Glenn Beck: Food Safety bill?



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


GLENN: I have to apologize to you. Last night I was doing the television show and I had moms from all over the area in the studio audience, and we had a conversation, a long converse afterwards about we were talking about inflation, and I don't know if anybody saw the program last night about inflation and food storage which, I mean, I honestly, I don't know I don't know how long, you know, the TV show can survive with the show that I'm with the show that I'm putting on every day now, and wait until you see next year. I can't imagine how long it can last just because I know what people are going to say about it and I know how the press is going to treat it and I know you know, I have no idea why anybody would watch it because it is so it's becoming more and more radical. For television, I should say. But we're having a conversation and when I asked on television last night about inflation, I asked them, I said, so you're all moms? You go out and you've seen the government says no inflation is happening. And they all laughed. And I said who thinks inflation is happening and who's seen it? And they all raised their hand. So we talked about it after the show a bit, and their concerns are the same as mine. Now, these are just moms who are out, and they're seeing it and they know. And one of them raises their hands and said, Glenn, tell me about the farm bill. And I said, quite honestly I'm looking into the farm bill, I haven't had a chance I don't know how many e mails I have sent off to my research staff: I've got to know about the farm bill, tell me about the farm bill. And I just, I haven't it's my fault. I haven't been on top of this thing because I'm working on 600 other projects. Overwhelm the system, if you will. And I come to you to apologize that I did not pay attention enough to this farm bill and get this research done fast enough, and last night I had our researchers working through the night and got a briefing about, what, 6:30 this morning on it and because last night cloture happened in the Senate. It has already passed the House and it is just, they voted to cut off debate yesterday in the Senate, and it passed with 70 votes in the Senate. It will pass in the Senate. They made some changes to it. It has to come back to the House. This is an extraordinarily, extraordinarily innocuous thousand page bill. It is all full of things that just have to happen just to keep your food safe. "In order to keep you safe, we just have to have a few more regulations, but that's it. Oh, this Death Star is fully operational."

It is something that you could read, and I have not read it but I have in fact, during the show I will get more of the summaries on it. My research staff says, Glenn, it is Cass Sunstein Central, it is completely fine. If you don't look at the government and say that there are revolutionaries in there, if you don't look at the country and say, hey, there's inflation out there, and you trust that everything is great, it's the Homeland Security bill. But there's nothing wrong with Homeland Security, is there? No, this is food patriot bill, that's all this is, the food PATRIOT Act. That's all it is. Aren't you a patriot? Don't you want safe food?

Related: Be Prepared -An Introduction to Food Storage

May I ask, why the rush? Oh, by the way, first of all, I believe, I believe we got healthcare at Christmastime, did we not? We got healthcare at Christmastime. Did we get another one at Christmastime, too?

STU: The light bulb thing.

GLENN: Oh, the light bulb thing happened at Christmastime. And then now our food safety at Christmastime. Did we not get the PATRIOT Act at Christmastime, too, didn't we? Or it was right around the holidays.

PAT: I'll bet it was because it probably took them

GLENN: September 11th, it took them a while.

PAT: Took them a while to get that together and then they probably

GLENN: Or did it take a while? Can you find out when it passed? Did it take them a while?

STU: Yeah, I'm looking at it now.

GLENN: You know, we just thought

PAT: Who wrote the PATRIOT Act?

GLENN: Yeah, could we find that out?

PAT: That happened a little too fast, now that I think of it.

GLENN: Now that I think of it, it did.

PAT: Was that the Apollo Alliance?

GLENN: Seriously let's find out. Because you know who wrote the farm bill, or you know who's funding the farm bill, the major funding behind it is the Pew Center.

STU: What do you mean the funding of the farm bill? What does that mean?

GLENN: The people who are pushing, the real money pushing this thing.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Now, I don't have any evidence that they wrote it or anything else, but that is exactly the way the Tides Center works. They write the bill. These organizations like the Apollo Alliance through the Tides Center, they write the bill and then they give it. So the bill's already done. I'd like to know the origins of this bill. I know the major money behind it is the Pew Center, which is an uber left radical group that has been cleansed that everybody's like, Pew? Oh, just... no, they're just into education. Oh.

STU: Aren't they the polling guys?

GLENN: I don't know if they are the polling guys.

So in this, the reason why they got cloture yesterday was because some of the Republicans were concerned. They were concerned that this might affect your garden at the back of your house or small farms. Because small farmers just can't handle all of this money. So don't worry about that. They have written in there that, okay, small farms and houses aren't going to be affected. Oh, well, I feel so much better. Just like when the president promised that no money would be going for abortions. I feel so much better.

Now, look, here's what I'm telling you. On this farm bill, you can read this bill and if you read it with the eyes of stupid people, if you read it with the eyes of people quite honestly like Orrin Hatch. Orrin, I love ya. You're a good man. But what are you doing anymore? People like Orrin Hatch who will look at this thing and say, "No, well, you know, it's not 1955 anymore. We are not it's not 1975, it's not 1985, it's not 1995." I'm sorry for an outburst on Orrin Hatch, but I just got the list of all the people that voted for cloture yesterday, and he's one of them.

PAT: Maybe you should give him a call and ask him why.

STU: Yeah, yeah, like to hear his case on it.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I know his case on this. He's a guy who is still playing the game as if it is as if you can trust everybody. He's a decent man, but unfortunately you're not playing the game against decent people. You are playing a game against radicals! Show me the country that has a safer food supply than us, can you, please? Who has a safer food supply? Is it Sweden? You know what? When we reduce the population of America down to the size of Sweden, we'll get a band of really hot blonds, call them Abba and we can emulate their food supply as well. Won't that be great? 350 million people have to be fed on our food supply. Name the country that has a safer food supply than us.

PAT: I don't think there is anybody.

GLENN: So then why are we why are we panicked on this? Why? Why do we have to do this at Christmas?

PAT: They will tell you the spinach scare, they will tell you the lettuce scare. That's what they'll tell you. That's what they'll tell you.

STU: They've had a decent amount of recalls lately and we need to make sure we improve safety.

GLENN: How about the dog food? How about the dog food that has lead that comes from China?

STU: Yeah, exactly, that's why we need more regulation. We need to make sure that we can check all this stuff.

GLENN: Yes, that's right. How much money is this going to cost? And who pays for it in the end? It's not magical fairy money that shoots out of Geithner's butt. It doesn't exist. So it's passed on to the consumer. You have people that are living on the edge right now, living on the edge. You have seniors that are not going to get a raise in Social Security. You have military who they're now talking about making sure that they don't get a raise, either. The military is the only group of people in this country who are doing their damn job in the government. You name the you name the group of people that are doing their job, in the government that are paid by you and I through tax dollars. Military. That's it. You're kidding me, right? You're going to take these guys, many of them who live on the poverty level already and you're going to have inflation go up, you're going to deny it, which will force their families onto food stamps. Inflation is going up. Then you're going to do something that causes the price of food to go up even faster? What, are you out of your mind? No, no. This is what Stalin did. This is what they all do. This is what FDR did. "Oh, we're going to fix the food thing here in America. You know, there's just too much food." That's why they slaughtered millions of pigs. And then what happened? And then we had a then we had trouble with food. Oh, gee, we can't get any food. People are starving!

Look, if you want to be somebody who agrees and says, you know what, no, it's still 1995, it's still 1985, it's still 1945, it's still 1905, you go right ahead. You go right ahead. I'm not one of them. I'm sorry. There's nothing in this food bill that if you're dealing with Jesus Christ and his disciples as congress and the president, then I'm sure we're fine. I'm sure we're fine. I happen to believe that we're a little farther away from Jesus and a little closer to Beelzebub, and I don't trust them. And I don't want them anywhere near my food supply, thank you very much. This is Cass Sunstein needing new dials. Oh, he'll make sure that you're not eating meat. Remember, he's an animal activist. He will make sure you're not eating meat. How? Well, we'll just make it a little more difficult for the food process to happen with beef. Oh, these slaughter houses need to be cleaned up. Oh, you've got to have more regulation on the slaughter houses. Price of beef goes up! So you're not able to afford beef or chicken.

How many times have we heard about the chicken processing plants and how horrible they are? Well, now, Cass Sunstein can help, a guy who doesn't want you eating chicken! "Oh, well, that's fine. We'll just nudge. We'll nudge. We'll make it a little more expensive."

Gang, please, please. The website GlennBeck.com, all of the information we had on food storage is there. Please.

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?