Colbert testifies before Congress

Joke: Colbert testifies before Congress

 


STU: Yes.

GLENN: Stephen Colbert, in something that is-- it's not his fault. It is

Congress making a mockery out of Congress.

STU: It's his fault, too.

PAT: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Stu. I knew you would be with me.

GLENN: Why is it his fault?

STU: Well, because he didn't have to obviously accept to go to Congress and make

an idiot out of himself in front of it.

PAT: He knows it's a mockery.

GLENN: Did he make it into--

STU: Yes. What it's known by the kiddies as a fail, an epic fail. He went up and

tried to do comedy in front of Congress and he looked like an ass and that's

what happened.

PAT: He's doing it for his show. He's doing it for his show. Look. If this were

you and you were testifying before Congress, what, on the FOX show or the radio

show, you would be vilified by every--

GLENN: Of course I would, but that's a different-- look. Here's the thing. I

mean, you want to see Congress just humiliating themselves where I would have

been humiliated had I done that. Let's say the roles were reversed and the

Republicans were in Congress and they said, we want you to come up and we want

you to testify, I wouldn't have done it because I would have thought it was

wrong. Do you know what I mean? You're not doing comedy in Congress at these

times. It's wrong. It's an insult to the American people.

PAT: You may be at some point to testify in the Goldline thing. I mean, that

could happen in a real way.

GLENN: No, I won't. The-- here it is. He goes up in front of Congress and he's

by invitation of the progressive left, of the chairperson. So, this would be

like me being invited to go speak by the conservatives and then what happens?

And then me being humiliated by the conservatives because that's what's

happened. Can you play the audio here? And Stephen Colbert, he didn't have his

mike on at this time. So, you can't really hear his response until the very end,

but listen to what happened. This is John Conyers now looking at Stephen

Colbert, just a little while ago. Stephen Colbert goes to Congress in character

to, quote, testify, and here's what John Conyers says.

CONYERS: But I would like to recommend that now that we've got all this

attention, that you excuse yourself and that you let us get on with the three

witnesses and all the other members there and we-- we're sure it will be shown

on the show tonight and maybe Monday-- I don't know-- you run your show. We

run the committee, but what do you say to that, Stephen? You didn't hear the

question? You don't understand the question? The question was that-- no, I'm

not asking you not to talk. I'm asking you to leave the committee room

completely and submit your statement, instead.


Video: Stephen Colbert in front of Congress

PAT: Now Colbert is trying to respond, but his mike isn't on.

GLENN: Right. And he looks-- you can see he looks like a regular citizen right

now just like, Wait a minute.

VOICE: I'm wondering if -- Mr. Colbert's microphone is on. He can't be heard,

but whether having posed the question, we could listen to Mr. Lungren and Mr.

Colbert can ponder what you said. I think many are eager to hear his comments.

CONYERS: That's fair enough.

PAT: Now somebody's about to come over and help him turn on a microphone. It's

difficult business.

COLBERT: -- chairwoman and if she would like me to remove myself from the

hearing room, I'm happy to do so. I'm only here at her petition.

VOICE: That is correct.

CONYERS: Thank you very much. That's fair enough.

VOICE: The gentleman's time has expired.

GLENN: Listen to that.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: That is incredible. I am only here at the chairwoman's invitation. If she

would like me to remove myself, I'm more than willing to do that. That's being

invited over to somebody's house and then the-- you know, other people throwing

the party, the other people at the party, in front of a whole crowd, says, do

you know what? You are so inappropriate to even have you at this party, why

don't you excuse yourself now, in front of everybody and then saying, well,

Okay, I was only invited by this person over here. I mean, thought humiliating.

They have humiliated Stephen--

PAT: Oh, I know. I know

STU: I feel terrible about that.

PAT: It rips my heart out.

GLENN: Guys--

STU: Don't care.

PAT: He's such a good guy.

STU: What a brilliant--

PAT: I hate to see that to a wonderful man like Stephen Colbert.

GLENN: I mean this sincerely. Do you know -- do you know him? Do you know of

him? Do you know his personal life? Is he--

PAT: No.

GLENN: Is he despicable human being?

PAT: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what he does. I'm talking

about the charade he does. I'm talking about the viciousness of him. I'm talking

about--

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait.

STU: The boring schtick he does every night, the same thing all the time.

GLENN: His viciousness, his viciousness, you're saying in our time in comedy we

haven't been vicious? When we were doing comedy, Pat, we weren't vicious? Comedy

is ugly.

PAT: Well, but if anything happened to us, we deserved it then. I mean, if--

because of our viciousness, because of the shtick we did and something that

happened and sometimes it did and sometimes it did and sometimes we were set up

and sometimes we were sued by people, then we deserved it. We deserved it.

STU: He's making a mockery of a very serious situation.

PAT: He knows it's a mockery.

STU: He's doing it there to promote his stupid show. He is in character, not

trying to talk about his actual experience. He's in character making jokes to an

audience that isn't laughing, by the way, and it's just a-- it's just pathetic.

It's worse-- yeah. I did watch a good portion of it.

GLENN: What happened?

STU: It was in shtick. All in character and shtick. It was like, oh, it's

really-- he was trying to make jokes about how hard it was to work out there.

It was boring, typical nonsense that he does on his show and being completely

clear, Congress is much worse than him for inviting him. He is--

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I mean, compared to them, he's, you know, a borderline sanity, but, you

know, it's just pathetic for him. He shouldn't have taken it. He looked horrible

doing it. It wasn't funny and Congress is pathetic for allowing that to happen.

That's just a disgrace. It's boring and it's a disgrace.

PAT: He's a willing participant in this kabuki circus. He's a willing

participant in it. So, for him to get humiliated, I don't have an ounce, not an

ounce of sympathy for him, not oneounce. Sorry. I just can't--

STU: I know. I think Conyers comes off looking good there. At least--

PAT: Conyers does.

GLENN: You know, Conyers once in awhile is surprising.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Conyers once in awhile is surprising. I disagree with a lot that he says

but once in awhile, the man has some dignity.

STU: He does.

PAT: Isn't he the read the bill? Yeah. Same guy.

GLENN: I get a kick out of these people who say read the bill, but once in a

while, he'll say something -- well, for instance, what was it with the ACORN

thing? Remember, he was, like, do you know what? Maybe we should have this, we

should have this hearing. Don't shut this down. Let's listen to this.

PAT: They shut him down.

GLENN: They shut him down big time.

PAT: But he was right at the beginning saying, yeah, let's look into it. He

didn't do it.

GLENN: No, he didn't. He didn't follow through. Who is the woman who came in and

saved Stephen?

PAT: I don't know. She was the committee chair. I don't know who that is.

GLENN: You know, I think that-- you know, look. We are just in a--

everything's being-- everything's changing. Everything is changing and no one

knows what anything is anymore. Congress is being made a joke. There's no way

Stephen Colbert would have done that five years ago. Would he have done that?

PAT: I don't know. Again, I--

GLENN: I don't know him.

PAT: I don't know him.

GLENN: But, I mean, you know, you don't-- you don't make Congress into a

mockery more than they already are. The institution of Congress, you don't do

that. Congress wouldn't have invited five years ago and if they were wrong--

they would have invited me-- it would have been wrong. It was wrong to take it.

STU: It would have been bad if you were doing character. I mean, you know, if

you were--

GLENN: No, no. Yeah, if you're invited-- if he did that and he was, like, you

know, go and work and then testify because you're a star or whatever --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: -- you know, that's like bringing--

PAT: That's different.

Glenn: Yeah. That's bringing George Clooney, who I thinkGeorge --

PAT: Any of those guys.

GLENN: George Clooney actually believes in the horrors of Darfur and Rwanda.

PAT: And fighting against it.

GLENN: Yeah. He believes that -- no. He believes in--

PAT: I just wanted to make that clear.

GLENN: He believes deeply in it. He is sincere about that. He is. I've talked to

him personally. He is sincere about that and I respect him for that. I disagree

with his answers, but he is sincere about it. So, to have somebody like George

Clooney or somebody like that come and speak on something, you can understand

it. In character, no, and then beyond that, I mean, I just-- I guess I feel bad

for Stephen Colbert because he was invited into their house.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it wasn't an opposition member who said this is a mockery. It was

their own team. The people who invited him embarrassed him.

STU: Yeah, but he is going to get on there and he is going to get all sorts of

coverage for this. Everyone is going to watch it and, of course, the media is

going to blindly praise him for being funny when he wasn't, because he always

gets that and, you know, for him it's all upside. The only thing he was supposed

to do there was actually be funny which he was unsuccessful with, but that's

fine. He's going to get praised for it, anyway.

GLENN: I haven't seen it and you have a thing with these two. You have been done

with them for about a year on-- you just-- I mean, you used to think they were

funny.

STU: I never was a big Colbert guy, I will say. I still think Stewart is

occasionally funny. It's a little boring after all these years, but, still,

Colbert is the same shtick every day. As you said, it's the dragon cat every

night for a half an hour. It's a Saturday Night Live sketch.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second, though. Isn't-- David Letterman's top 10

list, I mean, how-- that started in 1985.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: But that's only one little segment in his show. It doesn't hurt that much.

When you're doing-- is it half an hour or an hour?

STU: Half an hour, I think.

PAT: Half an hour every day of the same stupid, inane thing. Okay. , we get it.

We got it five years ago. It's still not working. Move on. Do you know what it

worked as? It worked as a segment-- didn't it start as a segment on Stewart's

show? Isn't that what the deal was?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He was an investigative reporter and he was very funny.

STU: It was funny then. It was funny then, but, I mean, -- and everyone treats

him like he's this big success. He comes out. He does an interview for a few

minutes. He has, you know, a couple of bits here and there and he drops off,

what, 40% of Jon Stewart's ratings. Congratulations. What a miracle success

story. Oh, wow. We should all surround him and praise him and call him in front

of Congress. It's just a boring sketch. It's a sketch every night. I mean, it's

not-- he's dropping 40% of Stewart's ratings, 40%. How is that a success?!

GLENN: Stu loses sleep over this.

STU: No. I don't care. I just think it's funny. It's one of those things that

he's built up as we are supposed to take his nonsense seriously. Okay. Maybe if

you wanted to have-- when all the Republicans were in control, maybe it was

ballsy to have this character that's making fun of the right. Have you noticed?

You have control of the entire government. If you were going to be a bad ass and

go against the grain, you would have someone out there parroting liberals, but

you don't because it's the same shtick over and over and over again. Amen

 

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.