Glenn Beck: Media worse than thought

Learn more about the Restoring Honor Rally, 8/28 in Washington DC...

GLENN: Now, why is it that the media doesn't report things? We have long suspected that the media in fact, I have you know what? Let me take it here. I have told you in the past that I didn't believe in a media conspiracy, that I didn't believe that people were calling each other. How many times have you heard me say this? That I didn't believe that the media was, you know, (phone ringing). "Hello. Dan Rather." Oh, sorry, Dan, I got the wrong number. I was calling somebody I thought was important. But the media is not calling each other and... (phone ringing). "Hello. Dan Rather." Oh, jeez, sorry, Dan. I don't know why I keep calling you back. I just thought I was calling somebody that had actually a voice that people would listen to.

That the media is not calling each other up to plot and plan exactly what their next move is (phone ringing). "Hello. Katie Couric." Oh, jeez, I'm sorry. I was trying to reach Dan Rather. He had more juice than you.

But I was wrong. I was wrong. And I told you that I would always correct my mistakes. It was the moment of the greatest peril for then Senator Barack Obama's political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama's pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. Government and America itself. Obama had once bragged closest to right, now the black preacher's rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama's campaign. The crisis reached a howling pitch mid April 2008. ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked a question of Obama why it had taken him so long, nearly a year since Wright's remarks became public to disassociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? Watching this at home were members of journalists. It is a list serve. What is a list serve?

STU: It's kind of like a shared e mail sort of thing. It's not open to the public. It's a closed loop like, you know, sort of discussion that you can with people, sort of the safety tree.

GLENN: Right. It's like a chat room.

STU: Yeah, kind of.

GLENN: But it's closed.

STU: Yeah, it's like an e mail list server.

GLENN: Comprised of several hundred liberal journalists as well as like minded professors and activists. Tough questioning from ABC anchors left many of them outraged. George Stephanopoulos, quoting, fumed Richard Kim of the nation as being a disgusting little rat snake. Others went further. According to records obtained by the Daily Caller at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign, a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favorite candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico not a surprise there the Huffington Post, Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media and in some cases plotted to fix this damage. In one instance Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote. Quote: Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares, and call them racists, end quote. Michael Tomasky, a writer from The Guardian also tried to rally his fellow members of journalists, quote: Listen, folks. In my opinion all we have to do, we have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn't about defending Obama. This is about how the mainstream media kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people, end quote. I'm trying to understand that. This is about how the mainstream media kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the American so in other words, he's claiming that by asking Jeremiah Wright a question, that is the mainstream media, killing any discourse?

STU: Yeah, focusing on things that don't matter to the American people.

PAT: And he's apparently the arbiter of what discourse should and should not happen in this country? That's interesting.

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

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders got kicked out of a restaurant on Friday night. Not because she and her party of eight were talking politics and annoying other customers, but because Sanders has a high-profile job for a President hated by the Left. These days, some hate on the Left is disguised as moral "conviction." So, the owner of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia asked Sanders to accompany her to the outside patio where she asked Sanders to leave.

The Red Hen owner said:

This feels like the moment in our democracy when people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals.

RELATED: The 'Masterpiece Cakeshop' ruling is actually a win for LGBT rights

It doesn't take much imagination to consider the hell that would've broken loose if a conservative-leaning restaurant owner had tried to "uphold their morals" this way with any member of the Obama administration.

In just the past few days, protesters have gathered at DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's home and threatened the children of DHS employees, Florida's Attorney General was followed to a movie theatre where protesters reportedly spit on her, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders was kicked out of a restaurant because she works at the White House. And the Left doesn't see any contradiction in this kind of bullying. The same Left that finds discrimination in every square inch of society, is stalking people – females no less – and harassing them.

Ironically, they've gone so crazy with their hyper-P.C., micro-aggression, trigger warning bull crap, that they've now come around to discriminating themselves.

The self-righteousness and hypocrisy here is disgusting. Kicking someone out of a restaurant – that's a new one for Virginia. Well, it's not really new, it just hasn't been seen there since the Jim Crow era. The Left likes to fancy itself the political side that dragged America out of Jim Crow and now keeps us from returning to it. Even though that is total historical fantasy, that's what progressives tell themselves in order to sleep at night.

Ironically, they've gone so crazy with their hyper-P.C., micro-aggression, trigger warning bull crap, that they've now come around to discriminating themselves. And they don't even realize it. They think they're still fighting the good fight, upholding justice. But they've actually ushered in a new Jane Crow era, where if you even hint that you support something like securing the border, you could be stalked, spat on, or kicked out of a restaurant. For having a political view.

That doesn't sound very progressive. It's more like psychotic tyranny.

NASA now has an official plan for taking out asteroids

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

The next time asteroids menace the earth, we'll be ready. Because NASA has created a plan.

But before you get too excited, unfortunately, NASA's just-released plan does not include a Bruce Willis-led crew of roughnecks landing on an asteroid and blowing it to smithereens with a nuke. Which begs the question, if that's not part of the plan, what's a potential "Space Force" actually for?

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

Yesterday, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a report titled, the "National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan." Okay, see, this is the problem with government bloat. That title is a waste of words. Just call it "Armageddon."

The report is 18 pages of steps for NASA and FEMA to take over the next decade to prevent big asteroids from clanking into Earth. Wait, why is FEMA part of this action plan? Well, you know, in case the NASA part fails and we do get squashed by an asteroid. FEMA calls the we-get-squashed scenario "a low-probability but high-consequence event."

Step one in the NASA plan is better asteroid detection and tracking. That seems important. You can't dodge punches you never see coming.

Second, improving our ability to predict where an asteroid might hit, so FEMA can respond appropriately.

Third, the awesome part — asteroid deflection. So, if NASA's not using tough oil-drillers to land on and kill the asteroid, how would they do it? The plan would be to launch a spacecraft toward an asteroid that would change the asteroid's trajectory just enough to give us earthlings a good scare and a great show. But live to tell about it.

Just call it "Armageddon."

NASA has plans to experiment with this deflection technique with a spacecraft launching in 2021. It's called the "Double Asteroid Redirection Test" or DART. Clever.

Currently, astronomers have found over 8,000 asteroids in space measuring at least 460 feet across. That would be big enough to pulverize an entire state if it hit the US. But don't worry — only one-third of all near-earth asteroids are that large.

So, just a 33.3 percent chance of total annihilation.

We made it. It's Friday. This has been a tornado of a week. We endured the nonstop commotion of the migrant family separation policy and, best of all, we saw a near-immediate resolution, with President Trump's reversal of the policy. Whatever your stance on the policy, you have to admit, it's a good thing the chaos is over.

RELATED: Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Apparently, not everyone feels the same. Time magazine, for instance, has chosen to focus on the now-resolved matter for their July 2nd issue. They've released the cover. It features a cutout of the sobbing 2-year-old Honduran asylum-seeker — you've likely seen the image — captured by Getty photographer John Moore. Only, instead of featuring the original image, Time has chosen to photoshop an oversized image of President Trump, postured to appear like a bully standing over the crying girl. The background is solid read. The caption reads: "Welcome to America."

It's not enough to blame Trump for the whole debacle. We can't even have that conversation. No, the mainstream media feels the need to literally plaster him on the cover, to photoshop him into an awful situation, to make him look like a villain however they can. What good does that accomplish? And how long is the media going to demonize the President—what does he have to do?

The cover story is titled "A Reckoning After Trump's Border Separation Policy: What Kind of Country Are We?" Excellent question. What sort of country are we? Are we the sort of country that can pull it together and make this thing work despite our differences? Or are we the kind of country full of ungrateful people who throw tantrums even when everything goes their way?

President Trump reversed the policy, shouldn't that get some attention? Shouldn't he get some credit for affecting change in a way that his predecessor — contrary to what you'd surmise from the media — was unable to? No, instead, lately, we're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

We're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

Nietzsche noted that the severest punishment you can inflict on a person isn't to punish them after they've done something wrong or bad. In many ways, that sort of punishment can actually foster relief. The severest punishment is to punish someone when they've done something good, because you lessen the chance that they'll continue to do good.

And we need good.

I know at the heart of things, we're the kind of country that can come together for the good of mankind. We've proven that. But we need everybody.

The Left has been protesting and throwing tantrums since the day Trump was elected. They don't like him, we get it. At some point they need to change from diapers to undies so we can move forward.

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

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

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.