Glenn Beck: Obama forces through another socialist

Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

GLENN: Donald Berwick and this is how he feels about English, English healthcare and how he feels about, you know, redistribution of wealth.

BERWICK: And that any healthcare funding plan that is just equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate.

PAT: Can it get any clearer than that? Can it get any clearer than that?

GLENN: Now, real quick do you have the audio — or do you have the line? I guess it's not audio, but him talking about the redistribution of — not redistribution but rationing? I can quote it off the top of my head, but I know that George Soros is spending millions of dollars just —

PAT: Yeah, if you get one word wrong —

GLENN: If I get one word. I just want to make sure. Do you have it?

PAT: I have that quote here somewhere. Just —

GLENN: I'll give it to you after the break.

PAT: Are you talking about it's not a question of whether we will ration healthcare. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: That's the quote.

GLENN: That's the exact quote. That is the guy who's running Medicare and Medicaid that the president just appointed and slipped past the system. Okay?

GLENN: Robert Gibbs was asked if Obama agrees with Berwick, the new Medicare/Medicaid czar. And he is a czar because he wasn't approved now by the — by congress. Congress was bypassed on this, not because of the Republicans but because the Democrats didn't want him, either. Why? Because the guy is a massive socialist, talks about any good healthcare system must, quoting, must, must be redistributive in nature. Redistribute the wealth.

So we have it on tape. We have his other piece on tape — in written form where he talked about, we have to ration. It's not a question of whether we will ration, if we'll ration but whether we'll ration with our eyes open. So brave reporter asks the question, does the president agree he? Gibbs didn't answer the question. Here's what happened.

GIBBS: I know that this is the exact type of political game that the American people have come to understand dominates Washington and doesn't actually make their healthcare more affordable.

REPORTER: One more on this. You said it would have been, your comment, there would have been a confirmation had there been a hearing. But you also think it would have been politically troublesome in election year to have all these comments aired out about rationing, redistribution that Dr. Berwick had talked about.

GIBBS: You just read comments. Does it — is there like a secret comment book that somehow you got that nobody else got and you just read a couple of them to me and somehow they wouldn't have come out?

GLENN: Stop, stop. You notice the press is laughing. The press is laughing because the press doesn't even read anymore! They're laughing! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! There is no secret comment book! It is easily found! The videotape is easily found!

Play the video again, please. Play the audio of Berwick and exactly what he said. He's asking, he's asking, redistributive wealth. Does the president agree? "What, do you have some sort of secret handbook that has these?" He's making you into a conspiracy theorist if you believe that that's what this man believes. Well, let me play the audiotape of Berwick saying it in his own voice! His own mouth was forming the words! We'll show you the video tonight. Here it is.

BERWICK: And that any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate.

GLENN: So is there some sort of, I'm sorry, some sort of secret handbook that you have where these comments that you got that nobody else did? No. I'm sorry. We just pay attention. It's a little thing that's so incredibly dangerous called... videotape, audio recordings, photographs. As of this moment, Mr. Gibbs, you don't control the Internet, and people on your team have been incredibly sloppy. They've actually said what they believe... out loud, in public, around video recorders.

Back to the question with Gibbs.

PAT: Yeah, got to get back to the, you know, I had to —

GLENN: Yeah, that's all right. That's okay. Go ahead. That's all right, go ahead.

PAT: Here it is. Here it is. It's pretty fast actually.

GLENN: Play the audio.

PAT: Actually got back to it pretty quickly.

GIBBS: Did he say things like rationing happens today; the question is who will do it? Did he say that? Did he say that?

REPORTER: That was one comment.

GIBBS: Actually that was Paul Ryan. That was Paul Ryan. He's a Republican in congress.

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop. Here's the game they play. First, discredit. Conspiracy. Then, did he say that? Did he say that? Did he say that? It's a Republican. Oh, okay. Well, I don't like him then, either. He's wrong on that as well. I mean —

STU: I'd like to hear the context of it, of course.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah, I'd like to hear the context, but this is what they do with George W. Bush. Really? You don't like TARP? That was George W. Bush.

First of all, you promised change. America knew we needed change, not transformation but change. So we were all on the change bandwagon here. You didn't define it. But I don't know of a definition of change that means exactly the same. I mean, you can convince me that change, you meant something different on change. We wanted restoration, we wanted a restoration of honor, of trust, of common sense. You can convince me that your change meant transformation, and I was just dumb enough to not question you. Well, not us and not me, but a lot of America just was dumb enough to just go on the change thing because transformation is definitely change. More of the same, the exact same policies, the same kind of stuff the Republicans wanted to do, I'm having a hard time finding the definition of change that means the same.

STU: Another thing, too, is if you listen to this, the timeline of this Gibbs comment, someone brings up the thing about redistributing the wealth and he seems shocked by it. He accuses him of having a secret book that no one even knows, yet unless we missed part of this clip, he never brought up the rationing part, yet he's completely armed with Paul Ryan's quote. Gee, Robert, it seems like you were prepared, you did know about both of these comments.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. I never thought of it that way.

PAT: Yeah. And you know he did.

GLENN: I never thought of it that way.

PAT: Of course.

GLENN: You are exactly right.

PAT: And that's why you know they were prepared for this from the beginning and they probably set out, find me a Republican who talked about rationing.

STU: Something similar, yeah.

GLENN: Go ahead. Is there any more left?

PAT: Yeah, a little bit more.

REPORTER: That's fine, you got your own comments.

GIBBS: That's not my comment. That's Paul Ryan's comment.

REPORTER: Okay, that's your own comment book. The comment I just read to you came straight out of the speech he gave in —

GIBBS: No, no, that came out of Paul Ryan's mouth.

GLENN: Oh, jeez.

PAT: I mean, just on and on. Just on and on. He never answers the question.

[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

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?