Huffington Post: Why does everyone like Palin so much?



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


GLENN: Do you know the Huffington Post is now doing a I love this. They are trying really hard. "We've got to understand this appeal to Sarah Palin." Here it is: We are awash in a crisis right now, crisis that requires smart and creative policy fixes. So why is someone who so rarely deals in policy fixes so popular? It's because Palin's message operates on a deeper level than policy statements about the economy or financial reform or healthcare or the war in Afghanistan. It's not Palin's positions people are responding to.

PAT: Oh, no.

GLENN: It's her use of symbols: Mama grizzlies rearing up to protect their young.

PAT: She's nailed it. It's the mama grizzlies thing.

GLENN: No, no, no. This is the best. This is straight out of Jung's Collective Unconscious. You've got to be kidding me!

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: You've got to be kidding me! We're going to Jung? You know what? You are so right. You guys are so smart over there at the Huffington Post. You are so smart. You got her. You got her. And what a surprise, it's selling for a dollar, Newsweek magazine. Huffington, if you keep working, eventually you'll be worth that dollar, too.

STU: You know, if I had a dollar for every time Newsweek sold this week, I'd have the price that Newsweek sold for this week.

PAT: You don't suppose it could be that the editor of Newsweek said ridiculous things

GLENN: Like what?

PAT: Like this.

VOICE: I mean, in a way Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of god.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Barack Obama's sort of God?

GLENN: God?

PAT: I mean

GLENN: Seriously, don't you think? He's seeming very god like to me lately. I like it.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: Mmm hmmm.

STU: I love how the fact that -- no one could picture how Newsweek could get any closer to the administration and then they sold to the husband of a Democratic congresswoman. I think they actually achieved it.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Who did they sell to?

STU: Was it Harman? Off the top of my head, I don't have that story in front of me but it the husband who's a very wealthy man obviously, although he likely had more than a dollar. By that standard I guess everybody's wealthy.

GLENN: Well, in today's society with the way this administration's going, that's pretty much how we'll all be. He has $2?

STU: Whoa!

GLENN: Wow!

PAT: I mean, it's amazing to take note that Newsweek lost about $30 million last year alone, $30 million.

GLENN: It's because they just don't get it. They are so arrogant. They think they are better than everyone else. They've bought into Walter Lippmann's lie that they are going to oversee the management or the dissemination of what needs to be done to the stupid people. They will just oversee the dissemination. They will just, they will teach us. And they know. They're in with the professors and they're in with the administrators and so they know. And the unwashed masses are just so stupid. I guess that's you know, Jung talked about it with the Collective Unconscious which the mama grizzly. That's the thing I hate about Sarah Palin. When I listen to Sarah Palin speak and she's like, we're just all mama grizzlies, I'm like, oh, please stop with the mama grizzlies. I mean, I like Sarah Palin because she's real. I like Sarah Palin because she's not a robot. I like Sarah Palin's policies, well, her I was going to say her failed policies of the past, but they were pretty successful, especially when it came to oil.

I'm a little quite honestly, I mean, I haven't talked to Sarah in, I don't know, a month or so but I'm a little, I'm a little puzzled by why she didn't step to the plate on the gulf. I mean, if she wanted to run for president, and I think that's the key, if she wanted to run for president, she should have been down there and she should have been organizing all those oil companies together and had some real press moments because that's where she excels. On energy she's amazing. She's amazing. And I don't think she capitalized on that the way she could have but I you know, again she's her own woman. Nobody's telling Sarah Palin what to do. And I think that's another reason why people like her. Because everybody knows she's her own person. She's doing what she wants to do. Agree or disagree with it, that's what she's doing. Nobody's pulling her strings. If anything, she's pulling other people's strings. Ever had that feeling?

You know, you see when she's for instance, when she first went out with John McCain to endorse him in Arizona, her response to me was, JD Hayworth? And at the time I was like, "Anybody but John McCain. How about a sock?" Seriously I'll vote for a sock over John McCain. But as it turns out if my choice is JD Hayworth or John McCain

PAT: Well, that was before you knew about this.

VOICE: $80,000 in grant money and I don't have to pay it back. So I'm ecstatic about it.

HAYWARD: We award this grant for up to $1.3 million, greatest news about that is we don't have to pay any of it back.

VOICE: How much money? I mean, did I hear right? Billions?

VOICE: Hundreds of billions.

VOICE: Hundreds of billions of dollars. Wow. Well, forgive me if I sound like a skeptic because that's a lot of money. It sounds too good to be true. Congressman, is it for real?

HAYWARD: It is for real. Now, I understand the skepticism in part because President Reagan used to say the greatest

GLENN: Stop.

PAT: You forgot about that.

GLENN: No.

PAT: You forgot about that.

GLENN: I didn't know about that.

PAT: Yeah. Now he's telling you about billions of dollars.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: Available to you for free.

GLENN: I know.

PAT: Now how much do you want to vote for him?

GLENN: I don't want to vote for him at all. I'm still going for the sock.

PAT: So what a choice in Arizona: Hayworth, McCain.

GLENN: So what would you do? What would you do?

PAT: I don't know. I'd have to look for a third party guy probably.

GLENN: I would.

PAT: You know, I mean, are you wasting your vote?

GLENN: No.

PAT: No, you are voting your conscious.

GLENN: No, wasting my vote is putting a vote in a guy who's walking with a border guard on television where the border guard looks at him and says, "Senator, you've been knifing us in the back here on the border for a long..." no, wait, that's not what he said.

PAT: Not what he said.

GLENN: "Senator, good thing you're behind us.

PAT: Way behind us.

GLENN: We would like you to lead the way so we can watch your hands where they are at all times because we think you are going to knife us in the John McCain, for Senate.

STU: The voiceover just cuts off the sentence like that?

GLENN: Yes. "Senator, we're so glad you are ahead leading us and leading the way because we really want to watch you every step of the way because we think you are knifing us... John McCain."

PAT: "John McCain."

STU: (Laughing).

PAT: I think they might make a better edit than that maybe before kni... gets out.

GLENN: Let me tell you something. I think all of us on the border, we all feel the same way. We'd vote for John McCain in a heartbeat, especially over, well, Satan, Lucifer.

PAT: "John McCain."

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: So... we got that going for us. Anyway, we were talking about Sarah Palin and, you know, I've begun to wonder now who's playing whom here? Is she being played? Because that was the thing: Oh, she's been co opted by the Republican Party. Has she?

PAT: I don't think so.

GLENN: Or has the Republican Party maybe been co opted by her, you know? You don't know.

PAT: Look at the way this thing has gone. I mean, it was six or eight months ago when she was, she was polling fourth or fifth or sixth among potential Republican candidates for president. Now she's by far first. Now she's number one and there's nobody even close to her and so she's apparently made a few pretty smart moves in the last six or eight months.

GLENN: This is again Arianna Huffington: This is the realm that Palin is working in, I'm sure unintentionally, and it's why she has connected so deeply.

Why is it unintentional? Is she not smart enough to read Jung?

PAT: No.

GLENN: And it's why she has connected so deeply with such a large segment of the public. In fact, her use of "Mama grizzlies" has a particular resonant history in Collective Unconscious. According to the Jungian Archive For Research in Archetypal Symbolism, the bear has long fascinated mankind. You've got to be kidding me! The bear has so long fascinated mankind.

STU: Not just the people that are always calling you conspiracy theorists, looking into symbolism too much.

GLENN: These people look for anything.

PAT: But you've got to finish. It's partly because of its habit of hibernation which may have served as a model of death and rebirth in human societies. See, it's that that she's tapping into.

GLENN: What is wrong with these people?

STU: Of course that's it.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

GLENN: My wife and I were like, I don't know, there's something speaking to me in the unconscious level of death and rebirth, almost a hibernation of what are you talking about? My wife would look at me and say, what, are you high? "No, I'm no, I'm just reading Arianna Huffington, that's all I'm can I tell you something? She has tapped into a vein of nonsense that I just, it's very rare, very rare.

PAT: Very rare.

GLENN: On a deeper level it's complete nonsense, but there on the surface

PAT: Of Arianna?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It's just nonsense.

PAT: Yeah. But if you go deeper, what does it do?

GLENN: Complete nonsense, yeah.

PAT: But go beyond that. Go deeper than that. What do you get down to?

GLENN: Elitist complete nonsense.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Kind of almost a spirit of, I'm better than you.

PAT: That kind of nonsense?

GLENN: That kind of nonsense.

STU: You have to dig real deep to that to get to her. It's not surface.

PAT: It's to the bone. It's nonsense to the bone.

GLENN: No, it's not that deep, but there are seven whole layers to the human skin. I don't know if you know that. Seven layers. You've got to dig down like three.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: To be able to get to that.

[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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

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?

Zero.

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

Zero.

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

Zero.

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?