Glenn interviews Laura Ingraham



The Obama Diaries


by Laura Ingraham

INGRAHAM:  Hey, Glenn.  How are you?

GLENN:  How are you? 

INGRAHAM:  I'm fantastic.  You're going to be at the Performing Arts Center?  That gives new meaning to the, you know, words performing arts.  That's awesome.

GLENN:  You know, the Kennedy Center, I have a feeling this is going to drive   

INGRAHAM:  Humble. 

GLENN: a lot of people are just going to go they're going to lose it.

INGRAHAM:  My question is that big bust, you know, the iconic bust, classic massive head of John F. Kennedy, will that just crack in two?

GLENN:  I'm not really sure.  You know, John F. Kennedy was more of a   

INGRAHAM:  Conservative.

GLENN:  Yeah.  He was much more of an American conservative than, I'll bet, 80% of the people in Congress now. 

INGRAHAM:  Can I say something about what I love that you're doing on your show every day?  And this is going to sound like a shameless suck up moment of the day, but it happens to be true.  The Road to Serfdom, I am so glad that you have brought this to the floor.  People who hadn't read it in college or hadn't been introduced to Hayek and what he predicted would happen with this enslavement mentality we're developing, sadly, in our country, if we don't get on the right path to free market reforms and opening up, you know, this land of possibility to everyone, it is so essential that people go back and read that and you've brought that out again and I just think this is fabulous.

GLENN:  May I just   

INGRAHAM:  Hats off to you.

GLENN:  May I just say I'm going to turn it back around on you and say this is going to sound like suck up, but this is absolutely true.  Do you know why I read that book? 

INGRAHAM:  Why?

GLENN:  You shamed me into it.  You didn't    you probably don't even remember.  You and I were having a conversation a long time    I don't even know when and you said to me, The Road to Serfdom.  And I looked at you and went, Huh?  And you said, You haven't read Road to Serfdom?  And I said, Yeah, and hadn't.  I told you no and you said, Oh, you have to read Road to Serfdom.  I went out.  I bought it and I, mean, I don't know the last time you looked at it.  It looks like the most eye bleed, boring book of your life. 

INGRAHAM:  It's so good, though.

GLENN:  And I read it because of you. 

INGRAHAM:  Oh, great.  Well, that's fantastic.  I had forgotten I said that to you, but that's awesome, fantastic.

GLENN:  Well, there you go.  You forget so many great things.  All right.  So, you have the    you have the book out, the Obama Diaries.  How is it doing? 

INGRAHAM:  It's great.  I'm following your lead, Glenn, from Threshold Publishers which I know you have your own imprint in and they've done a great job and   

GLENN:  They're great. 

INGRAHAM:  We debuted at No. 1 and we duked it out for No. 2 and two    two for the 68 in two weeks, even though we sold more than the book that was ahead of us, but, you know  

GLENN:  No.  That doesn't happen. 

INGRAHAM:  No.

GLENN:  That doesn't    that never happens. 

INGRAHAM:  Exactly, but, no.  It's been fantastic and, you know, people say, Oh, this is satire and how can you satirize the Obamas?  And I said, Well, look.  These diary entries that    you know, I didn't ask them for.  Them just came to me, but these diary entries are turning out to be her present and true than I ever dreamed they would be, you know, about the travels and the Spanish extravagance and the infighting and intrigue about Hillary, will she be the veep or not.  I mean, it's all kind of    it's in their musings and, you know, I just lay it out there.

GLENN:  When I wrote The Overton Window, I had a hard time.  We had to go back and change stuff because we're, like, Oh, crap.  They did that. 

INGRAHAM:  You can't predict it.

GLENN:  I know.  It's unbelievable. 

INGRAHAM:  Hey, can I say something else?  And, again, this is    I haven't talked to you in a long time and I've been    we at our show here and so many of the folks I've met are huge fans of yours and supporters of yours and are thrilled about the 8 28 rally.  Lots of folks are, like, Laura, are you going to be there?  I'm, like, I haven't gotten invited.  So  

GLENN:  Laura, I'm not having anybody political on stage except for Sarah Palin and that's just to introduce and talk as a mother on troops, but I would love to have you there. 

INGRAHAM:  Oh, yeah.

GLENN:  We have a VIP section.  We would love to have you there. 

INGRAHAM:  Well, I think    I think    I think I'm in town.  I might have my one day    one week vacation then, but I'm not positive.  I would love to be there if I can be there.

GLENN:  Okay. 

INGRAHAM:  But I support what you're doing.  But my brother Brooks who lives in Seoul, South Korea, watches your show in Seoul and he's always e mailing me, get    talk to Glenn.  I love what he did, because he's a big, you know, student of history and everything, but he says you have a big following in Korea.  So, it's a worldwide phenomenon.

GLENN:  That's where the big following is. 

INGRAHAM:  Yeah.

GLENN:  Laura, what do you think?  Do you think that    I said this the other day, that these people    the Obamas either know something that we don't know they're just not going to    why worry about elections, they are just completely tone deaf and stupid which I don't think is the case, or they really aren't planning on running for a second term because they don't    I mean, they're    there's no way to sell any of the stuff that they're doing and this trip overseas and everything else, they're just completely out of step with the American people.  Do you think they care? 

INGRAHAM:  Well, I really believe that they consider themselves as kind of floating above the country, that    they never truly seem to embrace the American ideal.  They were historic, they were iconic from the very beginning, and so when he spoke of America overseas, when he    when he did the Apologorama and talked we're not a nature of torturers, America is exceptional like the Greeks consider themselves exceptional, it was never a sense of being of America, right?  It was a sense of, yeah, we're there but we're more global citizens or even global celebrities and I think they really believe that that aura will somehow rescue them again, that the Republicans won't rise to the occasion, they don't have anyone with the same wattage as they have and that they'll basically be able to transcend whatever the right does.

GLENN:  Do you see anybody that is    do you think Chris Christie would run? 

INGRAHAM:  I like him.

GLENN:  I do, too. 

INGRAHAM:  I like him a lot and I think the idea of someone who is not working out every five seconds and    you know, might be a little bit corpulent but has really good common sense ideas, that might actually be the anti Obama play and could be really fascinating.  So, I love Christie.  I mean, I like a lot of the people out there.

GLENN:  Who do you think is going to run?  Do you think Sarah Palin's going to run? 

INGRAHAM:  I    you know, I'm guessing what Sarah's going to do.  I think not, but  

GLENN:  I think so, too. 

INGRAHAM:  I don't think so.  I think she's a king and queen maker and I think that's an incredibly positive role and she's an entrepreneur and, look, she has more experience than Barack Obama ever had and obviously wouldn't be doing some of the bone headed things he's doing.  So, they would have been, you know, a    now she would be leaps and bounds above what he's done and, you know, that's not saying much, but she would have done great.

GLENN:  Can Mitt Romney win with his    with his flirting with socialism in    I mean, is he a progressive or is he   

INGRAHAM:  No.

GLENN:     a good guy? 

INGRAHAM:  No, he's not.  I mean, I think that Romney    I mean, look, Glenn, he got caught in this Iraq trap, I think, in the last election.  He was talking a lot about Iraq and War on Terror and people were just tired of that.  They wanted    they wanted the CEO and chief in Romney and I told him at the time.  I was a big supporter of his.  I really like him a lot, but I didn't follow through on growing the prosperity class message which I think he is now onto.  He needs to mess up his hair a little bit, do a little    do a little less Ward Cleaver and a little more Fonzie.

GLENN:  It's not going to happen.  It's not going to happen. 

INGRAHAM:  Maybe not, maybe not, but I like him.

GLENN:  It's not going to happen. 

INGRAHAM:  No.

GLENN:  Newt Gingrich, can he win? 

INGRAHAM:  I think the problem, maybe, with Newt is he has incredible ideas and I like Newt very much.  I mean, look, I love him.  If he would be President tomorrow, I would be a happy person.  I think what he might be perceived, though, Glenn is a little too 1994 and that people want, you know, 2012.  They don't want 1994.  As much as they love Gingrich and I can be totally wrong, but that's  

GLENN:  Do you see anybody out there that you say, Nobody really knows about this person, but this person you have to watch? 

INGRAHAM:  Well, no.  I don't really see anyone sort of emerging from the states that we don't    that we don't know of and  

GLENN:  All right.  Do you   

INGRAHAM:  Rick Perry is someone I think a lot of people are talking about, as well, and    you know, Glenn Beck and people like that.

GLENN:  Yeah, right.  The Tea Party, Trent Lott says it's over.  We don't need a bunch of Tea Party goers and Jim DeMint is coming up here to the capital.  They still don't seem    the party Republicans still don't seem to get it.  Which one lasts longer?  The Tea Party movement or the Republicans as they have shown themselves to be over the last   

INGRAHAM:  That's an excellent, excellent way of putting it.  Well, look.  In the Obama Diaries, they write about    they write about the Tea Parties.  They demonize the Tea Party, you know, the tea baggers, we're going to connect them with acts of violence, you know, with vandalism across the country, we're going to make them look like really mean, intolerant, terrible people and it's kind of played out that way.  Right?  I mean, they're always dismissed and demeaned, but what I found    and I just came off a 21 city book tour.  What I found out is that it's really kind of an American movement.  I think the Tea Party monicker has kind of outlived its use.  I think this is just an America movement, I mean, and you and others are really, you know, responsible for igniting this new civic engagement that's very positive.  It's a forward looking  

GLENN:  It is. 

INGRAHAM:     positive and hopeful approach.  I have the chapter called The Happy Warriors and I think that    and, you know, Glenn, someone said you    someone told me you've been known to cry at times, but I don't buy that.

GLENN:  It's a rumor. 

INGRAHAM:  I don't buy that at all.

GLENN:  That's TGI. 

INGRAHAM:  You're a tough guy?

GLENN:  Yeah.

INGRAHAM?  No.  But being a happy warrior, you also have a lot of fun in what you do because you believe in what you're doing.  That's that Reagan taught us.  We need to do that and the American movement, Tea Party, whatever you want to call it, I think that is a very hopeful moment for the country and, I know, we really are the community organizers, are we not?

GLENN:  The name of    I wish we weren't.  The name of the book, No. 1 New York Times bestseller, is Obama    the Obama Diaries.  The author, of course, is Laura Ingraham.  Laura, as always, good talking to you.

INGRAHAM:  Glenn, congrats on all the success.  I hope to see you on the 28th.

GLENN:  I hope you're there. 

INGRAHAM:  All right.  Thanks.  Bye bye.

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.


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.