Glenn Beck: Obama's principles not matching policy

GLENN: Our new Supreme Court, our new Supreme Court pick has been named as a progressive, Biden's chief of staff Ron Klain told reporters yesterday, she is clearly a legal progressive. She's someone whose scholarship has won praise from both the progressive side and those on the conservative side... of the progressive movement. She comes from the progressive side of the spectrum. There's no mystery to the fact that she is, as I said, more a progressive than not. Oh, good.

Let me ask you this question: Here's somebody who has known Barack Obama, taught in Chicago, comes from the Chicago clan, comes from the same group of people. Now, we are told that this group of people loved the fact that they are going to close down Guantanamo, that you can't hold people without a trial. In fact, we are told that their principles are so strong on this, that they are so adamant about this that they will close down Guantanamo, move people to a Chicago suburb, to a prison there so we no longer have Guantanamo, and we will try some of these people not in the court of justice from the military. No, no, no. We will try them in New York City because everyone deserves a fair trial. That is their principle. If that is the principle, why would Barack Obama nominate somebody who said way, way, way back, about 90 days ago, when she was the nominee for solicitor general that someone suspected, someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law, which is indefinite detention without trial. Her words, not mine. Even if captured in a place other than a physical battle zone.

Hang on just a second. Your principles of this administration is that we don't hold people indefinitely, that everyone deserves a fair trial, even those caught on the battlefield. And yet our new Supreme Court justice nominee said just as she was being cleared for solicitor general, she said that if you are suspected, suspected of financing Al Qaeda that you could be held indefinitely without trial. Help me out on that one.

I believe we have a Supreme Court nominee, I believe we have a president of the United States, I believe we have a senator in Joe Lieberman, I believe we have a lot of people that are now going on guilty, of American citizens, guilty until proven innocent. This is one of our chief building blocks. Why did I come out and say last week "We must read him his Miranda rights; he's an American citizen"? Why did I say that? Why did Jon Stewart and everybody else on the left, Rachel Maddow, come out and say Glenn Beck seems to be the sane one on this issue, but no one is questioning. Where is the outrage on the other side?

Okay, so they pointed out that I was sane on this, but where are they pointing out what is happening? Let's not make this about Al Qaeda. Let's make this about — because it's really about terror really, isn't it? Al Qaeda's just the chief terror organization. Or is it? Remember this is an administration that doesn't even believe that we're in war. When they came, we're not even at war. We are in the, what is it, the —

PAT: It was the Overseas Contingency Operation.

GLENN: Overseas contingency operation, that's right. Overseas contingency, we're not even at war. They come out and they defend: Let's not jump to conclusions. Fort Hood: Let's not jump to conclusions. So now they are pushing for if you finance, if you are suspected of financing, held indefinitely without trial. A citizen.

Now let's see who they do think they are at war with. Well, we know that as soon as Barack Obama got in, Missouri had a study, a report that came out that said you could be in a possible terrorist organization if you are a — you have a snake flag, if you have a Ron Paul bumper sticker.

PAT: Pro life.

GLENN: If you are pro life. You may be part of a movement of some sort of a terrorist organization.

GLENN: Now, let me ask you this. Let's say you write a check to the tea party and Timothy McVeigh somehow mysteriously comes back from the grave and blows a building up, and on his desk is, "Hey, I want to go to that tea party thing next week." Do you really believe that someone in our government wouldn't try to make the case, do you really believe that the media wouldn't make the case for them that the tea party movement is now a terrorist organization because some whack job out of their mind blew up a building? What if you wrote a check? Could you be taken off the streets? Could you be held indefinitely without trial? Nobody wants to think these things. We have gone from a country where we all said to each other, "Okay, I don't like the PATRIOT Act, but we need something." Okay, all right, but we have Sunsets in it. We've gone from an administration who says they are against the PATRIOT Act; the first thing they are going to do is shut down Guantanamo, reverse the PATRIOT Act, make sure — Barack Obama campaigned: We no longer will just scoop people up off the streets because they're Muslim. We never have! Now, those are their principles. We've seen their principles in action when it comes to terror overseas, part of the contingency operation. We see how seriously they take that. They don't. So why are all of their legal actions going so far beyond the PATRIOT Act which, by the way, they didn't repeal; they took the Sunsets out of. Why? I don't have an answer, but until things make sense, stand guard, America. Stand guard. This is your new Supreme Court justice nominee who said this about 90 days ago. You have an effort in congress to take away the rights of citizens if suspected. If suspected. Excuse me. Innocent until proven guilty. You are on the battlefield? I got all the information I need. You're a citizen in the United States and now we're not talking about holding a gun or anything else. We're talking about writing a check. I don't think so.

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.

Remember how serious Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were last week, when they gave their "rebuttal" to President Trump's address? They made it seem like this government shutdown is apocalyptic. A lot of Democrats have done the same. On social media and CNN at least. Thirty Democrats, however, took a different route. Puerto Rico. For cocktails at the beach.

RELATED: The President won the night, but don't count on the media to admit it

A group of 30 Democrats have turned the government shutdown into a live-action interpretation of a Jimmy Buffet song:

Nibblin' on sponge cake, Watchin' the sun bake.

No, seriously. In the words of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they're partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border.

A photo of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez at a resort beach has gone viral.

They arrived via chartered jet. They're staying at a seaside resort, and attended the ridiculously-priced and overhyped play "Hamilton," where tickets for opening night "ranged from $10 to $5,000," according to the Associated Press. They even attended several afterparties.

Of course, the official occasion seems legit. They're in San Juan for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC. According to a memo for the gathering:

This year's winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!

Also in attendance, about 109 lobbyists, from a number of places, including "R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association."

Donald Jr. said it well:

And of course no one says anything. I'm not even in government and I'd get killed in the press if I was on vacation right now. Why won't they cover their democrat buddies lobbyist sponsored vacation in the islands???

Maduro takes office and Venezuelans vote with their feet

CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images

Venezuela continues to collapse. A country that used to have the world's largest oil reserves is now in rags. Its money is worthless, with inflation near one million percent. People must work an average of five days at minimum wage just to afford a dozen eggs. But there is one person still pumped about Venezuela's future – its noble president, Nicolas Maduro! I'll tell you why he's still enthusiastic in just a minute…

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro had a stellar 2018. Here are some highlights:

  • Running water and electricity only work occasionally and prices for basic goods doubled.
  • Doctors, engineers, oil workers, and electricians fled the country en masse. Over 48,000 teachers also left the country.
  • Over half a million Venezuelans fled to Peru alone.

Maduro created a new digital currency called the "petro." One petro is supposed to equal the price of a barrel of oil, about $60. U.S. Treasury Department officials call the petro a scam. Who could've seen that coming?

Maduro also announced a 3,000 percent minimum-wage hike. Even Ocasio-Cortez might roll her eyes at that one. Or find it inspiring.

And just yesterday, a Human Rights Watch report detailed how Venezuelan intelligence and security forces are arresting and torturing military personnel and their family members who are accused of plotting against Maduro. The torture includes: "brutal beatings, asphyxiation, cutting soles of their feet with a razor blade, electric shocks, food deprivation, [and] forbidding them to go to the bathroom."

It's so bad in Venezuela that even The Washington Post admits Venezuela's problems are mostly due to "failed socialist policies." But President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised New Year's address calling 2019, "the year of new beginnings." He's pumped, you see, because today he will be sworn in for his second six-year term as president. He was "re-elected" last May in an election that the international community declared illegitimate.

Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency.

Maduro doesn't have many friends left at home or abroad. Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency. This week, the U.S. added more Venezuelan officials to its sanctions list.

In a press conference yesterday, Maduro said:

There's a coup against me, led by Washington. I tell our civilians and our military to be ready. Our people will respond.

I think the people of Venezuela who have the means are already responding – by leaving.