Glenn Beck: Department of 'Social Justice'?

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

Here we are, picking up the slack for the rest of the media again; they seem fairly disinterested in the New Black Panther case that was dropped by the Justice Department and Eric Holder.

Remember the footage from the 2008 presidential election? It's of New Black Party members who were standing in front of a polling location in Philadelphia in full uniform wielding a police-style baton weapon. They were clearly trying to intimidate potential voters.

Now how many times have you seen guys in uniform with baton weapons in front of your polling place? I know, it happens all the time, right? Well, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson. They were part of a national effort by the New Black Panthers to station members at polls and intimidate.

After the case was effectively won by the Department of Justice and a default sentencing was imminent in May of 2009, the DOJ made the unheard of move to suddenly file a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants.

There had to be some reason for the sudden turnaround, right? Some logical explanation. Maybe the defendants were unaware that they were standing in front of a polling location and it was all a big mix up. Maybe they were very, very sorry for violating Americans' rights and engaging in an activity that African-Americans, of all people, should be offended by.

Or maybe they just really, really hate white people?

Oh, I'm sorry, that's really presumptuous of me. Let me ask Samir Shabazz directly: How do you feel about white people?


SAMIR SHABAZZ: I hate white people — all of them. Every last iota of a cracker — I hate him. Because we're still in this condition.

We didn't come out here to play today. There's too much serious business going on in the black community to be out here sliding through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore (expletive) on our arms.

You want freedom? You're going to have to kill some crackers. You're going to have to kill some of their babies. Let us get our act together.


OK, I think he hates white people. He doesn't like one iota of them. In fact, he wants to kill them. He also seems upset at black men in African garb who are with white women. Wow. And the Justice Department just let this guy walk?

Now, I'm not a justice expert, but I am a thinker. This doesn't really sound like justice. Maybe it's this new thing "social justice" I keep hearing progressives talk about. Nancy Pelosi cries about the rhetoric of the Tea Party; the media tried to paint people who want a restoration of our Constitution as racist or violent — but this man is both. Calling for people to kill white people and babies — and the DOJ does nothing.

They go after the "racist police officers" in Arizona and this "racist law" well, injustice maybe. I mean, I'm called a racist by various progressive blogs and critics because I support policies like the Arizona immigration law. Yet the DOJ can just walk away from these racists and Bill Clinton can excuse Robert Byrd's KKK past as just getting votes. Robert Byrd's actual KKK past can be forgiven, but being for smaller government makes you a racist?

When things don't make sense you have to come up with a different answer. Maybe the DOJ lost interest because of the testimony from former Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams, who says the NAACP lobbied the Obama administration to dismiss the Black Panther case:


QUESTION: Do you know whether anybody was consulting as to whether to proceed or the merits of the case with NAACP legal defense fund?

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYER: Well listen, this is not firsthand, but I was told by section management that NAACP members or staffers were talking with a voting section attorney in March of 2009 and asking when is this case getting dismissed? Which of course is interesting to hear for the first time that someone is thinking about dismissing the case that you're in the middle of building.... It seemed strange.


But why worry — as Nancy Pelosi has warned us, she has heard rhetoric like this before. In case she missed it the first time:


SHABAZZ: I hate white people — all of them. Every last iota of a cracker — I hate him. Because we're still in this condition.

We didn't come out here to play today. There's too much serious business going on in the black community to be out here sliding through South Street with white, dirty, cracker whore (expletive) on our arms.

You want freedom? You're going to have to kill some crackers. You're going to have to kill some of their babies. Let us get our act together.


There has to be some reason for the flip, because seeing video the guy who wants to kill white people, standing with a club outside a polling location really doesn't help the defense's case. Maybe it was a little favor for all the support the New Black Panthers gave Barack Obama during the election. I interviewed their top guy leading up to the election and, in one of the creepiest moments on TV, he called Barack Obama the only hope for America's salvation:


MALIK SHABAZZ, NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY: If you had to understand that your ancestors had been in slavery and bondage for 300 years, that your ancestors had been denied the right to become policemen, firemen, attend schools and get mortgages, how would you feel if...

BECK: I'll tell you — I would feel — I'll tell you, I would feel — I would feel so unbelievably proud that that country has made so much progress that the richest woman in America is Oprah Winfrey and possibly the next president is also an African-American. I'd feel pretty darn good that we've made an awful lot of progress.

Obama's message is to come together, yet your message — according to your website — is the trials of blacks only, by all black juries, end of all black cooperation with police departments and a separate country for African-Americans. How is Obama your man?

SHABAZZ: Obama is my man, because I believe he can change America and I pray to almighty God that America will listen to and follow Barack Obama, black or white or whoever you are. I say that Barack Obama is the true salvation for America and to bring us beyond the negative and the nasty and injustices that have caused persons like Reverend Wright or myself to speak out. Barack Obama, I pray, Glenn, that you will support him —


He's praying that Obama would get us past the injustices. Isn't this case being dropped an injustice?

Why would Barack Obama want to side with these nuts from the New Black Panthers who were clearly intimidating voters? You have to stop thinking like a rational human being and start thinking like a radical one. Because these tactics are accepted as the norm in the radical world.

Compare the 10-point plan for the original Black Panthers with the New Black Panthers' plan — these guys don't associate with each other, but they are both pushing the same ideas. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

But let me back up for a minute and take a look at who this president is surrounding himself with — his circle of influence. We know about ACORN's use of intimidation tactics. The president has made it clear that he's walking in lockstep with ACORN:


THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK 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 didn't ask me.


And remember what Bertha Lewis recently told her people:


BERTHA LEWIS, ACORN: It is going to dwarf the internment during World War II.

They are coming and they are coming after you.


The president has also made it clear how closely he works with SEIU:


OBAMA: Just imagine what we could do together. Imagine having a president whose life work was your work.


And SEIU has not hesitated to use intimidation and violence:


ANDY STERN, SEIU: We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live.


The president hired Van Jones — and they knew who he was:


VALERIE JARRETT, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: Van Jones, we were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We have been watching him really — he's not that old — for as long as he's been active out in Oakland —


Jones was head of Ella Baker Center and started the communist STORM organization whose manual stated: "Revolutionaries need to be militant in street actions. As leaders in the fight for liberation, we should be role models of fearlessness before the state and the oppressor." They also said: "Marches were be militant and confrontational, regularly defying police commands and occasionally plunging through police lines and barricades."

So the president had no problem associating with militants who intimidate.

But militant intimidation can sometimes go one step further and become terrorism. Bill Ayers founded the terrorist organization The Weather Underground. Jeff Jones, also of The Weather Underground, helped draft the stimulus package through the Apollo Alliance. Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers' wife, was part of the Gaza flotilla and they partnered with Jodie Evans from Code Pink.

So homegrown terrorists are literally deciding where to send your tax money.

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

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


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?


How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?


And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?


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?