Glenn Beck: The Lies Politicians Tell





Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel


I think about 1.9 seconds had elapsed after Scott Brown's Senate election victory before polls started popping up: "Brown 2012!"

I get it. They were excited. But the only thing most people knew about the guy was that he had an old pickup truck. Call me crazy, but I like to know a little more before I anoint someone a savior.

I have a sneaking suspicion Brown 2012 may have lost a little steam, after he voted for Harry Reid's stimulus — I'm sorry, "jobs" — bill.

Some Tea Party members woke up Tuesday morning and probably vomited a little in their mouths when they read the news. They thought, "We took him in. We helped him to victory. And now he does this?"

Brown is getting lots of heat, but why? Too many people just assumed he was a small government conservative. Brown never claimed to be a Tea Partier. In reality, he was, at best, a mixed bag in Massachusetts. He voted for lower state income taxes and against Democrats on taxes more than half the time, but he also opposed several efforts by governors to curb state spending. There wasn't a ton to go on, but after analysis of his voting record, Brown was said to be left of the left-most Republican in the Senate, Olympia Snowe.

So why all the shock and outrage after he votes for a spending bill? He's a progressive Republican. People feel they were lied to.

There are two kinds of lies:

The first is the kind we tell ourselves. We choose to believe that Scott Brown is a small government conservative, when most likely he is a progressive Republican like Snowe or John McCain. It's the same kind of lie just at the other end of the stick, for people who voted for Barack Obama. They convinced themselves he wouldn't be as bad as everyone was saying. He's a centrist. And now they are completely shocked that he'd actually continue to try and spend trillions of dollars we don't have. That's the first kind of lie.

The second kind is the boldfaced lie — no guilty eyes staring at the ground, it's straight in your face without a shred of remorse. This kind of lie is the real danger.

A couple of recent examples of this kind of lie:

Nancy Pelosi has a pretty good poker face. She originally claimed she was never briefed by the Bush administration on how they were using water boarding:

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But there are new documents that led even Amnesty International to conclude that she must've known what was going on with waterboarding.

John Edwards was only a few votes away from being the president of the United States when rumors surfaced he was cheating on his cancer-strickened wife and fathered a lovechild, he responded:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP))

JOHN EDWARDS, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I have no idea what you're asking about. I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that... and I stand by that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

There's no hedging there. He's telling you like it is. And then that pesky DNA comes out and the statement changes: "I am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves... it was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me."

How tender.

And then there's this example, which mysteriously has drawn a chorus of yawns from the media: President Obama, while on the campaign trail, was asked about his relationship with ACORN. Here's how he responded:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: My relationship to ACORN is pretty straightforward. When... it's probably 13 years ago, when I was still practicing law, I represented ACORN. And my partner in that representation was the U.S. Justice Department, in having Illinois implement what was called the Motor Voter Law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

That sounds so straightforward: He's got nothing to do with them. It's no big deal. But I want you to know this wasn't an isolated incident. Here he is again, this time at a presidential debate:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a Motor Voter Law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OK — got it? Nothing to do with ACORN. Now, in the very same election campaign — in a video clip uncovered during a House investigation by Congressman Issa — here's what Obama said when being interviewed by ACORN, about a year before he was elected:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA:

When I ran Project Vote, voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.

Once I was elected, there wasn't a campaign that ACORN worked on down in Springfield that I wasn't right there with you.

Since I've been in the United States Senate, I've been always a partner with ACORN as well.

I've been fighting with ACORN, along side ACORN, on issues you care about, my entire career.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Did we somehow misunderstand him? Is there another definition of "is" that I missed in this statement? In the same campaign season, he says these two statements:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

OBAMA: And I definitely welcome ACORN's input. You don't have to ask me about that, I'm going to call you, even if you, if you didn't ask me.

OBAMA:: It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

How do you make that work in your head and sleep at night? Here's the next question: How does the media sleep at night? Here is the president claiming he has nothing to do with a scandal-ridden organization, when in reality he's saying "I'll call you first"? On the very same day ACORN is in the news for dissolving nationally, the media has to go out of their way to miss this! Why are they silent?

Now, the question is: What do we do about it?

We have to stop the lies we tell ourselves. That first kind of lie:"Oh, he'll be different when he gets in office." No, judge someone by their past record and their actions and the people they surround themselves with — it does matter.

Now, the second lie is much tougher to stop. Look at some of the crazy things people believe:

That the Bush administration actually had the combined evil, audacity, competence and ability to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and then was able to cover their tracks. How do you get people to believe that kind of stuff? Things like George W. Bush put on a frogman suit and planted bombs on the levees in New Orleans. Or that the moon landing was staged in a studio in Hollywood. Or that government agencies are setting up prison camps and buying thousands of coffins outside Atlanta.

How is it possible to persuade someone to believe this stuff? It starts by looking America straight in the eye and saying: "This is what happened. End of story. Period."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

THEN-PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON: Because people have got to know whether or not their president's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook.

THEN-PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: Read my lips. No new taxes.

THEN-PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: If you look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

If the most powerful people on the planet can look you in the eyes and deceive you — some intentionally, some not — then people begin to wonder: What else are they capable of?

We know they are capable of continuing the charade on global warming, even though the "consensus" is currently imploding. The science is bogus — it's falling apart — but they are still telling us we will leave no planet for our kids if we don't act now on cap-and-trade. Spain is already proving it doesn't work. But people like Van Jones are here to tell you it does work. They are willing to bankrupt the world for a lie.

People think, if that's true, what else are they capable of? That's why we have to restore honor and truth to Washington.

But it starts with us. We can't expect it of them if we don't live it in our own lives. Telling the truth — it seems like such a simple thing, but it's not. Don't believe me? OK, how do you answer when a woman asks: "Does this dress make me look fat?" See? Not so easy.

But the Founders made it look easy. George Washington. Honest Abe Lincoln. YouTube wouldn't have scared them, because they said what they meant and meant what they said. They were men of honor. They had to be; there's no way people would have risked their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred honor" to follow liars. It would never have worked.

Somewhere along the way that type of honor fizzled. The lies have piled up. The nickname "honest" isn't applied much anymore in D.C. And you can see it in the polls: 80 percent think Congress makes decisions based on self-interest or special interest; 86 percent think government is broken.

They've lost the trust.

When I was a kid, growing up you could get away with just about anything in my house except for lying. You did not want to lie in my house. I'll never forget the day my sister decided to play hooky.

My dad worked in the bakery all day so we never saw him in the light of day. My other sister and I were a little surprised when my dad picked us up and the sun was still out. He said, "Where's your sister? Be careful what you say. Remember, we tell the truth in this family." He made us both sit in the backseat. At this point, we knew bad things were about to go down. When we finally found my other sister, dad pulled up next to her: "So, how was school?" He kept asking and asking, letting her dig the hole deeper.

I think I got only like three spankings in my life. My sisters never got any — until that day. The belt made an appearance.

The first step is we have to stop lying to ourselves. That dress does make you look fat. Scott Brown's not the cure all for smaller government. And our economy and country can't be restored until all offices in Washington have restored honor.

- Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

I'm going to introduce you to what is by far the most annoying trend on social media involving a particular emoji. The annoying online trend features the clapping emoji 👏 in 👏 between 👏 each 👏 word.

The technique is most often used — unironically — by the social justice types to express indignation or condescension.

RELATED: De Niro at da Tony's gets obscenely political

It's meant to imply that the person who is writing the message is so much more "woke" than you that they are righteously allowed to clap in your face. Just looking at it is enough to test your blood pressure. Among the most recent standouts is the controversy surrounding Scarlett Johansson's decision to play a transgender character, which LGBTQ advocates would view as a good thing, right? You know, her being an ally to their cause and all. Here's one of the myriad tweets that sums up the feeling:

For weeks, the social justice types had been raging about Johansson, who was slated to portray a crime kingpin who was born a woman but identified as male in the film Rub & Tug.

In an interview with NPR — naturally — a trans activist had this to say about it:

Casting male actors to play trans women and female actors to play trans men really reinforces the idea that trans men are really women who are pretending to be men and tricking people into thinking they're men as opposed to the truth, which is that transgender men are living authentically as themselves. And we look like men and we feel like men, and we are perceived as men, and there's no reason, like, women should be playing us.

Listen to the full interview here:

Boy, if it weren't already confusing enough…

In response to this so-called backlash, Scarlett Johansson released a statement to her critics, noting to "tell them that they can be directed to Jeffrey Tambor, Jared Leto and Felicity Huffman's reps for comment."

But, finally — as most people do these days — she buckled. She released the following statement:

In light of recent ethical questions raised surrounding my casting as Dante Tex Gill, I have decided to respectfully withdraw my participation in the project. Our cultural understanding of transgender people continues to advance, and I've learned a lot from the community since making my first statement about my casting and realize it was insensitive.

What's the source of all this outrage? Because, we all know that the small but vocal mob — who the mainstream media has for some reason given a platform, and whose voice is louder than the rest of ours — is able to bully until they get what they want.

There's no winning.

Let's say that Scarlett Johansson had refused the role to begin with, on the grounds that she will not play a transgender character. You can guarantee the same crowd that's outraged now would be in fits. There's no winning. The best we can do is treat those around us with respect, live humbly and, for heaven's sake, don't clap between every damn word.

We should all be praying for success at the Trump/Putin sit-down

ALEKSEY NIKOLSKYI/AFP/Getty Images

92 percent of the world's nuclear weapons are in TWO countries: the U.S. and Russia. And as I'm speaking right now, the leaders of both countries are sitting down at a table to try and figure out how to coexist with one another. Sounds kind of important right? And even though the media will slap-fight each other to death today in an attempt to turn the Trump/Putin summit partisan, what's happening right now in Helsinki is probably the least most partisan thing happening right now… like anywhere. As in, the entire planet.

If there was ever a time to be partisan… this isn't it. To any Democrat, Republican or mainstream media pundit looking to turn this into some gotcha political narrative… what the hell is wrong with you? The last time the U.S. and Russian presidents sat down for a summit was in 2010… eight years ago! Here's a small rundown of how "cold" our relationship has been since then.

RELATED: Putin to Megyn Kelly: Jews are to blame for US election interference

Russia still has troops in Georgia after their invasion during Obama's first term. Keep in mind, Georgia was a country considering joining NATO. That invasion was Russia's coming out party. It was a warning to the world that things were about to change, and they were just getting started. They would then invade, steal and annex Crimea from Ukraine. They'd also invade, destabilize and wage war in Eastern Ukraine. That war is still going on to this day, but rarely does the media talk about it anymore. And the backdrop to that invasion and silent war was an accusation from the Russians that the United States deliberately encouraged the fall of the Ukrainian president and government.

Meanwhile, Russia continues supplying troops and equipment to their side, and we are now providing military training and anti-tank missiles to ours.

And Ukraine is just one of the proxy wars currently being fought between the two nuclear powers. Syria is the other. In April, we admitted to killing nearly 200 Russians in that conflict.

Over the past four years, over 700 Russian citizens and companies have been sanctioned, 35 diplomats have been declared persona non grata, 2 Russian diplomatic compounds have been closed, one consulate and two diplomatic annexes. Oh… and Russia has ejected over 700 U.S. diplomatic staff.

Between cyber attacks and indictments on Russian intelligence personnel, tensions have never been higher.

Between cyber attacks and indictments on Russian intelligence personnel, tensions have never been higher. Russia currently maintains an arsenal of 6,600 nuclear weapons. We have 6,450. The next closest nuke holders are France with 300 and China with 280. It's not even close. Between Washington and Moscow, there are over 13,000 nuclear weapons pointed at one another.

Forget partisan politics. The two toughest kids on the block just met for a sit-down, and we should all be praying for their success.

It's not just the Twitter mobs, the Leftist extremists and the flagrant fourth-wave feminists who want ICE abolished. As we've seen, there's a growing number of politicians who want to see it as well.

Cue Alejandro Alvarez, who in his 32 years has managed to cultivate his brand as a "serial immigration violator." Alejandro has been deported 11 times. Well, he's facing deportation once again, after allegedly "slashing his wife with a chainsaw." His wife is in recovery and is expected to survive.

RELATED: The cost of unchecked illegal immigration is very real, and very high

Around 3:00 pm last Wednesday, police arrived at Alejandro's. When they arrived, they found Alvarez's wife suffering from "traumatic physical injuries, believed to have been inflicted by a chainsaw." The couple's three children were huddled in fear inside the home. Alejandro's wife was rushed to a nearby trauma center for an emergency surgery.

Alejandro fled the scene of the crime, but was eventually hauled in by police and booked under "suspicion of attempted murder, child endangerment, hit and run, and grand theft auto."

Sounds like the kind of guy who should be in our country illegally, right?

ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley noted that "Immigration officers have lodged a detainer against Alvarez, requesting that local authorities notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement before his release to allow them to take the man into custody."

This is the new reality.

This is the new reality. The immigration agency has to ask for permission, to file requests, to have illegal immigrants who are guilty of crimes dealt with. Luckily for Alejandro, Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, so maybe he'll get another pass and be back on the streets in no time.

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

Why is nobody talking about this?

Alabama law enforcement officials say that an illegal immigrant and an immigrant in the United States on a green card are responsible for the brutal murders of a grandmother and her 13-year-old special needs granddaughter in what investigators say is violence related to Mexican drug cartels.