Glenn Beck: Healthcare a right?

Senator Harkin: Healthcare bill is only the beginning...

GLENN: Let me, let me show you Senator Harkin, a talk he gave on healthcare that if this doesn't show you that everything we have told you and warned you about and you've been warning all your friends about is absolutely correct, I don't know what is. Listen to the language. There's about 20 minutes of meat in about two minutes here. Listen to this.

HARKINS: What this bill does is we finally take that step. As our leader said earlier, we take that step from healthcare as a privilege to healthcare as an inalienable right of every single American citizen. And as I said before, this bill is not complete. I've used the analogy of a starter home in which we can add additions and enhancements as we go into the future but like every right that we've ever passed the American people, we revisit it later to enhance and build on those rights, and we will do that here surely.

GLENN: Stop. Now, let's go back at the beginning. Let's take this step by step. Go ahead. Start they beginning.

HARKINS: What this bill does is we finally take that step. As our leader said earlier, we take that step from healthcare as a privilege to healthcare as an inalienable right of every single American citizen.

GLENN: Stop. Okay. First of all, our leader. What our leader has said to us is that we're going to take this final step here. We're taking the step of creating an inalienable right. Specific language, an inalienable right. Let's first of all, where's that language from?

STU: Sure he just made it up. People say inalienable all the time.

GLENN: Where's that language from? Declaration, Declaration of Independence. Give me the line. We hold these truths to be self evident, right?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Go ahead.

PAT: We hold these truths to be self evident.

GLENN: That all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among those rights, yeah, are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So let's go back to that language. All men are created equal and endowed, meaning given automatically granted certain all men are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights. This is so simple that the line right before it is we find these truths to be self evident. This truth is so self is so common sense that it is self evident, meaning you don't need anybody to point it out.

STU: You need no other evidence other than what it is.

GLENN: You need no evidence. You don't need anything. You could be in a room and you'd be like, yep, that's self evident. That makes sense.

STU: That's a great phrase.

PAT: Something everybody knows.

GLENN: We find these truths to be self evident that all men are endowed

STU: Are created equal.

GLENN: Are created equal and endowed by their creator. With certain inalienable rights. Now, that's important to understand. Because he used this language. He used inalienable rights. We have taken it and made it an inalienable right. This is Senator Harkin making, declaring himself and the government God. Our creator. Rights no longer come from the creator. They come from congress. They come from Washington. This is the end of the American Constitution. This is the end or the beginning, I should say the last, the last piece of turn the engine on, of fundamental transformation of the American system. Once they tell you without fear that they can create inalienable rights, the whole system is upside down. Let's continue to listen. Because there's more. Continue.

HARKINS: As I said before, this bill is not complete. I've used the analogy of a starter home in which we can add additions and enhancements as we go into the future.

GLENN: Stop.

PAT: How many times have we said that?

GLENN: How many times have I told you, now listen, what we've got here in one statement is almost everything that we said last year, true. We told you last year they're not paying attention to the Constitution, that they are going around the Constitution, that none of this is constitutional to do. We have told you that they are taking power. It doesn't matter what's in the bill. What matters is the structure. They must change the structure and then they'll do whatever they want. This is what he has just said. We create rights, not God. We give man listen. This is why this is important. Man is endowed by certain inalienable rights by the creator. If that is not true, then your right to free speech, your right to carry a gun, to protect yourself, for the Fifth Amendment, to reasonable search, to all rights that you have that are protected in the Constitution, God which is now Washington, the god of rights, those that can create rights can also deem other rights not good enough for you. If I may point out Arianna Huffington where she said just recently that she understands a person's right to free speech but there should be some sort of system for the free speech of people like Glenn Beck. Well, if they can create, can they not take it away? This is why the structure, I have told you before you must not allow them to pass any of this because once they do, they've got their starter home. Everything that we told you could come, would come, will come. Because they'll just add additions. They'll just tweak it here and there. Go back.

HARKINS: But like every right that we've ever passed to the American people

GLENN: Stop. Do you hear, do you hear what he's saying? He is either under some grand disillusion grand illusion, he is either or he's part of creating it. He doesn't understand our system. For every right that we have created or passed for the American people. That's not your job!

STU: Creator, he's saying what we have created, and he's the creator.

GLENN: Do you hear this?

PAT: Uh huh. As you mentioned, he's putting himself in the creator position. In congress.

GLENN: In the 1930s with FDR the American people were tied enough to history, the founders and the Constitution. Remember it was really the people out of Columbia University under Woodrow Wilson and under the direction of Woodrow Wilson and then into the almighty Harvard where they started dismantling our founders, their views and our Constitution. It took a few years for that to really kick in. Well, we're there now to where they believe that the American people are so disconnected from the founders and what the Constitution actually means that they can come out and say these things, that they are creating rights! And no one in the media will even ask Senator Harkin any questions on this. I can guarantee you. If they do, it will be one he'll dismiss it, he will give it some flippant answer and he'll move on. This is huge.

So they have the starter home. What else?

HARKINS: We revisit it later on to enhance and build on those rights. And we will do that here surely.

GLENN: It is a starter home with unlimited property. Because remember we're also finding out this year, you don't really have a right to own property if those who are creating rights need that property.

Now, I would love to hear from somebody a serious conversation, how that's not accurate. How what I just said to you is some sort of conspiracy. When you have a senator who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution and yet he doesn't even seem to understand the Constitution. When you have a senator who believes that he has the power to create rights wholesale and then not only create the right but have it that there are different kinds of rights, there are starter rights that later transform into new rights, bigger rights, more powerful rights. Whoa. Whoa. That's quite a different concept than our founders had. Is it the same concept that your neighbors have? We'll make this available in audio, put this in the newsletter today. You should ask them, what is, what is your understanding of rights, where they come from? At least in the 1930s include this as well at least in the 1930s they tried to build a Second Bill of Rights. They tried to actually tell the American people we have grown so far, we need a Second Bill of Rights that would include healthcare. No, no. They look at the American people as so stupid that they really believe that you don't understand that government doesn't create rights. Only God and tyrants create rights.

 

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?