Glenn Beck: Obama's church attendance



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


GLENN: Barack Obama's having his prayer breakfast, there he is, standing so humbly again. See, his stance just screams arrogance. But he's having a prayer breakfast. If I'm not mistaken, Pat, he didn't have one last year, did he?

PAT: Skipped it I believe, if I remember right, yeah.

GLENN: Anyway, he's got one because he's so involved in his church and

PAT: Wait. No, he's not involved in a church.

GLENN: Huh?

PAT: No, not a church. Not a church.

GLENN: He is not going to church?

PAT: He's been to church according to ABC three times.

GLENN: Three times?

PAT: In a year.

GLENN: Okay. Well

PAT: In a year. That didn't include Christmas.

GLENN: But he's I'm sure he's looking for

PAT: But I'm sure he's looking really hard.

GLENN: Does he have a spiritual adviser at least?

PAT: He does, he does.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: He does have a spiritual adviser.

GLENN: Do we know anything about his spiritual adviser?

PAT: We know a couple of things.

GLENN: We know, really, a little bit more about his spiritual adviser? Huh, I can't wait for that episode to air. Anyway, here he is at the prayer breakfast today. Go ahead. Let's listen in.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Help our neighbors from poverty. We may disagree about gay marriage but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it's here in the United States or as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.

GLENN: How about Iran?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary. But in doing so let us be guided by our faith.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And by prayer.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: For while prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm, while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle, and I assure you I'm praying a lot these days, prayer can also do something else.

GLENN: What can it do? Create and save jobs?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It can touch our hearts with humility. It can fill us with the spirit of brotherhood.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It can remind us that each of us are children of an awesome and loving god.

GLENN: Oh, yes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Through faith but not through faith alone.

GLENN: Right.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We can unite people to serve the common good.

GLENN: Oh, that's good.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And that's why my office of faith based and neighborhood partnerships has been working so hard since I announced it here last year.

GLENN: Faith based and neighborhood partnerships.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And build effective partnerships and arrange uses, from promoting fatherhood here at home to spearheading interfaith cooperation as well.

GLENN: I can't take it, I can't take it anymore. I can't take it anymore. You know this guy, if I'm not mistaken, he didn't believe in God at all, did he? He was not a religious guy?

PAT: Not a religious guy.

GLENN: And then he found his faith, if I remember, he was speaking to some, you know, prayer group last year or last summer and he was saying, you know, but I understood, I came to Jesus and found Jesus when I found my church in Chicago, which was Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And that taught me how to implement my faith.

Okay. So he doesn't believe in this stuff until he found the Marxist theology of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I mean, this guy, I mean, if anyone would do their homework in the media, if anyone was interested in actually telling the truth in the media, doing their job in the media, this guy's not that hard to figure out. He's not that hard to figure out. He was raised as a Marxist, he had Marxist friends, Marxist mentors, sought out the Marxists in

PAT: College.

GLENN: In college. I mean, what does it tell you that the guy went from look, he's trying to fit in. But when he's 18 years old, as he's getting ready to go into Marxist, you know, seek out the Marxist professors, he changes his name from Barry, which makes you fit in, to Barack. Now, what does that tell you? Just psychologically what does that tell you? What does it, what does it take to change your name? You know, immigrants used to change their name to fit in. They used to want to be more like the culture. He did the exact opposite. You know his wife, when he was on the campaign trail, his wife said, you know, well, they are just making fun of him because he has a funny name. No, no, no. He chose the funny name. He went on and said, you know, they're just trying to scare you because I have a funny name. Again, you chose the name that you now think that people can use to scare other people with. Why would, why would anyone do that? Why would anyone do that? It doesn't, it doesn't make any sense to me. If you're mainstream. If you're just, you know, I'm just like everybody else, I'm just the every man, it doesn't make any sense. And then, of course, you finally come to Jesus when you meet the Marxist preacher. Ah, okay.

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.