Glenn Beck: Who to support in Texas

GLENN: I understand it is a firestorm in Texas because of an interview that happened on this program yesterday. There's a candidate that really is, I mean, I can't believe that, I'd like to see poll numbers here in the next few days. It was the candidate that was coming on strong. We put this candidate on the air because we remember hammered by their supporters and I was sick and tired of being hammered by their supporters, quite honestly. Please don't, don't try to bully us or intimidate us into having a candidate on. We don't do local politics usually. The reason why I decided to finally have them on is because she went from 4% to, what was it, 24%, 26%?

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: In the latest poll, and she was catching up to, a couple of points away from Kay Bailey Hutchison who I think is another story because she's now using my words apparently, Kay Bailey Hutchison, in ad campaigns and these phone call things. Do not listen to Kay Bailey Hutchison if she's trying to make it appear as I'm endorsing her because I am not. I'm not endorsing anybody. So here comes Medina supporters. They write, they write, had them on, I don't really care. So then she starts to be a real candidate and I watch her ads and she's saying I'm a candidate just like you. And because she's a tea party like candidate and I've seen Perry in action I shouldn't say that. I've seen Perry from a distance. I've liked him every time I've spoken to him, but Pat lived in Texas for how many years?

PAT: Eight.

GLENN: And Pat's not a fan of Rick Perry and so he's tainted my views on Rick Perry. As Stu pointed out yesterday, I have no experience with Rick Perry other than good experience. However, Pat has told me what it's like to live with Rick Perry, and he says one thing in election, says another thing later. Okay. So I want to get her on. She's a tea party candidate. She's one of the people. She starts the interview and I said to her, so tell me a little bit about yourself. I think one of her first sentences is, well, I'm a grassroots organizer for the Republican Party, I worked for the Republican Party for, like, ten years. And I'm immediately not interested. Because that's not what I mean, that's not what I expected to hear is somebody who's saying, I'm just like you. I don't even want to know Republican organizers. Just not what I expected to hear.

We had also, at the time when we announced that I was going to have her own, I think I announced it two days ago and I said we're going to have her on, hammered, hammered by people writing in saying she's a 9/11 Truther. No way I believe she's a 9/11 Truther.

PAT: We just wanted to give her the opportunity to dispel that rumor.

GLENN: I wanted to I had two, I had two questions I wanted to ask. Didn't even get to the second one. I wanted to ask her if she was a Birther because that's what everybody says the tea parties, "Oh, these people are crazy. They are all Birthers." Really? Are they? So I wanted to ask her if she was a Birther, expecting her to say no. Didn't ask her that question. Maybe somebody in the press should ask her. I couldn't get past the question, are you a 9/11 Truther. Here's the response. Do we have the audio? Here's the response. Sarah, do we have the audio?

Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?

MEDINA: I don't, I don't have all the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.

GLENN: Whew.

PAT: Totally unexpected.

GLENN: I followed it up and I said, be more specific, and it just got worse from there. Here's the thing. Now I'm being accused by her supporters of making too much out of one issue. A 9/11 Truther. Really, one issue? That's what we hear from the same people who dismiss Kay Bailey Hutchison because of her abortion stance or Rick Perry over the trans Texas corridor. Really? They are the ones who are saying, "You can't dismiss the trans Texas corridor, you can't dismiss the abortion thing," but we can dismiss the 9/11 Truther thing? A person who is standing up and look, I am all for states rights. I'm for property rights. She said all of the right things when she was talking about the Constitution. I'm all for all of that stuff. But when you have somebody saying we've got to push away from the federal government, how far do you want to push away from the federal government? Because if you haven't done the math in your head and you think there's a possibility that our government isn't just bad, it's evil and don't start with me on, it's a necessary evil, even George Washington said it was a stop. Stop. They didn't just kill 3,000 people if you are a 9/11 Truther, you believe that they didn't just kill 3,000 people. They also could have killed 30,000 people, 100,000 people. How many people could have been in that building? So please. That one particular issue to me is enough. It may not be for you. I'm not voting in Texas. You are.

Some issues are make or break issues, but if that's not a make or break issue for you, fine, vote for her. That's a deal breaker for me. Abortion is another one. Healthcare reform, another one. Game breakers. For those of us, anybody who is accusing us of sandbagging Debra Medina, do you really think that really? I don't have anything else better to do? If you listen to this show, you know how much we've discussed the problems with Perry and Hutchison to the point where both of those campaigns have been hounding us over the comments on, I mean, Kay Bailey Hutchison is now using comments after hounding us saying, what you want to Rick Perry... (mumbling). Please, Rick Perry's campaign, it's my understanding that they were on the phone with the office in New York screaming, how could we have Medina on, at the time that she was on? Really? Hey, Perry campaign, you all upset at us now? If you listen to the show, you know one of the themes is question with boldness. I didn't think that was that bold of a question. I thought that was a softball question. When we keep hearing that she's a Truther or surrounded herself with Truthers, don't you think you should ask? She couldn't answer it, at least not to my satisfaction. If you're mad at somebody, quite honestly you should be mad at her. She could have said no. She could have said yes. Instead she dodged or equivocated. I mean, all you people who are saying, "Oh, it's not that big of a deal," you better question your own values on whether you're a Truther or not. And if you are, let me say it again. That's fine. I'm not trying to shut down anybody's free speech. You want to question with boldness? Is there a bigger questioning with boldness than that? "I think our government blew up the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon." Yeah, there's no bigger question you can ask.

PAT: Questions have all been asked and answered but if you want to, go ahead.

GLENN: And if you believe that, you have a responsibility to continue to ask that question. And to continue to stand up for yourself. Just don't do it in the cover of darkness.

Our founding principles need to be restored. I really, truly believe Texas is one of our last best hopes to help restore those principles. Occasionally we'll provide a forum for the great people of Texas to learn more about somebody that could help them do that. I just, I keep getting phone calls, why don't you talk about politicians more? When every time we do, this happens. You have a choice. You can do what the progressives do and blindly follow any candidate off a cliff because you belong to the party, because that's our best chance of winning. I don't care if we win. I don't have a team. I'm fighting for the Constitution and I think you are, too. I want an American candidate with American values to run for office. I don't need to agree with them on everything. But for me, hmmm, the government blew up the World Trade Center, Bush was a killer. I think that's a deal breaker. We just need to find out who these people are and what they believe because it's easy to run an ad campaign that says, "I'm just like you." No, no. As I found out yesterday, no, she's not, uh uh. No, really not just like me.

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?