Glenn Beck: Birthers Birthing


Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government


by Glenn Beck


GLENN: So there are apparently, apparently there is and I'm just going to there's always games being played behind the scenes at a talk radio show and on television and everything else. It is really, it's very, I don't know, it's disappointing. Rush has called them on the games in radio behind the scenes, Rush has always called them seminar callers. But instead of being coy with the seminar callers or with you, I'm just going to expose the game that is going on. Today there is a concerted effort on all radio stations to get Birthers on the air. I have to tell you, are you working for the Barack Obama administration? I mean, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. First of all let me just let's just play these out. If you are a Birther, you believe that the president of the United States was born in, they think Kenya, right? So he was

STU: Anywhere outside of here, I guess, but yeah.

GLENN: Anywhere outside of the U.S. So he was born in Kenya.

PAT: I think it was Managua, Nicaragua.

GLENN: So you believe that he was born outside of the United States of America. And then somehow or another he became and I saw this movie with Frank Sinatra oh, yeah, it's called the Manchurian Candidate. So somehow or another maybe he was indoctrinated or whatever and then he came over here and he ran and became president.

STU: Well, he also, you've got to remember that he preemptively planted his birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers back when he was actually born.

PAT: Knowing, I mean, his parents knew at the time that someday this man would become president of the United States.

GLENN: That's what they want you to think.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: So he preemptively put those birth announcements there.

PAT: Then hypnotized somehow Hillary Clinton to not find out any of this.

GLENN: Well, not only hypnotized but also

PAT: She's pretty

GLENN: I believe is somehow or another in league with the people that have you know, did you see men in black?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Did you see the little flasher thing? Got all of the investigators, and anyone will tell you when the Clintons run for office, you can't get a PI in New York. Can't get one.

STU: You can't, no, no way.

GLENN: Seriously because they're using all of them.

STU: Right.

GLENN: The Clintons can. You can't.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Because they use all of them. Somehow or another the Clinton machine couldn't get their hands on this Birther thing or they did and then for some reason didn't want to release it.

STU: You know why? Maybe Hillary didn't want to be president. Maybe she wanted to be Secretary of State really bad.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If the Clintons were known for ambition, maybe you'd have something there.

GLENN: If the Clintons, if the charges were from the right that the Clintons kill people for the presidency.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: I have a hard time getting my arms around how they're not

PAT: She's secretly more powerful in the position she's in now.

STU: That must be it.

PAT: If she's so low profile, highly unlikely

GLENN: It is the case that global warming, the world is so hot that it's now cold. You are right. Thank you for that, Pat.

PAT: She is so low profile, she is high profile.

GLENN: So you have that on one side. The other side is he didn't pre emptively plant a story as a newborn. That maybe he was born in the United States of America.

STU: And just to clarify, that would be two separate stories in two separate newspapers that he planted as an infant. It's ridiculous to plant one.

PAT: If you are going to do it, do it right. When babies do things, they do it extremely well.

GLENN: Extremely well, okay. Well, it could have been his KGB control.

PAT: Yes. He has controllers who

GLENN: Yes. Don't know, don't know.

PAT: Have taken control of him from birth.

GLENN: Don't know when the Soviet Union started to recruit.

STU: Right. But some

GLENN: Could be at birth in Kenya.

STU: It could be. That's how you start.

PAT: If you are going for a future president of the United States, naturally you go to Kenya.

GLENN: Of course you do. Of course you do.

PAT: You find a Kenyan.

STU: Especially in the Sixties. You are thinking African Americans.

PAT: In the Sixties.

STU: You are thinking this is the guy.

GLENN: Yes, you are. Well, they've got a roadmap.

STU: They thought all of these complaints and have already defeated them.

PAT: Don't call it KGB for nothing, they are cagey... B.

GLENN: The other idea is that he was born here in America.

STU: Oh, come on.

GLENN: Wait, wait.

STU: Who would think that?

GLENN: Hold on. I know it's way out on a limb here. But as the guy who the media says is the king of conspiracy theories, all I do are forward conspiracy theories, let me forward this conspiracy. He was born here because it seems a little unlikely that somebody planted the birth records, okay, a little unlikely, in the newspapers. Now you would say, well, then why doesn't he just produce? Good question. That one kept me up for minutes at a time, minutes.

PAT: That long?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: So you tossed and turned for literally minutes?

STU: Not whole minutes.

GLENN: Not whole minutes. Parts of minutes.

PAT: Parts of minutes on different nights?

GLENN: May I go out onto this conspiratorial limb, please. If I'm Barack Obama which I want you to know I'm not, but if I yes, you haven't seen us at parties together, I know. But let's say I were Barack Obama and I had somebody who was forwarding a conspiracy like this.

PAT: And looking stupid doing it?

GLENN: Yeah. And then my advisors would come in and go, let's just make this go away. Here's an idea: Just call the doctor, just get the nurse. Just, here, let's just have, you know, three really credible people examine the birth certificate because really let's just make this go away so we can get on the work with the American people. If I were Barack Obama, I would say, no, now, wait a minute; why do that when these people are so discrediting themselves because if I can get them to discredit themselves and they'll use the argument, "Well, you think it's nonsense to have him answer that question when it's in the Constitution? He would be the first unconstitutional president!" Yes. But I believe he already is, seeing that healthcare is against the Constitution. The fundamental transformation of the country is a little unconstitutional.

STU: Right. When you've lost 40 points off your approval rating, the only thing you have left is the people who are coming out and yelling about your birth certificate. The only positive this guy has left.

GLENN: Yeah. So why would you discredit yourself? Why would let's say it's true. Let's just say it's true that he's not. Do you really think that is the fastest way to get him out? Do you really think that's the fastest way to stop him from what I believe is the fundamental transformation of this country? Do you think that's going to stop healthcare?

STU: No.

GLENN: If you could, if, if you could hold his feet to the fire and say, "Produce the doctors and the nurses and the birth certificate" and somehow or another he couldn't do it, how long would it take you to get to that point? And in that point, in that time how much of the fundamental trans do you still have control of the court system in that time?

PAT: You should be able to get that to the Supreme Court by about 2015 1/2. I'd say by late October 2015.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: You get that right to the Supreme Court, yeah.

STU: There's a helpful conversion chart for Birthers which is Birthers are to Barack Obama as Megan Fox is to every 14 year old boy. A lovely, beautiful dream come true.

GLENN: Dream come true. Dream come true.

STU: There is nothing he could possibly want more than Birthers talking about birthing.

PAT: And look how often the MSNBCs of the world bring it up.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

PAT: Even if the story has nothing to do with Birthers, they bring them into the story just to throw in another discredited movement.

STU: That's what they do with healthcare. They find the one Birther sign at a healthcare rally and make the healthcare rally about the Birthers. That's what they do. They're using you.

PAT: They love it. They love it.

GLENN: It is the same as, it's the same as carrying signs that show Hitler on it. Nobody is saying that Barack Obama is Hitler. Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that the Nazi regime started in very much the same way. I mean, it started with an economic trouble, it started with a guy who said one thing but meant, well, meant what he said, actually meant something. You go back and you read Mein Kampf. He laid it all out. But the people wouldn't believe it.

STU: Right. And that does not mean that Barack Obama's going to start the Holocaust.

GLENN: He is not going to start the Holocaust and he's not going to turn us into a Nazi regime.

STU: Right. But the bottom line is believing people who are what they say. He promised changing the economy. He promised energy prices skyrocketing because of his policy.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: He promised a lot of things leading up to this. We should probably listen to them.

GLENN: Now, is it going to be Nazi like? No. Because the Nazis are Nazis. Is it going to be Mao like? Well, there's one that they really do like. They think power comes from the power, the end of the gun. That's according to Ron Bloom. Anita Dunn believes that. Is it going to be Marxist like? Is it going to be like reverend Jeremiah Wright believes America should be? I don't know what it's going to be. I just think we need to start listening to the man. But every time you put a Nazi sign up, that is yet Megan Fox coming in and making out with, who? Give me another hot chick?

STU: Ooh, let's go. This is a better show than what I thought it was going to be.

GLENN: That's what it is. That's what it is. It's Barack Obama looks at the Birthers as Megan Fox and the Nazi signs as

STU: The sweetness in there, let's get a little Carrie Underwood in there, get a sweet

GLENN: Carrie Underwood. And he's like, look and make out; that is fantastic.

STU: And it's really hard to think about healthcare right now.

GLENN: Really hard.

STU: Really hard.

GLENN: Why don't we concentrate on healthcare? Because once healthcare passes, I told you before, it doesn't matter. As they have demonstrated, it doesn't matter what's in the bill! They take it in, put it in, take it out. Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who's for it, who's against it. They will bribe their way to it. Why? Why? Do you have the audio of one of the senators explaining why that it's the starter house. Do you remember, was it you, Pat? You and I were listening to that?

PAT: We were. We were listening to that.

GLENN: Who was it that said that?

PAT: Chris Dodd.

GLENN: It was Chris Dodd.

PAT: Chris Dodd, uh huh.

GLENN: I am tired of the people on the left saying they didn't have all the things and what they have to understand is this is a starter home! You have to lay the foundation! We can add other wings to it! We can add additions later!

STU: It was our entire case leading up to this.

GLENN: Sure was.

PAT: Exactly. It was everything we've said it was going to be, spilling right out of Chris Dodd's mouth.

GLENN: So why don't we concentrate on those things. Because they're provable. They're actionable. And they and once these in, once these things are in, you ain't gonna have a courtroom to be able to go back on him. You give this kind of movement, if they continue this kind of movement over the next four years, I don't know what the hell you have left in the end. So why don't we go after the things that are provable, after the things that actually you need to stop right now. And if you want to argue, you want to argue, then let's argue based in fact, based on things that are provable and true. And what do you say? Do you want to argue the Constitution? Good. Let's show the number of people in congress and in the Senate that don't even read the Constitution. Can't tell you right now if healthcare is even in the Constitution. Let's talk to the scholars. Let's talk to the average Joe that understands this isn't in the Constitution. Let's argue the Constitution on the laws and the systems that they are building today. Instead of arguing the Constitution and whether or not he was born in America, why don't we argue the constitutionality of a little known thing called czars. And the power that these people have. Back in a minute.


 

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?