Glenn Beck:To census, or not to census?



Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...


GLENN: We have an update on the census. Apparently the census has come out.

PAT: Yeah, and there's a, there's a little confusion because they have three boxes you can check if you're a certain race.

STU: Are you afraid to say the race?

PAT: I'm afraid because I don't know what the race is because there's three different terms for them: Black, African American, or Negro. And so there are

GLENN: Okay. An African American is a bogus PC made up term.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: I mean, that's not a race. That is, your ancestry is from Africa.

STU: Africa.

GLENN: And now you live in America, okay? So you were brought over, either your family was brought over through the slave trade or you were born here and your family immigrated here or whatever.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But that is not a race.

STU: And it's a constantly misapplied term, too. It's just like we talked about a case one time where a Jamaican who had come here and immigrated from Jamaica was being called an African American and he was like, I'm not an African I'm a Jamaican American if anything.

GLENN: Where was Kofi Annan from? He's black, right, Kofi Annan?

PAT: Somewhere in Africa, I think, wasn't it?

GLENN: He is not an African American.

PAT: No. And then somebody who is African American like Charlize Theron is not referred to as such.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, yeah.

PAT: You know, so it's really

GLENN: She's from Africa.

PAT: She's from South Africa, now she's American, she's African American. But you would never call her that. It's a silly term.

STU: But it is common phrasing.

GLENN: Negro used to be. Is it still? I mean, it used to be.

PAT: It used to be accepted and that's the excuse they use because there's some

GLENN: No, no. Not acceptable. Is that still the clinical term?

PAT: I don't know.

GLENN: For I mean, I don't know, either.

PAT: I don't know.

GLENN: I don't know, either.

STU: It's obviously a term that, you know, sensitivities at this point.

GLENN: It has negative connotations in this country.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But what I'm asking is what are the clinical categories.

STU: I have no idea. I don't know.

GLENN: I mean

STU: Nor would I venture to guess because if you say the wrong one, you are likely to, you know, be assaulted by congress. Probably of course, congress voted to approve this particular questionnaire.

PAT: Over a year ago.

STU: Over a year ago with the term on it. So I don't know. I honestly don't know, especially honestly

GLENN: It's got to be I mean, there has to be some, you know, clinical I mean, there still has to be a valid category.

STU: I think their excuse

GLENN: It couldn't have gone through the census.

STU: That's not what they're saying. There's saying there's older African American black Negro gentleman, whichever one of the three that you'd pick refer to themselves still in that way. Like that's still a way, that's what their excuse it.

PAT: And they wanted to be inclusive.

STU: They wanted to be inclusive.

GLENN: Oh, stop it. Stop it. You know, I was on the set the other day for Fox and Friends and a guy walks past me and then he turns around and he comes back. He is intentionally, he looks at me and I'm like, hey. He looks at me and he walks past me and then he thinks and then he comes back and introduces. I don't think I've told you this story.

PAT: I don't think so.

GLENN: He introduces himself. I don't remember his name. He said, "I'm the head of the census." And I said, "Oh, nice to meet you." And I think he it was almost like, "In your face, Beck."

STU: You've got the job. Congratulations.

GLENN: I know. I said, oh, nice to meet you. And he said, I just want you to know you'll be receiving a census form in your mailbox and you need to fill it out.

PAT: You've got to be kidding me.

GLENN: No, I swear to God. You can ask Joe. He was there.

STU: Fantastic.

GLENN: And I said, I absolutely will, as required by the Constitution. You'll know exactly how many people are living in my house. I'll answer some of the questions. And he said, "Yeah. Well, you need to answer, you need to answer, you know, most of them."

STU: Most of them?

GLENN: Yeah, that's what he said.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: That's what he said.

PAT: Sounds almost like a threat.

GLENN: He almost started to say, he almost started to say, "You need to answer all of them," and he knew you don't say that because

STU: Why don't you say that?

GLENN: It's against the Constitution. I'm required constitutionally to answer

STU: But we've gone over this in courts a million times. We've talked about

GLENN: That's fine. That's fine.

STU: I know it's fine.

GLENN: Really?

STU: He could easily say that you have to answer all of them, doesn't he? Can't he?

PAT: Not really. There's a lot of lawyers who are lining up hoping to challenge this.

STU: Right. But they are challenging the law. He is stating what currently is.

PAT: You are challenging an unconstitutional law.

GLENN: When they said that Jim Crow was the right thing to do, we all should have just gone along. Nope.

STU: You could not go along with it all you want and you can pay the consequences and challenge it in court.

GLENN: I'll pay the fine, I'll pay the $5,000.

STU: I will not pay the $5,000, just so you know, census. Just so you know. That doesn't mean that he can't say that you have to answer all of them. It's the current position of the law, then of course he can say it. I mean, he can say whatever he wants. I mean, that is what they say.

GLENN: He can fine me. He can fine me the $5,000. I will gladly write the federal government and you can apply it right directly to ACORN. I'll pay the $5,000 and then I will write a bigger check to attorneys. Congratulations.

STU: You probably will.

GLENN: Yes, I

STU: If they decide to enforce it, you'll have to pay much more than that in attorney fees.

GLENN: No, $5,000 fine.

PAT: It's also interesting, though, that he said that you would specifically be receiving one because that's not supposed to happen, either.

GLENN: No, he's not supposed to.

PAT: It's supposed to be households, Random House holds.

GLENN: I'm looking for

PAT: Not people.

GLENN: to seeing if he was accurate on that Random House hold.

PAT: Yep.

STU: How many households is it supposed to go to?

PAT: I don't know but it says right on it, it's sent to your house, not to you.

GLENN: How do I know?

PAT: I mean, my house isn't filling out this information.

STU: And you are in the middle of moving, too.

PAT: And we did not fill out the census. And they hounded us over and over and over and over. And I told them every time.

GLENN: I will spend money and I will hire an attorney to answer my phones if they start hounding me. I will find the best attorney on the census: Just answer the phones.

STU: I know we somewhat covered this before and I hate to stick my neck out like this.

PAT: It's going to get chopped off.

STU: It is going to get chopped off here but what like I understand, okay, the Constitution didn't exactly say that they should ask you how much money you make or whatever.

PAT: Not only did it not exactly say that, it didn't say that. It said count.

STU: It didn't say a million things.

PAT: It said count people.

GLENN: All it is for is to count the number of people for representation. That is it.

PAT: It is specifically that.

STU: So do we have a problem with the government let's say having information about the citizens if they volunteer to give it? No. We have, obviously they do statistical studies all the time. You just don't want it in the census.

GLENN: Because the statistical studies will be flawed. They are not

STU: Right. Against people who don't fill out the census.

GLENN: I do not want them gathering information about people. The best way to gather information, if somebody wants to build a road, if somebody needs a new building, you have the town, you have the state collect that information if need. The best way to do it is let the private individuals do it. I do not want a giant depository of information that will be used by Washington politics to direct their special interest money. No. No.

STU: It just seems that people get more excited about them getting information through the census. And obviously like I mean

GLENN: Why is it the IRS is now involved with the census?

STU: I don't know. I bet you are going to tell me, though. See, this is my neck being chopped off here. I'm just asking.

GLENN: No, no, I don't have an answer. But I do know a couple that didn't fill out their census and then they were audited.

STU: But I mean

GLENN: And then excuse me. And then the auditors were asking the census questions: How many bathrooms does your house have? I can't figure for the life of me and neither could the attorney for this couple figure for the life of me why the IRS needed to know how many bathrooms.

STU: Or why they didn't go to the government site that has the information already.

GLENN: It was harassment.

STU: But they already had, I mean, they have all of that information. They have the square footage.

PAT: My Realtor had that information.

STU: Exactly.

PAT: Get it from them if you need it. You don't need it for ACORN. This is all about

GLENN: ACORN.

PAT: redistribution of wealth. It's about structure and redistribute of wealth.

STU: I agree with you on redistribute you could see that obviously a lot of people want to do that. But when you are talking about the census, it's government it's available to most of the government. They are trying to compile it for some statistical reason.

PAT: To redistribute wealth. I don't want them to.

STU: Isn't that worse? When you don't fill it out, then you are not being represented.

GLENN: I'm not playing their game anymore.

STU: Right. But you lose the game when you don't play it in this case.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Don't you? Why, when you are the only one not being represented because all conservatives don't fill it out.

GLENN: Because you lose the game when you decide that the best thing you can do is play the game with them. No. I'm going to stick to the Constitution. Look what happens to all the people who are like, you know what, if we just compromise a little bit here and a little bit here, a little bit here, a little drib, a little drab and they got you. No. I'm going to stand with the Constitution, period.


 

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?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.