortable in their poverty." That extremist was... Ben Franklin. Why did he hate the poor so much? Our extremist, radical Founders all knew that government programs were not the answer to poverty. Making people comfortable in their poverty is not the answer to getting them out of poverty. It is the answer for government officials who gain power by making sure that the poverty stricken become permanently dependent upon, them. May I just give you the one word: Detroit.

Look, here's what you need to know: Because people are either afraid or have another agenda and refuse to speak the truth, question with boldness or speak without fear, 13 Americans are dead.

Not on my watch. Not on your watch. I don't care what they do to me or say about me. I'm not playing their politically correct game. This man was a terrorist; American born and bread, Muslim extremist terrorist. He was not afraid to speak his point of view. We were afraid to react it.

Let's go a step further:

Fat people aren't calorically challenged. They aren't pleasantly plump. They are fat.

Poor people aren't economically marginalized. No, they are poor.

A criminals aren't morally challenged or unsavory characters; they're criminals.

Strippers aren't exotic dancers; they are a stripper.

There's no such thing as an escort; you are a whore.

And terrorists aren't freedom fighters; they're dirtbag terrorists.

Stop playing the game. There are more of us than there are of them. Your fear of being silent clears a path for them to carry out their extremist plans and kill people! And I'm supposed to be worried about losing my job and my house? What could be worse than death?

I'm going to make a promise to you. If you spread the word, if you stand fast, if you'll question with boldness everything that comes out of Washington, if you hold tight to family, principles and values, then this country is going to turn the page and turn a corner — because of you. But it won't happen if we aren't honest with each other or if we call fat people "well-rounded" or Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter.

This is a historic time. Stand up and you will be written about in the history books.

— 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?